Third
QUERY
.
Whether
or
not
the
Scriptures
are
the
Word
,
or
the
Words
of
God
?
Seeing
the
Scriptures
say
themselves
God
spake
all
these
words
(
Exod.
20.
)
and
he
that
adds
to
the
words
(
in
the
last
of
the
Revelation
)
Plagues
are
added
to
him
.
And
what
doth
the
Scripture
signifie
?
Doth
it
not
signifie
Writings
?
and
whether
all
that
is
Written
in
the
Scriptures
from
Genesis
to
Revelation
be
a
Rule
for
your
Faith
and
Manners
,
and
every
tittle
of
it
from
the
one
end
of
the
Book
to
the
other
both
in
the
Old
and
new
Testament
?
If
not
;
Distinguish
what
part
is
to
be
obeyed
,
and
what
not
.
And
whether
every
tittle
from
the
beginning
of
Genesis
to
the
end
of
the
Revelation
is
the
Word
,
or
the
Words
of
God
?
SVRVEY
.
The
principal
Position
of
the
Quakers
upon
this
Head
is
,
that
there
is
not
another
Word
of
God
beside
Christ
the
Co-substantial
and
Eternal
Word
;
and
this
they
assert
of
purpose
,
that
they
may
elude
all
the
Testimonies
of
Scripture
which
Tie
us
to
the
external
written
Word
of
God
as
our
Rule
,
and
whereby
the
Efficacy
thereof
is
commended
:
for
all
these
Scripture-Testimonies
they
will
have
to
be
understood
of
Christ
the
Eternal
Co-substantial
Word
dwelling
within
them
,
and
all
men
(
as
they
alledg
)
and
teaching
them
immediately
by
himself
present
within
them
,
without
an
external
written
Platform
,
which
they
are
pleased
to
reproach
with
the
Nick-name
of
a
Dead
Letter
,
contrary
to
Joh.
20.31
.
Act.
7.28
.
Rom.
15.4
.
2
Tim.
3.15
,
16
,
17.
which
places
declare
the
written
Word
of
God
to
be
lively
Oracles
,
and
an
excellent
instrument
of
Faith
,
Growth
,
Comfort
and
Life
unto
us
.
See
also
Heb.
4.12
.
where
the
Word
of
God
is
said
to
be
Quick
and
Powerful
,
and
compared
to
a
Two-edged
Sword
;
and
that
by
the
Word
of
God
here
,
is
not
meant
Christ
the
Co-substantial
Word
,
but
the
external
Word
of
God
spoken
within
time
(
which
Word
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
as
shall
presently
be
shewed
)
appears
from
many
other
Parallel
places
of
Scripture
,
where
the
Efficacy
of
the
external
Word
is
held
forth
in
most
Parallel
expressions
,
and
by
the
very
same
Comparison
,
for
which
see
Ephes.
6.17
.
(
which
place
we
shall
presently
prove
to
be
meant
of
the
external
Word
)
and
Rev.
1.16
.
Rev.
2.12
,
16.
Rev.
19.15
.
In
which
places
by
the
Sword
of
Christs
Mouth
,
and
the
Two-edged
Sword
going
out
of
his
Mouth
(
which
are
the
Expressions
there
)
can
be
no
other
thing
meant
,
but
the
external
Word
of
Christ
spoken
by
his
Mouth
,
nor
do
I
ever
read
that
Christ
himself
is
compared
so
,
but
his
Word
only
.
It
is
true
,
the
Law
or
legal
Covenant
considered
as
strictly
legal
(
but
never
the
whole
Scriptures
,
which
,
pray
observe
)
is
in
respect
of
guilty
Sinners
(
such
as
we
all
are
)
called
a
Killing
Letter
(
but
not
at
all
a
Dead
Letter
,
dead
Dogs
neither
Bark
nor
Bite
)
and
a
Ministration
of
Death
and
Condemnation
(
2
Cor.
3.6
,
7
,
9.
)
because
it
Accuseth
,
Curseth
,
and
Condemneth
such
as
are
Guilty
of
the
Breache
thereof
;
though
yet
the
same
be
a
notable
Mean
to
shew
Sinners
their
lostness
without
a
Redeemer
,
and
their
absolute
need
of
Christ
,
and
to
Whip
and
lash
them
home
unto
him
.
These
things
are
evident
.
Now
for
clearing
the
state
of
the
main
Question
,
we
must
premise
first
,
that
the
Quakers
acknowledge
the
Scriptures
to
be
Gods
Testimony
and
Gods
Words
;
they
do
not
as
yet
(
at
least
all
of
them
)
openly
deny
the
Scriptures
to
have
been
given
by
Divine
Inspiration
;
only
they
do
generally
deny
them
to
be
the
Word
of
God
:
for
(
say
they
)
only
Christ
is
the
Word
of
God
.
Secondly
,
we
must
premise
that
we
do
not
say
that
there
is
another
Eternal
,
Co-substantial
,
or
Co-equal
Word
of
God
beside
Christ
.
But
that
,
beside
Christ
the
Co-substantial
Word
,
there
is
another
Word
of
God
which
was
spoken
within
time
written
,
in
the
Scriptures
,
which
we
call
the
external
written
Word
.
These
things
being
premised
,
We
assert
that
,
beside
Christ
the
Co-substantial
and
Co-equal
Word
,
there
is
another
Word
of
God
which
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
.
For
first
,
the
Commandments
of
God
are
not
Christ
the
Eternal
Son
of
God
,
as
is
clear
:
but
the
Commandments
of
God
are
the
Word
of
God
:
therefore
there
is
a
Word
of
God
which
is
not
Christ
the
Co-substantial
Word
,
and
that
Word
of
God
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
seeing
Gods
Commandments
are
written
there
undeniably
.
I
prove
the
Minor
from
Psal.
119.172
.
where
David
calls
the
Commandments
of
God
his
Word
;
and
from
Mark
.
7.9
,
10.
with
13.
where
that
which
Christ
calls
the
Commandment
of
God
(
ver.
9.
)
he
calls
it
the
Word
of
God
ver.
13.
Secondly
,
the
Predictions
,
Doctrine
,
and
Sayings
of
the
Prophets
(
which
are
written
in
the
Scriptures
)
are
in
Scripture
most
expresly
called
the
Word
of
the
Lord
,
and
yet
these
are
not
Christ
the
Co-substantial
Word
:
therefore
there
is
another
Word
of
God
(
and
which
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
)
beside
Christ
the
Co-substantial
Word
.
The
Antecedent
I
prove
from
1
King
.
16.12
.
2
King
.
9.36
.
2
King
.
23.16
.
2
Chron.
36.22
.
Ezra
.
1.1
.
In
all
these
places
the
Predictions
and
Doctrine
of
these
Prophets
are
most
expresly
called
the
Word
of
the
Lord
.
Thirdly
,
it
is
said
(
Isai.
28.13
.
)
that
the
Word
of
the
Lord
was
unto
Israel
Precept
upon
Precept
,
and
Line
upon
Line
,
where
the
Precepts
and
Doctrine
contained
in
the
Scripture-lines
are
called
the
Word
of
the
Lord
:
But
(
sure
it
is
)
Christ
himself
is
not
these
written
Precepts
or
Doctrine
:
therefore
there
is
beside
Christ
the
Co-substantial
Word
,
another
Word
of
God
which
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
.
Fourthly
,
Hosea
calls
the
beginning
of
his
Prophecies
and
Doctrine
,
The
beginning
of
the
Word
of
the
Lord
by
Hosea
,
which
cannot
be
the
beginning
of
Christ
the
Son
of
God
by
Hosea
,
I
am
sure
;
but
it
must
be
the
beginning
of
the
Doctrine
and
Prophecies
taught
and
Prophesied
and
there
written
by
him
:
therefore
there
is
,
beside
Christ
the
Eternal
Word
,
another
Word
of
God
which
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
.
Fifthly
,
to
be
a
Word
that
the
Lord
hath
spoken
,
and
to
be
the
Word
of
the
Lord
is
all
one
thing
,
me-thinks
;
but
there
is
a
Word
which
the
Lord
hath
spoken
,
which
is
not
Christ
,
and
which
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
:
Therefore
there
is
a
Word
of
the
Lord
,
beside
Christ
,
and
the
same
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
.
The
Minor
is
clear
from
Isai.
37.22
.
where
the
Prophet
says
,
This
is
the
Word
that
the
Lord
hath
spoken
concerning
Senacherib
(
and
this
Word
is
there
written
)
The
Virgin
the
Daughter
of
Sion
hath
despised
thee
,
&c.
But
surely
,
that
Word
is
not
Christ
,
Christ
is
not
a
complex
Oration
or
saying
.
Sixthly
,
the
whole
Doctrine
of
the
Prophets
(
if
the
Quakers
will
trust
them
)
is
the
Word
of
the
Lord
(
and
yet
it
is
not
Christ
the
Son
of
God
)
seeing
they
always
ascribe
it
to
him
with
a
,
Thus
saith
the
Lord
,
and
what
God
saith
must
certainly
be
his
Word
;
for
to
speak
,
and
not
say
a
word
,
is
pretty
repugnant
,
and
may
pass
for
a
good
Jest
amongst
men
that
are
merry
:
therefore
there
is
a
Word
of
the
Lord
,
beside
Christ
,
and
the
same
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
seeing
the
Doctrine
of
the
Prophets
is
written
there
.
Seventhly
,
there
is
a
Word
of
God
,
which
is
the
Sword
of
the
Spirit
and
an
Instrument
in
his
hand
,
Ephes.
6.17
.
But
Christ
the
Son
of
God
is
not
the
Sword
of
the
Spirit
,
nor
an
Instrument
in
his
hand
,
seeing
the
Second
person
of
the
Godhead
cannot
work
from
the
Third
,
because
so
their
Order
of
working
would
quite
contradict
their
Order
of
Subsisting
,
which
is
utterly
repugnant
,
much
less
can
the
Second
person
be
the
Instrument
of
the
Third
;
and
if
by
the
Spirit
here
be
meant
the
New
man
in
us
,
Christ
in
his
Person
cannot
be
an
Instrument
thereof
either
,
nor
of
any
Creature
whatsoever
that
ever
had
a
Being
,
or
Existence
:
Therefore
there
is
another
Word
of
God
,
beside
Christ
the
Son
of
God
.
Lastly
(
for
we
need
stand
no
longer
in
a
matter
so
manifest
)
The
Word
of
Christ
spoken
by
him
within
time
is
the
Word
of
God
,
seeing
Christ
is
God
as
well
as
man
;
and
yet
it
is
not
Christ
himself
,
as
needs
no
Proof
:
But
there
is
a
Word
of
Christ
spoken
by
him
within
time
(
and
it
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
)
Joh.
5.24
.
and
8.31
,
37.
and
12.48
.
and
15.3
.
Colos.
3.16
.
Rev.
3.8
.
Therefore
there
is
,
beside
Christ
the
Eternal
Word
,
another
Word
of
God
which
is
spoken
within
time
,
and
written
in
the
Scriptures
.
Thou
wilt
say
perhaps
,
seeing
most
part
of
the
Quakers
are
content
to
yield
to
the
Scriptures
the
Title
of
,
Gods
Words
,
and
almost
all
of
them
of
,
Gods
Testimony
,
it
would
seem
that
this
Debate
is
only
about
the
naming
of
the
Scripture
.
What
then
were
the
hazard
to
gratifie
the
Quakers
in
this
point
,
as
Wise
men
use
to
please
Children
and
Fools
sometimes
?
Answer
.
Though
all
the
Quakers
without
exception
,
should
yield
the
Scriptures
the
Titles
of
,
Gods
Words
,
and
Gods
Testimony
(
and
yet
some
of
them
do
it
not
,
as
we
shall
see
ere
we
end
the
Survey
of
this
Query
)
yet
there
is
a
manifest
hazard
in
denying
the
Title
of
the
Word
of
God
to
the
Scriptures
.
For
let
it
once
be
denied
(
with
the
Quakers
)
that
the
Scriptures
are
the
Word
of
God
,
and
then
(
grant
what
they
will
to
get
their
Negative
once
admitted
)
it
plainly
follows
that
they
have
never
been
spoken
by
the
Mouth
of
the
Lord
(
seeing
what
any
person
speaks
must
needs
be
his
Word
,
or
else
he
speaks
and
holds
his
peace
,
as
the
Jest
is
)
and
this
puts
the
Scriptures
into
the
same
condition
with
the
Doctrine
and
Dreams
of
false
Prophets
,
and
brangles
their
Divine
Authority
.
See
Deut.
18.20
,
21.
Jerem.
23.16
,
21.
Ezek.
13.7
.
and
22.28
.
Again
,
let
it
once
be
granted
that
the
Scriptures
are
not
Intituled
,
The
Word
of
God
,
and
have
no
Interest
to
be
so
called
,
and
then
all
the
Exhortations
given
in
the
Scriptures
for
hearkening
to
the
Word
,
believing
and
obeying
the
Word
,
&c.
and
all
the
commendations
of
its
efficacy
and
sweetness
,
must
be
transferred
from
the
Word
of
God
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
unto
Christ
the
Co-substantial
Word
immediately
,
who
as
he
is
Jealous
of
his
own
Glory
,
so
he
will
not
have
his
Word
rob'd
of
its
due
Authority
,
and
Excellency
which
he
had
Communicated
thereunto
.
And
so
that
which
the
Quakers
design
(
and
this
is
their
Formal
aim
)
in
this
Affair
,
is
to
take
all
men
off
from
the
written
Word
of
God
as
their
rule
:
for
grant
that
such
a
thing
hath
not
such
a
name
,
and
then
whatever
is
spoken
under
that
name
must
be
applyed
unto
some
other
Subject
so
named
,
and
not
unto
a
Subject
which
was
never
so
named
.
And
thus
again
they
indeavour
to
overthrow
the
Use
,
End
,
and
Repute
of
the
Scriptures
,
so
far
as
they
can
.
And
thus
to
deny
the
Scriptures
the
Title
of
,
The
Word
of
God
,
strikes
at
their
Divine
Authority
,
and
overthrows
their
use
and
regard
.
And
therefore
we
are
Commanded
to
hold
fast
the
Form
of
sound
words
.
2
Tim.
1.13
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
,
the
Scriptures
are
the
Words
of
God
,
Exod.
20.
Therefore
(
they
infer
)
they
are
not
the
Word
of
God
.
Ans.
But
so
by
the
Antecedent
the
Quakers
destroy
their
own
Cause
,
and
contradict
themselves
;
for
if
the
Scriptures
be
the
Words
of
God
,
then
,
I
am
sure
,
there
are
Words
of
God
,
beside
Christ
(
and
yet
they
deny
there
is
any
)
seeing
the
written
words
of
the
Scripture
are
not
Christ
the
Son
of
God
.
Again
,
this
consequence
is
as
if
I
should
say
,
Such
a
Book
contains
the
Doctrines
of
the
Quakers
:
Ergo
not
the
Doctrine
of
the
Quakers
.
The
Ten
Commands
are
the
Moral
Laws
:
Ergo
not
the
Moral
Law
.
Is
not
that
well
Argued
without
Logick
?
But
what
?
are
not
whole
Sermons
and
Predictions
of
the
Prophets
,
and
Christs
whole
Doctrine
called
by
them
and
him
the
Word
of
the
Lord
,
and
his
Word
,
as
may
be
seen
in
almost
all
our
preceeding
Arguments
?
Is
not
the
whole
Doctrine
of
the
Scriptures
called
a
Word
of
Prophecy
?
2
Pet.
1.19
,
20.
Does
not
Paul
call
the
whole
Revealed
Truths
of
God
,
Sound
Doctrine
,
and
the
Doctrine
of
God
?
1
Tim.
1.10
.
and
6.1
.
Tit.
1.9
.
and
2.10
.
And
must
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
,
Christ
and
the
Holy
Ghost
learn
from
the
Quakers
how
their
Doctrine
should
be
named
?
will
they
not
allow
the
Scriptures
their
Essential
Attribute
which
these
gives
them
,
that
they
are
the
Word
of
God
?
or
,
albeit
we
very
well
know
that
there
are
many
more
words
in
the
Scripture
than
one
,
why
will
they
not
admit
of
that
common
Unity
here
which
is
not
denied
in
other
common
Natures
,
and
a
denomination
conformable
?
By
these
things
the
objection
is
both
answered
and
overthrown
.
Again
,
they
insinuate
another
Argument
whereby
they
indeavour
to
wrest
the
Title
of
the
Word
of
God
from
the
Scriptures
.
The
Scriptures
(
say
they
)
signifies
Writings
:
Therefore
(
they
mean
to
infer
)
they
are
not
the
Word
of
God
.
Ans.
It
doth
equally
follow
;
therefore
they
are
not
the
Words
of
God
,
as
the
Word
of
God
,
as
all
may
see
;
and
so
the
consequent
of
their
present
Argument
contradicts
the
Antecedent
of
their
former
Objection
;
and
so
we
may
see
that
the
Quakers
are
but
Jugling
while
they
yield
the
Scriptures
the
Title
of
Gods
Words
,
whereof
their
present
Argument
again
indeavours
to
rob
them
.
Secondly
,
our
Question
is
not
what
the
word
[
Scripture
]
signifies
,
but
what
the
Doctrine
written
in
the
Scriptures
is
,
which
the
signification
of
that
Word
cannot
Define
.
But
lastly
(
for
clear
satisfaction
)
I
distinguish
their
Consequent
thus
,
viz.
That
because
the
Scriptures
signifies
Writings
,
therefore
,
as
to
the
external
Form
and
Mode
which
they
have
from
the
Writers
Pen
,
they
are
not
the
Word
of
God
,
be
it
so
;
therefore
as
to
their
enunciat
Doctrine
,
or
Sentence
they
are
not
the
Word
of
God
,
it
follows
not
.
For
in
the
Scripture
there
are
two
things
to
be
considered
,
viz
,
their
Doctrine
and
Sentence
,
which
is
the
Word
of
God
,
and
their
external
Form
or
Mode
which
they
have
from
the
Pen
of
the
Writer
,
which
gives
the
Word
of
God
the
Denomination
of
,
Written
,
and
therefore
we
call
the
Scriptures
The
Written
Word
.
Because
we
said
that
the
Quakers
,
by
indeavouring
to
Wrest
the
Title
of
the
Word
of
God
from
the
Scriptures
,
do
strike
at
their
Divine
Authority
,
therefore
I
shall
here
give
a
short
Touch
of
the
Notes
and
Arguments
whereby
the
Scriptures
are
clearly
Demonstrated
to
be
from
God
,
and
of
Divine
Inspiration
;
such
as
are
the
Majesty
of
the
Style
of
the
Scriptures
above
all
other
Writings
,
under
great
simplicity
of
words
;
the
Divine
purity
of
the
Doctrine
,
savoring
wholly
of
holiness
and
vertue
;
The
Divine
Scope
of
the
Doctrine
,
which
is
to
give
all
glory
to
God
;
The
Efficacy
of
the
Doctrine
in
the
hearts
of
men
above
all
other
Doctrines
in
the
world
;
The
Infallible
accomplishment
of
the
Predictions
therein
contained
,
as
they
were
fore-told
;
the
wonderful
consent
of
all
the
parts
thereof
,
being
written
by
so
many
diverse
Pen-men
so
far
distant
from
one
another
both
in
time
and
place
,
which
was
never
to
be
seen
in
any
other
Book
in
the
World
,
especially
of
divers
mens
Writing
;
The
manifold
Miracles
whereby
God
hath
born
Witness
thereunto
,
which
Satan
could
never
so
much
as
Counterfeit
;
The
irreconcilable
hatred
of
Satan
and
the
World
against
it
,
more
than
against
all
other
Books
in
the
World
;
The
firm
stability
thereof
,
and
the
special
hand
of
God
which
appears
in
the
preserving
and
transmitting
thereof
from
Age
to
Age
,
notwithstanding
all
the
Malice
of
Satan
,
and
the
Devices
of
him
and
his
wicked
Instruments
against
it
;
The
miserable
end
of
the
greatest
Persecutors
and
enemies
thereof
;
The
Testimony
of
the
many
Martyrs
Sealing
their
Witness
thereunto
with
their
Blood
,
and
the
Testimony
of
the
whole
Church
thereunto
,
which
have
a
piece
of
weight
in
their
own
Order
.
The
Scriptures
cannot
be
from
evil
men
,
or
Angels
,
seeing
they
shew
their
villany
,
denounce
their
Doom
(
which
Galls
them
)
and
prescribe
a
Method
of
living
quite
contrary
to
their
Inclination
.
Nor
can
good
Angels
;
or
Men
be
their
Author
;
for
,
upon
the
one
hand
,
they
durst
not
have
so
usurped
upon
God
,
as
to
feign
his
Authority
and
Commission
to
so
many
Laws
,
Ordinances
,
Threatnings
,
and
Promises
of
their
own
meer
Invention
;
and
,
upon
the
other
hand
,
if
they
had
done
it
,
they
could
not
have
been
good
Angels
or
Men
;
Therefore
the
Scriptures
must
be
from
God
himself
.
These
things
put
together
(
which
I
have
but
named
)
are
sufficient
to
convince
that
the
Scriptures
are
from
God
,
and
of
Divine
Authority
,
and
are
enough
irresistibly
to
stop
the
Mouths
of
all
Contradicters
.
Notwithstanding
,
for
the
full
assurance
and
through
persuasion
of
Faith
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
from
God
,
and
of
Divine
Inspiration
,
the
Spirit
is
requisite
by
his
effectual
Working
in
,
with
,
and
by
the
same
upon
our
hearts
and
minds
to
Seal
up
their
Divine
Authority
unto
us
.
And
yet
this
makes
nothing
in
the
least
for
the
Quakers
,
who
Teach
to
follow
a
Spirit
abstracted
and
separated
from
the
Scriptures
.
For
,
beside
that
we
shall
shew
at
the
following
Query
,
that
the
Spirit
speaking
in
the
Scriptures
,
most
straitly
Ties
us
to
the
Scriptures
as
our
Supreme
Rule
in
all
matters
of
Faith
;
It
is
also
evident
that
it
is
in
,
with
,
and
by
the
Word
of
God
(
written
in
the
Scriptures
)
that
the
Spirit
manifests
himself
unto
,
and
in
our
hearts
,
both
in
the
enlightning
of
our
Minds
,
and
renewing
of
our
Wills
and
Affections
,
as
these
Scriptures
following
Witness
.
Psal.
19.7.8
.
Joh.
4.41
.
Joh.
14.26
.
Joh.
15.3
.
Joh.
17.20
.
Act.
17.11.12
.
Rom.
15.4
.
Ephes.
6.17
.
Heb.
4.12
.
Isai.
59.21
.
These
,
and
a
Thousand
places
more
that
I
might
instance
,
do
manifestly
convince
that
the
written
Word
of
God
is
an
Organ
and
Instrument
in
the
Spirits
hand
,
whereby
he
Enlightens
,
Renews
,
and
Sanctifies
us
more
and
more
,
himself
also
(
as
a
Physical
Cause
does
)
immediately
influencing
the
Effect
,
seeing
all
Effects
must
depend
immediately
upon
God
,
if
they
include
any
real
being
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
,
whether
or
not
is
all
that
is
written
from
Genesis
to
Revelation
a
Rule
for
your
Faith
and
Manners
?
Ans.
No
doubt
we
are
bound
to
believe
all
Scripture
Enunciation
from
the
beginning
to
the
end
,
seeing
all
of
it
was
given
by
Inspiration
of
God
and
written
for
our
Learning
.
2
Tim.
3.16
.
2
Pet.
1.21
.
Luke
.
24.25
.
Act.
24.14
.
1
Cor.
10.11
.
There
is
no
more
doubt
we
are
bound
to
obey
all
the
Commands
of
the
Moral
Law
(
seeing
that
is
of
a
perpetual
binding
force
Mat.
5.18.19
.
)
with
whatsoever
is
of
common
equity
(
Philip.
4.8
,
9.
)
or
whatever
injoyning
any
piece
of
Religious
worship
,
under
the
New
Testament
,
doth
belong
to
Christians
of
our
Calling
and
condition
.
The
Quakers
must
here
be
content
with
these
clear
generals
.
But
as
far
the
Ceremonial
Law
of
the
Jews
,
that
is
indeed
totally
Abrogated
as
to
its
Obligation
(
albeit
yet
the
same
be
many
ways
useful
for
our
Instruction
,
but
especially
to
convince
us
of
our
Natural
uncleanness
,
and
by
the
exact
Accomplishment
of
its
manifold
Types
in
Jesus
of
Nazareth
,
to
assure
us
that
he
is
our
Saviour
and
the
True
Messias
)
together
with
their
Judicial
Law
,
which
,
in
so
far
as
it
particularly
respected
that
State
,
is
exspired
therewith
,
though
,
in
so
far
as
it
is
of
common
right
,
it
still
obliges
all
men
,
as
is
easie
to
be
understood
.
Lastly
the
Quakers
inquire
,
whether
every
tittle
from
Genesis
to
the
Revelation
be
the
Word
,
or
the
Words
of
God
?
Ans.
It
cannot
be
that
this
member
of
the
Query
is
the
same
with
the
first
already
discussed
;
or
else
they
have
foolishly
proposed
it
twice
to
us
.
But
to
be
short
,
they
seem
here
to
inquire
(
if
any
new
thing
at
all
)
whether
every
enunciation
and
sentence
of
the
Scripture
be
of
Divine
Inspiration
,
and
from
God
?
Whereunto
I
answer
affirmatively
:
for
first
,
the
main
substantial
Texts
of
Scripture
cannot
be
doubted
,
because
of
the
Notes
and
Arguments
before
given
,
most
part
whereof
are
Intrinsical
,
and
do
brightly
shine
in
these
with
their
inlightening
Beams
to
full
conviction
.
Secondly
,
for
other
Sentences
of
lesser
importance
,
if
the
Quakers
will
say
that
some
ill
Seed-sower
hath
Inserted
them
,
or
any
of
them
,
since
the
Writing
of
the
Scriptures
,
and
so
that
they
are
not
of
Divine
Inspiration
,
but
a
corruption
of
the
Scripture
;
we
shall
first
desire
them
to
prove
their
affirmative
,
and
until
then
we
shall
confirm
our
assertion
.
For
seeing
they
were
found
in
the
same
original
Language
inserted
with
the
rest
;
seeing
they
have
still
some
Connexion
with
,
or
Relation
to
the
rest
;
seeing
the
Scriptures
were
by
the
Providence
of
God
kept
pure
in
the
time
of
the
Old
Testament
,
as
appears
in
that
,
that
Christ
and
his
Apostles
in
all
reproofs
to
the
Scribes
and
Pharisees
never
Taxed
them
for
such
a
thing
,
nor
at
any
time
touches
such
a
Question
;
seeing
even
the
Writings
of
men
may
continue
pure
through
many
Ages
,
and
if
they
be
vitiated
it
can
hardly
escape
discovery
;
seeing
the
Scriptures
as
they
now
are
were
transmitted
to
us
by
the
Church
,
unto
whom
the
Oracles
of
God
were
committed
,
and
against
whom
the
Gates
of
Hell
shall
not
prevail
(
Rom.
3.2
.
1
Tim.
3.15
.
Mat.
16.18
.
)
and
attested
by
her
to
be
the
true
Word
of
God
;
seeing
the
very
end
of
Gods
committing
his
Word
unto
writing
is
for
our
Learning
and
Instruction
,
and
that
we
might
have
hope
and
be
Saved
(
Joh.
20.31
.
Rom.
15.4
.
1
Cor.
10.11
.
)
seeing
God
cares
for
the
feeding
of
Ravens
,
clothing
of
Lilies
,
and
for
our
Food
and
Raiment
,
how
much
more
(
to
use
Christs
own
Argument
in
a
matter
of
smaller
moment
,
Luke
.
12.28
.
)
will
he
care
for
the
purity
of
his
own
Word
,
which
is
of
so
weighty
concernment
to
his
Glory
and
his
peoples
Salvation
.
These
things
,
with
Gods
special
Providence
over
his
Church
,
duely
considered
,
do
sufficiently
secure
our
assertion
;
especially
seeing
the
Quakers
cannot
prove
any
corruption
in
the
Scriptures
,
which
if
they
affirm
,
they
are
obliged
to
do
.
But
the
Quakers
will
(
may
be
)
say
,
that
there
are
several
mistakes
of
men
,
yea
and
lies
written
of
in
the
Scriptures
,
such
as
the
lies
of
Rahab
,
the
Gibeonites
,
Sarah
,
&c.
I
,
and
there
are
several
Blasphemies
written
of
in
the
Scriptures
too
.
But
what
shall
follow
from
hence
?
That
any
enunciation
of
the
Scripture
doth
Lie
or
Blaspheme
?
Nay
by
no
means
,
seeing
these
Lies
and
Blasphemies
are
not
Taught
and
Enunciat
by
the
Scripture
,
or
Enunciations
and
Doctrines
thereof
;
but
the
Narration
and
History
of
them
,
is
the
thing
Enunciat
and
Taught
by
the
Scripture
:
for
the
Scriptures
do
not
affirm
what
these
persons
said
and
affirmed
;
but
only
they
affirm
that
such
persons
said
and
affirmed
so
,
which
is
no
Lie
nor
Blasphemy
,
as
is
clear
.
These
Lies
therefore
are
not
Scripture
Enunciations
,
but
are
only
meer
complex
Predicats
thereof
,
which
the
Scripture
Attributes
to
their
Authors
that
said
them
,
as
the
subjects
of
its
Enunciations
in
all
such
Cases
.
Some
Quakers
are
upon
this
Head
so
grosly
Athiestical
as
to
say
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
but
the
Saints
words
,
and
Testimony
from
their
own
particular
Experiences
,
unto
which
horrid
Atheism
their
forementioned
Confession
of
Faith
called
,
The
Principles
of
Truth
(
me-thinks
in
Derision
and
Scorn
)
doth
also
positively
subscribe
,
pag.
100
,
101
,
102
,
103
,
127.
But
this
impudent
assertion
of
the
Quakers
cannot
stand
.
For
first
,
these
foresaid
Notes
and
Arguments
that
we
above
named
,
do
convince
the
Scriptures
to
be
of
Divine
Inspiration
and
Authority
,
and
not
the
meer
bare
word
of
any
Creature
.
Secondly
,
this
Assertion
of
the
Quakers
involves
a
violent
contradiction
;
for
the
Pen-men
of
the
Scriptures
deliver
their
Doctrine
in
the
Name
and
Authority
of
the
Lord
,
asserting
it
to
be
his
Word
,
his
Will
,
his
Command
,
whereof
the
Scriptures
are
every
where
so
full
that
we
need
not
stand
to
instance
.
If
then
it
was
but
their
own
meer
Word
and
Testimony
,
these
Pen-men
of
the
Scripture
are
so
far
from
being
Saints
,
that
of
all
men
in
the
world
they
must
have
been
the
greatest
Cheats
,
and
Archest
Impostors
and
Villains
,
seeing
they
have
delivered
us
so
many
meer
humane
Precepts
and
Principles
for
the
Rule
of
our
Faith
and
Duty
towards
God
and
man
,
promising
Eternal
Life
and
Glory
to
the
Obedient
,
and
threatning
Hell
and
Damnation
to
the
Disobedient
(
a
terrible
Presumption
for
them
to
do
by
their
own
meer
Authority
,
and
that
for
Obedience
or
Disobedience
to
their
meer
Commands
)
and
beside
have
wickedly
Fathered
all
this
upon
God
.
To
be
Saints
,
and
yet
live
and
die
such
Impostors
and
Villains
is
Incurably
repugnant
.
Thirdly
,
except
the
Quakers
shall
proceed
further
in
their
Distraction
and
Atheism
,
and
Assert
the
Scriptures
to
be
a
Book
of
Falshoods
,
Fictions
and
Lies
,
they
must
acknowledge
the
Scriptures
to
be
somewhat
more
than
the
meer
bare
Word
and
Testimony
of
any
Saint
,
seeing
the
Old
Testament
almost
every
where
Asserts
it self
to
be
the
Sayings
of
God
;
and
in
the
New
Testament
the
Doctrine
and
Miracles
declared
in
the
four
Evangels
is
expresly
therein
ascribed
unto
Christ
who
is
God
,
aswel
as
Man
;
The
Apostles
also
often
Assert
the
Divine
Authority
of
their
Doctrine
.
Except
then
they
will
conclude
these
Scriptures
to
be
all
meer
Fictions
and
Lies
,
they
must
yield
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
Word
of
the
Living
God
,
either
immediately
declared
by
himself
,
or
mediately
by
his
Servants
,
by
him
unerringly
directed
.
Fourthly
,
the
Scriptures
are
full
of
Precepts
,
Prohibitions
,
Promises
,
and
Threatnings
:
But
the
Relation
or
Narration
of
an
experience
is
none
of
all
these
:
Ergo
the
Scriptures
are
not
universally
(
at
least
)
a
Narration
of
Saints
experiences
.
Lastly
,
there
is
much
Doctrine
Taught
in
the
Scriptures
that
could
never
be
acquired
by
Experience
,
such
as
,
the
Doctrine
of
Predestination
,
of
the
Hypostatical
union
of
God
and
man
in
one
Person
,
of
Justification
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
of
the
general
Judgment
,
of
the
three
persons
in
the
Godhead
.
And
what
think
the
Quakers
of
the
Prophetical
part
of
Scripture
,
Infallibly
foretelling
things
at
a
great
distance
to
come
?
Are
these
Narrations
of
Saints
Experiences
?
Or
was
the
knowledge
of
them
got
by
Experience
?
O
learned
Divines
!
Hence
we
may
see
that
,
at
least
,
some
of
the
Quakers
prefer
themselves
and
their
Doctrine
to
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
and
their
Doctrine
,
which
is
(
say
they
)
but
the
Saints
Words
and
Testimony
from
their
own
particular
Experiences
;
but
the
Quakers
Doctrine
must
be
Divinely
Inspired
,
forsooth
.
Fourth
QUERY
.
Whether
or
not
the
Scriptures
were
the
Rule
of
Enochs
Faith
,
Noahs
Faith
,
and
Holy
men
in
the
Old
World
,
and
Second
World
?
Whether
or
not
they
were
a
Rule
to
Abrahams
Faith
,
Isaac
and
Jacobs
Faith
,
and
Moses
's
Faith
,
and
all
the
Patriarchs
?
And
whether
or
not
they
had
Scriptures
till
Moses
did
Write
them
?
Answer
these
things
by
plain
Scripture
.
SVRVEY
.
This
Query
comprehends
the
great
controversie
with
the
Quakers
concerning
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
;
and
therefore
because
my
Survey
will
be
large
,
I
shall
divide
it
into
three
Sections
.
In
the
first
I
shall
prove
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
In
the
Second
I
shall
confute
an
exception
,
or
distinction
which
some
of
the
more
subtil
of
our
adversaries
offer
to
our
Arguments
.
In
the
third
I
shall
answer
their
Objections
.
SECT.
I.
Proving
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
Infallible
Rule
.
The
thing
that
the
Quakers
drive
at
in
this
Query
,
is
,
that
because
Enoch
,
Noah
,
and
others
in
the
Primitive
world
had
not
a
written
Word
of
God
for
the
Rule
of
their
Faith
;
That
therefore
neither
should
the
Written
Word
of
God
be
the
Rule
of
our
Faith
.
This
,
beside
that
it
is
their
known
Principles
(
as
Witnesseth
their
foresaid
Confession
of
Faith
,
called
,
The
Principles
of
Truth
,
wherein
they
most
frequently
cry
up
the
Light
within
every
man
as
his
only
Rule
,
and
decry
the
Scriptures
and
all
external
Ordinances
to
their
utmost
Breath
,
as
may
be
seen
pag.
5
,
78
,
79
,
80
,
92
,
102
,
103
,
124
,
133
,
136
,
140
)
Is
either
the
Scope
of
this
their
present
Query
,
or
else
it
hath
no
Scope
at
all
,
and
so
it
must
be
the
fruit
of
some
Distraction
,
they
having
thereby
intended
nothing
.
Well
then
,
the
Quakers
must
either
acknowledge
Scripture-Testimony
for
Truth
(
as
I
hope
they
will
,
seeing
they
here
require
us
to
answer
by
Scripture
)
and
then
we
shall
soon
see
an
end
of
the
Question
from
the
Scripture
;
or
else
they
must
deny
Scripture-Testimony
to
be
true
,
and
shall
proclaim
God
a
Lyar
,
whose
Testimony
the
Scriptures
are
,
and
by
whose
Inspiration
they
were
given
(
as
is
proved
in
the
former
Queries
Survey
)
which
is
the
height
of
Blasphemy
.
These
things
premised
,
I
Assert
,
against
the
Quakers
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
the
Infallible
Rule
of
our
Faith
and
Manners
.
That
the
Scriptures
are
Infallible
is
sufficiently
proved
at
the
Survey
of
their
former
Query
;
where
we
proved
them
to
be
of
Divine
Inspiration
,
and
the
Word
of
the
Living
God
,
and
not
of
any
meer
Creature
,
and
so
they
cannot
deceive
;
so
that
for
their
Infallibility
we
need
say
no
more
.
That
therefore
the
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
I
prove
.
For
first
,
That
must
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
by
which
every
matter
of
Faith
and
Manners
ought
to
be
examin'd
seeing
every
thing
that
is
examined
must
be
examined
by
its
Rule
,
or
else
it
will
be
done
by
Guess
and
Rule
of
Thumb
,
as
the
Jest
is
.
But
every
matter
of
Faith
and
Manners
ought
to
be
examined
by
the
Scriptures
:
Ergo
the
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
The
Major
is
proved
already
.
I
prove
the
Minor
from
Isai.
8.20
.
Where
we
are
expresly
Commanded
to
go
to
the
Law
and
the
Testimony
with
every
matter
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
and
it
is
positively
declared
,
that
if
it
be
not
according
to
these
,
there
is
no
Light
in
it
,
which
is
a
sufficient
Prohibition
to
receive
it
.
And
the
Law
and
Testimony
are
the
Scriptures
.
Exod.
32.15
.
and
34.29
.
Deut.
31.24
,
26.
2
King
.
22.8
.
Neh.
8.1
,
3
,
8.
Psal.
78.5
.
Secondly
,
Christ
says
to
the
Sadducees
upon
a
great
Article
of
Faith
,
that
ignorance
of
the
Scriptures
caused
them
to
err
therein
:
Ergo
the
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
of
Faith
.
The
Antecedent
is
Taught
by
Christ
himself
,
Mat.
22.29
.
Mark
.
12.24
.
Ye
err
(
saith
he
)
not
knowing
the
Scriptures
,
and
because
ye
know
not
the
Scriptures
.
I
prove
the
Consequence
,
because
if
the
ignorance
of
any
other
Doctrine
,
except
the
Rule
of
Faith
,
should
cause
a
man
to
err
upon
an
Article
of
Faith
;
then
though
a
man
did
perfectly
know
the
Rule
of
Faith
,
yet
he
might
err
in
the
Faith
through
ignorance
.
But
the
Consequent
inferred
is
repugnant
(
for
then
he
knows
all
the
Articles
of
his
Faith
,
and
yet
he
believes
wrong
through
ignorance
,
that
is
,
because
he
knows
not
what
to
believe
:
)
Therefore
the
Antecedent
from
which
it
is
inferred
is
also
repugnant
.
Thirdly
,
Christ
sends
all
men
to
the
Scriptures
for
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Duty
:
Ergo
the
Scriptures
are
certainly
the
Rule
of
both
.
The
consequence
is
Infallible
,
seeing
Christ
did
not
mistake
himself
.
The
Antecedent
is
clear
from
Luke
.
16.28
,
29
,
30
,
31.
Where
while
Christ
is
delivering
his
Doctrine
for
all
men
in
the
parable
of
the
Rich
Glutton
,
he
sends
all
men
to
the
Scriptures
for
their
Direction
and
Rule
in
the
intire
business
of
Repentance
and
Salvation
,
and
that
they
may
not
be
Eternally
Damned
(
and
so
he
shews
we
must
stand
to
them
upon
pain
of
Damnation
)
and
delcares
,
that
if
they
listen
not
to
the
Scriptures
,
there
is
no
more
hope
of
them
,
and
he
'l
give
them
no
other
Rule
to
Guide
and
Direct
them
.
They
have
Moses
and
the
Prophets
(
says
he
)
that
is
the
Scriptures
written
by
them
,
let
them
hear
them
,
and
if
they
will
not
hear
them
,
one
arisen
from
the
Dead
(
which
he
refuses
to
grant
them
)
will
not
get
them
perswaded
.
There
is
a
bundle
of
Arguments
in
one
Text
proving
the
Scriptures
to
be
our
Rule
.
Fourthly
,
the
Jews
at
Berea
are
highly
commended
for
examining
by
the
Scripture
the
Doctrine
of
Grace
Preached
to
them
even
by
a
Paul
(
Act.
17.11
,
12.
)
that
they
might
know
if
the
things
which
he
Taught
were
so
,
as
the
Text
says
;
for
albeit
Paul
was
an
infallibly-inspired
Apostle
,
yet
seeing
they
knew
not
that
,
and
he
being
but
newly
arrived
unto
them
,
they
had
no
proof
of
his
Doctrine
,
and
there
being
great
danger
from
abounding
false
Teachers
,
they
are
therefore
highly
commended
for
putting
his
Doctrine
to
the
Test
and
Tryal
of
the
Fore-constitute
Scriptures
,
wherewith
every
Doctrine
of
Religion
was
in
substance
and
matter
to
consent
and
agree
,
and
they
otherwise
not
to
receive
it
,
Isai.
8.20
.
Therefore
the
Scriptures
are
the
undoubted
Rule
of
Faith
and
Duty
.
The
Consequence
is
plain
,
seeing
they
would
never
have
been
commended
for
examining
and
trying
his
Doctrine
by
the
Scriptures
,
except
the
Scriptures
were
the
Rule
,
or
for
making
that
a
Rule
for
examining
and
receiving
of
Doctrines
of
Faith
,
which
is
no
Rule
of
matters
of
Faith
;
Nay
,
for
this
they
would
have
been
deservedly
discommended
.
Fifthly
,
The
Scriptures
are
able
to
make
us
Wise
unto
Salvation
.
2
Tim.
3.15
.
Therefore
they
contain
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Duty
.
The
Consequence
is
easie
,
seeing
without
the
Rule
of
these
,
we
cannot
be
wise
unto
Salvation
,
but
plainly
ignorant
of
the
way
thereunto
,
having
no
Rule
to
direct
us
.
Sixthly
,
the
whole
Scriptures
were
given
by
Inspiration
of
God
,
and
they
were
written
purposely
for
the
Churches
Instruction
and
Learning
,
as
is
before
shewed
:
Therefore
they
must
surely
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Duty
;
for
,
I
am
sure
,
there
is
nothing
wanting
here
that
is
requisite
to
the
Constituting
of
them
for
a
publick
Rule
;
or
else
let
the
Quakers
(
if
they
can
)
shew
us
what
that
is
;
for
I
can
not
perceive
it
,
without
the
Spectacles
of
their
Eagle-eyed
Inspirer
.
Seventhly
,
That
Doctrine
must
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
which
in
all
matters
of
Faith
and
Manners
we
ought
to
observe
and
take
heed
to
,
as
a
Doctrine
full
of
shining
light
for
our
instruction
and
direction
:
but
that
is
the
Scriptures
:
Therefore
the
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
The
Major
is
clear
,
nor
do
the
Quakers
deny
it
.
The
Minor
is
laid
down
in
2
Pet.
1.19
,
20.
where
Peter
,
after
his
rehearsing
of
the
glorious
Revelation
on
the
Mount
;
at
the
Transfiguration
(
which
was
as
glorious
a
Revelation
as
any
else
)
he
addeth
,
That
they
had
a
more
sure
Word
of
Prophecy
,
whereunto
they
did
well
to
take
heed
as
unto
a
light
shining
,
&c.
knowing
this
first
,
that
no
Prophecy
of
the
Scripture
is
of
any
private
Interpretation
;
here
it
is
clear
,
that
it
is
the
Scriptures
which
he
calls
,
the
more
sure
Word
of
Prophecy
,
and
prefers
before
all
transient
Revelations
;
not
as
if
the
Scriptures
were
more
certain
in
themselves
(
Quoad
se
)
than
Gods
immediate
voice
from
Heaven
;
but
because
they
are
a
more
sure
way
in
regard
of
us
;
(
Quoad
nos
)
they
being
a
Written
,
yea
Sealed
and
Sworn
Evidence
and
Contract
of
the
whole
Bargain
and
Terms
of
Salvation
and
Life
,
delivered
into
our
custody
to
be
perused
by
us
upon
all
occasions
;
and
this
gives
more
assurance
,
in
regard
of
our
weakness
,
than
a
passing
Revelation
,
and
is
more
ready
for
our
constant
direction
,
than
a
transient
Revelation
,
which
we
cannot
always
command
,
nor
retain
often
in
our
memory
till
we
understand
;
nor
are
all
men
able
to
bear
them
;
That
on
the
Mount
made
the
Disciples
roave
and
mistake
exceedingly
,
Mark
.
9.6
.
The
Quakers
answer
,
(
in
their
Confession
of
Faith
,
or
Principles
of
Truth
,
page
135
,
136
,
140.
)
That
by
the
more
sure
Word
of
Prophecy
,
the
Apostle
means
the
Light
within
us
,
and
so
they
deny
our
Minor
.
But
contrariwise
the
20
Verse
there
,
where
he
cautions
the
interpreting
of
the
Scripture-Prophecy
,
clearly
coheres
with
the
19
Verse
,
as
a
caution
subjoyned
concerning
the
same
thing
which
he
had
there
called
,
The
more
sure
Word
of
Prophecy
;
and
so
by
the
more
sure
Word
of
Prophecy
must
be
meant
the
Scriptures
,
because
of
the
clear
coherence
.
Secondly
,
I
must
demand
of
the
Quakers
to
shew
,
(
if
they
can
)
How
the
Dictat
or
Light
within
is
more
sure
than
Gods
immediate
Voice
from
Heaven
,
such
as
that
was
at
the
Transfiguration
?
I
have
shewed
how
the
Scriptures
are
called
,
and
are
so
in
regard
of
us
;
but
I
cannot
understand
,
how
the
Light
within
can
be
,
or
be
called
so
.
Thirdly
,
The
Testimony
of
other
Scriptures
produced
,
and
to
be
produced
,
will
not
permit
this
violent
Gloss
.
Again
,
They
ordinarily
answer
to
this
Scripture
,
That
in
it
we
are
only
appointed
to
take
heed
to
the
Scriptures
,
until
the
day
dawn
,
and
the
day-Star
arise
into
our
hearts
,
that
is
(
as
they
expound
)
till
the
Holy
Ghost
be
bestowed
on
us
,
but
no
longer
.
But
contrariwise
;
First
,
by
this
answer
,
they
retract
their
former
Gloss
upon
the
Text
,
and
confess
the
more
sure
Word
of
Prophecy
here
,
to
be
meant
of
the
Scriptures
,
and
not
the
Light
within
.
Secondly
,
By
this
answer
,
they
overturn
one
of
their
own
chiefest
Principles
,
viz.
That
all
men
ought
to
follow
the
Light
within
:
for
now
they
yield
,
That
such
as
have
not
received
the
Holy
Ghost
,
(
and
these
are
not
few
)
are
exhorted
here
to
follow
the
Scriptures
,
and
not
the
Light
within
them
.
Thirdly
,
Hereby
they
insinuate
,
That
the
Scriptures
(
in
their
Opinion
)
serve
for
nothing
to
Renewed
Men
and
Believers
,
who
are
born
of
the
Spirit
and
Sealed
therewith
,
(
Joh.
3.5
.
Rom.
8.9
.
Eph.
1.13
.
)
and
so
the
Scriptures
(
as
they
will
)
are
recommended
only
to
Men
unrenewed
;
and
so
that
blessing
pronounced
upon
the
Readers
,
Hearers
,
and
Keepers
of
the
things
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
(
Revel.
1.3
.
and
22.7
.
)
is
designed
and
belongs
only
to
unrenewed
Men
,
seeing
the
reading
,
hearing
,
and
keeping
of
the
things
written
therein
,
whereunto
the
blessing
is
annexed
,
belongs
only
to
them
,
as
the
Quakers
will
.
What
?
Does
not
Paul
,
Peter
,
and
John
direct
all
their
Epistles
,
and
the
Book
of
the
Revelation
to
the
Churches
,
the
Saints
,
and
them
that
had
obtained
like
precious
Faith
with
them
,
delivering
them
many
Rules
of
Faith
and
Manners
therein
?
See
their
Inscriptions
(
I
pray
,
)
and
these
will
inform
you
better
.
Eightly
,
That
must
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
by
which
we
are
commanded
to
try
the
Spirits
,
(
1
John
4.1
.
)
seeing
we
cannot
try
the
Spirits
or
Doctrines
without
the
Rule
;
for
that
were
to
try
them
by
guess
:
But
that
whereby
we
are
commanded
to
try
the
Spirits
,
must
certainly
,
be
the
Scriptures
,
seeing
the
Quakers
do
not
as
yet
openly
profess
the
Popish
Lesbian
Rule
,
of
Believing
as
the
Church
of
Rome
does
;
and
it
cannot
be
the
dictat
or
light
within
,
that
we
are
to
try
them
by
,
seeing
,
that
is
as
fallible
,
as
their
Light
whose
Doctrines
I
try
;
and
George
Keith
(
a
Ring-leading
Quaker
)
confesses
the
possibility
of
their
declining
from
Infallibility
,
both
in
Speaking
and
Writing
,
(
and
consequently
in
Examining
or
Judging
too
)
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
33.
and
beside
,
the
Dictat
within
hath
no
Divine
Institution
to
be
the
Rule
;
and
if
it
were
the
Rule
,
then
the
Dictat
within
every
diverse
Man
would
be
the
Rule
to
try
the
Dictat
or
Dectrine
proceeding
from
the
Dictat
in
another
,
which
would
make
the
Dictat
of
every
Man
both
Superior
and
Inferior
to
the
Dictat
of
another
;
Superior
when
it
tries
and
examines
,
and
Inferior
when
it
,
or
its
Doctrine
is
tried
and
examined
,
which
is
repugnant
.
Ninthly
,
John
shews
us
,
(
1
John
4.6
.
)
That
the
true
and
sound
imbracing
of
their
Doctrine
,
(
now
written
in
the
Scriptures
)
is
a
manifest
evidence
of
the
Spirit
of
Truth
,
and
the
rejecting
of
it
,
a
manifest
evidence
of
the
Spirit
of
Error
;
and
so
their
Doctrine
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
must
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
:
For
,
How
shall
it
be
an
evidence
of
the
Spirit
of
Truth
,
to
imbrace
a
Doctrine
that
is
not
the
Rule
?
this
is
liker
to
be
an
evidence
of
the
contrary
;
Or
,
How
shall
it
be
an
evidence
of
the
Spirit
of
Error
,
to
reject
such
Doctrine
?
this
also
is
rather
an
evidence
of
the
contrary
,
providing
the
Rule
be
retained
.
Lastly
,
God
denounces
all
the
plagues
mentioned
in
the
Scriptures
(
quake
that
dreads
then
)
against
every
Man
that
shall
presume
to
add
in
matters
of
Faith
and
Duty
,
(
for
of
these
its
meant
)
to
the
Doctrine
and
Rules
written
in
the
Scriptures
.
Therefore
the
Scriptures
do
certainly
contain
the
Rule
and
whole
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
The
antecedent
is
laid
down
,
Rev.
22.18
.
where
it
is
peremptorily
said
,
That
if
any
Man
shall
add
unto
these
things
that
are
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
(
for
there
is
the
like
reason
,
and
no
other
,
or
more
reason
,
against
adding
to
this
Book
of
the
Revelation
,
and
the
rest
of
the
holy
Scriptures
,
after
the
Canon
is
compleated
;
and
this
Sanction
is
added
here
in
the
close
of
this
Book
,
as
the
close
of
the
whole
Scriptures
)
God
shall
add
to
him
all
the
plagues
written
in
the
Book
.
The
consequence
is
also
evident
:
For
,
if
not
the
Scriptures
,
but
some
other
Doctrine
were
the
Rule
,
then
we
not
only
might
add
to
the
Scriptures
in
matters
of
Faith
and
Duty
,
but
we
ought
,
of
necessity
,
to
set
up
that
other
Doctrine
,
as
the
Rule
and
Directory
of
both
,
which
is
much
worse
,
methinks
,
than
any
partial
adding
;
and
so
we
could
not
be
liable
to
such
a
doom
for
a
partial
adding
.
And
hence
by
a
few
arguments
of
many
that
may
be
produced
,
we
see
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
the
infallible
Rule
of
our
Faith
and
Manners
,
that
sure
Word
of
Prophecy
whereunto
we
ought
to
take
heed
;
and
if
an
Angel
from
Heaven
shall
preach
another
Gospel
to
us
,
than
that
which
Christ
and
the
Apostles
did
,
let
him
be
accursed
.
Every
new
Dispensation
of
the
Covenant
by
the
Ministery
of
Men
,
though
it
were
but
only
new
in
the
manner
,
was
confirmed
by
Miracles
and
Wonders
,
(
Exod.
4.28.30
.
Deut.
34.11
,
12.
2
Cor.
12.12
.
Heb.
2.4
.
)
much
more
need
hath
the
Quakers
Doctrine
of
such
confirmations
,
being
new
,
not
only
in
the
manner
,
but
also
in
the
matter
contrary
to
the
Doctrine
formerly
dictated
by
the
Holy
Ghost
,
and
left
upon
Record
unto
us
;
nor
heard
we
ever
of
so
great
a
company
of
Inspired
Teachers
,
as
all
the
Doctors
of
the
Quakers
pretend
to
be
,
and
never
one
Miracle
or
Wonder
to
be
had
amongst
them
all
,
excepting
only
their
extream
Infatuation
and
Brain-sickness
,
or
that
they
still
retain
the
proportion
and
features
of
Human
bodies
,
having
quite
enervated
their
rational
essence
.
SECT.
II.
Proving
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
principal
Rule
,
and
overthrowing
the
Light
within
.
George
Keith
an
Arch
-
Quaker
,
and
a
Man
too
learned
as
he
imploys
it
,
doth
here
distinguish
our
Arguments
,
yielding
us
;
That
the
Scriptures
are
the
most
compleat
external
Rule
of
Faith
that
is
in
the
World
;
but
,
That
they
are
not
for
all
that
,
the
Principal
Rule
of
Faith
,
but
only
a
Secundary
Rule
thereof
;
and
that
the
Spirit
,
or
his
Dictat
within
,
is
the
Principal
Rule
,
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pages
9.13
,
25
,
59
,
108
,
109
,
110
,
111.
)
and
,
like
Proteus
turning
himself
into
all
shaces
,
〈…〉
●mes
designs
Christ
himself
,
oftner
the
Spirit
〈…〉
he
〈…〉
of
the
Spirit
within
,
to
be
〈…〉
oftnest
the
dictat●
〈…〉
But
,
I
am
sure
,
if
George
Keith
be
in
earnest
while
he
would
have
Christ
himself
,
or
the
Spirit
himself
to
be
our
Rule
,
he
is
beside
himself
;
For
a
Person
cannot
be
a
Rule
of
Faith
,
for
that
must
be
some
complex
Proposition
,
Direction
,
or
Precept
,
and
the
like
:
but
Christ
and
the
Spirit
are
Persons
,
and
so
they
cannot
be
a
Rule
of
Faith
.
The
Major
is
already
proved
,
nor
will
the
Quakers
deny
it
.
But
George
Keith
(
as
many
of
his
Brethren
,
to
my
hearing
)
doth
flatly
refuse
the
Minor
,
as
an
uncertain
unscriptural
notion
,
and
a
barbarous
heathenish
term
to
speak
of
a
Person
in
the
Godhead
,
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
97.104
.
and
so
,
according
to
him
,
there
are
no
Persons
at
all
in
the
Godhead
;
(
ah
Blasphemy
!
)
for
if
there
be
,
I
am
sure
,
we
may
say
there
are
;
and
if
Men
believe
that
there
are
Three
Persons
in
the
Godhead
,
they
will
not
refuse
to
say
the
same
.
The
Quakers
then
do
reject
both
the
thing
and
notion
,
and
believe
not
there
are
Three
Persons
in
the
Godhead
:
And
therefore
that
there
are
,
I
shall
shortly
prove
.
First
,
The
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
are
each
of
them
an
Intelligent
Being
,
subsisting
incommunicably
,
or
distinctly
from
another
:
Ergo
,
each
of
them
is
a
Person
.
The
consequence
,
being
from
the
Definition
to
the
thing
defined
,
cannot
be
denied
without
a
broad
contradiction
;
for
,
if
they
grant
the
Antecedent
,
that
is
the
thing
which
all
the
World
understands
by
a
Person
.
The
Antecedent
I
prove
,
for
that
each
of
them
is
an
Intelligent
Being
,
Subsisting
,
the
Quakers
dare
not
deny
,
and
their
great
Works
declare
it
;
and
that
they
subsist
Incommunicably
,
or
distinctly
from
one
another
,
(
though
in
the
same
Godhead
)
I
prove
,
because
one
and
the
same
Subsistence
cannot
beget
it Self
,
or
be
begotten
by
it Self
,
nor
proceed
from
it Self
,
as
is
palpable
:
but
the
Father
begets
the
Son
,
the
Son
is
begotten
by
him
,
and
the
Holy
Ghost
proceeds
from
both
;
and
so
they
must
be
distinct
Subsistences
,
or
subsist
distinctly
.
Secondly
,
There
are
Three
that
bear
Record
in
Heaven
,
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
the
Holy
Ghost
,
1
John
5.7
.
Ergo
,
they
must
either
be
Three
Persons
,
or
Three
Gods
,
(
which
is
the
beight
of
impossibility
)
or
let
the
Quakers
shew
,
how
they
will
call
them
Three
;
for
,
though
they
also
be
one
,
viz.
one
God
,
yet
the
same
Text
cited
,
says
they
are
Three
too
.
I
could
never
get
any
other
answer
to
this
from
a
Quaker
,
but
,
That
they
are
three
Manifestations
,
viz.
of
Moses
,
of
Christ
,
and
of
the
Spicit
.
But
,
if
these
were
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
,
the
World
is
much
elder
than
they
,
and
then
,
Who
made
it
?
Thirdly
,
While
Christ
proves
Himself
the
Light
of
the
World
against
the
Jews
,
who
denied
it
,
He
says
,
(
John
8.17
,
18.
)
It
is
also
written
in
your
Law
,
That
the
Testimony
of
two
Men
is
true
;
I
am
one
that
bears
Witness
of
my Self
,
and
the
Father
that
sent
Me
beareth
Witness
of
Me.
Now
Christ
and
the
Father
could
not
have
been
two
Witnesses
according
to
their
Law
,
except
they
be
two
distinct
Persons
:
for
,
their
Law
admitted
the
Testimony
of
two
Men
proof
enough
,
because
it
was
the
Testimony
of
two
Persons
,
and
otherwise
the
Testimony
had
not
been
admitted
as
proof
enough
.
Christ
then
clearly
teaches
Himself
and
the
Father
to
be
two
Persons
,
while
he
asserts
that
their
Witnessing
was
proof
enough
according
to
their
Laws
demand
.
Lastly
,
Christ
is
said
to
be
the
express
Image
(
in
the
Original
Language
Character
)
of
the
Fathers
Person
;
(
Heb.
1.3
.
)
Therefore
the
Father
is
a
Person
,
and
Christ
also
,
and
distinct
Persons
;
for
the
Father
is
plainly
called
so
,
and
the
Son
being
the
very
express
of
his
Person
,
and
exact
transumpt
,
must
be
one
also
,
and
distinct
from
the
Fathers
Person
.
They
answer
.
The
Word
is
wrong
turned
here
,
and
,
that
it
s
turned
right
in
Heb.
11.1
.
where
it
's
called
Substance
.
But
contrariwise
,
the
word
is
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
in
the
Original
,
which
properly
signifies
a
Subsistence
,
or
Person
,
and
in
an
Intelligent
Being
subsisting
distinct
,
it
always
signifies
a
Person
;
and
so
the
Union
of
Christs
two
Natures
in
one
Person
,
is
usually
called
,
the
Hypostatical
Union
;
and
to
turn
the
word
Substance
here
,
would
be
guilty
of
Arianism
,
and
would
infer
,
that
Christ
is
not
the
same
in
Substance
with
the
Father
,
but
another
Substance
like
his
Substance
.
It
is
then
no
unscriptural
Notion
:
but
these
things
by
the
way
.
Now
to
the
main
point
.
I
assert
against
George
Keith
and
his
Complices
,
That
the
Scriptures
are
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
and
not
any
Dictat
within
:
and
I
prove
it
first
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
,
and
next
,
that
the
Dictat
within
is
not
.
First
then
,
The
Scriptures
(
we
have
seen
already
)
are
by
Divine
Authority
ordained
to
be
the
Rule
of
our
Faith
and
Manners
,
and
there
is
no
Divine
Authority
ordaining
any
other
Rule
,
either
above
them
,
or
of
equal
Authority
with
them
;
or
else
,
let
it
be
shewed
,
and
till
then
,
let
them
consider
,
that
we
are
still
sent
to
the
Scriptures
as
the
Rule
of
all
matters
of
Faith
and
Duty
,
(
Isai.
8.20
.
Luk.
16.29.31
.
2
Pet.
1.19
.
)
but
never
to
any
Dictat
within
;
they
do
not
say
,
To
the
Dictat
within
;
but
to
the
Law
and
Testimony
,
to
Moses
and
the
Prophets
,
&c.
Therefore
the
Scriptures
are
infallibly
the
principal
Rule
,
seeing
there
is
none
above
them
,
or
equal
with
them
.
Secondly
,
The
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
,
ruling
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
and
not
ruled
by
any
other
Rule
;
or
else
,
they
are
a
Rule
ruling
thereof
,
and
themselves
ruled
by
another
superior
Rule
;
there
cannot
be
a
third
thing
said
,
for
the
members
of
the
distinction
are
contradictory
:
But
the
Scriptures
are
not
a
Rule
ruling
and
ruled
,
seeing
a
Rule
is
therefore
ruled
by
another
Rule
,
because
it
is
not
essentially
right
,
but
fallible
and
may
deceive
,
(
or
else
it
needed
no
Rule
to
rule
it
:
)
but
,
I
hope
,
the
Quakers
will
not
say
,
That
the
Scriptures
are
fallible
and
may
deceive
,
seeing
they
are
of
Divine
Inspiration
,
and
the
Word
or
Words
(
as
the
Quakers
yield
)
of
the
most
High
God
:
Therefore
the
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
ruling
,
and
not
ruled
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
and
so
the
principal
Rule
thereof
.
Thirdly
,
The
Scriptures
have
Intrinsecal
and
Essential
Authority
within
themselves
,
without
derivation
from
any
other
Rule
,
(
contradict
who
dare
?
)
seeing
they
are
the
Word
of
God
,
and
he
deeds
not
(
I
judge
)
derive
Authority
to
his
Word
from
any
other
Rule
,
Humane
or
Divine
:
Ergo
,
they
are
the
Supream
and
Principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
George
Keith
will
(
may
be
)
indeavour
to
retort
this
Argument
,
as
inferring
,
That
the
Dictat
of
the
Spirit
within
is
the
principal
Rule
,
as
well
as
the
Scriptures
,
seeing
that
is
the
Word
of
God
,
as
well
as
they
.
But
,
by
his
favour
,
An
sit
,
is
before
Quid
sit
,
and
Prius
est
esse
,
quam
tale
,
vel
tale
esse
;
he
should
first
prove
,
that
there
is
such
an
infallible
immediate
objective
Dictat
(
as
he
calls
it
)
in
every
Man
,
and
then
he
says
something
.
For
I
deny
that
there
is
such
a
Dictat
of
the
Spirit
in
every
Man
to
be
his
Rule
,
seeing
every
Man
hath
not
the
Spirit
,
but
Believers
only
;
(
Rom.
8.9
.
1
Joh.
4.13
.
Jude
19.
)
and
if
every
Man
have
the
Rule
of
Faith
revealed
to
him
by
a
Dictat
within
,
Why
have
not
Americans
as
much
knowledge
of
that
Rule
as
we
Christians
?
nor
do
I
believe
,
that
any
Man
hath
such
an
immediate
Dictat
for
revealing
to
him
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
,
who
can
read
or
hear
,
(
for
others
I
am
not
concerned
,
nor
means
of
;
)
nor
is
there
any
necessity
thereof
,
that
being
so
abundantly
manifested
in
the
Scriptures
.
And
whatever
particular
event
a
Man
may
have
immediately
revealed
to
him
,
and
he
therefore
bound
to
believe
it
,
This
concerns
not
our
Argument
concerning
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
,
and
the
Scriptures
wherein
that
was
not
contained
,
more
than
the
particular
commands
of
a
Prince
to
one
,
two
,
or
three
of
his
Subjects
,
will
infer
that
,
not
his
publick
Laws
,
but
his
private
immediate
commands
must
be
the
rule
to
all
.
Nor
needs
a
Believer
an
immediate
objective
Dictat
to
assure
him
that
he
is
a
Child
of
God
;
(
as
George
Keith
would
have
it
)
seeing
an
effective
illumination
of
the
Spirit
upon
our
understanding
,
(
which
is
also
called
Subjective
in
regard
of
us
)
opening
and
enlightning
it's
eyes
to
behold
the
Scripture-marks
,
and
inabling
it
to
reflect
upon
and
discern
the
graces
of
the
Soul
in
their
gracious
actings
,
will
do
the
business
infallibly
,
though
not
immediately
,
but
per
medium
;
for
,
having
these
Premises
,
and
that
assistance
,
and
the
mind
not
diverted
,
it
will
be
forced
to
the
consequence
by
the
clearness
of
the
objective
connexion
,
seeing
the
meanest
Saint
cannot
resist
such
evidence
of
consequence
;
nor
can
a
thousand
Dictates
within
meerly
objective
,
make
a
Man
one
whit
the
wiser
,
without
subjective
light
to
perceive
them
,
more
than
a
Man
pur-blind
can
see
the
Sun-shining
,
till
his
eyes
be
opened
;
albeit
George
Keith
spurns
at
this
distinction
between
Objective
and
Subjective
,
(
which
in
regard
of
the
Spirit
,
is
called
Effective
)
as
Antichristian
and
deceitful
,
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pages
83.84
.
)
as
if
he
would
for
ever
confound
an
Object
with
an
Efficient
Cause
,
or
a
Subject
.
Fourthly
,
A
Rule
that
hath
authority
over
all
other
Rules
,
and
none
over
it
,
must
inevitably
be
the
Principal
and
Supream
Rule
.
But
the
Scriptures
are
such
a
Rule
:
Ergo
,
they
are
the
Supream
Principal
Rule
.
I
prove
the
Minor
(
the
Major
needs
not
)
because
we
may
not
receive
any
Rule
from
without
,
or
Dictat
within
,
which
agrees
not
with
the
Scriptures
,
(
as
George
Keith
seemingly
also
confesses
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
28.
)
to
the
Law
and
Testimony
,
if
they
agree
not
with
that
,
there
is
no
light
in
them
;
he
is
Cursed
that
Preaches
another
Gospel
and
not
agreeing
with
that
we
have
,
and
so
cannot
be
Blessed
that
receives
it
;
The
Plagues
are
added
to
them
that
add
to
the
Scripture-Rule
,
much
more
to
such
as
Teach
,
or
receive
a
contrary
Rule
:
on
the
other
hand
we
may
,
nay
,
we
are
bound
to
receive
the
Scripture-Doctrine
,
though
it
do
not
agree
with
the
Dictate
within
,
or
any
other
pretended
Rule
,
as
is
clear
from
many
things
foresaid
,
and
the
Quakers
will
not
deny
,
sure
.
These
things
hold
firm
.
Again
,
it
does
not
hold
,
that
we
must
not
receive
the
Scriptures
if
they
agree
not
with
the
Dictat
within
,
but
may
receive
the
Dictat
within
,
tho
it
disagree
with
the
Scriptures
.
And
so
the
Scriptures
have
Authority
over
all
other
Rules
,
and
none
else
hath
Authority
over
them
.
Now
albeit
we
have
sufficiently
already
affronted
the
Dictate
within
;
yet
because
it
is
worthy
of
a
Thousand
Deaths
for
its
proud
Usurpation
,
we
shall
reach
it
some
few
Blows
more
in
particulari
Specie
.
First
therefore
,
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
must
be
Essentially
right
and
Infallible
;
or
else
we
can
trust
nothing
to
it
with
any
assurance
,
and
all
were
gone
,
it
would
mislead
and
deceive
us
:
But
the
Dictate
within
every
man
is
not
Essentially
Right
:
Ergo
it
is
not
the
principal
Rule
.
I
prove
the
Minor
,
because
many
men
have
not
the
Spirit
,
as
all
unrenewed
men
(
Rom.
8.9
.
1
Joh.
4.13
.
Jud.
19.
)
and
so
their
Dictate
within
,
not
proceeding
from
the
Spirit
,
cannot
be
Essentially
Right
,
or
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
;
and
this
destroys
the
Quakers
Principle
,
that
the
Dictate
within
every
man
is
the
principal
Rule
.
Nor
doth
the
Spirit
Teach
even
Believers
by
an
inward
immediate
objective
Dictate
,
seeing
God
and
Nature
do
nothing
in
vain
,
and
Beings
ought
not
to
be
multiplied
without
some
necessity
,
which
here
there
is
none
that
can
be
shewed
;
for
seeing
the
whole
Doctrine
of
Salvation
is
abundantly
made
known
in
the
Scriptures
,
so
that
our
understandings
being
subjectively
Enlightened
,
and
our
Eyes
in
any
measure
opened
,
we
may
plainly
see
therein
the
exactness
and
purity
of
the
Law
,
the
Riches
of
the
Promises
,
and
,
in
fine
,
our
whole
Rule
by
the
good
help
of
other
means
and
Ordinances
appointed
to
further
our
Instruction
and
Knowledge
in
these
,
by
opening
up
and
explaining
their
Doctrine
and
Sence
,
and
so
clearing
the
Object
,
quoad
nos
,
or
in
order
to
our
understanding
.
And
what
needs
then
(
I
pray
)
another
objective
Rule
?
Neither
is
there
any
reason
for
the
continuance
of
the
immediate
Inspiration
of
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
in
the
Church
,
more
than
all
the
other
extraordinary
Gifts
(
which
are
gone
long
since
)
the
Intire
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
being
now
compleated
,
and
publickly
Recorded
,
which
is
as
Infallible
as
any
immediate
Dictate
,
seeing
it
is
the
Word
of
God
that
cannot
Lie
;
and
it
is
more
sure
for
us
than
any
,
in
regard
of
the
Devils
Cunning
,
who
can
,
and
often
does
bear
in
a
strong
Delusion
with
so
much
of
seeming
Evidence
,
as
makes
it
be
received
for
a
Divine
Dictate
.
And
what
needs
more
?
George
Keith
who
pleads
that
the
Dictate
within
,
is
the
principal
Rule
and
Touchstone
of
all
Doctrines
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
59.
albeit
most
inconsistently
(
as
I
think
)
he
grants
the
same
Authority
to
the
Scriptures
,
pag.
28
thereof
)
does
yield
that
,
for
all
their
Infallible
Dictate
,
yet
its
possible
for
them
(
and
that
is
much
indeed
)
both
to
Speak
and
Write
(
and
so
to
think
too
)
in
a
mixture
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
33
)
that
is
to
say
,
Fallibly
:
for
if
he
means
of
a
Mid-way
betwixt
,
Fallibly
and
Infallibly
,
(
which
I
am
not
yet
acquainted
with
,
nor
ever
read
it
)
he
speaks
,
like
a
man
in
a
mixture
,
Infallible
Contradiction
.
For
all
the
World
cannot
find
me
a
midst
betwixt
Fallible
,
and
Infallible
.
George
Keith
then
(
it
seems
)
is
not
Infallibly
,
or
immediately
Inspired
:
for
he
can
both
Speak
and
Write
in
a
mixture
,
which
a
man
immediatly
Inspired
cannot
be
Guilty
of
.
Habernus
confitentem
reum
.
Secondly
,
that
cannot
be
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
which
hath
no
Divine
Institution
to
Warrant
it
;
or
else
it
is
but
an
Usurper
.
But
the
Dictate
within
every
,
I
or
any
man
,
hath
no
Divine
Institution
to
Warrant
it
to
be
the
principal
Rule
of
these
;
or
else
produce
it
(
if
they
can
)
for
all
they
have
hitherto
produced
shall
be
Confuted
and
Answered
too
when
I
come
to
to
their
Objections
.
Therefore
the
Dictate
within
every
man
,
or
any
man
,
is
not
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
Thirdly
,
a
Rule
to
be
examined
by
another
Rule
cannot
be
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
I
am
sure
:
But
the
Dictate
within
all
men
is
such
;
Therefore
it
is
not
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
The
Minor
I
prove
from
Isai.
8.20
.
To
the
Law
and
to
the
Testimony
(
says
the
Text
)
if
they
speak
not
according
to
this
Word
,
it
is
because
there
is
no
Light
in
them
;
where
all
Dictates
,
or
Doctrines
of
Faith
and
Manners
are
very
expresly
commanded
to
be
Tryed
and
examined
by
the
Scripture
,
and
if
they
agree
not
with
that
,
not
to
receive
them
;
seeing
so
,
there
is
no
Light
in
them
,
they
are
but
Dictates
of
Darkness
.
And
again
,
George
Keith
Confesses
,
that
all
Doctrines
and
Principles
of
Christian
Religion
are
to
be
applyed
to
the
Scriptures
,
as
a
Test
and
Touchstone
in
all
external
Debates
and
Disputations
whatsoever
,
and
if
they
agree
not
therewith
,
to
be
denied
and
disowned
for
ever
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag
,
28.
)
and
so
the
Scriptures
are
a
Superiour
Rule
to
the
Dictate
within
(
if
it
be
a
Doctrine
of
the
Christian
Religion
)
seeing
it
must
be
examined
by
these
as
a
Test
and
Touchstone
,
and
rejected
,
if
it
agree
not
therewith
.
I
can
say
no
more
,
than
is
dropt
(
twixt
sleeping
and
waking
perhaps
)
from
the
Pen
of
an
Adversary
.
Fourthly
,
the
Scriptures
(
we
have
seen
before
)
are
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
positively
:
Ergo
the
Dictate
within
cannot
be
such
a
Rule
.
The
Consequence
is
plain
,
seeing
two
Rules
,
each
of
them
positively
principal
,
are
repugnant
;
for
so
each
of
them
should
be
above
,
and
below
the
other
.
Fifthly
,
if
the
Dictate
within
be
the
principal
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
then
we
must
either
follow
its
Directions
absolutely
,
and
without
Questioning
or
Trying
them
;
or
else
conditionally
only
that
they
be
right
,
if
conditionally
only
,
then
we
must
examine
them
by
some
other
Rule
,
to
know
if
they
be
right
,
or
not
;
and
so
they
are
not
the
principal
Rule
(
against
the
supposition
)
nor
Infallible
,
seeing
an
Infallible
Rule
needs
no
Superior
Rule
to
be
examined
by
,
being
it self
Essentially
right
.
If
then
we
must
follow
the
directions
of
the
Dictate
within
absolutely
,
and
without
any
Tryal
,
then
he
whose
Dictate
within
prompts
him
to
think
that
Christ
has
not
two
distinct
Natures
,
or
that
he
has
two
distinct
Persons
aswel
as
Natures
,
or
that
he
is
not
Co-eternal
,
Co-equal
,
and
Co-substantial
with
the
Father
,
or
First
person
,
or
that
his
Sufferings
and
Death
was
not
a
Satisfaction
for
our
Sins
,
or
that
God
is
a
Corporeal
Being
subject
to
all
humane
Passions
,
or
that
in
the
Eucharist
the
Bread
is
substantially
Changed
into
the
Body
of
Christ
,
or
that
the
Pope
is
Infallible
(
and
so
a
great
Quaker
,
or
else
each
of
them
a
small
Pope
)
or
that
we
are
not
Justified
by
the
Righteousness
of
the
Redeemer
;
I
say
,
all
of
these
,
and
other
such
deluded
Hereticks
must
absolutely
follow
these
Principles
as
their
principal
Rule
.
And
if
the
Dictate
within
bid
a
man
Worship
the
Sun
and
Moon
,
and
Idols
of
Gold
and
Silver
,
worship
the
Devil
,
and
cut
his
own
Throat
too
,
he
is
bound
to
obey
his
Rule
.
There
is
nothing
can
be
answered
to
these
things
but
this
,
viz.
That
these
and
such
like
evil
Directions
cannot
proceed
from
the
Spirit
of
God
,
but
allanerly
from
a
mans
own
self
and
the
Devil
.
But
granting
all
this
to
be
most
true
,
yet
the
Knot
is
not
untied
.
For
how
shall
I
know
and
discern
an
Imposture
of
the
Devil
meeting
with
my
deceitful
heart
,
from
the
Dictate
of
the
Spirit
,
without
some
Rule
to
trie
it
by
?
Thou
wilt
answer
,
that
the
Dictates
of
the
Spirit
have
a
Self-evidence
in
themselves
to
assure
that
they
are
his
Dictates
,
and
hereby
they
shall
be
known
.
But
first
,
the
Spirit
does
not
now
adays
Inlighten
us
in
that
measure
as
to
make
us
immediately
Inspired
and
Infallible
,
seeing
George
Keith
himself
may
possibly
both
Speak
and
Write
(
and
so
think
too
)
in
a
mixture
,
for
all
his
Spirit
.
Secondly
,
all
men
have
not
the
Spirit
to
direct
them
Infallibly
,
though
he
did
do
it
to
them
that
have
him
,
by
an
immediate
Dictate
.
Thirdly
,
let
the
Dictate
within
have
a
Self-evidence
unto
him
to
whom
it
is
actually
presented
,
yet
the
Devil
,
a
cunning
Serpent
and
subtil
Sophister
,
and
a
great
pretended
Saint
too
when
he
transforms
himself
into
an
Angel
of
Light
,
can
present
an
Imposture
unto
another
man
that
wants
that
Dictate
,
or
to
him
that
had
it
at
another
time
,
but
now
,
he
at
the
time
present
actually
hath
not
that
Dictate
,
with
so
much
seeming
Evidence
as
,
with
the
concurrence
of
a
deceitful
heart
,
will
make
it
be
received
for
a
Divine
Truth
:
for
he
had
strong
Delusions
in
his
Treasury
(
2
Thes.
2.11
.
)
or
Efficacious
,
as
the
word
is
,
which
mainly
consists
in
their
seeming
Evidence
.
What
shall
we
do
now
,
if
we
want
a
Rule
to
discern
the
one
from
the
other
by
?
viz.
we
'l
fall
into
the
Devils
Catch-net
,
as
before
the
Scriptures
were
Written
they
were
but
very
few
that
escaped
his
Snare
,
whereas
with
the
spreading
of
the
Scriptures
into
the
World
,
the
Worship
of
the
true
God
,
and
Religion
grew
also
;
nor
is
the
true
God
at
this
day
Worshipped
where
the
Scriptures
are
wanting
.
SECT.
III.
Answering
the
Quakers
Objections
.
First
therefore
they
Object
from
Deut.
30.11
,
12
,
13
,
14.
Where
Moses
affirms
,
that
the
Commandment
which
he
Commanded
the
Israelites
was
not
hidden
from
them
,
or
far
off
,
but
was
nigh
them
in
their
Mouth
and
in
their
Heart
:
Therefore
the
Light
within
in
the
heart
is
the
Rule
.
See
this
Objection
in
the
Quakers
Confession
of
Faith
above-named
,
pag.
136.
Ans.
It
is
so
manifest
how
straitly
Moses
Ties
the
Israelites
to
the
external
written
Word
of
the
Scriptures
(
for
which
see
Deut.
17.18
,
19
,
20.
and
28.58
.
and
30.10
.
and
31.9
,
10
,
11.
12
,
13
,
26.
and
32.46
.
)
That
it
is
a
wonder
that
any
man
can
be
so
impudently
Effronted
,
as
to
urge
this
Text
against
Scripture-Rule
;
and
for
Establishing
the
Light
within
for
the
Rule
.
It
is
sure
by
the
Scriptures
Cited
,
and
by
the
Context
of
the
place
Objected
,
that
Moses
straitly
Ties
them
to
the
Scripture-Rule
;
and
so
he
cannot
mean
in
the
Text
objected
to
absolve
them
from
it
,
or
send
them
to
the
Light
within
as
the
Rule
.
Therefore
they
cannot
gain
their
point
here
.
Secondly
,
Moses
Means
(
as
Paul
expounds
him
,
Rom.
10.6
,
7
,
8
,
9.
compared
with
vers.
5.
)
of
the
easiness
of
the
conditions
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
in
regard
of
the
conditions
of
the
Covenant
of
Works
,
which
both
in
themselves
are
more
hard
and
difficult
,
and
also
want
that
Promise
and
Efficacy
of
the
Spirit
which
is
joyned
with
the
Covenant
of
Grace
to
make
it
effectual
.
In
which
Sence
it
can
make
nothing
at
all
for
the
Quakers
.
Thirdly
,
I
grant
that
this
Text
further
Imports
that
the
Doctrine
of
the
Scriptures
Written
by
Moses
was
,
in
regard
of
things
necessary
to
Salvation
,
in
some
where
or
other
so
perspicuous
and
plain
,
that
it
was
not
hidden
to
these
Israelites
,
to
whom
he
there
Speaks
,
but
that
they
in
some
measure
understood
it
,
viz.
some
of
them
with
an
External
,
Historical
,
and
Grammatical
Evidence
only
,
as
men
unrenewed
;
others
of
them
with
a
Spiritual
,
Internal
,
and
saving
Evidence
also
,
as
renewed
men
,
who
albeit
the
Object
be
the
same
,
yet
they
see
with
other
eyes
and
another
Evidence
then
the
other
.
But
is
there
any
thing
here
for
the
Government
of
the
Dictate
within
?
Nay
,
neither
less
nor
more
;
but
,
on
the
direct
contrary
,
(
comparing
9
,
10.
Verses
there
with
15
,
16
,
17
,
18.
)
he
ties
them
to
the
Scriptures
as
their
chief
Rule
under
the
pain
of
Death
and
Perishing
.
But
the
Quakers
are
so
exact
at
consequences
,
that
they
can
infer
from
any
Text
a
flat
and
direct
contradiction
to
it self
.
Their
Spirit
hates
Logick
.
Secondly
,
They
object
from
Jerem.
Chap.
31.
Vers.
31
,
32
,
33
,
34.
where
God
says
,
He
will
make
a
new
Covenant
with
the
House
of
Israel
and
Judah
,
not
according
to
the
Covenant
he
made
with
their
Fathers
when
he
brought
them
out
of
Egypt
,
which
Covenant
they
brake
:
but
this
is
the
Covenant
(
says
he
)
that
I
will
make
with
the
House
of
Israel
,
after
those
days
I
will
put
my
Law
in
their
inward
parts
,
and
write
it
in
their
hearts
,
and
they
shall
no
more
teach
every
Man
his
Neighbour
and
Brother
,
saying
,
Know
the
Lord
:
for
,
they
shall
all
know
me
,
saith
the
Lord
:
Therefore
,
(
say
the
Quakers
)
What
needs
Scripture-rule
under
the
New
Testament
,
seeing
the
Law
is
written
on
peoples
hearts
?
See
this
objection
in
their
foresaid
Confession
of
Faith
,
page
112.
Ans.
First
,
This
Text
will
not
serve
the
Quakers
turn
,
for
all
men
whatsoever
:
for
these
on
whose
hearts
the
Law
here
is
to
be
written
,
are
also
to
have
all
their
iniquities
forgiven
,
and
to
know
the
Lord
,
as
the
Text
says
:
But
these
things
come
not
to
pass
in
all
men
whatsoever
;
and
so
it
cannot
prove
that
the
Dictat
within
is
to
be
the
Rule
for
all
men
whatsoever
.
Secondly
,
The
Law
was
written
in
some
measure
upon
the
hearts
of
Gods
People
in
Old
Testament
times
,
and
yet
they
were
straitly
tied
to
the
external
Scipture-rule
,
as
was
even
now
shewed
;
and
so
the
writing
of
the
Law
upon
our
hearts
does
not
absolve
us
from
Scripture-rule
,
more
than
them
,
or
establish
the
Dictat
within
for
the
Rule
.
Thirdly
,
The
Law
is
never
perfectly
written
upon
our
hearts
in
this
Life
,
(
as
shall
be
proved
at
their
Query
concerning
Perfection
)
and
the
Scriptures
are
an
effectual
Instrument
,
whereby
God
doth
more
and
more
write
his
Law
upon
the
hearts
of
his
People
,
(
Psal.
119.93
.
98
,
99.
104.
Joh.
14.26
.
Joh.
20.31
.
Act.
17.11
,
12.
Rom.
10.14
.
Eph.
6.17
.
2
Tim.
3.16
.
)
Seeing
then
,
the
Word
of
God
written
in
the
Scriptures
is
an
Instrument
by
which
God
writes
his
Law
upon
our
hearts
,
enlightning
,
instructing
,
renewing
,
correcting
us
;
(
albeit
he
can
work
without
Instruments
,
if
so
he
pleases
)
it
is
evident
,
that
this
Text
of
Jeremiah
is
so
far
from
overthrowing
the
External
Rule
of
Scripture
,
that
on
the
contrary
,
it
includes
it
's
subordinate
influence
in
the
writing
of
the
Law
upon
the
hearts
of
People
,
as
a
thing
requisite
,
seeing
the
Instrument
of
any
work
is
requisite
to
the
work
till
it
be
finished
.
Therefore
Fourthly
,
We
say
,
that
the
Prophet
is
there
comparing
the
new
Dispensation
of
the
Covenant
under
the
Gospel
,
with
the
old
Dispensation
thereof
under
the
Law
,
and
he
promises
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
,
That
the
new
Dispensation
of
the
Covenant
shall
be
attended
with
a
greater
measure
of
the
Spirit
for
writing
the
Law
upon
Mens
hearts
,
than
was
bestowed
under
the
old
.
This
Commentary
agreeth
with
other
Scriptures
,
(
2
Cor.
3.6
,
7
,
8
,
9
,
10
,
11.
)
whereas
the
Quakers
Gloss
is
most
false
and
contrary
to
the
same
,
as
appears
from
what
is
above
said
in
the
Survey
of
this
Query
.
As
for
that
part
of
the
Text
,
They
shall
not
teach
every
Man
.
his
Neighbour
,
it
is
also
a
comparative
expression
,
holding
forth
,
that
the
Light
under
the
Gospel
Dispensation
shall
be
so
great
and
clear
,
and
so
far
exceed
that
under
the
Old
Testament
,
that
,
in
comparison
with
these
under
it
,
we
shall
scarce
seem
to
need
a
Teacher
,
which
is
most
true
in
the
event
.
See
the
like
expression
,
Hos.
6.6
.
I
will
have
Mercy
,
and
not
Sacrifice
;
that
is
,
(
as
needs
no
proof
)
he
required
Mercy
more
than
Sacrifice
;
for
he
required
Sacrifice
also
.
Secondly
,
This
part
of
the
Text
,
as
it
is
urged
by
the
Quakers
,
against
all
external
Teaching
by
the
Scripture
and
a
publick
Ministery
,
doth
much
rather
overthrow
all
Christian
mutual
Teaching
and
Neighbourly
Exhortation
,
than
Teaching
by
Scripture-Rule
,
or
a
Publick
Ministery
,
seeing
the
Teaching
whereof
it
speaks
is
,
of
Brother
with
Brother
,
and
Neighbour
with
Neighbour
.
And
seeing
the
Quakers
urge
this
Text
against
all
external
Teaching
under
the
New
Testament
,
(
as
I
in
experience
know
they
do
,
and
their
Principles
of
following
the
Dictat
within
leads
them
to
it
)
we
charge
them
in
their
own
Principles
,
and
as
they
would
not
go
over
the
belly
of
their
Light
,
to
give
over
teaching
of
their
Blasphemous
Errors
:
for
there
is
none
busier
to
teach
Truth
,
than
they
(
alas
!
)
are
to
broach
and
spread
these
.
Thirdly
,
They
object
from
Luk.
17.20
,
21.
where
Christ
being
asked
of
the
Pharisees
,
When
the
Kingdom
of
God
(
that
is
the
Messias
Kingdom
:
for
the
Question
is
plainly
concerning
that
)
should
come
,
He
answers
them
,
That
the
Kingdom
of
God
comes
not
with
observation
:
for
behold
(
says
He
)
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
within
you
.
See
this
objection
in
their
Confession
of
Faith
,
pages
124
,
133
,
134
,
135.
Ans.
As
to
the
first
part
of
the
Text
here
alledged
,
it
is
not
much
different
from
,
or
rather
it
is
a
consequent
of
that
which
Christ
saith
before
Pilate
,
(
Joh.
18.36
.
)
My
Kingdom
is
not
of
this
World
,
and
the
meaning
clearly
is
that
,
because
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
is
Spiritual
,
(
which
that
Text
of
John
asserts
)
therefore
it
comes
not
with
worldly
,
Pomp
,
and
Shew
,
and
is
not
conspicuous
for
worldly
Splendor
,
(
which
is
the
meaning
of
this
Text
of
Luke
)
so
as
Men
of
the
World
can
always
discern
it
,
as
other
Kingdoms
:
for
,
though
it
cannot
be
denied
that
Christ
had
a
Kingdom
even
at
that
time
amongst
the
Jews
;
yet
these
Pharisees
did
not
discern
it
.
But
if
the
Quakers
would
have
the
meaning
of
that
saying
to
be
,
that
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
hath
no
external
Laws
,
Rules
,
and
Ordinances
in
,
or
with
it
,
(
unto
which
scope
they
do
indeed
wrest
it
in
the
pages
of
their
Confession
last
cited
,
and
in
which
sence
alone
,
and
none
else
,
it
would
serve
the
Quakers
purpose
against
external
Ordinances
,
or
for
Establishing
their
inward
unwarrantable
Dictat
,
as
all
see
)
their
Commentary
shall
be
most
false
;
seeing
Christ
had
a
Kingdom
in
the
World
in
the
days
of
the
Old
Testament
,
and
a
much
larger
in
the
days
of
the
Apostles
under
the
New
,
and
yet
there
were
external
Laws
,
Rules
,
and
Ordinances
in
,
or
with
it
at
both
these
times
,
see
Deut.
30.10
.
and
31.9
,
10
,
11
,
12
,
24
,
26.
Nehem.
8.8
.
2
King
.
23.2
,
3.
Isai.
8.20
.
Matth.
28.19
,
20.
Luk.
16.29
.
and
22.19
.
Joh.
5.39.46
,
47.
and
20.31
.
Act.
8.35
.
and
17.11
.
and
18.28
.
and
28.23
.
Rom.
15.4
.
1
Tim.
4.13
.
2
Tim.
2.2
.
and
3.15
,
16.
and
4.2
.
These
Testimonies
,
and
a
thousand
more
that
might
be
instanced
,
do
irresistably
prove
against
all
Contradictors
,
that
there
were
External
Ordinances
of
Scripture
,
Sacraments
,
Preaching
,
&c.
in
,
or
with
the
Kingdom
of
Christ
,
not
only
under
the
Old
Testament
,
but
also
under
the
New
;
and
so
the
Quakers
Gloss
upon
this
Text
of
Luke
is
most
false
,
That
would
have
the
Dictat
within
to
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
,
because
the
Kingdom
of
God
comes
not
with
observation
,
that
is
,
as
they
infer
,
it
is
all
within
,
there
is
nothing
external
in
it
.
As
for
the
second
part
of
the
Text
alledged
,
(
Behold
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
within
you
)
it
may
be
as
well
,
yea
much
better
translated
,
Behold
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
in
the
midst
of
you
,
or
amongst
you
:
for
the
Original
word
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
will
read
any
of
the
ways
,
(
as
it
is
marked
on
the
Margin
of
our
Bibles
,
among
you
)
and
the
nature
and
condition
of
the
Party
to
whom
Christ
there
speaks
,
being
wicked
Enemies
of
Christ
and
his
Kingdom
,
cannot
so
well
admit
of
our
vulgar
translation
:
(
The
Kingdom
of
God
is
within
you
)
and
in
translating
it
the
other
way
,
it
will
be
as
much
,
if
not
more
unto
Christs
Scope
;
for
,
because
these
Pharisees
expected
that
the
Messiahs
Kingdom
should
come
with
worldly
Pomp
and
Grandure
,
(
of
which
conceipt
neither
were
Christs
own
Disciples
free
,
Matth.
20.21
.
)
Therefore
to
confute
that
fancy
,
He
tells
them
,
That
the
Kingdom
of
God
comes
not
in
that
manner
with
worldly
Pomp
and
Splendor
:
for
behold
,
(
says
He
)
the
Kingdom
of
God
is
even
now
amongst
you
,
though
ye
perceive
it
not
,
because
ye
look
for
a
Kingdom
with
worldly
Pomp
and
Grandure
.
Secondly
,
The
Kingdom
of
God
,
that
is
,
the
Messiahs
Kingdom
,
was
certainly
come
in
the
Apostles
days
after
the
powring
forth
of
the
Spirit
,
and
the
Gospel
spread
through
the
Gentile-world
,
(
as
the
Quakers
dare
not
,
I
think
,
deny
)
and
yet
it
was
accompanied
with
External
Laws
and
Ordinances
,
whereunto
the
Church
was
straitly
tied
,
(
as
I
have
many
times
before
proved
)
and
it
was
as
much
within
Gods
People
then
as
now
:
Therefore
this
Text
can
afford
them
no
ground
for
overturning
of
External
Laws
and
Ordinances
in
the
Church
,
and
Establishing
their
Dictate
within
for
the
Rule
.
Thirdly
,
Let
the
Kingdom
of
God
be
within
us
,
what
then
?
Will
that
necessarily
infer
the
exclusion
of
all
External
helps
and
means
for
the
inchoating
,
promoting
,
and
maintaining
thereof
in
us
?
Nay
,
by
no
means
;
For
how
many
things
are
there
inward
in
us
,
which
yet
are
inchoate
,
nourished
and
maintained
by
external
helps
and
means
,
as
the
habits
of
Grammar
,
Logick
,
Mathematicks
,
&c.
and
have
not
all
Tradesmen
their
External
Rules
,
for
all
their
inward
habit
of
the
Art
?
yea
,
our
very
Lives
(
that
are
inward
enough
,
I
think
)
are
upheld
and
nourished
by
the
help
of
things
External
.
Why
do
not
the
Quakers
nourish
their
Lives
,
that
are
Essentially
inward
,
with
some
inward
dish
of
meat
,
and
let
alone
External
meat
and
drink
?
These
things
dash
the
Argument
in
pieces
,
which
runs
with
a
pur-blind
consequence
from
an
infirm
Antecedent
.
Fourthly
,
They
object
,
That
Christ
promises
to
send
his
Spirit
to
guide
us
into
all
Truth
,
Joh.
16.13
.
Therefore
there
is
no
need
of
External
Rules
and
Ordinances
to
guide
us
;
yea
,
in
their
Confession
where
they
propound
this
Objection
,
they
contend
,
That
all
External
Ordinances
ought
to
be
rejected
,
because
of
this
promise
of
the
Spirit
.
See
their
Confession
,
pages
73
,
74
,
75
,
76
,
77
,
78
,
79
,
80
,
81
,
82.
Where
they
so
triumph
in
this
Argument
,
as
if
now
they
had
incontrollably
gained
the
day
,
and
for
ever
banished
all
External
Ordinances
out
of
the
Church
,
and
had
no
more
to
do
,
but
sing
,
Te
Deum
,
Victory
,
We
have
won
.
But
he
that
Reckons
without
his
Host
may
come
to
Reckon
twice
.
Therefore
I
answer
first
,
That
this
promise
is
only
made
to
Believers
,
(
Joh.
7.38
,
39.
and
14.17
.
)
and
so
it
will
not
serve
their
turn
for
absolving
all
Men
from
External
Rules
,
and
committing
them
to
the
conduct
of
their
Dictate
within
.
Secondly
,
Though
they
should
crack
and
rent
their
Brains
to
do
it
,
they
will
never
prove
from
hence
,
that
the
Spirit
is
to
guide
us
without
the
Word
and
External
Rule
of
Scripture
:
(
which
yet
is
the
very
thing
in
Controversie
,
and
which
they
must
either
prove
,
or
else
lose
the
Cause
,
for
all
their
boasting
)
for
Christ
does
not
promise
here
,
nor
any where
in
Scripture
,
That
the
Spirit
shall
guide
us
without
the
written
Word
;
and
so
from
this
Text
,
they
can
never
prove
their
point
.
Thirdly
,
I
proved
at
the
Survey
of
their
third
Query
above
,
and
in
my
Answer
to
their
second
Objection
here
,
That
the
written
Word
of
God
is
an
Organ
and
Instrument
whereby
the
Spirit
of
God
worketh
upon
our
hearts
,
enlightning
,
converting
,
renowing
,
and
quickening
us
thereby
;
and
so
the
Spirit
is
not
here
promised
to
guide
us
without
the
written
Word
,
but
with
it
.
Lastly
,
We
have
the
word
of
that
same
Spirit
for
it
,
and
that
since
he
was
poured
out
in
the
largest
measure
,
That
it
is
not
he
,
but
a
Spirit
of
Error
that
leads
men
when
they
hearken
not
to
the
Doctrine
of
the
Apostles
,
(
which
is
written
in
the
Scripture
)
1
Joh.
4.6
.
He
exhorts
us
to
take
heed
to
the
Scriptures
,
2
Pet.
1.19
,
20.
He
affirms
the
Scriptures
were
written
for
our
learning
,
and
that
we
might
have
hope
,
Rom.
15.4
.
He
affirms
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
profitable
for
Reproof
,
Doctrine
,
Correction
,
and
Instruction
in
Righteousness
,
2
Tim.
3.16
.
He
threatens
to
take
away
their
part
out
of
the
Book
of
Life
,
that
diminish
from
the
Scripture-rule
,
Rev.
22.19
.
He
pronounces
them
blessed
,
that
read
,
hear
,
and
keep
the
Doctrine
of
the
Scripture
,
Rev.
22.7
.
and
1.3
.
Whoever
then
rejects
the
Scripture-Rule
,
he
intends
not
to
learn
,
or
have
hope
,
or
profit
any
more
in
the
way
of
Righteousness
,
or
be
blessed
,
but
to
have
his
part
taken
out
of
the
Book
of
Life
.
Will
not
that
Man
be
a
good
Christian
,
and
a
happy
Saint
,
no
doubt
?
Christ
then
means
nothing
less
than
to
absolve
us
from
the
External
Rule
of
Scripture
in
this
Text
of
John
,
which
the
Quakers
here
wrest
to
that
purpose
,
Vaunting
themselves
of
an
Abortive
Victory
which
shall
never
see
the
Sun
,
like
so
many
windy
Bravadilloes
,
Et
preterea
nihil
.
Fifthly
,
They
object
from
the
first
Epistle
of
John
2.20
,
27.
where
Saint
John
says
,
But
ye
have
an
Unction
from
the
holy
One
,
and
ye
know
all
things
,
and
the
anointing
which
ye
have
received
abideth
in
you
,
and
ye
need
not
that
any
Man
Teach
you
:
Therefore
there
is
no
need
of
External
Rules
and
Teaching
,
seeing
there
is
an
Unction
within
that
teaches
all
things
.
Answ.
First
,
The
Apostle
does
not
say
,
That
all
men
whatsoever
have
that
Unction
to
teach
them
,
but
only
such
as
he
writes
to
,
viz.
Believers
,
and
so
this
Text
will
not
serve
their
turn
for
all
men
.
Secondly
,
He
does
not
say
,
That
that
anointing
teaches
without
the
External
written
Word
;
yea
,
in
this
same
Epistle
,
(
Ch.
4.6
.
Ch.
5.13
.
)
He
plainly
shews
the
contrary
,
where
he
affirms
,
That
those
that
are
of
God
hearken
to
(
and
so
are
taught
by
;
for
there
is
no
other
end
of
their
hearkening
,
but
to
be
taught
)
their
External
Doctrine
,
(
which
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
)
and
that
he
wrote
this
same
Epistle
,
of
purpose
,
to
be
an
Instrument
of
Faith
and
Knowledge
unto
them
.
And
would
they
then
force
an
Argument
from
this
Epistle
against
Scripture-Rule
?
nay
,
there
is
in
this
Epistle
evident
demonstrations
establishing
it
.
Thirdly
,
We
have
before
shewed
,
That
the
Spirit
teaches
us
by
the
External
written
Word
,
and
the
Quakers
with
all
their
wranglings
can
never
make
it
appear
,
that
he
teaches
us
without
it
;
For
,
all
the
Texts
which
they
produce
,
or
can
produce
,
prove
no
more
,
but
only
that
the
Spirit
teaches
us
,
which
we
never
denied
,
but
heartily
acknowledge
;
but
not
one
Text
in
all
the
Scriptures
can
prove
that
the
Spirit
teaches
us
without
the
External
Word
,
which
is
the
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
;
and
yet
the
Quakers
by
a
new
sort
of
Logick
invented
by
their
Alogical
Spirit
for
the
abuse
of
Mankind
,
do
from
every
Scripture-Text
where
it
is
said
,
That
the
Spirit
teaches
us
,
very
bruto-rationally
infer
:
Ergo
,
he
teaches
us
without
any
External
Mean
,
or
Rule
.
As
for
that
of
their
knowing
all
things
,
it
is
not
to
be
understood
of
all
things
whatsoever
,
without
exception
,
or
else
they
had
been
too
wise
,
and
their
knowledge
too
infinite
:
but
it
is
meant
of
all
things
Essential
to
Salvation
,
which
they
knew
in
some
measure
,
though
not
perfectly
,
(
1
Cor.
8.2
.
and
13.9.12
.
)
and
therefore
still
needed
Scripture-Rule
to
teach
them
more
knowledge
.
And
therefore
that
part
of
the
Text
,
That
they
needed
not
that
any
man
should
teach
them
,
is
the
same
with
that
of
Jeremiah
,
(
whereof
before
)
and
hath
the
same
comparative
meaning
,
That
the
knowledge
of
Christ
and
of
the
Covenant
was
now
so
manifest
and
clear
,
that
having
received
the
anointing
for
opening
the
eyes
of
their
understanding
,
viz.
Effectively
,
(
which
is
therefore
called
Eye-salve
,
Rev.
3.18
.
which
an
inward
objective
Dictate
cannot
well
be
called
)
that
they
might
be
able
to
behold
it
,
They
in
regard
of
,
and
compared
with
their
Fathers
living
under
the
Old
Testament
Dispensation
,
did
scarce
seem
to
need
a
Teacher
,
which
is
most
true
.
For
,
though
they
needed
still
Teaching
,
yet
in
comparison
of
them
,
they
might
all
rather
have
been
Teachers
of
others
;
and
so
the
Scope
of
the
place
is
to
commend
the
New-Testament
Dispensation
above
that
of
the
Old
,
and
to
decry
External
Ordinances
and
Rules
,
or
Teaching
by
Men
;
Yea
,
and
if
it
were
meant
so
,
then
the
Apostle
did
here
by
his
Practice
contradict
his
Doctrine
,
and
by
his
Doctrine
condemned
his
Practice
as
needless
and
idle
,
for
which
he
had
a
sad
Accompt
to
make
,
according
to
Christs
Doctrine
,
Matth.
12.36
.
and
if
the
Quakers
think
that
this
Text
overturneth
all
Teaching
by
Men
,
we
again
Charge
them
in
their
own
Principles
,
and
by
the
Law
they
live
on
,
to
give
over
their
Teaching
,
and
spreading
of
their
damnable
Delusions
by
Word
or
Writ
:
for
,
I
am
sure
,
the
Quakers
are
but
Men
at
the
most
,
and
I
think
,
scarce
that
,
by
the
forfeiture
they
have
made
of
their
Reason
.
Sixthly
,
They
object
from
Jam.
1.21
.
where
the
Apostle
Exhorts
us
,
That
laying
aside
all
filthiness
and
superfluity
of
naughtiness
,
we
would
receive
with
meekness
the
Ingrafted
Word
,
which
is
able
to
save
our
Souls
:
Therefore
,
(
say
they
)
the
Word
which
we
are
to
receive
is
an
Ingrafted
Word
within
us
.
Ans.
First
,
The
Original
word
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
may
be
as
well
rendred
,
Apt
to
be
Ingrafted
,
and
then
where
is
the
Argument
,
I
pray
?
Secondly
,
The
context
will
not
allow
the
Quakers
Gloss
:
for
it
's
a
Word
that
we
are
to
receive
,
and
hear
,
and
which
is
able
to
save
our
Souls
,
(
a
Character
not
given
to
the
Light
or
Dictate
within
,
any
whereof
Scripture
,
but
to
the
Scripture
it
is
expresly
given
,
2
Tim.
3.15
.
)
and
we
cannot
in
proper
speech
be
said
to
receive
or
hear
a
Dictate
within
,
which
we
have
already
,
and
is
not
audible
properly
:
Therefore
they
cannot
gain
their
point
here
,
without
diverting
the
words
from
a
proper
to
an
improper
sence
,
for
which
they
must
shew
some
necessity
of
the
Analogy
of
Faith
;
or
else
it
cannot
be
granted
then
.
Thirdly
,
The
Apostle
does
not
here
Exhort
us
to
commit
our selves
to
the
conduct
of
the
Light
and
Dictate
within
,
as
our
Rule
;
but
he
exhorts
us
to
receive
the
Word
of
God
the
length
of
Ingrafting
,
(
that
is
,
so
as
it
may
take
root
,
and
so
grow
and
become
fruitful
in
us
)
and
that
we
let
it
not
pass
out
at
one
ear
as
it
comes
in
at
the
other
,
being
forgetful
and
negligent
hearers
;
and
so
the
meaning
clearly
is
,
Receive
the
word
,
not
forgetfully
and
negligently
,
but
receive
it
Ingrafted
and
rooting-wise
.
Any
Man
by
reading
the
context
downward
may
see
,
that
James
there
opposes
receiving
of
the
Ingrafted
Word
,
or
Word
Ingrafted
,
to
the
receiving
of
the
Word
forgetfully
,
superficially
and
carelesly
;
and
not
to
the
receiving
of
an
External
Word
,
as
the
Quakers
here
expound
,
taking
the
grounds
of
their
Gloss
out
of
their
own
Brain-sick
heads
alone
,
being
no
ways
grounded
on
the
Context
,
or
agreeable
to
any
other
place
of
the
Scripture
;
whereas
our
Exposition
is
clearly
founded
on
the
Context
,
and
evidently
arises
therefrom
,
and
hath
also
the
warrant
of
other
Scriptures
.
Nothing
here
then
for
the
Quakers
.
Seventhly
,
They
object
wonderfully
(
but
it
's
a
lying
wonder
like
the
rest
)
from
Heb.
6.1.2
.
where
the
Apostle
Exhorts
these
Hebrews
,
That
leaving
the
Principles
of
the
Doctrine
of
Christ
,
they
would
go
on
towards
perfection
,
not
laying
again
the
foundation
of
Repentance
from
dead
works
,
and
of
Faith
towards
God
,
of
the
Doctrine
of
Baptisms
,
and
laying
on
of
hands
,
of
the
Resurrection
of
the
Dead
,
and
of
Eternal
Judgment
.
See
the
Quakers
Confession
,
page
63
,
68
,
77
,
80.
where
they
urge
this
Text
against
the
Law
,
(
so
they
call
the
whole
Scriptures
)
and
against
the
Priests
,
(
so
they
call
the
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
,
as
all
know
)
and
against
Baptism
with
Water
,
and
the
Lords
Supper
.
Answ.
But
so
abusing
and
wresting
the
Text
for
banishing
of
External
Ordinances
out
of
the
Church
,
they
with
the
same
breath
infer
,
That
there
ought
,
or
needs
not
be
any
of
the
Principles
of
the
Doctrine
of
Christ
in
the
Church
;
for
,
the
Apostle
Exhorts
to
leave
these
also
,
and
that
in
the
first
branch
of
the
Exhortation
;
And
did
Paul
(
in
earnest
)
Exhort
them
to
reject
these
?
Did
he
Exhort
them
to
reject
the
Foundation
of
Repentance
and
of
Faith
towards
God
,
which
here
he
calls
these
Principles
?
The
Building
will
surely
go
to
Ruine
then
,
when
the
Foundation
is
gone
.
Is
not
that
a
brave
Doctrine
come
from
an
immediate
Dictate
?
Any
Man
,
though
half
blind
,
may
see
,
that
the
Apostle
means
,
that
they
should
not
stick
always
at
the
learning
of
the
first
common
Catechetical
,
or
Rudimental
Principles
of
Religion
,
(
which
he
taxes
them
for
ignorance
of
,
in
the
close
of
the
former
Chapter
)
but
that
,
having
laid
the
Foundation
of
these
,
(
not
thrown
them
away
,
as
the
Quakers
here
expound
)
they
should
aspire
and
indeavour
after
a
further
Proficience
and
Growth
in
the
Knowledge
of
Christ
and
Gospel
Mysteries
.
Eightly
,
The
Quakers
object
in
this
Query
,
That
in
the
Primitive
World
,
Enoch
,
Noah
,
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
,
&c.
had
not
any
written
Word
to
be
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
;
and
therefore
,
(
they
mean
to
infer
,
and
George
Keith
explains
it
fully
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
109.
111.
)
neither
now
is
the
written
Word
our
Rule
.
Answ.
A
brave
consequence
forsooth
;
as
if
I
should
say
,
Christ
was
not
come
in
the
Flesh
in
the
Primitive
World
:
Ergo
,
neither
as
yet
is
he
come
.
Or
,
in
the
Primitive
World
there
were
no
Scriptures
written
:
Ergo
,
neither
afterwards
.
I
was
not
born
in
the
Primitive
World
,
am
not
I
born
as
yet
then
?
I
can
hardly
believe
so
:
for
,
Non-entities
cannot
act
and
write
,
as
I
am
doing
just
now
.
The
External
manner
of
Dispensation
used
with
those
of
the
Primitive
World
,
can
do
nothing
to
the
Quakers
now
,
(
who
live
not
in
the
Primitive
World
,
except
perhaps
by
conceipt
and
fancy
)
but
in
the
last
times
,
after
the
word
of
God
is
committed
to
writing
,
and
we
commanded
to
observe
that
as
our
Rule
.
George
Keith
,
a
Man
more
cunning
than
his
Neighbours
,
albeit
he
acknowledges
the
Scriptures
for
a
compleat
External
Rule
,
yet
,
he
contends
with
all
his
might
,
That
the
Dictate
within
is
the
Principal
Rule
,
and
the
Scriptures
but
a
Secondary
Rule
,
he
will
allow
the
second
Room
,
or
the
Footstool
to
the
Scriptures
;
but
the
Throne
in
the
Palace
,
and
chief
Seat
in
the
Quakers
Synagoue
must
be
reserved
for
their
great
Diana
,
the
Dictate
within
.
Therefore
,
though
this
great
Dagon
hath
broke
his
neck
already
before
the
Ark
,
yet
to
defend
his
Honour
lying
in
the
Dust
,
He
objects
Ninthly
,
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
.
9.
13.
)
That
the
Testimony
of
the
Spirit
within
is
greater
than
the
External
Testimony
of
the
Scripture
;
and
therefore
the
Dictate
within
must
be
the
Principal
Rule
,
not
the
Scriptures
.
But
first
I
Answ.
That
George
Keith
drives
the
Plough
before
the
Oxen
:
for
,
he
must
first
prove
,
(
or
else
nothing
to
his
point
)
that
every
Man
is
furnisht
with
an
immediate
Dictate
of
the
Spirit
within
him
(
which
we
deny
any
Man
to
have
,
and
he
shall
never
prove
)
to
reveal
to
him
Infallibly
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
,
and
then
,
and
not
till
then
,
it
may
be
to
the
purpose
,
to
prove
,
it
's
Mens
principal
Rule
,
by
its
Greatness
:
for
be
it
great
or
small
,
it
can
be
no
Rule
to
them
who
have
it
not
,
more
than
the
Sun
can
enlighten
me
,
when
he
Shines
not
in
my
Hemisphere
;
and
so
the
Argument
is
a
meer
impertinence
:
For
,
An
sit
,
is
before
Quid
sit
.
Let
him
prove
then
,
(
and
he
shall
be
great
Apollo
)
that
every
man
hath
such
an
immediate
Dictate
within
him
,
and
then
he
comes
time
enough
to
prove
that
it
,
and
not
the
Scriptures
,
is
his
greater
and
more
principal
Rule
.
Secondly
,
let
the
Testimony
of
the
Light
within
be
greater
,
or
not
,
the
Scriptures
(
we
see
)
are
Divinely
appointed
to
be
the
Rule
and
principal
Rule
,
and
nothing
can
Infer
against
that
,
that
the
utmost
of
racked
Invention
is
able
to
devise
.
Nor
did
,
or
does
God
always
make
use
of
the
greater
Witnesses
for
Testifying
his
Will
to
us
;
or
else
he
had
still
imployed
Angels
,
and
not
men
to
Teach
us
,
and
Christ
had
continued
to
this
day
,
and
the
worlds
end
in
his
Ministery
upon
the
Earth
,
instead
of
giving
us
men
of
like
Passions
to
Teach
us
.
It
is
plentiful
security
unto
us
,
that
we
have
a
Rule
of
Faith
and
Duty
altogether
Infallible
,
and
an
Evidence
Written
,
Sealed
,
and
Sworn
to
(
Heb.
6.17
,
18.
)
delivered
into
our
hand
for
our
more
chearful
assurance
,
to
be
perused
by
us
upon
all
occasions
for
resolving
our
doubts
,
directing
our
Duty
,
and
confirming
our
Faith
.
George
Keith
uses
a
number
of
more
Arguments
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pages
108
,
109
,
110
,
111.
)
indeavouring
to
prove
the
Dictate
within
(
and
sometimes
the
Spirit
himself
,
and
sometimes
Christ
himself
,
as
his
Arguments
run
)
to
be
a
better
Rule
than
the
Scriptures
.
But
in
general
they
are
all
Guilty
of
the
same
very
Impertinence
that
his
Argument
now
Discussed
was
liable
to
;
and
therefore
the
very
same
Answers
that
are
given
to
this
Argument
destroy
them
every
one
,
so
that
we
need
not
Arraign
them
particularly
.
But
George
Keith
brings
one
Argument
to
prove
that
God
Teaches
us
by
an
immediate
Dictate
within
,
viz.
because
its
absurd
to
say
,
that
God
Speaks
no
more
Intelligibly
and
perceptibly
in
an
immediate
way
to
the
Souls
of
his
people
,
than
to
the
Earth
to
bring
forth
Grass
,
or
to
the
Fish
to
Vomit
out
Jonah
.
Ans.
That
he
speaks
more
Intelligibly
or
perceptibly
to
his
people
,
than
to
such
unreasonably
Creatures
as
these
,
is
granted
;
But
that
he
does
it
in
an
immediate
way
to
us
,
I
deny
it
,
let
George
prove
it
.
He
does
indeed
immediately
inlighten
us
with
a
Divine
Beam
of
Light
in
our
understandings
.
Effectively
opening
our
Eyes
(
yea
he
always
works
with
his
Word
,
made
by
himself
effectual
,
as
the
immediate
principal
efficient
of
its
gracious
effects
in
us
)
that
we
may
understand
what
is
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
and
know
assuredly
that
it
is
he
that
speaks
to
us
therein
;
and
so
speaks
to
us
much
more
Intelligibly
,
than
to
unreasonable
Creatures
,
whom
he
never
dealt
so
with
.
But
that
it
is
absurd
if
he
do
it
,
not
by
an
Objective
immediate
inward
Dictate
,
I
utterly
deny
,
let
him
prove
it
,
if
he
can
.
But
does
not
George
Keith
think
it
absurd
to
say
,
that
a
man
is
Taught
by
an
unerring
immediate
Dictate
within
,
who
cannot
,
upon
his
Life
,
tell
how
many
Gods
there
are
,
or
who
is
the
Redeemer
?
And
so
much
for
the
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
shall
suffice
.
Fifth
QUERY
.
Whether
is
there
any
Scripture
or
Command
in
all
the
New
Testament
for
the
Sprinkling
of
Infants
?
Let
us
see
Scripture
,
without
Adding
or
Diminishing
for
it
,
that
ye
do
not
bring
the
Plagues
upon
you
for
it
;
for
the
Plagues
are
Added
to
them
that
Add
:
for
we
do
expect
plain
Scripture
from
you
for
this
,
without
any
Shuffling
Meanings
,
or
Consequences
;
or
else
never
pretend
Scripture
Rule
more
,
but
acknowledge
that
it
hath
been
your
Meanings
,
and
Consequences
that
hath
been
your
Rule
.
SVRVEY
.
This
Query
very
well
Homologates
with
their
Confession
of
Faith
often
forementioned
(
pag.
25
,
77
,
79
,
96
,
126.
)
where
they
deny
,
not
only
Infant-Baptism
,
but
moreover
all
Baptism
with
Water
to
be
any
Divine
Ordinance
belonging
to
the
New
Testament
.
But
they
here
impose
upon
us
two
Conditions
or
Laws
of
our
Disputation
(
being
the
absurd
fruit
of
their
foolish
Dictate
within
)
which
,
before
we
handle
the
main
Subject
of
the
Query
(
which
is
Baptism
)
it
will
not
be
amiss
to
Discuss
.
These
two
Conditions
are
,
That
we
neither
interpret
Scripture
,
nor
draw
Consequences
there-from
for
Establishing
of
our
Doctrine
,
or
Thesis
,
or
else
that
we
never
pretend
Scripture
Rule
more
.
This
Certification
is
so
Important
and
Peremptory
,
that
it
will
not
be
unworthy
of
the
while
to
enquire
into
their
Demands
whereunto
it
is
annexed
.
Therefore
we
must
divide
our
Survey
of
this
Query
into
four
parts
.
The
first
shall
be
concerning
Scripture-Interpretation
;
The
second
concerning
Scripture-consequence
,
or
Consequential
Scripture
;
The
third
concerning
Baptism
with
Water
;
and
the
fourth
concerning
Infant-Baptism
.
SECT.
I.
Concerning
Scripture-Interpretation
.
While
the
Quakers
here
oppose
Scripture-Interpretation
they
are
indeed
very
like
themselves
,
and
Speak
in
their
own
Language
:
for
what
external
Ordinance
can
a
Quaker
(
taking
his
Dictate
within
for
his
Rule
)
like
to
hear
of
?
Therefore
when
they
cannot
get
the
Scriptures
overthrown
from
being
our
Rule
,
their
next
indeavour
is
,
that
,
at
least
,
they
may
render
useless
and
unedifying
to
the
Bulk
and
Body
of
the
people
,
asmuch
of
them
as
they
can
,
even
all
the
Texts
thereof
(
and
these
are
not
a
few
)
which
,
without
the
help
and
labours
of
a
Gifted
Interpreter
,
they
cannot
understand
;
and
all
the
Doctrine
thereof
which
is
not
explicitly
and
formerly
Enunciat
therein
,
though
yet
it
be
materially
,
really
,
and
truly
therein
contained
,
and
by
sound
Consequence
Infallibly
follows
there-from
.
One
thing
I
shall
here
promise
to
the
Quakers
(
and
more
no
man
can
demand
)
and
that
is
,
that
whatever
Scripture
I
shall
bring
for
proving
of
our
Doctrine
,
the
meaning
thereof
,
which
I
shall
alledge
,
shall
either
be
undeniably
(
even
to
a
Quaker
)
clear
of
it self
;
or
else
I
shall
evidently
and
irresistibly
prove
and
make
good
the
same
,
and
manifestly
overthrow
the
forged
meaning
of
the
Quakers
thereupon
;
and
,
I
think
that
is
very
fair
.
But
that
we
may
come
to
the
Questions
to
be
here
handled
.
I
must
premise
first
,
that
the
Scriptures
ought
not
to
be
Expounded
according
to
any
mans
fore-conceived
private
Judgment
and
Opinion
(
that
is
,
〈…〉
2
P●●
.
1.20
.
)
But
they
are
to
be
Expounded
according
to
the
Analogy
of
Faith
in
general
,
and
by
Comparison
with
other
Scriptures
that
Speak
more
clearly
to
the
matter
,
or
by
the
Scope
,
Connexion
,
and
Dependence
of
the
purpose
in
the
place
it self
,
compared
with
its
Antecedents
and
Consequents
.
Thus
the
Apostle
Paul
says
,
Let
us
Prophesie
according
to
the
proportion
(
in
the
Original
Analogy
)
of
Faith
(
Rom.
12.6
.
)
and
(
I
think
)
it
is
proved
before
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
of
all
Doctrines
of
Faith
and
Manners
.
Secondly
,
I
must
premise
,
that
the
Scriptures
are
in
several
places
so
plain
and
easie
,
especially
in
respect
of
things
Essential
,
and
simply
necessary
to
Salvation
,
that
men
of
very
common
Capacities
,
may
even
without
an
Interpreter
,
attain
in
some
measure
to
understand
them
,
as
is
clear
both
in
the
Scripture
(
Deut.
30.11
.
Psal.
19.7
.
and
119.130
.
)
and
also
from
Experience
.
For
thus
we
see
that
the
attentive
Reading
,
or
Hearing
of
the
Scriptures
(
though
without
Commentaries
)
does
beget
some
measure
of
Knowledge
,
especially
of
the
most
Important
and
Essential
Truths
(
which
are
therein
with
most
frequency
and
plainness
delivered
)
in
men
of
very
ordinary
and
common
Capacities
;
yea
,
and
otherwise
,
we
could
expect
no
more
knowledge
of
these
Truths
,
amongst
men
of
such
Capacity
,
though
they
should
never
so
much
Peruse
the
Scriptures
,
than
amongst
Americans
that
never
heard
of
them
;
and
in
vain
should
such
men
be
appointed
to
take
heed
to
the
Scriptures
(
Isai.
8.20
.
Luk.
16.29
.
Joh.
5.39
.
2
Pet.
1.19
.
)
if
the
Scriptures
were
every
where
so
difficult
and
obscure
,
that
they
could
no
ways
understand
them
.
Thirdly
,
I
must
premise
,
that
for
Gods
Holy
and
Wise
ends
(
for
a
view
whereof
see
Mr.
Durhams
excellent
Key
presixed
to
his
Exposition
of
the
Song
of
Solomon
,
pages
32
,
33
,
34.
)
the
Style
of
the
Scriptures
are
in
many
other
places
so
difficult
and
dark
(
I
mean
in
respect
of
our
understanding
)
that
until
they
be
Interpreted
by
men
called
of
God
(
though
mediately
)
and
furnisht
with
Gifts
for
that
end
,
their
particular
meaning
cannot
be
reached
by
men
of
no
mean
understanding
;
yea
even
those
of
the
greatest
gift
do
not
,
without
much
diligence
joyned
with
great
capacity
,
nor
yet
fully
as
to
all
particulars
understand
them
,
as
is
evident
by
the
Song
of
Solomon
,
and
the
many
Mystical
Prophecies
contained
in
the
Books
of
Ezekiel
,
Daniel
,
Zechariah
,
Revelation
,
&c.
And
yet
these
same
obscure
places
,
if
they
be
skilfully
Interpreted
according
to
the
Analogy
of
Faith
in
general
,
and
by
comparison
with
other
parallel
places
of
Scripture
more
perspicuous
and
plain
,
or
by
the
scope
,
connexion
,
dependance
,
and
circumstances
of
the
place
it self
,
will
,
without
difficulty
be
understood
,
and
the
sence
delivered
from
the
foresaid
grounds
,
understood
to
be
the
true
meaning
of
the
Text
,
by
Men
of
very
ordinary
Judgment
;
for
many
can
discern
the
truth
of
an
Exposition
,
when
the
clear
grounds
thereof
are
represented
distinctly
before
their
eyes
,
who
cannot
by
themselves
search
out
the
methods
to
find
these
grounds
,
and
apply
them
thereunto
,
as
is
both
clear
in
all
experience
,
and
also
the
one
work
(
in
reason
)
is
much
easier
than
the
other
.
Yea
the
Doctrine
and
grounds
of
a
Scripture-Text
not
a
little
perspicuous
,
being
skilfully
compared
(
which
a
well
gifted
Interpreter
,
and
whose
daily
work
it
is
,
is
much
more
able
to
do
,
than
Men
of
ordinary
reach
,
common
Endowments
,
and
other
Imploys
)
with
the
Doctrine
and
grounds
delivered
in
other
parallel
places
of
Scripture
in
any
measure
clear
,
though
none
of
the
clearest
,
they
do
by
their
consociated
beams
and
united
rays
more
powerfully
shine
and
more
copiously
send
forth
their
light
,
than
any
one
of
them
apart
could
ever
have
done
,
even
as
a
number
of
bright
shining
Stars
being
placed
into
one
Constellation
,
do
more
powerfully
shine
,
than
any
one
of
them
apart
could
have
done
.
Lastly
,
I
shall
add
,
that
the
whole
Scriptures
were
written
for
our
Learning
,
and
are
useful
for
Edification
,
as
appears
from
Rom.
15.4
.
2
Tim.
3.16
.
These
things
premised
;
I
Assert
against
the
Quakers
,
(
who
both
here
,
and
many
a
time
to
my
face
have
denied
it
)
That
Scripture-Interpretation
is
necessary
in
the
Church
for
Peoples
understanding
,
or
better
understanding
of
the
Scriptures
,
and
Edification
,
or
further
Edification
by
them
,
and
I
prove
it
because
,
If
there
be
many
Scriptures
profitable
for
Edification
,
and
written
for
the
Churches
Learning
,
which
,
at
least
,
a
great
part
,
yea
,
the
far
most
part
of
the
Church
cannot
without
Interpretation
particularly
understand
,
or
so
fully
understand
,
and
so
be
edified
,
or
so
far
edified
by
them
;
and
with
the
help
of
Interpretation
may
in
some
measure
,
particularly
understand
,
or
more
fully
understand
,
and
so
receive
edification
,
or
a
further
edification
by
them
;
then
Scripture
Interpretation
is
needful
in
the
Church
,
that
such
People
may
understand
,
or
further
understand
these
Scriptures
,
and
so
be
edified
,
or
further
edified
by
them
,
as
is
most
evident
:
But
the
former
is
true
,
by
our
premised
Discourse
preceeding
:
therefore
the
latter
also
must
be
true
.
Secondly
,
The
Levites
Expounded
the
Scriptures
to
the
People
,
(
Nehem.
8.7
,
8.
)
Philip
Expounded
them
to
the
Eunuch
,
(
Act.
8.30
,
31
,
34
,
35.
)
Christ
Expounded
his
Parables
(
which
are
now
a
part
of
the
Scriptures
)
to
his
Disciples
,
(
Mark
.
4.34
.
)
He
Expounded
the
Scriptures
to
the
two
Disciples
,
(
Luk.
24.27
.
)
and
albeit
this
was
Christ
Expounding
them
,
(
as
the
Quakers
impertinently
use
to
reply
unto
our
Argument
)
yet
his
expounding
of
them
shews
,
that
Scripture-Interpretation
is
useful
and
necessary
in
the
Church
,
otherwise
his
Expounding
had
been
a
needless
and
idle
work
,
which
is
a
piece
of
Blasphemy
;
(
Matth.
12.36
.
)
Therefore
Scripture-Interpretation
is
needful
in
the
Church
;
otherwise
the
Expounding
thereof
by
the
foresaid
Persons
had
been
a
meer
needless
and
idle
work
;
and
the
need
thereof
is
yet
further
evident
,
seeing
it
is
plainly
shewed
,
(
Neh.
8.8
.
)
that
Exposition
is
a
mean
for
peoples
understanding
the
Scriptures
.
Nor
did
Christs
own
Disciples
frequently
understand
his
Parables
,
until
he
Expounded
them
,
(
Matth.
13.36
.
Luk.
8.9
.
)
nor
did
the
Eunuch
understand
what
he
read
(
Act.
8.30
,
31.
)
until
it
was
Expounded
to
him
.
Thirdly
,
Peter
affirms
,
(
2
Pet.
3.16
.
)
That
there
are
some
things
in
Pauls
Epistles
(
which
are
Scripture
)
hard
to
be
understood
,
which
the
unlearned
and
unstable
wrest
,
together
with
several
other
Scriptures
,
to
their
own
destruction
:
Therefore
there
is
need
of
Scripture-Interpretation
in
the
Church
,
seeing
Scriptures
hard
to
be
understood
do
need
explaining
,
that
they
may
be
understood
,
and
People
instructed
and
edified
by
them
,
for
which
purpose
they
were
written
;
and
it
's
needful
to
prevent
(
as
much
as
can
be
)
the
mistaking
and
wresting
of
them
,
and
Peoples
falling
into
Soul-destroying
Errors
thereby
:
though
all
this
happens
through
Mens
ignorance
and
wavering
humor
,
(
as
the
Text
says
)
and
is
not
the
Scriptures
fault
.
Nor
can
it
be
answered
,
(
as
some
do
)
That
by
some
things
here
Peter
does
not
mean
some
of
the
Doctrine
taught
by
Paul
,
but
some
of
the
Extrinsecal
Objects
represented
thereby
,
seeing
the
things
hard
to
be
understood
here
mentioned
,
are
such
as
are
liable
to
wresting
,
which
therefore
must
be
understood
of
the
Doctrine
it self
,
seeing
that
may
be
wrested
,
but
the
Extrinsecal
Objects
cannot
:
for
wresting
is
a
changing
of
the
Sence
,
which
belongs
to
Discourse
and
Sayings
.
Again
,
where
Peter
says
,
That
the
unlearned
wrest
these
things
hard
to
be
understood
,
as
also
they
do
the
other
Scriptures
,
he
plainly
intimates
,
that
these
things
hard
to
be
understood
,
are
themselves
Scriptures
too
;
otherwise
the
Sence
runs
very
ill
,
(
I
think
)
viz.
the
unlearned
wrest
some
of
the
External
Objects
of
Pauls
Doctrine
,
as
also
they
do
the
other
Scriptures
.
Fourthly
,
I
must
enquire
of
the
Quakers
,
if
(
in
their
Principles
)
Men
of
mean
capacities
understand
the
Scriptures
every
where
;
as
for
example
,
all
that
is
written
in
the
Canticles
,
Ezechiel
,
Daniel
,
Zechariah
,
Revelation
,
&c.
which
yet
was
written
and
is
useful
for
our
Learning
and
Instruction
:
if
they
say
,
Yea
,
I
shall
need
no
more
to
bring
their
Principles
in
discredit
with
all
Men
,
seeing
the
whole
Christian
World
knoweth
the
contrary
;
If
they
say
,
Nay
;
then
there
is
need
of
Scripture-Interpretation
in
the
Church
for
explaining
such
Scriptures
by
the
foresaid
means
,
that
People
may
understand
them
,
and
be
edified
by
them
,
which
is
that
we
plead
for
.
Lastly
,
It
is
too
clear
in
experiencce
,
that
Men
of
corrupt
minds
,
through
addictedness
to
their
own
fore-conceived
private
Opinions
,
or
through
ignorance
,
(
which
by
docility
and
diligence
might
have
been
prevented
or
removed
)
or
through
malice
against
the
Truth
,
or
for
advancing
some
Carnal
design
,
&c.
do
frequently
by
false
Glosses
and
wrested
Sences
,
(
and
none
busier
than
Quakers
)
by
violence
indeavouring
to
make
them
speak
the
language
of
their
Interest
,
abuse
and
cast
a
mist
upon
very
clear
Scriptures
,
in
order
to
Peoples
understanding
,
especially
of
meaner
capacities
:
Therefore
it
is
in
this
case
necessary
by
the
Context
,
the
Analogy
of
Faith
,
and
comparison
with
other
Scriptures
,
&c.
That
these
Scriptures
be
vindicated
from
such
false
Glosses
,
and
their
Genuine
and
true
Sence
demonstated
and
cleared
.
The
Antecedent
needs
no
more
proving
;
for
(
alas
!
)
it
is
too
manifest
in
experience
,
that
every
Erronious
Teacher
violently
wrests
and
perverts
the
Sence
of
the
Scriptures
,
as
much
as
he
can
,
in
favour
of
his
Heretical
Doctrine
,
and
thereby
leads
many
into
damnable
Delusions
.
The
Consequence
is
also
manifest
,
seeing
when
the
Scriptures
are
abused
and
wrested
,
it
is
necessary
for
the
preservation
of
their
true
meaning
,
and
so
of
the
truth
in
the
Church
,
and
for
preventing
of
black
Soul-damning
Errors
,
and
the
manifest
ruine
of
poor
Souls
,
(
to
say
nothing
of
the
Glory
of
God
,
which
all
Men
are
bound
to
defend
according
to
their
place
and
means
)
that
they
be
vindicated
,
and
their
true
sence
and
meaning
demonstrated
and
cleared
;
and
this
work
is
especially
called
for
from
such
as
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
who
must
be
able
to
convince
the
Gain-sayers
of
the
Truth
,
and
stop
their
Mouths
,
Tit.
1.9
,
11.
Secondly
,
I
Assert
,
(
against
the
Quakers
,
who
(
we
see
from
their
Query
)
deny
it
)
That
the
true
Genuine
,
and
sound
Interpretation
of
the
Scriptures
is
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
appointment
,
reaching
even
to
the
end
of
the
World
.
I
prove
it
,
First
,
To
teach
People
the
Mind
and
Will
of
God
from
the
Scriptures
,
is
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
,
reaching
to
the
end
of
the
World
:
But
to
Interpret
the
Scriptures
truly
,
is
to
teach
People
the
Mind
and
Will
of
God
from
the
Scriptures
:
Therefore
to
Interpret
the
Scriptures
truly
,
is
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
,
reaching
to
the
end
of
the
World
.
I
easily
prove
the
Major
,
because
that
God
hath
appointed
Teachers
and
teaching
in
his
Church
,
and
that
unto
the
end
of
the
World
,
till
that
day
when
all
the
Saints
shall
come
to
a
state
of
compleat
Perfection
,
is
clear
from
Matth.
28.19
,
20.
Ephes.
4.11
,
12
,
13.
and
that
it
is
the
Mind
and
Will
of
God
they
are
appointed
to
teach
,
(
I
am
sure
)
no
man
can
deny
;
and
that
it
is
from
the
Scriptures
they
ought
to
teach
Gods
Mind
and
Will
is
most
evident
,
seeing
these
are
the
Rule
of
our
Faith
and
Manners
,
and
the
Word
of
God
,
(
as
is
proved
before
)
wherein
Gods
Mind
and
Will
concerning
our
Faith
and
Manners
is
revealed
.
And
the
immediate
Inspiring
of
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
is
long
since
ceased
in
the
Church
,
as
all
the
other
extraordinary
Gifts
,
and
George
Keith
himself
may
both
speak
and
write
in
a
mixture
.
The
Minor
of
the
Argument
is
also
manifest
,
seeing
to
bring
forth
,
shew
,
clear
,
and
demonstrate
the
Genuine
and
true
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
,
or
of
the
Spirit
speaking
therein
,
is
to
teach
the
Mind
and
Will
of
God
from
the
Scriptures
;
or
else
we
are
not
〈…〉
the
wiser
concerning
the
Mind
and
Will
of
God
in
the
Scriptures
,
by
knowing
the
true
meaning
thereof
,
which
is
●
flat
contradiction
:
But
to
Interpret
the
Scriptures
truly
,
is
to
bring
forth
,
shew
,
clear
,
and
demonstrate
the
Genuine
and
true
meaning
thereof
,
or
of
the
Spirit
speaking
therein
;
or
else
a
true
Interpretation
does
not
make
known
the
true
meaning
,
which
again
is
a
contradiction
:
Therefore
to
Interpret
the
Scripture
truly
,
is
to
teach
the
Mind
and
Will
of
God
from
the
Scriptures
.
Secondly
,
The
Levites
Expounded
the
Scriptures
to
the
People
,
(
Nehem.
8.7
,
8.
)
and
their
doing
thereof
is
Recorded
there
as
highly
commendable
:
Therefore
Scripture-Interpreting
had
certainly
a
Divine
Institution
at
that
time
.
The
Antecedent
is
clear
in
the
place
cited
:
I
prove
the
Consequence
,
because
if
it
had
not
been
at
that
time
of
Divine
Institution
,
that
practice
and
deed
of
these
ordinary
Officers
of
that
Church
would
not
have
been
commendable
,
but
most
blameable
,
as
an
Innovating
an●
up-setting
of
a
publick
Office
and
Ordinance
in
Gods
House
of
their
own
meer
Invention
,
and
wanting
a
Divine
Institutio●
to
warrant
it
.
See
Levit.
10.1
,
2.
Deut.
5.32
.
Jerem.
19.5
,
6.
I
hope
the
Quakers
will
not
say
,
that
that
Practice
and
Dee●
of
these
Officers
was
extraordinary
,
and
done
by
a
particula●
command
relating
only
to
that
one
single
action
of
these
Officers
,
or
only
to
these
Individual
Officers
.
For
first
,
there
is
no
ground
can
be
given
of
such
an
Assertion
,
and
so
it
is
altogether
groundless
.
Secondly
,
if
these
had
any
particular
Command
,
let
it
be
shewed
.
Thirdly
,
these
were
but
ordinary
Officers
,
and
there
is
no
footstep
of
their
acting
extraordinarily
in
any
thing
can
be
be
shewed
.
Lastly
,
I
have
shewed
before
,
that
Scripture-Interpretation
is
ordinarily
needful
in
the
Church
,
for
her
Instruction
and
Edification
;
and
so
that
practice
of
these
Levites
could
not
be
of
such
an
extraordinary
nature
,
as
is
pretended
,
seeing
practices
of
that
nature
are
not
wont
to
be
ordinarily
needful
.
Having
proved
that
Scripture-Interpreting
had
a
Divine
Institution
under
the
Old
Testament
,
the
Quakers
must
either
yield
it
to
be
an
Institution
still
as
yet
in
force
,
which
we
plead
for
;
or
else
they
must
say
,
that
Scripture-Interpreting
was
an
Ordinance
meerly
Jewish
and
Ceremonial
;
(
all
which
kind
of
Religious
Ordinances
are
indeed
abrogated
)
But
it
's
most
false
that
Scripture-Interpreting
was
a
Jewish
Ceremony
:
for
there
can
no
ground
be
given
for
this
;
and
so
it
must
be
reckoned
a
groundless
Fable
.
Secondly
,
Scripture-Interpretation
is
as
yet
needful
in
the
Church
we
see
:
but
Jewish
Ceremonies
are
not
so
,
as
all
know
.
Thirdly
,
The
Apostles
still
continued
and
constantly
retained
Scripture-Interpretation
in
the
New-Testament
Church
,
even
while
they
were
bending
their
Doctrine
against
the
continuance
and
retaining
of
Jewish
Ceremonies
,
(
for
an
instance
whereof
,
see
Pauls
Epistles
to
the
Romans
,
Galatians
,
and
Hebrews
,
where
much
of
his
work
is
the
citing
and
explaining
several
Scripture-Texts
of
the
Old-Testament
.
)
But
,
sure
it
is
,
the
Apostles
did
not
still
continue
and
constantly
retain
Jewish
Ceremonies
in
the
New
Testament
Church
,
and
even
while
they
were
bending
their
Doctrine
against
the
doing
thereof
by
others
;
for
though
the
Apostles
might
sometimes
condescend
to
the
practice
of
a
smaller
Ceremony
for
the
weaks
sake
,
yet
this
was
not
a
constant
retaining
of
them
,
but
only
done
upon
some
occasional
emergencies
.
Therefore
,
surely
,
Scripture-Interpreting
cannot
be
a
Jewish
Ceremony
.
Thirdly
,
If
Scripture-Interpreting
be
not
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
,
and
that
to
continue
under
the
New
Testament
to
the
Worlds
end
,
Then
though
all
the
black
Hereticks
that
ever
were
in
the
World
should
at
once
arise
from
the
dead
,
(
and
alass
!
there
are
too
many
of
them
still
alive
in
their
Successors
)
and
should
,
in
favour
of
their
accursed
Delusions
,
most
grosly
abuse
and
wrest
the
holy
Scriptures
,
(
as
all
Hereticks
do
)
and
pervert
,
invert
,
and
deprave
the
meaning
thereof
,
and
so
of
God
speaking
therein
;
Yet
no
man
,
even
the
most
eminently
gifted
Ministers
of
Christ
were
bound
by
vertue
of
any
standing
Appointment
,
or
Law
of
God
,
(
otherwise
Scripture-Interpreting
will
clearly
have
a
standing
Divine
Institution
)
to
step
out
,
and
by
the
grounds
of
Context
,
the
Analogy
of
Faith
,
or
comparison
with
other
Scriptures
more
clear
,
&c.
to
refute
these
false
wrested
meanings
,
vindicate
the
Texts
abused
,
and
clear
and
demonstrate
their
Genuine
and
true
meaning
:
But
that
is
most
false
,
absurd
,
and
impious
.
For
then
the
most
eminently
gifted
and
able
Ministers
of
Christ
,
whose
special
Office
is
to
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
and
are
bound
to
their
utmost
(
or
else
to
nothing
at
all
)
to
preserve
and
promote
the
purity
of
the
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
among
the
people
,
and
to
convince
and
stop
the
mouths
of
the
Gainsayers
thereof
,
(
Tit.
1.9
,
11.
)
might
lawfully
,
without
the
breach
of
any
standing
Divine
Appointment
or
Law
,
stand
and
look
on
,
and
see
the
Scriptures
abused
,
perverted
,
and
depraved
in
their
meaning
,
and
instead
of
their
true
meaning
,
horrible
falshoods
,
fictions
,
and
blasphemies
fathered
upon
them
,
and
so
on
God
whose
Word
they
are
,
(
to
the
highest
dishonour
of
God
imaginable
,
the
treading
under
foot
of
the
precious
Truth
,
the
over-flowing
of
the
Christian
World
with
Soul-damning
Errors
,
and
the
manifest
ruining
of
poor
Souls
)
without
indeavouring
to
prevent
,
remedy
,
or
hinder
the
same
,
by
the
exercise
of
a
talent
that
God
hath
given
them
.
If
that
be
not
absurd
,
false
,
and
impious
,
nothing
can
be
such
.
Nay
,
it
involves
a
contradiction
to
say
,
that
Ministers
who
are
required
to
convince
the
Gainsayers
of
the
Truth
,
(
and
so
of
the
true
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
)
and
to
stop
their
mouths
,
might
lawfully
suffer
these
things
to
be
done
,
and
not
oppose
themselves
for
the
defence
of
Gods
truth
,
according
to
their
abilities
and
occasions
.
The
Quakers
being
beaten
from
their
former
standing
,
and
being
loth
to
allow
us
the
benefit
of
Scripture-Interpretation
,
as
thereby
fore-seeing
the
danger
of
their
Heretical
Interest
,
do
betake
themselves
to
another
shift
,
and
alledge
that
however
necessary
,
or
Divinely
appointed
Scripture-Interpretation
may
be
,
yet
Men
that
are
Fallible
may
not
Interpret
the
Scriptures
.
Therefore
it
will
be
necessary
for
us
to
prove
the
contrary
,
which
before
we
do
,
that
the
state
of
the
Question
may
be
cleared
,
I
grant
that
these
whose
Explications
formally
as
such
,
and
as
raught
by
them
are
Authentical
and
Faith-worthy
,
must
of
necessity
be
Infallible
,
or
immediately
Inspired
.
The
Quakers
must
seek
after
such
Explications
as
these
,
in
the
Canonical
Writings
of
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
.
For
it
is
not
so
with
the
ordinary
Ministers
of
the
Church
,
whose
Explications
are
not
formally
as
such
,
and
as
taught
by
them
Authentical
and
Faith-worthy
,
nor
is
it
lawful
for
any
Man
so
to
receive
them
;
but
allanerly
upon
the
accompt
of
their
agreement
with
,
and
demonstration
from
the
Scriptures
,
whose
Infallible
Testimony
is
sufficient
to
warrant
and
assure
the
meaning
delivered
.
Secondly
,
I
grant
,
that
in
the
matter
of
Scripture-Interpretation
,
the
Supream
and
Magisterial
Authority
from
which
there
is
no
appeal
,
but
it
ought
to
be
simply
stood
to
,
resideth
in
the
Scriptures
themselves
,
or
in
the
Spirit
their
Author
speaking
therein
,
seeing
their
Verdict
and
Sentence
in
places
speaking
to
the
purpose
more
clearly
,
and
such
means
as
reside
in
them
,
are
the
alone
Rule
and
Directory
of
our
Interpretations
thereof
in
places
more
dark
and
obscure
,
as
appears
from
many
things
aforesaid
.
The
Authority
therefore
which
our
Ministers
have
for
Interpreting
Scripture
,
is
only
a
Ministerial
Authority
for
Interpreting
the
Scriptures
by
their
own
Verdict
and
Sentence
,
as
the
Rule
and
Judge
of
their
Interpretations
,
whereunto
they
are
Subjected
,
and
by
whose
determination
they
stand
or
fall
,
as
true
Interpretations
,
or
forged
wrestings
;
seeing
the
Scriptures
are
the
Rule
of
Faith
by
which
we
are
to
try
and
judge
Mens
Doctrines
in
matters
of
Faith
:
having
premised
these
things
for
clearing
our
mind
,
and
preventing
mistakes
,
I
Assert
,
that
Men
who
are
not
endued
with
an
Infallible
gift
,
and
so
are
not
Infallible
,
but
Fallible
,
may
Interpret
the
Scriptures
.
And
I
prove
it
.
For
first
,
These
Levites
that
expounded
the
Scriptures
(
Neh.
8.8
.
)
were
not
Infallible
in
their
Gift
,
seeing
there
is
no
proof
or
evidence
thereof
possible
to
be
produced
,
nor
had
they
any
other
extraordinary
thing
accompanying
them
in
their
Birth
,
Call
,
Doctrine
or
Works
;
(
or
else
let
it
be
shewed
)
nor
was
it
any
Priviledge
of
the
Ordinary
Officers
of
that
Church
to
be
Infallible
;
and
yet
their
Practice
thereof
is
there
Recorded
to
their
high
Commendation
,
and
as
Edifying
to
the
People
:
Therefore
Teachers
that
are
not
Infallible
may
Interpret
Scripture
;
Or
else
their
practice
thereof
should
have
been
condemned
as
unlawful
,
instead
of
being
commended
.
Secondly
,
A
Fallible
Teacher
may
have
a
far
greater
and
more
distinct
knowledge
of
the
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
,
than
many
other
Men
also
Fallible
,
seeing
it
is
his
special
Office
to
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
and
(
if
he
does
his
Duty
)
he
is
much
more
in
searching
of
the
Scriptures
than
Men
of
other
particular
Callings
,
and
hath
many
more
helps
and
means
for
it
,
than
the
commoner
sort
of
Christians
and
bulk
of
the
People
,
neither
have
all
Men
an
equal
knowledge
in
any
thing
:
Therefore
a
Fallible
Teacher
may
Interpret
the
Scriptures
.
The
consequence
is
easie
,
seeing
whatever
measure
of
Scripture-meaning
such
a
Man
discerneth
beyond
others
,
he
may
(
I
hope
)
seasonably
make
it
known
to
them
for
their
Instruction
and
Edification
,
May
he
not
?
Nay
,
I
do
not
see
so
well
how
he
may
not
.
Thirdly
,
if
all
that
Interpret
the
Scriptures
must
necessarily
upon
that
accompt
be
Infallible
,
then
no
man
now
adays
may
presume
to
Interpret
them
,
seeing
there
is
no
man
now
adays
Infallible
,
as
is
before
often
shewed
:
But
that
is
most
false
,
seeing
it
is
now
proved
,
that
Scripture-Interpretation
is
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
reaching
to
the
end
of
the
world
,
and
so
it
binds
and
obliges
all
(
according
to
their
ability
and
the
Churches
exigency
)
whose
Office
it
is
to
labour
in
the
Word
and
Doctrine
,
and
from
the
Word
to
Teach
people
the
mind
and
Will
of
God
,
even
to
the
end
of
the
world
,
albeit
they
be
not
Infallible
,
but
fallible
;
Nor
heard
I
ever
of
a
Divine
Institution
reaching
to
the
end
of
the
world
,
and
yet
obliging
no
body
;
and
if
this
oblige
any
man
,
it
cannot
miss
the
Teachers
.
Lastly
,
seeing
the
Quakers
affirm
that
Scripture-Interpreting
doth
necessarily
require
an
Infallible
Gift
,
we
must
require
them
to
exhibit
the
grounds
of
their
affirmation
;
or
else
it
will
be
readily
thought
that
they
affirm
so
without
any
ground
;
and
so
it
must
be
accompted
a
meer
blind
conjecture
,
and
a
groundless
Fable
.
All
the
ground
that
ever
I
learned
from
them
is
this
,
viz.
Because
a
man
of
a
fallible
Gift
cannot
assure
people
of
the
meaning
.
Ans.
It
is
true
,
there
can
no
assurance
thereof
arise
unto
them
from
such
a
mans
Infallibity
which
he
hath
not
,
and
as
little
from
a
Quaker
pretending
to
it
,
but
can
give
no
evidence
to
make
it
appear
.
But
what
then
?
can
he
not
give
them
assurance
thereof
from
the
clear
Infallible
Scriptures
,
by
whose
Testimony
the
meaning
is
to
be
Demonstrated
?
we
are
not
to
Build
our
Faith
upon
the
mans
Gift
,
but
upon
the
Scriptures
,
that
can
give
as
great
assurance
as
any
Infallible
Gift
,
seeing
they
are
the
Infallible
Word
of
God
.
To
the
Law
and
to
the
Testimony
;
if
mens
Doctrines
agree
not
with
these
,
receive
them
not
.
Lastly
,
I
assert
(
against
the
Quakers
,
who
with
peremptory
Certifications
seem
to
deny
it
in
this
Query
)
That
,
when
the
Scriptures
are
explained
by
the
Scriptures
,
the
meaning
held
forth
and
delivered
is
Scripture-Rule
;
and
so
it
is
no
addition
(
as
the
Adversaries
here
alledge
)
nor
is
it
our
meaning
,
but
the
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
;
and
so
we
may
still
pretend
Scripture-Rule
,
for
all
that
.
I
prove
it
.
First
,
the
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
represented
and
Taught
by
themselves
is
,
certainly
,
Scripture-Rule
;
for
seeing
the
Scriptures
are
our
Rule
(
as
is
proved
)
the
meaning
Taught
by
them
is
the
very
Enunciat
Doctrine
,
the
Soul
and
Sentence
of
that
Rule
,
as
is
palpable
:
But
,
when
the
Scriptures
are
explained
by
the
Scriptures
,
the
meaning
held
forth
and
delivered
is
the
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
represented
and
Taught
by
themselves
,
and
the
contrary
involves
an
incurable
Contradiction
:
Therefore
,
when
the
Scriptures
are
explained
by
the
Scriptures
,
the
meaning
held
forth
and
delivered
is
,
certainly
,
Scripture-Rule
.
Secondly
,
Scripture-Doctrine
Taught
by
the
Scriptures
is
Scripture-Rule
,
or
else
nothing
can
be
such
,
if
that
be
not
:
But
,
when
the
Scriptures
are
explained
by
the
Scriptures
,
the
meaning
held
forth
and
delivered
is
Scripture-Doctrine
Taught
by
the
Scriptures
,
seeing
the
meaning
of
the
Scripture
is
,
surely
,
Scripture-Doctrine
,
nor
can
these
be
diverse
,
or
else
the
Scriptures
should
mean
what
they
Teach
not
,
and
Teach
what
they
mean
not
,
which
is
repugnant
.
Therefore
,
when
the
Scriptures
are
explained
by
the
Scriptures
,
the
meaning
held
forth
and
delivered
is
,
manifestly
,
Scripture-Rule
.
Lastly
,
if
when
the
Scriptures
are
explained
by
themselves
the
meaning
held
forth
by
them
be
not
Scripture-Rule
,
then
the
Scripture-Rule
is
some
other
thing
really
distinct
from
the
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
held
forth
thereby
:
But
that
is
impossible
to
be
,
or
to
be
explained
;
for
so
the
Scripture-Rule
should
by
it self
mean
nothing
,
seeing
another
meaning
then
that
which
is
held
forth
by
the
Scriptures
it
can
never
have
:
Ergo
,
when
the
Scriptures
are
explained
by
themselves
,
the
meaning
held
forth
is
,
Inevitably
,
Scripture-Rule
.
But
say
the
Quakers
in
this
Query
,
Interpreting
of
the
Scriptures
is
an
adding
to
them
,
against
which
the
Plagues
are
Denounced
,
Rev.
22.
Chap.
Ans.
This
Objection
proves
(
if
it
prove
any
thing
)
that
all
Scripture
Expounding
by
men
fallible
,
or
not
so
,
is
utterly
unlawful
,
as
an
adding
to
the
Scripture-Rule
.
But
I
deny
that
Interpreting
of
the
Scriptures
is
an
adding
to
the
Scripture-Rule
(
let
the
Quakers
Try
if
they
can
prove
it
;
for
their
big
Assertion
is
not
current
for
Proof
)
for
I
have
shewed
before
that
Scripture-Expounding
is
necessary
in
the
Church
,
and
of
Divine
Institution
to
the
Worlds
end
,
such
as
adding
to
the
Scripture
Rule
is
not
;
and
so
they
cannot
be
the
same
thing
.
To
add
to
the
Scriptures
is
to
impose
some
false
meaning
upon
them
disagreeing
therewith
,
or
to
set
up
any
other
Doctrine
as
of
equal
Authority
with
them
(
I
wish
the
Quakers
would
notice
this
,
who
continually
impose
false
meanings
on
the
Scriptures
,
and
have
set
up
a
new
Doctrine
contrary
to
the
Scriptures
,
not
only
as
of
equal
Authority
with
the
same
,
but
above
them
.
O
impudent
wickedness
!
But
by
the
Scriptures
to
unfold
,
clear
,
and
Demonstrate
their
own
Genuine
and
true
meaning
hath
not
a
shadow
into
it
of
adding
to
the
Scripture-Rule
,
seeing
(
as
is
proved
)
so
the
meaning
delivered
is
the
Scriptures
own
true
meaning
,
which
therefore
cannot
be
any
addition
thereunto
.
But
blind
Arguments
are
all
that
can
be
expected
from
Brain-sick
Doctors
,
whom
we
find
frequently
speaking
like
men
indeed
in
a
mixture
.
SECT.
II.
Concerning
Scripture-Consequence
,
or
Consequential
Scripture
.
I
come
now
to
the
second
Imperious
condition
which
the
Quakers
,
like
Dictators
,
demand
of
us
,
and
that
is
,
that
we
do
not
draw
Consequences
from
the
Scriptures
for
Establishing
our
Doctrine
;
otherwise
that
we
never
pretend
Scripture-Rule
more
.
This
,
I
confess
,
is
a
very
unjust
Cowardise
,
That
they
should
require
us
to
throw
down
our
Arms
,
and
then
they
will
fight
us
.
I
see
the
Quakers
would
fight
a
Dead
man
even
out
of
Breath
.
They
'l
go
to
Wars
in
time
of
Peace
.
I
like
the
Jest
well
.
If
the
Quakers
be
so
dastardly
,
why
did
they
not
send
their
Queries
to
some
Brute
,
where
they
should
have
found
a
Party
sutable
to
their
mind
,
which
would
not
have
troubled
them
with
Consequences
.
But
as
for
us
,
we
must
crave
their
Pardon
,
seeing
by
our
Creation
and
Essence
we
are
Rational
,
which
chiefly
consists
in
a
Discursive
or
Illative
Faculty
fitted
for
discerning
of
Consequences
,
of
purpose
,
that
being
furnisht
with
the
principles
of
Nature
,
or
Grace
,
we
might
be
capable
to
perceive
the
particular
Conclusions
which
they
implicitly
,
really
and
truly
contain
.
I
shall
not
need
to
be
long
in
Discussing
this
Question
concerning
Scripture-Consequence
,
nor
shall
I
need
many
words
for
clearing
the
state
of
the
Question
;
but
,
in
one
word
,
it
is
,
Whether
or
not
that
which
by
good
Consequence
is
deduced
and
drawn
from
the
Scriptures
,
be
Scripture-Rule
?
We
see
by
the
Certification
of
the
Quakers
demand
,
that
they
deny
and
take
the
Negative
of
the
Question
.
But
,
I
Assert
that
whatsoever
by
good
Consequence
follows
or
is
deduced
from
the
Scriptures
is
Infallible
Scripture-Rule
.
And
I
prove
it
.
For
first
,
Scripture-Doctrine
is
Scripture-Rule
,
or
else
nothing
can
be
such
.
Now
whatever
by
good
Consequence
follows
,
or
is
deduced
from
the
Scriptures
must
be
Scripture-Doctrine
;
otherwise
a
good
Consequence
might
infer
from
the
Scriptures
that
which
is
not
Scripture-Doctrine
,
or
that
which
they
Teach
not
;
or
a
Consequence
inferring
from
the
Scriptures
that
which
they
Teach
not
,
and
is
not
their
Doctrine
,
should
be
a
good
Consequence
,
which
involves
a
direct
Contradiction
,
seeing
so
a
Consequence
manifestly
evil
should
be
a
good
Consequence
.
Hence
then
,
whatever
by
good
Consequence
follows
,
or
is
deduced
from
the
Scriptures
is
evidently
Scripture-Rule
.
Secondly
,
Christ
plainly
affirms
(
Luk.
20.37
.
)
that
that
Scripture
principle
,
I
am
the
God
of
Abraham
,
the
God
of
Isaac
,
and
the
God
of
Jacob
,
does
shew
and
Teach
the
Resurrection
of
the
Dead
.
Now
it
does
not
expresly
and
formally
Teach
that
,
it
says
not
expresly
that
the
Dead
shall
Rise
again
;
but
only
it
follows
therefrom
by
good
Consequence
,
and
no
otherways
,
because
God
,
who
is
the
God
of
the
Living
,
being
their
God
,
their
Dust
(
which
is
their
one
half
,
albeit
the
meaner
half
)
behooved
to
be
Raised
and
Quickened
again
,
as
being
a
part
of
their
Essences
.
Here
then
Christ
Teaches
that
that
which
by
good
Consequence
may
be
Inferred
from
Scripture-principles
,
the
same
the
Scripture
shews
and
Teaches
,
and
so
it
is
Scripture-Doctrine
;
and
so
it
is
,
uncontrolably
,
Scripture-Rule
.
Thirdly
,
if
that
which
by
good
Consequence
is
inferred
from
the
Scriptures
be
not
Scripture-Rule
,
then
there
was
no
Scripture-Rule
in
all
the
Old
Testament
Ordaining
David
,
or
Solomon
,
&c.
to
be
Circumcised
;
and
so
the
Circumcising
of
them
behooved
to
be
a
meer
Will-worship
wanting
Scripture-Warrant
,
contrary
to
Joh.
7.22
,
23.
My
Proposition
which
I
propounded
I
easily
prove
,
for
in
no
where
of
all
the
Old
Testament
it
is
in
Formal
and
Express
Terms
said
[
David
shall
be
,
or
ought
to
be
Circumcised
]
but
only
by
sure
Consequence
it
follows
from
the
universal
Command
for
Circumcising
every
Male
(
Gen.
17.
)
That
therefore
David
shall
be
,
or
ought
to
be
Circumcised
;
nor
is
it
otherwise
to
be
found
in
all
the
Old
Testament
.
The
Quakers
then
must
admit
that
particular
Conclusion
by
good
Consequence
following
from
the
universal
Command
to
be
Scripture-Rule
(
and
so
that
which
by
good
Consequence
follows
from
Scripture-principles
to
be
Scripture-Rule
)
or
else
they
must
deny
that
there
was
any
Scripture-Rule
in
all
the
Old
Testament
Ordaining
David
to
be
Circumcised
;
for
its
impossible
there
should
be
any
Scripture-Rule
Ordaining
David
to
be
Circumcised
,
except
it
be
a
Scripture-Rule
that
David
ought
to
be
Circumcised
;
or
else
he
was
both
Ordained
to
be
,
and
yet
ought
not
to
be
Circumcised
at
once
.
Fourthly
,
if
that
which
by
good
Consequence
is
inferred
from
the
Scriptures
be
not
Scripture-Rule
,
then
there
is
no
Scripture-Rule
in
all
the
Old
Testament
Testifying
and
Witnessing
that
,
Jesus
the
Son
of
Mary
is
the
Saviour
of
the
world
,
which
is
most
false
,
and
contrary
to
the
Scriptures
,
Joh.
5.39
,
46.
Act.
10.43
.
and
18.28
.
and
28.23
.
My
Proposition
which
I
laid
down
I
prove
,
because
it
is
no where
of
all
the
Old
Testament
in
express
Terms
said
that
Jesus
the
Son
of
Mary
is
the
Saviour
of
the
world
;
But
by
Infallible
Consequence
it
follows
,
and
may
be
inferred
from
many
of
the
Old
Testament
Scripture-principles
;
nor
is
it
otherwise
but
by
good
Consequence
therein
to
be
found
.
It
must
therefore
be
granted
,
that
that
particular
Conclusion
,
which
by
good
Consequence
follows
from
these
Old
Testament
Scripture-principles
,
and
is
no
otherwise
to
be
found
therein
,
is
Scripture-Rule
,
which
is
that
we
plead
for
;
or
else
they
must
deny
that
there
is
any
Scripture-Rule
in
all
the
Old
Testament
,
Testifying
and
Witnessing
that
Jesus
the
Son
of
Mary
is
the
Saviour
of
the
world
;
for
there
cannot
be
Scripture-Rule
Witnessing
and
shewing
that
Jesus
the
Son
of
Mary
is
the
Saviour
,
except
it
be
a
Scripture-Rule
that
Jesus
the
Son
of
Mary
is
the
Saviour
;
otherwise
the
Scriptures
Testifying
that
,
shall
be
Scripture-Rule
(
as
is
supposed
)
and
yet
the
very
substantial
Doctrine
of
their
Testimony
shall
not
be
Scripture-Rule
,
which
is
repugnant
.
Lastly
,
If
that
which
by
good
consequence
follows
from
Scripture-Principles
be
not
Scripture-Rule
,
then
we
are
no
where
in
all
the
Scriptures
forbidden
to
worship
a
Dog
,
or
Cat
,
&c.
which
is
a
most
absurd
falshood
,
seeing
then
the
worshipping
of
these
things
could
be
no
transgression
of
the
Law
of
God
;
for
the
whole
Law
of
God
is
delivered
to
us
in
the
Scriptures
;
otherwise
the
Scriptures
would
be
defective
,
and
not
manifest
our
whole
Duty
in
order
to
Salvation
,
which
is
contrary
to
Deut.
5.32
.
Isai.
8.20
.
Luc.
16.28
,
29.
2
Tim.
3.15
.
Rev.
22.18
.
My
proposition
laid
down
,
I
evidently
prove
:
for
it
is
not
in
formal
and
express
Terms
said
in
all
the
Scriptures
,
Thou
shalt
not
worship
a
Dog
,
or
Cat
,
albeit
it
is
expresly
said
,
That
we
shall
have
no
other
Gods
but
the
true
God
,
and
shall
Worship
and
Serve
him
only
,
(
Exod.
20.3
.
Matth.
4.10
.
)
from
whence
by
evident
consequence
it
follows
,
(
but
not
without
a
consequence
in
all
the
Scriptures
)
that
we
may
not
Worship
a
Dog
,
or
Cat.
Will
the
Quakers
then
deny
the
Worshipping
of
these
Creatures
to
be
forbidden
in
the
Scriptures
,
and
so
to
be
unlawful
,
because
without
a
Consequence
we
cannot
get
any
Scripture
forbidding
it
,
and
whereby
to
prove
it
unlawful
?
If
they
stand
to
their
Principles
here
,
of
necessity
they
must
do
it
,
as
the
Argument
irresistibly
infers
upon
them
.
The
Quakers
may
hence
see
how
justly
we
may
as
yet
pretend
Scripture-Rule
,
notwithstanding
our
consequences
,
seeing
we
have
unanswerably
proved
,
that
that
which
by
good
consequence
is
inferred
from
Scripture-Principles
is
Scripture-Rule
;
and
we
have
convinced
their
wild
Principles
in
this
point
to
dash
and
run
upon
contradictions
,
to
disagree
from
the
Doctrine
and
Practice
of
Christ
,
to
make
way
for
denying
Jesus
the
Son
of
Mary
to
be
the
Saviour
of
the
World
,
(
for
the
Scriptures
of
the
Old
Testament
do
by
clear
consequence
,
though
not
without
a
consequence
,
mightily
witness
and
assure
that
great
Article
of
Faith
)
and
to
lead
the
way
to
Will-Worship
in
the
Church
,
yea
,
for
the
grossest
of
Idolatry
.
We
see
then
how
little
reason
we
have
to
grant
these
impious
demands
of
the
Quakers
.
But
the
Quakers
here
object
,
That
to
draw
consequences
from
the
Scriptures
,
is
to
add
to
the
Scripture-Rule
,
against
which
all
the
plagues
in
the
book
of
God
are
denounced
.
Answ.
By
this
Objection
,
the
Quakers
shew
how
unlawful
they
think
Scripture-Consequences
to
be
.
But
I
have
abundantly
shewed
,
that
that
which
by
good
consequence
is
inferred
from
Scripture-Principles
,
is
no
addition
to
the
Scripture-Rule
,
but
is
it self
very
Scripture-Rule
;
and
how
should
it
be
an
adding
to
Scripture-Rule
to
draw
forth
more
expresly
and
distinctly
,
by
consequence
,
the
same
Doctrine
which
it
really
and
truly
teaches
,
though
more
Implicitly
?
Is
it
an
adding
to
the
Scripture
to
shew
more
expresly
it
's
own
Doctrine
?
Then
the
Scriptures
own
Doctrine
should
be
an
addition
to
the
Scripture-Rule
:
they
have
a
great
dexterity
in
speaking
of
Contradictions
.
Secondly
,
It
uses
to
be
objected
,
That
if
that
which
by
good
consequence
is
inferred
from
Scripture-Principles
be
Scripture-Rule
,
and
so
a
Rule
of
Divine
Faith
,
then
our
Divine
Faith
whereby
we
believe
that
Scripture-Rule
so
inferred
,
shall
stand
upon
reason
,
(
which
is
most
absurd
)
seeing
the
inferring
of
a
consequence
is
an
act
of
reason
.
Answ.
I
deny
the
Sequel
,
or
consequence
of
the
Major
proposition
;
because
when
a
conclusion
is
by
good
consequence
inferred
from
Scripture-Principles
,
Reason
is
not
the
Argument
or
Motive
wherefrom
the
conclusion
follows
and
is
inferred
,
and
moves
and
constrains
us
to
assent
thereunto
,
seeing
the
Conclusion
is
not
inferred
from
the
natural
Principles
or
Premises
of
Reason
,
but
from
Supernatural
Scripture-Principles
,
as
is
most
manifest
.
Reason
therefore
is
only
requisite
here
as
a
necessary
Instrument
for
perceiving
and
discerning
the
consequence
,
or
connexion
of
the
Antecedent
with
the
Consequent
,
which
way
it
is
indeed
requisite
;
yea
,
so
Reason
is
requisite
for
perceiving
every
word
of
God
,
and
without
it
we
should
not
be
capable
of
the
Principles
of
Religion
more
than
Brutes
are
.
So
also
our
Ears
are
a
necessary
Instrument
for
hearing
the
Word
Preached
,
or
Read
,
and
our
Eyes
for
Reading
of
it
.
Thirdly
,
It
uses
to
be
objected
,
That
the
Gospel
is
above
Reason
.
Answ.
The
Gospel
is
above
Reason
,
in
regard
of
the
matter
and
mysteries
which
it
teaches
,
which
Reason
cannot
reach
or
understand
;
but
not
in
respect
of
the
manner
how
it
teaches
them
,
which
is
suited
and
accommodated
to
human
capacity
;
Or
else
no
Man
,
upon
the
accompt
that
he
is
endued
with
Reason
,
should
be
one
whit
more
capable
,
so
much
as
Grammatically
and
Historically
to
understand
any
one
saying
of
the
Gospel
,
than
his
Sheep
and
Oxen
,
which
is
beyond
all
measure
absurd
:
for
then
Brutes
should
be
no
less
capable
of
the
Gospel
Doctrine
than
Men
,
and
Men
no
more
than
Brutes
.
Lastly
,
It
is
objected
,
That
the
Learned
only
are
able
to
perceive
Consequences
.
Answ.
That
is
most
false
,
seeing
not
only
the
Learned
,
but
also
the
unlearned
have
a
rational
discursive
faculty
,
and
some
measure
of
the
use
thereof
,
(
except
they
be
Distracted
,
or
in
meer
Infancy
;
)
and
so
,
being
furnisht
with
the
Principles
,
are
capable
to
discern
their
evident
Consequences
,
both
in
things
Natural
and
Supernatural
;
albeit
the
Learned
are
indeed
able
more
promptly
to
perceive
Consequences
,
and
to
perceive
more
Consequences
lying
far
remote
from
the
Principles
,
and
therefore
they
are
ordinarily
more
knowing
than
the
unlearned
.
Now
by
the
Quakers
grudging
of
Grammar
,
Logick
,
and
Philosophy
unto
Ministers
of
the
Gospel
,
and
by
their
opposition
to
the
Scripture-Rule
and
Scripture-Consequence
,
a
Man
may
(
if
he
be
curious
)
learn
the
Description
of
a
Minister
of
the
Quakers
choice
,
viz.
He
must
neither
have
Grammar
,
Logick
,
nor
Philosophy
,
he
must
reject
the
Rule
(
at
least
the
Supremacy
of
the
Rule
)
of
Scripture
,
both
Express
,
and
by
good
Consequence
.
That
is
to
say
,
He
must
not
know
how
to
speak
Sence
,
nor
how
to
Define
,
Divide
,
Judge
,
or
Argument
;
he
must
abandon
the
Light
of
Nature
,
and
throw
by
the
Word
of
God
,
at
most
being
but
a
Secondary-Rule
,
and
a
Subservant
to
their
Queen
Regent
,
the
Light
within
.
That
the
Quakers
may
not
think
I
wrong
them
,
this
Description
is
their
Principles
,
clearly
explained
by
me
in
the
foregoing
Queries
.
And
will
not
such
a
Man
be
a
rare
Minister
?
a
worthy
Messenger
?
an
Interpreter
among
a
Thousand
?
he
is
very
like
to
have
more
feet
than
hands
,
methinks
.
SECT.
III.
Concerning
Baptism
with
Water
.
Being
now
arrived
at
the
main
Subject
of
the
present
Query
,
which
is
Baptism
,
before
I
handle
the
Question
concerning
Infant-Baptism
;
I
must
here
inquire
,
whether
Baptism
with
Water
be
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
,
and
to
continue
to
the
end
of
the
World
;
for
albeit
the
the
Quakers
have
here
omitted
it
,
yet
it
is
the
main
and
most
proper
debate
concerning
Baptism
betwixt
us
and
them
,
wherein
the
Quakers
take
the
Negative
,
yea
,
and
George
Keith
charges
Baptism
with
Water
upon
us
,
as
a
Popish
Doctrine
,
forsooth
,
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
100.
Wherever
Baptism
is
mentioned
in
the
New-Testament
,
and
the
word
Water
is
not
expresly
added
,
the
Quakers
do
always
deny
Baptism
with
Water
to
be
there
meant
,
sometimes
alledging
it
to
be
meant
of
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
;
(
which
is
,
when
the
Word
is
Preached
to
People
)
sometimes
of
the
work
of
Regeneration
,
and
sometimes
of
enduing
with
the
extraordinary
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
;
all
which
are
in
the
Scriptures
Metaphorically
and
Improperly
sometimes
called
Baptism
,
Matth.
21.25
.
Joh.
1.33
.
Act.
1.5
.
And
this
they
do
,
that
(
if
success
would
answer
)
they
may
not
be
forced
to
acknowledge
Baptism
with
Water
to
be
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
.
We
shall
therefore
,
as
we
proceed
,
clear
every
Text
that
we
make
use
of
(
where
need
is
)
from
the
false
Glosses
of
the
Adversaries
.
This
premised
,
I
Assert
,
(
against
the
Quakers
)
that
Baptism
with
Water
is
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
,
and
an
Ordinance
which
(
it
shall
be
evident
)
is
appointed
to
continue
to
the
end
of
the
World
.
I
prove
it
;
First
,
The
Baptism
of
John
was
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Appointment
belonging
to
the
New
Testament
:
but
that
was
with
Water
,
Matth.
3.11
.
Mark
1.8
.
Therefore
Baptism
with
Water
is
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
belonging
to
the
New
Testament
.
The
Scriptures
cited
prove
the
Minor
;
I
prove
the
Major
:
For
that
the
Baptism
of
John
was
of
Divine
Appointment
,
is
clear
from
Matth.
21.25
.
Luk.
7.30
.
Joh.
1.33
.
And
that
it
belonged
to
the
New
Testament
appears
,
seeing
John
was
the
very
first
Minister
of
the
New
Testament
way
of
Dispensation
,
(
for
which
,
see
Matth.
11.12
,
13.
Luk.
16.16
.
)
Together
with
the
breaking
forth
whereof
(
and
never
till
then
)
God
appointed
this
Ordinance
of
Baptism
with
Water
to
be
dispensed
by
John
.
Secondly
,
The
Baptism
with
Water
dispensed
by
the
Disciples
or
Apostles
of
Christ
,
was
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Appointment
under
the
New
Testament
,
as
we
shall
presently
see
:
But
the
Baptism
of
John
was
substantially
one
and
the
same
therewith
:
for
their
Author
,
or
Efficient
cause
was
the
same
,
(
by
comparing
Luk.
7.30
.
Joh.
1.33
.
with
Matth.
28.19
.
Joh.
4.1
,
2.
Act.
10.48
.
)
Their
External
Matter
,
or
outward
Element
was
the
same
,
(
by
comparing
Matth.
3.11
.
with
Act.
10.47
.
)
Their
Internal
Matter
,
or
the
thing
signified
,
and
their
ends
(
and
so
also
their
Internal
form
,
which
results
from
their
Institution
and
Ends
)
were
the
same
,
(
by
comparing
Mark
1.4
.
Luk.
3.3
.
with
Act.
2.38
.
and
22.16
.
)
So
then
they
being
one
and
the
same
as
to
all
their
causes
,
are
,
undeniably
,
the
same
Baptism
Substantially
;
and
I
defie
any
Man
to
shew
any
substantial
point
wherein
they
differ
;
and
so
the
one
being
an
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
,
so
must
the
other
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
,
(
with
Papists
)
The
Baptism
of
John
was
substantially
different
from
Christs
Baptism
,
seeing
John
Baptized
only
with
Water
,
but
Christ
Baptized
with
the
Holy
Ghost
and
with
Fire
.
Ans.
This
objection
cannot
prove
the
Baptism
of
John
to
be
substantially
different
from
the
Baptism
dispensed
by
Christs
Apostles
at
his
Order
,
seeing
theirs
so
dispensed
was
no
less
with
Water
than
his
,
and
they
could
no
more
Baptize
with
the
Holy
Ghost
and
with
Fire
,
than
he
.
Therefore
John
does
not
there
(
viz.
Luke
3.16
.
)
distinguish
his
Baptism
from
Christs
External
Baptism
Administred
by
his
Apostles
;
but
he
distinguishes
his
own
Work
and
Office
,
and
of
all
Ministers
,
in
Baptism
from
the
Work
and
Office
of
Christ
,
viz.
That
he
and
other
Ministers
do
Administer
the
Water
and
External
Sign
,
but
that
its
Christ
that
bestows
the
inward
Grace
and
thing
signified
.
Secondly
,
It
is
objected
here
,
That
these
who
were
Baptized
with
Johns
Baptism
,
were
again
Baptized
with
Christs
by
Paul
,
Act.
19.3
,
4
,
5.
Ergo
,
Johns
Baptism
did
substantially
differ
from
Christs
;
or
else
,
these
would
not
have
needed
to
be
Baptized
over
again
with
Christs
.
Ans.
The
Antecedent
is
most
false
:
for
that
would
depress
the
dignity
of
the
Baptism
wherewith
Christ
was
Baptized
,
(
being
that
of
John
)
far
below
the
dignity
of
that
wherewith
Simon
Magus
was
Baptized
;
and
would
infer
,
that
Christ
entertained
a
more
absolute
and
compleat
Communion
with
the
Church
of
the
Old
Testament
,
(
all
whose
ordinary
Covenant-Seals
he
partaked
of
)
than
with
the
Church
of
the
New
;
and
that
,
though
he
sanctified
in
his
own
Person
all
the
other
ordinary
Seals
of
both
Testaments
,
yet
he
denied
that
Honour
and
Priviledge
to
his
own
External
Baptism
dispensed
under
the
New
Testament
.
Nor
is
the
Antecedent
any
ways
proved
by
that
place
of
the
Acts
cited
:
for
the
sence
of
that
Fifth
Verse
,
(
which
is
wrested
for
a
ground
to
this
Objection
)
is
not
,
that
these
Men
were
Baptized
over
again
by
Paul
;
but
the
sence
is
,
that
after
they
had
heard
that
Doctrine
from
John
,
the
sum
whereof
Paul
repeats
in
the
preceeding
Verse
there
,
they
were
Baptized
by
the
same
John
when
he
Preached
it
to
them
,
and
not
by
Paul
now
when
he
Repeats
it
.
Secondly
,
The
Apostles
after
Christs
Ascention
,
and
the
powring
forth
of
the
Spirit
,
did
with
great
diligence
and
studious
care
Baptize
the
New
Testament
Disciples
with
Water
,
and
were
very
forward
in
promoting
that
Ordinance
amongst
them
:
Therefore
Baptism
with
Water
must
,
certainly
,
be
an
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
Divinely
Instituted
.
The
Consequence
is
clear
,
seeing
,
if
it
had
not
been
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
belonging
to
the
New
Testament
,
they
would
never
have
been
so
diligent
and
forward
for
promoting
the
Interest
thereof
in
the
New-Testament
Church
amongst
the
Disciples
after
Christs
Ascention
,
and
the
powring
forth
of
the
Spirit
;
otherwise
they
had
manifestly
betrayed
their
trust
in
such
a
studious
and
diligent
promoting
of
an
Ordinance
in
the
Church
,
which
was
not
allowed
of
God
,
and
they
had
no
Commission
for
;
which
cannot
be
said
they
did
,
and
so
much
the
less
,
because
all
this
passes
on
without
any
reproof
from
God
,
or
shadow
of
alteration
in
them
.
The
Consequence
being
so
clearly
proved
,
I
next
prove
the
Antecedent
from
the
Apostles
constant
and
speedy
dispensing
of
Baptism
with
Water
to
the
New-Testament
Disciples
,
after
the
foresaid
Events
,
and
that
presently
without
delay
,
after
their
appearing
to
be
Disciples
,
as
appears
from
several
Scripture-Texts
of
the
New
Testament
.
First
,
From
Act.
8.36
,
38.
and
Act.
10.47
.
in
which
two
Texts
,
Water
is
so
expresly
mentioned
,
that
I
need
not
prove
it
to
be
Baptism
with
Water
that
is
meant
,
and
where
they
were
most
speedy
in
dispensing
it
at
the
first
appearance
of
the
parties
Discipleship
.
A
second
Text
is
,
Act.
2.41
.
where
the
Disciples
were
Baptized
assoon
as
ever
their
Discipleship
appeared
.
And
that
this
Baptism
here
is
not
meant
of
any
of
these
forementioned
improperly
so
called
Baptisms
,
and
consequently
that
it
must
be
meant
of
Baptism
with
Water
,
which
only
is
properly
called
Baptism
,
as
we
shall
afterwards
see
,
I
prove
;
Because
the
Baptism
here
mentioned
pre-requires
Conversion
and
Regeneration
(
ver.
38.
and
41.
)
to
the
partaking
thereof
;
and
so
it
cannot
be
meant
of
the
work
of
Conversion
or
Regeneration
;
otherwise
it
should
pre-require
it self
before
partaking
of
it self
,
that
is
,
it self
without
it self
,
which
is
a
strong
contradiction
.
Again
,
It
pre-supposes
hearing
,
yea
receiving
of
the
Gospel
Doctrine
in
such
Adult
Persons
as
these
were
,
(
as
may
be
seen
ver.
41.
)
which
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
cannot
do
:
for
that
were
it self
pre-supposed
to
it self
,
and
a
contradiction
still
.
And
lastly
,
the
Baptism
here
mentioned
,
is
in
the
Text
(
ver.
38.
)
plainly
distinguisht
from
the
miraculous
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
.
And
moreover
is
enjoyned
as
a
necessary
sacred
Pledge
of
the
Remission
of
Sins
,
(
viz.
by
necessity
of
precept
,
and
when
it
can
be
had
)
such
as
never
were
these
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
;
and
so
Baptism
here
,
must
be
meant
of
Baptism
with
Water
,
or
the
word
,
Baptize
,
razed
out
of
the
Text.
A
third
Text
is
,
Act.
8.12
,
13.
where
these
Disciples
were
quickly
Baptized
after
their
Discipleship
appeared
.
And
neither
can
Baptism
here
be
meant
of
the
work
of
Conversion
,
or
Regeneration
,
seeing
Simon
Magus
participated
of
it
,
who
yet
was
no
true
Convert
or
Regenerated
Person
,
as
is
there
clear
.
Nor
can
it
be
meant
of
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
;
for
it
is
there
plainly
declared
,
That
they
believed
the
things
concerning
the
Kingdom
of
God
and
Christ
(
whether
savingly
,
or
meerly
historically
,
really
,
or
in
profession
only
,
it
matters
nothing
to
our
present
Argument
)
before
they
partaked
of
the
Baptism
there
mentioned
:
but
they
could
not
believe
these
things
,
before
they
in
some
measure
partaked
of
the
Gospel
Doctrine
,
which
reveals
them
.
Nor
lastly
,
can
it
be
meant
of
their
enduing
with
the
miraculous
gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
seeing
it
is
there
expresly
denied
,
that
any
of
these
Baptized
Samaritans
were
for
a
time
after
endued
with
these
.
A
fourth
Text
is
,
Act.
18.8
.
where
many
of
the
Corinthians
presently
,
upon
their
Discipleship
appearing
,
were
Baptized
;
and
this
Text
can
neither
be
meant
of
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
,
nor
the
work
of
Conversion
or
Regeneration
,
seeing
the
Baptism
therein
mentioned
pre-supposes
in
Adult
Persons
,
such
as
these
were
(
we
shall
speak
afterwards
of
Infants
)
the
hearing
of
the
Gospel-Doctrine
,
and
believing
:
But
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
cannot
pre-suppose
the
first
of
these
;
nor
yet
the
work
of
Conversion
,
the
last
of
them
;
or
else
they
should
pre-suppose
themselves
to
partaking
of
themselves
.
And
to
mean
it
of
enduing
with
the
miraculous
gifts
of
the
Spirit
were
most
of
all
impertinent
,
nor
were
these
bestowed
upon
every
Believer
,
as
the
Baptism
there
mentioned
is
plainly
imported
to
have
been
.
A
fifth
Text
is
,
1
Cor.
1.13
.
with
17.
Where
the
Apostle
asks
these
Corinthians
,
if
they
were
Baptized
in
the
name
of
Paul
?
and
affirms
,
that
Christ
sent
him
not
to
Baptize
,
(
that
is
,
it
was
not
his
principal
Work
;
for
the
Expression
is
comparative
)
but
to
preach
the
Gospel
.
Now
Baptism
here
cannot
be
meant
of
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
;
for
the
Apostle
plainly
distinguishes
it
from
that
.
Nor
can
it
be
meant
of
the
work
of
Conversion
;
for
then
Paul
denies
that
it
was
his
main
Errand
to
Convert
People
,
which
is
false
and
contrary
to
his
very
Commission
,
(
Act.
26.17
,
18.
)
and
he
should
contradict
himself
in
this
first
Chapter
of
the
Epistle
,
where
he
thanks
God
he
Baptized
so
few
of
them
,
and
in
the
fourth
Chapter
of
this
same
Epistle
,
Verse
15.
where
he
affirms
,
that
through
the
Gospel
he
had
converted
so
many
of
them
.
Nor
can
it
be
meant
of
enduing
with
the
miraculous
gifts
of
the
Spirit
:
for
the
Baptism
here
mentioned
is
intimated
to
have
been
common
to
all
of
them
,
such
as
these
gifts
were
not
.
The
last
Text
shall
be
Act.
22.16
.
And
now
why
tarriest
thou
?
arise
,
and
be
Baptized
,
says
Ananias
to
Paul
.
Now
he
needed
not
arise
to
be
Converted
,
or
to
hear
the
Gospel
(
which
Ananias
could
Preach
to
him
Sitting
)
nor
yet
that
he
might
receive
the
Miraculous
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
;
albeit
there
was
some
necessity
for
his
arising
to
be
Baptized
with
Water
,
that
he
might
go
where
there
was
Water
.
Seeing
then
the
Circumstances
of
these
Texts
will
not
permit
these
improperly
so
called
Baptisms
to
be
meant
therein
,
and
its
certain
that
some
sort
of
Baptism
is
meant
therein
(
or
else
the
word
,
Baptize
,
must
be
razed
out
of
them
)
It
inevitably
follows
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
must
be
therein
meant
;
or
else
no
Baptism
at
all
,
which
Impudence
it self
dare
not
say
,
and
so
much
the
less
,
seeing
the
Circumstances
of
these
Texts
do
very
well
agree
with
the
Circumstances
of
Baptism
in
other
Texts
where
the
word
,
Water
,
is
expresly
added
.
And
in
these
Texts
we
see
what
care
the
Apostles
took
for
the
speedy
Administration
of
the
Baptism
therein
mentioned
to
the
Disciples
appearing
such
,
and
to
all
appearing
such
.
And
these
things
evidently
prove
our
Antecedent
of
this
second
Argument
.
Thirdly
,
our
third
principal
Argument
for
proving
Baptism
with
Water
to
be
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
is
taken
from
Act.
2.38
.
(
which
Text
I
have
now
proved
to
be
meant
of
Baptism
with
Water
)
where
Peter
Injoyns
Baptism
with
Water
to
all
these
New
Testament
Disciples
,
as
a
necessary
Sacred
Symbol
or
Pledge
(
for
Sacred
it
must
be
,
in
regard
of
its
Sacred
and
Spiritual
signification
of
a
Spiritual
Benefit
)
of
the
Remission
of
Sins
.
For
his
Injoyning
them
to
be
Baptized
for
the
Remission
of
Sins
doth
plainly
hold
forth
some
necessity
thereof
,
though
not
by
necessity
of
Mean
,
yet
by
necessity
of
Precept
.
Therefore
Baptism
with
Water
must
be
an
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
Divinely
Instituted
.
For
,
certainly
,
Cancelled
Jewish
Ceremonies
(
much
less
Humane
inventions
,
or
any
thing
not
appointed
of
God
)
could
never
thereafter
be
necessary
for
Justification
,
or
Remission
of
Sins
;
though
sometimes
they
might
be
necessary
for
avoiding
the
Offence
,
and
stumbling
of
weak
brethren
,
as
Act.
15.29
.
and
16.3
.
Fourthly
,
whoever
under
the
New
Testament
hath
probably
received
the
Spirit
of
Grace
hath
a
right
,
in
the
Churches
Court
,
unto
Baptism
with
Water
,
and
she
is
bound
to
admit
them
thereunto
:
Therefore
Baptism
with
Water
is
,
surely
,
an
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
Divinely
Instituted
;
or
otherwise
these
could
never
have
any
Right
thereunto
,
in
her
Court
,
nor
she
be
bound
to
admit
them
into
it
,
without
a
Divine
appointment
making
it
due
unto
them
;
but
,
on
the
contrary
,
they
should
be
Bound
to
abstain
from
it
,
and
she
to
Discharge
them
therefrom
,
as
unwarrantable
Will-worship
in
the
Scriptures
Condemned
,
Colos.
2.20
,
21
,
22.
These
things
clearly
prove
the
Consequence
.
The
Antecedent
is
proved
by
Peter
(
Act.
10.47
.
)
where
he
says
,
Can
any
man
forbid
water
,
that
these
should
not
be
Baptized
,
which
have
received
the
Holy
Ghost
,
as
well
as
we
?
where
,
by
the
Holy
Ghost
(
as
often
else
where
,
Act.
1.5
.
and
8.16
,
17.
and
19.6
.
)
is
meaned
the
Miraculous
Gifts
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
as
is
clear
from
the
Context
.
So
then
Peter
Argues
here
from
these
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
bestowed
on
them
as
a
probable
Evidence
(
though
not
an
Infallible
one
.
See
Mat.
7.22
.
)
of
the
Spirit
of
Grace
bestowed
on
them
,
That
therefore
they
had
a
Right
unto
Baptism
with
Water
,
and
no
man
could
Debar
them
from
it
;
for
that
were
absurd
,
as
the
Expression
bears
,
Can
any
man
forbid
,
&c.
So
then
,
according
to
the
Apostle
,
a
probable
Evidence
of
the
Spirit
of
Grace
received
doth
immediately
infer
a
Right
,
in
the
Churches
Court
(
to
which
his
Discourse
is
here
directed
)
unto
Baptism
Water
;
and
so
whoever
hath
probably
received
the
Spirit
of
Grace
hath
that
Right
,
and
the
Church
is
bound
to
admit
them
to
it
,
and
they
are
as
absurd
as
Quakers
,
that
would
Debar
them
from
it
.
These
things
plainly
prove
the
Antecedent
.
Fifthly
,
there
is
one
Baptism
mentioned
Ephes.
4.5
.
which
is
,
certainly
,
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
,
and
belongs
to
the
New
Testament
,
as
can
never
be
gotten
denyed
:
But
that
must
be
Baptism
with
Water
,
and
can
be
no
other
:
for
when
Paul
says
,
There
is
one
Baptism
,
either
he
means
of
one
properly
so
called
,
which
is
Baptism
with
Water
,
seeing
the
signification
of
the
Word
[
Baptize
]
Primarily
and
properly
agrees
unto
it
;
or
else
he
means
,
there
is
one
Baptism
Improperly
and
Metaphorically
so
called
:
but
that
cannot
be
,
seeing
there
is
not
one
,
but
many
of
these
sorts
of
Baptisms
,
as
we
have
already
seen
,
whereof
therefore
to
mean
it
would
be
a
contradiction
to
the
Text.
Sixthly
,
Baptism
with
Water
is
necessary
to
Salvation
under
the
New
Testament
,
viz.
by
necessity
of
Precept
,
and
so
as
not
the
simple
privation
of
it
when
it
cannot
be
had
,
but
the
Contempt
of
it
when
it
may
be
had
is
Damnable
:
Therefore
Baptism
with
Water
must
be
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
.
The
Consequence
is
manifest
,
seeing
a
material
piece
of
Divine
Worship
necessary
to
Salvation
,
not
appointed
of
God
,
is
a
Will-worship
necessary
thereunto
,
which
is
repugnant
to
the
Scriptures
.
I
prove
the
Antecedent
.
The
Baptism
mentioned
(
Mark
.
16.16
.
)
is
there
made
a
necessary
Antecedent
of
Salvation
under
the
New
Testament
by
the
plain
Sentence
of
the
Text
:
But
the
Baptism
there
mentioned
is
Baptism
with
Water
:
Therefore
Baptism
with
Water
is
necessary
to
Salvation
under
the
New
Testament
.
The
Major
needs
no
more
proving
.
I
prove
the
Minor
,
because
the
Baptism
mentioned
in
that
Text
of
Mark
doth
in
adult
persons
(
we
shall
speak
afterwards
of
Infants
)
pre-require
Faith
in
Christ
(
as
the
Text
shews
)
without
which
some
way
appearing
by
external
Signs
they
have
not
a
visible
Interest
,
and
cannot
be
accompted
Disciples
by
the
Church
:
but
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
does
not
pre-require
that
;
or
else
no
man
might
be
admitted
to
partake
of
the
Gospel-Doctrine
,
but
such
as
before-hand
probably
believe
;
and
so
it
should
never
have
been
Preached
to
the
Gentile-world
.
Nor
does
the
work
of
Conversion
pre-require
Faith
in
Christ
to
a
mans
partaking
of
it self
;
otherwise
it
should
pre-require
it self
(
without
which
there
can
be
no
such
Faith
)
before
partaking
of
it self
,
that
is
,
it self
without
it self
,
which
is
repugnant
.
Nor
yet
can
it
be
meant
of
enduing
with
the
extraordinary
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
seeing
these
were
never
necessary
to
Salvation
,
as
this
Baptism
mentioned
in
the
Text
is
.
And
,
I
am
sure
the
Quakers
will
not
say
,
that
Baptism
here
is
meant
of
the
Baptism
of
the
Cross
(
under
which
they
do
not
use
to
seek
shelter
)
or
in
any
other
Text
that
we
have
named
,
seeing
the
Apostles
,
and
other
Ministers
of
Christ
,
are
the
immediate
Administrators
of
the
Baptism
mentioned
here
,
and
in
all
of
these
;
but
were
not
so
of
the
Cross
,
they
had
no
Commission
for
that
.
Seeing
then
there
is
a
Baptism
meant
herein
Mark
.
16.16
.
And
it
cannot
agree
with
any
of
these
Improperly
so
called
Baptisms
,
but
only
with
Baptism
with
Water
,
which
is
properly
so
called
,
it
must
Inevitably
,
be
meant
of
Baptism
with
Water
wherewith
it
agrees
;
or
let
the
Quakers
prove
that
it
disagrees
with
that
too
,
and
then
,
I
am
sure
,
it
shall
agree
with
none
at
all
,
and
we
must
raze
the
word
[
Baptize
]
out
of
the
Text.
Secondly
,
I
prove
the
Antecedent
of
this
Argument
,
from
the
first
Epistle
of
Peter
,
3.21
.
where
the
Apostle
shews
Baptism
with
Water
to
be
necessary
to
Salvation
under
the
New
Testament
,
while
he
says
,
The
like
Figure
whereunto
,
even
Baptism
,
doth
also
now
Save
us
.
And
that
Baptism
here
is
meant
of
Baptism
with
Water
,
appears
by
the
comparison
which
he
uses
,
comparing
our
Saving
by
Baptism
to
Noahs
Saving
by
Water
,
as
being
,
the
last
the
Type
,
and
the
first
the
Anti-type
(
for
the
word
which
we
have
here
turned
[
like
Figure
]
is
in
the
Original
Language
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
Anti-type
.
]
Now
there
must
be
some
near
resemblance
betwixt
a
Type
and
its
Anti-type
,
which
is
very
little
,
or
rather
none
here
,
betwixt
Noahs
Temporal
Saving
by
Water
and
any
of
these
Improper
Baptisms
;
but
very
great
betwixt
that
and
our
Eternal
Saving
by
Baptism
with
Water
,
which
may
be
understood
by
comparing
them
,
which
we
may
not
stay
to
do
.
Secondly
,
the
explication
which
he
subjoyns
,
in
place
of
a
Caution
,
shewing
how
Baptism
now
Saves
us
,
viz.
that
its
not
by
putting
away
the
filth
of
the
Flesh
,
or
by
the
meer
external
washing
of
the
Body
(
which
Water
had
a
fitness
to
do
)
or
by
the
very
work
wrought
(
as
Papists
would
)
but
by
its
object
which
it
signifies
and
Seals
,
viz.
the
Blood
of
Christ
which
causeth
the
Answer
of
a
good
Conscience
towards
God
,
will
not
allow
it
to
be
meant
of
any
other
Baptism
,
but
Baptism
with
Water
,
which
he
so
carefully
explains
;
nor
can
any
man
make
Sence
of
the
explication
,
applying
it
to
any
of
these
Improper
Baptisms
.
Lastly
,
Christ
gives
most
express
Commission
to
his
Apostles
,
and
other
succeeding
Ministers
of
the
New
Testament
(
for
the
Apostles
were
not
to
live
to
the
worlds
end
,
which
is
the
duration
of
the
Commission
)
to
Baptize
with
Water
all
the
Disciples
that
should
come
unto
him
under
the
New
Testament
to
the
end
of
the
world
.
Mat.
28.19
,
20.
Therefore
Baptism
with
water
must
,
uncontrolably
,
be
an
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
Divinely
Instituted
,
and
to
continue
to
the
end
of
the
world
.
The
Consequence
hereof
is
beyond
the
exception
of
all
the
world
.
The
Antecedent
will
also
be
clear
,
if
I
can
but
prove
,
that
by
Baptism
here
is
meant
Baptism
with
Water
,
which
if
I
do
not
(
good
Reader
)
I
Intreat
thee
believe
me
not
henceforth
.
Therefore
first
,
the
Baptism
here
mentioned
in
this
Text
of
Matthew
pre-requires
Discipleship
in
the
party
to
be
Baptized
(
for
the
Words
in
the
Original
Language
are
,
Go
make
Disciples
all
Nations
,
Baptizing
them
,
&c.
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
.
But
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
does
not
pre-require
that
;
or
else
a
man
might
not
Preach
the
Gospel
to
any
that
is
not
beforehand
a
Disciple
;
and
so
it
should
never
have
been
Preached
to
the
Gentile
,
or
Heathen
world
.
Nor
does
Conversion
pre-require
Discipleship
;
or
else
no
man
might
indeavour
the
Conversion
of
an
Heathen
,
or
Pagan
,
or
of
any
man
who
is
not
before-hand
a
Disciple
.
Nor
can
the
Miraculous
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
be
here
understood
by
Baptism
,
seeing
the
Baptism
here
mentioned
is
to
continue
to
the
end
of
the
world
,
which
these
Gifts
were
not
,
as
no
man
,
even
a
Quaker
,
will
deny
.
Therefore
,
seeing
none
of
these
Improper
Baptisms
are
here
meant
,
and
some
Baptism
is
meant
,
it
must
be
meant
of
Baptism
with
water
,
seeing
the
Text
cannot
agree
with
any
other
.
Secondly
,
the
Baptism
mentioned
here
in
Matthew
,
is
the
same
with
that
mentioned
in
Mark
(
Mark
.
16.16
.
)
seeing
Matthew
here
,
and
Mark
there
are
manifestly
giving
a
Narration
of
the
self-same
thing
,
and
Commission
,
as
needs
no
proof
:
But
that
Baptism
mentioned
in
Mark
is
Baptism
with
Water
,
as
is
before
proved
:
Therefore
so
also
is
this
mentioned
here
in
Matthew
,
seeing
they
are
the
very
same
,
as
said
is
.
Thirdly
,
the
whole
Tenor
and
Circumstances
of
the
Commission
for
Baptism
in
this
Text
of
Matthew
do
agree
with
the
Baptism
with
Water
thereafter
dispensed
by
the
Apostles
,
and
other
Ministers
in
their
times
,
at
their
Order
,
and
can
agree
with
no
other
:
Therefore
the
same
must
be
here
meant
,
and
no
other
.
The
Consequence
is
so
easie
that
,
except
we
resolve
utterly
to
abandon
and
renounce
our
Reason
,
and
turn
absolute
Brutes
,
we
must
understand
every
Saying
of
that
wherewith
it
agrees
,
and
not
of
that
wherewith
it
disagrees
.
I
prove
the
Antecedent
.
For
this
Commission
in
Matthew
for
Baptism
pre-requires
the
Discipleship
of
the
Party
[
Go
make
Disciples
,
Baptizing
,
&c.
]
or
it
requires
that
they
first
be
made
Disciples
before
they
be
Baptized
,
or
none
to
be
Baptized
but
Disciples
,
as
is
most
clear
.
2dly
.
It
requires
them
to
Baptize
all
the
Disciples
of
whatsoever
Nation
(
if
they
appear
to
be
such
viz.
)
as
the
Connexion
of
this
Baptism
with
the
Condition
required
,
whereupon
it
is
to
be
dispensed
,
declares
;
and
the
Relative
word
[
Them
]
not
being
restricted
with
any
limitating
Circumstance
,
does
still
repeat
its
whole
Antecedent
,
and
is
of
the
same
full
extent
therewith
.
3dly
.
It
requires
them
without
delay
,
with
the
first
convenience
after
the
appearing
of
their
Discipleship
to
Baptize
them
,
[
Go
make
them
Disciples
,
Baptizing
]
as
if
it
should
instantly
be
done
,
there
being
no
more
now
to
be
waited
for
,
after
discovery
of
the
condition
;
and
by
this
all
needless
delays
are
cut
off
.
And
lastly
,
It
requires
the
Baptism
therein
mentioned
,
to
be
dispensed
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
,
as
is
plainly
exprest
in
the
Text.
These
things
express
the
tenor
and
circumstances
of
this
Commission
,
such
as
are
any
ways
Intrinsecal
.
Now
all
these
things
do
plainly
agree
unto
the
Baptism
with
Water
,
thereafter
dispensed
by
the
foresaid
Persons
,
and
(
as
is
already
proved
)
cannot
agree
with
any
other
.
That
they
agree
unto
that
,
I
prove
;
for
the
Baptism
with
Water
dispensed
by
them
,
pre-required
Discipleship
,
or
it
was
dispensed
to
none
but
Disciples
.
Secondly
,
It
was
dispensed
to
all
that
became
Disciples
,
(
and
appeared
such
to
the
Church
)
of
whatever
Nation
.
Thirdly
,
It
was
without
delay
dispensed
to
them
,
upon
the
appearing
of
their
Discipleship
.
Fourthly
,
It
was
dispensed
to
them
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
.
All
which
appears
from
our
second
,
third
,
and
fourth
Arguments
before
,
and
the
many
Scriptures
cited
therein
.
See
Act.
2.41
.
and
8.12
,
13
,
36
,
37.
and
10.47
.
and
18.8
.
and
22.16
.
and
1
Cor.
1.13
.
Lastly
,
All
the
Baptisms
,
except
Baptism
with
Water
,
that
can
be
alledged
or
pretended
to
be
meant
in
this
Text
of
Matthew
,
(
as
the
Baptism
of
Doctrine
,
of
Conversion
,
of
the
miraculous
Gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
and
let
the
Baptism
of
the
Cross
be
added
too
)
are
only
Improperly
and
Metaphorically
so
called
,
as
needs
little
demonstration
,
(
I
think
)
seeing
pouring
,
dipping
,
sprinkling
,
and
washing
(
which
the
word
,
Baptize
,
signifies
in
the
Original
Language
,
being
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
)
cannot
be
proper
to
any
of
these
,
and
to
that
any
of
them
agreeth
in
a
proper
sence
,
as
any
Man
,
without
preserves
,
may
see
.
Having
premised
this
ground
,
I
again
prove
,
that
the
Baptism
mentioned
in
this
Text
of
Matthew
,
and
in
all
the
Texts
that
I
have
named
,
(
which
here
I
advertise
,
that
this
evident
Argument
may
be
cumulatively
applied
to
every
one
of
them
)
is
Baptism
with
Water
;
Because
we
may
not
throw
about
the
words
of
any
Text
of
Scripture
from
a
proper
to
an
improper
meaning
,
except
some
necessity
,
either
of
the
Analogy
of
Faith
in
general
,
(
which
is
the
constant
and
perpetual
sentence
of
many
perspicuous
and
bright
shining
Scriptures
concerning
things
essential
to
Salvation
;
)
or
else
of
the
particular
scope
and
circumstances
of
the
Context
it self
,
constrain
us
so
to
do
;
otherwise
we
may
,
without
any
necessity
constraining
us
,
at
our
alone
will
and
meer
pleasure
,
without
any
other
ground
imaginable
moving
us
,
throw
about
from
a
proper
to
an
improper
meaning
,
the
most
properly
meant
saying
in
all
the
whole
Scriptures
,
and
reject
the
proper
sence
and
meaning
of
every
Text
,
and
make
them
every
where
at
our
meer
pleasure
,
to
speak
improperly
:
but
that
is
utterly
absurd
,
and
would
enervat
and
turn
to
nothing
the
very
body
of
the
Scriptures
,
as
needs
no
Demonstration
,
I
am
sure
:
but
there
is
no
such
necessity
in
this
or
any
Text
we
have
Argued
from
,
to
throw
about
the
word
,
Baptism
,
from
being
meant
properly
of
Baptism
with
Water
,
to
be
meant
of
any
of
the
fore-mentioned
improperly
so
called
Baptisms
;
Or
else
,
we
charge
the
Quakers
to
shew
and
make
good
that
necessity
,
(
if
they
can
)
which
we
defie
them
and
a
whole
Legion
of
their
Inspirers
ever
to
do
.
Therefore
,
by
this
irrefragable
Argument
from
the
Analogy
of
Faith
,
Baptism
with
Water
(
which
alone
is
properly
so
called
)
is
both
meant
here
in
Matthew
,
and
in
all
the
Texts
that
we
have
named
.
Analogum
per
se
positum
stat
pro
principali
Analogato
.
Having
so
demonstrated
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
is
meant
in
that
Text
of
Matthew
;
hence
it
is
manifest
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
is
an
Ordinance
which
God
hath
appointed
to
be
continued
to
the
end
of
the
World
;
for
the
promise
there
subjoyned
of
Christs
presence
with
his
Ministers
there
Commissionated
alway
even
unto
the
end
of
the
World
,
for
their
encouragement
in
the
Execution
of
that
their
Commission
,
doth
most
plainly
shew
their
Commission
to
be
of
that
continuance
.
Secondly
,
I
have
shewed
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
was
once
in
the
New
Testament
Church
necessary
unto
Salvation
,
(
as
was
explained
)
and
due
in
the
Churches
Court
,
to
all
who
probably
had
received
the
Spirit
of
Grace
.
Let
the
Quakers
shew
us
,
(
if
they
can
)
when
it
became
unnecessary
,
and
when
,
or
where
that
Bond
and
Tie
was
taken
off
the
New
Testament
Church
.
Thirdly
,
seeing
by
all
our
preceeding
Arguments
,
it
is
evident
that
Baptism
with
Water
was
once
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
,
the
Quakers
must
either
yield
the
continuance
thereof
to
be
to
the
end
of
the
World
;
or
else
,
they
must
say
,
That
it
is
since
the
Institution
repealed
again
.
Let
them
shew
us
then
,
where
the
repealing
thereof
is
Recorded
,
or
to
be
found
in
the
Scriptures
,
which
are
the
Supream
Rule
of
Faith
and
Manners
;
for
the
Quakers
bare
word
(
spoken
(
may
be
)
in
a
mixture
when
the
Moon
was
at
the
Full
)
is
not
enough
for
it
.
And
if
they
can
shew
us
nothing
for
it
,
(
which
is
sure
)
and
yet
will
say
,
It
is
repealed
,
they
may
upon
the
same
ground
,
(
that
is
to
say
,
without
any
ground
)
say
,
that
the
Commandments
to
repent
,
believe
,
fear
,
and
love
God
,
and
all
the
rest
of
them
,
are
repealed
,
and
then
we
may
do
what
we
please
,
and
follow
the
Light
within
at
the
top-speed
.
But
now
,
because
in
Justice
we
are
bound
to
give
the
Quakers
fair
Game
,
we
must
hear
what
they
have
to
say
against
our
preceeding
Doctrine
;
and
we
need
not
doubt
,
but
their
Infallible
heads
are
furnisht
with
forcible
Arguments
.
Therefore
first
,
because
from
thence
they
fear
their
greatest
danger
,
(
albeit
I
have
proved
the
business
by
many
other
convincing
Arguments
,
and
could
without
that
Argument
irresistibly
make
good
the
point
)
they
assault
the
Argument
from
Matthew
with
several
devices
.
First
then
,
They
alledge
that
Baptizing
in
that
Text
is
the
same
with
Disciple-making
,
which
is
not
meant
of
Baptizing
with
Water
;
and
so
neither
is
that
.
Ans
,
First
,
They
ought
to
shew
us
some
necessary
ground
for
this
Metaphorical
Commentary
upon
the
word
,
Baptize
,
which
we
have
not
seen
as
yet
.
Secondly
,
Unto
this
conceipt
we
shall
oppose
our
second
and
last
Arguments
,
whereby
it
is
proved
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
is
meant
in
the
Text
,
in
despight
of
this
Exception
.
Consider
the
Arguments
;
for
we
need
not
repeat
them
.
Thirdly
,
All
their
grounds
for
this
Exception
is
,
because
when
it
is
said
,
Go
make
Disciples
,
&c.
the
word
,
Baptize
,
is
subjoined
in
the
Present
Tence
of
the
Participle
,
Baptizing
:
but
by
this
ground
(
if
good
)
Teaching
,
which
presently
follows
too
,
and
in
the
same
manner
,
shall
also
be
the
same
with
Disciple-making
;
and
so
the
whole
Commission
shall
consist
of
one
and
the
same
thing
thrice
repeated
;
which
is
most
absurd
,
and
no
Man
,
though
as
absurd
as
a
Quaker
,
will
say
it
.
For
,
who
shall
think
,
or
why
,
that
Christ
committed
such
a
three-fold
Tautology
in
delivering
so
short
a
Commission
?
that
would
neither
have
suited
the
wisdom
of
the
Person
,
nor
the
nature
of
the
thing
.
Secondly
,
They
except
against
the
same
Text
,
(
with
their
old
Friend
Socinus
)
that
the
Apostles
dispensed
their
Baptism
with
Water
only
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
whereas
the
Baptism
mentioned
in
this
Text
of
Matthew
is
to
be
dispensed
in
the
Name
of
Father
,
Son
,
and
Holy
Ghost
;
and
so
they
cannot
be
one
and
the
same
.
Ans.
By
this
Argument
they
might
as
well
prove
,
that
Paul
Preached
not
in
the
Name
of
any
other
Person
of
the
Trinity
,
but
of
the
Lord
Jesus
only
,
because
he
only
is
mentioned
,
(
Act.
9.27
,
29.
)
or
that
he
and
Timothy
served
no
other
Person
of
the
Trinity
,
because
he
only
is
mentioned
,
Philip.
1.1
.
Secondly
,
I
shall
oppose
unto
this
Exception
my
first
,
second
,
and
fourth
Arguments
,
whereby
,
maugre
this
exception
,
Baptism
with
Water
is
proved
to
be
meant
in
this
Text
of
Matthew
.
Thirdly
,
The
rest
of
the
Trinity
are
omitted
in
the
History
,
(
though
it
follows
not
,
that
so
they
were
in
the
action
)
partly
for
shortening
the
Narration
,
(
which
is
usual
)
and
partly
because
,
it
being
the
great
doubt
and
controversie
of
the
time
,
If
Jesus
was
the
true
Messias
;
for
that
cause
his
name
is
more
frequently
mentioned
,
than
the
rest
of
the
Trinity
,
in
the
whole
New
Testament
.
Thirdly
,
They
except
against
the
same
Text
,
that
the
Apostles
are
therein
commanded
to
Baptize
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
,
which
sort
of
Baptizing
is
with
the
Spirit
,
(
say
they
)
not
at
all
with
Water
.
Ans.
Unto
this
Exception
I
shall
first
oppose
all
my
Arguments
,
whereby
,
over
the
belly
thereof
,
I
have
proved
Baptism
with
Water
to
be
meant
in
the
Text.
Secondly
,
Was
not
Baptism
with
Water
(
say
ye
)
dispensed
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
?
See
it
done
,
(
I
pray
)
and
commanded
to
be
done
,
that
ye
may
not
pretend
ignorance
hereafter
,
Act.
2.38
.
and
8.16
.
and
10.48
.
Lastly
,
It
must
be
a
desperate
cause
that
forces
it's
Patrons
to
such
contrary
defences
;
presently
they
affirmed
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
was
dispensed
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
;
now
they
cry
,
About
Ship
,
and
deny
that
Baptism
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
is
Baptism
with
Water
.
Are
not
these
Men
indeed
in
a
mixture
,
who
in
the
unjust
defence
of
falshood
thus
run
upon
such
desperate
.
〈◊〉
of
splitting
Contradiction
?
But
fourthly
,
They
except
against
the
same
Text
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
cannot
be
meant
therein
,
because
the
Apostles
(
say
they
)
had
no
commission
to
Baptize
with
Water
,
seeing
Paul
says
,
(
1
Cor.
1.17
.
)
that
Christ
sent
him
not
to
Baptize
,
but
to
Preach
the
Gospel
.
Ans.
But
in
despight
of
this
Exception
,
all
our
forementioned
Arguments
do
plainly
prove
the
Baptism
mentioned
in
the
Text
to
be
Baptism
with
Water
,
and
so
also
that
the
Apostles
had
a
Commission
to
Baptize
with
Water
.
Secondly
,
The
Quakers
are
bound
by
this
their
reasoning
to
acknowledge
the
Baptism
there
mentioned
,
(
viz.
1
Cor.
1.17
.
)
to
be
Baptism
with
Water
,
(
or
else
they
will
lose
the
whole
ground
pretended
for
their
exception
)
which
acknowledged
,
(
as
we
have
also
before
proved
it
truly
to
be
)
it
presently
appears
from
the
Context
of
the
same
place
,
that
the
Apostles
had
a
Commission
for
Baptizing
with
Water
,
seeing
Paul
plainly
there
declares
,
that
he
Baptized
some
of
these
Corinthians
,
which
(
doubtless
)
he
did
not
without
Commission
;
or
else
,
he
had
been
a
manifest
Intruder
and
Usurper
of
an
Office
in
the
Church
and
Worship
of
God
,
for
which
he
had
no
Order
,
or
Warrant
,
which
must
be
false
.
I
answer
therefore
lastly
,
that
the
meaning
of
these
words
of
Paul
is
plainly
Comparative
,
viz.
that
Baptism
was
not
the
principal
and
chief
work
that
he
was
sent
for
,
but
the
Preaching
of
the
Gospel
;
such
as
is
the
meaning
of
that
expression
,
(
Hos.
6.6
.
)
I
desired
Mercy
,
and
not
Sacrifice
:
and
such
as
is
the
meaning
of
that
,
(
Joh.
15.22
.
)
If
I
had
not
come
and
spoken
unto
them
,
they
had
not
had
sin
,
that
is
,
nothing
compared
to
what
they
now
have
.
Lastly
,
They
except
against
the
same
Text
,
that
Baptism
with
Water
cannot
be
meant
therein
,
because
(
say
they
)
it
is
not
therein
expresly
mentioned
.
Ans.
First
,
A
Man
might
upon
this
ground
much
rather
argue
against
Christs
demonstration
,
(
Luk.
20.37
.
)
that
the
rising
of
the
dead
is
not
expresly
taught
,
(
Exod.
3.6
.
from
whence
he
brings
his
Argument
)
where
God
says
,
I
am
the
God
of
Abraham
,
Isaac
,
and
Jacob
;
and
that
therefore
such
a
thing
cannot
be
there
meant
.
Or
that
Circum●sion
of
the
flesh
of
the
Foreskin
is
not
expresly
mentioned
under
every
distinguishing
Character
thereof
,
(
Galat.
5.2
,
3.
)
where
the
flesh
of
the
Foreskin
is
omitted
;
and
that
therefore
it
cannot
be
that
which
is
there
meant
,
but
our
Spiritual
Circumcision
in
Christ
,
that
is
,
our
Regeneration
,
must
be
the
thing
which
Paul
there
disputes
against
and
condemns
:
and
is
not
that
well
argued
?
Secondly
,
As
Baptism
with
Water
is
not
here
expresly
named
,
in
respect
of
every
punctilio
of
its
designation
;
So
far
less
is
any
of
the
forementioned
improper
Baptisms
here
expresly
mentioned
,
seeing
the
name
Baptism
,
is
proper
to
that
of
Water
,
and
not
to
the
other
:
Therefore
,
by
the
Quakers
own
Rule
,
none
of
these
is
meant
here
either
;
and
so
(
if
the
Rule
be
good
)
no
sort
of
Baptism
is
here
meant
,
but
the
word
Baptizing
,
is
set
down
here
for
an
impertinent
Cipher
signifying
nothing
.
Thirdly
,
I
have
shewed
before
,
that
there
is
much
Doctrine
meant
in
the
Scriptures
,
which
is
not
therein
expresly
taught
,
but
implicitly
only
;
and
so
this
Rule
of
the
Quakers
is
most
false
.
I
answer
therefore
lastly
,
that
albeit
the
word
Water
,
be
not
here
(
Matth.
28.19
.
)
formally
exprest
;
yet
the
circumstances
of
the
Text
,
the
Analogy
of
Faith
,
and
other
Scriptures
that
I
have
compared
it
with
in
my
Arguments
,
do
manifestly
and
irresistibly
demonstrate
the
Baptism
here
mentioned
,
to
be
Baptism
with
Water
.
Let
the
Quakers
answer
my
Arguments
if
they
can
,
I
mean
at
the
Greek
Calends
.
All
the
particular
exceptions
of
the
Quakers
against
our
Argument
from
that
Text
of
Matthew
,
being
so
overthrown
and
answered
;
The
Quakers
have
as
yet
one
general
Argument
,
whereby
they
hope
to
overturn
Baptism
with
Water
,
viz.
Baptism
with
Water
(
say
they
)
was
but
a
figure
,
that
Christ
might
be
made
manifest
to
Israel
,
who
had
diverse
Baptisms
imposed
on
them
,
till
the
time
of
Reformation
;
but
Christ
the
Substance
being
come
,
the
shadows
must
flee
away
.
This
Objection
they
lay
down
in
their
Confession
of
Faith
,
page
25.
Ans.
Whether
Baptism
with
Water
be
a
Figure
,
or
not
,
I
have
now
abundantly
proved
it
to
be
an
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
,
Divinely
Appointed
,
due
in
the
Churches
Court
to
all
the
visible
,
or
appearing
Disciples
of
the
New
Testament
,
and
necessary
to
Salvation
under
the
same
,
and
to
continue
to
the
end
of
the
World
.
And
what
then
dare
the
Quakers
say
against
it
?
Or
,
how
dare
they
oppose
their
own
meer
Brain-sick
fancies
to
the
Word
of
God
and
Dictates
of
the
Holy
Ghost
?
Secondly
,
Let
Baptism
with
Water
be
a
Figure
manifesting
Christ
to
Jews
and
Gentiles
too
,
(
that
is
to
say
,
a
sacred
Symbol
of
Christs
blood
shed
(
not
to
be
shed
,
and
so
not
a
shadow
of
a
thing
to
come
)
on
the
Cross
,
and
a
Seal
of
Remission
of
Sins
there
through
;
)
Yet
Christ
,
by
his
Incarnation
,
Death
,
and
Resurrection
did
not
cancel
all
manner
of
Figures
universally
,
seeing
the
Bow
in
the
Cloud
is
still
a
Figure
to
us
,
or
a
Symbol
and
Pledge
rather
,
that
God
will
no
more
destroy
the
World
by
Water
,
(
Gen.
9.11
,
12
,
13.
)
Nor
did
he
thereby
cancel
all
manner
of
Figures
,
(
I
would
rather
call
them
sacred
Signs
and
Symbols
,
if
the
Quakers
would
too
)
representing
Christ
and
his
Passion
and
Blood
Shed
;
(
for
we
shall
moreover
prove
at
the
Survey
of
their
next
ensuing
Query
,
that
Christ
hath
Ordained
Bread
and
Wine
to
be
in
the
Eucharist
a
Sacred
Sign
and
Symbol
of
his
Body
and
Blood
to
the
Worlds
end
.
)
But
he
hath
only
cancelled
thereby
Old
Testament
Figures
,
shadowing
forth
Him
,
and
His
Death
and
Passion
to
come
.
Thirdly
,
If
Baptism
with
Water
was
only
a
Figure
to
manifest
unto
Israel
Christ
Jesus
,
why
then
did
the
Apostles
dispense
it
afterwards
to
the
whole
Disciples
of
the
Gentile
Church
,
without
ever
cashiering
it
,
and
with
so
much
speed
and
diligence
after
the
appearing
of
their
Discipleship
?
Lastly
,
Gospel
Baptism
,
which
is
done
with
Water
as
the
External
Symbol
,
is
so
far
from
being
a
shadow
that
should
have
fled
away
,
when
Christ
came
in
the
Flesh
and
Dyed
,
and
the
time
of
Reformation
was
come
,
that
,
on
the
direct
contrary
,
it
then
first
received
its
Institution
after
Christ
was
come
,
and
together
with
the
breaking
forth
of
that
Reformation
,
(
viz.
the
New
Testament
way
of
Dispensation
)
and
is
by
Christ
put
into
the
Commission
of
the
Ministers
of
that
Reformation
,
as
an
Ordinance
to
be
continued
to
the
Worlds
end
,
and
was
thereafter
accordingly
carried
along
therewith
,
as
a
Sacred
Symbol
due
to
all
the
visible
Disciples
;
all
which
we
have
before
proved
.
The
passage
of
Scripture
here
cited
by
the
Quakers
out
of
the
Epistle
to
the
Hebrews
,
(
Heb.
9.10
.
)
will
not
help
their
Erroneous
Cause
:
for
the
Apostle
does
not
there
speak
of
the
Gospel-Baptism
for
the
evident
grounds
now
given
,
and
as
is
clear
from
the
Context
it self
,
(
where
he
speaks
of
Old
Testament
Ordinances
only
)
nor
was
that
imposed
on
the
Israelites
in
Old
Testament
times
,
but
began
with
the
New
:
But
the
Baptisms
he
there
speaks
of
,
are
the
legal
washings
and
purifications
that
were
imposed
upon
the
Israelites
in
the
time
of
the
Old
Testament
,
such
as
are
described
in
Numb
.
19.
Chap.
Levit.
11
,
12
,
13
,
14
,
15.
Chapters
.
SECT.
IV.
Concerning
Infant-Baptism
.
Being
now
come
to
Infant-Baptism
,
upon
which
,
I
am
sure
,
I
shall
need
to
say
very
little
,
in
regard
that
Reverend
and
Worthy
Mr.
Baxter
hath
in
his
Book
against
Tombs
,
so
fully
and
excellently
discussed
the
Point
,
that
I
can
hardly
expect
that
ever
any
Man
shall
add
to
him
;
but
only
because
this
may
come
into
the
hands
of
some
Persons
who
have
not
seen
that
,
Therefore
(
though
very
briefly
)
I
shall
not
altogether
seem
to
say
nothing
,
but
still
referring
the
Reader
to
the
foresaid
excellent
Book
.
The
Question
therefore
is
,
Whether
the
Infants
of
Believing
Parents
,
or
Professing
to
believe
,
(
which
is
all
one
to
the
Church
)
ought
to
be
Baptized
,
or
not
?
Whereunto
I
answer
affirmatively
,
that
they
ought
be
Baptized
.
I
prove
it
.
But
first
I
must
Premise
,
that
the
Covenant
is
the
same
in
Substance
under
the
Old
Testament
and
the
New
.
For
which
see
Rom.
4.11
,
12
,
13.
and
11.17
,
24.
Galat.
3.8
,
9.
and
4.28
.
Heb.
6.
from
Ver.
12.
to
the
end
.
Secondly
,
I
must
Premise
,
That
the
Children
of
Believers
have
the
same
Interest
into
the
Covenant
with
the
Parents
:
for
which
see
Gen.
17.
ch.
Act.
2.39
.
Matth.
19.14
.
Luk.
18.16
.
and
for
that
cause
Paul
calls
the
Children
of
Believers
Holy
,
(
1
Cor.
7.14
)
viz.
Externally
,
Federally
,
and
in
regard
of
Church-Membership
,
and
not
because
they
were
not
Bastards
,
(
for
so
the
Children
of
meer
Pagans
might
as
well
have
been
called
Holy
)
but
because
they
were
descended
of
Believing
Parents
(
though
but
on
the
one
side
)
which
is
the
very
reason
that
he
gives
in
the
Text
,
why
they
are
Holy
.
Thirdly
,
I
must
premise
,
that
Circumcision
was
the
initiating
Seal
under
the
Old
Testament
,
which
is
evident
by
the
early
Administration
thereof
upon
the
Eight
Day
,
and
that
by
Divine
Appointment
,
Gen.
17.
Having
premised
these
things
,
I
prove
my
Conclusion
.
First
,
Children
of
Believers
were
by
a
Divine
Right
Circumcised
under
the
Old
Testament
:
but
Baptism
under
the
New
Testament
is
succeeded
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
under
the
Old
:
Therefore
the
Children
of
Believers
ought
to
be
Baptized
under
the
New
Testament
.
Only
that
needs
proving
,
that
Baptism
under
the
New
Testament
is
succeeded
in
the
room
of
Circumcision
under
the
Old
:
which
I
prove
,
First
,
because
they
both
Seal
the
very
same
thing
;
and
Secondly
,
because
as
Circumcision
was
the
initiating
Seal
under
the
Old
Testament
,
so
is
Baptism
under
the
New
.
That
they
both
Seal
the
same
thing
is
clear
by
comparing
Rom.
4.11
.
with
Mark
.
1.4
.
Act.
2.38
.
where
Circumcision
is
declared
to
be
a
Seal
of
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
,
and
Baptism
is
held
forth
to
be
a
Symbol
,
or
Pledge
of
the
Remission
of
Sins
:
now
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
is
really
one
and
the
same
thing
with
Remission
of
Sins
(
as
also
may
be
seen
Rom.
4.6
,
7
,
8.
)
albeit
the
respects
be
divers
.
And
again
,
as
Circumcision
under
the
Old
Testament
was
a
Symbol
of
inward
Mortification
and
Repentance
,
so
is
Baptism
under
the
New
,
for
which
compare
Deut.
10.16
.
and
30.6
.
and
Jer.
4.4
.
and
Rom.
2.28
,
29.
with
Mark
.
1.4
.
and
Act.
2.38
.
and
19.4
.
from
all
which
it
is
clear
that
Baptism
is
a
Symbol
and
Seal
of
the
same
things
whereof
Circumcision
was
.
Secondly
,
that
as
Circumcision
was
the
Initiating
Seal
under
the
Old
Testament
,
so
is
Baptism
under
the
New
.
I
prove
,
First
,
because
the
Apostles
Dispensed
it
so
early
to
the
Disciples
at
the
first
appearing
of
their
New
Breath
and
Interest
into
the
Covenant
,
as
we
shewed
before
.
Secondly
,
because
by
Baptism
we
are
said
to
put
on
Christ
.
Galat.
3.7
.
Thirdly
,
the
Lords
Supper
(
which
I
shall
prove
to
be
of
Divine
Institution
at
the
Survey
of
their
next
Query
)
is
a
Symbol
or
Seal
of
our
Growth
and
Nourishment
into
the
Covenant
:
Therefore
Baptism
,
which
is
the
other
Seal
,
must
be
the
Seal
of
our
New
Birth
and
Entry
into
the
Covenant
.
For
it
were
absurd
to
say
,
we
had
two
sorts
of
Seals
for
our
Growth
and
Confirmation
thereof
,
and
our
Birth
and
Entry
into
the
Covenant
left
altogether
without
Seal
:
nay
we
have
much
more
need
to
be
Confirmed
concerning
this
,
than
that
;
and
so
it
ought
far
rather
to
be
Sealed
.
We
shall
add
,
as
the
Epilogue
of
this
Argument
,
that
the
Apostle
Teaches
(
Celos
.
2.11
,
12.
)
that
our
Burial
with
Christ
in
Baptism
is
our
Circumcision
in
Christ
,
which
shews
that
Baptism
is
succeeded
to
us
in
the
Room
of
Circumcision
.
But
the
Anti-pedobaptists
except
against
the
Argument
,
that
Baptism
is
not
succeeded
in
the
Room
of
Circumcision
,
because
Circumcision
was
Dispensed
to
none
but
Males
,
and
on
the
eighth
day
exactly
,
and
because
Circumcision
was
not
a
Figure
of
Baptism
.
Ans.
But
our
preceeding
Arguments
prove
that
Baptism
is
succeeded
in
the
Room
thereof
,
seeing
it
exactly
acts
the
Part
and
Office
that
Circumcision
formally
acted
as
the
Initiating
Seal
,
which
shews
it
to
be
come
in
the
Room
and
place
thereof
.
As
for
that
,
that
Baptism
is
not
Tyed
to
the
Circumstance
of
the
eighth
day
,
as
Circumcision
was
,
that
says
nothing
;
for
albeit
Baptism
be
succeeded
in
the
Room
of
Circumcision
in
the
substance
of
its
work
,
yet
it
does
not
therefore
follow
that
it
should
succeed
to
the
external
Circumstances
of
Circumcision
:
for
so
,
not
Baptism
,
but
the
Circumstances
thereof
should
have
succeeded
to
the
Circumstances
of
Circumcision
,
which
is
not
the
Question
,
nor
any
thing
we
plead
for
.
Again
,
Circumcision
in
the
Institution
was
restricted
to
the
eighth
day
,
which
Baptism
is
not
,
and
so
it
is
not
Tyed
to
that
Circumstance
.
That
Circumcision
was
Dispensed
only
to
Males
says
,
nothing
neither
,
seeing
women
by
Nature
were
not
capable
thereof
;
and
therefore
it
stood
in
the
Room
thereof
to
them
to
be
the
Daughters
of
Circumcised
Fathers
.
But
they
are
capable
of
Baptism
,
and
are
not
excepted
from
it
,
as
they
were
from
Circumcision
;
but
,
on
the
contrary
,
women
are
Baptized
,
as
well
as
men
.
Act.
8.12
.
and
16.15
.
For
that
,
that
in
the
matter
of
Succession
they
require
the
Cedent
to
be
a
Figure
of
the
Successor
,
I
believe
it
is
spoken
in
Jest
;
otherwise
they
will
have
every
Cedent
a
Figure
of
his
Assigny
,
and
every
Servant
removing
at
the
Term
to
be
a
Figure
of
the
other
that
comes
in
his
place
,
which
is
Ridiculous
.
Secondly
,
whosoever
is
Adopted
and
received
within
the
Covenant
,
hath
a
Divine
right
unto
Baptism
under
the
New
Testament
:
but
Children
of
believing
Parents
are
by
God
Adopted
and
received
within
the
Covenant
,
as
is
plain
from
Gen.
17.
ch.
Mat.
19.14
.
Act.
2.39
.
1
Cor.
7.14
.
Therefore
Children
of
believing
Parents
have
a
Divine
right
unto
Baptism
under
the
New
Testament
.
The
Minor
is
Evident
by
the
Scriptures
Cited
.
I
prove
the
Major
,
because
Baptism
under
the
New
Testament
is
the
Initiating
Seal
and
Symbol
belonging
and
appended
to
our
Entry
and
Reception
into
the
Covenant
(
as
was
before
proved
)
under
the
New
Testament
;
and
so
it
belongs
to
every
person
that
is
received
into
the
Covenant
upon
the
accompt
of
their
Reception
;
or
else
it
shall
belong
to
their
Entry
and
Reception
(
as
is
supposed
and
above
proved
)
and
yet
not
to
them
as
Entered
and
Received
,
which
involves
a
manifest
Contradiction
.
Thirdly
,
all
who
are
probably
Partakers
of
the
Spirit
of
Grace
and
Regeneration
have
a
Divine
Right
under
the
New
Testament
unto
Baptism
,
in
the
Churches
Court
,
and
she
ought
to
admit
them
thereunto
,
as
was
before
proved
from
Act.
10.47
,
48.
But
the
Children
of
believing
Parents
are
probably
Partakers
of
the
Spirit
of
Grace
and
Regeneration
under
the
New
Testament
:
Therefore
they
have
a
right
unto
Baptism
,
in
the
Churches
Court
,
and
she
is
bound
to
admit
them
thereunto
.
The
Major
was
evidently
proved
before
.
I
prove
the
Minor
;
for
Gods
taking
them
in
within
the
Covenant
(
Gen.
17.
chap.
)
makes
it
probable
.
His
promising
to
Circumcise
the
hearts
of
the
Children
,
as
well
as
the
Parents
(
Deut.
30.6
.
)
makes
it
probable
.
Gods
Sanctifying
some
of
the
Children
of
believers
from
the
Womb
(
Jerem.
1.5
.
Luk.
1.15
.
)
makes
it
probable
.
Pauls
calling
them
Holy
(
1
Cor.
7.14
.
)
viz.
federally
and
externally
,
makes
it
probable
.
And
if
it
were
not
probable
that
the
Children
of
Believers
did
partake
of
the
Spirit
of
Grace
and
Regeneration
,
then
it
could
not
be
probable
that
any
of
them
Dying
in
Non-age
should
be
Saved
,
seeing
none
but
such
as
are
Born
of
Water
and
of
the
Spirit
can
enter
into
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
Joh.
3.5
.
And
lastly
(
for
,
I
am
sure
,
I
need
no
more
)
Christs
declaring
and
asserting
their
Interest
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
(
Mat.
19.14
.
Luk.
18.16
.
)
whereunto
they
cannot
enter
without
being
Regenerated
,
makes
it
probable
.
These
things
make
it
Infallibly
certain
as
to
the
Kind
,
or
Quoad
Speciem
,
and
probable
as
to
particular
persons
,
or
Quoad
Individua
.
But
against
this
Last
the
Quakers
except
(
with
the
A●abaptists
)
That
Christ
does
not
in
these
Texts
say
,
that
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
pertained
to
these
Infants
that
were
brought
to
him
,
and
such
other
Natural
Infants
;
but
unto
Spiritual
Infants
,
whom
he
means
of
when
he
says
,
Of
such
is
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
.
Ans.
But
then
Christs
reasoning
runs
thus
,
suffer
little
Children
(
these
were
true
Natural
Infants
that
were
brought
to
Christ
,
as
we
shall
presently
see
)
wanting
Interest
in
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
to
come
unto
me
:
for
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
belongs
to
mature
persons
regenerated
,
which
are
Spiritual
Infants
;
and
Infants
Improperly
so
called
.
This
would
have
been
so
bad
a
Consequence
,
that
it
would
have
bereft
the
Discourse
of
all
Sence
.
Secondly
,
hereby
they
shew
that
,
in
their
opinion
,
there
are
no
Infants
that
have
Interest
into
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
;
otherwise
they
should
have
granted
Christs
words
in
respect
of
Infants
properly
so
called
;
and
then
farewel
to
the
Objection
.
Thirdly
,
we
here
appeal
the
Analogy
of
Faith
,
without
some
necessity
from
which
,
the
words
must
not
be
detorted
from
a
proper
to
an
Improper
Sence
.
Secondly
they
except
,
that
these
were
not
young
Infants
that
were
brought
to
Christ
,
but
grown
to
some
pretty
Age
,
because
Christ
says
,
Suffer
them
to
come
,
intimating
that
they
themselves
could
Walk
.
Ans.
But
when
(
I
Marvel
)
did
,
Come
,
begin
so
necessarily
to
signifie
walking
on
ones
own
Feet
?
A
man
is
said
to
Come
from
America
,
albeit
he
should
lie
all
the
while
in
a
Ships
Cabin
.
The
Text
shews
that
these
Children
came
not
on
their
own
Feet
.
For
in
the
Text
of
Luke
they
are
called
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
that
is
,
Sucking
Infants
.
And
in
all
the
Texts
there
is
a
word
used
for
their
bringing
that
signifies
to
bear
,
or
carry
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
.
Again
,
Christ
took
them
in
his
Arms
and
Blessed
them
,
but
never
a
word
of
his
Teaching
them
.
These
that
brought
them
spoke
(
as
the
Texts
Intimate
)
but
never
a
word
in
their
head
.
And
if
they
had
been
in
any
small
measure
capable
of
Christs
Doctrine
,
the
Disciples
(
it
seems
)
would
not
have
forbidden
their
coming
.
Lastly
,
they
except
against
the
Body
of
the
Argument
,
that
it
cannot
be
discerned
,
if
Infants
have
received
the
Spirit
,
or
not
.
Ans.
I
have
shewed
before
,
how
as
to
the
Kind
(
quoad
Speciem
)
it
may
be
Infallibly
discerned
,
and
probably
as
to
Individuals
.
Now
probable
Evidences
are
sufficient
for
the
Baptism
of
particular
persons
,
Old
,
or
Young
;
or
else
none
at
all
should
be
admitted
to
Baptism
,
seeing
heart-searching
is
Gods
Prerogative
(
Jer.
17.9
,
10.
)
nor
did
the
Apostles
themselves
Infallibly
discern
peoples
hearts
:
as
may
be
seen
Act.
8.13
.
with
23.
and
9.26
,
27.
1
Joh.
2.19
.
Fourthly
,
all
the
visible
,
or
appearing
Disciples
of
Christ
ought
to
be
Baptized
under
the
New
Testament
,
as
is
evident
from
Mat.
28.19
.
Where
Christ
commands
to
make
all
Nations
his
Disciples
,
Baptizing
them
,
&c.
From
which
Text
it
is
as
clear
as
Noontyde
,
that
whoever
is
once
visibly
,
or
appearingly
become
Christs
Disciple
(
for
the
Church
cannot
go
beyond
probabilities
here
)
ought
to
be
Baptized
,
and
that
forthwith
,
assoon
as
it
can
be
conveniently
done
,
as
the
Expression
imports
,
Go
make
them
Disciples
,
Baptizing
,
as
if
they
should
be
Baptized
in
the
very
same
instant
that
their
Interest
and
Discipleship
appears
,
without
requiring
or
expecting
any
further
,
that
,
as
being
the
Condition
,
being
once
probably
discovered
:
But
the
Children
of
believing
Parents
are
visible
Disciples
of
Christ
:
Therefore
they
ought
to
be
Baptized
under
the
New
Testament
.
The
Major
needs
no
more
proving
.
I
prove
the
Minor
;
for
all
the
visible
Members
of
Christs
School
are
his
visible
Disciples
,
seeing
to
be
a
Member
of
ones
School
,
and
to
be
his
Disciple
are
both
one
thing
,
as
is
undeniable
;
but
the
Children
of
believing
Parents
are
visible
Members
of
Christs
School
,
seeing
Christs
School
is
his
Church
,
whereof
the
Children
of
believers
are
,
certainly
,
Members
;
seeing
they
were
Members
thereof
in
the
time
of
the
Old
Testament
,
and
(
doubtless
)
Christs
coming
in
the
Flesh
,
when
the
Grace
of
God
was
enlarged
,
hath
not
deprived
them
of
so
merciful
a
Priviledge
;
surely
not
;
and
since
God
received
them
into
the
Covenant
,
we
never
heard
of
his
putting
them
out
again
;
and
they
are
Holy
,
viz.
federally
and
in
order
to
Church-membership
;
and
of
such
is
the
Kingdom
of
Heaven
,
all
which
i●
already
declared
.
The
Anabaptists
use
to
urge
this
Text
of
Matthew
against
Infant-Baptism
,
reading
the
words
as
they
are
in
our
Translation
,
Go
ye
therefore
,
and
Teach
all
Nations
,
Baptizing
them
,
&c.
From
whence
they
Infer
that
all
that
are
to
be
Baptized
ought
first
to
be
Taught
,
whereof
Children
are
not
capable
;
and
therefore
ought
not
to
be
Baptized
.
But
,
beside
that
the
Jews
Children
were
admitted
to
the
Initiating
Seal
,
who
were
as
uncapable
of
Teaching
as
ours
,
The
truth
is
,
the
word
in
the
Original
Language
is
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
doth
not
signifie
to
Teach
,
but
to
Make
Disciples
,
which
all
know
that
know
the
Language
;
and
it
is
plainly
distinguisht
in
the
Text
from
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
which
follows
in
the
beginning
of
the
very
next
Verse
,
and
in
the
Native
Etymology
signifies
to
Teach
;
and
so
this
Text
is
so
far
from
favoring
their
Error
,
that
it
clearly
overthrows
it
,
as
we
have
now
shewed
.
But
the
Anabaptists
still
object
,
that
Christ
,
after
he
had
Commanded
his
Apostles
and
Ministers
to
go
and
Preach
the
Gospel
to
all
the
world
,
adds
,
that
he
that
believes
,
and
is
Baptized
shall
be
Saved
,
Mark
.
16.16
.
Therefore
Christ
pre-requires
Faith
unto
Baptism
:
but
Children
cannot
believe
,
therefore
they
ought
not
to
be
Baptized
.
Some
answer
to
the
Minor
of
this
Argument
,
that
,
though
Children
cannot
actually
believe
,
yet
they
are
capable
of
the
Seeds
and
Principles
of
Faith
,
or
of
a
Seminal
and
Inclinative
Faith
;
which
I
grant
is
true
,
but
seeing
the
Argument
urges
actual
Faith
(
which
they
have
not
adverted
to
)
it
belongs
not
to
the
answer
thereof
.
I
answer
therefore
,
and
grant
that
actual
believing
is
pre-required
unto
Baptism
in
adult
persons
come
to
some
years
of
discretion
(
according
to
these
Scriptures
,
Mark
.
16.16
.
Act.
2.38
.
and
8.12
,
13.
and
18.8
.
)
and
therefore
they
must
give
a
serious
Profession
thereof
,
or
some
probable
Evidence
thereof
must
be
had
before
the
Church
admit
them
to
Baptism
,
seeing
(
as
is
supposed
)
they
are
either
before
,
Strangers
unto
the
Covenant
;
or
else
,
if
that
be
not
,
yet
,
if
they
refuse
the
Gospel-offer
,
they
fore-fault
their
Interest
;
and
so
without
the
Profession
of
their
Faith
,
or
some
probable
evidence
thereof
,
they
have
not
a
visible
Interest
.
But
these
things
are
not
pre-required
of
the
Children
of
believing
Parents
,
who
have
an
Interest
(
not
forefaulted
by
any
refusal
)
upon
the
accompt
of
their
descent
from
Christian
Parents
Professing
the
Faith
,
whose
Children
are
with
themselves
taken
in
within
the
Covenant
(
as
is
before
shewed
)
and
it
stands
in
the
room
of
a
Profession
to
them
,
that
they
are
by
God
taken
in
within
the
Covenant
,
and
born
within
the
Church
of
Christian
Parents
professing
the
Faith
.
All
which
is
still
further
clear
in
the
Circumcision
of
the
Jews
Children
,
nor
can
any
thing
be
said
against
the
one
which
does
not
with
equal
force
assault
the
other
.
Again
they
object
,
that
Baptism
is
a
perfect
Ordinance
;
and
that
therefore
it
ought
to
be
Dispensed
to
none
but
Folk
that
are
perfect
,
such
as
Children
are
not
.
Ans.
If
this
Consequence
of
the
Anabaptists
be
but
good
,
we
must
send
all
Gods
Ordinances
away
to
Heaven
,
seeing
there
are
no
perfect
Folk
upon
Earth
,
as
shall
be
made
appear
afterwards
;
and
by
the
same
Argument
none
but
perfect
Folk
should
be
admitted
to
any
Ordinance
of
God
,
and
then
(
I
'le
warrant
)
the
Churches
shall
be
Scant
enough
.
But
how
can
Baptism
which
Seals
to
us
the
Remission
of
our
Sins
require
us
to
be
before-hand
perfect
,
and
so
have
no
Sin
to
be
Remitted
?
But
they
urge
,
that
,
Baptism
being
a
perfect
Ordinance
,
does
at
least
require
such
as
are
capable
of
perfection
,
which
Children
are
not
.
Ans.
Our
perfection
is
not
absolved
in
the
very
Instant
of
our
Baptism
,
but
is
carried
on
by
degrees
while
we
live
in
this
world
,
and
not
absolved
till
we
go
hence
to
the
other
world
;
Therefore
Baptism
does
not
require
that
we
be
capable
to
be
perfected
that
very
Instant
of
its
Administration
to
us
:
for
it
will
be
enough
if
we
by
degrees
become
capable
of
perfection
,
according
as
by
degrees
our
perfection
is
to
be
carried
on
.
This
distinguishes
the
Major
,
which
I
positively
have
denyed
,
and
they
could
never
have
proved
with
all
John
of
Leidens
Logick
.
Again
,
Perfection
is
opposed
either
to
a
Negative
Imperfection
,
which
is
the
want
of
any
thing
,
which
if
we
had
it
,
we
would
be
the
more
perfect
,
but
it
is
not
competent
to
us
,
nor
is
it
our
fault
to
want
it
;
and
this
sort
of
Imperfection
all
Creatures
must
be
content
to
be
for
ever
liable
unto
,
and
they
shall
never
be
perfect
in
the
Sence
of
Perfection
opposite
to
this
kind
of
Imperfection
;
and
so
Perfection
in
this
Sence
cannot
be
pre-required
to
Baptism
,
seeing
it
will
not
be
required
to
Heaven
it self
.
Or
Secondly
,
Perfection
is
opposed
to
a
Privative
and
Culpable
Imperfection
,
which
is
the
want
of
a
thing
that
by
the
Law
we
are
obliged
to
have
,
and
it
is
our
fault
to
want
it
;
and
of
Perfection
opposite
to
this
kind
of
Imperfection
Infants
are
capable
,
as
well
as
adult
persons
,
seeing
if
Adam
had
stood
in
his
Obedience
,
there
had
been
no
Privative
,
or
Culpable
Imperfection
in
any
of
his
Children
how
young
soever
,
more
than
in
himself
,
which
,
if
Infants
were
not
capable
of
the
Perfection
we
now
speak
of
,
as
well
as
adult
persons
,
could
not
have
been
.
Any
that
would
see
Infant-Baptism
more
largely
and
accurately
handled
,
I
refer
them
to
that
fore-named
Excellent
piece
of
Learned
and
Worthy
Mr.
Baxter
against
Tombs
,
which
through
Gods
Blessing
has
been
a
great
means
of
putting
a
stop
to
that
wild
Error
amongst
us
.
Sixth
QUERY
.
Whether
doth
the
Scriptures
say
in
the
New
Testament
,
that
,
Eating
of
Bread
,
and
Drinking
of
Wine
,
after
Supper
,
was
an
Ordinance
of
Christ
?
and
whether
do
ye
Practice
this
as
Christ
and
his
Apostles
did
after
Supper
?
Do
not
ye
take
it
before
Dinner
?
Did
Christ
and
his
Apostles
do
so
?
What
Scripture
have
ye
for
your
Rule
for
this
?
for
he
took
it
in
the
night
.
And
Christ
says
,
as
oft
as
ye
Eat
of
this
Bread
,
and
Drink
of
this
Wine
,
&c.
Is
that
a
standing
Command
?
or
is
it
left
to
people
?
Seeing
its
said
,
as
oft
as
ye
Eat
this
and
Drink
this
,
do
it
in
Remembrance
of
his
Death
,
and
shewing
his
Death
till
he
come
again
.
Was
this
coming
to
the
end
of
the
world
?
or
was
it
until
his
coming
to
Dwell
in
his
Apostles
,
who
said
he
would
come
and
Dwell
and
walk
in
them
?
need
they
then
Bread
and
Wine
to
put
them
in
Remembrance
of
him
?
and
doth
not
Christ
say
,
Eat
this
,
and
Drink
this
in
Remembrance
of
his
Death
?
and
doth
not
the
Apostle
say
,
that
they
must
Die
with
Christ
?
and
to
Die
with
him
is
to
come
to
the
Death
with
him
.
And
they
that
be
in
the
Death
of
Christ
,
and
Die
with
Christ
,
must
they
have
Bread
and
Wine
to
put
them
in
Remembrance
of
his
Death
?
Yea
,
or
Nay
?
and
doth
not
the
Apostle
say
,
that
they
must
Die
with
Christ
,
and
be
Buried
with
him
?
and
when
the
people
are
Dead
and
Buried
with
Christ
,
must
they
have
Bread
and
Wine
to
put
them
in
Remembrance
of
Christs
Death
?
Answer
this
,
Yea
;
or
Nay
.
And
the
Apostle
says
,
they
must
Rise
with
Christ
Jesus
.
And
if
they
be
Risen
with
him
,
then
seek
these
things
that
are
above
.
And
is
not
Bread
and
Wine
from
below
?
and
if
the
Apostle
puts
them
to
seek
these
things
that
are
above
,
then
he
brought
them
off
these
things
that
are
below
;
for
he
says
to
the
Corinthians
,
The
things
that
are
seen
are
Temporal
,
but
the
things
that
are
not
seen
are
Eternal
.
This
he
Spoke
when
they
were
Jangling
and
in
a
Disorder
about
outward
things
.
Doth
he
not
bring
them
off
things
that
are
Seen
to
things
that
are
not
seen
?
and
whether
or
not
ye
ever
intend
,
ye
your selves
called
Ministers
,
or
your
Hearers
shall
come
any
nearer
to
Christs
Death
,
and
Die
,
and
be
Buried
with
him
,
but
only
to
take
Bread
and
Wine
in
Remembrance
of
Christs
Death
,
lest
ye
and
they
should
come
to
forget
Christs
Death
?
Answer
us
plainly
these
things
,
Yea
;
or
Nay
.
SVRVEY
.
Their
Doctrine
here
doth
very
well
agree
with
George
Keiths
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
(
page
100.
)
where
he
flatly
denies
the
Supper
of
the
Lord
to
be
any
standing
Ordinance
of
Christ
,
and
will
have
it
(
forsooth
)
a
Popish
Principle
and
Practice
:
as
also
with
their
Heretical
Confession
of
Faith
,
wherein
they
deny
all
manner
of
External
Ordinances
,
pages
24
,
25
,
26
,
27
,
77
,
78
,
79
,
92
,
93
,
102
,
103
,
104
,
105
,
122
,
130
,
133
,
135.
Before
we
come
to
a
particular
Disquisition
upon
this
Query
,
we
must
expunge
that
restrictive
Clause
[
After
Supper
]
out
of
the
principal
Question
which
is
first
in
order
,
as
not
being
any
part
of
the
Sacrament
Instituted
having
any
mystical
meaning
,
neither
being
any where
of
Scripture
commanded
,
but
being
only
an
External
Circumstance
of
that
first
Supper
of
our
Lord
meerly
occasional
,
because
of
the
Passover
taken
before
it
,
which
according
to
its
Institution
(
Exod.
12.
)
was
to
be
Celebrated
at
Even
:
In
the
room
whereof
,
because
Christ
was
to
Institute
the
Gospel-Supper
,
it
behooved
to
be
taken
after
it
,
and
not
before
it
,
being
thereby
to
abolish
and
Antiquat
the
Passover
.
And
if
we
were
tied
to
every
circumstance
of
that
first
Gospel-Supper
,
then
we
behooved
always
to
take
it
in
an
Upper
Room
,
and
with
Twelve
only
in
Company
,
yea
,
and
after
a
Paschal
Lamb
too
;
And
albeit
a
Quaker
should
answer
,
that
this
last
named
Circumstance
would
be
against
Sciripture
abrogating
the
Jewish
Ceremonies
;
yet
,
it
is
hard
to
reply
that
all
matters
of
Faith
,
and
parts
of
Religious
Worship
,
must
be
,
not
only
not
against
Scripture
,
but
according
thereunto
,
and
having
Divine
Appointment
therein
,
(
see
Isai.
8.20
.
Jer.
7.31
,
32.
and
19.5
,
6.
Matth.
15.9
.
Mark
7.7
.
Colos.
2.20
,
21
,
22.
)
When
therefore
the
Quakers
shall
be
able
to
prove
,
that
that
Circumstance
of
time
when
the
first
Gospel-Supper
was
Celebrated
is
any
Constituent
part
of
the
Sacrament
with
mystical
signification
Instituted
by
Christ
Jesus
,
or
,
that
it
is
any
where
of
Scripture
Commanded
,
then
,
and
not
till
then
,
we
shall
acknowledge
that
we
are
in
the
wrong
in
taking
it
before
Dinner
;
and
this
they
are
obliged
to
do
,
if
they
hold
the
Affirmative
,
(
as
here
they
pretend
to
do
)
seeing
all
parts
of
Religious
Worship
must
have
positive
Scripture-Warrant
,
which
if
they
want
,
they
will
be
plain
contrary
to
Scripture
general
Precepts
,
forbidding
all
Will-Worship
after
the
commandments
of
Men.
Having
thrust
out
that
limitating
Clause
[
After
Supper
]
from
the
state
of
the
Question
,
we
find
the
state
thereof
to
be
yet
Vitious
:
for
it
may
either
be
understood
of
common
eating
of
Bread
and
drinking
of
Wine
;
and
so
it
is
no
Gospel
Ordinance
,
seeing
Drunkards
and
Heathens
can
do
that
unto
excess
in
a
Tavern
.
But
Secondly
,
It
may
be
understood
(
though
with
much
ado
,
as
it
is
proposed
)
of
Sacramental
eating
and
drinking
of
Bread
and
Wine
Consecrated
,
Sanctified
,
and
set
apart
for
a
sacred
Symbol
of
Christs
Death
,
for
signifying
and
sealing
all
the
benefits
thereof
to
the
worthy
Receivers
,
their
Spiritual
nourishment
in
Christ
,
and
Communion
with
him
and
with
each
other
.
In
this
sence
,
I
confidently
assert
the
eating
of
Bread
and
drinking
of
Wine
(
as
the
Quakers
mockingly
term
it
)
to
be
an
excellent
Gospel-Ordinance
Instituted
by
Christ
Jesus
,
to
be
observed
in
his
Church
to
the
Worlds
end
.
This
conclusion
is
so
clear
from
Matth.
26.
Chap.
and
Luk.
22.
that
nothing
can
be
more
clear
.
For
first
,
We
have
in
both
places
Christs
Fact
and
Deed
set
down
,
that
he
took
Bread
and
Wine
and
blessed
them
,
that
he
brake
the
Bread
,
and
put
the
Wine
into
the
Cup
,
and
that
he
distributed
it
to
the
Disciples
,
and
did
eat
and
drink
thereof
with
them
.
Secondly
,
We
have
Christs
express
Commandment
,
(
albeit
the
blind
Quakers
cannot
see
it
)
injoyning
the
whole
action
to
be
,
in
like
manner
,
done
by
his
Church
and
People
afterwards
,
This
do
,
&c.
Luk.
22.19
.
Thirdly
,
We
have
his
Word
of
Promise
Sacramentally
enunciating
the
thing
signified
,
or
Internal
matter
of
the
External
Signs
and
Symbols
by
a
Metonimy
,
attributing
the
name
of
the
thing
signified
to
the
Sign
,
expressing
the
Sacramental
Union
and
Relation
of
the
one
to
the
other
,
wherein
consists
the
Internal
form
of
the
Sacrament
;
This
is
my
Body
given
for
you
;
This
Cup
is
the
New
Testament
in
my
Blood
shed
for
you
,
Luk.
22.19
,
20.
Lastly
,
We
have
the
Explication
of
the
end
of
this
Sacred
Ordinance
,
which
is
,
that
it
should
be
for
a
memorial
of
Christ
Death
,
This
do
in
Remembrance
of
Me
,
Luk.
22.19
.
Now
what
blindness
is
happened
to
the
Quakers
,
that
they
cannot
here
read
Christs
Institution
of
the
Gospel-Supper
,
consisting
of
his
own
Fact
,
and
a
Commandment
to
his
Church
to
do
the
like
thereafter
,
with
a
rich
Promise
annexed
,
and
the
End
of
the
work
declared
?
Can
any
thing
be
devised
more
clear
than
this
?
Or
,
Can
the
Quakers
number
their
own
Fingers
?
What
shall
we
think
of
them
,
when
they
can
neither
Read
,
nor
hear
when
it
is
Read
by
others
this
clear
Institution
of
the
Eucharist
,
but
that
they
are
possessed
with
a
blind
and
deaf
Spirit
that
deprives
them
both
of
sight
and
hearing
?
Secondly
,
For
a
further
assurance
(
if
need
were
)
that
the
Eucharist
is
a
Gospel
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
,
we
have
the
Practice
of
the
Apostles
,
and
the
whole
Church
after
the
pouring
forth
of
the
Spirit
,
Act.
20.7
.
1
Cor.
10.16
.
in
which
places
there
is
,
not
only
the
Example
of
the
Churches
Practice
set
down
;
but
also
further
,
we
have
their
accustomed
use
thereof
clearly
imported
,
as
any
Man
,
by
reading
and
considering
the
places
,
may
see
.
Thirdly
,
The
Apostle
in
the
first
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
,
eleventh
Chapter
,
while
he
is
correcting
several
abuses
that
were
crept
in
into
the
Worship
there
,
amongst
the
rest
,
calls
them
to
the
first
Institution
of
the
Lords
Supper
;
where
in
the
23.
Verse
he
affirms
,
that
it
was
an
Ordinance
he
had
received
of
the
Lord
,
and
delivered
unto
them
;
and
in
the
26.
Verse
he
shews
the
duration
of
it
to
be
until
Christs
coming
again
.
Now
what
an
extream
distraction
shall
it
be
to
say
,
That
Christ
delivered
an
Ordinance
unto
Paul
to
be
by
him
delivered
unto
the
Church
,
and
to
be
by
Her
observed
till
Christs
coming
again
at
the
day
of
general
Judgment
,
and
that
for
shewing
forth
his
Death
until
then
,
which
notwithstanding
is
not
a
Gospel-Ordinance
Instituted
by
Christ
?
it's
a
horrid
contradiction
to
say
so
.
Is
this
the
Spirit
of
Revelation
(
I
should
say
of
occaecation
and
fascination
)
that
the
Quakers
boast
of
?
Oh
miserable
Guide
and
grand
Cheat
,
who
,
instead
of
a
plain
Path
,
(
as
he
pretends
)
doth
thus
conduct
them
continually
into
the
dark
mists
of
Cimmerian
Clouds
,
or
rather
into
the
Chimerical
Desarts
of
Utopia
,
where
all
their
Principles
seems
to
concenter
in
the
common
place
of
Contradiction
!
But
,
say
the
Quakers
here
,
Is
that
a
standing
Command
?
or
is
left
to
People
?
seeing
it
's
said
,
As
oft
as
ye
eat
this
Bread
and
drink
this
Cup
,
do
it
in
Remembrance
of
his
Death
,
and
for
shewing
forth
his
Death
till
he
come
again
.
Was
this
Coming
to
the
end
of
the
World
?
Or
was
it
till
his
coming
to
dwell
in
his
Apostles
,
&c.
See
their
Heretical
Confession
of
Faith
,
where
they
harp
the
same
string
,
page
26
,
27
,
77
,
78
,
79
,
80.
Ans.
O
miseri
,
Quae
tanta
Insania
,
cives
?
Quis
furor
?
here
is
a
whole
heap
of
Romantick
Fictious
and
Phantastick
Dreams
.
For
first
here
they
alledge
,
that
Christ
did
not
dwell
in
his
Apostles
,
when
the
first
Gospel-Supper
was
Celebrated
,
(
and
the
same
they
also
largely
insinuate
in
their
Confession
,
pages
72
,
74
,
75.
)
and
so
they
behoove
to
be
all
at
that
time
unregenerated
Men
meerly
in
Nature
,
seeing
Christ
by
his
Spirit
dwells
in
all
Regenerated
Persons
and
Believers
,
as
these
Scriptures
witness
,
Rom.
8.9
,
10.
2
Cor.
13.5
.
Galat.
4.6
.
1
Joh.
3.24
.
But
it
is
most
false
,
that
Christ
did
not
dwell
in
his
Apostles
when
the
first
Gospel-Supper
was
Celebrated
,
and
that
they
were
then
unregenerated
Men
,
seeing
Christ
plainly
declares
,
that
they
were
clean
,
though
not
all
,
(
Joh.
13.10
)
by
this
meaning
of
Judas
the
Traitor
.
And
again
he
affirms
,
that
they
were
clean
through
the
Word
that
he
had
spoken
unto
them
;
(
Joh.
15.3
.
)
and
again
he
says
,
that
they
had
received
the
Word
of
God
,
and
kept
it
,
and
knew
surely
that
he
came
out
from
God
,
and
that
the
Father
had
sent
him
,
(
Joh.
17.6
,
7
,
8.
)
and
these
are
things
which
Flesh
and
Blood
never
revealed
unto
them
,
and
the
natural
Man
cannot
discern
,
Matth.
16.17
.
1
Cor.
2.14
.
It
is
indeed
true
,
God
had
not
at
that
time
when
the
first
Gospel-Supper
was
Celebrated
,
furnisht
the
Apostles
with
the
extraordinary
gifts
of
the
Spirit
,
to
accomplish
them
for
their
extraordinary
work
that
ensued
,
but
that
was
done
at
the
Pentecost
;
but
,
that
Christ
did
not
Spiritually
dwell
in
them
before
the
Pentecost
,
the
Scriptures
cited
declares
to
be
false
:
And
as
for
that
which
Christ
says
to
Peter
,
(
Luk.
22.32
.
)
When
thou
art
Converted
,
strengthen
thy
Brethren
,
it
is
not
meant
of
the
Conversion
of
his
state
,
as
if
he
had
been
at
that
time
unregenerated
;
but
it
is
meant
of
his
Conversion
from
a
particular
Fact
,
or
his
Rising
after
a
Fall
,
as
(
beside
what
is
already
said
)
is
clear
in
the
Text
it self
:
for
Christ
there
tells
him
,
that
he
had
prayed
for
him
that
his
Faith
might
not
fail
,
which
intimates
that
he
then
had
Faith
,
and
that
it
should
not
be
totally
extinguisht
by
the
temptation
he
was
to
meet
with
,
seeing
Christs
prayers
were
always
heard
,
Joh.
11.42
.
Secondly
,
They
thereby
insinuate
,
That
the
Gospel-Supper
should
be
allowed
to
none
,
but
unregenerated
Persons
in
whom
Christ
dwells
not
,
who
will
surely
take
it
unworthily
,
and
eat
and
drink
their
own
Damnation
therein
,
(
1
Cor.
11.29
.
)
for
they
do
not
here
deny
,
but
acknowledge
,
that
the
Apostles
were
by
Christ
admitted
to
the
Gospel-Supper
before
he
came
(
as
they
would
have
it
)
to
dwell
in
them
;
but
they
will
not
have
them
partaking
of
it
after
Christ
is
once
come
to
dwell
in
them
,
alledging
that
to
be
its
period
and
term
day
:
but
Christ
dwells
in
all
Regenerated
Persons
,
as
is
proved
:
Therefore
they
allow
the
Gospel-Supper
to
none
,
but
Unregenerated
Persons
,
who
cannot
discern
the
Lords
Body
,
nor
shew
forth
his
Death
,
which
is
not
a
bare
Historical
Remembrance
of
a
thing
past
,
but
consists
in
our
Spiritual
feeding
by
Faith
upon
Christ
Crucified
,
and
the
application
by
Faith
of
him
,
and
all
the
benefits
of
his
Redemption
to
our selves
,
in
our
thankfulness
to
him
for
so
great
benefits
,
and
in
our
love
towards
him
,
and
each
other
;
which
things
Unregenerated
Men
meerly
Carnal
cannot
do
,
Rom.
8.7
,
8.
1
Cor.
2.11
,
14.
So
then
the
Quakers
in
this
point
do
directly
contradict
the
Holy
Ghost
who
requires
,
(
1
Cor.
11.25
,
26
,
29.
)
that
none
come
to
the
Gospel-Supper
that
cannot
discern
the
Lords
Body
,
and
shew
forth
his
Death
.
Thirdly
,
They
thereby
alledge
,
That
there
is
not
a
standing
Command
left
to
the
Church
for
Celebrating
the
Lords
Supper
,
which
I
have
shewed
to
be
most
false
from
Luk.
22.19
.
and
1
Cor.
11.23
,
24.
in
both
which
places
we
have
a
clear
Command
set
down
,
Do
this
in
Remembrance
of
Me
;
which
Command
,
seeing
it
was
never
to
this
day
repealed
,
(
or
else
,
let
the
Quakers
shew
where
that
is
Recorded
)
must
be
as
yet
standing
still
in
force
;
otherwise
they
may
as
well
say
,
that
all
the
Commands
are
repealed
together
,
without
any
ground
,
as
that
this
is
repealed
and
not
standing
,
when
they
can
shew
us
no
ground
for
it
from
the
whole
Word
of
God
.
Fourthly
,
They
thereby
alledge
,
that
the
coming
again
of
Christ
mentioned
,
1
Cor.
11.26
.
and
which
is
no
where
else
in
all
the
Scriptures
mentioned
upon
this
purpose
,
is
meant
of
Christs
coming
to
dwell
in
his
Apostles
,
viz.
at
the
pouring
forth
of
the
Spirit
at
the
Pentecost
,
after
which
time
they
will
not
deny
that
Christ
dwelt
in
them
,
(
as
their
Confession
of
Faith
owns
,
pages
72
,
73
,
74
,
75.
)
albeit
they
plainly
teach
that
he
did
not
dwell
in
them
before
that
time
.
But
it
's
impossible
that
Christs
Coming
again
mentioned
there
,
(
1
Cor.
11.26
.
)
should
be
meant
of
Christs
pouring
forth
of
the
Spirit
,
or
coming
at
the
Pentecost
;
seeing
Christs
coming
at
the
Pentecost
was
already
past
long
before
the
writing
of
that
Epistle
to
the
Corinths
,
whereas
his
coming
there
mentioned
is
held
forth
as
a
thing
meerly
future
,
and
not
past
;
now
it
's
a
flat
contradiction
to
say
,
a
thing
meerly
future
,
and
not
past
,
is
already
past
;
and
so
his
coming
again
mentioned
in
the
Text
of
the
Corinths
,
cannot
be
meant
of
his
coming
at
the
Pentecost
.
Again
,
The
Eucharist
was
Celebrated
by
the
Apostles
,
and
the
Church
after
the
Pentecost
,
(
when
Christ
either
dwelt
in
the
Apostles
,
or
else
never
)
Act.
2.42
.
and
20.7
.
1
Cor.
10.16
.
and
11.28
.
Therefore
the
period
of
the
Gospel
Eucharist
could
not
be
at
the
pouring
out
of
the
Spirit
at
the
Pentecost
.
What
?
Did
not
Christ
dwell
in
these
Corinthians
whom
Paul
writes
to
?
seeing
they
were
sanctified
in
Christ
Jesus
,
and
justified
in
the
Name
of
the
Lord
Jesus
,
and
by
the
Spirit
of
our
God
,
and
they
were
Temples
to
the
Holy
Ghost
that
dwelt
in
them
,
(
1
Cor.
1.2
.
and
6.11
,
19.
)
and
yet
they
did
Celebrate
the
Gospel-Supper
among
them
,
and
that
,
by
Divine
Appointment
,
(
1
Cor.
10.16
.
and
11.21
,
23
,
24
,
28.
)
and
so
the
Gospel-Supper
was
appointed
to
be
Celebrated
by
People
in
whom
Christ
doth
already
and
previously
dwell
,
yea
none
else
but
such
are
allowed
to
partake
of
it
,
as
is
shewed
before
.
But
need
they
then
Bread
and
Wine
(
say
the
Quakers
)
to
put
them
in
Remembrance
of
him
,
after
Christ
is
come
to
dwell
in
them
?
Ans.
Now
the
Quakers
begin
to
dispute
and
prove
their
Thesis
against
the
Gospel-Supper
,
and
their
Argument
is
a
fruit
of
their
conceipted
perfection
in
this
life
,
from
whence
they
infer
,
that
they
need
no
Ordinances
;
albeit
the
Apostle
affirms
,
(
1
Cor.
8.2
.
and
13.9.12
.
)
that
our
knowledge
in
this
life
is
still
short
of
that
which
it
ought
to
be
,
and
is
but
in
part
,
and
that
all
of
it
,
is
but
dark
and
through
a
Glass
;
which
shews
that
we
have
need
of
Means
and
Ordinances
,
as
so
many
Perspicils
or
Glasses
to
help
our
weak
and
dim-sighted
Eyes
,
without
which
we
cannot
take
up
the
object
.
This
conceipted
Perfection
of
theirs
I
shall
discuss
at
the
Fifteenth
Query
,
when
I
come
to
it
.
But
,
wha●
?
Do
these
in
whom
Christ
dwells
need
nothing
to
put
them
in
Remembrance
of
him
,
(
for
the
Argument
carries
as
much
against
every
such
thing
,
as
against
the
Gospel-Supper
,
as
is
manifest
?
)
indeed
this
very
well
Homologates
with
their
Confession
,
where
they
decry
all
manner
of
External
Ordinances
,
calling
them
Unclean
,
Carnal
,
Dead
,
Babylonish
,
Heathenish
Observations
,
and
the
Whores
Cup
of
Abominations
in
several
places
thereof
,
for
which
see
it
,
pages
10
,
24
,
77
,
79
,
87
,
92
,
102
,
104
,
105
,
108
,
111
,
122
,
130
,
133
,
135.
But
,
I
am
sure
,
it
suits
not
with
the
Scriptures
any
where
,
that
shews
us
many
Ordinances
and
Means
appointed
of
God
to
keep
us
in
mind
of
him
,
and
our
duty
unto
him
,
and
particularly
of
the
Sacred
Supper
,
as
a
Memorial
of
what
Christ
hath
done
and
Suffered
for
us
;
and
our
memories
that
are
especially
weak
in
Spiritual
things
,
have
great
need
of
Remembrancers
,
Joh.
14.26
.
Philip.
3.1
.
2
Pet.
1.13
.
and
3.1
,
2.
The
Divine
Institution
of
the
Gospel-Supper
,
and
the
Commandment
given
to
the
Church
to
Celebrate
the
same
,
is
enough
to
warrant
our
practice
of
it
,
(
methinks
)
and
our
Imperfection
in
this
life
proclaims
our
need
of
it
,
and
other
helps
and
means
;
yea
,
Adam
in
Innocency
had
a
Tree
of
Life
allowed
him
of
God
to
eat
of
,
as
a
Symbol
and
Pledge
of
Life
as
long
as
he
stood
in
his
obedience
,
much
more
need
have
we
of
a
Pledge
to
strengthen
our
weak
Faith
.
In
the
next
place
,
to
shew
us
their
good
skill
in
Physical
Philosophy
,
they
give
us
a
very
learned
,
and
no
less
true
definition
of
Death
.
To
Dye
with
Christ
(
say
they
)
is
to
come
to
the
Death
with
him
.
But
,
is
it
so
?
Then
never
a
Malefactor
Died
upon
a
Gibbet
,
but
they
Died
always
by
the
way
while
they
were
coming
to
it
,
seeing
they
were
coming
to
their
Death
while
they
were
by
the
way
,
and
to
Dye
,
and
come
to
the
Death
is
all
one
by
this
definition
.
Hezekiah
shewed
himself
more
expert
in
Physicks
,
when
he
distinguished
betwixt
the
Birth
and
coming
to
the
Birth
,
(
Isa.
37.3
.
)
but
he
did
not
learn
his
Philosophy
at
the
Quakers
School
,
it
seems
.
They
would
have
defined
Death
much
better
with
Aristotle
,
that
it
is
the
loss
of
heat
and
moisture
,
because
the
loss
of
these
infers
it
;
or
if
they
will
stand
to
my
Judgment
,
Death
is
the
separation
of
Soul
and
Body
,
because
it
is
the
very
dissolution
of
their
Union
.
But
I
shall
pass
this
,
only
I
behoove
to
notice
the
ignorance
of
their
Inspirer
in
Naturals
;
as
well
as
Spirituals
.
In
the
next
place
they
do
again
vainly
repeat
,
that
their
foolish
Argument
now
refuted
and
answered
,
viz.
That
they
that
are
in
the
death
of
Christ
,
and
buried
with
him
,
need
not
Bread
and
Wine
to
put
them
in
Remembrance
of
his
Death
,
the
contrary
whereof
is
abundantly
shewed
already
,
and
we
will
not
repeat
;
only
I
cannot
but
with
astonishment
wonder
,
that
seeing
Christ
so
peremptorily
commands
it
,
(
whether
it
were
needful
for
us
,
or
not
)
This
do
in
Remembrance
of
Me
,
they
dare
with
their
Brain-sick
fancies
directly
contradict
Divine
Commands
.
Oh!
who
(
but
the
Quakers
that
have
gotten
a
new
Christ
of
their
own
to
be
saved
by
)
would
refuse
any
Token
that
Christ
had
appointed
for
a
Memorial
of
his
Death
,
who
wrote
his
love
to
us
,
which
many
waters
could
not
quench
,
in
the
Characters
of
his
Blood
in
the
day
that
he
was
wounded
for
us
in
the
House
of
his
friends
?
But
(
say
the
Quakers
)
the
Apostle
says
,
they
must
rise
with
Christ
Jesus
;
and
if
they
be
risen
with
him
,
then
seek
these
things
that
are
above
;
and
is
not
Bread
and
Wine
from
below
?
Ans.
Here
is
another
Argument
against
the
Lords-Supper
,
and
whereby
they
reproach
and
condemn
all
the
Ordinances
that
ever
God
appointed
from
the
beginning
of
the
World
,
whereof
any
External
Element
was
from
below
,
as
well
as
the
Gospel-Supper
.
Secondly
,
I
answer
,
That
the
seeking
of
things
that
are
above
does
not
exclude
,
but
on
the
contrary
,
includes
the
use
of
the
means
which
God
hath
appointed
for
attaining
them
;
seeing
then
the
Lords-Supper
is
one
of
the
means
appointed
of
God
for
our
better
attaining
things
above
,
the
use
thereof
is
not
there
(
viz.
Colos.
3.1
.
)
disallowed
,
more
than
the
use
of
Water
is
in
Baptism
,
of
which
before
.
Thirdly
,
Let
the
Elements
be
from
whence
they
will
,
yet
I
have
shewed
that
the
Gospel-Supper
Celebrated
under
these
External
Elements
,
as
the
Symbols
is
an
Ordinance
Instituted
by
Christ
to
be
observed
by
the
Gospel
Church
,
till
his
coming
to
the
last
Judgment
.
And
what
then
can
the
Quakers
say
to
enervat
Christs
Institution
?
Fourthly
,
There
is
nothing
in
the
Gospel-Supper
that
is
from
below
,
excepting
the
meer
External
Elements
materially
and
entitatively
considered
;
for
the
Institution
,
the
Internal
Substance
,
the
Mystical
Signification
,
the
Ends
,
and
Effects
thereof
are
all
of
them
things
Heavenly
and
from
above
;
and
so
,
though
Bread
and
Wine
Entitatively
considered
be
from
below
,
yet
,
the
Sacrament
of
the
Supper
,
and
Bread
and
Wine
taken
Sacramentally
are
not
from
below
;
for
Bread
and
Wine
simply
,
or
in
themselves
do
not
make
a
Gospel
Eucharist
,
more
than
a
Body
without
a
Soul
makes
a
Man
,
as
is
palpable
from
many
things
above
said
.
The
seeking
therefore
of
these
things
,
above
(
mentioned
Colos.
3.1
.
)
is
meant
only
in
opposition
to
the
seeking
of
Corporal
commodities
belonging
to
this
Life
,
and
that
,
not
in
every
respect
either
;
but
as
the
chief
scope
of
our
Actions
,
(
Mat.
6.33
.
)
or
to
fulfil
our
Lusts
,
(
Rom.
13.14
.
)
or
with
inordinate
care
and
affection
,
(
Colos.
3.2
.
Luk.
12.22
.
)
or
with
anxious
distrust
,
(
Luk.
12.29
.
)
or
by
unlawful
means
,
or
without
submission
to
God
:
for
,
that
we
may
seek
our
worldly
necessaries
also
,
as
Secundary
means
,
moderately
,
without
anxious
care
,
by
lawful
means
,
for
the
right
use
,
and
with
submission
;
is
manifest
from
the
Scriptures
,
for
which
,
instead
of
many
,
see
only
Matth.
6.11
.
1
Tim.
5.8
.
and
if
any
Man
would
have
us
no
ways
looking
after
our
Corporal
necessaries
,
either
he
would
have
us
to
live
without
them
,
(
which
a
Quaker
may
try
upon
himself
)
or
else
to
use
no
means
(
at
least
)
for
the
obtaining
of
them
;
and
then
we
shall
Plow
and
Sow
no
more
,
but
be
supplied
by
Miracles
.
The
passage
of
Scripture
which
they
cite
from
2
Cor.
4.18
.
will
no
ways
Patronise
their
Erroneous
Cause
;
(
though
they
also
cite
it
to
the
same
very
purpose
in
their
Confession
,
page
79.
)
For
the
Apostle
in
that
place
is
speaking
of
his
afflictions
,
troubles
,
and
the
loss
of
worldly
things
which
he
endured
for
the
Gospel
,
and
these
he
opposes
there
unto
Eternal
Life
,
calling
these
the
things
that
are
seen
,
and
this
the
thing
that
is
not
seen
;
and
these
troubles
,
and
the
loss
of
these
enjoyments
he
counted
but
a
small
business
and
a
light
affliction
,
(
as
it
is
there
ver.
17.
)
But
will
any
Man
say
,
that
he
counted
it
but
a
light
affliction
to
be
deprived
of
the
Gospel-Supper
?
This
would
not
have
become
Paul
.
But
I
need
not
Apologize
for
him
;
he
purges
himself
sufficiently
of
this
;
for
the
whole
purpose
of
that
Chapter
shews
his
meaning
to
be
of
the
things
that
I
have
said
.
Again
,
the
External
Signs
in
the
Lords
Supper
,
rightly
considered
as
signifying
and
exhibiting
Christ
and
his
benefits
,
are
so
far
from
turning
our
Eyes
,
or
hearts
to
things
that
are
below
and
seen
,
that
on
the
contrary
,
they
are
an
excellent
means
of
of
elevating
them
unto
,
and
setting
them
upon
the
things
that
are
above
and
not
seen
?
That
the
Corinthians
were
jangling
,
and
in
a
disorder
when
Paul
wrote
the
second
Epistle
to
them
;
(
from
which
the
Quakers
cite
this
passage
)
I
truly
perceive
not
;
yea
,
the
Seventh
Chapter
thereof
witnesses
the
contrary
:
and
so
the
Quakers
have
mistaken
the
second
Epistle
for
the
first
.
In
the
Close
of
this
Query
,
the
Quakers
shew
themselves
related
to
the
Accuser
of
the
Brethren
:
for
(
glory
to
God
)
there
are
many
Ministers
amongst
us
,
who
have
intended
,
not
without
success
,
that
both
themselves
and
their
Hearers
should
come
nearer
Christs
Death
,
than
the
eating
and
drinking
of
Bread
and
Wine
for
a
bare
Historical
Remembrance
of
his
Death
,
(
as
the
Quakers
here
insinuate
it
to
have
been
)
whom
,
because
their
Epistles
of
Commendation
are
written
upon
the
hearts
of
many
Thousands
,
we
shall
not
need
here
further
,
either
to
vindicate
or
commend
them
.
Eighth
QUERY
.
Whether
or
not
your
Singing
of
Davids
Psalms
,
his
Prayers
,
Prophecies
,
Fastings
,
Reproaches
,
Weepings
,
Lamentations
,
and
Complaints
how
he
was
Mocked
have
any
Warrant
in
the
Scripture
?
and
you
bring
all
these
together
in
Meeter
,
without
distinction
.
Have
ye
not
done
this
your selves
?
or
did
the
Apostles
it
to
the
Saints
in
the
Primitive
times
?
or
have
ye
the
same
Spirit
the
Apostles
had
?
or
a
larger
measure
of
it
,
then
the
Apostles
had
,
by
which
ye
have
turned
these
into
Meeter
since
the
Apostles
days
?
and
what
was
the
Psalms
,
Hymns
,
and
Spiritual
Songs
they
Sung
in
the
Primitive
times
?
Answer
these
things
by
plain
Scripture
.
SVRVEY
.
The
State
of
the
Question
here
is
very
plain
.
The
Quakers
deny
our
Singing
of
Psalms
to
be
an
Ordinance
of
the
Gospel
,
or
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
.
Contrary
unto
this
,
I
Assert
that
Singing
of
Psalms
is
an
Ordinance
of
the
New
Testament
Divinely
appointed
.
I
prove
it
.
Therefore
first
,
Singing
of
Psalms
was
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
Old
Testament
,
1
Chron.
16.9
.
Psal.
95.2
.
and
105.2
.
Therefore
it
must
be
so
still
under
the
New
.
The
Scriptures
Cited
prove
the
Antecedent
.
I
prove
the
Consequence
,
because
Singing
of
Psalms
was
no
Jewish
Ceremony
,
and
if
the
Adversaries
will
say
so
,
let
them
prove
their
Affirmative
,
as
they
are
obliged
;
and
until
then
I
shall
confirm
the
Negative
,
viz.
that
Singing
of
Psalms
is
no
Jewish
Ceremony
,
because
first
,
I
cannot
think
that
Christ
joyned
a
Jewish
Ceremony
after
the
Gospel-Supper
,
when
he
Sung
a
Hymn
,
or
Psalm
(
as
it
is
on
the
Margine
of
some
of
our
Bibles
)
Mat.
26.30
.
Mark
.
14.26
.
Nor
that
Paul
and
Silas
used
any
Jewish
Ceremony
,
especially
there
not
being
any
fear
of
Offence
and
stumbling
of
weak
Brethren
there
,
when
in
Prison
they
Sung
Praises
unto
God
,
Act.
16.25
.
Again
,
the
Apostle
does
very
plainly
Exhort
the
Christians
of
the
New
Testament
(
Ephes.
5.19
.
and
Colos.
3.16
.
)
to
speak
unto
themselves
in
Psalms
,
Hymns
,
and
Spiritual
Songs
,
Singing
and
making
Melody
in
their
hearts
unto
the
Lord
;
and
Teaching
and
Admonishing
one
another
in
Psalms
,
and
Hymns
,
and
Spiritual
Songs
,
Singing
with
Grace
in
their
hearts
unto
the
Lord
;
In
which
Texts
he
shews
,
that
that
piece
of
Worship
is
edifying
both
to
our selves
,
and
also
to
others
that
joyn
with
us
,
while
he
says
,
speaking
to
our selves
in
Psalms
,
and
Admonishing
one
another
in
Psalms
.
And
Secondly
,
that
it
is
a
comfortable
and
Heart-chearing
Duty
,
while
he
says
making
Melody
in
your
hearts
.
And
Thirdly
,
that
it
glorifies
God
,
while
he
says
,
doing
it
unto
the
Lord
:
Therefore
Singing
of
Psalms
can
be
no
Jewish
Ceremony
,
having
these
Examples
and
Precepts
for
it
to
the
Church
of
the
New
Testament
.
Secondly
,
In
the
first
Epistle
to
the
Corinthians
(
Chap.
14.15.26
.
)
The
Apostle
,
in
the
one
place
of
the
Chapter
and
Verses
Cited
,
sharply
reproves
the
Corinthians
for
their
Disorder
and
Confusion
in
Singing
in
the
publick
Assemblies
,
because
every
one
of
them
had
a
Psalm
by
themselves
,
and
did
not
all
joyn
together
;
and
in
the
other
place
he
directeth
them
how
to
Sing
Psalms
aright
,
viz.
with
the
Spirit
and
with
the
understanding
also
,
that
is
,
not
only
with
the
Breath
,
or
voice
(
which
there
he
calls
the
Spirit
;
and
the
signification
from
the
Original
word
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
most
properly
signifies
the
Breath
,
or
Wind
)
but
also
in
a
known
Tongue
,
which
the
whole
Context
there
declares
he
means
when
he
says
,
with
the
Understanding
;
and
so
the
Apostle
does
here
Reform
the
abuse
that
was
crept
in
into
their
publick
Singing
of
Psalms
,
and
directs
them
how
to
do
it
aright
.
But
a
Superstitious
Will-worship
(
such
as
Singing
of
Psalms
must
be
,
if
it
be
not
of
Divine
Institution
)
can
never
be
performed
aright
,
it
involves
a
plain
Contradiction
to
say
so
.
What
?
did
Paul
direct
men
how
to
Worship
God
aright
by
a
Superstitious
Will-worship
?
Nay
,
surely
not
.
Singing
of
Psalms
then
must
undeniably
be
an
Ordinance
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
Gospel
.
Thirdly
,
the
Apostle
James
says
(
Jam.
5.13
.
)
Is
any
man
afflicted
?
let
him
pray
,
is
any
man
merry
?
let
him
Sing
Psalms
:
Therefore
Singing
of
Psalms
hath
a
Divine
Warrant
under
the
New
Testament
.
The
Quakers
answer
,
that
he
bids
us
Sing
Psalms
only
when
we
are
merry
.
But
,
it
seems
then
,
that
the
Quakers
are
never
,
never
Merry
,
but
are
a
number
of
Sullen
,
Dull
,
and
Melancholick
Hypocondriack
Drones
,
who
cannot
at
all
Sing
Psalms
.
Secondly
,
there
is
no
such
exclusion
in
the
Text
,
as
is
pretended
;
otherwise
the
Apostle
bids
us
pray
only
when
we
are
afflicted
also
,
seeing
both
these
are
pronounced
with
one
Breath
,
and
the
manner
of
the
Expression
and
extent
of
the
Terms
are
the
same
in
both
;
and
the
Quakers
can
shew
no
ground
for
exclusion
in
the
one
,
more
than
the
other
,
notwithstanding
they
may
see
how
frequently
and
continually
we
are
commanded
to
pray
,
Ephes.
6.18
.
Phil.
4.6
.
1
Thes.
5.17
.
They
may
also
see
Christ
and
his
Disciples
Singing
when
by
all
Circumstances
it
appears
they
were
Sorrowful
,
seeing
they
were
so
both
presently
before
and
after
,
as
appears
from
Mat.
26.22
.
Mark
.
14.26
.
compared
with
Mat.
26.30.38
.
Mark
.
14.19.34
.
Joh.
13.21
.
The
Apostle
therefore
by
Merriness
and
Affliction
points
at
the
frame
and
case
unto
which
these
Duties
are
most
especially
suited
,
no
ways
excluding
the
excercise
of
them
in
other
frames
and
cases
.
But
let
us
give
them
for
once
(
not
granting
)
that
the
Apostle
does
there
appoint
us
to
Sing
Psalms
only
when
we
are
Merry
;
yet
Singing
of
Psalms
shall
by
this
Text
(
even
in
the
Adversaries
own
Sence
)
be
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
New
Testament
;
or
else
(
in
their
Principles
)
we
may
in
our
Merry
and
Joyful
frames
offer
a
Superstitious
Will-worship
unto
God
,
which
I
have
not
yet
learnt
to
believe
.
The
Quakers
applying
this
Text
of
James
in
the
130
page
of
their
Confession
of
Faith
answer
us
,
that
there
is
none
Merry
,
but
the
Ransomed
of
the
Lord
;
and
therefore
they
mean
to
infer
(
for
that
is
their
Scope
in
the
place
)
that
none
should
Sing
Psalms
,
but
these
.
But
First
,
then
certainly
the
Quakers
are
Convict
,
that
they
themselves
are
none
of
the
Ransomed
of
the
Lord
,
seeing
they
here
allow
the
Ransomed
of
the
Lord
to
Sing
Psalms
,
which
yet
they
cannot
be
persuaded
to
do
.
Secondly
,
all
the
Members
of
the
visible
Church
professing
Faith
in
Christ
,
and
subjecting
to
his
Ordinances
,
are
by
visible
Profession
,
and
in
some
degree
of
the
judgment
of
Charity
,
the
Ransomed
of
the
Lord
:
Therefore
the
Quakers
(
by
their
own
principles
)
ought
to
allow
them
to
Sing
Psalms
.
Thirdly
,
others
also
,
beside
the
Ransomed
of
the
Lord
,
are
bound
to
Worship
God
,
except
some
special
piece
of
Worship
,
by
some
special
Conditions
which
it
requires
,
doth
exclude
them
,
as
the
Lords
Supper
excludes
all
that
do
not
,
or
cannot
Examine
themselves
,
discern
the
Lords
Body
,
and
shew
forth
his
Death
(
albeit
the
Church
in
admitting
persons
must
walk
by
probabilities
,
and
can
reach
no
further
)
and
both
it
and
Baptism
excludes
all
that
want
a
visible
Interest
into
the
Covenant
:
But
Singing
of
Psalms
is
a
piece
of
Gods
appointed
Worship
(
as
is
shewed
)
and
there
is
no
special
condition
Recorded
in
all
the
Scripture
that
debars
any
man
from
Singing
and
joyning
therein
;
or
else
let
the
Quakers
shew
it
,
if
they
can
.
If
they
shall
say
(
as
we
see
they
do
say
)
that
the
Unransomed
by
this
Text
are
excluded
from
Singing
Psalms
,
they
shall
speak
falsly
:
for
(
beside
our
former
reasons
given
already
to
this
exception
)
the
Text
exhorts
any
man
(
Whatsoever
he
be
)
unto
that
duty
,
but
especially
when
he
is
in
a
joyful
frame
.
And
giving
(
without
granting
)
the
Ransomed
only
to
be
meant
,
yet
Psalms-singing
will
still
be
of
Divine
Institution
,
if
these
be
allowed
,
and
in
the
judgment
of
Charity
these
will
be
all
the
professing
Members
of
the
Church
subjecting
to
Divine
Ordinances
.
And
whereas
they
here
alledge
,
that
the
Ransomed
only
are
Merry
,
or
joyful
,
that
is
also
false
,
for
others
,
beside
these
,
are
sometimes
joyful
(
Mat.
13.20
.
Luk.
8.13
.
)
and
so
the
exception
is
to
no
purpose
.
But
the
Quakers
insinuate
here
an
Argument
against
Psalms-singing
,
viz.
that
its
very
unsuitable
to
make
Songs
of
Davids
sad
Cases
of
Mourning
,
Weeping
,
Lamenting
,
&c.
Ans.
But
it
s
much
more
unsuitable
for
the
Quakers
to
presume
themselves
Wiser
than
God
and
David
,
who
have
caused
make
,
and
made
Songs
on
Davids
sad
Cases
,
as
the
Title
which
(
almost
)
every
where
they
get
,
and
which
Christ
gives
them
(
Luk.
20.42
.
and
24.44
.
)
sufficiently
declares
.
If
then
they
censure
it
as
a
fault
in
us
to
Sing
Davids
sad
Lots
,
much
more
do
they
Tax
God
and
David
for
making
Songs
of
them
,
and
ordaining
them
to
be
Sung
.
Secondly
,
this
proves
only
(
if
any
thing
)
that
we
should
not
Sing
Psalms
made
upon
sad
Cases
.
Why
will
not
the
Quakers
Sing
other
Psalms
?
Thirdly
,
if
the
reading
of
these
sad
Lots
of
David
can
yield
any
Edification
(
which
is
certain
)
the
Singing
of
them
may
yield
the
same
,
seeing
Singing
is
nothing
else
but
a
Melodious
kind
of
reading
,
a
reading
with
a
Tune
.
Fourthly
,
the
Singing
of
Davids
Weepings
,
Lamentings
,
Complaints
,
&c.
is
not
therefore
unsuitable
to
us
,
because
the
Cases
were
afflicting
to
David
while
he
was
under
them
:
for
albeit
these
were
afflicting
to
him
for
the
time
;
yet
the
after
Memory
of
them
is
very
comfortable
to
us
(
and
to
himself
when
they
were
over
.
Forsan
&
haec
olim
meminisse
juvabit
,
said
the
Poet
)
unto
whom
the
like
Cases
are
also
incident
;
for
its
comfortable
to
us
to
see
the
Path
beaten
by
so
worthy
a
Saint
as
David
,
and
it
would
be
sad
to
us
to
think
that
our
Lot
in
such
a
Case
never
befel
any
Saint
.
Fifthly
,
the
making
Songs
upon
,
and
Singing
of
these
sad
Cases
Teaches
us
,
that
even
in
our
saddest
Lots
there
is
still
some
matter
of
praise
to
God
,
and
for
which
we
ought
to
Sing
unto
his
Name
,
yea
and
also
that
we
ought
therein
to
chear
up
our
hearts
rejoycing
in
God
,
and
not
give
our selves
over
to
be
swallowed
up
of
heartless
despondency
.
Thus
far
,
beside
the
Divine
Institution
,
(
which
is
enough
against
all
they
can
bring
)
I
have
satisfied
the
Exception
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
,
With
what
confidence
can
a
Man
sing
such
passages
as
these
,
viz.
We
have
not
dealt
falsly
in
thy
Covenant
,
neither
have
our
hearts
turned
back
,
Psal.
44.17
,
18.
Ans.
This
will
only
prove
,
(
if
it
could
prove
any
thing
)
that
backslidden
Christians
may
not
sing
such
passages
,
and
yet
it
hinders
them
not
to
sing
other
Psalms
.
The
Quakers
then
are
certainly
convict
,
(
as
the
truth
is
)
that
themselves
are
a
backslidden
People
,
seeing
they
have
no
confidence
to
sing
such
passages
.
Secondly
,
Whither
now
is
the
Quakers
Perfection
gone
?
perfect
folk
may
sing
them
,
or
else
none
may
.
Thirdly
,
We
may
sing
these
as
our
sincere
and
constant
adherence
to
God
,
(
which
is
all
their
meaning
)
albeit
we
be
not
perfect
in
our
obedience
;
and
the
greatest
Saint
in
Israel
could
do
no
further
.
Fourthly
,
We
may
sing
them
as
through
grace
,
both
possible
and
hoped
for
by
us
,
though
we
be
not
as
yet
come
that
length
.
Fifthly
,
We
may
sing
them
as
other
Mens
attainments
(
for
which
we
are
bound
to
praise
God
)
on
their
behalf
,
or
putting
our selves
in
their
room
,
though
they
be
not
our
own
attainments
.
Some
of
these
ways
any
Man
may
sing
them
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
,
it
s
said
,
We
have
not
dealt
falsly
,
&c.
which
,
if
it
be
not
so
with
us
,
we
lie
,
seeing
it
s
said
,
We.
Ans.
But
then
we
may
not
read
such
passages
either
,
if
the
Argument
be
good
:
for
when
we
read
them
,
we
must
read
We
,
as
well
as
sing
We
;
again
,
this
hinders
us
not
to
sing
them
as
the
attainments
of
others
putting
our selves
in
their
room
,
and
acting
in
their
behalf
,
which
is
ordinary
in
other
things
.
Thirdly
,
Albeit
it
be
not
so
with
us
at
present
,
yet
we
may
sing
them
in
hope
,
fore-acting
(
as
it
were
)
the
case
wherein
upon
good
grounds
we
hope
to
be
Constituted
,
seeing
we
may
praise
God
for
things
hoped
for
,
and
(
as
it
were
)
pre-occupy
the
possession
of
them
.
See
these
two
objections
proposed
in
like
terms
and
like
instances
,
in
the
Quakers
Confession
of
Faith
,
pages
129
,
130.
Again
they
object
,
That
there
are
several
places
wherein
there
are
many
Curses
pronounced
,
(
as
Psal.
109.
)
which
therefore
ought
not
to
be
sung
,
because
thereby
People
are
made
to
Curse
.
Ans.
We
curse
no
less
in
reading
such
passages
,
than
in
singing
of
th●m
:
if
the
Argument
be
good
then
,
we
may
not
read
such
Psalms
.
Secondly
,
I
grant
,
we
may
not
wish
evil
to
any
Man
for
his
private
Injuries
or
Enmity
against
us
;
(
Matth.
5.44
.
Rom.
12.19
,
20.
)
but
where
God
hath
in
his
Word
pronounced
Curses
against
notorious
wicked
M●n
and
Enemies
of
his
Work
and
Interest
,
and
hath
ordained
these
Curses
against
them
to
be
publickly
sung
,
(
for
the
Churches
Triumph
,
and
their
terror
)
we
may
very
lawfully
sing
them
,
nor
should
we
refuse
to
obey
,
God
appointing
it
.
Thirdly
,
We
may
not
indeed
rejoyce
in
any
mans
misery
,
as
such
;
yet
,
when
God
is
glorified
by
his
Righteous
Judgments
upon
such
Persons
,
we
may
rejoyce
upon
that
account
,
Psal.
58.10
.
Revel.
19.
Chap.
to
Ver.
6.
Lastly
,
Seeing
God
himself
hath
caused
make
Psalms
of
these
Curses
,
against
such
notorious
Enemies
to
him
,
and
hath
ordained
them
to
be
sung
,
(
seeing
(
as
is
now
proved
)
he
hath
ordained
us
to
sing
the
Psalms
,
and
he
hath
no
where
excepted
any
Psalm
from
that
general
Rule
)
we
may
surely
,
sing
such
Psalms
;
Nay
,
we
may
not
make
exceptions
at
our
own
hand
from
Divine
Rules
,
where
the
Rule
it self
excepts
not
.
Who
dare
presume
,
without
Gods
Authority
,
to
diminish
and
restrict
his
Laws
?
Nay
,
they
might
as
well
make
his
whole
Laws
null
and
void
,
as
so
to
retrench
them
,
without
his
Authority
.
Answer
my
Arguments
if
they
can
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
,
Have
ye
not
turned
the
Psalms
into
Meeter
your selves
?
Ans.
What
then
?
Did
not
also
some
of
our selves
turn
the
Scriptures
into
our
Mother
Tongue
?
Must
we
cast
them
away
for
that
?
I
,
that
's
the
business
.
But
will
ye
tell
me
,
Does
not
some
of
your selves
preach
(
if
it
might
be
called
so
)
when
your
Spirit
,
(
that
often
takes
a
long
time
to
study
his
Sermon
,
(
though
ye
your selves
take
none
,
ye
say
,
and
condemns
them
that
do
,
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
,
99.
)
or
else
he
has
the
Palsie
in
his
Tongue
)
comes
upon
you
?
seeing
we
are
appointed
to
sing
Psalms
,
and
we
cannot
do
that
,
except
they
be
Meetered
,
and
the
turning
of
Psalms
into
Meeter
requires
a
good
Musitian
,
or
good
Poet
,
rather
than
an
immediatly
Inspired
Apostle
;
we
may
sing
Psalms
,
though
by
others
than
Apostles
they
be
put
into
a
Metral
form
to
us
.
Yea
,
seeing
the
Apostles
did
not
Meeter
them
in
our
Language
,
and
yet
we
are
Ordained
to
sing
them
,
which
requires
that
they
be
Meetered
in
the
same
,
they
must
be
put
into
Meeter
by
some
of
our selves
,
or
else
we
cannot
obey
the
command
to
sing
them
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
,
Have
ye
the
same
Spirit
the
Apostles
had
,
or
a
larger
measure
of
it
than
they
had
,
by
which
ye
have
turned
these
into
Meeter
since
the
Apostles
days
?
Ans.
The
same
Spirit
we
have
,
though
not
the
same
measure
:
for
,
albeit
there
are
diversities
of
gifts
amongst
Believers
,
yet
they
have
all
the
same
Spirit
,
1
Cor.
12.4
,
13.
But
behold
here
a
rare
fansie
:
The
Quakers
require
either
(
at
least
)
the
same
measure
,
or
else
a
larger
measure
of
the
Spirit
,
than
the
Apostles
had
,
for
turning
the
Psalms
into
Meeter
.
What
?
will
no
less
measure
of
the
Spirit
,
than
the
Apostles
had
,
serve
to
understand
Poetry
and
the
Notes
of
Musick
?
Must
we
be
immediatly
Inspired
for
these
two
?
O
brave
Morology
!
The
Quakers
(
it
seems
)
will
not
allow
a
Boy
to
sing
a
Song
,
nor
a
Minstreller
to
play
his
Tune
,
(
both
which
requires
something
of
Musick
)
without
immediate
Inspiration
,
forsooth
.
Spectatum
admissi
risum
teneatis
amici
?
The
Quakers
(
it
seems
)
do
not
like
to
be
Precenters
,
lest
(
perhaps
)
they
get
little
Salary
.
Lastly
,
They
ask
,
what
the
Psalms
were
that
were
sung
in
the
Primitive
times
?
Ans.
They
were
certainly
,
the
same
that
we
now
sing
,
seeing
these
only
are
written
in
the
Scriptures
,
(
though
the
Quakers
may
have
other
Psalms
in
their
wild
Scripture-Book
within
)
and
appointed
by
God
to
be
sung
,
as
(
beside
that
,
we
are
Ordained
to
sing
Psalms
,
and
there
is
no
other
to
choose
upon
)
is
clear
from
2
Chron.
29.30
.
where
the
Church
of
Israel
sang
praises
to
God
with
the
words
of
David
and
Asaph
,
says
the
Text
,
by
the
command
of
the
good
King
and
great
Reformer
.
These
that
would
see
any
further
concerning
some
scruples
about
Psalms-singing
,
let
them
read
worthy
Mr.
Durhams
Exposition
of
the
Song
of
Solomon
,
from
page
48.
to
page
53.
where
they
may
find
some
doubts
resolved
,
which
I
purposely
here
omit
,
because
there
they
may
be
found
,
though
little
,
or
nothing
here
medled
with
,
be
there
touched
.
Thirteenth
QUERY
.
Whether
or
not
did
Christ
Dye
for
all
the
Vngodly
in
the
World
and
Sinners
,
that
they
should
live
and
dye
in
their
Vngodliness
and
Sins
,
or
live
unto
Him
?
and
,
Whether
or
not
did
Christ
Shed
his
Blood
for
all
Men
,
and
was
a
Propitiation
for
the
Sins
of
all
Men
?
and
,
Whether
or
not
these
that
do
not
hold
this
,
are
these
that
make
Sects
,
and
are
out
of
the
same
Spirit
and
Doctrine
of
the
Apostles
?
SVRVEY
.
This
Inspirer
of
the
Quakers
is
either
an
ignorant
Blockhead
,
or
else
a
captious
Sophister
:
for
here
we
have
a
disjunctive
Question
,
or
Problem
proposed
by
him
in
such
a
manner
,
that
whatever
Member
thereof
we
yield
,
we
are
absurdly
fanged
:
for
,
whether
we
say
that
Christ
Died
for
all
the
Ungodly
and
Sinners
in
the
World
,
that
they
should
live
and
dye
in
their
Ungodliness
and
Sins
;
or
,
whether
we
say
that
he
Died
for
all
the
Ungodly
and
Sinners
in
the
World
,
that
they
should
live
to
him
,
we
still
speak
falsly
and
absurdly
too
:
for
the
first
way
,
we
should
say
,
that
Christ
Died
for
all
these
,
that
they
might
live
and
dye
in
their
ungodliness
and
sins
,
than
which
,
nothing
could
be
said
worse
;
and
the
last
way
,
we
should
say
,
that
Christ
Died
for
all
Men
in
the
World
,
Elect
,
and
Reprobate
,
which
is
also
both
false
and
absurd
.
We
must
therefore
purge
the
Question
from
a
Plurality
of
Interrogations
,
(
which
is
the
true
vice
of
every
Member
thereof
)
and
propose
it
thus
.
Whether
did
Christ
Dye
for
all
the
Ungodly
and
Sinners
in
the
World
,
or
only
for
the
Elect
?
That
this
is
the
true
state
of
their
present
Question
,
their
scope
,
and
the
rest
of
the
Query
declares
;
albeit
the
Adversaries
either
through
ignorance
could
not
,
or
for
wickedness
would
not
rightly
propose
it
.
It
is
the
known
Doctrine
of
the
Quakers
,
(
with
Arminians
and
Jesuits
)
that
Christ
Died
for
all
Men
whatsoever
,
without
exception
,
as
also
they
do
insinuate
in
their
Confession
,
page
16.
and
42.
I
shall
not
be
prolix
upon
this
Question
,
or
else
I
should
transgress
my
scope
of
Brevity
:
only
I
shall
give
a
few
clear
Demonstrations
from
the
Scriptures
,
whereby
it
shall
be
evident
,
that
Christ
did
not
Dye
for
all
Men
whatsoever
,
Elect
,
and
Reprobate
,
but
only
for
the
Elect
,
and
this
is
the
Assertion
.
Therefore
first
;
for
whomsoever
Christ
Died
and
shed
his
Blood
,
God
loves
them
with
a
special
love
,
yea
,
the
greatest
measure
of
love
:
but
he
loves
not
so
all
Men
whatsoever
:
therefore
Christ
did
not
Dye
and
Shed
his
Blood
for
all
Men
whatsoever
.
The
Major
shall
be
evident
by
these
plain
and
clear
Scripture-Testimonies
,
1
Joh.
4.9
,
10.
In
this
was
manifested
the
love
of
God
towards
us
,
because
he
sent
his
only
begotten
Son
into
the
World
,
that
we
might
live
through
him
:
Herein
is
love
,
not
that
we
loved
Him
,
but
that
he
loved
us
,
and
sent
his
Son
to
be
a
Propitiation
for
our
Sins
,
1
Joh.
3.16
.
Hereby
perceive
we
the
love
of
God
,
because
he
laid
down
his
Life
for
us
,
Rom.
5.8
.
But
God
commendeth
his
love
to
us
in
that
while
we
were
yet
Sinners
,
Christ
Died
for
us
,
John
15.13
.
Greater
love
hath
no
Man
than
this
,
that
a
Man
lay
down
his
Life
for
his
Friends
.
These
Scriptures
make
the
Major
as
clear
as
Noon-day
.
The
Minor
is
no
less
evident
;
for
God
had
never
any
special
love
to
any
Reprobate
,
and
especially
the
greatest
measure
of
Love
:
Depart
from
me
,
(
says
Christ
to
Reprobates
,
Matth.
7.23
.
)
I
never
knew
you
,
viz.
with
a
knowledge
attended
with
love
;
for
,
it
is
otherwise
sure
that
he
was
not
ignorant
of
them
;
but
the
meaning
is
plain
,
that
he
never
knew
them
with
any
special
love
or
kindness
for
them
,
which
way
it
is
often
meant
in
the
Scriptures
,
as
Psal.
1.6
.
Jer.
1.5
.
Hes.
13.5
.
Amos
3.2
.
Rom.
8.29
.
2
Tim.
2.19
.
Again
,
these
whom
God
so
dearly
loves
he
quickens
them
together
with
Christ
,
and
makes
them
sit
in
Heavenly
places
in
him
,
Eph.
2.4
,
5
,
6.
But
he
doth
not
these
things
to
all
Men
whatsoever
,
as
needs
no
proof
.
Secondly
,
These
for
whom
Christ
Died
,
God
freely
with
him
bestows
all
things
upon
them
,
Rom.
8.32
.
and
it
cannot
be
otherwise
,
as
the
Text
plainly
imports
:
but
God
does
not
bestow
all
things
upon
all
Men
whatsoever
,
without
exception
;
seeing
he
never
bestows
any
Saving
Grace
,
Life
Eternal
,
or
Glory
upon
any
Reprobate
:
Therefore
,
certainly
,
Christ
did
not
Dye
for
Reprobates
.
Thirdly
,
These
for
whom
Christ
Died
cannot
come
into
Condemnation
:
but
all
Reprobates
come
Eternally
into
Condemnation
,
as
the
Adversaries
will
not
(
I
think
)
deny
:
Therefore
Christ
Died
not
for
any
Reprobate
.
I
prove
the
Major
from
Rom.
8.34
.
where
the
Apostle
Argues
thus
;
Who
is
he
that
Condemneth
?
It
is
Christ
that
Died
,
&c.
here
the
Apostle
brings
Christs
Dying
for
a
Man
,
as
an
Infallible
Proof
and
Argument
,
that
,
that
Man
shall
not
come
into
Condemnation
,
but
shall
surely
be
justified
;
for
seeing
Christ
hath
Died
for
him
,
(
says
he
)
who
then
shall
Condemn
him
.
Now
if
Christ
had
Died
for
all
Men
whatsoever
,
Pauls
Argument
had
been
quite
void
,
and
utterly
null
,
seeing
the
most
part
are
,
for
all
Christs
Death
,
Eternally
Damned
;
and
the
Arminians
plainly
contradict
this
Text
,
affirming
,
that
Christ
Died
for
Reprobates
,
who
are
Eternally
Damned
.
Fourthly
,
Christ
did
not
Dye
for
these
for
whom
he
would
not
pray
,
seeing
it
's
much
less
to
pray
for
one
,
and
to
lend
him
but
a
good
wish
,
than
to
Dye
for
him
;
nor
can
it
be
conceived
,
that
he
who
will
not
bestow
a
small
Intreaty
for
me
,
will
ever
bestow
his
Life
for
me
:
But
Christ
would
not
so
much
as
pray
for
all
Men
whatsoever
,
John
17.9
.
I
pray
not
for
the
World
,
(
says
Christ
)
but
for
them
which
thou
hast
given
me
:
Therefore
,
certainly
,
Christ
did
not
Dye
for
all
Men
whatsoever
,
but
only
for
the
Elect
whom
God
had
given
him
out
of
the
World
.
Fifthly
,
All
whose
iniquities
Christ
bare
,
(
that
is
,
Died
for
)
shall
surely
be
justified
,
Isai.
53.11
.
But
all
Men
whatsoever
will
never
be
justified
,
as
will
not
be
denied
:
Therefore
,
Christ
did
not
bear
the
iniquities
of
,
or
Dye
for
all
Men
whatsoever
.
The
Major
is
clear
in
the
place
cited
,
where
the
Prophet
peremptorily
and
positively
argues
from
Christs
bearing
of
the
iniquities
of
a
Man
,
that
therefore
he
shall
justifie
him
;
and
he
gives
this
as
the
ground
,
why
he
shall
justifie
many
,
viz.
Because
He
shall
bear
their
iniquities
;
and
so
whose
iniquities
soever
Christ
bare
,
shall
surely
be
justified
;
and
that
some
whose
iniquities
Christ
bare
,
shall
not
be
justified
,
does
utterly
destroy
and
make
void
the
Prophets
Inference
;
and
therefore
it
cannot
be
said
.
Sixthly
,
For
whomsoever
Christ
by
his
Death
obtained
Reconciliation
with
God
,
these
much
more
he
saves
by
his
Life
,
Rom.
5.10
.
But
all
Men
whatsoever
are
not
saved
by
the
Life
of
Christ
,
as
the
event
proves
:
Therefore
Christ
did
not
by
his
Death
purchase
a
Reconciliation
with
God
for
all
Men
whatsoever
.
Seventhly
,
All
for
whom
Christ
Died
,
are
by
God
appointed
to
obtain
Salvation
through
him
:
God
(
says
the
Apostle
2
Thes.
5.9
,
10.
)
hath
not
appointed
us
to
Wrath
,
but
to
obtain
Salvation
by
Jesus
Christ
who
died
for
us
;
where
the
Apostle
shews
,
that
Christs
Death
is
a
mean
appointed
of
God
to
procure
the
Salvation
of
these
for
whom
he
died
;
and
so
God
intended
the
Salvation
of
all
,
for
whom
Christ
died
:
but
God
never
intended
the
Salvation
of
all
Men
whatsoever
:
Therefore
,
neither
did
Christ
dye
for
all
Men
whatsoever
.
The
Major
is
proved
already
,
nor
do
the
Arminians
deny
it
;
but
,
on
the
contrary
,
affirm
,
That
God
did
from
Eternity
intend
the
Salvation
of
all
Men
whatsoever
,
by
an
Antecedent
Conditional
Decree
,
as
they
call
it
.
I
prove
the
Minor
:
For
first
;
If
God
intended
the
Salvation
of
all
Men
whatsoever
,
then
all
Men
whatsoever
would
surely
be
saved
,
seeing
whatsoever
God
purposes
and
intends
,
doth
Infallibly
come
to
pass
:
God
is
in
the
Heavens
,
he
hath
done
whatsoever
he
pleased
,
Psal.
115.3
.
and
134.6
.
The
Lord
of
Hosts
hath
sworn
,
surely
,
as
I
have
thought
so
shall
it
come
to
poss
,
as
I
have
purposed
so
shall
it
stand
,
Isai.
14.24
.
The
Lord
of
Hosts
hath
purposed
,
and
who
shall
disannul
it
?
Isai.
14.27
.
I
will
work
and
who
shall
let
it
?
Isai.
43.13
.
My
Counsel
shall
stand
,
and
I
will
do
all
my
Pleasure
,
Isai.
60.10
.
The
Counsel
of
the
Lord
,
that
shall
stand
,
Prov.
19.21
.
But
,
it
's
most
false
that
all
Men
whatsoever
shall
be
saved
,
as
needs
no
proof
:
Therefore
,
God
never
intended
the
Salvation
of
all
Men
whatsoever
.
Secondly
,
Many
men
are
ordained
to
Condemnation
,
though
justly
to
be
incurred
by
them
for
their
sins
first
committed
,
before
they
be
condemned
:
Therefore
,
certainly
,
God
hath
not
appointed
all
Men
whatsoever
to
Salvation
,
seeing
he
cannot
appoint
,
one
and
the
same
Man
both
to
Salvation
and
Condemnation
,
and
in
good
earnest
intend
both
to
save
and
to
damn
one
and
the
same
Man
.
Nay
,
no
Man
of
wisdom
can
seriously
intend
to
do
any
thing
upon
a
Condition
,
which
he
certainly
knows
will
never
come
to
pass
:
For
,
How
shall
any
Man
of
a
sound
mind
,
seriously
intend
to
do
that
which
he
,
in
the
mean
time
,
certainly
knows
he
shall
never
do
?
Nay
,
this
is
impossible
.
The
Antecedent
is
also
manifest
;
For
God
hath
made
the
wicked
for
the
day
of
Evil
,
Prov.
16.4
.
God
sends
many
Men
strong
Delusions
,
that
they
may
believe
Lyes
and
be
Damned
;
and
so
he
intends
their
Damnation
,
(
though
not
as
the
End
;
for
that
is
the
Glory
of
his
Justice
)
2
Thes.
2.11
,
12.
and
there
are
some
Men
who
were
before
of
old
Ordained
to
Condemnation
,
Jud.
4.
And
what
needs
more
?
for
whatsoever
God
doth
within
time
,
he
from
Eternity
purposed
and
intended
to
do
it
;
otherwise
he
behooved
to
do
it
,
either
against
his
intention
and
purpose
;
or
else
beside
his
intention
and
purpose
,
that
is
,
without
having
intended
and
purposed
it
,
or
its
contrary
;
or
else
lastly
,
he
behooved
to
begin
the
intention
and
purpose
thereof
within
time
;
all
of
which
are
Blasphemous
and
Repugnant
,
as
needs
no
demonstration
:
But
it
is
most
evident
,
that
God
within
time
condemns
many
Men
for
their
Sins
,
Matth.
25.32
,
41.
Therefore
he
from
Eternity
intended
and
purposed
to
condemn
them
;
and
yet
they
are
justly
damned
for
their
sins
first
committed
,
before
they
be
condemned
.
I
may
not
here
stand
to
examine
all
the
miserable
Evasions
,
whereby
Arminians
and
Jesuits
indeavour
to
Elude
this
Argument
;
otherwise
this
one
Argument
would
swell
into
a
Volume
.
But
what
is
said
,
may
be
sufficient
for
such
as
love
truth
,
and
for
confounding
of
the
Adversaries
,
if
the
grounds
here
given
be
but
rightly
managed
.
Lastly
,
All
for
whom
Christ
died
are
redeemed
from
the
curse
of
the
Law
,
Galat.
3.13
.
Christ
hath
redeemed
us
(
says
the
Apostle
)
from
the
Curse
of
the
Law
,
being
made
a
Curse
for
us
,
that
is
,
being
Crucified
for
us
,
as
he
there
explains
;
and
so
Christ
being
made
a
Curse
,
that
is
,
his
being
Crucified
for
any
Man
,
redeems
that
Man
from
the
Curse
of
the
Law
,
according
to
the
Apostle
;
and
so
if
Christ
was
Crucified
for
all
Men
whatsoever
,
then
all
Men
whatsoever
are
,
certainly
,
redeemed
from
the
Curse
:
but
all
Men
whatsoever
are
not
not
redeemed
from
the
Curse
:
Therefore
Christ
was
not
Crucified
,
and
did
not
Dye
for
all
Men
whatsoever
.
But
here
the
Arminians
and
Jesuits
meet
us
with
their
ordinary
distinction
,
viz.
That
Christ
hath
not
indeed
by
his
Death
redeemed
all
Men
whatsoever
from
the
Curse
Absolutely
;
but
that
,
for
all
that
,
he
hath
redeemed
them
from
it
Conditionally
,
viz.
upon
condition
of
their
believing
,
which
condition
,
because
all
men
whatsoever
do
not
perform
,
therefore
it
comes
to
pass
,
that
all
men
whatsoever
are
not
absolutely
Redeemed
,
but
only
these
few
who
perform
the
Condition
.
But
contrariwise
,
I
cannot
stand
here
to
declare
all
the
absurdities
that
are
wrapt
up
in
this
Jesuitico-Arminian
Evasion
,
otherwise
I
should
exceedingly
transgress
my
scope
of
brevity
.
Only
for
overthrowing
this
universal
Conditional
Redemption
,
I
shall
subjoyn
two
or
three
of
the
Arguments
which
our
Divines
most
ordinarily
bring
against
it
.
Therefore
,
for
clearing
the
state
of
the
Question
,
I
grant
,
that
the
method
and
order
of
the
application
of
the
purchased
Redemption
(
taking
it
for
the
Price
payed
by
the
Mediator
to
the
Justice
of
God
)
is
Conditional
,
that
is
,
it
is
applied
to
us
upon
Condition
of
Faith
,
either
Actual
,
or
(
at
least
)
Seminal
and
Inclinative
;
yet
,
so
as
the
Redeemer
hath
also
by
his
Death
purchased
the
Condition
it self
to
all
the
Redeemed
,
and
in
due
time
actually
conferreth
the
same
upon
them
.
If
this
would
satisfie
our
Adversaries
,
we
should
consent
,
and
the
Controversie
were
ended
.
But
this
is
not
the
thing
in
Controversie
betwixt
us
:
But
the
thing
controverted
betwixt
them
and
us
,
is
concerning
Christs
Dying
it self
,
and
the
very
work
of
Redemption
it self
,
if
these
were
performed
Conditionally
for
all
Men
;
and
so
if
Christ
Died
for
,
and
Redeemed
all
Men
Conditionally
.
For
example
,
a
Man
procures
absolutely
a
Pardon
from
the
Prince
for
some
Malefactor
;
but
yet
,
he
firmly
resolves
that
he
shall
never
know
of
it
,
nor
it
be
applied
to
him
for
his
comfort
,
until
by
the
persuasion
of
a
Friend
,
who
,
he
knows
,
will
surely
prevail
with
him
,
(
this
is
the
holy
Spirit
with
Sinners
)
he
come
and
own
him
for
his
Deliverer
,
and
Saviour
,
who
procured
the
same
.
The
Arminians
and
Jesuits
affirm
,
That
Christ
Died
Conditionally
,
though
not
Absolutely
,
for
all
men
,
without
exception
.
This
we
utterly
deny
,
and
though
the
Affirmer
only
be
bound
to
prove
his
Affirmation
,
yet
until
they
do
that
,
I
shall
confirm
our
Negation
.
Therefore
first
,
If
Christ
Died
for
and
Redeemed
Reprobates
upon
condition
of
their
Believing
,
then
God
intended
that
;
seeing
Christ
did
not
Dye
for
,
or
Redeem
any
man
either
against
,
or
beside
Gods
intention
:
But
God
never
intended
that
Christ
should
Dye
for
,
or
Redeem
any
Reprobate
upon
condition
of
Believing
;
seeing
so
he
should
have
intended
the
Redemption
of
Reprobates
,
and
that
upon
a
condition
which
he
infallibly
foresaw
would
never
come
to
pass
,
which
sort
of
Intention
cannot
even
befall
any
may
of
sound
mind
;
much
less
can
it
befall
the
Infinitly-Wise
God
.
Secondly
,
According
to
this
Doctrine
whereby
Christ
is
said
by
his
Death
to
have
Redeemed
all
men
whatsoever
Conditionally
,
Christ
shall
by
his
Death
have
purchased
Redemption
,
upon
condition
of
their
Believing
,
for
these
who
long
before
his
Death
were
already
actually
damned
in
Hell
,
for
whom
there
was
no
place
left
for
Redemption
;
which
is
extreamly
absurd
,
that
a
price
should
be
exacted
from
the
Redeemer
for
these
who
themselves
were
then
Suffering
,
and
Eternally
,
without
hope
,
to
suffer
the
Vengeance
of
Eternal
Fire
for
their
Sins
.
This
cannot
stand
with
Justice
.
Thirdly
,
If
Christ
hath
Redeemed
Reprobates
Conditionally
,
then
the
performance
of
the
Condition
,
viz.
Believing
,
is
either
in
their
own
power
,
or
else
it
is
a
gift
of
God
,
(
whether
purchased
by
Christs
Death
,
or
by
God
bestowed
,
without
being
thereby
purchased
,
all
is
one
to
our
present
Argument
.
)
It
is
not
in
their
own
power
,
Joh.
6.44
.
and
15.5
.
1
Cor.
2.14
.
Eph.
2.8
.
Philip
1.29
.
Heb.
12.2
.
If
then
the
Condition
be
a
gift
of
God
,
then
God
either
bestows
it
upon
Reprobates
,
or
not
:
if
he
doth
,
then
he
either
bestows
it
upon
them
Absolutely
,
or
else
Conditionally
;
if
Absolutely
,
then
Reprobates
shall
thereby
be
made
believers
,
and
so
be
saved
,
seeing
(
as
is
supposed
)
God
doth
Absolutely
bestow
saving
Faith
upon
them
;
if
Conditionally
,
then
,
seeing
Faith
is
the
condition
(
by
the
Adversaries
own
principles
)
the
sence
hereof
,
will
be
,
that
God
bestows
Faith
in
Christ
upon
Reprobates
,
upon
condition
that
they
first
,
have
Faith
in
him
;
which
is
both
nonsense
and
it
also
implies
a
contradiction
that
they
should
believe
when
they
have
no
Faith
,
as
is
supposed
.
If
then
,
God
doth
not
bestow
Faith
upon
Reprobates
,
then
,
they
cannot
be
said
to
be
redeemed
;
seing
so
,
their
Redemption
(
as
is
clear
,
from
what
is
now
said
)
depends
upon
a
Condition
,
which
is
neither
in
their
own
power
,
nor
yet
doth
God
bestow
it
upon
them
;
and
so
,
it
is
,
utterly
impossible
for
them
ever
to
perform
.
And
will
any
Man
,
say
,
that
a
Man
is
Redeemed
,
when
yet
,
his
Redemption
is
not
made
so
much
as
possible
to
him
?
his
Redemption
is
upon
the
suppositions
and
grounds
now
laid
down
as
impossible
for
him
,
as
when
a
Man
says
,
if
ye
will
bring
down
the
Stars
,
I
will
give
you
my
Daughter
,
the
Marriage
with
his
Daughter
is
impossible
.
How
then
comes
it
to
be
a
thing
actual
,
when
yet
it
is
impossible
?
I
confess
that
object
would
be
worth
the
seeing
,
that
were
at
once
actual
,
and
yet
impossible
.
Fourthly
,
if
Christ
by
his
death
Redeemed
all
men
whatsover
,
only
upon
Condition
of
believing
,
and
otherwise
Redeemed
them
not
,
then
he
by
his
death
Redeemed
only
believers
,
and
none
else
,
as
is
manifest
:
But
all
men
whatsoever
are
not
believers
:
therefore
Christ
did
not
by
his
death
redeem
all
men
whatsoever
,
from
the
Adversaries
own
principles
;
and
yet
,
they
contend
that
Christ
by
his
death
Redeemed
all
men
whatsoever
;
and
so
they
directly
contradict
themselves
,
and
their
universal
Conditional
Redemption
is
repugnant
.
Lastly
,
(
for
I
will
stand
no
longer
,
upon
a
negative
especially
)
if
Christ
died
for
all
men
whatsoever
,
(
give
it
what
name
they
will
)
then
he
satisfied
Justice
,
for
all
mens
sins
whatsoever
:
But
,
the
Consequent
is
most
false
and
absurd
:
therefore
so
is
the
antecedent
,
from
which
it
follows
.
The
falshood
of
the
Consequent
,
and
its
absurdity
are
obvious
:
for
if
Christ
satisfied
Justice
for
all
Mens
sins
whatsoever
,
then
,
all
Reprobates
are
most
unjustly
Condemned
,
Seing
their
sins
for
which
they
are
Condemned
,
are
by
Christ
satisfied
for
;
and
so
their
Condemnation
is
,
an
Act
of
great
injustice
,
done
both
to
Christ
and
them
,
which
cannot
be
charged
upon
God
,
without
extream
Blasphemy
.
I
Prove
the
Connexion
of
the
Major
,
because
,
the
very
immediate
end
and
Intention
of
Christ
,
dying
for
any
Man
,
was
to
satisfie
Justice
for
his
sins
,
as
appears
from
Isaia
.
53
,
8
,
9
,
10.
Mat.
26
,
28.
Rom.
4
,
25.
and
5
,
9
,
10
,
2
,
Cor.
5
,
21.
Galat.
3
,
13.
Heb.
9.26
,
28
,
and
10
,
12.
1
Pet.
2
,
24.
In
all
which
places
,
it
is
manifest
that
for
whomsoever
Christ
died
,
he
died
,
to
satisfie
Justice
for
their
sins
:
for
,
it
is
expresly
asserted
in
these
Texts
,
that
,
He
was
smitton
for
their
Transgressions
;
made
his
Soul
an
offering
for
their
sins
;
Shed
his
Blood
for
the
Remission
of
their
sins
;
reconciled
them
to
God
,
by
his
Blood
;
was
delivered
to
die
for
their
Offences
;
was
made
sin
for
them
;
was
made
a
curse
for
them
,
to
deliver
them
from
the
curse
;
appeared
to
put
away
their
sin
,
by
the
Sacrifice
of
himself
;
Offered
himself
a
Sacrifice
for
their
sins
;
bare
their
sins
in
his
Body
on
the
Tree
.
All
which
,
declares
,
that
for
whomsoever
Christ
died
,
he
died
to
satisfie
Justice
for
their
sins
.
If
they
Answer
,
that
Christ
satisfied
for
all
Mens
sins
whatsoever
,
upon
condition
of
their
beleiving
,
(
as
they
use
)
and
otherwise
not
.
Unto
this
I
shall
subsume
,
that
not
all
Men
whatsoever
beleive
,
but
only
some
Few
:
Therefore
,
from
the
Enemies
own
principles
,
he
did
not
satisfie
for
all
Mens
sins
whatsoever
,
but
only
for
believers
sins
,
and
none
else
;
and
so
their
principles
involves
a
Contradiction
,
viz.
he
satisfied
for
all
Mens
sins
whatsoever
(
say
they
)
and
yet
,
from
these
same
very
principles
,
he
did
not
satisfie
for
all
Mens
sins
whatsoever
,
but
only
for
believers
sins
.
Secondly
,
seeing
misbelief
is
a
chief
and
Mother-sin
,
Christ
hath
surely
satisfied
for
it
also
,
amongst
the
rest
,
for
all
,
for
whose
sins
he
did
satisfie
;
otherwise
he
could
not
at
all
,
have
Redeemed
them
from
the
curse
,
if
he
had
left
any
of
their
sins
unsatisfied
for
;
and
so
,
if
Christ
died
and
satisfied
for
any
Man
,
that
is
,
for
all
that
,
Condemned
,
then
still
that
Man
,
is
Condemned
for
that
,
which
yet
is
satisfied
for
,
which
is
an
Act
of
extream
injustice
.
What
?
did
not
Christ
satisfie
for
all
their
sins
,
for
whom
he
satisfied
?
if
not
;
how
came
he
to
satisfie
for
a
part
,
and
not
the
rest
?
and
how
are
they
said
,
to
be
Redeemed
by
a
partial
satisfaction
,
which
cannot
Redeem
any
Man
?
and
who
should
satisfie
for
the
rest
,
of
their
sins
?
If
then
,
(
which
is
certain
)
Christ
satisfied
for
all
their
sins
,
for
whom
he
did
satisfie
,
and
so
for
their
misbelief
,
among
the
rest
,
I
would
gladly
know
,
if
Christ
satisfied
for
all
Men
whatsoever
,
for
what
Reprobates
are
Condemned
:
for
it
cannot
,
without
the
greatest
injustice
be
,
for
their
sins
,
which
(
as
is
supposed
)
are
all
satisfied
for
:
misbelief
and
all
.
I
cannot
stand
no
longer
upon
this
.
But
who
so
pleases
may
see
this
universal
Conditional
Redemption
,
very
solidly
,
and
yet
very
breifly
Confuted
in
worthy
Mr.
Durhams
Exposition
of
the
Book
of
the
Rev.
from
pag.
299
the
pag.
326.
Objections
Answered
.
But
,
now
we
must
hear
what
our
Adversaries
,
have
to
say
for
themselves
.
Therefore
First
,
they
instance
that
Scripture
(
1
,
Joh.
2
,
2.
)
where
it
s
said
,
that
Christ
was
a
Propitiation
for
the
sins
,
of
the
whole
World
,
that
is
(
as
they
will
)
for
the
sins
of
all
Men
whatsoever
.
Ans.
By
the
whole
World
,
John
does
not
mean
all
Men
whatsoever
,
without
exception
;
but
his
meaning
is
,
that
Christs
death
was
not
only
a
Propitiation
for
the
sins
,
of
the
Jewes
,
and
Men
of
their
Nation
,
but
also
of
the
Nations
of
the
Gentiles
throughout
the
whole
World
;
and
for
that
cause
,
he
calls
it
the
whole
World
,
because
the
benefit
of
Christs
death
,
was
not
any
more
restricted
,
and
limited
,
to
the
Nation
of
the
Jewes
,
with
their
few
Proselyts
,
as
it
was
before
,
but
was
extended
,
to
any
Nation
throughout
the
World
,
as
well
as
to
them
.
And
that
this
must
be
the
meaning
of
this
Text
,
the
Scripture
arguments
which
are
already
produced
,
against
universal
Redemption
,
from
which
,
the
Adversaries
,
can
make
no
evasion
,
(
as
is
shewed
by
the
confetation
,
of
their
Chiefest
devices
and
answers
)
doe
Evidently
prove
,
seeing
this
Text
of
the
Scripture
does
not
contradict
these
,
but
is
explained
by
them
.
Beside
,
the
whole
world
and
all
Men
doe
not
always
,
in
the
Scriptures
,
signifie
all
Men
whatsoever
,
without
exception
,
as
may
be
easily
seen
Isai.
40
,
5
,
Joel
.
2
,
28
,
Joh.
12
,
32.
Rev.
13
,
3.
Secondly
,
they
object
from
1
Cor.
15
,
22.
where
its
said
,
For
as
in
Adam
all
die
,
even
so
in
Christ
shall
all
be
made
alive
.
(
Say
they
)
Christ
died
for
all
men
whatsoever
,
Ans.
If
they
will
have
this
Scripture
to
be
meant
of
all
men
whatsoever
,
without
exception
,
it
will
prove
that
all
men
whatsoever
shall
be
made
eventually
to
live
in
Christ
:
for
the
sence
of
this
Text
is
plainly
eventual
;
(
They
shall
be
made
alive
in
Christ
,
says
it
)
But
the
Adversaries
themselves
know
that
all
men
whatsoever
are
not
made
eventually
alive
in
Christ
;
and
so
they
cannot
urge
this
Text
,
as
meant
of
all
men
whatsoever
,
but
only
of
these
who
eventually
are
made
partakers
of
Life
.
The
meaning
thereof
is
,
That
all
that
Dye
,
Dye
in
Adam
,
and
he
by
his
fall
is
the
Author
of
their
Death
;
So
all
that
again
get
Life
,
they
get
it
in
Christ
,
and
he
is
the
Author
thereof
unto
them
,
seeing
out
of
him
there
is
no
Life
,
Act.
4.12
.
Thirdly
,
They
object
,
That
Christ
is
the
Saviour
of
all
Men
,
especially
of
them
that
believe
,
1
Tim.
4
.
1●
.
Therefore
Christ
Died
for
all
men
whatsoever
.
The
Text
cited
,
(
for
answer
)
is
meant
only
of
Gods
general
providence
,
which
he
hath
over
all
men
in
this
Life
,
in
preserving
them
,
and
providing
for
them
,
which
is
chiefly
extended
towards
Believers
;
otherwise
in
the
sence
of
the
Adversaries
,
who
mean
it
,
(
by
the
objection
)
of
Eternal
Salvation
,
it
will
prove
,
that
all
men
whatsoever
are
Eternally
saved
,
especially
Believers
,
which
,
I
am
sure
,
the
Adversaries
will
acknowledge
to
be
false
,
and
absurd
too
.
Fourthly
,
They
object
,
That
if
Adam
hath
lost
more
than
Christ
hath
restored
,
then
Adam
was
stronger
than
Christ
,
which
is
most
absurd
.
Ans.
This
Argument
endeavours
to
prove
,
that
the
number
of
them
that
are
eventually
saved
,
is
greater
than
of
the
eventually
damned
,
contrary
to
the
Scriptures
,
(
Matth.
7.13
,
14.
and
20.16
.
)
for
as
long
as
the
number
of
the
eventually
lost
is
more
than
that
of
the
saved
,
Adam
hath
still
lost
more
,
than
are
by
Christ
restored
.
Secondly
,
Christs
Death
was
indeed
sufficient
to
have
expiated
the
sins
of
all
men
,
and
to
have
restored
all
that
Adam
lost
;
but
it
was
not
appointed
to
expiate
all
mens
sins
whatsoever
,
but
only
of
the
Elect
;
and
so
the
Argument
reaches
not
that
which
it
aims
at
.
Lastly
,
It
is
an
act
of
much
greater
power
,
to
quicken
one
dead
man
,
than
to
kill
many
Millions
of
living
men
;
for
,
Adam
was
able
to
destroy
many
Millions
,
but
not
to
restore
one
man
;
and
so
still
the
Consequence
comes
short
.
Fifthly
,
God
will
have
all
men
to
be
saved
,
1
Tim.
2.4
.
Therefore
Christ
died
for
all
men
whatsoever
.
Ans.
The
Apostle
by
all
men
,
means
not
of
all
men
whatsoever
;
but
of
all
Sorts
,
Ranks
,
and
Degrees
,
of
men
,
as
the
word
,
all
,
is
frequently
in
the
Scripture
understood
,
as
I
partly
before
shewed
,
and
as
it
is
expresly
explained
,
Revel.
13.16
.
and
so
the
word
,
all
,
is
meant
of
Genera
singulorum
,
that
is
,
all
kinds
of
Men
;
Not
of
Singula
generum
,
that
is
,
every
Individual
man
.
An
answer
of
the
same
kind
may
be
given
,
to
the
Objection
which
they
draw
from
Heb.
2.9
.
where
we
have
it
turned
,
Christ
tasted
Death
for
every
Man
.
But
,
the
truth
is
,
there
is
no
more
in
the
Original
in
this
Text
,
but
that
Christ
tasted
Death
for
all
,
[
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
]
and
the
word
,
Men
,
is
not
in
the
Original
;
and
so
it
may
be
as
well
supplied
in
our
Language
with
the
word
Elect
,
or
Believers
,
as
with
the
word
,
Men
;
or
,
albeit
it
be
supplied
with
the
word
,
Men
,
yet
,
it
must
be
understood
as
is
said
,
of
men
of
every
Sort
,
Station
,
Condition
,
Calling
,
Quality
,
and
Degree
;
not
of
every
Individual
Man
,
seeing
by
our
foregoing
Arguments
,
that
would
be
utterly
false
.
Sixthly
,
We
are
forbidden
to
destroy
him
for
whom
Christ
Died
,
(
Rom.
14.15
.
)
and
again
,
there
are
some
(
2
Pet.
2.1
.
)
that
deny
the
Lord
that
bought
them
:
Therefore
Christ
Died
for
some
,
who
for
all
that
,
may
be
destroyed
and
damned
.
Ans.
The
Apostle
in
the
first
cited
Text
means
plainly
of
laying
a
scandal
before
a
weak
Brother
,
(
of
whom
he
there
speaks
)
whereby
we
destroy
him
,
as
much
as
in
us
;
and
gives
him
an
occasion
and
temptation
to
destroy
himself
,
if
that
could
be
;
but
it
is
not
meant
that
any
for
whom
Christ
Died
,
do
,
or
can
eventually
perish
;
yea
,
in
that
same
Chapter
,
(
Ver.
4.
)
the
Apostle
expresly
says
the
contrary
,
where
he
confidently
affirms
,
That
he
shall
be
holden
up
.
The
second
place
cited
,
does
not
mean
of
these
mens
being
bought
and
redeemed
from
Hell
;
but
of
their
being
bought
,
redeemed
,
or
delivered
from
the
ignorance
of
the
World
in
a
Moral
,
or
Historical
sence
through
some
common
Illuminations
;
and
from
the
external
pollutions
of
the
World
through
some
common
Operations
;
from
all
which
they
did
once
seem
to
the
Church
to
be
also
bought
and
redeemed
from
Hell
,
and
were
so
in
her
Judgment
of
Charity
,
according
to
which
respects
the
Apostle
there
speaks
,
most
part
whereof
may
be
seen
in
that
same
Chapter
,
(
Ver.
18.20.21
.
)
where
the
Apostle
says
,
That
these
men
had
escaped
the
Error
of
the
World
,
and
the
Pollutions
thereof
,
and
had
got
some
knowledge
of
the
way
of
Righteousness
,
viz.
an
External
,
Moral
,
and
Historical
knowledge
:
and
the
rest
of
it
is
declared
by
John
,
(
1
Joh.
2.19
.
)
where
the
Apostle
says
,
That
such
Persons
(
of
the
same
sort
that
Peter
here
speaks
of
)
went
out
from
them
,
that
they
might
be
made
manifest
,
but
were
not
of
them
;
where
he
teaches
,
that
these
never
were
of
the
number
of
the
truly
Redeemed
;
but
that
before
their
Apostasie
they
were
not
discerned
from
them
,
and
had
the
same
Judgment
of
Charity
with
them
.
Seventhly
,
The
promises
of
the
Gospel
are
universal
to
all
:
Therefore
Christ
Died
for
all
men
whatsoever
.
Ans.
They
are
universal
to
all
Believers
,
(
Whosoever
believes
shall
be
saved
)
not
unto
all
men
;
it
's
no
no where
said
,
whosoever
is
a
man
shall
be
saved
.
Eighthly
,
They
object
,
That
except
Christ
have
died
for
all
men
whatsoever
,
many
to
whom
the
Gospel
is
preached
,
and
are
exhorted
to
Believe
,
shall
have
nothing
that
they
can
Believe
;
or
if
they
believe
,
they
shall
believe
a
falshood
:
But
these
things
are
absurd
.
Ans.
It
is
false
,
that
they
shall
have
nothing
to
Believe
;
for
they
shall
have
to
believe
,
that
Christ
is
a
sufficient
Saviour
able
to
save
to
the
utmost
,
all
that
come
unto
God
by
him
,
(
Heb.
7.25
.
)
and
,
that
he
will
also
save
all
that
come
to
God
by
him
,
(
Joh.
3.36
.
and
5.24
.
and
6.37.47
.
)
and
so
they
have
also
to
believe
,
that
Salvation
is
offered
to
themselves
in
particular
,
and
that
they
shall
surely
be
saved
,
if
they
will
receive
and
embrace
Christ
as
he
is
offered
in
the
Gospel
;
and
while
they
believe
these
things
,
they
shall
believe
no
falshood
,
but
a
most
certain
and
sure
truth
.
And
if
thereupon
they
shall
flee
unto
Christ
for
refuge
,
and
resolutely
cleave
unto
him
,
it
shall
be
a
clear
evidence
to
them
,
that
they
are
of
the
number
of
these
for
whom
Christ
died
,
seeing
no
Reprobate
did
ever
truly
flee
unto
Christ
as
his
only
Refuge
,
and
cordially
adhere
unto
him
,
Joh.
10.26
.
Lastly
,
They
object
,
That
every
man
is
bound
to
believe
,
that
Christ
died
for
him
:
Therefore
Christ
died
for
all
men
whatsoever
,
seeing
we
cannot
be
bound
to
believe
falshoods
and
lies
.
Ans.
I
utterly
deny
the
Antecedent
,
seeing
many
in
the
world
never
had
any
means
to
hear
of
Christs
Death
,
who
therefore
are
not
bound
to
believe
so
much
as
that
he
died
for
any
man
,
seeing
no
man
is
bound
to
believe
that
which
was
never
held
forth
unto
him
,
nor
could
he
in
any
Moral
diligence
know
of
.
Secondly
,
Neither
are
all
who
hear
and
profess
the
Gospel
bound
to
believe
that
Christ
died
for
them
,
but
only
such
as
have
embraced
Christ
on
his
own
Gospel-terms
,
whose
Faith
in
Christ
and
Repentance
towards
God
are
Infallible
evidences
,
that
Christ
hath
Died
for
them
.
Nor
can
there
be
any
thing
more
absurdly
said
,
than
that
every
man
,
even
that
hears
the
Gospel
preached
,
is
bound
to
believe
that
Christ
died
for
him
,
whether
he
have
embraced
Christ
,
or
not
:
for
,
then
every
man
that
hears
the
Gospel
should
be
also
bound
to
believe
,
that
he
shall
be
saved
,
whether
he
embrace
Christ
,
or
not
;
seeing
for
whomsoever
Christ
Died
,
he
also
saves
them
,
Rom.
5.10
.
and
8.32
.
1
Thes.
5.9
,
10.
Thou
wilt
say
,
Why
then
are
these
for
whom
Christ
Died
not
,
Exhorted
to
believe
in
Him
?
Ans.
They
are
not
exhorted
to
believe
,
that
Christ
died
for
them
,
except
they
shall
first
make
choice
of
,
and
embrace
him
for
their
Lord
and
Saviour
,
as
the
Gospel
offers
him
.
Secondly
,
They
are
exhorted
to
believe
in
Christ
,
or
to
accept
of
him
as
their
alone
Lord
and
Saviour
,
upon
his
own
terms
to
shew
them
what
is
their
Duty
,
and
to
make
them
without
excuse
,
in
that
there
was
so
much
pains
and
means
bestowed
upon
them
to
shew
them
their
Duty
,
and
the
way
to
Salvation
;
and
yet
they
would
not
obey
and
embrace
,
but
rejected
the
Mercy
of
God
and
Life
Eternal
,
when
it
was
offered
to
them
upon
condition
of
their
believing
in
Christ
Jesus
.
But
thou
wilt
say
,
They
cannot
believe
in
Christ
:
How
then
can
they
be
unexcusable
for
not
doing
it
?
seeing
they
could
not
help
it
.
Ans.
But
it
's
their
own
fault
,
that
they
cannot
believe
in
him
,
their
inward
sinful
Corruption
is
the
cause
thereof
.
Secondly
,
They
are
unwilling
,
as
well
as
unable
;
and
therefore
they
are
capable
enough
to
become
unexcusable
;
seeing
they
are
both
unwilling
,
and
it
's
their
own
fault
that
they
are
unable
.
Fourteenth
QUERY
.
What
makes
a
Believer
?
Whether
or
not
is
it
by
believing
in
the
Light
,
according
to
Christs
Doctrine
,
who
says
,
He
is
the
Light
of
the
World
,
and
doth
enlighten
every
one
that
comes
into
the
world
,
that
all
men
through
him
might
Believe
?
and
who
follows
him
shall
not
walk
in
darkness
:
for
he
is
the
Light
,
and
says
,
That
he
that
believes
is
saved
.
Then
is
not
the
Light
saving
which
he
believes
?
and
he
that
does
not
believe
in
the
Light
is
damned
already
.
Then
is
not
the
Light
,
or
his
disobedience
to
it
,
his
Condemnation
?
Yea
;
or
Nay
?
SVRVEY
.
It
is
one
of
the
chief
Articles
of
the
Quakers
Creed
,
that
all
men
whatsoever
are
sufficiently
enlightned
for
Conversion
and
Salvation
,
(
as
their
Confession
also
asserts
,
pag.
5
,
15
,
16
,
32
,
33
,
34.
)
as
also
,
that
they
have
sufficient
Grace
to
be
Converted
and
Saved
,
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
66
,
67
,
68
,
69
,
71.
Therefore
I
shall
divide
this
Survey
into
two
Sections
;
the
first
concerning
Universal
Light
,
the
second
concerning
Universal
Grace
.
SECT.
I.
Concerning
Vniversal
Sufficient
Light
.
The
Question
here
is
plain
,
viz.
Whether
or
not
there
is
a
sufficient
Light
,
for
Conversion
,
and
Salvation
,
in
all
men
whatsoever
,
without
exception
?
The
Quakers
affirm
,
that
there
is
,
I
deny
it
;
and
albeit
the
Affirmer
is
still
obliged
to
prove
,
not
the
Denier
;
yet
,
I
prove
my
Negative
.
Therefore
first
,
The
Natural
Man
does
not
discern
,
neither
can
he
know
the
things
of
the
Spirit
of
God
,
1
Cor.
2.14
.
Ergo
,
Natural
Men
are
not
sufficiently
enlightned
for
Conversion
,
or
Salvation
.
The
Quakers
expound
this
Text
,
sometimes
of
the
unrenewed
part
in
a
Man
,
and
sometimes
of
Natural
Reason
,
which
(
say
they
)
is
here
meant
by
the
Natural
Man
.
But
Contrariwise
,
it
is
plain
,
that
Paul
does
there
compare
distinct
Persons
of
Men.
Secondly
,
I
appeal
the
Analogy
of
Faith
,
for
this
their
Figurative
Gloss
.
Thirdly
,
Though
we
give
them
their
own
Gloss
,
they
profit
nothing
,
seeing
many
,
yea
,
most
of
men
,
are
not
renewed
,
and
have
no
other
Light
,
but
of
Natural
Reason
,
being
destitute
of
the
Spirit
,
and
not
having
the
light
of
the
glorious
Gospel
shining
in
unto
them
;
(
2
Cor.
4.3
,
4.
Jud.
19.
)
and
so
these
men
cannot
discern
Spiritually
,
or
with
a
Spiritual
evidence
,
seeing
a
Spiritual
act
cannot
be
produced
,
without
a
Spiritual
Principle
proportioned
thereunto
,
more
than
a
Horse
can
produce
acts
of
Reason
;
for
,
nothing
can
act
above
it's
Sphere
and
Capacity
.
Secondly
,
There
are
many
in
the
World
that
are
covered
with
gross
darkness
;
Many
have
their
understanding
darkened
,
and
are
alienated
from
the
Life
of
God
through
the
ignorance
that
is
in
them
,
because
of
the
blindness
of
their
hearts
,
(
Isai.
60.2
.
Ephes.
4.18
.
)
Believers
themselves
in
their
unrenewed
state
were
under
the
power
of
darkness
,
(
Ephes.
5.8
.
Colos.
1.13
.
)
and
even
within
the
pale
of
the
Visible
Church
,
there
are
many
to
whom
it
is
not
given
to
know
the
Mysteries
of
the
Kingdom
of
God
;
and
God
hath
not
given
them
a
Heart
to
perceive
,
Eyes
to
see
,
nor
Ears
to
hear
,
but
their
Eyes
are
shut
that
they
cannot
see
,
and
their
Hearts
that
they
cannot
understand
,
there
is
a
Vail
thereupon
,
(
Matth.
13.11
.
Deut.
29.4
.
Isai.
44.18
.
Rom.
11.7
,
8.
)
Are
these
then
sufficiently
enlightned
for
Conversion
and
Salvation
?
then
black
ignorance
,
blindness
,
and
darkness
,
sufficiently
enlightens
.
But
the
Quakers
reply
in
their
Confession
,
(
page
8.
)
That
it
is
not
the
brain-knowledge
that
is
blinded
in
any
man
,
but
only
the
sensible
knowledge
of
feeling
.
But
the
reply
signifies
nothing
.
For
first
,
I
inquire
,
if
the
brain-knowledge
,
without
the
sensible
knowledge
of
feeling
,
be
sufficient
to
Salvation
?
if
it
be
,
then
they
who
are
quite
stupid
,
and
have
no
conscience
or
sence
of
sin
at
all
,
but
are
past
feeling
,
(
as
it
is
1
Tim.
4.2
.
Ephes.
4.19
.
)
are
sufficiently
enlightned
to
Salvation
,
which
I
do
not
believe
.
If
then
,
the
brain-knowledge
alone
,
without
somewhat
of
the
other
,
be
not
sufficient
to
Salvation
,
then
(
with
the
Adversaries
own
grant
)
all
men
whatsoever
are
not
sufficiently
enlightned
to
Salvation
,
seeing
they
grant
the
sensible
knowledge
of
feeling
to
be
blinded
in
many
.
Secondly
,
All
men
have
not
even
the
brain-knowledge
of
Christ
Crucified
,
and
the
New
Covenant
,
as
is
clear
in
experience
,
(
for
,
How
many
Americans
and
others
can
tell
us
one
word
of
Christ
?
)
and
the
Scriptures
also
declares
it
,
Psal.
147.20
.
Rom.
10.14
.
and
15.20.21
.
Ephes.
2.12
.
how
then
are
such
men
utterly
ignorant
of
Christ
,
and
so
of
the
way
to
Salvation
,
(
Joh.
14.6
.
Act.
4.12
.
)
and
are
not
within
the
Covenant
,
(
as
Believers
Children
are
,
who
though
they
be
not
capable
of
actual
knowledge
,
yet
they
belong
to
the
Covenant
)
but
are
Strangers
to
the
Covenants
of
Promise
,
and
Aliens
to
the
Church
of
God
,
(
Eph.
2.12
.
)
How
(
I
say
)
are
these
sufficiently
enlightned
to
Salvation
?
If
these
be
sufficiently
enlightned
thereunto
,
then
not
a
small
whisper
of
Christ
or
the
Covenant
can
be
needful
.
And
,
I
am
sure
,
if
they
never
heard
of
Christ
,
they
can
neither
know
Him
,
believe
in
Him
,
love
Him
,
nor
obey
His
Gospel
.
Lastly
,
There
are
many
,
even
who
have
heard
of
Christ
,
that
,
instead
of
brain-knowledge
,
are
given
up
to
strong
brain-Delusions
,
to
believe
black
Errors
and
Lies
,
that
bring
on
their
Eternal
Damnation
,
2
Thes.
2.11
,
12.
It
is
therefore
most
false
,
that
the
brain-knowledge
is
not
blinded
in
any
man
.
But
the
Quakers
here
object
from
Joh.
1.9
.
where
it
's
said
,
That
Christ
enlightens
every
one
that
comes
into
the
World
,
which
they
expound
of
a
Light
sufficient
to
Salvation
.
Ans.
I
deny
their
Exposition
,
which
they
shall
never
prove
;
for
,
the
Text
only
says
,
That
he
enlightens
every
one
that
comes
into
the
World
,
which
indeed
is
most
true
in
regard
of
whatsoever
kind
,
or
degree
of
Light
any
man
in
the
whole
world
hath
;
for
,
every
man
is
enlightned
with
some
kind
of
Light
,
viz.
either
the
Light
of
Natural
Reason
;
or
else
,
both
with
that
,
and
the
Supernatural
Light
of
Grace
also
,
all
which
they
have
from
Christ
,
who
is
the
Eternal
Son
of
God
,
by
whom
all
things
were
made
,
(
John
1.3
.
Colos.
1.16
.
Heb.
1.2
.
)
and
is
also
our
Spiritual
enlightner
;
(
Matth.
11.27
.
John
1.16
,
17.
and
8.12
.
and
12.46
.
)
But
that
he
enlightens
every
man
that
comes
into
the
World
,
with
a
light
sufficient
to
Salvation
,
is
neither
said
in
this
Text
of
John
,
nor
any
where
else
of
Scripture
;
but
is
,
on
the
contrary
,
therein
strongly
contradicted
,
some
few
Testimonies
whereof
I
have
produced
.
That
which
the
Quakers
add
here
,
viz.
That
he
enlightens
every
man
that
comes
into
the
World
,
That
all
men
through
him
might
believe
,
is
not
so
written
in
the
Text
,
but
only
in
the
Seventh
Verse
there
preceeding
,
it
's
said
,
That
John
bare
witness
of
the
Light
,
That
all
men
through
him
might
believe
;
but
the
truth
is
,
the
word
,
men
,
is
not
in
the
Original
,
but
only
the
word
,
all
,
which
may
be
as
well
supplied
with
the
word
,
Elect
,
as
the
word
,
Men
;
and
albeit
it
were
in
the
Original
,
yet
(
for
the
reasons
before
given
)
it
behooved
to
be
understood
of
all
Sorts
,
Stations
,
and
Degrees
of
Men
,
(
or
Genera
singulorum
)
not
of
every
Individual
Man
,
(
or
Singula
generum
)
and
surely
,
Johns
witness
was
neither
then
,
nor
yet
is
come
,
to
every
mans
ears
in
the
whole
World
.
Secondly
,
It
uses
to
be
objected
,
That
,
that
which
may
be
known
of
God
,
was
manifest
to
the
Gentiles
,
Rom.
1.19
.
Therefore
,
even
the
Gentiles
were
sufficiently
enlightened
.
Ans.
The
knowledge
that
the
Apostle
there
speaks
of
,
was
only
a
natural
knowledge
of
God
,
from
the
light
of
Natural
Reason
,
and
the
works
of
Creation
,
(
which
was
common
with
them
to
the
Devil
)
and
therefore
was
no
ways
sufficient
for
Salvation
,
considering
also
how
small
a
portion
we
have
retained
of
it
since
the
Fall
;
albeit
it
is
indeed
sufficient
for
conviction
,
and
to
make
unexcusable
.
They
should
therefore
prove
,
that
these
knew
God
in
Christ
,
or
God
,
as
Redeemer
,
and
his
new
Covenant
,
or
else
they
profit
not
.
Thirdly
,
They
object
,
That
the
Gentiles
had
a
light
in
their
Consciences
,
accusing
,
or
else
excusing
them
,
Rom.
2.15
.
Ans.
If
that
light
of
a
Natural
Conscience
,
which
the
Gentiles
had
,
be
sufficient
to
Salvation
,
(
as
the
Quakers
strongly
insinuate
in
their
Confession
of
Faith
,
pag.
6
,
15
,
16
,
32
,
33
,
34.
)
then
the
Devil
also
,
who
wants
not
the
Light
of
a
Natural
Conscience
,
is
sufficiently
enlightened
to
Salvation
.
Secondly
,
If
that
light
of
a
Natural
Conscience
,
which
the
Gentiles
had
,
be
sufficient
to
Salvation
,
then
the
meer
light
of
Nature
and
Reason
,
and
that
when
it
is
corrupted
and
darkened
,
without
the
Supernatural
light
of
Grace
,
or
so
much
as
one
Gospel-promise
,
(
which
the
Gentiles
knew
not
)
is
sufficient
to
Salvation
;
which
,
who
says
,
is
a
deep-dyed
Atheist
.
They
sometimes
have
said
to
me
,
That
the
Gentiles
were
sufficiently
enlightned
,
even
in
respect
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
when
it
was
manifested
to
Adam
,
or
any
other
of
their
fore-Fathers
.
Ans.
We
were
once
sufficiently
enlightned
in
Adam
,
in
order
to
the
Covenant
of
Works
;
but
we
are
not
still
so
now
,
our
understanding
is
darkened
by
the
Fall
:
But
,
in
respect
of
the
Covenant
of
Grace
,
Adam
was
never
our
head
and
undertaker
,
and
so
his
enlightning
is
nothing
to
us
.
Secondly
,
Will
their
fore-Fathers
enlightning
at
a
great
distance
of
time
,
worn
out
,
and
extinct
,
prove
,
that
the
Gentiles
had
still
a
sufficient
light
?
Nay
,
then
,
let
them
prove
,
(
for
it
's
as
easie
)
that
a
blind
man
sees
sufficiently
to
read
,
because
,
his
Father
who
had
Eyes
,
saw
to
do
it
;
or
,
that
all
men
are
sufficiently
innocent
,
and
able
to
do
their
Duty
perfectly
,
because
Adam
was
once
so
,
and
then
we
shall
need
no
Saviour
.
But
,
Say
the
Quakers
,
is
not
the
light
then
saving
,
which
he
believes
?
Ans.
Christ
Jesus
,
who
is
meant
in
the
Scriptures
,
pointed
at
,
(
viz.
Joh.
1.9
.
and
8.12
.
)
is
indeed
a
saving
light
;
but
the
light
of
Nature
and
Reason
,
which
is
the
only
light
that
is
universally
in
all
men
,
(
as
was
proved
at
the
Survey
of
the
fourth
Query
)
is
not
so
.
SECT.
II.
Concerning
sufficient
Grace
in
all
Men.
The
Question
here
is
,
Whether
there
be
sufficient
Grace
in
all
Men
,
Turks
,
Pagans
,
Heathens
,
&c.
able
to
convert
them
,
and
so
save
them
?
The
Quakers
boldly
affirm
,
that
there
is
;
and
they
do
not
mean
of
objective
Grace
,
or
Grace
offered
only
to
all
,
(
which
some
plead
for
,
right
,
or
wrong
,
my
present
purpose
is
not
concerned
)
but
of
subjective
Grace
,
whereby
the
will
is
made
able
,
and
put
into
Hapacity
and
freedom
to
convert
and
turn
to
God
,
as
George
Keith
affirms
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
66.
But
I
utterly
deny
,
that
there
is
Grace
in
all
men
sufficient
for
Conversion
;
and
though
still
the
Affirmer
ought
to
prove
,
not
the
Denyer
,
yet
I
prove
my
Negative
.
Therefore
first
,
There
is
not
sufficient
light
for
Conversion
in
all
men
,
as
is
proved
:
Therefore
,
neither
is
there
sufficient
Grace
in
all
men
for
Conversion
.
The
Consequence
is
easie
,
seeing
Grace
without
Light
,
will
be
very
blind
Grace
;
nor
can
the
will
be
renewed
,
and
the
understanding
left
unrenewed
,
and
in
darkness
;
for
,
how
then
shall
it
behave
,
seeing
,
Nil
volitum
quin
praecognitum
,
ignoti
nulla
cupido
.
Secondly
,
Every
sufficient
Cause
is
able
to
produce
the
Effect
;
or
else
,
it
is
no
ways
sufficient
,
as
is
palpable
.
But
there
is
no
Grace
in
Reprobates
and
Unrenewed
Men
,
able
to
convert
them
,
subdue
the
resistance
of
their
will
,
and
bring
it
in
subjection
to
God
:
Therefore
there
is
not
a
sufficient
Grace
to
Conversion
in
them
.
The
Minor
only
needs
proving
,
and
I
prove
it
,
because
the
Natural
Man
cannot
,
by
any
assistance
,
discern
the
things
of
the
Spirit
,
and
the
carnal
mind
,
which
is
enmity
against
God
,
cannot
by
any
assistance
,
be
—
subject
to
his
Law
,
(
1
Cor.
2.14
.
Rom.
8.7
.
)
Nay
,
he
must
be
a
Spiritual
man
that
does
either
,
seeing
a
Spiritual
act
can
never
proceed
from
a
Natural
or
Carnal
Principle
,
more
than
a
Horse
can
make
a
Syllogism
,
or
define
an
Object
:
But
Reprobates
and
Unrenewed
men
are
intirely
Natural
Men
,
and
Carnal
minded
.
Therefore
there
is
no
Grace
in
Reprobates
and
Unrenewed
Men
,
whereby
they
can
either
discern
the
things
of
the
Spirit
,
or
to
be
—
subject
to
his
Law
;
and
so
,
I
am
sure
,
it
cannot
convert
them
.
The
Minor
of
this
also
only
needs
proving
,
which
is
easie
;
for
Reprobates
and
Unrenewed
Men
,
neither
have
Christ
,
nor
the
Spirit
of
Christ
,
(
2
Cor.
13.5
.
1
Joh.
5.12
.
Rom.
8.9
,
10.
Galat.
4.6
.
)
and
so
they
cannot
be
Spiritual
,
but
intirely
Natural
and
Carnal
,
being
without
Christ
,
and
without
his
Spirit
.
Thirdly
,
No
Man
can
come
to
Christ
,
except
the
Father
draw
him
,
Joh.
6.44
.
but
he
draws
not
all
men
whatsoever
:
Therefore
all
men
whatsoever
have
not
sufficient
Grace
,
enabling
them
to
go
to
Christ
,
and
so
to
convert
and
turn
to
God
.
The
Major
is
Christs
plain
assertion
in
the
place
cited
.
The
Minor
is
clear
from
Joh.
6.45
.
where
Christ
positively
affirms
,
That
every
man
that
hath
heard
and
learned
of
the
Father
,
comes
to
him
:
But
all
men
whatsoever
come
not
to
Christ
,
(
John
5.40
.
and
10.26
.
and
12.39
.
2
Thes.
3.2
.
)
Therefore
all
men
whatsoever
do
not
hear
and
learn
of
the
Father
,
and
so
are
not
drawn
by
him
;
and
so
the
whole
Argument
is
evidently
proved
.
Lastly
,
Conversion
essentially
consists
in
the
Habits
,
Powers
,
and
Principles
of
Grace
;
not
in
the
actual
operations
of
Grace
;
otherwise
Believers
would
lose
,
and
recover
their
Conversion
,
and
so
be
in
a
state
of
Nature
and
Grace
,
as
often
as
they
are
not
,
and
again
are
,
in
the
actual
exercise
and
operations
of
Grace
;
and
so
every
Convert
would
be
an
Apostate
fallen
from
Grace
when
he
sleeps
,
or
is
not
actually
exercising
his
Grace
,
which
is
utterly
absurd
,
so
to
lose
,
and
recover
continually
his
union
with
,
and
relation
to
Christ
,
and
his
right
unto
Eternal
Life
:
But
,
whosoever
hath
sufficient
Grace
,
must
,
certainly
,
have
the
Powers
,
Principles
,
or
Habits
of
Grace
:
Therefore
,
whosoever
hath
sufficient
Grace
,
is
,
certainly
,
a
Convert
;
and
so
if
all
men
have
sufficient
grace
,
then
they
are
also
all
Converts
,
which
I
do
not
yet
believe
.
The
Major
is
proved
clearly
already
.
I
prove
the
Minor
,
viz.
that
whosoever
hath
sufficient
Grace
,
must
,
certainly
,
have
the
Powers
,
Principles
,
or
Habits
of
Grace
;
because
,
without
these
,
there
cannot
be
sufficient
Grace
:
for
,
there
cannot
be
sufficient
Grace
,
where
the
actions
and
operations
of
Grace
are
impossible
,
as
cannot
be
denied
:
But
where
the
Powers
,
Principles
,
or
Habits
of
Grace
are
wanting
,
there
,
the
actions
and
operations
of
Grace
are
impossible
;
seeing
every
action
and
operation
is
impossible
,
without
the
Principles
and
Powers
whereupon
it
necessarily
depends
,
as
no
man
can
be
ignorant
of
.
Therefore
,
without
the
Powers
,
Principles
,
or
Habits
of
Grace
,
there
can
be
no
sufficient
Grace
.
They
will
,
(
may
be
)
say
,
that
habits
are
not
simply
necessary
for
producing
of
Acts
,
but
,
only
for
the
more
easie
and
ready
producing
of
them
.
Unto
this
I
reply
that
,
though
,
that
be
true
in
respect
of
natural
and
acquired
habits
(
as
even
their
acquiring
,
shews
that
same
Acts
proceeded
the
habit
,
viz.
these
by
which
it
was
first
acquired
)
yet
it
is
most
false
,
in
regard
of
supernatural
and
infused
habits
,
as
both
their
nature
,
and
their
purchase
(
no
ways
,
but
by
infusion
)
may
shew
that
they
necessarily
preceed
all
Acts
;
yea
,
and
otherwise
,
a
Man
might
live
graciously
without
grace
,
and
grace
would
be
simply
needless
,
which
a
sworn
Atheist
will
not
dare
to
say
.
But
they
object
for
universal
sufficient
grace
,
that
,
the
Gentiles
do
the
things
contained
in
the
Law
,
Rom.
2
,
14
:
therefore
they
had
sufficient
grace
.
Ans.
They
did
these
things
by
Nature
,
(
sayes
the
Text
)
not
by
grace
.
Secondly
,
a
Man
,
may
do
things
Naturaly
good
,
and
contained
in
the
Law
,
and
yet
be
void
of
grace
,
seeing
he
may
do
them
,
but
yet
not
from
gracious
principles
of
Faith
and
Love
,
nor
for
gracious
ends
both
which
(
as
also
the
gracious
manner
)
are
requisit
to
a
gracious
action
,
Rom.
14
,
23.
1
Cor.
10
,
31.
Secondly
,
they
object
,
that
the
grace
of
God
that
bringeth
salvation
,
hath
appeared
to
all
Men
,
Tit.
2
,
11.
Ans.
By
the
grace
of
god
,
the
Apostle
there
means
,
the
gracious
Doctrine
of
the
Gospel
,
(
whereunto
,
teaching
,
which
is
ascribed
to
it
in
the
following
verse
,
is
most
proper
)
and
by
all
Men
,
is
meant
Men
of
all
ranks
,
Stations
,
Qualities
,
&c.
As
the
word
,
all
,
is
often
taken
:
for
the
Gospel
was
not
then
come
to
every
Mans
ears
in
the
whole
world
.
This
objection
George
Keith
makes
,
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
66.
Thirdly
,
they
object
,
that
the
manifestation
of
the
Spirit
,
is
given
to
every
Man
to
profit
withal
,
1
Cor.
12
,
7.
Ans.
The
Apostle
speaks
only
of
the
members
of
Christs
body
here
,
by
the
Context
,
not
of
all
Men
whatsoever
.
again
,
laying
aside
the
Context
,
the
meaning
is
easie
,
viz.
that
to
whomsoever
,
the
manifestation
of
the
Spirit
is
given
,
it
is
given
them
for
profiting
;
as
when
Paul
says
Colos.
1
,
28.
)
whom
we
preach
,
warning
every
Man
,
in
all
wisdom
,
he
does
not
mean
,
that
they
had
then
got
every
Man
in
the
World
warned
,
but
that
whomsoever
they
warned
,
they
warned
them
wisely
,
and
not
imprudently
;
as
when
I
say
such
a
Man
,
speakes
to
every
Man
wisely
,
I
doe
not
mean
that
he
hath
spoken
to
all
the
World
,
but
whomsoever
he
speakes
to
,
he
does
it
wisely
and
discreetly
.
And
just
so
,
when
I
say
,
such
a
Man
honoureth
every
Man
,
or
all
Men
for
advantage
.
Fourthly
,
George
Keith
object
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
66
)
from
Rom.
5
,
18.
That
as
by
the
offence
of
one
judgment
come
upon
all
men
to
condemnation
:
even
so
by
the
righteousness
of
one
,
the
free
gift
came
upon
all
Men
unto
justification
of
life
.
Ans.
the
meaning
is
plainly
,
as
in
the
former
objection
,
that
as
on
whomsoever
the
offence
came
,
it
came
unto
Condemnation
,
so
on
whomsoever
the
righteousness
came
,
it
came
unto
justification
,
so
he
is
comparing
the
force
and
effects
,
of
the
offence
of
Adam
,
and
the
force
and
effects
of
Christ's
righteousness
and
merits
together
,
which
is
his
scope
in
the
whole
Context
,
as
may
easily
be
seen
,
but
especially
in
the
16
,
Ver.
And
if
he
were
comparing
the
quantity
and
latitude
,
of
the
objects
together
,
upon
whom
the
offence
,
and
the
righteousness
came
,
making
them
equal
(
as
the
Quakers
objection
intends
,
then
it
would
prove
that
all
Men
were
as
actually
in
a
State
of
justification
by
Christ
,
as
ever
they
were
in
a
State
of
Damnation
by
Adam
,
which
is
utterly
false
.
From
this
universal
grace
,
the
Quakers
draw
their
free-will
in
all
Men
,
even
natural
and
unrenewed
Men
to
convert
and
turn
unto
God
at
their
option
and
choice
,
as
George
Keith
boldly
(
with
holy
boldness
himself
calls
it
)
affirms
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
66
,
67
,
68
,
69.
But
the
Scriptures
says
,
(
Jer.
24
,
7.
Ezek.
11
,
19
,
and
36
,
26
,
)
that
its
God
that
gives
us
the
new
heart
,
which
we
cannot
make
our selves
by
the
help
of
universal
grace
,
nor
does
that
universal
grace
bestow
it
(
or
else
in
the
Quakers
principles
,
all
Men
would
be
converts
)
nor
can
we
turn
to
God
without
it
.
They
declare
,
that
it's
God
that
converts
us
,
and
not
our selves
,
by
our
free-will
and
universal
grace
assisting
(
Jer.
31
,
18.
Joh.
3
,
5.
and
6
,
44.
Jam.
1
18.
1
Pet.
1
;
3.
)
They
also
positively
teach
that
men
that
want
a
true
Spiritual
union
with
Christ
,
by
Faith
,
can
doe
nothing
,
viz.
that
's
acceptable
and
Spiritually
good
(
Joh.
15
,
5.
)
and
all
unrenewed
men
are
such
.
And
it
's
most
absurd
to
say
,
that
there
is
an
ability
,
and
free-will
in
Reprobates
and
unrenewed
men
,
by
means
of
a
sufficient
grace
in
them
,
to
convert
and
turn
to
god
,
or
forbear
at
their
Devotion
and
choice
;
for
so
the
efficacy
of
grace
,
in
the
point
of
Conversion
,
is
made
plainly
dependent
on
man's
free-will
;
which
that
I
may
prove
,
we
must
know
that
the
Quakers
(
with
their
dear
Friends
the
Jesuits
)
doe
say
,
that
God
bestowes
this
his
grace
upon
all
men
only
to
make
them
capable
,
and
able
,
and
their
free
will
to
Convert
,
or
not
,
at
their
choice
,
and
consent
,
or
Dissent
;
but
that
he
does
not
make
his
grace
,
so
Powerful
on
the●
as
Infallibly
and
peremptorily
to
through
and
effect
the
work
,
so
as
it
cannot
but
come
to
pass
;
for
this
he
will
not
doe
left
he
take
away
the
Freedom
of
their
will
,
whereunto
he
still
leaves
them
to
chuse
,
or
refuse
;
consent
,
or
dissent
.
Now
then
,
First
,
this
universal
grace
,
is
not
effectual
of
it self
,
to
Convert
any
man
;
or
else
,
seing
every
man
hath
it
aswell
as
another
(
as
the
Adversaries
affirm
)
it
would
Convert
them
all
;
otherwise
it
cannot
be
called
effectual
,
as
not
throughing
and
effecting
that
work
in
many
.
From
whom
then
hath
it
,
to
be
effectual
?
not
from
God
;
for
he
only
makes
men
able
,
and
free
thereby
to
be
Converted
,
leaving
them
to
their
free-will
,
to
chuse
or
refuse
.
not
from
the
Devil
,
I
am
sure
:
Ergo
,
it
must
Infallibly
,
have
its
efficacy
from
mans
free-will
,
which
,
by
chusing
and
Inclining
,
applies
it
that
way
effectually
,
which
otherwise
had
misgiven
.
Secondly
,
this
universal
grace
in
the
business
of
Conversion
,
works
at
mens
Option
and
Choice
;
for
,
if
they
Incline
it
concurs
,
if
not
,
it
forbears
:
Therefore
it
is
therein
clearly
Subordinate
to
mans
free-will
,
and
determined
thereunto
by
his
Promotion
;
and
so
in
effecting
that
work
,
plainly
depends
on
him
,
and
his
free-will
.
The
consequence
is
plain
from
the
Definition
of
a
Predetermining
and
Predetermined
,
and
a
Subordinant
and
Subordinate
cause
contained
in
the
Antecedent
,
from
whence
I
infer
to
the
things
defined
in
the
consequence
.
But
George
Keith
denies
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
67
,
68.
)
that
so
the
efficacy
of
grace
shall
depend
upon
mans
free-will
,
because
,
when
it
hath
not
its
efficacy
in
order
to
Conversion
in
men
who
stop
and
resist
it
,
yet
it
hath
its
efficacy
in
rendring
them
unexcusable
,
and
in
being
a
just
ground
of
their
Condemnation
,
which
is
all
that
God
Intended
by
it
in
such
Resisters
:
for
God
intended
only
that
it
should
convert
such
as
resist
it
not
,
and
be
a
ground
of
just
Condemnation
against
Resisters
.
But
,
First
,
it
cannot
be
so
said
to
be
effectual
to
Conversion
(
concerning
which
the
debate
here
is
)
but
only
that
its
either
Effectually
to
it
,
or
the
other
thing
mentioned
,
which
also
every
good
Advice
and
Exhortation
will
be
.
Here
there
is
no
efficacy
to
Conversion
,
more
then
to
Non-conversion
,
seeing
it
can
consist
with
either
of
them
,
at
the
parties
option
.
Secondly
,
you
say
,
it
was
not
intended
for
their
conversion
who
resist
it
How
do
they
then
resist
it
,
who
are
not
thereby
converted
,
when
they
do
not
cross
its
Errand
and
Intent
?
I
am
sure
,
if
they
crossed
its
Intent
and
Errand
,
they
would
plainly
resist
it
.
And
so
it
s
still
resisted
,
be
it
crossed
,
or
not
.
What
an
ill
natur'd
grace
is
this
,
that
nothing
can
please
.
Thirdly
,
it
s
asmuch
Intended
,
for
the
Conversion
of
them
that
resist
,
as
of
them
that
resist
not
;
seeing
its
Intended
,
for
the
Conversion
of
any
of
them
that
resist
not
,
and
of
none
of
them
,
if
they
resist
(
you
say
.
)
And
so
,
if
it
be
not
Intended
for
the
Conversion
of
the
one
,
neither
is
it
of
the
other
,
and
so
it
cannot
concur
to
any
mans
conversion
,
Except
it
do
it
without
God's
Intention
and
Design
;
and
so
if
it
Convert
any
man
,
its
false
to
its
Master
and
Author
.
I
le
have
nothing
to
do
with
this
Ill-natur'd
,
and
false
grace
.
God
send
me
better
.
George
Keith
,
(
in
the
68
,
pag.
of
his
foresaid
Book
)
endeavours
to
retort
our
Arguments
here
,
alledging
that
,
as
they
say
,
their
universal
grace
is
resistible
in
order
to
Conversion
,
so
we
say
that
the
grace
of
God
may
be
resisted
in
order
to
perfection
;
and
so
we
are
in
the
same
difficulty
,
as
he
will
.
But
,
George
Keith
is
hugely
mistaken
(
as
when
not
?
)
for
we
are
not
in
his
danger
,
or
difficulty
as
yet
,
seeing
there
is
no
parity
;
First
,
because
we
never
said
that
we
had
sufficient
grace
here
,
to
perfection
(
God
hath
not
seen
it
fit
so
to
measure
forth
unto
us
so
soon
,
that
he
may
exercise
our
Faith
,
Patience
,
Humility
,
Self-Denyal
,
Repentance
,
&c.
And
raise
our
affections
to
Heaven
where
we
shall
have
enough
.
)
But
the
Adversaries
do
say
that
all
men
have
sufficient
grace
to
Conversion
;
and
therefore
we
cannot
be
said
to
resist
that
which
we
have
not
,
nor
plead
we
have
.
This
quite
destroyes
,
the
pretended
retorsion
.
Secondly
,
we
never
said
that
the
grace
of
God
,
works
at
our
Inclination
,
Beck
,
and
Choice
towards
perfection
,
or
not
towards
it
,
and
so
that
we
are
the
determiners
of
his
grace
,
in
order
to
growth
(
as
we
,
see
from
your
Principles
,
ye
Quakers
say
of
that
universal
pretended
grace
,
in
order
to
Conversion
)
but
that
God
,
by
his
grace
always
determins
us
.
to
the
growth
he
designs
it
for
,
not
our
free-will
,
his
grace
.
Thirdly
,
we
may
indeed
,
resist
both
the
means
and
motions
of
grace
,
and
not
improve
grace
,
as
we
should
and
might
too
;
but
God
makes
it
still
effectual
to
the
growth
by
him
designed
,
and
when
he
pleases
,
not
we
;
which
ye
Quakers
deny
he
does
,
lest
he
take
away
the
Freedom
of
your
will
,
whereunto
he
must
leave
his
grace
to
be
turned
this
way
,
or
that
,
as
ye
choice
.
By
all
these
,
no
Parity
there
is
to
be
found
here
for
a
Retorsion
.
The
Quakers
against
this
Doctrine
do
object
,
the
many
Exhortations
that
are
in
Scripture
unto
our
Conversion
and
turning
to
God
.
Whereunto
I
answer
,
That
these
Exhortations
do
not
shew
what
we
can
do
,
but
what
we
ought
to
do
;
and
that
so
putting
us
to
it
,
we
may
know
our
inability
to
do
,
that
we
may
see
our
lostness
,
and
flee
to
Christ
.
And
Secondly
,
These
Exhortations
are
given
in
Scripture
,
as
a
means
by
which
God
does
Effectually
,
by
his
Spirits
Efficacy
joyned
,
work
Conversion
in
his
Elect
,
who
promiscuously
live
amongst
the
rest
of
the
Multitude
.
And
Thirdly
,
They
are
given
to
make
the
wicked
the
more
unexcusable
,
when
they
will
not
Obey
,
nor
receive
Grace
offered
,
and
turn
,
that
they
may
be
saved
.
Upon
this
universal
Grace
,
and
their
free-will
thereby
,
they
also
build
the
Apostacy
of
the
Saints
,
alledging
,
that
they
may
totally
and
finally
fall
away
,
who
have
true
and
real
beginnings
of
Sanctification
,
as
George
Keith
alledges
,
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
73.
)
but
it
's
all
in
vain
:
for
,
the
Scriptures
tell
us
,
that
God
causes
these
,
to
whom
he
gives
a
new
heart
,
to
walk
in
his
Statutes
and
keep
his
Judgments
,
without
departing
from
him
,
(
Jer.
32.40
.
Ezek.
36.26
.
)
and
that
these
that
are
once
planted
in
the
House
of
God
,
shall
still
bring
forth
fruit
in
old
age
,
and
so
shall
persevere
,
(
Psal.
92.13
,
14.
)
and
that
whomsoever
God
effectually
calls
,
he
also
justifies
and
glorifies
them
,
(
Rom.
8.3
.
)
and
that
he
hath
made
them
Heirs
,
and
joynt
Heirs
of
God
with
Christ
,
and
given
them
the
Spirit
,
as
an
earnest
thereof
,
(
Rom.
8.15
,
17.
2
Cor.
1.22
.
and
5.5
.
Ephes.
1.13
,
14.
Galat.
4.6
,
7.
)
and
that
Believers
are
kept
by
the
Power
of
God
through
Faith
unto
Salvation
:
(
1
Pet.
1.5
.
)
and
that
whosoever
is
born
of
God
,
doth
not
commit
Sin
,
(
with
full
consent
,
or
unto
death
)
for
his
Seed
,
which
is
incorruptible
,
(
1
Pet.
1.23
.
)
remains
in
him
,
so
that
he
cannot
sin
,
viz.
with
full
consent
,
or
unto
Death
,
(
1
Joh.
3.9
.
)
because
he
is
born
of
God
.
I
do
not
here
stand
to
Argument
from
these
Scriptures
,
because
both
they
are
of
themselves
clear
,
and
likewise
they
have
been
often
handled
before
,
by
our
Writers
against
Jesuits
and
Arminians
.
But
,
they
use
to
object
most
ordinarily
,
from
the
many
Exhortations
that
we
have
in
Scripture
to
perseverance
,
which
(
they
alledge
)
imports
,
that
true
and
real
Saints
may
fall
totally
and
finally
away
.
But
they
mistake
:
for
these
Exhortations
are
given
as
a
means
,
by
which
God
,
by
his
Spiritual
Efficacy
joyned
,
designs
,
and
carries
on
the
Saints
perseverance
,
and
to
shew
others
their
Duty
,
wherein
if
they
fail
,
to
be
their
ditty
,
as
was
before
said
.
George
Keith
objects
,
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
74.
)
These
who
received
the
Seed
in
stony
ground
,
(
as
it
is
explained
,
Matth.
13.5
.
Matth.
4.5
.
)
who
afterwards
fell
finally
away
.
Ans.
These
were
temporary
Believers
,
never
really
or
truly
Regenerated
and
Sanctified
,
(
as
is
sure
from
the
Scriptures
we
have
cited
presently
to
the
contrary
)
but
they
had
a
profession
of
Conversion
,
and
a
temporary
Current
Flood
of
Affection
,
arising
from
some
Carnal
Motives
of
Pleasure
,
Advantage
,
&c.
and
thereupon
also
they
seemed
to
the
Church
to
be
really
and
truly
Converted
;
albeit
it
was
not
so
,
and
they
were
never
really
Regenerated
,
or
Sanctified
;
for
,
if
they
had
been
so
,
they
had
not
fallen
finally
away
,
seeing
(
beside
what
is
above
said
)
the
gifts
and
calling
of
God
are
without
Repentance
,
Rom.
11.29
.
Secondly
,
He
objects
from
Rom.
11.19
,
20.
where
it
's
said
,
That
the
Jews
were
broken
off
from
the
Covenant
,
that
we
Gentiles
might
be
graffed
in
.
But
this
says
nothing
either
,
seeing
many
professed
Members
are
broken
off
;
but
they
were
never
truly
and
really
Sanctified
or
Regenerated
,
which
are
the
only
Persons
concerning
whom
the
Question
is
,
nor
were
these
Jews
whom
the
Apostle
there
speaks
of
,
so
much
as
professed
Members
of
the
Gospel
and
Christian
Church
.
Thirdly
,
He
objects
from
Heb.
10.29
.
(
see
the
place
,
for
I
will
not
stand
to
repeat
the
words
)
where
the
Apostle
speaks
only
of
such
as
had
received
(
though
in
a
great
degree
)
some
common
illuminations
of
the
Spirit
,
and
some
common
operations
of
his
Grace
;
but
not
of
these
who
were
truly
Regenerated
and
truly
Sanctified
,
though
they
had
once
escaped
the
external
Pollutions
of
the
World
,
as
Peter
says
,
(
2
Pet.
2.20
.
)
and
for
all
this
,
I
appeal
the
Scriptures
which
I
have
produced
to
the
contrary
,
which
are
both
plain
and
unanswerable
.
And
when
he
again
objects
from
the
2
Pet.
2.18
.
I
answer
likewise
,
that
the
Apostle
there
means
of
men
that
Externally
,
and
in
the
Eyes
of
the
World
were
clean
escaped
from
them
who
live
in
Error
;
but
were
not
really
so
,
or
really
and
truly
Sanctified
;
for
,
these
that
go
away
from
us
,
are
not
of
us
,
(
Joh.
2.19
.
)
although
they
may
for
a
time
profess
and
seem
to
be
of
us
,
and
in
our
Judgment
of
Charity
(
when
we
know
no
relevant
ground
against
it
)
be
so
construed
.
Lastly
,
He
objects
to
us
from
Jud.
4.5
,
6.
where
truly
I
hardly
see
any
Apostacy
,
but
that
of
the
Angels
that
fell
from
their
Primaeve
Condition
,
which
will
never
infer
the
Apostacy
of
any
mean
Saint
,
seeing
none
of
these
is
so
absolutely
at
the
Devils
Devotion
.
Or
,
if
he
means
of
these
in
the
fourth
Verse
,
who
were
crept
in
,
and
turn'd
the
Grace
of
God
into
wantonness
,
that
is
only
meant
of
the
means
of
Grace
,
(
which
are
often
called
Grace
,
(
Tit.
2.11
.
)
and
the
offers
of
Grace
;
not
of
Grace
once
really
and
subjectively
infused
,
or
conferred
,
which
would
have
persevered
to
Salvation
;
whereas
these
men
there
spoken
of
,
were
before
of
old
Ordained
to
Condemnation
,
says
the
Text.
Fifteenth
QUERY
.
Whether
or
not
the
Prophets
,
Christ
,
and
the
Apostles
,
and
holy
Men
of
God
,
did
preach
down
Perfection
?
and
said
,
that
Men
should
not
be
perfect
while
they
were
on
Earth
,
but
that
they
should
carry
about
a
Body
of
Death
with
them
,
while
they
were
on
this
side
of
the
Grave
?
Let
us
see
where
this
is
written
by
any
of
them
all
?
SVRVEY
.
The
Quakers
here
are
fighting
with
their
own
Shadow
,
and
however
this
mock-Inspirer
drops
in
the
Quakers
own
Principles
,
sure
I
am
,
he
is
a
base
Traducer
of
other
mens
Doctrine
:
for
,
What
Minister
of
ours
did
ever
preach
,
that
Men
should
not
be
perfect
here
in
this
Life
?
sure
enough
,
they
should
be
perfect
;
but
the
Question
is
not
,
what
is
their
Duty
,
and
what
they
should
be
;
but
what
is
their
Reach
and
Attainments
.
The
Saints
are
indeed
perfectly
justified
here-away
,
(
Rom.
8.1
.
)
nor
can
a
Remission
,
or
Pardon
of
Sins
,
or
an
Imputation
of
Righteousness
be
understood
,
except
it
be
a
full
Pardon
,
and
a
full
Imputation
.
The
Question
therefore
,
is
only
concerning
the
Saints
their
Sanctification
in
this
Life
,
in
regard
of
which
,
I
must
distinguish
a
Perfection
of
Parts
;
which
is
,
when
we
have
a
degree
of
every
Grace
,
and
are
renewed
in
some
measure
in
every
power
and
faculty
of
the
whole
Man
,
though
we
be
not
come
to
the
just
and
due
measure
in
any
of
them
;
And
a
Perfection
of
Degrees
,
which
consists
in
the
compleat
measure
of
our
Conformity
,
and
our
exact
Correspondence
to
the
Law
of
God
,
in
respect
of
all
whatsoever
it
requires
.
But
George
Keiths
Divine
Condescension
,
or
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
(
wherein
he
abuses
some
worthy
Men
)
does
not
consist
in
Gods
remitting
,
or
nullifying
of
his
Law
in
it's
Direction
,
and
Obligation
,
as
our
Rule
,
which
cannot
be
,
(
Matth.
5.18
,
19.
)
but
in
the
Divine
acceptance
of
the
Righteousness
of
a
Redeemer
,
and
Surety
,
instead
of
our
own
Personal
Righteousness
of
Works
.
The
first
kind
of
Perfection
I
willingly
yield
to
the
Saints
in
this
Life
,
seeing
every
true
and
real
Saint
hath
some
measure
of
every
Grace
,
and
is
in
some
degree
renewed
in
every
power
and
faculty
of
the
whole
Man
,
Ephes.
4.24
.
Colos.
3.10
.
But
that
any
man
is
Perfect
in
this
Life
,
in
the
second
sence
of
Perfection
,
(
which
yet
is
the
most
proper
)
so
as
to
be
altogether
sinless
,
(
as
George
Keith
would
have
it
,
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
37.
38.
)
I
utterly
deny
;
and
albeit
the
Affirmer
be
still
obliged
to
prove
,
not
I
the
Denier
,
yet
I
prove
it
.
First
,
Because
David
says
,
(
Psal.
19.12
.
)
Who
can
understand
his
Errors
?
and
he
prays
,
(
Psal.
143.2
.
)
That
God
would
not
enter
into
judgment
with
him
:
for
in
thy
sight
(
says
he
)
no
man
living
shall
be
justified
,
viz.
by
his
own
Righteousness
and
Goodness
;
and
so
he
intreats
not
to
be
Examined
,
or
Judged
,
according
to
what
he
was
in
himself
,
and
I
still
believe
,
that
he
was
as
perfect
as
any
Quaker
,
or
George
Keith
,
an
Antesignanus
,
or
Banner-Bearer
amongst
them
.
Secondly
,
Solomon
,
who
was
as
wise
as
any
Quaker
,
says
,
(
Prov.
20.7
.
)
Who
can
say
,
I
have
made
my
heart
clean
,
I
am
pure
from
my
sin
?
The
Quakers
answer
him
,
(
forsooth
)
that
they
can
say
it
.
Let
them
be
doing
then
,
and
contradict
him
,
and
the
holy
Spirit
too
,
by
whose
Inspiration
he
was
ordered
,
in
writing
of
that
:
for
I
cannot
hinder
them
.
Their
Moon
is
at
the
Full.
Thirdly
,
The
Apostle
tells
us
,
(
Galat.
5.17
.
)
That
the
Flesh
lusteth
against
the
Spirit
,
and
the
Spirit
against
the
Flesh
in
Believers
,
(
for
he
speaks
not
of
others
,
who
are
all
Flesh
,
or
wholly
Carnal
,
and
have
no
Spirit
,
or
Renewed
part
)
so
,
that
they
cannot
(
behold
how
peremptory
the
Expression
is
)
do
the
things
that
they
would
.
Such
men
are
not
perfect
then
,
albeit
the
Quakers
may
(
possibly
)
differ
from
the
Apostles
Judgment
.
Fourthly
,
The
Apostle
John
says
most
peremptorily
,
(
1
Joh.
1.8
.
)
That
,
if
we
say
,
we
have
no
Sin
,
we
deceive
our selves
,
and
the
truth
is
not
in
us
.
The
Quakers
answer
,
That
the
same
Apostle
says
,
(
Chap.
3.9
.
)
That
whosoever
is
born
of
God
doth
not
commit
Sin
;
for
,
his
Seed
remains
in
him
,
and
he
cannot
sin
,
because
he
is
born
of
God
.
But
first
,
This
Text
cannot
be
meant
of
a
full
and
compleat
Perfection
,
seeing
every
Man
hath
Sin
,
and
he
deceives
himself
that
thinks
otherwise
,
by
the
former
Text
;
and
he
that
hath
any
Sin
,
cannot
be
compleatly
Perfect
.
Secondly
,
If
this
last
Text
were
meant
of
Perfection
,
it
would
prove
every
true
Convert
,
from
the
very
first
new
breath
in
him
,
(
seeing
,
even
then
,
he
is
born
of
God
,
which
is
the
Apostles
ground
,
why
he
cannot
commit
Sin
in
the
manner
that
he
means
)
to
be
compleatly
Perfect
,
and
exempted
from
Sin
;
which
,
yet
,
I
think
,
the
Quakers
themselves
will
not
say
.
The
Apostle
therefore
in
the
first
Text
,
means
of
Sin
dwelling
in
the
best
of
Saints
here
away
,
and
therefore
he
expresses
it
by
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
signifying
,
to
have
sin
;
and
in
the
second
Text
,
he
means
of
sin
,
not
only
dwelling
,
but
reigning
in
us
,
and
made
(
as
it
were
)
a
trade
of
,
and
acted
with
full
consent
,
(
which
Renewed
Men
cannot
do
)
and
therefore
he
expresses
this
by
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
signifying
,
to
make
,
and
devise
,
or
contrive
Sin
,
(
as
it
were
)
by
Trade
.
George
Keith
answers
,
That
though
we
have
Sin
in
us
,
yet
,
it
is
not
our
Sin
,
but
our
Temptation
,
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
38.
39.
)
and
that
this
does
not
infer
Actual
Sin
however
.
Contrariwise
,
The
Apostle
calls
it
Sin
,
and
that
peremptorily
,
certifying
us
,
That
we
deceive
our selves
,
if
we
say
we
have
it
not
.
How
then
does
George
Keith
call
it
only
a
Temptation
to
Sin
?
and
,
Whether
shall
we
believe
him
,
or
the
Apostle
that
calls
it
expresly
Sin
?
Secondly
,
If
it
be
not
our
Sin
,
whose
Sin
(
I
pray
)
is
it
?
it's
not
the
Devils
,
seeing
not
he
,
but
we
have
it
,
(
says
the
Text
)
and
,
I
am
sure
,
they
will
not
be
so
impudently
Blasphemous
,
as
to
ascribe
it
to
God
:
Therefore
,
it
is
certainly
ours
,
seeing
it
must
be
some
bodies
,
and
it
will
also
mud
and
defile
our
actions
.
Fifthly
,
The
Apostle
Paul
,
(
who
was
,
I
believe
,
more
perfect
than
any
Quaker
)
most
heavily
complains
,
(
Rom.
7.15
.
ver.
to
the
end
)
of
his
Corruption
,
Imperfection
,
and
Sin
dwelling
in
him
against
his
will
,
his
heart
,
and
his
strong
Inclinations
to
the
contrary
;
and
therefore
,
certainly
,
he
was
not
perfect
,
and
I
know
not
who
dare
pretend
beyond
him
.
But
George
Keith
replies
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
39.
40.
)
That
the
Apostle
is
not
there
describing
his
then-present-Condition
,
but
the
Condition
of
himself
and
others
,
as
they
were
in
the
strugling
and
warfare
Estate
,
before
the
Victory
was
attained
.
But
Contrariwise
,
he
is
describing
his
then-present-Condition
;
for
,
he
was
not
then
perfect
,
nor
long
after
it
,
when
he
wrote
the
Epistle
from
Rome
to
the
Philippians
,
(
compare
Philip.
3.12
.
with
Rom.
1.11
,
13
,
15.
and
15.22
,
23.
)
which
was
several
years
after
his
writing
of
the
Epistle
to
the
Romans
;
and
,
certainly
,
he
had
got
the
Victory
over
his
Corruption
then
,
(
I
mean
in
the
very
time
that
he
points
at
,
whether
it
were
present
,
or
past
)
seeing
it
was
thrown
out
of
his
affection
,
and
he
hated
it
,
(
ver.
15.
)
and
he
was
come
the
length
of
delighting
in
the
Law
of
God
,
after
the
Inward
Man
,
(
ver.
22.
)
and
with
the
mind
he
served
the
Law
of
God
,
(
ver.
25.
)
all
which
import
a
great
Victory
,
although
the
Enemies
were
not
all
utterly
destroyed
and
gone
,
yet
their
force
was
broken
.
And
albeit
the
Law
in
his
Members
was
still
drawing
him
into
,
or
towards
captivity
,
(
which
George
Keith
thinks
absurd
to
say
of
the
Apostle
at
that
time
)
yet
,
this
expresses
only
the
endeavours
of
his
Natural
Corruption
,
not
it's
success
;
for
his
unrenewed
part
was
Carnal
,
sold
under
Sin
,
and
no
good
thing
dwelt
in
it
:
and
what
absurdity
is
there
here
?
and
when
the
Apostle
summs
all
into
one
Conclusion
,
(
ver.
25.
)
that
with
the
mind
then
,
he
himself
served
the
Law
of
God
,
&c.
I
see
not
a
possibility
for
George
Keiths
Metaschematismus
,
except
he
will
say
,
that
the
Apostle
did
not
at
that
time
,
when
he
wrote
this
Epistle
to
the
Romans
,
with
the
mind
serve
the
Law
of
God
,
but
that
he
did
it
only
before
,
when
he
was
in
the
strugling
and
warfare-Estate
,
before
he
had
got
the
Victory
,
which
will
both
be
false
enough
,
and
absurd
enough
,
as
I
judge
.
Sixthly
,
There
is
not
a
just
man
upon
Earth
,
(
says
Solomon
,
Eccles.
7.20
.
)
that
doth
good
and
sinneth
not
:
Ergo
,
there
is
no
man
upon
Earth
Perfect
.
George
Keith
answers
to
this
,
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
40.
)
That
the
Verb
being
in
the
second
future
,
may
be
turned
in
the
Potential
Mood
,
There
is
not
a
just
man
upon
Earth
,
that
doth
good
,
and
may
not
Sin
.
But
first
,
The
Verb
is
in
the
Indicative
Mood
;
and
therefore
our
Translation
has
the
advantage
.
Secondly
,
Solomon
is
explaining
something
that
people
might
be
ignorant
of
,
which
was
not
a
bare
possibility
of
mens
sinning
,
(
for
who
could
be
ignorant
of
that
?
)
but
it
must
be
meant
of
their
actual
sinning
,
and
short-coming
,
and
that
even
in
their
best
performances
,
in
regard
of
the
manner
.
Thirdly
,
No
man
can
say
he
is
pure
from
his
Sin
,
(
Prov.
20.9
.
)
and
the
Apostle
Paul
was
not
fully
pure
from
it
,
when
he
wrote
to
the
Romans
and
Philippians
,
(
Rom.
7.23.24
.
Philip.
3.12
.
)
and
as
long
as
a
man
is
not
pure
from
his
Sin
,
he
is
not
perfect
,
nor
can
his
actions
(
morally
considered
)
be
perfect
either
;
a
Fountain
not
fully
pure
,
sends
not
forth
perfect
pure
water
,
and
still
proportionably
,
the
goodness
and
perfection
of
the
Fruit
,
follows
upon
the
goodness
and
perfection
of
the
Tree
,
(
Matth.
7.17
.
)
and
that
it
can
no
ways
exceed
.
Add
also
these
three
Scriptures
,
1
King
.
8.46
.
Isai.
64.6
.
Jam.
3.2
.
Lastly
,
I
canot
but
admire
,
that
any
man
should
so
far
lose
all
sence
of
sin
,
and
short-coming
in
his
Duty
,
as
to
think
,
that
he
is
come
up
to
the
full
measure
required
in
Gods
Law
,
to
love
the
Lord
his
God
with
all
his
Heart
,
Soul
,
and
Mind
,
and
his
Neighbour
as
himself
.
Surely
,
there
is
no
man
that
dare
pretend
to
an
exact
performance
hereof
;
and
therefore
,
there
is
no
man
compleatly
perfect
,
and
exactly
sinless
.
But
the
Adversaries
object
,
That
all
the
works
and
gifts
of
God
are
perfect
,
and
that
therefore
our
Sanctification
,
being
a
work
and
gift
of
God
,
must
be
perfect
.
Ans.
This
objection
endeavours
to
prove
,
that
our
Sanctification
is
perfect
in
the
very
first
moment
of
our
Conversion
and
Regeneration
,
seeing
even
then
,
it
is
a
work
and
gift
of
God
,
as
well
as
afterwards
,
and
this
undoes
the
Argument
.
Secondly
,
All
Gods
works
and
gifts
are
perfect
,
if
they
be
considered
Abstractively
,
and
meerly
as
flowing
,
and
depending
from
him
;
(
for
,
Who
can
impute
evil
unto
him
?
)
Not
so
always
,
if
they
be
considered
Concretively
,
and
as
inhering
and
existing
into
us
,
who
are
impure
,
and
in
whom
they
are
mixed
with
the
remainders
of
Corruption
,
as
water
that
is
pure
,
as
it
comes
from
the
Fountain
,
may
be
mudded
by
running
through
a
miry
place
;
and
so
the
Argument
proves
nothing
.
Secondly
,
They
object
,
That
David
pleaded
often
with
God
upon
the
account
of
his
Righteousness
,
praying
,
that
God
would
judge
him
according
thereunto
:
Therefore
his
Righteousness
behooved
to
be
perfect
.
Ans.
David
meant
of
the
Righteousness
of
his
Cause
,
compared
with
his
Enemies
Cause
,
who
wrongfully
Persecuted
him
;
but
not
of
the
inherent
Righteousness
of
his
Person
before
God
,
(
Psal.
19.12
.
and
143.2
.
)
and
when
sometimes
,
in
confidence
of
his
Sincerity
,
he
desires
God
to
judge
him
,
he
does
not
mean
of
being
judged
by
him
according
to
the
severity
and
strictness
of
the
Law
,
Secundum
justitiam
districtam
,
(
which
sincerity
,
without
perfection
cannot
satisfie
)
as
may
be
understood
from
the
Scriptures
last
cited
;
but
he
means
of
being
judged
according
to
the
lenity
and
compassion
of
a
merciful
Father
in
Christ
.
Thirdly
,
They
object
,
That
the
heart
of
several
of
the
Kings
of
Judah
is
in
Scripture
expresly
said
to
have
been
perfect
,
2
King
.
20.30
.
2
Chron.
15.17
.
Ans.
Perfection
is
there
meant
of
the
Perfection
of
Parts
,
or
sincerity
,
(
which
are
both
one
)
not
of
the
Perfection
of
Degrees
;
for
,
that
none
of
these
were
gradually
perfect
,
may
be
seen
from
2
Chron.
16.7.10
.
and
32.25
,
26.
Isai.
38.17
.
the
same
is
to
be
said
of
that
large
Commendation
given
to
good
Josias
;
(
2
King
.
23.25
.
)
for
,
that
he
was
not
gradually
perfect
,
is
also
clear
from
2
Chron.
35.22
.
In
this
sence
Job
is
also
called
perfect
,
(
Job
.
1.8
.
)
and
yet
,
he
peremptorily
denies
himself
to
be
gradually
perfect
,
Job
.
9.20
.
and
sometimes
again
,
Perfection
is
taken
in
the
Scriptures
comparatively
,
for
a
greater
growth
in
the
knowledge
of
God
,
and
his
ways
,
than
others
have
reached
to
,
(
as
1
Cor.
2.6
.
Philip.
3.15
.
)
where
the
Original
word
,
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
〈◊〉
,
will
render
Adult
or
Grown
,
and
so
it
is
rendred
Heb.
5.14
.
where
the
whole
Context
(
which
I
may
not
stand
upon
)
shews
it
to
be
meant
comparatively
;
and
so
also
it
best
agrees
with
the
Scope
and
Context
of
the
particular
places
themselves
;
and
where
Paul
claims
unto
himself
that
comparative
Perfection
,
(
Philip.
3.15
.
)
he
,
for
all
that
denies
himself
to
have
reached
an
absolute
gradual
perfection
,
ver.
12.
there
.
Fourthly
,
They
object
from
1
Joh.
17
,
9.
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
39.
)
where
it
's
said
,
He
is
faithful
upon
our
Confession
,
to
forgive
us
our
Sins
,
and
that
the
blood
of
Jesus
Christ
cleanseth
us
from
all
Sin
.
Ans.
As
to
justification
,
I
yield
this
cleansing
to
be
perfect
,
as
to
all
sins
past
,
and
a
sure
ground
thereby
laid
for
pardon
of
future
Sins
,
seeing
the
gifts
and
calling
of
God
are
without
Repentance
,
and
whom
he
justifies
he
glorifies
,
Rom.
8.39
.
and
11.29
.
But
of
sanctification
it
must
be
understood
only
Inchoatively
,
not
perfectly
;
and
the
Verb
,
Cleanseth
,
in
the
Present
Tense
,
imports
the
work
not
to
be
ended
in
this
life
,
but
still
adoing
,
(
albeit
George
Keith
would
infer
the
contrary
)
for
,
that
which
is
before
clean
,
needs
no
more
cleansing
.
Fifthly
,
They
object
,
That
the
Apostle
says
,
(
1
Cor.
7.28
.
)
That
though
a
Woman
Marry
,
she
hath
not
sinned
:
Therefore
,
there
are
some
actions
(
at
least
)
free
of
all
sin
.
Ans.
If
this
objection
proved
any
thing
,
it
would
prove
,
that
Reprobates
,
and
Pagans
,
also
have
perfect
works
.
Secondly
,
I
answer
,
that
Paul
there
means
of
the
action
of
Marriage
considered
in
respect
of
it's
nature
and
kind
,
and
in
order
to
its
proper
object
,
as
abstracted
from
all
particular
circumstances
which
may
attend
it
,
which
way
the
action
hath
no
evil
in
it
;
otherwise
it
could
not
be
lawful
to
Marry
;
(
whereas
to
forbid
Marriage
,
is
a
Doctrine
of
Devils
,
1
Tim.
4.1
,
2
,
3.
)
Nevertheless
,
albeit
the
action
of
Marriage
so
considered
,
be
not
sinful
,
yet
,
seeing
every
particular
action
is
necessarily
exercised
in
several
Circumstances
wherewith
it
ought
,
or
ought
not
to
be
cloathed
,
it
may
easily
be
defiled
and
become
sinful
by
the
Vesture
of
evil
Circumstances
,
(
instead
whereof
,
it
should
have
been
cloathed
with
good
ones
)
especially
adding
the
impurity
,
and
uncleanness
of
the
Agent
which
exerts
it self
in
every
particular
action
.
Sixthly
,
The
Quakers
object
,
(
and
hereby
they
endeavour
to
prove
the
perfection
,
both
of
the
Saints
,
and
of
their
good
works
in
this
life
)
The
Saints
(
say
they
)
have
in
this
life
perfect
good
works
:
Therefore
,
the
Saints
in
this
life
must
be
perfect
.
They
prove
the
Consequence
,
because
perfect
Effects
crave
perfect
Causes
.
They
prove
the
Antecedent
,
because
they
are
acceptable
to
God
;
and
because
if
they
be
not
perfect
,
then
they
are
sinful
:
but
sinful
they
cannot
be
,
seeing
God
commands
them
,
who
commands
not
things
sinful
.
Ans.
Our
good
works
are
acceptable
to
God
thorow
Christ
,
into
whom
all
believers
are
by
Faith
Ingrafted
,
and
thorow
whom
alone
both
their
persons
,
and
good
works
are
accepted
:
but
none
of
aur
good
works
here-away
ore
in
themselves
acceptable
to
God
,
seeing
they
are
still
Imperfect
.
Again
God
accepts
them
as
they
are
good
,
that
is
,
Sincerely
done
,
not
as
they
are
Imperfect
,
and
so
evill
;
and
so
from
their
acceptation
their
perfection
follows
not
.
To
the
Second
I
Answer
,
that
God
Commands
our
good
works
,
not
as
we
perform
them
,
but
as
we
ought
to
perform
;
nor
yet
as
they
are
defective
as
to
the
Degree
,
he
does
not
Command
their
gradual
defect
;
but
he
Commands
them
as
they
are
good
in
respect
of
their
Nature
and
kind
.
So
the
objection
perishes
.
Seventhly
,
they
endeavour
,
to
prove
that
Christians
have
(
at
least
)
some
perfect
Actions
in
this
Life
,
and
for
that
purpose
they
Inquire
of
us
,
if
the
Apostles
sinned
in
writing
the
Scripures
?
Ans.
First
,
this
will
not
prove
,
the
perfection
of
any
Action
of
any
man
now
living
,
except
they
can
first
prove
him
to
have
as
large
a
measure
of
grace
,
and
of
the
Spirit
's
Influence
,
and
Assistance
,
as
the
Apostles
had
when
they
wrote
the
Scriptures
,
which
will
be
hard
enough
(
I
think
)
for
them
to
get
done
.
Secondly
,
the
writing
of
the
Scriptures
,
(
wherein
the
Prophets
and
Apostles
were
but
Pen-men
;
for
the
Holy
Ghost
dictated
all
)
may
consist
with
some
Degree
of
imperfection
,
as
the
Action
is
considered
Morally
,
and
as
lyable
to
the
Law
of
God
:
(
David
,
and
Asaph
wrote
Scriptures
when
they
were
not
perfect
,
Psal.
51
,
10.
and
73
,
22.
)
or
else
(
beside
the
Instances
given
)
what
will
they
say
of
an
Hypocrites
writing
over
in
whole
,
or
in
part
,
the
whole
Scriptures
,
and
of
every
Action
of
Printing
,
while
our
Printers
print
them
over
?
But
Thirdly
,
for
full
satisfaction
,
I
Answer
that
in
that
Action
,
the
Apostles
did
not
at
all
sin
upon
the
matter
(
which
yet
is
the
most
Formal
sense
of
the
objection
,
which
thus
proposed
directly
imports
the
matter
)
seeing
the
matter
of
the
Action
did
perfectly
agree
,
with
the
Law
of
God
,
as
also
the
Action
of
an
unrenewed
man
may
doe
.
Secondly
,
there
was
much
good
in
it
compared
with
all
the
rest
of
the
causes
,
(
and
so
it
was
sincere
,
and
of
another
nature
and
kind
,
then
any
Action
of
an
unrenewed
man
is
,
or
can
be
)
seeing
the
principles
thereof
(
love
to
God
and
men
.
)
The
ends
thereof
(
the
glory
of
God
,
and
good
of
Souls
.
)
the
form
and
manner
wherein
,
it
was
done
,
(
in
obedience
to
God
)
were
all
,
certainly
,
good
.
Yet
considering
it
as
a
Moral
Action
,
lyable
to
God's
Law
,
it
was
surely
(
for
the
reasons
given
)
Defective
and
Imperfect
,
as
to
the
exact
and
compleat
Degree
of
love
to
God
and
men
,
and
respect
to
the
glory
of
God
and
good
of
Souls
,
and
Acting
in
it
,
in
pure
obedience
to
Gods
Command
,
wherewith
every
perfect
Action
is
to
be
qualified
.
They
will
(
may
be
)
say
,
that
then
,
the
Scriptures
would
be
in
danger
to
Contract
some
Impurity
from
the
Impurity
of
the
Agent
and
Action
of
writing
.
Ans.
That
is
false
,
as
appears
from
our
Instances
of
an
Hypocrite
and
Printer
and
of
David
,
and
Asaph
,
when
they
were
not
pure
,
or
perfect
.
And
if
the
Doctrine
written
did
necessarily
Contract
any
impuritie
from
the
impurity
of
the
writer
,
by
the
same
Reason
(
and
with
more
Reason
,
seeing
the
Tongue
is
a
more
Immediat
Instrument
of
the
Heart
then
the
Hand
)
the
Doctrine
Preached
should
Contract
some
Impurity
from
the
Impurity
of
the
Preacher
;
which
is
manifestly
false
to
the
Worlds
eye
.
Christ
was
the
external
object
of
the
persecutive
Actions
of
the
Jews
,
yet
he
Contracted
no
Impurity
from
thence
.
But
the
Quakers
urge
,
saying
,
though
we
cannot
do
all
we
ought
to
do
;
yet
that
which
we
do
,
we
may
do
it
perfectly
.
Ans.
This
reply
must
either
be
understood
,
of
diverse
Actions
,
so
that
the
sense
shall
be
;
though
we
cannot
do
all
the
good
Actions
we
ought
to
do
,
yet
that
Action
,
or
these
Actions
,
which
we
do
,
we
may
do
it
,
or
them
perfectly
,
which
seeing
by
(
Perfectly
)
they
must
mean
the
perfection
of
Degrees
(
and
otherwise
it
would
be
nothing
to
their
purpose
of
a
sinless
perfection
which
they
plead
)
we
must
deny
,
because
of
these
,
and
many
other
Scriptures
(
Prov.
20
,
9.
Eccles.
7
,
20.
Galat.
5
,
17.
Rom.
7
,
21.
)
or
else
that
reply
must
be
understood
,
of
one
and
the
same
Action
;
And
so
the
sense
is
though
we
cannot
do
,
an
Action
in
that
perfect
degree
of
goodness
,
that
we
ought
,
yet
in
that
degree
of
goodness
wherein
we
do
it
,
we
may
do
it
perfectly
,
where
(
it
being
the
perfection
of
degrees
,
which
is
here
Controverted
,
and
by
the
Adversaries
pleaded
for
,
and
otherwise
,
we
should
have
no
debate
with
them
here
)
their
reply
involves
a
strong
Contradiction
,
viz.
that
any
Action
performed
below
that
degree
of
goodness
which
it
ought
to
have
,
should
notwithstanding
be
performed
perfectly
in
respect
of
the
perfection
of
Degrees
,
seeing
so
it
would
both
want
,
and
yet
not
want
,
some
Degree
of
goodness
which
it
ought
to
have
.
For
these
reasons
,
I
justly
deny
the
latter
part
of
their
proposition
.
Sixteenth
QUERY
.
Can
any
man
be
saved
by
his
own
works
,
Self-righteousness
,
will
worship
?
And
are
not
all
men
in
Self-righteousness
that
are
not
in
the
righteousness
of
Christ
Jesus
?
And
are
not
all
of
their
own
works
that
be
out
of
the
light
,
and
the
Faith
that
is
the
gift
of
God
?
And
are
not
all
in
their
will-worships
that
are
not
in
the
worship
that
Jesus
Christ
the
Heavenly
man
set
up
above
Sixteen
hundred
years
Since
,
that
is
in
the
Spirit
,
and
the
truth
?
So
,
must
not
every
man
come
to
the
truth
,
and
to
the
Spirit
,
in
their
own
hearts
,
if
they
come
to
the
worship
Jesus
Christ
Set
up
?
And
are
not
your
Catechisms
,
Confession
of
Faith
,
and
Directories
your
own
works
,
and
your
own
worship
which
ye
have
set
down
for
People
to
fall
down
and
do
worship
to
,
and
be
Saved
by
?
And
have
ye
not
set
up
this
since
the
Apostles
days
,
and
since
Christ
set
up
his
worship
?
SVRVEY
.
Because
this
Survey
will
divide
it self
into
three
Subjects
,
and
it
would
be
too
long
together
,
therefore
I
shall
order
it
into
three
Sections
.
The
First
shall
,
Vindicat
us
from
a
Popish
Salvation
,
or
justification
by
works
,
or
Inherent
Righteousness
,
and
shall
fix
a
Popish
justification
upon
the
Quakers
.
The
Second
shall
very
breifly
confuted
their
Popish
justification
.
The
Third
shall
overturn
an
exception
made
by
the
Quakers
against
the
charge
of
a
Popish
justification
which
we
justly
lay
to
their
door
.
SECT.
1.
Vindicating
us
from
a
Popish
Salvation
and
Justification
,
and
fixing
a
Popish
Justification
upon
the
Quakers
.
The
great
scope
of
this
Querie
,
is
to
make
us
seem
guilty
of
holding
a
Popish
Salvation
by
works
,
albeit
the
whole
Christian
World
knoweth
what
a
lewd
Calumny
this
is
,
It
having
been
the
constant
Doctrine
of
ours
and
all
other
Protestant
Churches
,
against
the
Papists
,
that
the
good
works
of
the
Saints
are
not
the
causes
,
or
Meritorious
procurers
of
their
Salvation
,
and
it
is
founded
upon
Scripture-Testimony
as
clear
as
the
Sun
.
For
eternal
Life
is
none
of
our
merit
and
due
,
but
is
the
Free
gift
of
God
(
Rom.
6
,
23.
)
And
by
grace
,
not
by
works
we
are
Saved
(
Ephēs
.
2
,
5
,
8
,
9.
)
not
by
works
of
Righteousness
,
which
we
have
done
,
but
according
to
his
mercy
he
Saveth
us
(
Tit.
3.5
.
)
And
the
best
of
our
works
are
in
this
Life
imperfect
,
(
as
is
proven
)
and
so
they
cannot
merit
any
good
,
but
Contrarily
every
defect
and
short
coming
of
our
Duty
,
Merits
,
Damnation
,
and
the
Curse
(
Deut.
27
,
26.
Galat.
3
,
10.
)
And
if
our
good
works
could
merit
,
then
we
might
trust
to
them
,
which
the
Apostle
dare
not
do
,
(
Philip.
39
Nor
is
there
any
proportion
betwixt
our
best
works
,
and
eternal
Life
(
Rom.
8
,
18.
)
And
therefore
they
cannot
merit
it
.
The
whole
Protestant
Church
hath
no
less
always
abhorred
the
Doctrine
of
justification
by
our
own
Inherent
Righteousness
and
good
works
,
from
the
same
clear
Evidence
of
the
Scripture
(
for
which
see
Rom.
3
,
Chap.
from
Vers.
20.
to
the
end
,
and
the
whole
Chap.
following
.
As
also
Galat.
2
,
16
,
21.
and
3
,
10
11.
and
5
,
4.
Philip.
3
,
9.
)
and
seeing
,
that
is
still
imperfect
in
this
life
,
it
can
neither
be
the
cause
,
nor
Condition
,
of
our
justification
before
God
,
in
whose
sight
no
man
living
shall
be
justified
(
Psal.
143
,
2.
)
viz.
by
any
Righteousness
inherent
or
inward
in
himself
.
Nevertheless
albeit
our
inherent
Righteousness
and
good
works
be
not
necessary
to
Salvation
,
as
Efficient
or
Meritorious
causes
thereof
;
yet
they
are
necessary
indispensably
thereunto
by
necessity
of
presence
,
or
as
pure
Antecedents
,
without
which
no
man
is
Saved
(
excepting
these
that
Die
Immediately
after
Conversion
,
and
Infants
from
the
Actual
performance
of
good
works
.
)
For
which
see
Mat.
3.10
.
and
5.20
.
and
25.
from
vers.
34.
to
the
end
,
and
Rom.
2.9
,
10.
and
8.13
.
1
Cor.
6.9
,
10.
Galat.
5.21
.
and
6.8
.
Heb.
12.14
.
And
albeit
our
inherent
,
or
inward
Righteousness
be
neither
the
Cause
,
nor
Condition
of
our
justification
before
God
;
yet
it
is
still
an
inseparable
Concomitant
of
justifying
Faith
.
For
which
see
Rom.
8.1
,
9
,
10.
2
Cor.
5.17
.
Jam.
2.17.20
.
1
Joh.
3.3
.
But
what
if
the
Quakers
be
Guilty
of
a
Popish
justification
?
Do
not
the
Quakers
hold
justification
by
a
Righteousness
wrought
within
them
,
and
formally
inward
and
inherent
in
themselves
?
in
this
they
joyn
hands
with
the
Papists
in
one
of
their
most
Fundamental
Errors
,
which
does
indeed
contradict
the
very
Design
and
Current
of
the
Gospel
(
which
is
to
Teach
us
to
seek
Righteousness
for
justification
in
Christ
,
and
not
in
our selves
)
yea
,
and
the
very
plain
Design
of
Christs
Death
.
See
Rom.
3.25
.
and
10.4
.
Galat.
2.16
,
21.
and
5.4
.
But
the
Quakers
endeavour
to
elude
this
our
Charge
,
pretending
that
they
are
far
from
holding
justification
by
their
own
Inherent
Righteousness
,
with
the
Papists
;
but
by
the
alone
Imputed
Righteousness
of
Christ
.
Thus
they
pretend
in
their
Confession
of
Faith
,
pag.
4.21
,
22.
But
the
Quakers
will
not
so
Cheat
and
deceive
the
Christian
world
;
for
first
(
in
that
21.
pag.
Cited
,
where
they
purposely
handle
this
Question
,
and
pretend
as
is
now
said
)
they
deny
us
to
be
justified
by
a
Righteousness
received
of
us
by
Faith
,
calling
that
but
an
Act
of
the
Creaturely
skill
,
and
an
Imputation
which
is
an
Act
of
mans
Spirit
and
forging
,
and
a
Fiction
and
Imagination
in
the
Creaturely
will
and
power
.
Hence
then
,
they
deny
us
to
be
justified
by
the
Righteousness
received
of
us
by
Faith
,
and
so
consequently
by
the
Imputed
Righteousness
of
Christ
;
seeing
the
Righteousness
of
his
Obedience
and
Sufferings
,
Imputed
to
us
in
Justification
,
is
not
a
diverse
Righteousness
from
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
,
but
is
one
and
the
same
,
as
is
clear
from
Rom.
3.21
,
22
,
24
,
25.
and
4.6
,
11
,
13
,
22
,
23
,
24.
and
9.30
.
and
10.4
,
10.
Galat.
2.16
.
and
3.8
.
and
5.5
.
Secondly
,
this
justification
held
by
the
Quakers
must
either
be
,
by
the
Righteousness
received
by
Faith
,
or
else
by
the
Righteousness
of
the
Law
,
and
its
works
;
for
there
is
no
other
third
sort
of
Righteousness
known
,
to
compet
in
this
point
,
but
these
are
always
stated
as
the
only
two
Members
of
the
Distinction
(
for
which
see
Rom.
3.28
.
and
4.2
,
3
,
4
,
5.
and
9.30
,
31
,
32.
and
10.3
,
5
,
6.
Galat.
3.11
,
12.
)
But
the
Quakers
plainly
deny
the
Justification
held
by
them
to
be
by
the
former
;
yea
,
they
Scoff
and
Mock
at
that
more
,
than
ever
Papist
did
,
as
is
evident
from
their
preceeding
Language
.
Therefore
they
do
inevitably
hold
Justification
by
the
latter
,
wherein
they
manifestly
joyn
hands
with
the
Papists
,
for
all
their
pretexts
to
cover
it
.
Again
(
in
the
fore-Cited
22.
page
of
their
Confession
)
they
have
these
words
;
and
because
(
say
they
)
we
are
against
the
latter
(
viz.
Justification
by
a
Righteousness
received
by
Faith
,
whereof
they
were
last
speaking
)
we
are
Clamoured
upon
,
as
if
we
denied
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
,
when
it
is
only
to
these
that
are
not
made
Righteous
by
it
,
to
walk
,
as
he
also
walked
.
Here
they
hold
Justification
by
a
Righteousness
Making
their
walk
Righteous
,
which
is
the
plain
inherent
Righteousness
of
our
Life
and
Conversation
.
But
the
Quâkers
(
in
that
last
Cited
pag.
of
their
Confession
)
go
on
and
add
,
that
it
is
not
Acts
of
Righteousness
as
done
by
them
,
nor
as
inherent
in
them
,
as
Acts
,
by
which
they
are
accepted
of
God
,
and
justified
before
him
;
but
they
are
accepted
of
God
,
and
justified
before
him
by
Christ
the
Author
and
worker
of
these
Acts
in
them
.
Ans.
That
is
well
.
I
see
then
the
Quakers
hold
not
themselves
to
be
justified
by
all
Acts
done
by
them
,
or
inherent
in
them
(
as
when
they
commit
Blasphemy
,
may
be
)
and
truly
this
is
all
they
have
yeilded
,
or
said
for
their
Vindication
:
for
if
they
were
justified
by
any
thing
upon
the
very
formal
account
of
its
being
done
by
,
or
inherent
in
them
,
then
they
should
be
justified
by
every
thing
done
by
,
or
inherent
in
them
:
for
a
Quatenus
ad
omne
sequitur
universaliter
.
But
why
would
not
the
Quakers
say
(
if
they
intended
to
make
any
Faith
of
a
vindication
)
that
they
hold
not
justification
by
Acts
of
Righteousness
done
by
,
or
inherent
in
them
,
as
they
are
Acts
of
Righteousness
,
and
gracious
Acts
,
and
not
meerly
,
as
they
are
Acts
done
by
,
or
inherent
in
them
?
Which
seeing
they
inclined
not
to
say
,
especially
where
they
are
so
purposely
endeavouring
to
purge
themselves
from
the
suspicion
of
a
Popish
justification
,
we
see
,
they
do
but
prevaricat
,
and
throw
dust
in
the
eyes
of
the
Vulgar
.
But
George
Keith
is
in
this
point
most
plain
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
)
and
as
positive
as
any
Papist
I
have
seen
.
For
in
the
44
,
45
,
46
,
47
,
48
,
50
,
52
,
53.
pages
thereof
,
he
expresly
and
positively
Teaches
,
that
our
inward
graces
and
vertues
of
Repentance
,
Conversion
,
Faith
as
a
Work
,
Love
,
Hope
,
&c.
are
the
Righteousness
whereby
we
are
justified
before
God
,
and
that
immediately
(
page
53.
)
which
was
never
true
of
Faith
it self
,
which
does
not
justifie
immediately
by
it self
,
but
only
Correlatively
,
by
its
object
which
it
apprehends
and
relies
upon
,
viz.
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
.
And
in
his
Definition
of
justification
there
(
page
47
)
he
gives
us
no
other
material
Cause
of
justification
before
God
,
but
our
meer
graces
of
Repentance
and
Conversion
.
And
he
cunningly
pleads
moderate
Merit
(
page
46
,
47.
)
but
most
openly
and
plainly
(
page
55
,
56.
)
and
he
quite
confounds
justification
and
sanctification
,
leaving
no
imaginable
Distinction
betwixt
these
two
,
making
us
to
be
justified
by
inward
Righteousness
,
and
sanctified
by
the
very
same
(
pages
46
,
47
,
50
,
53.
compared
)
which
in
his
Popish
Principles
,
he
is
(
I
Confess
)
forced
to
do
.
And
is
not
George
Keith
plainly
Popish
in
this
point
,
who
holds
justification
by
inherent
Righteousness
immediately
;
gives
us
no
other
material
Cause
of
our
Righteousness
before
God
,
but
that
only
;
pleads
moderate
Merit
in
us
by
it
;
allows
Faith
in
the
business
only
as
a
work
with
the
rest
;
and
confounds
justification
and
sanctification
together
?
Bellarmine
himself
was
never
more
Popish
than
thus
,
which
all
know
that
are
acquaint
with
him
upon
the
Controversie
.
But
George
Keith
endeavours
to
shift
our
Charge
of
a
Popish
justification
,
because
he
(
seemingly
)
yields
(
pag.
44
,
46
,
47.
)
that
our
inward
Grace
and
Righteousness
are
not
the
procuring
cause
of
our
justification
,
by
way
of
strict
Merit
,
and
in
a
way
of
strict
Justice
,
strictly
and
rigidly
considered
,
as
when
the
work
is
of
equal
worth
and
dignity
to
the
Reward
,
as
he
explains
it
,
page
55.
But
I
would
fain
know
the
other
Member
of
this
distinction
from
the
Author
.
He
tells
us
their
inherent
grace
and
Righteousness
are
not
the
procuring
cause
of
their
Justification
,
by
way
of
strict
Merit
,
and
strict
Justice
,
strictly
and
rigidly
considered
.
How
many
,
Stricts
,
Strictlies
,
and
Rigidlies
are
there
here
?
he
has
,
certainly
,
been
exceedingly
concerned
,
and
eagerly
careful
to
get
his
Minute
and
imperfect
inherent
Righteousness
,
at
least
,
next
Neighbour
to
the
strictest
Merit
and
Justice
;
and
it
would
not
fail
,
nor
he
be
feared
for
it
in
any
thing
,
but
that
;
and
yet
he
has
been
as
careful
,
as
he
could
,
to
cover
his
meaning
in
this
,
which
must
be
the
other
Member
of
his
distinction
.
We
see
then
,
that
,
if
Justice
will
not
exact
the
very
rigid
Rigour
of
the
Law
from
the
Quakers
,
and
take
the
very
summum
Jus
(
which
uses
to
be
called
the
summum
Nefas
)
they
think
to
merit
their
justification
by
their
inherent
Righteousness
at
Gods
Tribunal
.
And
this
,
and
what
this
great
Ringleader
of
the
Quakers
,
we
see
,
hath
said
before
,
shews
that
they
hold
as
Popish
a
justification
,
as
the
Pope
himself
,
I
believe
,
does
.
But
George
Keith
is
yet
resolved
to
shake
off
this
Popish
justification
,
in
the
eyes
of
the
world
,
and
to
fix
it
,
forsooth
,
upon
us
too
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
48.
)
first
,
because
they
differ
both
from
the
Papists
and
us
,
in
holding
the
Act
of
God
in
justification
to
be
really
Inward
,
which
the
Papists
and
we
(
says
he
)
do
not
.
Ans.
Indeed
it
is
true
,
that
upon
our
believing
,
the
Gospel-promises
pronounces
the
Sentence
,
nor
have
we
,
nor
need
we
any
immediate
Dictates
to
warrand
that
;
but
we
may
soon
,
or
late
,
get
a
Transcript
thereof
Inwardly
for
our
Formal
assurance
;
and
so
we
do
not
differ
wholly
from
this
point
that
George
Keith
would
have
us
differ
,
as
to
the
Inwardness
of
the
Act
,
or
Copy
of
the
Act
rather
out
of
these
Divine
Records
;
but
we
differ
hugely
from
them
as
to
the
Immediateness
of
the
Act
,
I
grant
;
but
I
never
heard
that
that
was
called
Popish
till
now
;
but
that
a
Popish
justification
was
always
reckoned
upon
inherent
Righteousness
as
the
Meritorious
,
or
material
Cause
thereof
;
although
George
Keith
denies
that
a
man
can
Taste
of
Spiritual
Food
,
except
he
get
it
,
in
his
Enthusiastick
way
,
immediately
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
16.
)
as
if
(
forsooth
)
a
man
could
not
Taste
Meat
conveighed
to
him
in
any
Vessel
,
or
Dish
,
and
this
fully
answers
a
long
Discourse
which
he
there
has
upon
this
matter
,
seeing
the
Promises
are
the
Vessels
conveighing
to
us
all
our
Spiritual
Comforts
,
of
Justification
,
Salvation
,
&c.
Secondly
,
to
shake
it
off
himself
,
and
fix
it
upon
us
,
he
says
(
page
48.
)
that
,
in
regard
of
the
Object
,
they
Teach
that
we
are
the
Object
thereof
,
not
only
as
having
our
sins
Pardoned
for
Christs
sake
,
but
as
being
Righteous
in
the
sight
of
God
(
viz.
by
inherent
Righteousness
,
whereof
he
still
speaks
)
through
Christ
dwelling
in
us
.
But
in
this
he
is
still
Popish
,
not
we
,
in
holding
himself
to
be
the
Object
of
Justification
,
as
being
,
or
because
he
is
(
for
all
is
one
)
Antecedently
Inherently
Righteous
,
and
therefore
justified
;
which
we
never
held
,
but
that
we
are
justified
by
Faith
,
as
laying
hold
and
relying
on
Christs
Righteousness
;
where
Faith
is
not
considered
as
a
work
,
or
immediately
in
it self
,
or
as
it
qualifies
its
subject
;
But
Correlatively
,
as
apprehending
and
getting
hold
of
the
Object
(
viz.
Christs
Righteousness
)
let
George
Keith
think
this
Distinction
as
nice
as
he
will
(
as
he
calls
it
scornfully
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
45
,
46.
)
which
was
not
so
nice
to
the
Apostle
Paul
,
who
still
opposes
justification
by
Faith
,
and
by
works
,
and
so
does
not
consider
Faith
therein
as
a
work
but
under
another
Notion
and
Formality
.
See
(
I
pray
)
how
he
opposes
them
,
Rom.
3.27
,
28.
and
4.2
,
3
,
4
,
5.
and
9.32
.
and
10.5
,
6.
Galat.
3.11
,
12.
Yea
,
the
very
Attributes
of
the
Deity
admit
of
a
Formal
Precision
upon
their
divers
Considerations
and
Connotations
;
and
(
I
am
sure
)
the
Attributes
of
God
have
as
strict
an
Identity
,
as
the
Predicates
of
any
Essence
beside
can
have
.
And
when
he
Quarrels
such
distinctions
as
not
plain
for
Instruction
,
I
must
answer
him
that
,
then
,
Confusion
is
certainly
plain
Doctrine
,
as
he
thinks
:
but
qui
bené
distinguit
,
bené
docet
.
But
why
is
George
himself
so
nice
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
52.
)
to
distinguish
Faith
,
as
Receptive
,
from
it self
,
as
Inward
Righteousness
;
Unto
this
I
will
say
,
with
reason
,
as
he
has
said
(
page
8.
of
his
book
)
without
reason
,
to
a
man
of
very
great
worth
,
Turpe
est
Doctori
(
&
immediate
inspirato
)
cum
culpa
redarguit
ipsum
.
The
next
thing
that
comes
in
this
Query
(
all
the
petty
Questions
whereof
I
will
resolve
in
this
Section
)
is
a
Consequence
which
they
draw
from
the
Mill
to
the
Moon
.
Christ
(
say
they
)
set
up
his
worship
above
Sixteen
Hundred
years
since
in
Spirit
,
and
in
truth
;
so
must
not
every
man
come
to
the
Truth
,
and
to
the
Spirit
in
their
own
hearts
,
if
they
come
to
the
Worship
he
set
up
.
Ans.
I
shall
not
stand
long
in
Taxing
the
Antecedent
whereby
they
seem
to
insinuate
that
there
was
no
Spiritual
Worship
and
consequently
Worshippers
under
the
Old-Testament
,
which
is
most
evidently
false
;
for
then
these
had
no
Faith
in
God
,
nor
love
to
,
or
fear
of
him
;
but
were
all
Black
Atheists
,
and
must
all
be
Damned
.
Christs
meaning
therefore
in
that
place
(
viz.
Joh.
4.23
.
)
is
not
that
there
was
no
Spiritual
Worship
in
the
Church
before
that
time
;
but
that
the
vail
of
Ceremonies
,
wherewith
the
Spiritual
Worship
was
,
as
it
were
,
covered
and
hidden
under
the
Old-Testament
,
should
be
removed
and
taken
away
under
the
New
,
and
the
Worship
rendred
more
simple
and
more
clear
,
and
the
Spirituality
thereof
more
appear
,
and
be
expressed
externally
,
as
it
is
plainly
declared
in
the
event
2
Cor.
3.13
.
with
18.
as
also
the
Context
of
the
place
shews
,
that
it
is
of
the
removing
of
that
vail
of
Ceremonies
whereof
he
speaks
,
under
which
the
Worship
was
tied
unto
Typical
places
.
But
how
shall
it
be
inferred
from
that
,
that
the
Worship
under
the
New-Testament
shall
not
be
vailed
with
Ceremonies
,
Types
,
and
shadows
,
as
before
it
was
,
but
shall
be
more
simple
,
manifest
,
and
clear
;
that
therefore
every
man
under
the
New-Testament
must
come
to
the
Truth
,
and
to
the
Spirit
in
his
own
heart
?
here
is
a
Consequence
led
by
the
Quakers
,
in
a
weighty
matter
of
Faith
,
so
quite
blind
,
and
wild
,
that
the
Chimeraes
of
Utopia
may
sooner
break
the
Bars
of
Impossibility
,
and
the
Bolts
of
their
necessary
Imprisonment
,
then
it
shall
ever
be
established
with
one
grain
weight
,
or
Scruple
,
of
either
Scripture
,
or
Reason
.
But
of
the
Light
within
(
which
here
they
aim
at
)
we
have
said
enough
already
.
But
,
say
the
Quakers
near
the
close
of
this
Query
,
are
not
your
Catechisms
,
Confessions
of
Faith
,
and
Directories
your
own
works
,
and
your
own
Worship
that
ye
have
set
down
(
they
should
have
said
,
set
up
)
for
people
to
fall
down
and
do
Worship
to
,
and
be
saved
by
?
Ans.
Whose
works
soever
these
are
,
I
have
at
the
Survey
of
their
Ninth
,
Tenth
,
and
Eleventh
Queries
sufficiently
in
the
general
vindicated
them
against
all
the
Quakers
Cavillations
.
Secondly
,
I
have
also
vindicated
our
Church
from
the
Doctrine
of
Salvation
by
works
,
and
I
will
not
repeat
.
Thirdly
,
does
the
explaining
,
and
opening
up
,
or
clearing
of
the
Principles
of
Religion
,
and
our
Christian
Faith
,
by
Catechism
,
Confession
,
Vive-voice
,
or
otherways
,
by
the
very
deed
done
,
make
men
Guilty
of
holding
a
Salvation
by
works
?
O
brave
!
the
Apostles
that
were
diligent
in
these
things
are
much
Guiltier
then
,
then
we
are
.
As
for
the
Worshipping
of
these
,
and
the
Will-worship
which
here
they
are
pleased
to
charge
us
with
,
we
shall
meet
with
these
in
the
next
Query
.
SECT.
II.
Confuting
the
Quakers
Popish
Justification
.
Upon
this
Debate
I
will
not
stand
long
,
it
hath
been
so
much
tossed
already
betwixt
our
Writers
and
the
Papists
;
only
I
shall
bring
two
,
or
three
forcible
Arguments
against
our
being
justified
before
God
by
any
Righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
within
us
,
my
Assertion
being
,
That
we
are
justified
before
God
by
the
Righteousness
of
Christ
without
us
,
Imputed
by
God
unto
us
,
upon
our
apprehending
and
Imbracing
of
Christ
and
his
Righteousness
offered
to
us
,
by
Faith
;
and
not
by
any
Righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
in
us
.
Before
we
prove
that
we
are
not
justified
by
any
Righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
in
us
,
but
by
Christs
without
us
Imputed
to
us
,
we
shall
premise
this
ground
,
viz.
that
in
the
Scripture
our
own
Law-righteousness
,
and
the
Righteousness
of
our
works
are
still
taken
for
one
and
the
same
thing
,
and
stated
in
opposition
to
Christs
Righteousness
received
by
Faith
,
in
this
point
of
Justification
(
as
I
have
often
shewed
before
from
these
following
Scriptures
,
viz.
Rom.
3.
chap.
from
ver.
20.
to
the
end
.
and
4.2
,
3
,
4
,
5.6
.
and
9.30
,
31
,
32.
and
10.3
,
5
,
6.
Galat.
2.16
,
21.
and
3.11
,
12.
and
5.4
.
Philip.
3.9
.
)
nor
can
the
Righteousness
of
our
works
,
and
our
Law-righteousness
be
diverse
upon
any
account
that
is
possible
to
be
shewn
by
any
man
,
and
(
I
pray
)
consider
the
Scriptures
that
I
have
Cited
,
which
I
may
not
stand
to
form
into
Arguments
,
and
which
are
so
clear
that
they
need
not
;
these
things
premised
I
Argue
.
First
,
we
are
justified
before
God
by
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
,
which
is
the
righteousness
of
Christs
obedience
and
sufferings
without
us
(
for
he
did
not
obey
and
die
within
us
)
as
we
have
before
proved
:
Ergo
we
are
not
justified
before
him
by
a
righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
within
us
,
seeing
that
which
Christ
wrought
and
suffered
in
his
own
Person
,
before
we
were
born
,
without
us
was
not
then
,
nor
is
it
now
over
again
,
by
way
of
reproduction
(
which
if
they
say
,
is
still
Popish
enough
)
wrought
within
us
.
Secondly
,
We
are
justified
before
God
freely
by
his
Grace
,
through
the
redemption
that
is
in
Jesus
,
Rom.
3
,
24.
Eph.
1
,
7.
Col.
1
,
14.
Ergo
,
we
are
justified
by
the
satisfaction
of
Christ
without
us
,
not
by
any
righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
within
us
.
The
antecedent
is
the
Apostles
.
I
prove
the
consequence
,
because
,
first
,
a
man
cannot
be
freely
justified
or
pronounced
righteous
by
a
judge
,
because
he
is
personally
in
himself
Inherently
righteous
;
for
he
is
bound
in
all
justice
to
pronounce
a
man
righteous
that
is
such
,
and
it
is
not
done
freely
or
gratis
,
and
if
he
do
otherwise
he
does
most
unjustly
.
Secondly
,
I
prove
the
consequence
,
because
this
redemption
whereby
we
are
justified
is
in
Jesus
,
in
whom
the
righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
in
us
is
not
;
except
the
Quakers
Blasphemously
will
have
every
justified
man
to
be
Jesus
,
and
that
he
and
we
shall
be
the
subject
of
one
and
the
same
thing
,
and
so
the
same
subject
,
seeing
one
and
the
same
thing
cannot
be
subjected
in
two
divers
subjects
,
especially
seeing
here
the
redemption
of
Christ
is
subjected
in
his
humane
nature
,
which
is
in
Heaven
(
and
in
the
divine
nature
it
cannot
)
and
so
it
would
in
a
justified
man
on
the
earth
be
separated
from
it self
in
Heaven
,
which
is
utterly
repugnant
.
Thirdly
,
We
are
not
justified
by
faith
as
it
is
any
part
of
our
inward
righteousness
,
or
a
work
wrought
within
us
,
albeit
,
George
Keith
thinks
this
distinction
too
nice
:
Ergo
,
we
are
not
justified
by
any
righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
within
us
,
seeing
faith
is
one
of
the
best
parts
of
that
righteousness
,
and
first
in
the
order
of
nature
,
which
could
not
have
been
past
by
in
the
business
.
The
Antecedent
I
prove
,
because
,
in
the
point
of
justification
,
faith
,
and
works
are
still
Stated
in
a
diametral
opposition
(
as
I
shewed
before
,
I
will
not
repeat
)
Which
,
if
faith
justified
as
a
work
,
would
be
an
opposing
of
justification
by
works
,
to
a
justification
by
works
,
and
would
infer
that
we
are
justified
by
works
,
and
not
by
works
,
which
is
both
Contradiction
,
and
Nonsence
.
Fourthly
,
The
righteousness
wrought
and
inherent
in
our
selves
is
a
righteousness
of
works
,
or
else
Adams
could
not
have
been
such
,
nor
do
the
adversaries
deny
it
;
but
George
Keith
mocks
at
our
distinction
of
faith
in
justification
as
it
is
not
considered
as
a
work
,
but
Correlatively
,
as
being
too
nice
,
curious
,
and
altogether
Impertinent
in
handling
controversies
of
Religion
,
and
a
work
only
delighted
in
by
vain
Janglers
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
45
,
46
)
for
which
I
think
him
both
Impertinent
and
Blasphemous
,
in
reflecting
so
upon
the
Spirit
of
God
,
who
(
as
is
shewed
)
doth
thus
distinguish
faith
in
this
point
:
But
we
are
not
justified
before
God
by
the
righteousness
of
works
,
even
our
works
of
grace
,
proceeding
from
the
Spirit
of
God
in
us
;
for
the
Apostle
never
grants
any
Interest
to
any
of
our
works
in
Justification
,
but
still
excludes
all
of
them
,
and
whatever
affords
any
matter
of
glorying
in
our selves
(
Rom.
3.27.28
.
and
4.2
.
)
and
uncontrollably
,
any
man
that
is
justified
by
his
judge
because
of
his
inherent
righteousness
in
himself
,
hath
still
some
matter
of
glorying
in
himself
,
because
the
inherent
righteousness
of
his
own
person
,
in
justice
brought
him
off
.
And
the
same
Apostle
also
most
peremptorily
says
(
Rom.
4.4
.
and
11.6
.
)
That
if
we
be
justified
by
works
,
then
it
cannot
be
by
Grace
,
and
that
because
of
a
clear
contradiction
;
for
(
says
he
)
that
which
is
of
works
cannot
be
of
Grace
;
otherwise
works
are
no
more
works
,
nor
Grace
any
more
Grace
,
but
their
Natures
,
on
both
hands
,
are
quite
destroyed
.
We
are
not
then
justified
by
any
Righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
in
our selves
.
Lastly
,
we
are
not
justified
before
God
by
our
own
Law-righteousness
,
as
is
evident
from
Rom.
3.20
,
21.
and
10.3
,
5.
Galat.
2.21
.
and
3.11
,
12.
and
5.4
.
Philip.
3.9
.
But
all
the
righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
in
us
,
is
our
own
Law-righteousness
:
therefore
we
are
not
justified
before
God
by
any
Righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
in
us
.
The
Scriptures
Cited
clearly
prove
the
Major
.
I
prove
the
Minor
;
for
first
,
it
s
asmuch
our
Law-righteousness
,
as
Adams
could
have
been
if
he
had
stood
to
this
day
,
being
as
Inward
and
inherent
,
and
as
formally
and
subjectively
ours
,
as
his
could
have
been
to
him
;
nor
could
he
,
without
the
Grace
of
God
have
had
his
,
more
than
we
ours
.
Secondly
,
it
consists
in
our
doing
and
working
;
and
I
shewed
before
,
that
the
Righteousness
of
our
doings
and
works
,
and
our
Righteousness
of
the
Law
are
the
same
thing
,
and
so
does
the
Apostle
(
Rom:
10.5
.
Galat.
3.12
.
)
when
he
,
after
Moses
,
Describes
the
Righteousness
of
the
Law
,
and
distinguishes
it
thereby
from
the
Righteousness
of
Faith
,
which
consists
not
therein
.
Thirdly
,
the
Righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
within
a
man
conforms
him
to
the
Law
in
himself
(
though
as
long
as
its
imperfect
,
it
cannot
justifie
him
before
God
,
but
still
leaves
him
under
the
Curse
,
Deut.
27.26
.
)
and
,
upon
the
account
of
its
formal
and
subjective
union
with
him
,
it
gives
him
,
and
only
him
,
its
Intrinsical
Denomination
,
as
an
Immanent
form
;
albeit
efficiently
and
transiently
it
is
wrought
by
the
Spirit
of
God
.
Upon
all
these
accounts
it
is
a
mans
Law-righteousness
most
clearly
:
or
else
no
Righteousness
could
ever
have
been
such
that
can
be
imagined
.
George
Keith
then
must
not
tell
us
over
again
(
as
once
he
hath
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
53.
)
that
our
own
Law-righteousness
is
only
that
which
a
man
worketh
in
,
and
by
himself
,
without
the
Grace
and
Spirit
of
God
:
for
I
have
briefly
demonstrated
,
that
all
the
Righteousness
wrought
,
or
inherent
within
us
is
our
own
Law-righteousness
.
But
George
objects
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
43
,
44
,
45.
)
that
Repentance
,
Love
,
and
Hope
are
necessary
to
justification
;
and
these
are
all
Inward
,
and
are
Righteousness
:
Therefore
we
are
justified
by
an
inward
Righteousness
wrought
and
inherent
within
us
.
Ans.
I
deny
the
Consequence
;
for
first
,
though
these
be
necessary
to
justification
by
way
of
Presence
and
Existence
,
and
no
man
wanting
them
can
be
justified
(
which
is
sure
)
yet
they
are
not
necessary
thereunto
as
our
immediate
Righteousness
whereby
we
must
be
justified
,
or
as
the
Meritorious
,
or
material
Cause
thereof
before
God
,
let
the
Merit
be
never
so
Moderate
.
Let
George
Keith
trie
his
hand
,
if
he
can
prove
that
they
are
thus
necessary
,
which
he
has
not
done
as
yet
,
nor
shall
he
ever
do
.
Nor
secondly
are
they
necessary
even
as
a
Condition
thereunto
,
nor
Faith
it self
as
a
work
,
qualitatively
,
or
as
a
part
of
our
inward
Righteousness
;
but
only
in
its
Relative
consideration
,
as
receiving
,
apprehending
,
and
relying
upon
its
object
(
viz.
Christs
Righteousness
)
as
is
plainly
before
proved
.
And
many
things
are
necessary
in
order
to
a
Bargain-making
,
which
are
not
the
condition
closing
the
Bargain
,
as
here
hearing
of
the
Word
,
conviction
of
Guilt
.
&c.
in
Adult
persons
are
,
in
an
ordinary
Method
,
necessary
to
justification
,
though
both
of
them
may
be
where
the
Bargain
shall
never
be
closed
.
And
though
where
these
Graces
mentioned
in
the
Objection
truly
are
,
the
Bargain
is
certain
,
yet
none
of
these
Formalizes
it
,
and
receives
Christ
with
his
Righteousness
,
nor
have
they
an
aptitude
so
to
do
;
but
that
is
proper
to
Faith
in
its
Relative
consideration
.
It
s
necessary
unto
Marriage
to
know
of
a
Party
,
and
to
hear
of
some
offers
and
terms
;
yet
none
of
these
closes
the
Marriage-covenant
,
but
that
is
done
by
the
mutual
consent
and
acceptance
of
the
Parties
.
Secondly
,
the
Quakers
,
may
be
,
will
object
that
much
used
,
and
abused
Text
of
James
(
Jam.
2.21
.
)
where
it
s
said
that
Abraham
was
justified
by
works
.
Ans.
The
Text
is
not
meant
of
the
Pronounciation
thereof
before
God
(
for
,
I
am
sure
)
Abraham
was
a
justified
man
,
before
his
resolution
to
offer
up
Isaac
(
whereof
the
Text
expresly
speaks
)
yea
,
before
Isaac
was
born
,
Comparing
Rom.
4.10
.
with
Gen.
17.
chap.
But
of
the
Solemn
Declaration
thereof
before
the
world
,
by
the
clear
Fruits
and
Evidences
of
one
in
that
State
,
and
that
it
cannot
be
meant
of
his
justification
before
God
,
is
sure
,
seeing
the
Scriptures
Cited
shew
very
peremptorily
that
he
was
a
justified
man
before
he
offered
that
work
,
by
which
James
there
says
he
was
justified
.
And
the
Apostles
clear
Scope
in
the
place
is
to
hold
forth
,
that
justifying
Faith
cannot
be
alone
,
but
must
and
will
be
accompanied
with
other
graces
,
and
vertues
,
and
good
works
,
which
give
Lustre
and
Glory
thereunto
(
which
there
he
calls
the
perfecting
of
it
)
and
without
which
it
will
be
found
but
a
dead
Faith
.
And
when
thirdly
it
is
objected
,
that
men
will
be
judged
according
to
,
or
by
their
words
and
works
(
as
the
Scriptures
often
say
)
the
same
answer
is
to
be
given
,
viz.
they
will
be
judged
according
to
,
or
by
them
Declaratively
,
as
Solemn
Witnesses
and
Testimonies
of
the
State
they
are
in
,
manifesting
before
all
the
Equity
of
Gods
procedure
;
not
as
Causes
,
or
Conditions
,
except
in
the
Damned
,
whose
evil
works
are
indeed
the
Meritorious
Cause
of
their
Misery
.
An
Appendix
concerning
the
Merit
of
our
good
Works
.
George
Keith
(
in
his
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
page
55
,
56
,
57.
)
Teaches
also
that
the
good
works
of
the
Saints
are
Meritorious
of
the
Reward
of
happiness
,
though
not
in
the
strictest
sort
of
merit
,
which
he
calls
Condignity
,
or
deserving
a
Reward
,
so
as
the
Merit
is
equal
in
worth
and
dignity
to
the
Reward
;
yet
so
as
to
obtain
(
viz.
Meritoriously
,
for
positively
he
pleads
for
their
merit
here
)
from
God
by
promise
as
he
out
of
his
Infinite
bounty
hath
seen
fit
to
bestow
,
viz.
unto
such
a
merit
;
and
though
he
refuses
all
Condign
merit
both
here
,
and
likewise
in
the
72
page
of
the
book
,
as
that
signifies
an
equality
betwixt
the
Merit
and
the
Reward
,
yet
he
still
sticks
,
though
subtilly
,
to
a
Condignity
below
an
equality
,
page
57
,
and
in
all
his
Arguments
he
still
aims
to
prove
a
worth
and
merit
in
the
very
works
themselves
.
But
I
must
Assert
,
that
there
is
no
merit
in
any
of
our
good
,
or
best
works
,
in
any
sense
of
merit
that
s
proper
whatsoever
,
to
obtain
from
God
any
good
thing
,
much
less
the
Reward
of
Heaven
.
I
shortly
prove
it
.
Therefore
first
,
the
best
of
our
works
in
this
life
are
imperfect
(
as
we
have
before
now
proved
)
and
comes
far
short
of
that
which
we
owe
:
Ergo
they
can
never
merit
any
good
at
the
hands
of
God
,
but
,
upon
the
contrary
the
Curse
and
Damnation
Eternally
,
which
is
due
to
them
who
do
not
exactly
in
all
things
keep
the
Law
of
God
,
Deut.
27.26
.
Galat.
3.10
.
Secondly
,
Eternal
Life
is
the
Gift
of
God
,
says
the
Apostle
Rom.
6.23
.
therefore
it
is
no
ways
merited
by
any
good
work
of
ours
;
for
that
which
a
man
merits
is
not
Gifted
to
him
,
but
it
is
his
due
.
George
Keith
answers
to
this
,
that
both
the
Works
and
Merits
are
a
free
Gift
,
and
the
Reward
too
.
But
I
rejoyn
,
how
can
I
merit
at
a
mans
hand
by
his
free
Gift
unto
me
?
Can
I
merit
at
his
hand
because
he
hath
obliged
me
and
made
me
his
Debtor
?
viz.
I
merit
from
him
because
I
owe
him
.
When
I
give
a
Beggar
a
Farthing
then
,
I
become
his
Debtor
,
and
must
give
him
another
in
payment
of
my
Debt
to
him
,
and
then
we
are
free
;
and
if
I
give
him
a
third
,
because
now
this
is
a
free
Gift
again
,
I
over
again
become
his
Debtor
.
Is
not
that
fine
Non-sense
,
and
strong
,
Contradiction
?
Thirdly
,
the
Apostle
says
(
Ephes.
2.5.8
.
)
that
by
Grace
we
are
saved
,
and
not
by
works
:
Therefore
our
good
works
do
not
merit
the
Reward
of
Heaven
in
any
proper
signification
of
merit
be
it
never
so
moderate
,
and
remote
from
strictness
;
especially
seeing
the
same
Apostle
tells
us
(
Rom.
11.6
.
)
that
that
which
is
of
works
cannot
be
of
grace
,
nor
that
which
is
of
grace
be
of
works
,
because
,
of
a
clear
contradiction
,
and
the
destroying
of
both
their
Natures
which
he
their
shews
.
The
Quakers
then
(
with
their
dear
Friends
the
Papists
)
must
either
confess
Salvation
not
to
be
by
any
merit
of
our
Works
,
or
else
they
must
deny
it
to
be
by
Grace
,
flat
contrary
to
the
Scriptures
.
George
Keith's
Answer
,
that
,
as
the
Reward
is
of
Grace
,
so
the
Merit
is
of
Grace
,
is
already
destroyed
;
for
I
cannot
merit
by
a
free
Gift
of
Grace
,
seeing
I
can
never
merit
by
becoming
a
Debtor
to
a
man
;
for
then
the
more
I
receive
from
him
he
should
be
the
more
my
Debtor
,
not
I
his
;
whereas
,
in
all
sense
and
reason
,
I
must
owe
him
the
more
,
instead
of
meriting
.
Now
when
George
Keith
yields
this
merit
not
to
be
equal
in
dignity
and
worth
unto
the
Reward
,
I
cannot
but
commend
his
Modesty
;
for
its
very
much
that
the
Quakers
cannot
merit
above
Adams
merit
,
if
he
had
stood
in
his
Obedience
;
for
nothing
that
he
could
have
done
(
all
being
still
due
to
his
great
Sovereign
)
could
have
merited
properly
,
nor
could
it
ever
have
been
equal
to
the
Reward
of
happiness
.
And
the
difference
betwixt
the
two
Covenants
is
not
,
that
,
under
the
first
,
good
works
would
have
Merit
Condignly
;
not
so
under
the
Second
(
for
,
as
to
the
First
,
that
is
false
.
)
But
,
it
lies
here
,
that
,
under
the
First
,
good
works
behooved
to
be
compleatly
performed
,
as
the
Condition
,
before
we
got
,
or
had
a
right
unto
the
reward
;
but
,
in
the
Second
,
Covenant
,
we
have
right
upon
our
first
Entering
into
,
and
closing
of
the
Covenant
,
by
Faith
unto
the
Inheritance
,
before
the
performance
of
good
works
.
But
,
George
Keith
objects
there
(
pag.
56
,
)
that
the
Saints
are
said
to
be
worthy
of
the
Kingdom
of
God
,
and
of
walking
with
Christ
in
white
(
2
Thes.
1.5
.
Revel.
3
,
4
)
which
Infers
,
at
least
,
a
suitableness
.
Ans.
First
,
their
worth
is
not
reckoned
in
themselves
,
but
in
Christ
.
Secondly
,
a
sutableness
doth
not
Infer
,
a
dignity
and
merit
;
A
poor
man
in
great
need
(
yea
,
though
no
good
man
)
is
a
sutable
object
of
an
Alms
,
though
he
does
not
merit
it
from
us
;
he
hath
no
Jus
personae
into
it
.
Again
he
objects
,
that
God
rewards
our
good
works
;
and
therefore
they
must
have
some
worthiness
in
them
.
Ans.
God's
rewarding
so
far
beyond
any
worth
,
that
dare
be
pretended
,
in
our
good
works
,
proves
that
it
is
not
for
their
worth
,
but
upon
some
other
account
,
that
we
obtain
the
reward
,
viz.
upon
Christs
account
,
in
whom
,
by
his
free
grace
,
we
have
obtained
Redemption
,
and
Salvation
.
Thirdly
,
he
objects
that
,
a
meek
and
quiet
Spirit
,
is
in
the
sight
of
God
,
of
great
price
.
1
Pet.
3
,
4.
Ans.
First
,
our
Souls
also
are
of
great
price
,
in
the
sight
of
God
;
yet
we
do
not
for
that
merit
Heaven
.
Secondly
,
doubtless
God
has
a
great
esteem
of
vertues
,
of
one
of
which
the
Apostle
here
speaks
in
the
abstract
consideration
from
vice
;
but
in
us
they
are
mixed
with
Relicks
of
vice
,
and
imperfect
,
and
so
cannot
merit
.
Thirdly
,
though
they
were
in
us
perfect
,
yet
they
could
not
merit
at
Gods
hands
,
unto
whom
all
that
we
can
do
,
still
is
our
bound
Duty
;
this
then
will
not
infer
moderate
merit
,
till
we
be
perfect
in
such
Vertues
,
and
even
then
our
merit
will
be
very
moderate
,
seeing
all
will
still
be
due
,
and
unequal
to
the
reward
.
And
whereas
he
there
alledges
,
that
this
our
Doctrine
of
the
imperfection
,
and
not
meriting
of
our
good
works
,
tends
to
the
lessening
of
the
esteem
of
righteousness
amongst
men
;
I
must
tell
him
,
that
this
happens
only
amongst
proud
men
,
who
will
not
be
Righteous
,
except
they
can
merit
by
it
,
as
the
Pharisees
who
would
not
submit
to
the
Righteousness
of
the
Redeemer
,
but
would
be
Righteous
in
themselves
,
without
that
whereby
they
lost
both
.
And
I
must
tell
him
,
it
but
only
keeps
us
humble
,
in
the
esteem
of
our
own
Righteousness
,
that
we
overvalue
not
that
.
And
I
must
tell
him
it
makes
us
Diligent
to
look
after
more
than
our
present
reach
is
,
and
not
to
rest
in
our
measures
attained
.
And
,
I
am
sure
,
theirs
loses
these
advantages
of
humility
and
diligence
(
which
are
great
and
profitable
duties
)
and
of
forcing
men
out
of
themselves
to
Christ
for
Refuge
and
Righteousness
,
which
are
the
weighty
intents
of
Law
and
Gospel
.
These
things
may
declare
,
which
of
our
principles
here
is
best
,
and
according
to
Truth
and
Godliness
.
But
I
make
hast
,
Studying
all
the
brevity
I
can
,
without
answering
every
one
of
their
Calumnies
,
though
loath
to
omit
any
of
their
objections
in
a
Succinct
and
brief
method
,
which
still
I
Study
,
being
loath
to
burden
the
Reader
with
any
needless
discourse
.
SECT.
III.
An
Examination
of
one
Exception
more
made
by
the
Quakers
against
our
Charge
of
a
Popish
justification
.
The
Quakers
,
albeit
they
expresly
and
positively
teach
Justification
,
by
an
inward
Righteousness
inherent
and
wrought
within
them
,
(
as
is
now
abundantly
shewed
)
yet
they
deny
(
in
their
Confession
,
pag.
4.21
,
22.
)
that
they
hold
a
Popish
justification
;
but
that
they
hold
justification
by
the
alone
Imputed
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
and
complain
,
that
they
are
Clamoured
upon
as
if
they
denyed
the
Imputation
of
Christs
Righteousness
;
And
so
(
according
to
this
their
Doctrine
)
the
Imputed
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
is
Inherently
and
Inwardly
wrought
in
the
justified
.
And
so
,
they
hope
to
be
Vindicated
from
their
Popish
justification
,
by
adding
thereunto
,
an
uncurable
Contradiction
in
Nature
and
Reason
.
Which
,
that
I
may
shew
,
I
shall
premise
First
.
That
,
the
Imputed
Righteousness
of
Christ
,
consists
in
his
Death
,
and
Sufferings
for
us
(
I
do
not
exclude
his
active
obedience
,
though
I
mention
only
these
,
as
above
all
exception
)
as
is
most
manifest
from
these
Scriptures
,
Isai.
53.5
,
6
,
8
,
11
,
12.
Matth.
26.28
.
Rom.
3.24
,
25
,
and
5
,
9
,
10.
and
8
,
33
,
34.
Galat.
3.13
.
Ephes.
1.7
.
2
Cor.
5.21
.
Heb.
9.26
,
28.
and
10
,
22.
1
Pet.
2.24
.
Isai
.
42.21
Secondly
,
I
must
premise
,
that
if
the
imputed
Righteousness
of
the
Redeemer
thus
manifestly
consisting
in
his
Death
and
,
Sufferings
for
us
,
by
which
Imputed
we
are
Justified
,
Reconciled
,
Delivered
,
from
the
Curse
,
be
really
inward
and
formally
Inherent
in
the
Justified
;
then
so
necessarily
must
his
Death
and
Passion
have
been
;
or
else
the
same
very
thing
,
shall
be
formally
inward
where
the
very
self
same
thing
was
never
formally
inward
,
viz.
Christs
imputed
Righteousness
shall
be
formally
inward
in
the
Justified
where
his
Death
and
Passion
,
wherein
that
Righteousness
consists
,
was
never
formally
inward
;
which
involves
a
strong
Contradiction
.
Thirdly
,
I
premise
,
that
if
the
Death
and
Passion
of
Christ
hath
been
formally
inward
in
all
that
have
hitherto
been
justified
(
as
is
now
clearly
inferred
,
by
the
force
of
our
proceeding
Reasons
from
this
Distracted
exception
of
the
Quakers
)
then
Christ
hath
formally
Died
and
been
Crucified
in
them
all
,
(
I
speak
not
here
of
Christ
mystical
,
but
of
Christ
in
his
own
Person
,
as
is
plain
.
)
Seeing
the
Death
and
Passion
of
Christ
cannot
formally
fall
out
,
or
happen
to
be
,
except
where
Christ
formally
Dies
and
suffers
,
as
is
Evident
,
and
the
contrary
involves
a
plain
Contradiction
.
Hence
from
this
wild
exception
of
the
Quakers
,
this
Conclusion
most
manifestly
follows
;
viz.
that
Christ
hath
Died
and
been
Crucified
,
in
all
that
have
hitherto
been
Justified
;
from
which
Conclusion
,
I
Argue
First
,
(
beside
that
thus
Christ
behooved
to
have
Died
often
since
the
World
began
,
contrary
to
Heb.
9.25
,
26
,
28.
and
10
,
12
,
14.
)
That
if
Christ
hath
Died
and
been
Crucified
in
all
that
have
hitherto
been
Justified
,
then
his
Human
Body
behooved
to
have
been
locally
present
in
each
of
theirs
,
and
so
Penetrated
with
each
of
theirs
(
for
the
same
Room
contains
a
man
when
Justified
,
as
before
)
seeing
no
man
can
formally
and
truly
Die
,
or
have
his
Soul
separated
from
his
Body
,
in
the
place
where
his
Body
is
not
formally
present
,
but
where
it
is
:
But
the
consequent
is
a
strong
repugnancy
,
an
utter
Contradiction
;
for
so
the
penetration
of
Bodies
is
asserted
,
which
is
utterly
repugnant
;
and
let
the
Quakers
(
with
Papists
)
consider
,
if
the
whole
great
Fabrick
of
the
World
,
may
be
contained
in
one
small
Nut-shel
;
for
the
penetration
of
all
Bodies
,
and
of
the
all
integral
parts
thereof
,
is
as
easie
as
the
penetration
of
any
two
of
them
,
seeing
their
quantitative
matter
and
Nature
,
from
which
the
repugnancy
of
their
penetration
arises
,
is
all
of
the
same
kind
,
Secondly
,
I
argue
,
that
if
Christ
hath
formally
Died
und
been
Crucified
in
all
that
have
hitherto
been
Justified
,
then
Christ
,
in
his
manhood
,
behooved
to
have
been
formally
inward
in
them
all
,
seeing
men
cannot
Die
except
where
they
are
,
or
were
antecedently
immediately
present
,
as
can
never
be
contradicted
:
But
the
consequent
involves
here
also
a
most
horrid
Contradiction
;
seeing
so
Christs
manhood
shall
have
been
often
,
since
his
Ascension
,
multiplyed
unto
the
diverse
and
distant
places
of
the
Earth
where
the
Justified
lived
,
being
at
the
same
time
,
and
to
the
end
of
the
World
Substantially
and
Formally
contained
also
in
Heaven
;
(
Act.
3.21
.
Heb.
8.4
.
and
10
,
12
13.
Colos.
3.1
.
)
And
if
Christs
Individual
manhood
can
,
by
any
possibility
be
so
multiplyed
unto
diverse
and
distant
places
at
once
,
then
so
may
the
Individual
manhood
of
any
man
,
seeing
Christs
manhood
is
of
the
same
essential
Nature
and
Kind
,
with
the
manhood
of
every
man
(
Acte
2.30
.
Rom.
1.3
.
Gal.
4.4
.
Heb.
2.14
,
16
,
17.
)
And
so
one
and
the
same
man
shall
be
capable
to
be
multiplyed
,
so
as
to
be
at
London
and
Jerusalem
both
at
once
,
yea
in
all
places
and
corners
of
the
Earth
at
once
,
seeing
his
multiplication
to
all
of
them
is
as
possible
,
as
to
any
two
of
them
.
But
,
these
things
are
utterly
repugnant
,
and
blind
Popish
fictions
;
for
then
one
and
the
same
man
,
might
in
the
same
Instant
of
time
be
both
exceedingly
warm
,
and
yet
extreamly
cold
;
both
wounded
,
and
not
wounded
;
dead
,
and
yet
not
dead
;
blind
,
and
yet
not
blind
;
hang'd
,
and
yet
not
hang'd
.
For
it
would
be
a
strange
fire
that
,
warming
the
man
at
London
,
would
also
reach
him
at
Jerusalem
,
where
he
may
be
on
the
Street
in
a
cold
Frost
and
Snow
.
Such
a
fire
would
burn
all
by
the
way
,
I
fear
.
Would
it
not
be
a
long
Dagger
that
wounding
,
or
killing
him
at
London
,
would
also
reach
him
at
Jerusalem
,
and
wound
,
or
kill
him
there
too
?
And
yet
it
would
be
a
strong
Contradiction
to
be
otherwise
.
It
would
be
strange
if
he
lost
his
eyes
at
London
,
where
no
body
is
troubling
him
,
because
some
body
hath
pluckt
them
out
at
Jerusalem
;
and
yet
it
behooved
to
be
so
,
or
else
he
should
be
blind
,
and
yet
not
blind
both
at
once
,
and
behooved
also
to
have
before
,
more
eyes
then
two
,
seeing
he
hath
lost
two
(
as
is
supposed
)
and
yet
he
sees
.
Would
it
not
be
very
strange
,
if
the
man
,
being
a
hanging
at
Jerusalem
,
should
by
some
secret
and
blind
Influence
of
the
Hang-man
there
,
be
also
forced
to
the
Gibbet
at
London
,
where
no
man
is
offering
him
any
Violence
,
nay
albeit
,
all
in
the
City
were
by
force
endeavouring
his
rescue
?
for
hang
and
die
,
he
must
in
the
one
place
as
well
as
in
the
other
;
or
else
he
shall
be
hang'd
,
and
yet
not
hang'd
;
dead
,
and
yet
not
dead
both
at
once
.
So
also
,
if
the
same
Individual
man
could
be
in
many
diverse
and
distant
places
at
once
,
let
him
be
in
London
,
York
,
and
New-Castle
all
at
once
;
let
him
remain
still
at
York
some
days
;
at
London
,
let
him
take
journey
,
upon
some
occasion
,
to
York
;
from
New-Castle
also
let
him
take
journey
to
Edinburgh
.
Now
this
man
is
both
drawing
nearer
,
and
removing
further
from
himself
at
York
,
and
that
in
respect
of
local
nearness
;
and
he
is
both
moving
,
and
not
moving
in
respect
of
local
motion
all
at
once
,
and
he
is
also
both
distant
and
yet
not
distant
from
York
at
once
,
seeing
by
the
way
in
his
journey
to
York
,
and
Edinburgh
,
he
behooved
to
be
distant
there-from
,
and
not
present
therein
;
and
yet
this
is
in
one
and
the
same
respect
,
viz.
of
local
distance
.
Let
not
the
Jesuits
then
tell
us
of
diverse
respects
here
.
Are
not
these
a
number
of
brave
Contradictions
Nursed
in
the
bosom
of
the
Quakers
,
exception
Vindicating
them
(
as
they
hope
)
from
a
Popish
Justification
?
nay
by
this
addition
of
Contradictions
they
have
made
,
their
Justification
much
worse
,
in
place
of
bettering
it
,
and
have
laid
the
way
also
fairly
for
the
Popish
transubstantiation
seeing
their
exception
here
includes
the
very
Grounds
,
wherewith
the
Papists
endeavour
(
but
without
success
)
to
support
that
.
A
Postscript
,
for
George
Keith
,
which
I
divide
into
two
Sections
.
The
first
shall
wipe
off
his
calumnies
of
Popery
,
cast
upon
us
.
The
Second
,
shall
fix
Popery
upon
him
,
and
the
rest
of
his
Brethren
Quakers
.
SECT.
I.
Answers
some
Calumnies
of
Popery
cast
upon
us
by
George
Alias
Mr.
George
Keith
.
Sir
,
I
have
read
&
perused
your
Book
,
which
ye
Intitle
,
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
(
albeit
the
Book
it self
belies
the
Title
)
and
I
have
redargued
all
your
Erronious
principles
whereupon
,
you
treat
therein
,
together
with
your
Confession
of
Faith
signed
by
many
of
the
hands
of
your
Brethren
;
as
also
,
I
have
Surveyed
and
examined
,
the
preceeding
Queries
,
that
were
sent
unto
me
,
by
a
Convent
of
your
tribe
,
though
signed
,
but
with
one
of
their
hands
.
I
come
now
to
the
calumnies
of
Popery
,
which
ye
endeavour
to
throw
upon
us
.
And
First
,
I
find
you
intend
to
fix
Popery
upon
us
,
because
the
Authority
,
which
our
Ministers
have
by
Ordination
,
came
through
the
hands
of
the
Roman
Church
.
I
answer
you
,
that
your
Consequence
is
utterly
null
:
for
albeit
,
the
authority
of
our
Ministers
,
came
through
their
hands
,
yet
the
authority
was
not
theirs
,
but
Christs
;
it
was
not
humane
,
but
divine
;
and
therefore
,
this
cannot
infer
Popery
upon
us
,
seeing
that
authority
,
as
to
its
substance
,
was
not
a
Popish
invention
but
a
Divine
Institution
;
albeit
as
to
the
manner
,
of
conveying
there
was
Popish
Superstitions
and
Obligations
joyned
with
it
,
which
were
sinful
,
and
behooved
to
be
Repented
of
,
by
such
of
our
reformers
as
had
their
Ordination
at
their
hands
;
and
therefore
,
that
Ordination
is
still
valid
,
as
to
the
substance
,
albeit
as
to
the
manner
it
was
wrong
.
And
if
their
Ordination
had
not
held
valid
,
substantially
considered
,
neither
could
any
mans
Baptism
,
Baptized
in
these
times
by
Popish
Ministers
;
but
behooved
to
have
been
done
over
again
,
as
not
done
before
by
such
as
had
Authority
;
but
that
was
neither
done
,
nor
ever
thought
needful
to
be
done
by
any
of
our
reformers
,
or
any
Divine
since
.
Nor
can
this
infer
(
as
ye
would
have
it
,
in
your
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
89
,
)
that
we
therefore
,
own
the
Popes
Authority
,
seeing
to
own
that
were
to
acknowledge
his
Papal
Supremacy
and
Usurpation
,
to
comply
therewith
,
and
adhere
thereunto
,
which
we
from
our
hearts
abhorr
:
But
all
that
we
in
this
point
assert
,
is
,
that
the
Pope
and
his
Clergy
(
albeit
exceeding
corrupt
)
had
the
Authority
of
Christs
Church
in
their
hands
,
which
,
though
by
them
clogged
and
corrupted
extrinsecally
in
the
conveyance
,
yet
retained
its
Intrinsecal
force
,
remaining
still
valid
,
as
to
the
substance
;
as
Water
running
through
a
mire
mudding
it
does
not
lose
the
Nature
of
Water
substantially
,
though
extrinsically
it
is
made
Impure
.
Nor
can
our
Ministers
,
be
therefore
justly
called
Popes
Emissaries
(
as
you
basely
there
reproach
them
)
seeing
their
Commission
was
not
upon
the
Popes
Errand
,
but
Christs
;
nor
was
the
Authority
they
had
the
Popes
,
but
Christs
.
Whereas
the
Popes
,
or
Antichrists
Emissaries
were
always
understood
of
these
who
by
his
Authority
,
as
Pope
,
were
sent
upon
his
special
Errands
through
the
World
,
to
its
woful
experience
of
much
mischief
,
deceitful
Plots
,
most
Cruel
and
Inhumane
Massacres
,
and
imparallel'd
Bloodshed
(
even
amongst
Turks
,
Heathens
and
Infidels
)
contrived
and
practised
by
them
,
as
the
only
sutable
Instruments
of
a
Scarlet
dyed
whore
Drunk
with
the
Blood
of
the
Saints
and
Martyrs
of
Jesus
.
But
Sir
,
you
ask
there
how
the
Pope
and
his
Clergy
came
to
have
this
Authority
and
power
of
Ordination
in
their
hands
;
and
you
alledge
,
he
must
have
it
either
as
Christian
,
or
as
Antichristian
,
whereupon
ye
(
in
vain
)
build
a
heap
of
needless
deductions
,
to
prove
our
Ministry
Antichristian
,
pag.
89
,
90
,
91
,
92.
But
to
cut
off
your
long
discourse
there
,
I
must
tell
you
,
he
neither
had
it
as
Christian
(
if
your
reduplication
be
formal
,
as
it
ought
,
and
as
it
surely
is
in
the
Second
member
of
the
distinction
)
or
else
all
Christians
would
have
it
.
A
quatenus
ad
omne
,
&c.
niether
had
he
it
as
Antichristian
,
or
Antichrist
;
for
so
he
has
none
of
Gods
Authority
,
but
the
Devils
plain
Commission
;
Nor
are
these
two
terms
Contradictory
,
but
contrary
,
and
follows
the
rules
thereof
,
seeing
many
things
,
and
persons
too
,
are
neither
Christian
,
nor
Antichristian
.
But
I
shall
shew
you
a
Third
,
viz.
He
has
it
,
and
his
Clergy
also
,
as
first
Ordained
a
Presbyter
and
Minister
of
the
Church
,
before
he
,
or
they
,
by
their
Acts
and
Constitutions
,
can
ascend
the
Papal
chair
;
and
so
they
thus
having
it
,
and
not
being
de
facto
by
any
Execution
of
Law
taken
from
them
,
they
can
surely
Communicate
the
same
,
so
as
to
be
valid
.
I
speak
of
them
here
as
before
the
Reformation
,
not
as
they
are
now
to
be
considered
,
which
is
another
matter
,
but
not
in
the
course
of
my
present
purpose
.
And
for
that
you
say
,
that
many
of
the
first
Reformers
had
no
outward
Ordination
,
or
call
,
nor
were
in
Orders
,
it
is
most
false
;
for
they
had
the
Peoples
Earnest
intreaties
(
though
but
of
few
such
Ministers
I
read
)
and
also
the
approbation
,
of
other
Reformers
that
were
in
Orders
,
which
was
equivalent
to
Ordination
,
though
it
wanted
some
of
the
Solemn
rights
thereof
;
and
these
times
are
to
be
considered
too
,
when
the
reformed
Church
was
but
a
constituting
out
of
confusion
and
darkness
.
So
that
this
will
not
justifie
your
Enthusiastick
Immediate
calls
,
which
I
know
,
ye
here
aim
at
by
this
.
But
you
say
,
(
pag.
92
,
93.
)
that
the
Roman
Church
did
at
that
time
,
(
viz.
before
the
Reformation
)
Fundamentally
err
,
in
worshiping
a
piece
of
Bread
,
and
her
other
grosse
Idolatries
,
so
that
she
could
not
be
a
true
Church
.
And
so
could
not
have
any
Church-authority
,
for
ordaining
Gospel-ministers
.
Ans.
Idolatry
is
a
corruption
in
worship
and
practise
,
not
an
Error
in
Judgment
or
principles
,
and
it
doth
not
always
unchurch
Physically
and
Entitatively
(
as
the
several
grosse
Idolatries
of
the
Jewish
Church
,
both
in
the
wilderness
,
and
in
the
Land
of
Judea
demonstrat
)
though
it
exceedingly
corrupts
Morally
,
and
takes
away
her
Moral
purity
.
Secondly
,
a
fundamental
Error
may
either
be
Formal
and
Direct
,
when
it
is
formally
and
directly
held
by
a
Church
;
and
then
it
altogether
unchurches
them
,
as
being
quite
off
the
foundation
.
ye
Quakers
look
to
this
who
directly
deny
all
persons
in
the
Godhead
.
Or
a
fundamental
Error
may
be
Consequential
and
Material
only
when
it
is
not
their
direct
and
formal
principle
;
but
only
by
consequence
unseen
and
unperceived
by
them
(
and
which
if
they
saw
followed
,
being
sincerely
Ingenuous
,
they
would
Renounce
that
principle
)
it
follows
from
their
formal
and
direct
principle
.
And
though
in
this
case
a
Church
is
not
morally
pure
or
true
,
yet
it
doth
not
Physically
and
Entitatively
take
away
the
being
of
a
Church
from
her
:
Transubstantiation
doth
consequentially
destroy
Christs
humane
body
,
and
so
his
humane
Nature
,
and
denies
his
coming
in
the
Flesh
;
yet
this
fundamental
error
being
only
Material
and
Consequential
,
not
direct
and
formal
,
and
so
not
formally
such
,
could
not
unchurch
them
before
the
Reformation
,
when
the
consequence
,
in
that
darkness
,
was
not
perceived
,
nor
Intended
to
be
held
;
or
else
the
Jewish
Church
often
,
the
Churches
of
Galatia
,
and
many
others
since
,
had
been
quite
unchurched
(
when
yet
they
were
not
)
for
their
Consequential
fundamental
Errors
.
But
Sir
,
the
Case
is
now
hugely
alter'd
,
and
the
Scene
changed
,
after
that
our
Reformers
have
,
by
vive
Demonstration
,
shewed
the
Papists
(
their
Clergy
at
least
)
the
unavoidable
Consequence
,
who
yet
still
pertinaciously
hold
the
principle
,
which
it
cannot
be
conceived
how
they
can
do
it
,
in
such
Circumstances
of
shining
Light
,
without
allowing
the
Consequence
also
.
There
is
also
a
vast
difference
betwixt
the
Papist-Church
now
,
and
before
the
Council
of
Trent
,
when
many
Errors
that
were
before
that
,
but
taught
,
or
held
by
some
particular
persons
,
greater
,
or
smaller
,
but
not
turn'd
into
a
Law
,
are
now
by
publick
Consent
,
and
Constitution
of
their
Canon
,
or
Church-law
,
become
their
universal
and
Church-profession
,
as
she
is
such
a
Church
,
viz.
Popish
.
And
this
makes
her
Guilty
now
in
her
very
publick
and
stated
Notion
of
such
a
Church
,
and
the
Errors
,
if
Fundamental
(
which
now
I
meddle
not
with
,
because
I
need
not
)
quite
Unchurches
;
whereas
the
other
of
particular
persons
cannot
do
it
;
or
else
no
Church
could
be
long
in
safety
.
It
may
be
,
ye
will
retort
this
in
what
I
said
concerning
Consequential-Scripture
above
,
viz.
that
if
the
Terms
Material
,
and
Consequential
,
be
diminutive
,
as
here
is
said
,
then
Consequential-Scripture
will
not
be
of
equal
Authority
with
that
formally
and
expresly
Taught
.
But
there
is
no
parity
of
reason
for
this
Consequence
,
seeing
men
do
not
always
see
or
perceive
what
follows
from
the
Principles
they
hold
;
nor
frequently
would
they
,
if
they
saw
it
,
hold
,
or
own
such
Principles
.
But
God
cannot
be
Guilty
of
Ignorance
,
but
sees
most
perfectly
all
that
follows
from
every
Principle
;
and
therefore
every
Consequence
of
his
Word
is
as
much
by
him
intended
,
and
so
is
as
much
of
Divine
Authority
,
as
that
which
is
most
expresly
and
formally
therein
Enunciated
.
There
is
no
place
here
then
for
a
Retorsion
.
Having
Discussed
this
head
,
I
come
to
your
following
Libel
of
Popery
,
against
us
,
charged
in
your
Twelfth
Section
of
that
Book
of
yours
often
named
;
Where
first
ye
charge
us
with
Popery
,
in
Asserting
the
three
Persons
in
the
Godhead
,
and
a
Trinity
.
But
in
this
the
Scriptures
are
as
Popish
,
from
which
I
have
proved
the
three
Persons
in
the
Deity
.
And
the
Concrete
also
of
the
word
,
Trinity
,
is
in
the
Scripture
(
1
Joh.
5.7
.
)
and
it
is
the
only
abstract
thereof
.
But
the
Quakers
are
herein
Blasphemous
,
and
quite
off
the
Foundation
too
;
for
if
the
Attributes
of
God
,
and
persons
in
the
Godhead
be
not
Fundamental
,
nothing
can
be
such
.
Your
Ordination
would
,
surely
,
be
a
meer
Nullity
.
Secondly
,
ye
alledge
we
are
Popish
in
affirming
of
Original
Sin
in
Infants
,
who
have
not
sinned
Actually
;
and
Thirdly
,
because
we
deny
your
universal
Grace
.
Ans.
Indeed
your
Principles
in
both
these
are
Jesuitically
Popish
(
and
Jesuits
are
the
worst
of
Papists
,
both
in
their
Erroneous
Principles
,
and
Bloody
Practices
)
for
ye
and
they
both
joyn
exactly
in
these
against
the
Scripture
,
as
I
have
before
fully
proved
.
Fourthly
,
ye
say
we
are
Popish
,
in
affirming
that
humane
Learning
and
Natural
Parts
are
more
essential
qualifications
of
a
Minister
,
then
the
Grace
of
God
.
Ans.
Sir
I
described
a
Minister
for
these
of
your
Profession
before
;
and
ye
needed
not
have
done
it
over
again
:
for
still
,
I
see
,
ye
would
have
an
ignorant
,
nay
unnatural
Dunce
.
I
have
known
men
but
moderately
Learn'd
be
Ministers
with
us
,
because
of
their
Piety
,
and
fit
Faculty
for
exhorting
:
But
a
man
utterly
void
of
Learning
,
and
Natural
Parts
too
(
that
's
an
Idiot
,
I
think
)
cannot
in
an
ordinary
Method
(
and
we
cannot
now
,
upon
any
ground
of
Scripture
,
look
for
extraordinary
Inspiration
to
supply
such
wants
)
be
fit
to
Teach
;
for
how
shall
a
man
Teach
others
that
which
he
knows
not
himself
?
a
man
of
great
Gifts
,
though
really
wanting
Grace
,
may
be
able
to
Instruct
and
Teach
others
,
as
Judas
,
and
many
others
have
done
,
but
a
man
void
of
Gifts
and
Knowledge
,
though
he
have
Grace
,
cannot
do
it
.
And
herein
we
are
not
Popish
,
seeing
the
Scriptures
shew
that
some
without
Grace
have
been
Ministers
,
and
called
by
Christ
himself
to
that
Office
;
but
requires
,
that
none
without
Gifts
be
admitted
thereunto
.
1.
Tim.
3.2
.
Tit.
1.9
.
Fifthly
,
ye
say
we
are
Popish
,
because
our
Ministerial
Authority
is
transmitted
by
external
Ordination
from
Age
to
Age
,
and
that
this
makes
a
Minister
,
though
he
have
no
Inward
call
,
who
is
thereby
Authorized
.
Ans.
The
first
was
in
the
Apostles
time
practised
,
viz.
The
transmitting
of
Ministerial
Authority
by
Ordination
(
Act.
14.23
.
1
Tim.
4.14
.
2
Tit.
1.5
.
)
and
for
the
second
,
it
gives
him
Ministerial
Authority
,
and
so
makes
him
a
Minister
surely
;
nor
is
the
Church
obliged
,
or
capable
to
know
his
Inward
Call
,
without
which
his
Ministerial
Acts
are
still
valid
.
None
of
these
are
any
ways
Popish
,
I
am
sure
;
not
the
first
,
for
the
Scriptures
Cited
;
nor
yet
the
second
,
for
the
reason
given
.
Sixthly
ye
alleadge
,
we
are
Popish
,
in
affirming
that
Clergy-men
ought
to
be
distinguisht
from
others
by
their
Black
Coats
;
so
that
it
is
not
Lawful
for
honest
Tradesmen
,
such
as
the
Apostles
were
,
to
Preach
,
who
have
not
past
their
Apprenticeship
at
the
University
.
Ans.
For
the
Clergy
their
wearing
of
Black
Coats
,
I
never
learnt
that
our
Church
made
it
necessary
,
and
another
Garb
not
Gaudy
unlawful
;
but
that
they
accounted
it
the
Gravest
and
most
sutable
,
I
acknowledge
;
and
I
do
not
think
it
Popish
to
be
Grave
.
As
for
the
Apostles
Preaching
,
who
were
some
of
them
before
,
Tradesmen
,
they
were
immediately
Called
and
Inspired
,
which
now
adays
cannot
be
look'd
for
,
as
is
shewed
in
our
Survey
.
Nor
is
it
Popish
to
refuse
men
the
Pulpit
who
can
do
no
good
in
it
;
for
they
must
be
apt
to
Teach
that
get
that
,
by
Scripture
Command
.
Seventhly
,
ye
alleadge
we
are
Popish
because
we
study
our
Sermons
before
we
come
to
the
Pulpit
,
and
does
not
wait
till
the
Spirit
come
.
Ans.
do
ye
think
,
Sir
,
that
a
Minister
of
the
Gospel
should
not
both
by
prayer
,
reading
and
serious
meditation
prepare
himself
before
he
come
to
Preach
to
the
people
?
And
is
it
Popish
if
he
do
?
viz.
Paul
exhorted
Timothy
to
be
a
Papist
(
1
Tim.
4.13
,
14
,
15.
)
When
he
enjoyned
him
to
read
much
,
and
meditate
much
,
for
the
increase
of
his
gifts
,
that
his
profiting
might
appear
to
all
.
But
,
Sir
,
what
makes
your
Spirit
Study
so
much
?
for
they
say
to
me
,
he
will
Study
sometimes
a
whole
day
almost
,
for
the
wrabling
out
of
a
quarter
of
an
hours
non-sense
.
It
may
be
,
he
is
a
Papist
,
and
I
very
much
fear
,
it
be
too
true
.
Eightly
,
ye
alleadge
,
we
are
Popish
,
because
our
Ministers
have
a
modified
,
or
set
stipend
for
their
maintenance
.
Ans.
But
,
(
pray
you
Sir
)
was
the
Law
of
God
,
ordaining
,
the
Tenths
for
the
Tribe
of
Levi
Popish
too
?
It
s
true
that
Law
,
as
peculiar
to
that
Church
,
is
expired
,
but
the
Common
equity
thereof
is
still
a
binding
example
and
pattern
,
for
the
Peoples
incouraging
of
Ministers
with
a
sutable
maintenance
;
and
,
if
ye
please
,
ye
may
see
(
1
Cor.
9
,
chap.
)
How
the
Apostle
at
large
proves
that
Ministers
have
a
jus
personae
,
that
is
a
right
in
Law
and
Reason
,
unto
a
competency
to
live
by
,
and
that
decently
;
for
it
reflects
upon
the
Gospel
and
their
Master
to
see
them
beggars
,
and
brings
contempt
upon
their
Ministery
.
But
,
Sir
,
it
s
suspected
,
ye
have
more
Incouragement
under
hand
,
then
others
have
above
board
.
Your
Ninth
parallel
of
our
Popish
principles
alleadged
by
you
wherein
ye
divide
parties
of
the
same
Religion
,
and
state
them
(
as
it
were
)
into
factions
,
I
do
not
incline
to
meddle
with
;
for
I
would
rather
be
ambitious
to
heal
,
or
hide
,
than
to
enlarge
,
or
widen
these
differences
,
which
are
to
wide
already
.
Tenthly
,
ye
alleadge
,
we
are
Popish
,
because
we
affirm
that
men
should
not
delay
their
worshiping
of
God
,
till
they
be
Actually
Influenced
thereunto
by
the
Spirit
.
Ans.
I
have
shewed
your
Atheism
in
this
point
already
at
my
preface
,
and
how
ye
hereby
overturn
almost
the
duty
of
all
men
both
to
God
and
man
;
and
,
I
am
sure
,
we
shall
never
be
Papists
for
opposing
you
in
that
Doctrine
of
Hells
broatching
.
Eleventhly
,
twelfthly
,
and
thirteenthly
,
ye
say
we
are
Popish
,
in
affirming
,
Baptism
,
with
Water
,
Infants-Baptism
and
the
Lords
Supper
to
be
Ordinances
of
the
Gospel
of
a
standing
Nature
.
Ans.
We
affirm
they
are
,
and
have
proved
above
,
that
they
are
from
the
Scripture
;
and
therefore
no
Popery
here
to
be
found
.
Fourteenthly
,
ye
alleadge
we
are
Popish
,
because
we
hold
it
lawful
for
Christians
to
Swear
.
Ans.
But
in
this
we
are
no
more
Popish
,
then
the
Scriptures
are
,
which
shew
it
to
be
a
duty
,
being
duely
Circumstantiated
(
see
Isai.
19
,
18
,
and
65
,
16.
Jer.
12
,
16.
)
nor
do
I
think
that
Abraham
was
Popish
when
he
swore
to
Abimelech
,
and
caused
his
own
servant
to
swear
to
him
(
Genes.
21.24
.
and
24.3.9
.
)
And
I
wonder
if
Paul
was
so
Popish
(
2
Cor.
1.18.23
.
)
or
was
the
Angel
Popish
that
swore
by
him
that
liveth
for
ever
and
ever
;
(
Revel.
10.6
.
)
Nay
what
think
ye
when
God
himself
swears
?
(
Isai.
54.9
.
and
62.8
.
Heb.
6.17
.
)
Will
ye
impute
Popery
unto
God
too
?
But
,
you
will
say
,
we
are
forbidden
to
swear
at
all
,
Matt.
5.34
.
Jam.
5.12
.
Ans.
We
are
there
forbidden
to
swear
by
creatures
,
whereof
both
places
speaks
,
and
enumerats
several
of
them
,
and
all
idle
and
rash
swearing
is
there
also
forbidden
(
no
doubt
)
but
we
are
not
forbidden
there
to
swear
Holy
oaths
,
Oaths
in
judgment
when
called
thereunto
,
or
Oaths
upon
necessity
for
vindicating
truth
,
as
the
Apostle
Pauls
was
.
And
that
no
more
is
meant
in
these
two
Texts
is
both
clear
in
the
very
places
themselves
,
and
likewise
from
the
Scriptures
and
examples
which
I
have
brought
for
swearing
,
as
is
explained
.
Fifteenthly
,
You
alleadge
,
we
are
Popish
,
because
we
hold
it
lawful
for
Christians
to
fight
and
kill
there
opposits
in
the
quarrel
.
Ans.
Truly
I
do
not
think
any
offensive
war
lawful
,
where
any
Prince
,
or
people
Invades
another
,
without
just
cause
.
But
when
a
Prince
or
his
People
are
unjustly
abused
by
their
evil
neighbours
of
whom
they
can
have
no
legal
redress
,
because
they
can
get
no
Court
that
they
will
answer
to
on
Earth
,
then
,
I
am
sure
,
it
is
lawful
,
nay
necessary
for
him
,
and
his
subjects
to
redress
their
abuses
by
Arms.
There
are
so
many
Instances
of
this
in
Scripture
,
that
I
will
not
cite
one
of
them
;
only
I
shall
propose
a
case
which
may
,
and
does
often
fall
out
betwixt
neighbouring
Princes
.
What
if
any
neighbouring
Christian
Prince
should
invade
unjustly
the
Isle
of
Britain
?
should
our
King
and
his
subjects
sit
still
,
and
let
him
take
it
,
and
not
resist
him
?
All
the
World
then
might
call
us
both
fools
and
cowards
.
I
assure
you
George
,
I
would
both
fight
in
the
quarrel
,
and
kill
all
I
could
,
till
we
were
once
masters
of
them
(
what
ever
ye
would
do
)
and
judge
it
my
duty
thus
to
serve
my
King
,
and
save
my
Countrey
from
slavery
.
Sixteenthly
,
ye
alleadge
,
we
are
Popish
,
because
we
say
,
the
civil
Magistrate
may
punish
men
for
their
errours
in
doctrine
,
and
worship
.
Ans.
Do
you
think
that
these
are
not
punishable
;
when
a
man
must
be
hang'd
for
stealing
a
horse
,
what
shall
he
deserve
for
murthering
of
a
Soul
by
Damnable
Heresies
?
is
not
a
Soul
more
worth
then
a
horse
,
think
ye
?
Are
not
false
Prophets
ordained
to
be
even
put
to
death
,
who
lead
people
away
from
the
worship
of
the
true
God
?
(
Deut.
13.5
.
)
And
,
I
am
sure
,
ye
do
not
worship
the
true
God
,
seeing
ye
acknowledge
no
person
in
the
Deity
;
and
so
can
not
worship
any
of
them
.
The
Magistrate
bears
not
the
sword
in
vain
,
but
is
to
be
a
revenger
of
wrath
upon
them
that
do
evil
(
Rom.
13.4
.
)
which
soul-destroyers
are
highly
guilty
of
(
contradict
,
if
ye
dare
)
and
therefore
he
is
bound
to
punish
them
.
Lastly
,
Ye
alleadge
,
we
are
Popish
,
in
affirming
it
lawful
for
men
to
kneel
,
bow
,
and
take
off
their
hats
to
one
another
.
Ans.
Seeing
ye
think
it
unlawful
,
then
we
see
,
ye
place
worship
into
it
,
and
count
it
a
duty
to
keep
on
your
hats
,
&c.
which
I
must
think
the
heighth
of
Superstition
and
Folly
,
till
you
produce
scripture-precept
for
it
,
which
I
can
never
expect
to
see
.
When
two
horses
meet
,
they
will
neigh
to
one
another
.
What!
will
you
not
be
so
civil
as
a
horse
,
Sir
?
But
I
shall
say
no
more
to
this
here
,
having
in
my
Preface
,
in
touching
the
fifth
Commandment
,
proved
that
external
reverence
(
in
the
general
,
what
ever
is
the
custom
of
the
Country
in
these
things
,
if
they
hold
of
Divine
worship
)
is
thereby
enjoyned
.
For
that
which
ye
tell
us
Eighteenthly
,
concerning
peoples
ornaments
,
and
recreations
,
I
thought
it
not
worthy
to
be
numbred
.
For
Albeit
,
I
know
these
things
are
too
often
abused
(
and
I
am
sure
,
we
are
sorrier
for
it
,
than
you
are
)
yet
,
seeing
all
the
gifts
of
God
have
a
lawful
use
,
and
these
ornaments
are
such
,
they
may
be
lawfully
used
,
and
were
used
when
Popery
was
not
known
.
And
as
for
games
,
though
some
may
be
unlawful
,
and
others
unfit
,
yet
others
of
them
are
very
lawful
,
and
healthful
too
.
And
as
for
sporting
,
and
Comedies
,
I
am
sure
,
ye
may
suffer
me
to
break
a
jest
upon
you
,
without
thinking
me
Popish
;
and
school-boyes
,
for
putting
them
to
diligence
,
to
act
an
innocent
comedy
,
which
only
we
allow
.
You
say
,
Sir
,
you
could
have
instanced
several
other
particulars
of
our
Popishness
.
But
none
of
these
that
ye
have
instanced
holds
good
.
And
I
doubt
nothing
of
your
willingness
,
but
that
,
if
ye
could
have
found
any
thing
to
charge
us
with
of
that
nature
,
it
would
soon
have
been
laid
to
our
door
,
especially
seeing
ye
have
libelled
so
many
Popish
principles
against
us
,
which
,
we
see
clearly
,
do
not
hold
good
,
and
ye
are
therein
found
a
traducing
calumniator
greatly
allied
to
the
Devil
,
the
accuser
of
the
brethren
.
I
say
not
this
for
your
hurt
,
Sir
,
but
that
you
may
,
consider
what
state
ye
are
in
and
repent
,
if
that
be
possible
,
after
ye
have
so
abused
the
Truths
of
Jesus
,
and
his
inheritance
.
Second
Section
,
fixing
Popery
upon
the
Quakers
Having
discussed
your
charge
of
Popery
calumniously
〈◊〉
against
us
,
I
shall
present
a
true
one
against
you
,
and
that
very
breifly
.
First
,
Therefore
(
for
I
resolve
to
adhere
to
the
order
of
the
queries
above
dispatched
)
It
is
a
Popish
rule
,
and
a
great
one
too
,
That
ignorance
is
the
Mother
of
Devotion
,
and
ye
(
both
in
those
queries
,
Quakerism
no
Popery
pag.
98.
)
are
not
a
jot
behind
with
them
in
that
,
where
ye
condemn
all
means
of
knowledge
,
both
humane
and
divine
;
and
consequently
knowledge
it self
,
seeing
we
cannot
reach
knowledge
without
the
use
of
the
means
of
knowledge
,
whereby
through
Gods
blessing
we
may
attain
unto
it
;
for
extraordinary
Inspiration
is
now
ceased
(
as
is
proved
before
)
nor
must
we
tempt
God
to
work
extraordinary
miracles
,
and
neglect
and
despise
the
ordinary
means
which
he
had
allowed
.
Secondly
,
the
Papists
deny
the
Scriptures
to
have
any
authority
over
us
,
or
in
order
to
us
,
untill
they
get
it
from
the
Church
,
whereby
they
mean
the
Pope
,
and
his
Clergy
;
and
do
also
deprive
the
whole
body
of
the
people
,
or
Laity
(
as
they
call
them
)
of
the
use
of
the
Scriptures
.
And
do
not
ye
also
deny
the
Scriptures
to
be
our
rule
,
at
least
,
our
principal
rule
,
and
endeavour
to
cause
all
men
reject
them
,
at
least
,
as
the
principal
rule
?
Witness
the
proceeding
Queries
,
and
your
Quakerism
no
Popery
.
And
is
not
this
one
dish
indifferent
dressings
?
for
both
of
you
aim
to
bring
the
Scriptures
low
,
yea
to
nought
,
without
your
approbation
;
they
without
their
Pope
and
Councils
approbation
;
yea
without
the
approbation
of
your
light
and
sentiments
within
;
and
so
both
of
you
agree
exactly
in
subjecting
the
Scripture-authority
to
the
authority
of
another
rule
,
which
,
Inevitably
,
must
be
as
ye
apprehend
.
I
am
sure
,
in
both
these
articles
ye
are
as
like
the
Pope
,
as
any
bastard
can
be
like
his
father
.
Thirdly
,
The
Papists
and
ye
agree
,
in
denying
Infant
Baptism
,
an
external
Christian
Sabbath-day
,
and
Psalms-singing
to
be
ordinances
of
Divine
Institution
under
the
Gospel
;
they
alleadgingthem
to
be
only
traditional
;
ye
,
that
they
are
superstitious
will
〈…〉
.
All
which
things
we
have
seen
in
your
queries
,
Con
〈…〉
faith
,
and
Quakerism
no
Popery
.
Sixthly
,
(
〈◊〉
have
put
three
Articles
into
the
last
)
The
Papists
deny
Bread
and
Wine
to
be
in
the
Sacrament
of
the
Lords
Supper
,
affirming
that
,
after
the
priests
consecration
,
it
is
no
more
Bread
and
Wi●e
,
but
is
substantially
changed
into
the
very
body
and
blood
〈◊〉
Christ
;
so
your
brethren
divinely
Inspired
,
as
ye
are
,
in
their
fixth
query
here
mock
and
scoff
at
the
eating
of
bread
,
and
drinking
of
wine
in
that
Sacrament
,
making
way
(
it
seems
)
for
that
Popish
Transubstantiation
;
whereof
we
are
the
more
confirmed
,
because
at
the
Sixteenth
Query
(
as
I
cleared
before
)
they
lay
down
an
assertion
that
cannot
stand
without
the
very
grounds
of
that
Transubstantiation
.
Seventhly
,
The
Papists
assert
the
Infallibility
of
their
Pope
and
Councils
,
and
make
that
a
ground
of
defence
for
their
Church-constitutions
,
and
whole
religion
,
rejecting
all
that
want
the
authority
of
such
Infallible
guides
;
So
,
do
not
you
assert
the
Infallibility
of
your
teachers
(
Albeit
often
they
are
rather
lunatick
)
and
oppose
our
Confession
,
directory
,
&c.
upon
the
very
account
of
the
fallibility
of
these
that
formed
them
,
though
to
no
purpose
,
as
is
shewed
.
Eightly
,
The
Jesuit
Papists
(
worse
then
any
of
the
rest
)
stifly
deny
original
sin
,
and
assert
universal
redemption
,
universal
light
,
universal
grace
,
free-will
in
natural
unrenewed
men
unto
good
,
and
the
Apostacy
of
the
Saints
(
all
which
I
have
shewed
to
be
contrary
to
the
Scriptures
.
)
and
in
all
these
the
Quakers
are
not
a
jot
behind
them
,
but
on
the
contrary
,
do
exceedingly
out-reach
them
.
Fourteenthly
,
(
For
there
are
six
articles
in
my
last
charge
)
the
same
Jesuit
Papists
hold
perfection
to
be
attainable
in
this
life
;
Wherein
ye
are
indeed
more
positive
then
they
,
albeit
still
against
the
Scriptures
(
as
is
before
proved
)
which
shew
us
,
that
according
to
Gods
way
of
disposition
(
for
the
debate
depends
not
on
potentia
absoluta
)
who
will
have
us
here
to
have
a
continual
war
with
our
corruptions
(
that
the
victories
of
his
grace
may
be
the
more
glorious
,
we
the
more
humble
,
and
dependant
on
him
)
Wee
shall
never
here
be
fully
perfect
,
or
freed
from
all
corruption
.
And
,
Sir
,
methinks
ye
strongly
savour
of
supererogation
too
,
while
ye
say
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
Pag.
37.38
.
)
that
ye
can
attain
a
sinless
perfection
in
this
life
,
and
yet
grow
in
more
degrees
of
grace
for
,
Sir
,
when
ye
are
altogether
sinless
,
and
so
neither
God
,
nor
his
law
can
ask
any
more
of
you
,
as
not
being
defective
,
or
unconform
in
a
jot
(
or
else
ye
cannot
be
sinless
)
ye
may
spare
that
which
ye
have
more
than
is
required
and
due
,
to
a
needful
friend
,
or
throw
it
into
the
Roman-Churches
grand
treasury
of
merit
,
and
be
Canonized
next
day
for
a
Saint
,
for
exceeding
your
duty
,
and
giving
that
overplus
to
the
Church
.
Fifteenthly
,
Ye
hold
justification
by
your
inherent
righteousness
,
and
salvation
by
the
merit
of
works
as
much
as
any
Papist
,
nay
as
the
Pope
himself
does
,
as
is
shewed
.
Sevententhly
,
(
for
there
are
two
in
the
last
)
your
brethren
have
endeavoured
what
they
can
in
your
Confession
of
Faith
(
as
we
saw
before
)
And
ye
in
your
Quakerism
no
Popery
(
Pag.
94
)
do
sweetly
also
combine
,
to
clear
the
Pope
from
that
reproachful
name
of
Antichrist
,
they
alleadging
that
the
Antichrist
is
our
will
,
and
the
Whore
our
wisdom
that
sits
upon
the
same
;
ye
affirming
that
Antichrist
,
more
strictly
taken
,
is
a
spirit
sitting
in
mans
heart
Properly
,
which
the
Pope
certainly
,
is
not
,
and
so
according
to
you
,
Sir
,
we
cannot
,
at
least
Properly
,
call
the
Pope
Antichrist
.
Ye
are
understood
,
Sir
.
Eighteenthly
,
Ye
hold
the
Apocryphal
books
,
at
least
many
of
them
to
be
of
divine
Inspiration
,
and
consequently
of
equal
authority
with
the
Scriptures
;
for
every
doctrine
divinely
Inspired
is
of
Infallible
divine
authority
:
and
Scripture
assurance
,
or
authority
can
rise
no
higher
.
And
herein
,
Sir
,
ye
also
joyn
with
the
Papists
.
And
when
ye
ask
(
which
is
your
only
argument
)
by
what
rule
of
faith
we
know
,
that
these
Apocryphal
books
are
not
of
divine
authority
,
or
equal
to
the
Scriptures
?
seeing
the
Scriptures
says
not
whether
they
are
or
not
.
I
Answer
,
that
though
by
express
Scripture
sentence
,
or
plain
positive
saying
,
this
cannot
be
cleared
,
yet
seeing
these
books
do
all
of
them
want
Scripture-stile
(
which
by
the
rest
of
the
undoubted
Scriptures
compared
we
easily
see
;
)
and
they
were
not
found
in
the
original
language
of
the
Old
Testament
;
and
they
are
never
cited
in
the
New
Testament
;
and
in
many
of
them
there
are
things
frivolous
written
,
yea
quite
unsutable
;
and
in
some
of
them
the
writer
excuses
his
failings
;
and
they
were
never
accounted
any
part
of
Canonical
Scripture
in
the
Old
Testament-times
;
and
this
passes
without
any
reproof
from
Christ
,
or
his
Apostles
(
though
most
material
)
when
they
are
reproving
all
the
other
vices
of
that
Old-Testament-Church
.
We
may
clearly
see
that
these
Apocryphal
books
are
no
part
of
Scripture-Canon
,
or
rule
,
place
them
in
what
degree
ye
will
next
;
for
that
I
care
not
,
but
a
part
or
all
of
these
things
misses
none
of
these
books
.
As
for
what
ye
object
,
Sir
,
of
many
books
wanting
that
might
be
useful
(
as
ye
say
)
in
the
Scripture-Canon
,
I
must
tell
you
(
to
cut
short
)
that
I
am
not
here
concerned
what
books
are
wanting
,
that
is
none
of
the
present
controversie
;
but
it
is
concerning
some
books
(
viz.
these
called
Apocryphal
)
which
ye
will
have
added
to
the
Canon
with
the
rest
that
are
known
to
be
Canonical
,
and
which
we
deny
to
be
Canonical
,
and
requires
you
,
the
affirmers
,
to
prove
that
they
are
such
;
and
though
not
obliged
,
as
being
the
denyers
;
yet
we
have
proved
they
are
not
such
.
And
hereby
I
cut
off
,
your
tedious
rapsody
of
confused
arguments
,
whereby
ye
have
wasted
more
paper
in
your
Quakerism
no
Popery
(
pag.
60.61.62.63
.
)
then
all
your
work
was
worth
.
But
the
Quakers
have
one
grand
principle
,
of
following
the
Dictate
within
as
the
principal
rule
,
at
least
,
which
it
would
seem
,
and
George
Keith
also
insinuates
(
Quakerism
no
Popery
,
pag.
49.59
,
103.
)
will
never
reconcile
with
that
other
grand
principle
of
Popery
,
to
believe
as
the
Church
of
Rome
believes
.
But
unto
this
I
Answer
,
that
a
great
number
(
we
see
)
of
the
direct
principles
of
the
Quakers
are
but
meer
Popish
doctrines
disguised
(
nay
all
of
their
principles
almost
,
except
some
that
are
much
worse
,
being
more
Blasphemous
,
then
ever
a
Papist
held
)
and
that
,
of
following
the
dictate
within
,
is
but
a
reflex
principle
obliging
them
the
more
to
follow
their
direct
principles
,
which
(
we
see
)
are
generally
Popish
.
And
so
when
their
great
doctors
teach
their
disciples
to
follow
their
Dictate
within
,
they
do
in
effect
,
teach
them
to
believe
as
the
Church
of
Rome
does
;
yet
not
so
,
as
to
discover
their
design
and
make
every
man
wise
of
their
secret
;
but
subtilly
under
a
disguise
,
They
are
no
fools
,
Albeit
,
they
can
desipere
in
loco
.
Sir
,
I
have
vindicated
our
Church
from
the
Intire
frivolous
charge
of
Popery
,
Calumniously
cast
upon
her
by
you
in
your
Quakerism
no
Popery
;
and
upon
the
other
hand
,
I
have
libelled
against
your
eighteen
real
Popish
principles
,
from
which
ye
can
make
no
evasion
,
or
tergiversation
,
they
are
all
so
clear
in
the
preceeding
survey
.
And
therefore
I
must
here
tell
you
,
that
your
Quakerism
no
Popery
should
have
been
called
,
Quakerism
no
Verity
:
for
there
is
hardly
one
true
word
in
it
all
which
I
do'nt
say
to
irritate
or
exasperate
you
,
but
rather
with
a
desire
from
my
heart
(
if
it
be
possible
)
to
convince
you
:
for
I
know
you
are
a
Scholar
;
but
(
alace
!
your
gifts
and
parts
are
ill
Imployed
against
the
truths
,
laws
,
and
ordinances
of
Jesus
,
which
his
dear
purchase
of
them
,
teaches
their
great
value
.
Be
no
more
a
stated
Enemy
to
these
;
or
else
dreadful
and
terrible
shall
the
event
be
unto
you
,
and
all
who
thus
tread
upon
his
truths
,
and
Blaspheme
his
Person
as
you
do
,
and
trample
under
foot
also
his
whole
Institutions
and
ordinances
.
A
Second
Postscript
for
Doctor
Everards
Ghost
.
There
is
one
Doctor
Everard
(
I
wish
he
had
been
never
heard
)
who
hath
published
a
book
which
he
calls
,
Gospel
Treasury
opened
up
,
or
the
Holiest
of
all
Un-vailing
;
and
this
Book
he
hath
divided
into
two
parts
,
In
the
first
part
whereof
(
Pag.
150.206.347
.
)
he
asserts
that
,
after
we
are
regenerated
,
it
is
no
more
we
that
think
,
see
,
speak
,
goe
,
wish
,
will
,
rejoyce
;
but
that
it
is
God
that
does
them
,
and
that
it
must
be
Christ
the
Son
of
God
in
us
that
loves
God
,
fears
God
,
obeys
God
,
and
believes
in
God
;
and
(
says
he
)
though
that
may
seem
a
Paradox
,
yet
it
is
a
truth
;
for
Indeed
and
in
truth
(
says
he
)
there
is
nothing
fears
God
,
but
God
;
nothing
obeys
God
,
but
God
;
nothing
loves
God
,
but
God
.
And
again
he
affirms
(
Pag.
442.443.444
.
part
second
)
that
the
good
man
is
so
swallowed
up
in
God
,
that
wanting
sense
,
will
,
desire
,
he
now
(
as
the
word
requires
)
covets
nothing
;
but
now
God
in
him
wills
,
knows
,
desires
,
reads
,
writes
,
preaches
,
gives
,
prays
,
hears
,
and
is
all
things
:
for
God
(
says
he
)
desires
not
our
works
,
but
our
Sabbath
,
and
that
himself
in
us
,
without
hindrance
may
work
,
know
,
praise
,
pray
,
hear
,
crown
,
and
reward
himself
in
us
.
Thus
the
Doctor
teaches
,
the
great
sum
of
all
which
is
,
That
nothing
obeys
God
,
but
God
only
.
The
Quakers
seem
to
joyn
with
the
Doctor
in
this
his
wild
principle
,
while
at
the
last
of
their
Queries
here
,
they
seem
to
require
our
resting
,
or
not
working
,
and
condemn
our
Confessions
,
Catechisms
,
&c.
upon
that
very
ground
because
they
are
our
works
;
and
to
my
sure
experience
I
do
know
that
this
book
of
Doctor
Everard
hath
predisposed
several
persons
,
and
been
their
preamble
unto
Quaking
,
and
therefore
that
this
treatise
may
be
somewhat
compleat
,
I
resolve
here
to
answer
this
principle
of
the
Doctor
,
and
to
confute
it
,
and
two
,
or
three
more
of
his
positions
that
have
some
alliance
with
the
principles
of
the
Quakers
.
Therefore
first
,
(
against
the
Doctors
foresaid
principle
)
it
is
not
God
that
believes
in
Christ
crucified
,
accepts
and
receives
his
righteousness
for
justification
,
that
looks
for
salvation
through
his
merits
;
It
is
not
God
that
loaths
himself
for
sin
,
sorrows
for
his
sin
,
confesses
his
sin
,
and
denies
himself
,
&c.
And
these
are
all
works
of
obedience
commanded
of
God
,
and
exercised
in
the
godly
;
and
therefore
the
Doctors
principle
here
is
most
false
.
2ly
.
Angels
and
men
are
either
obliged
to
obey
God
,
or
not
;
if
not
,
then
they
may
doe
what
they
please
,
they
cannot
sin
;
and
so
also
fallen
Angels
,
and
reprobate
men
are
all
most
unjustly
damned
for
their
disobedience
,
wherewith
they
cannot
be
justly
charged
seeing
(
as
is
supposed
)
they
are
not
obliged
to
obey
.
If
then
they
be
obliged
to
obey
God
,
then
the
holy
Angels
that
stood
,
obeys
God
,
or
not
;
if
they
do
,
then
something
obeys
God
,
that
is
not
God
(
against
the
Doctors
principle
)
seeing
Angels
are
not
God
,
I
am
sure
;
if
not
,
then
the
holy
Angels
that
stood
are
disobedient
to
God
,
seeing
they
are
obliged
to
obey
God
,
and
yet
does
it
not
;
and
that
is
to
say
,
the
Angels
that
stood
are
fallen
Angels
.
3ly
.
If
nothing
obeys
God
,
but
God
,
then
never
any
of
all
the
creatures
obeyed
God
to
this
day
,
seeing
none
of
them
is
God
;
and
all
the
creatures
are
equally
guilty
,
or
not
guilty
of
disobedience
to
God
,
seeing
not
one
of
them
ever
obeyed
him
.
But
these
things
are
absurd
Romances
.
Fourthly
,
whatever
obeys
God
must
be
commanded
to
obey
him
,
seeing
all
obedience
is
to
some
command
and
Law
:
But
God
is
not
commanded
to
obey
,
seeing
all
the
commandments
are
directed
to
creatures
,
and
God
is
not
under
the
Law
he
hath
given
to
them
,
nor
hath
he
any
superior
soveraign
;
and
though
Christ
was
under
the
Law
as
man
,
yet
he
was
never
under
it
as
God
,
or
else
so
should
the
Father
and
Spirit
also
,
seeing
they
are
all
one
and
the
same
God
,
though
they
be
distinct
persons
.
Therefore
God
cannot
be
said
to
obey
God
in
any
proper
speech
,
and
the
Doctor
(
we
see
by
his
expressions
above
rehearsed
)
means
properly
.
Lastly
,
the
Doctor
here
contradicts
himself
;
for
if
God
requires
our
Sabbath
,
and
not
working
(
as
he
affirms
)
and
the
regenerate
and
good
man
does
so
lay
aside
all
works
,
as
he
no
more
thinks
,
sees
,
speaks
,
goes
,
wishes
,
wills
,
&c.
(
as
he
affirmeth
too
)
then
the
good
man
obeys
God
,
In
doing
that
which
God
requires
of
him
;
and
yet
the
Doctor
denies
that
any
thing
obeys
God
,
but
God
himself
.
But
the
Doctor
(
may
be
)
would
object
,
that
the
good
works
of
the
Saints
are
in
the
Scripture
ascribed
to
God
,
and
said
to
be
done
by
his
power
,
Ephes.
1.19
.
Philip.
1.6
.
and
2.13
.
2
Thes.
1.11
.
Ans.
God
is
indeed
a
very
special
Title
the
principal
efficient
cause
of
all
our
good
works
,
and
the
Scriptures
ascribe
that
unto
him
;
But
no
Scripture
saith
that
in
our
works
of
obedience
only
God
obeyeth
himself
in
us
;
for
the
reasons
given
that
could
not
be
.
Nor
can
it
be
said
that
it
is
God
that
in
us
wishes
,
wills
,
prays
,
believes
,
desires
,
&c.
Seeing
these
actions
are
not
Immanent
in
God
,
but
are
meerly
transient
as
to
him
;
and
its
Impossible
for
any
person
to
will
,
wish
,
desire
,
&c.
by
any
act
not
Immanent
in
it self
,
●s
any
man
knows
.
But
these
good
works
and
actions
,
whereunto
we
are
quickened
and
determined
by
God
and
his
grace
and
Spirit
,
are
Formally
subjected
in
us
,
and
Immanent
;
and
so
being
Intrinsecally
united
and
Informing
us
,
cannot
but
give
us
their
Intrinsecal
and
formal
denomination
for
an
act
of
love
being
Immanent
,
or
united
to
my
will
,
or
affections
,
cannot
but
denominate
me
as
loving
some
object
,
and
it
cannot
so
denominate
any
other
person
,
as
is
manifest
:
Though
God
therefore
workes
in
us
the
acts
of
obedience
,
faith
,
repentance
;
yet
it
is
not
God
that
obeys
,
believes
,
repents
,
&c.
The
Quakers
afford
us
another
objection
from
Gal.
2.20
,
where
Paul
denies
himself
to
live
(
viz.
Spiritually
)
but
that
Christ
lived
in
him
.
Ans.
Paul
does
not
there
deny
himself
to
live
Spiritually
,
or
vitally
to
exerce
the
operations
of
a
Spiritual
life
;
or
else
,
if
that
were
,
Then
Paul
was
then
Spiritually
as
dead
a
man
,
as
before
he
was
converted
,
which
is
most
false
,
and
in
the
very
next
words
he
declares
himself
to
live
,
viz.
Spiritually
.
When
therefore
he
denies
himself
to
live
Spiritually
,
but
Christ
in
him
,
he
plainly
means
of
the
fountain
and
source
,
or
stock
and
supply
of
his
Spiritual
life
,
viz.
That
that
was
not
in
himself
,
or
in
nature
,
but
in
Christ
the
redeemer
,
and
so
the
objection
proves
not
their
point
.
The
Doctor
teaches
also
in
that
same
book
(
Pag.
16.17.299.361
.
part
first
,
And
Pag.
27.29.259.264.265
.
part
second
)
That
take
but
off
all
accidents
from
every
creature
,
and
that
which
remains
is
Christ
and
God
;
as
if
we
take
away
all
height
and
depth
,
greatness
and
littleness
,
weight
and
measure
,
heat
and
cold
,
matter
and
form
:
for
(
says
he
)
these
are
all
accidents
;
and
then
that
which
is
left
is
Christ
,
is
God
:
God
is
the
substance
of
all
things
,
and
all
the
creatures
are
but
meer
accidents
,
and
they
are
not
only
Gods
workmanship
,
as
most
men
teach
and
believe
,
but
also
God
is
their
very
substance
and
Being
,
he
is
their
very
Essence
and
Being
.
Thus
he
.
But
if
these
things
were
so
,
God
would
be
the
most
passive
Being
in
all
the
world
,
for
so
he
should
be
the
passive
subject
whereinto
all
creatures
should
inhere
as
meer
accidents
,
and
he
should
be
the
passive
and
changed
subject
in
all
their
mutations
,
and
alterations
;
This
would
make
a
very
changeable
God
,
more
changeable
then
the
Moon
,
or
Wind.
2ly
.
If
God
be
the
very
,
Being
and
Essence
of
every
creature
,
then
every
creature
is
Essentially
God
Almighty
,
Infinite
,
Eternal
,
&c.
for
that
whose
Being
and
Essence
is
God
,
must
,
in
respect
of
its
Essence
,
or
Essentially
,
be
God
;
or
else
,
in
respect
of
its
Essence
,
it
will
be
both
God
,
and
not
God
,
which
is
a
Contradiction
.
3ly
.
If
God
be
the
Being
and
Essence
of
every
creature
,
then
the
Being
and
Essence
of
every
creature
is
an
uncreated
Being
,
seeing
God
is
such
;
and
so
every
creature
as
to
its
Essence
,
or
Essentially
is
not
a
creature
,
that
is
to
say
,
it
is
Essentially
not
it self
.
4ly
.
Every
evil
action
is
a
creature
,
if
then
God
be
the
being
of
every
creature
,
then
he
is
the
being
of
every
evil
action
too
;
and
so
the
sin
inhering
into
every
evil
action
shall
inhere
into
God
(
absit
Blasphemia
)
who
is
the
being
of
the
action
.
Lastly
,
If
all
creatures
be
but
meer
accidents
,
and
if
God
be
the
very
Essence
and
Being
of
every
creature
,
then
God
shall
also
be
an
accident
meerly
,
he
being
the
very
essence
and
Being
of
these
created
accidents
as
the
Doctor
will
.
Blasphemous
,
Absurd
,
and
Repugnant
.
The
Doctor
also
teaches
(
pag.
83.84.343
.
part
first
)
that
if
we
speak
of
God
Abstractedly
from
all
creatures
;
so
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Spirit
are
all
one
.
But
if
we
come
to
speak
of
any
thing
created
,
then
we
divide
the
Godhead
into
Persons
,
and
there
is
Immediatly
Father
,
Son
,
and
Spirit
.
When
God
puts
forth
himself
in
the
creating
of
any
creature
,
here
now
the
Word
is
spoken
and
came
forth
from
the
bosom
of
his
Father
;
before
there
was
any
creature
made
,
there
was
neither
Father
,
Son
,
nor
Spirit
in
the
Godhead
as
divided
:
for
the
Trinity
is
expressed
only
in
relation
to
creatures
.
Thus
he
.
But
by
the
Oneness
,
or
Unity
of
the
Father
,
Son
,
and
Spirit
,
as
God
is
spoken
of
Abstractedly
from
Creatures
,
the
Doctor
either
means
of
the
Oneness
of
their
Essence
and
Godhead
;
and
thus
they
are
still
one
,
what
ever
way
we
speak
of
them
,
seeing
they
are
still
but
one
God
;
or
else
he
thereby
means
of
the
Unity
and
Oneness
of
their
persons
,
and
this
way
(
which
is
the
way
he
doth
mean
,
which
appears
by
his
opposing
the
distinction
of
their
persons
in
the
second
member
of
his
Antithesis
to
the
unity
mentioned
in
the
first
)
the
Doctor
teaches
meer
blasphemy
,
in
denying
that
there
was
any
distinction
of
persons
in
the
Godhead
,
before
God
made
any
creature
,
and
except
in
relation
to
creatures
:
for
so
,
if
God
had
never
made
any
creature
(
which
might
easily
have
been
,
seeing
he
did
not
create
by
necessity
,
or
impulsion
)
there
should
never-have
been
three
persons
in
the
Godhead
,
nay
nor
any
person
;
for
before
God
made
any
creature
there
was
neither
Father
,
Son
,
nor
Spirit
in
the
Godhead
,
and
the
Trinity
is
expressed
only
in
relation
to
creatures
,
says
the
Doctor
.
So
also
the
three
distinct
persons
in
the
Godhead
must
be
meerly
temporary
created
within
time
,
if
there
was
no
distinct
person
in
the
same
before
the
creatures
were
made
.
Yea
so
the
persons
in
the
Godhead
shall
be
debitors
to
the
creatures
for
their
Subsistences
and
Persons
,
without
whom
(
if
we
will
believe
the
Doctor
)
they
would
never
have
been
.
It
s
all
Blasphemous
.
Again
the
Doctor
teaches
(
pag.
284.285
.
part
first
)
that
throughout
the
Old
Testament
from
the
beginning
of
Genesis
to
the
last
of
the
Prophets
there
runs
an
Allegory
;
and
(
pag.
86.
part
second
)
all
the
Scriptures
(
says
he
)
are
Figurative
.
But
in
the
Old
Testament
it
is
said
,
That
there
is
a
God
,
that
we
ought
to
worship
him
,
that
God
created
man
,
That
man
fell
and
sinned
,
That
we
ought
to
repent
and
believe
,
that
God
will
be
merciful
to
returning
penitent
sinners
,
that
he
is
a
blessed
man
whose
sins
are
forgiven
.
Are
these
,
and
many
the
like
expressions
to
be
Allegorically
understood
?
If
the
Doctor
denyed
the
things
asserted
by
these
expressions
,
and
we
,
to
prove
the
affirmatives
thereof
against
him
,
urged
these
Scripture-sayings
,
would
he
distinguish
with
an
Allegorically
true
,
Properly
false
?
If
that
distinction
were
(
valid
or
relevant
,
then
all
were
gone
.
And
are
the
whole
Scriptures
Figurative
?
Then
(
beside
what
is
just
now
said
)
That
Christ
was
born
,
suffered
,
satisfied
Justice
,
is
risen
again
,
Ascended
;
That
there
is
a
life
to
come
,
a
Heaven
,
a
Hell
,
a
day
of
General
judgment
,
that
believers
shall
be
saved
,
and
the
rest
damned
;
these
I
say
,
shall
be
all
Figurative
sayings
,
and
to
be
understood
Figuratively
.
And
what
can
be
said
worse
?
for
so
the
whole
foundations
are
destroyed
,
if
these
sayings
be
Improperly
meant
.
Lastly
,
(
for
I
will
stand
no
longer
)
that
Allegoricall
Doctor
teaches
also
(
pag.
289.294.318.320
.
322.323.334.342.347.348
.
part
first
)
That
the
whole
Scriptures
have
two
meanings
,
one
whereof
he
calls
Outward
,
Grammatical
,
and
Literal
;
The
other
Inward
,
Hidden
,
and
Spiritual
.
Where
,
if
he
had
said
,
that
one
and
the
same
meaning
of
the
Scripture
may
be
understood
with
two
sorts
of
Evidences
;
one
of
them
External
,
Historicall
,
and
Grammatical
,
only
;
The
other
Internal
,
Supernatural
,
and
Spiritual
,
he
had
not
aberred
from
the
truth
.
Or
if
he
had
said
,
that
there
may
be
sometimes
in
one
text
two
meanings
,
the
one
subordinate
to
,
and
typified
by
the
other
(
which
yet
is
not
Properly
two
meanings
but
one
and
the
same
compounded
meaning
,
or
meaning
compounded
)
he
had
likewise
said
truth
.
But
so
he
neither
says
,
nor
can
be
meaned
:
for
in
the
places
cited
he
often
affirms
,
that
the
Outward
and
Literal
meaning
of
the
Scripture
is
but
Excrements
good
for
nothing
,
can
give
no
nourishment
,
is
not
only
dead
,
but
killing
and
destructive
;
yea
in
some
of
these
places
he
denies
the
literal
sense
to
be
Gods
mind
,
and
affirms
it
to
be
but
humane
;
Nay
,
he
flatly
also
denies
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
Word
of
God
;
or
that
ever
any
man
did
as
yet
see
,
hear
,
or
read
the
truth
.
The
other
sense
of
the
Scriptures
he
calls
saving
,
and
an
excellent
mean
of
life
to
us
.
These
things
declare
that
the
Doctor
means
of
two
Co-ordinate
and
Inconnexed
meanings
,
and
not
of
Subordinate
meanings
,
seeing
these
meanings
devised
by
him
have
no
Respect
,
Connexion
,
or
Relation
with
one
another
,
seeing
the
one
is
but
dead
Destructive
Excrements
,
and
the
other
is
Saving
and
nourishing
.
But
it
is
not
so
with
causes
Subordinate
,
which
joyntly
concur
to
produce
the
effect
,
each
in
their
own
sphere
and
order
,
as
is
known
.
Now
to
affix
two
Co-ordinat
Inconnexed
meanings
upon
the
Scriptures
is
to
make
the
true
meaning
thereof
utterly
uncertain
;
and
to
make
them
a
clear
Fraud
and
a
Cheat
put
upon
the
World
to
deceive
with
their
uncertain
and
Ambiguous
senses
,
and
consequently
their
Author
to
be
an
Impostor
and
deceiver
(
Absit
Blasphemia
)
with
his
Doubtful
and
two-fac'd
meanings
,
and
his
variable
,
and
Proteus-like
Intended
senses
,
for
they
can
have
no
more
meanings
,
then
their
Author
intended
therein
,
seeing
a
meaning
affix'd
on
the
Scriptures
which
there
Author
never
intended
therein
,
is
not
the
meaning
of
the
Scriptures
,
or
else
every
wrested
meaning
would
be
their
meaning
.
But
Secondly
,
more
particularly
against
the
Doctor
.
Is
the
literal
sense
of
the
Scriptures
,
that
teach
us
very
plainly
Christs
Incarnation
,
Death
,
Resurrection
,
Ascension
,
and
the
use
and
ends
thereof
,
good
for
nothing
,
but
a
non-nourishing
and
destroying
Excrement
?
He
seems
indeed
to
say
so
(
pag.
52.
part
first
)
where
he
affirms
that
we
must
first
wave
the
knowledge
of
the
History
of
Christ
Externally
,
before
we
come
to
the
knowledge
of
the
true
Christ
(
hereby
he
Insinuats
that
the
External
Christ
is
no
true
Christ
)
that
is
able
to
save
our
Souls
,
But
if
these
things
asserted
by
the
Doctor
be
true
,
Then
it
s
no
matter
,
or
harm
to
us
,
Albeit
the
letter
and
History
of
the
knowledge
of
Christ
were
all
false
,
seeing
that
is
good
for
nothing
,
can
give
no
nourishment
(
as
he
will
)
and
must
be
waved
before
we
come
to
know
the
true
and
saving
Christ
.
What
can
it
matter
to
us
then
though
it
were
all
false
?
seeing
it
can
do
us
no
good
,
is
but
non-nourishing
and
destructive
Excrements
;
nay
,
it
hinders
us
to
know
the
true
and
saving
Christ
;
for
we
cannot
know
him
(
as
the
Doctor
alleadges
)
until
it
be
first
waved
;
and
so
it
s
an
opposit
enemy
to
the
knowledge
of
him
.
Secondly
,
If
it
be
true
that
the
literal
sense
of
the
Scriptures
is
not
Gods
mind
(
as
the
Doctor
affirms
)
then
we
may
Counter-act
the
whole
Scriptures
in
their
literal
sense
,
and
yet
be
guiltles
,
seeing
,
though
we
do
so
,
yet
we
do
nothing
against
the
mind
and
meaning
of
God
in
his
Word
,
according
to
the
Doctors
doctrine
,
and
then
we
may
commit
Idolatry
,
Adultery
,
and
what
not
?
Thirdly
.
If
the
Literal
sense
of
the
Scriptures
be
not
Gods
meaning
,
how
comes
the
Doctor
to
call
it
Scripture-sense
at
all
,
or
Scripture-meaning
?
The
Doctor
herein
manifestly
contradicts
himself
,
seeing
the
Scripture
can
never
have
any
sense
,
or
meaning
,
beside
the
mind
and
meaning
of
its
Author
therein
by
him
intended
,
as
is
both
clear
in
it self
,
and
just
now
I
proved
.
Fourthly
,
For
his
denying
the
Scriptures
to
be
the
Word
of
God
I
shall
oppose
unto
this
the
Survey
of
the
Quakers
Third
Query
,
above
where
I
have
discussed
that
question
.
But
when
he
denies
that
ever
any
man
as
yet
heard
,
or
read
the
truth
,
he
speaks
a
little
too
Transcendentally
:
for
if
he
means
of
the
truth
of
Proposition
,
or
Enunciation
(
which
is
only
to
the
purpose
;
for
we
are
not
concerned
with
the
Metaphysical
Incomplex
truth
of
Being
,
but
with
the
Complex
truth
of
Oration
here
)
then
he
either
takes
truth
in
the
Abstract
form
;
and
so
never
man
henceforth
shall
hear
,
or
read
it
,
more
then
heretofore
,
seeing
in
the
Abstract
form
it
is
not
a
thing
Legible
,
or
Audible
;
or
else
he
takes
truth
Concretively
▪
and
as
it
denominats
some
particular
Enunciation
,
or
Enunciations
true
,
so
that
the
means
that
never
man
as
yet
heard
,
or
read
a
true
saying
,
or
Enunciation
to
this
day
;
and
then
he
denies
that
himself
ever
spake
,
or
wrote
a
true
word
to
any
mans
hearing
,
or
reading
,
and
cuts
his
own
Throat
,
and
I
cannot
help
it
;
But
(
which
is
much
worse
)
so
he
denies
the
Scriptures
(
which
many
man
hath
read
and
heard
)
to
be
true
.
It
s
a
very
strange
and
a
sad
business
too
,
if
we
never
heard
a
word
of
truth
.
But
the
Doctor
(
I
know
)
will
say
,
that
only
Christ
is
the
truth
.
Ans.
Christ
cannot
be
the
Formal
truth
of
any
Enunciation
,
or
Oration
,
which
is
nothing
but
a
meer
relation
of
Conformity
betwixt
it
and
its
Object
;
but
Christ
is
called
the
truth
,
because
he
is
the
Author
and
Revealer
,
the
Object
and
End
of
the
Divine
truth
;
for
he
makes
it
known
,
it
treats
of
him
as
the
main
Subject
,
and
it
leads
unto
him
.
Albeit
,
the
Doctor
makes
many
wranglings
to
clear
himself
of
being
thought
a
contemner
and
vilifier
of
the
Literal
sense
of
Scripture
;
yet
all
comes
to
this
at
the
last
and
most
(
which
he
never
parts
with
)
that
the
literal
sense
of
the
Scripture
can
do
no
good
;
but
will
kill
and
destroy
us
,
except
we
reach
another
sense
beyond
that
,
and
hidden
under
it
,
having
no
connexion
therewith
,
or
relation
thereunto
,
The
absurdity
whereof
I
have
very
briefly
shewed
.
And
beside
,
we
see
,
he
refuses
to
own
the
literal
sense
as
Divine
but
as
a
thing
meerly
Humane
,
denying
it
to
be
the
mind
of
God
.
And
so
no
Apology
can
bring
him
fairly
,
off
.
But
the
Doctor
objects
(
pag.
52.318
.
part
first
)
that
the
Literal
sense
of
the
Scripture
is
not
saving
,
nor
the
mind
of
God
,
seeing
the
Devil
,
and
natural
men
can
reach
that
.
Ans.
But
the
Doctor
supposes
here
a
manifest
falshood
,
viz.
that
the
Scriptures
have
one
sense
reached
by
the
Devil
,
and
natural
men
;
and
another
which
they
know
nothing
of
,
and
cannot
reach
,
which
,
I
have
shewed
to
be
most
absurd
,
the
Devil
,
and
some
men
unrenewed
know
as
many
senses
of
Scripture
,
as
the
Doctor
does
.
But
the
difference
betwixt
a
Natural
and
Spiritual
mans
knowledge
of
the
Scripture
is
not
,
that
the
one
of
them
knowes
a
sense
of
the
Scripture
more
than
the
other
,
and
which
the
other
cannot
reach
;
but
that
the
one
knows
the
same
sense
of
Scripture
with
an
Internal
,
Spiritual
,
Supernatural
,
and
saving
evidence
;
which
the
other
knows
only
with
an
Historical
,
Grammatical
,
External
,
and
Common
evidence
;
and
so
there
are
very
diverse
kinds
of
evidences
in
their
acts
of
knowledge
,
proceeding
from
Essentially
diverse
principles
of
light
and
Eyes
to
see
with
;
But
the
Object
known
is
the
same
.
I
have
therefore
here
Inserted
,
and
briefly
confuted
these
principles
of
the
Doctor
,
which
indeed
are
a
considerable
part
(
though
not
all
)
of
the
substance
of
that
his
foresaid
book
,
because
the
Quakers
know
(
and
I
in
sure
experience
too
,
by
the
necessary
and
Inevitable
,
though
Involuntary
converse
I
have
had
with
them
)
who
are
deeply
concerned
with
the
same
principles
;
and
(
as
I
hinted
before
)
I
never
almost
knew
any
(
and
I
have
known
too
many
)
that
once
became
the
Disciples
and
Proselyts
of
that
book
,
but
in
end
they
became
professed
Quakers
;
and
therefore
I
judged
it
very
convenient
here
(
though
shortly
)
to
give
an
Antidote
against
it
.