Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The first he calls improper the second proper But how pertinently the Reader may consider If that which is Escential and Substantial to a thing be not proper to it he may tell us with the next what is more proper then the Essence or Substance of a thing is Henceforth according to him we must call the Beams or Rayes coming from the Son properly the Sun But the Sun himself from whence they all come must be improperly so called And now to shew That this is a meer strife about words I shall summ up this contraverfie thus R B saith Christ is the Word of GOD Patroclus saith Christ is the Essential and Substantial Word of GOD R B saith The Scriptures are a True and Faithful Declaration of the Mind and VVill of GOD revealed by the VVord of GOD to his Servants Patroclus saith Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of GOD. R B saith The Scriptures are the VVords of GOD. Patroclus saith The Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables Now let the Reader judge where the Contraversy lyes Page 4. About the end He saith after some some scurrilous Language That the Quakers deny The Title of Gospel to the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John And then falls to hard words again saying The defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures William Peh undertakes in his Rejoinder to John Faldo page 117. Where observe first That he asserteth it a Contradiction of Scripture When he hath brought no Scripture seeming to contradict what is said But Mark 1. 1 Which shall be considered in its place Observe 2dly That to oppose Truth The Presbyterians and Independants can join issue like Herod and Pontius Pilate Notstanding all the Clamonis we have heard in Aberdeen about the Text Holiness becomes Thy House O LORD To prove this assertion William Penn produceth Scripture Reason and the Authority of Ancient and Modern Writters First The Gospel is the Power of GOD to Salvation To which he answereth That the Scriptures may as well be called the Pâ—wer of GOD to Salvation as the Gospel Here he hath granted the Scriptures to be one thing and the Gospel another and must come to his Diversity of Acceptations properly and improperly again for he hath done with it He sayes page 5th It was the same Doctrine which the Apostles preached and committed to Writting Who denyes this or what saith it for him more then Luke 1. 1. A Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed amongst us And this no Quaker ever denyed But Secondly He tells us that by Power of GOD to Salvation can be understood no other thing but the mean Organ or Instrument whereby GOD exerteth or put teth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners And again in page 6. He saith the Power of GOD That is GOD Himself See the Mans confusion and self contradiction In the next place William Penn gives him another Scripture Rev 14. 6. Which is nothing to Patroolus except it suite with his mind For after a few Quibles he saith the Doctrine contained in these Books is the same with and therefore no less everlasting then the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel This William Penn granteth That they are a Declaratior Narrative of the Gospel and that the thing they declare of is the Gospel Page 5th About the end He cites William Penn saying The Gospel is Gladâ— Tidings But Matthew Mark c are but Narratives c. and not Glad tidings Which last Words he hath added like his Brethen Hicks and Faldo And in page 6th He saith They are divers Narratives of the same Doctrine and all which Books contain the Glad tidings c Yet after all this he falls a failing Therefore I shall set down William Penn's Words That the Reader may Judge how he is dealt with William Penns Rejoynder page 118 Which is further proven by the signification of the Word GOSPEL To wit Glade which are to be understood of the coming of Him that was the Saviour of the World Of whose blessed Appearance and wonderful Transactions the Scriptures are but Narratives Besides one of their Authors Luke expresly calls them a Declaration consequently not the Gospel thereby declared of Which Definition Peter Martyre that superintendant Reformer in England chooseth of all others part 1. cap 6. of his common places Tertulian calls the Scriptures Instrumenta Doctrinoe That is Instruments of Doctrine And the New Testament Writings Fuangelicum Instrumenium And Matthew he calls a Faithful Commentator of the Gospel Chrysostome being required to swear upon the Gospel both denyed those Histories to be the Gospel and to swear as all c. Now let the Witness of GOD in the Conscience of the Reader compare this with the 6th page of Patroclus and Judge whether his contempt railing and reproach hath been hereby deserved I shall only say The LORD forgive him To conclude this Matter he brings one Scripture Mark 1. 1. After he hath asserted a great untruth and then raised violently upon it To wit That William Penn denyeth that the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John contain Glade tidings Whereas William Penn hath three times over called them Narratives or Declarations of the Gospel or Glade tidings This is great Impudence but common to Men of his Coat Then from the Scripture before cited he bringeth forth a Dilemma which is easily answered by a Dilemma which is easily answered by a distinction betwixt the History and the Mystery of the Gospel which he might have considered before he had given us all this Trash But to let him see what follows upon his Sense of these scriptures he abuseth I will adventure for once to sylogize thus The Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John are the Gospel But the Gospel is the Power of God c. Ergo The Books aforesaid Are the Power of GOD c. And again The Books before mentioned are the Power of GOD. But the Power of GOD is GOD Himself or Ergo The Books before mentioned are GOD Himself I have here inserted nothing but what he hath asserted in terminis in his 4 5 6. pages where marke that he calls it abominable Swoâ—k-â—â—ieldianism to understand Rom â— â—6 any other wayes then of the Books before mentioned Page 6th About the end he begins with a kind of Scolding Oratory to defame the Quakers Saying They cloath the Scriptures with base Epithers and contemptible Aspersions as the Heathens did cloath the Christians with Beasts skins that the Lions and other wild Beasts might the more readily destroy them All this yet 〈◊〉 Man not minding the Words of our Saviour to his Predecessors the Pharisees who were no less Exaleers of the Scriptures then he or his Brethren Matth 23. 29. For in cruelty ye are nothing inferiour to them 〈◊〉 let us see what he hath for this matter first the Quakers call the Scriptures the letter Answer so
in no sense to be accounted a Rule He citeth VVilliam Penn to prove it Rejoynder page 76. I beseech thee Reader here to take notice of this mans double dealing and dissingenuâ—ity For first VVilliam Penn in page 69 and 70 confesseth the Scriptures to be a Rule but not the Rule by way of excellency as the Reader may see there and in Râ— Barclays his appologie Theses Tertia And because he Citeth VVilliam Penn to prove his false assertion let the Reader know they are no words of VVilliam Penn but of one Thomas Colliar a great Professor whose words VVilliam Penn Citeth against Faldo some whereof I shall transcribe General Epistle page 249. And truely my Brethren it is my earnest desite to see souls to live more in the Spirit and less in the Letter then they will see that we judge of the Litter by the Spirit and not of the Spirit by the Lettâ—er Which occasions so much ignorance amongst us and these who profess themselves to be our Teachers are chief in this Trespass The Spirit of GOD who is GOD is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian and in page 48 he saith That some seting the Scriptures in the Room of the spirit they make them an Idol His next Citation of VVilliam Penn in page 18 is his Rejoynder page 71 where he Citeth these words the scriptures are the verbal and Historical Rule of Faith which is the devels faith William Penns words are these For Faith in his I Faldâ— sense rises no higher then so many articles laid down suppose truely according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can belive as well as he This Faith I call meerly verbal and Historical c. And this is the candour of our insulting adversary Let the Reader judge whose reputation can be safe who deals with such an impudent Calumniator In the same page and in contradiction to himself he mentions a distinction of primary and Secondary Well Patroelus it seems the Quakers own the scriptures in some sense to be a Rule therefore Patroclus consesseth himself to have belyed them in the foregoing page His third is Huberthorn The words are except by a Miraculous Revelation from Heaven These words sound harshly and so fit to defame the Quakers But if yet thou hast retained any shamesacedness or the least grain of honesty I charge thee tell me Have not George Keith in his Books on that subject and Robert Barelay in his Appollogie sufficiently cleared the Quakers in that point So far that if thou wilt rightly state the contraversie thou must lay aside all these expressions of miraculous extraordinary and the like But who can expect fare dealing from a man of thy manners And therefore to stop the mouth of this Callumniator I shall tell the Reader what George Kieth sayes to obviat such accusations immediate Revel page 2. First we do not understand the foretelling things to come c. Secondly page 3 We do not bereby understand the Revelation of an other Gospel c. Thirdly in page 7. Not an outward audible voice c. Fourthly Nor any outward audible voice Fifthly Nor dreams and visions c. Sixthly Nor any outward Miracles c. And now let the Reader judge with what candour this man hath represented us Page 18 and 19. He saith in order to the Production of true saving Faith two principles are required First the declaration of the object or thing to be believed c. Now the thing he would have me believe is that the scripture is the Rule of Faith and Life and in order to this he presents me the Bible Is I ask him how shall I believe this book to be the Rule of Faith and Life He answereth me the book saith so tho there be no such word in it And this is objective Revelation and needs no more but an application of this Revelation already made And the second he calls subjective revelation but he must excuse me to tell him that before he can perswaed me to believe that proposition laid down in the Westminster Confession or Catecbism Quest 2 that the scripture is the only rule He will need to produce me better arguments for the Holy Ghost according to the Westminster Confession Chap 7 Act 3 must be given to make men willing and able to believe and this is more then an application He tells us that this revelation was either mediate or immediate Who denyes this But I hope when it was mediate it needed the immediate operation of the spirit to make them able and willing to believe and so the operation of the Spirit was the Rule of this Faith whereby they choosed or rejected these mediate Revelations That the illumination of the spirit is necessary for understanding of the soriptures no man denyeth But it is to be regarated that he and his Brethren take upon them to expond scripture to others while they have it not and mock and persecute Others who bear witness for it To prove subjective Revelation he bringeth several Scriptures Among others Luke 24. 46. The Words are these And said unto them Tbus it is Written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Now the Question will be whether this was an objective or a subjective Revelation I affirm it to be Objective and that CHRIST did here reveal to them things they never knew before nor had occasion to know albeit they might have been darkly shadowed forth in the Scriptures So that Christ speaking to them and at the same time opening their Understandings both Patroclus principles concurred immediatly to the production of their Faith with out the Bible Neither is he limited to Scripture words tho he may and often does make use of them And these words He spoke are not to be found in all the Old Testament And the Quakers do not pretend to revelation of New Things but a new Revelation of the Good Old Things Secondly Consider that he calls his first Principle a Declaration of the Object or Thing to be believed Now the Scriptures are the Object or Thing to be believed And therefore according to himself the Declaration is necessary And I must ask Patroclus what this Declaration is Sure he can intend nothing here but the Glosses Commentaries Paraphrases which he and his Brethren make upon the Scriptures whereby they get their Living But if Men were but once convinced that Christs sheep hear his Voice and that his Spirit teacheth them and bringeth all things to their remembrance whatsoever they have heard of or from him Then that sordid Trade of Preaching for hâ—re and Divining for money would soon come to an end And Men would say with Thomas a Kempis Let not Moses and the Prophets speake to me but thou O LORD my GOD. And with the Psalmist I will bear what the LORD GOD will speake in me Whereas now pretend what they will they are as positive in their dogmatising and no less
believed or done which they deny This is another Lie For the Quakers believe the Scriptures to be a Rule subordinat to the Spirit containing a full and sufficient Declaration of all Christian Doctrine Thirdly Saith he We believe the Scriptures to be the principal and ultimat Rule into which our Faith is lastly to be refolved For answer to this I shall only set down the words of one of his Brethren Viz The Author of that Book called Melius Inquirendum page 303. I would sain be informed sayes he what an ultimat Rule signifies with him that pretends to speak plain English to then that understand nothing else I have heard of a subordinate and ultimat End And I have heard also of a near and a remote Rule but an ultimate Rule like that Monster which was like a Horse and yet not a Horse is like Sense but in Truth very None-sense Thus he and yet as great a Calvinist as Patroclus After some Repetitions he comes to his Citations and begins with Luther in these Words If any thing should deliver any Doctrine which it could not prove by Scripture he would spit in its face knowing certainly that it were the Devil I know no Quaker but will say as much Yea I know no Protestant but will say as much Yet the contraversies are no whit leslened by all this because they reject the Spirit by which alone the Scriptures can be understood and without which they are a sealed book as well to the learned Patroclus as to the unlearned Plowgh man And here let the Reader observe what is become the fate of the Fathers as well as of the Scriptures To be cited By all parties Papist against Papists and Protestant against Protestants and Calvine is made to speak for all ends and all purposes But he hath told us that such a perswasion concerning the authority of seripture is needfull as cannot be brought forth but by Divine Revelation Inst Chap Numb 24. All these his citations for three pages serve for nothing else but to make one party of his pretended Transmarine Divines contradict another If he had done any thing he should have proven R B's citations to have been either spurious or impertinent else if they contradict his citations Patroclus errs in his affirming an Harmony among them In page 31 he saith after some of his Brethtens Rhetorick it can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches But hath taken no notice of what R B hath cited out of their Confessions but we must take his word In the end of page 31 and the beginning of page 32 he summeth up what he hath said and hath done the Quakers a favour that whereas some of his blind brethren have called them Papists he hath set them and the Papists at such a distance as he hath left room for himself to hang betwixt them as Erasmus is said to have hung betwixt Heaven and hell For saith he page 32 The Papists have gone too low resolving their faith ultimatly in men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high that is to resolve their Faith in GOD Patroclus resolves his faith in a Book and neither in GOD nor man Let the Reader judge which of the three is the best Foundation He concludes with a Greek fable of Ixion Et quiquid Graecia mendâ—x audet in Historia most profainly compares a desire after Divine Revelation which Pauls commands to pray for to the adulterous desire of Ixion after Juno and then talks of the production of Hipocentaurs that is in broad Scots Troopers or if he will Apostolical Dragoons Like those of France And now let the Kingdom of Seotland judge from fourty years experience whether the Quakers or the Presbyterian Clergie have been most fruitful in producing such Hipocentaurs In page 32 he layeth down his Thesis thus The scriptures are the adequat compleat and primary or prineipal Rule of faith and manners Observe first the word primary signifies first and he hath before called them the Vltimate Rule This is the first and the last he hath called them The word of GOD he hath called them the Gospel and now the first and the last which are Epithets belonging only to Christ Tertul ltb 2 Carm Adversurs Mar Atque ideo non verbe Librised Missus in orbem Ipse Christus Evangelium est Si cernere vultis Thus Englished Not the words of the book but Christ who is Into the World sent the Gospell is Observe Secondly That he hath here given away the Cause for the Catechism saith The Scriptures are the only Rule Whereas his asserting a Primary implyes a Secondary And now we are come to his Arguments whereof the first is That which was dictat or given out by the Infallible God and containeth the whole Counsell of GOD may well serve to be a compleat and principal Rule But the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the Infallible GOD and contain the whole Counsell of GOD. Therefore They may well serve for to be a compleat and principal Rule Answer first Observe That all his boasting is come to no more then a May be saying It may serve to be a Primary Rule And I must tell him That a Cart-load of May-bees are not worth One-is Secondly I must tell him That his definition of the Rule of Faith and Manners is New and I cannot accept of it And before I proceed to take notice of his Arguments I shall give my Reader an account of the Scope of this Mans Labours First He cannot deny that the Quakers owne the Scriptures for a Rule and his Work proves no less tho in contradiction to himself in page 17. And I can assure my Reader That it is the constant care of every true Quaker to square his Life according to the Scriptures Secondly His offering to prove them to be a Primary Rule implyes as I have said a Secondary And this must be the Teachings of the Spirit for he hath not told us of another Hence the Reader may see what the Tendancy of his Argumentations is To wit To exalt the Letter above the Spirit The Creature above the Creator a Book above GOD In which I cannot agree with him Yet GOD knows I reverence the Scriptures as much as any Presbyterian in the World And if the Quakers slighted them as this false Accuser slandereth them I would have no fellowship with them And certainly it is not so much the Scriptures as their own Glosses and Interpretations they plead for For if Patroclus would speak what he thinks I doubt not but he would say That the Westminster Confession and Directory Especially having the Covenant joyned to it might serve for a Rule of Faith and Life His Argument set down before erreth in the very form according to the Rules of Logick Which are when both Propositions are particular nothing follows And again particular nothing follows And again the Major being particular in the first figure cannot
are sufficient to convince these Men of palpable falshood and blasphemy This is Language for the Pulpit among the Hood-winked hearers but will trouble no unprejudiced Reader As to the great stress he layeth upon these words And these are they that testifie of me Therefore they are the Primary Rule Did he not say The Works which I do They hear witness of Me And if we may believe History the Sybills testified of him Doth this prove that they were the Primary Rule But the very foregoing Verse is to be considered And ve have not his Word abiding in you for whom be hath sent him ve believe not And verse 36. I have a greater Witness then that of John For the works which the Father hath given me to finish the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me Here let him consider that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every thing is to be proven Our Saviour bringeth here four Witnesses The Testimony of John The Works which he did The Word of GOD abiding in Men and the Scriptures The contraversy is not whether any of these or all of them were Witnesses but which of them was the greatest and most Preferrable And if the Works which He then did were a greater Witness then the Testimony of John who was inferiour to none of the Prophets Then the Works which He now doth in the Hearts and Souls of Believers by His Word abiding in them in healling all their Infirmities quickning and enlightning their dead Souls and speaking peace to them is a greater Witness then the Scriptures He falls next upon R. Bs. Dilemma Which he saith hath not the weight of a Walnut It seems the hardness of the shell hath blunted his teeth that he hath not reached the Kernal For saith he If the words are to be taken in the Imperative mood as we have even now demonstrated then it is as clear as the Noon Sun c. But how hath he demonstrated it That the Word bears not the Indicative Signification as well as the Imperative is obvious to any that understands the Conjugations And the Scriptures brought to prove it I shall touch some of them Deut 17. 18 19. And be shall read therein all the days of his Life Ergo The Words John 5 39. Are to be taken in the Imperative Mood If this be not as wild a consequence as to say William Jamison is verus Patroelus by a Metempychosis Ergo The whole Church of England are Hereticks which he hath boldly asserted in his Adultory Epistle to his Patron I leave it to the Reader to Judge The next he brings is Deut 29. 29. The Secret things belong to the LORD our GOD but those Things which are revealed belong to us and to our Children for ever that we may do all the Words of this Law Ergo The Words of John are to be taken in the Imperative mood Who would follow such an Adversary at this Rate But seeing he is so good at Wall-nuts I will give him another of the same kind to break Either the Words of John the Baptist who was as great a Prophet as Isaiah were as much a Rule to the Jews when spoken by him as they are now to us when recorded in a Book or as the words of Isaiah formerly recorded in a Book or they were not If they were Then the Works which Christ worketh now in the Souls of His Servants must be a greater Witness then the words of John recorded in a Book As well as the Works he then did were a greater Witness But if he say they were not so much a Rule when spoken as when written I ask him how they came by that excellency by being Written Or was it the Council of I aodicea that gave it Page 43 He saith He hath broken one of the Horns of his Dilemma and made his Consequence a meer Nonsequitor And why Because he hath confessed saith he in a word That the Words of Christ and his Apostles as then spoken now recorded in Scripture were of themselves no less binding upon the Jews then these spoken by Moses and the Prophets But this hath strengthned the Dilemma for if they were as binding and yet needed a Rule to try them by Then the Writtings of Moses and the Prophets needed a Rule to try them by and that Rule another Rule Et sic infinitum That all Doctrines of Men may be tryed and ought so to be by the Scriptures was never denyed And hath no way given away his Cause But as for what follows That it might be lawful to imbrace any impulse or suggestion which he thought was the Spirit of GOD Without further Examination thereof is a gross untruth but ordinary to him and his Brethren And therefore he hath wisely foreborn to tell us where R Barkelay said so His third Scriptute is Acts 17. 11. He saith His Adversaries can find nothing to darken and deprive it and therefore he waves it Not being willing to meddle with what R B saith there To wit If the Bereans were oblidged to believe and receive Pauls Testimony because he preached the Truth to them by Authority from GOD Then their using them or his commending of them for using the scriptures Will not prove the scriptures to be the Primary Rule Yea more a Rule than the Doctrine they tryed by it For it the Doctrine preached by Paul to the Bereans had been but recorded in a Book it had presently become a Primary Rule The fourth is 2 Peter 1. 19. We have a more sure word of prophesie c. This place he will have to be meant of the scriptures His first proofi is Because saith he This presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation where the senses go along And so their spirit is contrary to sense But this is an old Cavil against Christianity and brought on the stage by Julian the Apostat in his Book against the Primitive Christians This Doctrine said he sigbteth against common sense See Chron Carionis page 278. To this he addeth another Why should this Glorious Vision of which the Apostles had Divine and infollible Evidence c Be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit â— Answer Why should uld it be uncertain and suspected in respect of the scriptures And why should it become the Primary Rule when recorded in a Book and not the Rule when spoken immediatly on the Mount If thou say Because it is more obvious to sense then it seems thy Religion is more sensual than Spiritual His second Argument is That this Revelation according to us brings along with it its own self Evidence and perswades the Soul to embrace and close with it as Divine But this is both groundless and therefore false saith he because we assert that unless the Understanding be well disposed Revelation tho immediate is not evident Answer first He here brings nothing to prove this That it is groundless and
of the Quakers with the Scriptures Oh! That he or any else could awaken them to that diligence and that they would put on that Nobility commended in the Bereans and come to an impartial search not as Patroclus Faldo and Hicks represent them but as they are indeed But Reader he intends nothing less For after all thy pains except thou will implicitly allow his Character of the Quakers and take his sense of the Quakers he will be sure to Stigmatise thee for a Heretick All their clamouring the Scriptures the Scriptures is but a meer Jugle it s their own Gloss they intend Interpres loquitur Litera Sacra silet A little after he tells us ignoti nulld cupido very true for if the principles of the dispysed Quakers were but well known Patroclus Book would be hissed out of Doors And therefore in the end of this Epistle he saith touch not taste not handle not the unclean thing strange Doctrine try and try not I have told you what they are stop your ears and run upon them The rest of his Epistle being all Satyr composed of Railing Lies Forgeries and false insinuations I omit he bringing me no better proof for them then his own confident assertion or rather impudent calumny in these words in a word I say That as the Doctrine of the Quakers is a heap of none such Blasphemies â—o their defences are meer subterfuges Very well Patroclus this is borrowed Armour indeed and that from the 〈◊〉 in Cathedra I say ergo verum est Take his word Reader and his book is superfluous This is no humble confidence as he elsewhere words it But if 〈◊〉 was puzelled to distinguish 〈◊〉 a Pope and Presbyters in Hell he would not have been cleared of his doubts by reading this passage And now to his Book CHAPTER FIRST Of the Holy SCRIPTURES HE begins with a citation of Scripture A good Name is better then precious Oyntment the more shame for Patroclus who hath laboured to rob the Quakers of it by all the black-mouth'd detractions he could invent to defame them His first charge is That the quakers deny that the Seriptures are or ought to be called the Word of GOD. Answer This appears to me but a meer Logomathia in Patroclus For that the word Logos is diversly translated in Scripture we confess As Preaching 1 Cor 1. 18. Utterance 1 Cor 1. 5. Speech Cor 4. 6. And divers otherwayes Now that the Scriptures in such senses may be called Logos That is the speech discourse oâ— words of the Logos or Word of GOD which he spoke to the Pattiarchs Prophets and Apostles and by them recorded for the benefite of the Church we willingly grant But the Word of GOD being a Name so peculiatly atoributed to CHRIST JESUS who being a Jealous GOD will not give his Glory to another Out of meer tenderness of Conscience we can singly from the bottom of our hearts say and not in the least from any difesteem of disparagement of the Scriptures which are our delight to meditate in and peruse often do we scruple to give them that Escential Tittle or Name of Christ it being so solemnly and frequently by the Scriptures themselves attributed to the Son of God As in that remarkable place John 1. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word was mads Flesh which can no wayes be said of the Scriptures And there be Three that bear Record in Heaven The Father The Word and the Spirit And his Name is called the Word of God Now len any sober unbyassed Christian People judge whether we deserve all these black Epithets this Author loads us with meerly for being tender of Attributing the Sacred Name of the Creator to a Creature But he bringeth a bundle of Citations to as little purpose as the Westminster Confession uses to do in such case As R. B. hath remarked in the end of his Confession of Faith The Impertinency of which Citations may be clearly apparent by inserting the Word Soripture in place of the Word of the Lord. As Numbers 3. 16. And Moses numbredthem according to the Word of the Lord Patroclus sense is and Moses numbred them according to the Scriptures whereas yet there was none extant Second is Duter 5. and 5. I stood between the Lord and you at that time to shew you the Word of the Lord Now how impertinent would it beto say That Moses had the Bible in his hand to shew the Israelites Among all the test of his Citations he lays most hold on Hosea 1 and 2. The Beginning of the Word of the LORD by Hosea This sayeth he is a Denying of the Eternity of the Son of God But how grosly he erreth here may be seen above by divers Accoptations we grant of the Word As in Psalm 19 2 The same Word signifieth Speech Now to take this Word for the Scripture would be a gross lye For it was not the Beginning of the Scripture much having been written before And therefore the true meaning of this place to all single heatted ones 〈◊〉 clearly the time when Christ the Word of the Lord began to speak to Hosea Or as the Latin hath it Prinoipiam loquendi Domini in Hosea There are no more of his citations that seem to have any weight but that of Mark 7. 18. compared with verse 10. I shall begin at the 9 And he said unto them full well ye reject the Commandment of GOD that ye may keep your own Traditions Verse 10. For Moses said Honour thy Father and thy Mother c. Verse 13. Making the Word of GOD of none effect Now that this Word mentioned by the Evangelist was one of the Ten Words spoken on Mount Sinai we do not deny And that every Commandement Precept Promise or Threatning in the Scripture is a Word of God we fully acknowledge And so all he can make of this is That the fifth Commandment here meaned is one of the 〈◊〉 Words that came from Christ the Word the Eternal Son of God And whereas he quibles upon the word Per eminentiam or by way of Eminency This fifth Commandment before mentioned shall furnish us an Example The King of Scotland is an Epichet predicated of the chief Magistrat Now I ask him if this Epithet can be predicated per emmentiam of any other Man Book or thing in the Nation without Treason And see if his Properly and Improperly will serve him here The very Committee of Estates altho it exercised the Regal Power in the Late Rebellion did not usurp the Title of King tho they were a little too familiar with his Authority and Person But I hope hereafter Patroclus will be a little more tender of the Titles of the King of Kings Having granted the Contraversy in Terminis For in page 3 He granteth that Christ is the â—ssential and Substantial Word of God The principal Dictator of the Mind of God And that the
they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue in these Writings c And so runs on for a whole page in tragical Exclamations To all which I shall only return the words of Calvine instit cap. 1. Numb 24. Quare si Conscientiis optime consultum volumus ne instabili dubitatione perpetuo vacillent altius petenda quam ab humanis vel rationibus vel judiciis vel conjecturis scripture Authoritas Nempe ab Interiori spiritus sancti Testification Etsi enim Reverentiam suâ— sibi ultro Majestate conciliat tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit cum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostris And a little after Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat talis denique sensus qui nisi ex caelesti Revelatione nasci nequeat Non aliud loquâ— quam quod apud se experitur fidelium unusquisque Thus Calvine In English thus Wherefore if we would take the best course to provide for the peace or clearness of our own Consciences that they may not perpetually fluctuatâ— with an unstable uncertaintie the Authoritie of the Scripture is to be deduced higher then either from Humane Reasons Judgements or Conjectures viz. From the Inward-witnes bearing of the Holy Spirit For albeit its own Native Majestie doth gain to it a peculiar Reverence yet then doth it seriously affect us when it is sealed upon our hearts And a little after Such then is that Perswasion which requires not Reasons and such that Perception which cannot be bred but of a Revelation from Heaven I do not speak any other thing then what every one of the Faithful finds experimentally true in himself And now let the Reader judge whether R B hath said any more then Calvine hath said That every one of the Faithful experienceth in himself Yet what is sound Doctrine in Calvine must be Heathnism in R B And whereas he saith shall the writings of Livie Virgil and Cicere carry such evidences that they were theirs so that a Humanist may distinguish c. Shall then GOD Himself be outstriped and overcome by these Writers Answer Albeit we neither deny the Majesty of Stile Harmony of parts or any other Divine Characters in the scriptures which may declare their Author Yet we confidently affirm that the forelaid writings of Livie Virgil and Cicero which are the things of a man can only be known by the spirit of a man and not of a beast So we say the scriptures being the things of GOD can only and alone be known by the Spirit of GOD as saith the Apostle in so many words But he proceeds and citeth the word as he alledgeth of Benjamin Furley and for his Author gives Hicks the Forger And then he falls a glorying as if he had done his business fully saying by this time I have aboundantly justified my charge Soft Patroclus till thou put off thine Armour An I cannot but wonder with what confidence or rather impudence this man and his brother Brown can cite these books of Faldo Hicks c. Which have been so fully manifestly convicted of falsehood forgery and perversion that their Authors are become detasteable to all honest and unbyasled men and whom our present adversary accounteth Hereticks And what a case must the Quakers be in if such Janizaries in Religion who have been known to undertake the contraversy for hire and have been found to be men of no integrity I say if such men their sworn Enemies shall be held sufficient witnesses against them If I should produce the Papists Testimonies against Luther and Beza what would Protestants say And albeit R B chargeth Brown with it as a callumniator yet our Author hath not brought the least proof to mend the matter nor the Citation of any book but his beloved Baptist Mr. Hicks as he calls him And whereas he saith they have Cited book and page for their other Citations so did Patroclus cite William Penns Rejoynder when he accused him for saying the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John did not contain glade tidings so the Proverb is veryfied in all of them A Priest a Liar no news And so till he prove these to have been the words of Benjamine Furley I have done with him And here I must tell Patroelus I have seen Browns book which was lent by an old and learned Minister so called of the National Church with the Caveat I would not said he lend you this Book but that I know ye would get it from some other For if all the coppies were in my hands they should never be more seen I acknowledge they are a scandle to our Profession and the Anthor a stain to his function But said he do not think we allow them And the truth is except Polwart and Montgomeries flyting I never râ—ad its fellow But to return to what R B answereth in the matter of Benjamin Furley he hath set it down at large and spends a deal of labour upon it He begins with R B his delemma to which he answereth Seeing R B insinuateth that there are an subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any therefore his dilemma is impertinent c. Now let the Reader judge what cander we can expect from this man who hath out done both Hieks and Faldo they cired book and page yet were found Forgers He cites nothing yet would be trusted let him mend this fault with the next before he produce his argumentum ad hominem and his absurd and malicious consequence upon it Which is that according to the Quakers men are not oblidged to abstain from Murther without such an immediate objective Revelation as Moses and the Prophets had Answer This is very dissingenuous did ever any Quakers pretend to give a new Law to the World and confirm it by miracles as did Moses Or did they ever teach That the Foretelling of things to come as did the Prophets was necessary to Salvation The Quakers pretend to no new Revelations of new things but to a new Revelation of the good old things as shall be seen more hereafter And for such stuff it may take with Patroclus Hearers but every Man of Sense will deteast such dealing His second Answer to this Dilemma is yet no better For saith he Tho the Illumination of the Spirit be of abjolute necessity for such a knowledge of the Scriptures whereby we may know GOD revealed in them and have true Love and Faith and Fear c. Yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound reason only can distinguish betwixt Commands given to a particular people for a certain time and these that hind at all times must have abandoned the exercise of Reason This the Summ of what he saith Answer first What he meaneth by the Word Only I see not Except he think Reason can do something more But what this is he hath not been so
right to the Scripture but Presbyterian Priests Secondly That for Fruits he enumerats four gross and abominable Untruths wherewith he chargeth us To witt That we deny the Holy Trinity the Person of our Lord JESUS CHRIST The Resurrection of the Body and that we assert the Souls of Men yea and devils too to be GOD Almighty Of all which he saith he will prove the Quakers to be undenyably guilty before he end his Treatise This needs no Answer But to say The Lord rebuke this lying spirit which hath gone forth in the mouth of this lying false Accuser For the LORD GOD whom we serve knoweth our Innocency in this matter and will in his due time vindicat his people from these malicious Callumniators But Thirdly The Man might have considered that these are points of Faith and not of Works and that our Saviour spoke here of Works and not Faith only The most wicked Man in the Nation may believe all the Westminster Creed as well as Patroclus doth and yet receive the Sentence in verse 23. of the same Chapter Depart from me ye workers of iniquity And therefore tho he should add another Forsooth to it I will betake me to the Fruits mentioned in Scripture and then let the World which he sayes is not ignorant judge between them and us Galat 5. 20. Where these are reckoned for Fruits of the Flesh Variance Emulations Wrath Strife Seditions Envyings Murthers c. Which whither they have been peculiar to that Tribe let the Nation judge On the other hand the Fruits of the Spirit are Love Peace Joy Long-suffering Gentleness Faith Meekness Temperance c. And whether the people in derision called Quakers be found in the Exercise of such Fruits let such as are acguainted with their conversations bear Witness for or against them And I may say without reflection if to devour and destroy be the fruits of Abbadon and Apollyon These are the only Spirits the Presbyterian Fruits can lay claim to which to enumerat were to writ a history but the late Advocat George Maekenzie hath given an Epitome of them to which I refer the Reader In page 84. He chargeth R. B. with three lies Citing his Vindication But how groundlessly will be evident to any who will be at the pains to examine R. B's words to which for brevity I refer the Reader Only this the first is as really John Browns as his two Hypothetick propositions are his own in page 79. To which R B. answers what a horrible lie is this The Second is no lie For in chap 3 Num 2. Of the Westminerr Confession we have these words Altho GOD knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed Conditions yet he hath not decreed anything because be foresaw it as future or as that it would come to pass upon such conditions And in the very next words they add By the Decree of GOD for the Manifestation of His Glory some men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting Life and others fore ordained unto everlasting death Let him interpret this with the next for if it bear not all that R. B. saith it is no better then the Answers of the Delphick Oracle So that which he calls a palpable and horrid Lie will be found to be a manifest Truth to any that can read the Confesfion above cited His third is that I. B. makes a preaching to the devil to deny which is impudence with a Witness And as for railing in pulpit and print it is too well known to the Nation to seek to cover it Whereof Brown and Mackquare are two famons instances neither is our Author a Novice in that ignoble art wherein lest he should come short of his Brethren he giveth us a short parralel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers This is an old blast from a new horn a work already done by George Meldrum when he was Preacher at Aberdeen and fully answered by George Keith without any reply To which I might remit my Reader but because it is not yet printed I shall touch at some of them and it is to be suspected not without cause that the hand of Joab is in all this His first is That these men said The Word of GOD was a certain heavenlie thing distinct from the Scriptures Adding the same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers Answer What was their Doctrine I know not for I see little ground to believe their Adversaries did not belie them more then that our Adversaries do not belie us now which they are not ashamed to do in the face of the Sun but our Doctrine is well known to be That Christ is the Word of GOD according to the Scriptures and that the Scriptures are the words of GOD. His second is about immediat Revelation But our Doctrine on this head is sufficient ly cleared in the foregoing Treatise His third is That the express words and phrases of the Scripture is to be adhered to without anie exposition interpretation or deduction That is a gross Callumny may be seen in page 67. of his own Book where he accuseth George Keith of poperie for rejecting their interpretations without the Spirtt And it is manifest we have always contended that the Spirit was the only true Interpreter of hard Scriptures where they were heard to be understood and that the express Words were to be adhered to where plain His Fourth is that we assert that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by CHRIST in the new and hath precept or authority from it For which he citeth R B's vindication page 178. Num 5. And to show the Reader his base ingenuity I shall transcribe R B's words which are these He seeks maliciously to inferr that I deny all authority of the Old Testament which is a horid callumny But since there are many things therein which himself will acknowledge are not binding upon us now What shall be the Rule whereby we shall judge what we are now tyed to and what not c. If this be to deny the obligation of the Old Testament or to say it is abrogat let the Reader judge But it seems our Author thinketh the Ninth Commandement to be abrogated else he would not so confidently bear false witness against his Neighbour His fifth inslance of Original sin he referreth to his third Chapter and so shall I. His sixth is That Christ made no satisfaction for sins and compared them who taught the contrary to the Seribes and Pharisees to assert which of the people called Quakers is gross and detestable injustice forgerie and malice But to cover this he addeth another no less false as to us that it is damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ c. Which he promiseth to prove in his fifth Chapter but will never be able to prove any thing like
doth the Scriptures themselves in distinction from the Spirit As 2 〈◊〉 3. 6. Except Patroclus intend to turn Socinian who understood this place on Scriptures to be meant of the Gospel or Scriptures of the New Testament as may be seen in the Cracovian Catechism Page 162 163. Asserting the Holy Spirit to be the Ipsum Evangelium and at best to be but a certain hope of Eternal life promised to us Secondly they call the Scriptures Writings Is not this plain Soots for Scriptura Or what difference is there betwixt Scriptures and Writings It seems the fault is that the word is not a little Latinized But every Quaker is not so good a Linguist as Patroclus His third charge is that the Quakers call them them a letter about the meaning whereof nor two are agreed Now Patroclus I pray thee for once deal ingenuously with me and ommiting many other instances answer only these two First if the Scriptures be so plain and obvious to every well disposed intelect as your party word it how came the whole Ministry of Scotland to differ so faâ—r in the year 16â—0 about so easle a case as whether it was Lawful for the Mallignats to fight for their Native Country against a Forraign Enemie And secondly It is well known that about the year 1661 after divers Presbyterian Ministers were suspended from the exercise of their Ministry who notwithstanding did not submit but continued preaching and gathered to themselves congregations in the desart to the great distuâ—bance of the Nation On the other hand in the year 1689 several hundreds of the Episcopal Ministers have been suspended and their Flocks left destitute Yet all of them have submitted and are silent Now seeing both parries acknowledge the same Scripture Tellme I pray thee whether they be agreed about the meaning and bring me plain Scripture to decide these two contraversies â—t eris mihi Magnus Apollo After this in Page 7 he falls upon citations where he promiscuously and at all adventures cites Hicks and Fâ—lâ—â— upon whose Bankrupt Faith he layes no small stress I alwayes doubted Patroclus to be no sound Presbyterian For sure they who could not allow Malignants to fight for their Native Country would never allowes Sectaries to contend for the Faith which certainly is more Precious then all outward things But especially they being men who by their open forgeries and falsehoods have forefeited their Credit with all Honest Men I shall be at the pains with one or two of them tho they desorve no notice In Page 8 he ciâ—es one N L Cited by Hicks and saith he evinced by him against Pen That if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ these words Hicks saith were spoken by N L To one he knows very wâ—ll upon publishing this in his Book N L gives forth a Testimony under his hand dated London 29th 3d. Moneth 1673 denying he ever spoke such words or any thing like them calling it an abominable lie wicked slander and appeals to GOD to clear his ◠〈◊〉 But after some search Nicholas is sent to one Henry Stout to prove the matter who at last gave his Testimony in write under his hand thus I Henry Stout of Hartford never in all my dayes heard Nicholas Lucas speak the words nor any of the like importance or tendencie as charged on him be Tho Hicks nor before any man else that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my conscience that he hath most grosly wronged N L To which I subscribe H Stout So now let the Reader judge what seared Consciences and Brazen faces these men have or our Patroclus to cite such a base and false calumny The second Citation is that of William Penns Rejoynder Page 70 73. We have good reason to deny them to be the rule of Faith and Judge of contraversy which can neither give nor govern Faith nor Judge of Contraversies If he added the rest I should have left it to the Reader to Judge without more And therefore I shall only add these following words as they ly Viz. As the many different perswasâ—ons in the World fully prove For then all that have the Scriptures would be of one perswasion as it is most certain those are who have walk by the one Spirit Let the Word be joyned and then Judge The other part of his Citation is Page 73 thus in short the Scriptures are not the Rule but a declaration of Faith and knowledge Here he stops But I intreat the Reader before he trust these men to be at the pains to read the Book Cited by him There he shall see wither William Penn and his friends deserves to be called disparragers of the Scriptures and that it looks more like malice and interest that acts these men than the love of Truth The rest of his Citations at least many of them I never saw nor read but in such books as his Page 9. About the end he falls upon a long Citation of William Penns rejoynder concerning the Canon The Authority of those who gathered it the Transcribers and their dissentions the exactness of the coppies And lastly that some learned men of our times tell us of little less then 3000 several readings in the Scriptures of the Nâ—w Testament in Greek Answer Can he say William Penn hath lied in what he hath Written If he do I will produce him Protestant Authors who confess no less But if he had added the rest of William Penns words he had done more honestly but not so much to his purpose and therefore I will do him the kindness to set down a few of them Farr be it from me saith William Penn to Write this in any the least undervalue of that Holy Record It 's only to shew the weak foundation my Adversaries foundation stands upon I believe great and Good Things of them and that from no less evidence then the Eternal VVord that gave them forth Which hath often times given my Soul a deep Savour of these blessed Truths it declares of c And after many such expressions he concludes We accept them as the Words of GOD Himself And by the assistance of his Spirit they are read with great Instruction and Comfort I esteem them the best of Writings and desire nothing more frequently then that I may lead the Life they exhort to Thus William Penn Whereby the Reader may perceive the malice and disingenuity of Patroclus in concealling the Words which would have vindicated him from that soul charge of vilifying the Scriptures And I desire the Reader will only compare Patroclus and his Party with the Pharaseâ—s who while they extolled the Scriptures were found the murderers and persecuters of CHRIST and his Apostles Having thus dissingenuously dealt with William Penn he fails upon R. B. in these words On the other hand of this Ethnick Army R. B. Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures Citing his Apologie Chap 2. That
This the Heathens taught before Christ preached it And therefore persecution cannot be but esteemed a sin against Light and tho Paul by the prejudice of his Education and a blind Zeal for upholding of that Law or form of Worship which was to be abolished did ignorantly and inconsideratly ruo on to persccute the Saints Yet it can no more be said that he acted according to all he had for Light then it can be said that the Presbyterians acted according to the Scripture in the that Murther of the Arch Bishop And tho this may serve to answer the two following Arguments Yet what seems to have weight in them I shall take notice of His Fourth Argument is Divine Light is alwayes consonant to it self But the Light within one Man is quite contradictory and opposite to that within another as the many and great Contraversies in all ages do but too well make out This is easily answered and no less easily retorted For who dare deny but the Scriptures is alwayes cousonant to it self And yet how many and great are the Contraversiies among these who profess it to be their only Rule Was the Command of GOD to Saul Dubious to destroy Amaleck No But Saul disobeyed it The like is the example of Jonah Is not the Counsel of GOD alwayes consonant to it self yet men reject it And for his Argument from the pertinacy of Heathens and Hereticks I am ready to think nothing of it when I consider the madness of mine own Country men who would rather choose to he hanged then pray for their Lavvful King in obedience to a plaine Scriptute precept All the Conntraversies in the World as well as all the Warrs are the product of mens lusts and neither is the Scripture nor the Light culpable but carnal corrupt minds of Men Especially the Clergy See 1 Corinth 3. and 3. His Fifth Argument is a singular one The substance whereof is There are many in the World whereof I am one sayes he who by all the Light they have attained to and after an impartial search firmlie believe without so much as one thought from the Light with in to the contrarie that Quakerism is the path-way to utter destruction It must therefore be so if the Doctrine that every man must follow his Light be true This Argument is sufficiently Answered before only his Instance of himself is strange I would therefore ask him wil lingly Had he never any check for all the Lies Slanders Perversions and deceitful Insinuations published in his Book If he say nay I must say Certainly the man is in a very desperate condition and to be pittyed But I doubt not the day shall come in which the Light now by him so much despysed will speak to him in a Language that shall not be very pleasing to him and which all his deceitful Quibles cannot silence I wish it may be in Merey His Ipse dixi hath no force with me He firmly believes That all the other Professions of Christianity except his own are the path way to utter destruction It is therefore true Because dumb idol Shep berd hath said so whose right Eye is utterly darkned and whose right Hand is clean dryed up If the light in him be darknes how great is that darkness His Sixth Argument is If GOD suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testament to walk in their own wayes then all and every one bath not sufficient Grace and Light whereby they may come to Salvation But the former Is true Ergo the latter for proof of his Minor he citeth Acts 14. 16. And telleth us that the Evidence of the Consequence strangly straitneth Bellarmine But it doth not straiten ns for we know that the Spirit of the LORD strove with the Old World he Called and they refused He Gave his Counsel but they rejected it therefore he suffered them to walk in their own wayes Rom 1. 10. For the wrath of GOD is rovealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men c 19. Because that which may be known of GOD is manifest in them for GOD hath shewed it unte them And verse 21. Because when they knew GOD they glorified him not as GOD c So in verse 26 he saith for this cause GOD gave them up to vile affections So that GOD is just who requireth no more of man then he giveth him And certninly some of these Gentiles whom this Author and his brethren will have reprobats and to have had no Light nor Knowledge of GOD seem to have had more true Religion then many Presbyterians have at this day For which read Morney du Plesse a Protestant Writter his Book called Of the trueness of the Christian Religion and Augustine de Civitate Dei I could cite many Authoâ—s but William Penn and George Keith have done it abundantly already Only Du Plesse clearly proveth from thir Books That they believed on GOD Father Son and Spirit The Creation of all things by him the fall of Man the immortality of the Soul and futur rewards and punishments Yea many things concerning the coming of Christ Was not Balaam one of the Gentiles Were Job and his friends Israelites had they the Scriptures I shall only cite two sayings of Seneca The first in his 74 Epistle at the end Nulla sine DEO c Thus Englished There is no good Mind without GOD There are Divine Seeds sown in the bodys of Men which if a good Husbandman receiveth then cometh forth Fruits like to their Original and arise like unto those of which they were born But if an evil husband-man then like barren and watrish ground it kills the seed and maketh filth in stead of Corn. And Epistle 41. GOD is nigh unto thee He is with thee He is in thee The Holy Ghost sitteth within us an Observer and Keeper of all our Good and evil Actions and as he is dealt with by us so dealleth he with us Who told Seneca these things if he had no light But Epictetus his Motto Bear and forbear is an Evangelick precept which I never yet knew a Presbyterian who had learned it Neither needed our Authorto have gone so farr back as the Old Testament For GOD hath now suffered the Presbyterians for many years to walk in their own wayes For tho there was a good beginning among them many years ago How soon they betook themselves to the arm of flesh GOD left them to their own wayes as Samuel Rutherford saith God turned his back upon them and never since looked over his shoulder unto them This may serve to answer his seventh argument drawn from Ephes 2. 12. Where the Gentiles are said to be or have been without Christ Aliens from the common-wealth of Israel c. Therefore they had not sufficient Grace and Light This again impeacheth the justice of GOD to condemn men for breaking a Law which they never had contrary to that Scripture where there is no
that our Author cares not to joyn with Anabaptists Independents whom he accounts Hereticks Yea to take Hell rather then to want some Lie to alledge against the Quakers wherefore I shall trouble you no more with his Citations being fully Answered by others but shall proceed to see what more he hath to say In the end of page 115 he falls a railing and clamouring dispetatly Telling us that by this dim light Men have enough adoe to perceive that there is a Supream Beeing what then is become of his late great assertions That this dim light of Nature Reason Conscience extinguished Lantern c. Could teach men that there was one GOD that he was Infinite Omnipotent to be Loved Feared and Adored and to do others as they would be done by which is the substance of the Law and the Prophets This is confusion and contradiction with a Witness yet he glories in the end and heaps togeher lies in Hypocrsie which deserve no answer In page 116 He would insinuat that we depress the light as much as formerly we had exalted it because when some pretending to it have erred we say their Doctrines are to be subjected to the Judgement of the Church This he calls Popery and at last worse Viz. A subjecting of Christ and GOD to another as capable of deceiving and being deceived Bur I would know from this windie man whether if he or any Presbyterian should teach any Doctrine contrary to the Covenant and Confession of Faith and pretend Scripture for it I say whether he would be lyable to the Judgement of the General Assembly and whether it were the mans pretences or the Scriptures which the Assembly takes upon thē to judge even so we neither take upon us to judge Christ nor his Light which can neither deceive nor be deceived But the deceit and follv of such pretenders as our Author and his Brethren who pretend to the Scriptures and neither understand them not walk according to them In the next place after a little of his accustomed froath be saith he will propose and enervat those of their Arguments which seem to be most strong c. And begins with George Keith citing Truth defended page 87 but is page 85. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediate dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men ergo c. To this he answereth by denying the Minor which I cannot but admire seeing George Keith hath so abundantly proven it in the same page yet never noticed by our Author But he thinks he hath guarded himself sufficiently in his Preface to the Reader by forbidding them to touch or handle such unclean things as George Keiths books But all this deceit will not cover him for George Keith tells him First that he hath proven this by many arguments in his book of Immediat Revelation Secondly the Americans whom his Adversary names transgress the Divine Law therefore they have a Divine Law For where there is no Law there is no transgression And thirdly he cited Bishop Sanderson saying the Law in the hearts of all men is as really the word of GOD as that Printed in our Bibles But Patroclus reads not this and therefore makes short work with it and glories as if he had Vanquished Euforbis by whose Dart Patroclus fell The next he attempts is R B's Vindication page 39 But this is no Argument as he would falsly insinuate but written to stop the Mouth of a windy man J Brown charging him with Blasphemy But he proceeds page 118. That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin Therefore it is sufficient to Salvation Answer First he hath neither told us where not by whom this Argument is used and may be his own for any thing I know But Secondly he seems to confess that they sin who do not obey the Light And Thirdly his answer is very nonsensical to wit it is sin to disobey the Lawful commands of Parents which commands are not sufficient to Salvation But what made that disobedience to Parents to be sin If the Law of GOD had not commanded obedience to them Every sin is a transgression of the Law of GOD and therefore every sin presupposeth a Divine Law and here I must tell him that his brother the author of Melius Inquirendum tells him page 303. All that conscience dictats as a Counlelour all that Conscience determines as a judge is in the name of the Supream and Soveraion JEHOVAH adding there is one Lawgiyer who is able to Save and to destroy and a little after Conscience hath in its Commission to dictate before the fact as well as to reflect upon the fact it teaches what we ought to do as well as examine whether we have done well or not By these it appears this man was of the mind that that there was a Divine Law in all men call it by what name he will Next he comes to John 1. 9. That was the true light which enlighteneth every man coming into the World where he giveth two glosses of it J Browns First that Light may be taken for the Light of reason This is nonsence as if man could be a man without reason It is every man not every bruit he enlightneth and till we understand more we believe it is reason makes the difference so the gloss must run thus he enlighteneth every reasonable creature with the light of Reason The Second gloss is that by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which savingly enlightened Upon this R B saith he is puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it Whereupon our airy Author insults saying He inferrs penurie from abundance But sayes he I remembred they were Enemies to Logick But less stoath might have sufficed For I am sure if he had not been puzled he would never have given two such contrary Exposicions The first making the Light meerly natural yet Universal The second Gloss making it saving and supernatural but special and not Universal Which evidently shews that Jo Brown and our Author who would defend him are both in Babel And therefore it being a matter of Consequence to know whether the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men the Light where with every Man is inlightned be Natural or Supernatural Universal or Special Saving or Damning It concerns our Advetlary to consult the General Assembly which of the two Glosses may be best to hold by seing both cannot stand In the rest of this page he doth nothing but undervalue his Adversary whether Justly let the Reader Judge His next Combat is with John 1. 5. The darkness comprehended it He saith That by darkness is meant mon in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is Natural Whence he inferis that man in this estate is void of all Spiritual and Supernatural Light Which Inference is void of all Sense
into a Question How infants if not guilty to come to Heaven without the death and meriâ—s of Christ What he intends by this Quâ—stion is hard to be understood it s much if he knows what he â—ayes for we never said nor believed that any person Infants or Old man came to Heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ So that his Question if it have any sense at all must be what need have Infants of Christ if they he not sinners nor guilty of Adams sin This is â—nswerâ—d by R B page 61 They have â—eâ—d of Christ who died for them as a Saviour to deliver them from the seed of sin â—nd corruption in them which is called â—aâ—th and the Old man that they may â—uâ— off this â—â—d sing the song of the Reâ—eemed as John Brown words it But how by what means he doth this he hath oâ— tollâ—us and I desire not to be 〈◊〉 above what is revealed â—â—s answe◠〈◊〉 B's Question how elect infants come to besaved whom he accounts guilâ—y of 〈◊〉 Is by the imputed Righteousness of Christ But then what becomes of the 〈◊〉 mentality of Faith without which they deny imputation let him help this same â—nswer with the next His next is These who in the sight of GOD are dogs are guilty persons to be excluded from Heaven and therefore to be cast into hell but whole Nations without exception are â—uen therefore Infants being a part of these Nations deserve to be excluded from Heaven and â—ent unto hell To â—rove his Minor he bringeth Matt. â—â— 26. It is â—â— meet to take the Childrens bread and â—ast it to dogs but it seems he hatâ— forgoten to look unto the 28 Verse O Woman Great is thâ— Faith c. And â—â— they be dogs who have Faith yea and great faith I must ask him who are Children And iâ— such who have great Faith deserve to be excluded from heaven and sent to hell He might have considered that many of the Gentiles who formerly wallowed in the lusts of the Flesh and were dogs came afterwards to be washed from their polutions and that Publicans and sinners entered the Kingdom of Heaven when such professing Sâ—ribâ—s and Pharisies as our Author were shut out The other place he citeth 1 Cor â— 14. For the unbelieving husband is Sanctified bâ— the wife and the unbelieving wife is Sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Iâ— this be any thing to the purpose it is against our Author seeing it relates to the uncleanness and holiness of the immediate Parents and can never be thought to intend Adams sin but any thing may serve to make a Muster His next is â—en 1â— 14. The man Child that is Vncircumâ—ised shall be cut off Hence he saith that Mr. Brown inferreth that Children may be in some sense apablâ— of breach of Covenant and therefore under a Law desiring his adversary to chaw his Cude upon it First I observe how timorously they propose this argument with a may â—e and in some sense But it is strange how men pretending to sense could propone in it for whose sin was it iâ— the Child was un-Circumcised Could it Circumcise it self or could it desire another to do it Or did ever the Just and Merciful GOD require such an impossibility of an Infant of â—ight dayes old It was therefore the Father and not the Child who was oblidged by this Covenant and who sinned in case of Non performance So that R B needed not trouble himself with such nonsensical stuff His fourth pregnant Argument is John 3. None â—an enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again Upon this he argueth the New Birth is a Gift of GOD which he may withhold from whom he will And therefore without prejudice to his Justice may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven But none are excluded from it but guilty persons which I believe none will deny Therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons I answer in short when he tells us hâ—w his Elect Infants are born again he may take the same waâ— with the rest For I have told him before I pretend not to be wise above what is revealed But his Doctrine of Imputation will not serve his turn here Lastly He comes to answer that of Ezek 18. 20. For which he bringeth no answer But tells us Mr. Brown hath cleared this Text Why then did he meddle with it But he sayes it contradicteth the second Commandment Answer No such matter for the second Commandment saith Visiting the sins of the Fathers upon the Children c Which is generally expounded of Temporary punishments and relates to the immediat Parents But Ezekiel saith The Soul that sinnâ—th it shall die which is meaned of Eternal punishments And now to conclude I must ask this great Pretender to a knowledge of the secret Counsel of GOD and the state of Infants after death Whether they shall continue Infants and be such every way at the Resurection and to all Eternity as they are the time of their decease And I shall expect his answer with the next Chapter IV. Of GOD. HE begins this Chapter with three malicious and false Accusations according to his custome saying in this Chapter I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things each of which is enough to Un-Christian the Maintainer thereof But I hope not the Denyer thereof His three things are First That they deny the Holy Trinity with Arrius and Sahellius Secondly That their Doctrine maketh GOD the author of sin Thirdly That they bold the Soul of Man to be GOD. All which three we positively deny our selves to be guilty of and I hope all sober and unprejudiced Men will acknowledge that we know what we believe better then this our deceitful and malicious Enemie doth And therefore this whole Chapter needeth no other Answer But the LORD rebuke this lying spirit that is gone forth into the mouths of these lying Propâ—ets Who take pleasure to defamâ— and bespatter innocent Men thereby to lay them open to the fury of their bigotted Admires and blind folded followers But the just GOD who searcheth our Hearts knoweth our Innocency and will in due time rip off these covers of deceit and take away this refuge of Lies wherewith these Men cover themselves that they may hurt the Innocent To begin with the first R B in his Apologie George Keith in his Book of The Way cast up have so fully vindicated us from the Arrians and Sabellian herefies that I wonder with what face this Author can accuse us And it is evident to all single hearted Men who read our Writings that it is the Words only we oppose To wit words invented by the deformers of Christianity the Clergie who by their heathenish philosophie by a new name called School Divinity have invented and brought into the Church these heathenish and unscriptural terms which we reject Nevertheless this perverse and
saith The Prince of this World commeth and hath nothing in me But his mightiest argument is the last which he builds upon his own weak judgement thus For I judge this to be the reason why the Quakers judge that this is the reason it seems the man hath lost both lense and reason that there being grace in the bearts of wicked men while in their wickedness proveth it to be a substance Viz. Because it can be where its contrary is and strive and wrestle with it which is as evident concerning sin in the heart of a Godlv man Answer If Patroclus had lived till Aristotles time surely he had learned his Logicks better but he had the ill hap to meet with Hector before Aristotle was born And for as great enemies as we are to Logick in our Authors esteem and account I must tell him this judgement and reason of his hath lost his cause For Aristotle saith with other Logicians Substantiae contrarium est nihil and Substantia Substantiae non contrariatur So that if the light be a substance its contrary is nothing And this may give a Specimen of this windie mans learning as we have many of his honesty All this is but George Meldrums Dicats to the Students at Aberdeen put in a new dress and fully answered in Quakerism Confirmed Sect 4. He is very angry with George Keith for saying The Devil may be called sin by a metonomie but he might have remembered that Paul calls sin a body of Death the Old man the flesh and Old Adam all which are figurative speeches Yet he calls George Keith a rediculous Babler he is not the first babler who hath reproached him and this is all the fair dealing we can expect He also compleans that GergeKeith sayes that to query a thing will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is queried which the Author will find true in the query I have proposed to him in the end of the last Chapter where I neither deny nor affirm the thing queried In conclusion he will have George Keith and the Querists to say that the Devil is Original sin whether he will or not I shall set down the Querie What is Original sin Whether it be not the devil For doth not Original signifie the beginning Now he bath spent two whole pages of his book full of abusive language upon this query still affirming that the Querists affirmed hereby the devil to be Originael sin which he can never prove from the Query For why may not an Unscriptural word as Original sin is be examined as to its meaning without affirming or denying any thing concerning it That the devil was is the Original of all sin I think our Author will not deny But to say that GOD made so is his blasphemous insinuation and none of ours and therefore his conclusion is his own But how affrontedly impudent this poor man is and how his malice hath blinded him is evident here where he spendeth two whole pages of his Book asserting that to query a thing is to affirm it and for denying this he calls his Adversaries pitiful purposeless wranglers and their discourse nonsensical niceties and calls George Keith a fool a knave and what not while in page 208 of his book he betakes himself to the refuge for defence of his Brother J B saying he only enquireth and a little after faith the contrary of which for any thing I can learn he supposeth So that according to this Author a Quakers Query is an assertion and a Presbyterian Query is a flat denyal at lest a supposing the contraty But these Priests are Holy men and Holy men like Holy write must be read backward but he knows he is accountable to none but his Biethren in Prima instantia for his Doctine as was answered by them to King James the sixth when he accused Blackie for preaching at Andrews Chat all Bings were the devils bairns Who are not like to censure him for traducing the Quakers His third Calumny is That we hold the Soul of man to be GOD To prove this he citeth two Authors Hubberthorn and George Fox These books I never saw only I find that William Penn hath been assaulted with the latter by our Authors beloved Anabaptist Hicks and hath so fully answered it that our Author might have taken notice of it if he had minded to be ingenuous he may find it in Counterfit Christian page 68 69 70 and 71. But admit all he alledgeth were true as it is a most hateful lie that these two men had believed and written so Was there either honesty or fair dealing in our Author to charge this on a whole body of People who had publickly denyed any such Doctrine to be intended by the Writers or owned by them as William Pen hath done in the place before cited If upon the Presbyterian Eloquence should accuse the whole Body of the Presbyterians of the Blaspemies and Absurdities there in charged on particular persons Who would be readier to blame me then this Author who upon Hicks and Faldos Testimonies hath published it's like these Citations Or should I cite here some Presbyterian Authors Saying This Discipline is no small part of the Gospel it is the substance of it And this Discipline is the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD And this Discipline is the Eternal Counsel of GOD. The Authors I will not name except he put me to it because I am not of the mind that any soher Presbyterian will owne such Doctrines But lexpect no such fair Dealling from our Author who cannot but know himself to be a false accuser if he but seriously read and considered the Books he hath cited in his pamphlet Therefore to satisfie all men who may have occasion to see this I do hereby for my self and in the name of my Friends declate That we believe the Rational Soul of Man which joyned with the Body constitutes him a Man and distinguisheth him from beasts to be a 〈◊〉 Creature ereated by GOD and that it is neither GOD nor any part of GOD. And this I hope will satisfie all unprojudiced Readers and demonstrate the malice and deceit of this our surious Adversary And with this one Declaration of our faith in this Article all his Cant for eight pages together falls to the ground Which being chiefly stuffed with Macquairs Rhetorick deserves no other answer but to tell him I am not so well skilled in the art of Scolding as he I shall here only intreat the Reader to take notice of what he saith concerning R B in the end of page 172 and the beginning of the next and to compare this with R B's Vindieation page 190 and 191 That he may see what cause he hath to boast of his Anaboptist Auxilary and to call R B ridicusous He is pleased to call William penn a Saducee a Papist and a Pagan but leaves the probation of it till he write next As for the words
Spiraculum Vitarum be tells us of three or four Lexieo graphers upon whose skill of the Language his faith depends But William Penn tells him of Rabbi Nâ—bmunni Hiskuni and P Fagius And as I told him before R Barkelay told him of Athanasius and Gallus Alexandrinus whose Authority is as good as his Lexico-graphers if not better And therefore we must expect better proofs next His last Citation in page 176 is nothing to his purpose except that any thing which he thinks can blaken the Quakers is pertinent enough But I must ask him here doth he allow of Henry Forsides Answer To wit Being asked For what end Christ wept over Jerusalem He Answered As he was humane he mourned and his God-head deareed them to bell If thou owest this answer thou and he are the Blasphemers in asserting a will in Christ as Man contrary to the Will of GOD for no Man mouths for what he desires and delights in But certainly Christ as Man delighted in fulfiling the Decrees of GOD. But the words he carps at are The Eternal tendered over them This he calls a subjecting that most pure and impassible Being to the weakest Frailties of Mankind Poor Man Doth not the Scripture say That it repented the Lord that he had made Man and is grieved him at his Heart Gen 6. 6. And Eph 4. 30. Grieve not the Good Spirit of GOD. Chapter V. Of CHRIST and His Benefits OUR Author begins this Chapter with his ordinary Ingenuity as he ended the last Saying The Quakers in words ordinarly acknowledge that Christ is GOD and Man Yea Patroclus and in Write too if thou could learn to write the Truth But saith he They maintain a Spiritual and Heavenly Nature in Christ which they call the Heavenly Man which did exist before the Incarnation of Christ and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this Man the Church in all ages did feed Then he giveth us a bundle of Citations out of George Keiths Book The way east up But never one of the Scripture Arguments which he bringeth to prove these assertions Which she weth evidently that they have been too hot for his Fingers This is not like the Champion Patroclus And he might have considered that George Keith was a Philosopher and therefore might have allowed us one Casuist and have discussed him before they had charged his Doctrines upon us But he tells us it is a clear Consequence of this Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures and addeth To this they Answer Quak Confession page 33. That it will no more follow from their Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures then it will follow from ours who assert that Christ assumed into Vnion with the Divine Nature a Body and a Soul But with no better Candour hath he cited this place then his Brother Hicks and Faldo used to I shall therefore set down the words But if they argue that at least Christ hath three Natures in himself We say their own Principle will conclude that as much as ours For the God-head is one Nature The Nature of the Soul is a second And the Nature of the Body is the third And our Adversaries themselves teach That as GOD is three Persons in one Nature So Christ is three Natures in one Person Who seeth not here that our Author hath disingenuously skipt over the strength of the answer to wit the latter part of it which is an argume nt ad hominem and that themselves are owners of that which they would make an absurdity in others But if he have leasure he may read the Cantabridgian Philosopher H More concerning the Astral bodies of men For which I find him not censured by any as making men to be Monsters and so you may allow George Keith some latitude in such Metaphisical stuff however he is of Age and can answer for himself His next is in page 179 where he chargeth us with quite anihilating and destroying the Divinity of Christ for which he citeth a book of one Christopher Aitkinson in the time of Oliver Cromwel But I ask him hath he this book Or hath he taken it upon trust Or found it folding up wares in some Grossers Shop For my part I never saw this book nor know I if there be such a book Extant in this World but he hath had two sufficient answers the first that G Aitkinson was not a Quaker the Second if he deny Christ to be a man we 〈◊〉 him who do say that Christ is both GOD and Man And here let the Reader observe that J Brown thought this a good answer to R B as is to be seen Vind page 67 But our Author will hear no such thing and affirmeth in page 181 That this confession serveth only to prove us guilty of the most wicked Hypocrisie lieing and self-contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover our abominations to prove this heap of gross and unworthy calumnies he betakes himself to George Keiths book again and the places before cited quite ommitting as before all the arguments used by George Keith and never offering us one argument to prove his false accusations of Hypocrisie lieing and false accusation but proceeds like a scolding Kailwife reeling and roaring like a drunken man foaming out his own shame But he saith these Doctrines of George Keiths destroy all the arguments for proving the Divinity of Christ of which he mentioneth one By him all things were Created But was the power of the Logos lessened by taking that Flesh of the Virgin And was he not as able to have Created the World after his Incarnation and Assumption of that Body as he was from Eternity And then what did his being the Heavenly Man the first born of every Creature hinder the Logos from Creating the World and all things therein As for his Vbiquity George Keith hath aboundantly cleared himself in the Book before cited to which I referr him and shall now come to his Dilemma which is this If all things were created by Christ as Man Then either the Manhood of Christ is Created or not If Created then it is Created by it self then which there is nothing more absurd if Uncreated then there is an uncreated Man and a Man that is Coeternal with GOD. Answer The fallacie of this Dilemmâ— lyeth in the first supposition and is obvious to a very mean understanding To wit If all things were Created as Man This was never asserted by George Keith as his own words cited by this impudent Author will easily prove page 93 The Word made Flesh Created all things Now except he will say that he was weakened or disabled by assuming a Body he can make nothing of his Delemma for he was still and is and will be for ever the same Eternal and Omnipotent GOD as well as Man If he ask who made that Heavenly Body I answer The same GOD Almighty who made the Body which he took of the Virgin and so his Consequence of an Vnereated
This must be a man of no Credit nor one that values a good name tho he begin his Book with it For if he can produce in that Book or Chapter such an expression of William Penns he shall surely cause Print a new Copie and insert it for I assure my Reader there is no such thing so that henceforth our Author deserves better to be called Simon then Patroelus Yea he out does Faldo for Faldo accuseth William Penn only for saying that the Body of Jesus was not the whole intire Christ Which Faldo labouring to prove and sometimes deny that any man having the use of his Reason might have been ashamed of he fully bemires himself and yet our Authors citation is more odious He cometh now to another false charge saying as these men deny CHRIST Himself So they deny consequently all the benefites purchased by him The Father of lies could scaroely have been more audacious tho perhaps more cunning then to have Printed himself a lier The First is proven to be aeâ—lie already let us hear what he saith for the Second For this he returns to his trade of forging citations and gives William Penns Sandie Foundation shaken 26. Thus Unless we become doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy but as our example to fulfil we can never be justified before GOD nor let any fancy that Christ so fulfilled it for them as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their acceptance but only as their patern c. This Thread-bare citation hath been many a time cast in our teeth and tossed over and over to no purpose For William Penn hath so fully cleared himself of it that no honest man would have charged him or us with it as my Reader may see in Reason against Railing page 78 and Counterfeit Christian detected from page 22 to page 78 which were too tedious to insert here but hath brought an indelible brand of infamy upon Thomas Hicks whereof it seems our Author covets a share In page 186 He contemns at the old rate of forgery and falsly accusing us first of Socinianism and then of Popery saying R B denyeth not that his Doctrine of Justification is all one with that of the Council of 〈◊〉 He citeth for proof of his Calumny Apol page p37 139 and Vind Sect 8 N 9. Where faith he He accuseth Luther and the Body of the Primitive Protestants as great Deprivers of the doctrine of Justification and doers of as great hurt by this their Doctrine as ever they did good by what they pulleddown of Babylon A grosser lie nor a greater forgerie was never Printed in this Age What shall men do when they deal with such audacious slanderes But Patroelus tell me seriously didst thou think that any who Read thy book would be at pains to compare it with the places cited If they did how could thou think to escape the black Character of an infamous forger Doth not R B in both places cited dispute largely against the Papists And in his Vindication doth he not challenge J Brown for Patronizing the Papists But thy Forgerie is more then manifest in the latter part of thy charge Wherein thou sayes he accuseth the Protestants as doers of as great hurt by this their Doctrine as ever they did good by what they pulled down of Babylon R B's Words are these For in this as in most other things He Luther is more to be commended for what he pulled down of Babylon then for what he Built of his own Let the Reader from this one citation Judge of our Authors Candor and whether this perversion be not wilful as well as malicious In the next place he giveth us a whole page and some more of Hicks and Faldo's stuff so fully answered and the Perversion thereof so fully detected by William Penn that the Authors themselves durst never attempt their Vindication But it seems our Author thinks these of his own stamp will believe him implicitly and the Books he hath forbidden them to read and so thinks himself secure but he being manifested to be a Forger as above I hope the Reader will be at the pains to read William Penns Book against Hicks and Faldo where he will find all these Citations fully handled which were superfluous to transcribe here In the end of page 187. He saith with the like facility I could shew That the Doctrine of the Quakers is in every point contrary to the Doctrine of Christ Truly it is easie for a man who loves to make Lies and makes no Conscience of so doing to vent and Print them But what is now sweet in his mouth may prove bitter in his belly But he proceeds saying I shall content my self with one great Instance Viz The Resurrection of the Body concerning which the Quakers are down-tight Saducees This is another like the rest And to return a lie upon him I shall first say We believe according to the Scriptures a Resurrection of the Dead of the Just and unjust So that this unjust Adversary here chargeth us very falsly For we can justly say If in this Life only we have hope in Christ we are of all men most miserable Nor were we ever charged with denying the Resurrection but only of that same body Niomerical Concerning which we willingly assent to what the Apostle hath said 1 Cor. 15 from verse 35. to the end And 2. Cor. 5. 1. 2 3. Which Beza â—nterprets of the Resurrection And if our Author will be wiser then the Spirit of GOD I must leave him there and remit him to cultivate his Reason better by conversing with some of the Modern Philosophers As Henry More and others and particularly Kenelm Digby in his Observations upon Religio Medici page 343. I shall offer him only two Sentences of his First All sublunary Matter being in a continual Flux and in bodies which have internal Principles of Heat and Motion which continually transpireth out to make room for the fresh Supplies of new Aliement So that in process of time all is so changed that the body of the Young Man is not the same body of the Old Man and so one body sinneth and another suffereth Secondly That which giveth the numerical individuation to a body is the substantial Form as long as that remaineth the same tho the matter be in a continual flux and motion yet the thing is still the same It is evident that Samenes This-nes and That-nes belongeth not to matter by it self but only as it is distinguished and individuated by the Form The rest of his Work to the end of this Chapter being nothing but the foul Vomite of two malicious Forgeries already answered deserves no answer Chapter VI. Of Perfection HERE he beginneth with insolent and insulting Language and then with more then his usual Candor sets down R B's eight These But lest I should have mistaken him he returns to his Priestine State and Old Principles Saying and afterwards he saith That there
ther the Glory of God not the 〈…〉 of the people We haâ—e no malâ— knowing that he who hates his Brother is a Murtherer and no Murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him To the Examples of Enoch and Noah being called perfect He saith R B confesseth they once bad sin Therefore how came they at another time to be free of it altogether The answer is easie 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness As for the word Perfection its having diverse significations It may be so But I am sure it can never be truely predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed. He comes next to vindicate their Arguments for the Devils Kingdom or Sinning Term of Life The first whereof is 1 John 2. 3. misunderstood by them If we say we have no sin c Answer first I say with Augustine upon the Galatians Aliud est non peccare aliud non habere percatum Secondly The following words of the Apostle are If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness And he that is cleansed from sin is the same that was before said to have sin Now it is said in the 7th verse The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Here cleanseth is in the present Tense Now to be defiled with sin and cleansed from all sin at the same time seems a contradiction and therefore must be admitted to be two several times Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next To his Answer That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin then that the Apostle James was a Curser when he said of the tongue herewith curse we men Our Author Replyes There is no Parity And why Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time No But saith he James speaketh of gross outbreakings and John simply of the nature of sin Very good I see our Author can distinguish betwixt morial and venial sins Of which sure lying must be one in his Judgement or else he had been unsainted long since But knowing this would not do he tells us the Apostle John even in his best Frame had sinful actions and citeth Revel 19. 10 11. and 22. 8 9. The first place is That he falls down at his feet to worship him And the second is That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel But admit they both meant so our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins if a sin at all For it was but a mistaking the Angel who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power and the Earth was enlightned with his Glory I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake but stopped him And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant And so these two Texts he boasts of can do hm no service To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer but It 's false And again we know c without any Reason but his imperious assertion which deserves to be neglected Next he indeavours to prove from Ecclesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily c. Which place he little urgeth only tells us He hath considered the Hebrew and hath found it the Indicative Mood So saith our Author Ergo verum But he must excuse me to think Jerom and Junius Tremellius as good Linguists as he and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood and may not sin His next is Rom 7. 17. From which Texts he saith J B. hath proved That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it least his Arguments should have been sound like these he cites page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it if he but read the next Chapter throughout The second verse whereof cleareth this matter where the Apostle saith The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the law of sin and death And many times after witnesseth a better Condition As that he had sought the good fight c Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD c And Phil 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered That of Peter proves no more then that a Man may sin which is not denyed He comes at last to his great Argument If we find no Instances in Scripture of such persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancie and dream But the former is true Ergo c. For answer let the Reader observe first that our Author finding his Brothers Argument fully refuted by R B hath not attempted the Vindieation of it But he saith the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he chooseth to answer unto Answer Either this Argument which he answereth unto was to the purpose or not If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments but one proponed three different wayes any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose If it was not to the purpose as was the greatest part of his book then he might have spared it But because R B took not our Authors argument to task which perhaps was not there he saith he must confess he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein This is a Rhodomontado expression more like Don Quixot then a sober man writing about Religion tho very ordinary with our Author But let us see what cause there is for all this froath First then I deny his Minor for I can find him many recorded in Scripture of whom there is no failing recorded to wit Enoh Melchizedeck Elias John the Baptist and many of the Prophets and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians saith That many were born holy and free from all sin and particularly Elias and John Baptist Secondly I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation which he seems here to insinuate for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture But that the sins of the Saints are recorded that we may shun them not that we should follow them neither is there
want of precep's and examples in abundance for us without them But before I leave this matter I shall give one argument yet If there be any who need no Repentance then certainly there be some who do not break GOD's Commands dayly in thought word and deed but the first is true Ergo c. The Minor is proved by Luke 15. 7. Chapter VII Of Waiting in silence And of the Sacraments OUR Author Denominates his seventh Chapter of silent Worship which is a word of his own Coyning and none of ours and then falls to a vindication of his brother J B's Calumnies The first whereof is John Brown asserts that R B would have them understand that Christs Spiritual Resurrection was never till now R B answereth I speak only with reference to the time sinâ—e the Apostacie and not to the primitive times before Our Author sayes first any may judge by his eleventh proposition c. Or by this Chapter annexed thereto I am truely willing that any be judge that is not byassed as most part of the Clergie are And therefore I inteat the Reader to see R. B's Apologie page 247 where he will find this calumny more clearly obviated His second answer is he is unhappy in removing this calumny for the Apostacie was working in the Apostles time But he is more unhappy in over turning one of the two chirâ— grounds of the Protestant Religion assigned to the Jesuite by J M To wit the Father in the first three Centuries But shews ignorance here as well as malice for if there was no true Spiritual worshp in the Church after the Apostasie began to work Then according to our Author there was no Spiritual Worship in the Church till the Reformation The contrary of which R B asserteth Yea even in the darkest times of Popery he citeth Bernard Bonaventur Taulerus and Thomas a Kâ—mpis and also commends the first Reformers for denying the Popish abominable superstition and Idolatrie of the Mass the Adoration of Saints and Angels the Veneration of the Reliques the Visitation of Sepulchres Yet nevertheless Our Author in his third and fourth answer compares us to Muncer John of Lyden Arrius Pelagius and what not And it 's much he hath not called us Papists too But let the Reader judge whether he hath mended J B's matter and not rather added lie to lie and calumny to calumny The second Calumny he defends is That we acknowledge no motion nor inward breathing of the Spirit but what is extraordinary and meerly Enthusiastick As also That we abstract from all means Which Calumny our Author saith he hath above evinced to be a Truth in his first and second Chapters How truely the Reader must Judge But he giveth us a second Instance R B denyeth that Studied Sermons are means appointed of GOD for what he adds are his own words and not R B's but behold the Argument Studied Sermons are denyed Ergo all means are denyed Be ashamed His third is That the Quakers spiritual life is nothing but Nature Thus he saith he proved Chapter 2d That all their Grace and Light is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of GOD in Man To which I also refer the Reader And withall I must desire the Reader to take notice of our Authors little Tricks in his Parallel betwixt us and the Anabaptists he referrs to what follows of his Book And in the end of his Book he referrs to what is past thinking it's like his own implicite Hearers will take it on trust But I expect thou will trace him better which if thou do thou will soon find what he is for all his vaine boast The fourth Calumny he denyeth and saith his Adversary only enquireth it If this be a sufficient Answer let him consult his own Book page 167. 168. and 169. Where he will needs have a Query to import a full affirmation of the thing queried and so proves himself signally dissingenious and also leaves his brother in the myre The fifth Calumny he saith depends upon the Contraversy about Perfection and so shifts it The sixth Calumny he insists on is That there is no setting about Prayer or other Duties without a previous motion of the Spirit The Nicery is in the word Previous and therefore I shall referr him to the fifth Section of Quakerism confirmed where that matter is fully handled and all his Quibles Answered Which Book I perceive the Man hath read and so might either been silent or brought us some new thing which he hath not yet done The seventh Calumny is That Gospel Worship putteth away all external actions And upon this Calumny his brother â— B had charged a Contradiction upon R B Yet our Author bestows no more answer upon both But He needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their Words If this be fair dealing let the Reader Judge He tells us next That J B compareth us to the Old Pithonicks And as if his brother had not been slanderous enough he adds I alwayes compared them in such fitts to the Cumaena Sybilli as she is descrived by Virgil 6. Aenead And John Brown passim That we are acted by the Devll possest by him at his pleasure To all which I shall again with R B modestly reply That of all men the Presbyterians might have for born this had they but remembred the Stuartown sickness But our Author giveth us a mighty difference thus These at Stuartown after these outlettings of the Spirit upon them cleaved to the Scriptures as the only Rule and were endeared to the Ministers of Jesus Christ and his Word and Sacraments We mean saith he Water-baptism and the Communion of the Lord Body in Bread and Wine c Which sayes he were commanded by Christ to be used until his coming to Judgement Which are contemned and vilified by the Quakers And for all this we must trust our Authors word But how comes it then that our present Presbyterians who are found in all these things now have no such Outlettings of the Spirit Yea why are they found the chief Opposers and blasphemers of such Out-lettings of the Spirit If they were good then I think they should be expected and waited for now But this would savour of Enthusiasm and therefore cannot be endured But I must tell our Author the true Reason why these Outlettings of the Spirit ceased among them To wit Because they foresook that Power which reached them at first and betook themselves to Men who in stead of the Gospel of peace preached up Warrs Seditions Tumults Scrife and Contention And in stead of Prayers Tears preached up Swords and Spears in stead of Suffering fighting and contending with the Civil Magistrate Which was never the way of CHRIST not Christians As for Water-Baptism and Bread and Wine it is no good Argument that they cleaved to them which are called Meats and Drinks and Divers Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances while they wanted that Righteousness
neglecting the Reason his Adversary gave for his denyal and then exclaims But why should I take notice c Now should not our Author rather have enforced this Reason If it had been worth his while he had not skipt over it But when he perceives it will not do it is enough for him to say John Brown hath done wonders why should I take notice c. Next he comes to Matth 14. 19. Which R B sayes according to our Author will as much prove a Sacrament as the places of the Gospel and the Epistle to the Corinthians ordinarly brought can do it Here Reader thou hast another instance of his deceit for clearing whereof I shall set down R. Bs. words he asketh What signifieth CHRISTS blessing of the Bread breaking giving it to his Disciples desiring them to eat Answer Christ blessed the Bread break it and gave it to his Disciples to eat and they to others where themselves confess no such Sacrament or Mystery as they would have here is reduceable see Matt. 14. 19. Mark 6. 41. Now let the Reader judge of this mans ingenuity But sayes he R. B. never inferred any thing of this kind from simple blessing but from other things considered with blessing such as this is my Body this is my Blood And the unrepealled command and Institution 1 Cor. 11. and the like What Foppery is this Doth he think to inferr the real Presence from these words this is my Body Or will his meer assertion satisfie that 1 Cor. 11. was a command for continuance of of that Sign For to call it the institution is nonesense being institute before Paul was a Christian but to use his own words he hath done as well as he can and is to be excused if he would but cease to boast That which followes is no better where he citeth R. B. saying he saith indeed that the institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. was a permission c. When will this man learn to deal honestly upon R. B's saying That 1 Cor 11. Will not prove the necessity of its being now performed J B sayes That then it was an act of will worship and superstition R B Answereth What is done by permission for a time is not Will Worship and Superstition c Now it concerned our Author to prove that there was no Institution of this Rite before this Epistle to the Corinthians And in that case he had delivered his Brother and made it an act of Will-Worship For his saying That R B granteth there was a Command for this Practise is nothing to his purpose for he did not say this was it but another before it And so this was no Will-Worship to the Corinthians nor any proof for its continuance The next is about washing the Disciples feet and his express Command that they should wash every one anothers feet To which he answereth John Brown hath shewed disparity And that R B saith meer nothing but calleth him a Pope This every Man that will be at the pains to read the place will find to be a gross untruth but this is ordinary His next in page 234. Where he citeth Acts 20. 7. to prove that the circumstances are not to be observed The words it seems are when the Disciples came together to break Bread Paul preached unto them and therefore say our Adversaries This was a Sacramental Eating no circumstance to be observed A singular Consequence and well worthy our Author May he alwayes dispute thus against us And 1 Cor 11. 18 20. I desire he may tell us next what relation it hath to his matter In the next place he begins with Acts 2. 42. And complains that R B denyes this to be meant of the LORDS Supper But herein he accuseth Beza who in his notes upon this place saith The Jews used thinn Loaves and therefore they did rather break them then cut them So by breaking of Bread they understand that living together and the Banquets which they used to keep The Reader may see what trouble it is to trace him to no purpose But he cometh again to Acts 20. 7. And saith R B slighteth his Adversaries Reason Which is another gross Lie as the Reader may see Vind page 172. But why doth he not bring some thing to help his Brother and not tell us he hath done all When all Intelligent and Unbyassed Men judge he hath done more hurt then Good to his own Cause And yet this Section is nothing but a meer Elogie upon J B's Book In Answer to Numb 20. Saith our Author R B bringeth nothing but meer Assertions false Suppositions such as that the Corinthians were supperstitious in that they at all practised this Duty of the LORDS Supper I acknowledge he must be sharper sighted then I who can see these words in R B's Vindication upon Numb 20. or any where else But being near the close he begins to Dream again and may perhaps be Simon next because he was Patroclus last and sure he is more like the first for Lying and Deceit is the best part of his work To R B's Saying That 1 Cor 11. 26. Is to be understood of Christs Inward and Spiritual Coming Apol page 341 and his Vind page 173 He giveth no Answer But it is needless at all to impugne this distinction it s own groundlesness sufficiently doth it This is like a mighty Man and well worthy a Groecian Hero And now he is come to his ultimus conatus which he must excuse me to tell him is of all his Book the most ridiculous For to conclude from the Abrogation of Rites Signs and Ceremonies That preaching the Gospel was also abrogate To prove this he saith it will as well follow from Col 2. 20. That preaching the Gospel is abrogate as from verse 16. and Rom 14. 17. That the LORDS Supper is abrogate I shall therefore set down the Words and leave it to the Judgement of the Reader Rom 14. 17. For the Kingdom of GOD is not meat and drink but Righteousness and Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost Col 2. 16. Let no Man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an Holy Day or of the new Moon or of the Sabbath Dayes I shall now add his Citation for abrogating of preaching Col 2. 20. Wherefore if ye be dead with CHRIST from the Rudiments of the World why as tho living in the World are ye subject unto Ordinances Touch not Taste not c. Now if the LORDs Supper as used by you be not Meat and Drink I know nothing what Bread and Wine are But what a Commentary will this 20. verse need to cause it intend preaching of the Gospel I remember the Presbyterian Dialect was wont to run thus To hear Sermon was called a Haunting of the Ordinances And to abstaine was called a dishaunting of the Ordinances And therefore it seems he understands the word Ordinances in the 20. verse for Preaching He must shew us what relation Preaching