QUAKERISM CONFIRMED OR A vindication of the chief Doctrines and Principles of the people called QVAKERS from the arguments and objections of the Students of divinity so called of ABERDEEN in their book entituled QUAKERISM CONVASSED By ROBERT BARCLAY and GEORGE KEITH 2 Tim. 3 9. But they shall proceed no further for their folly shall be manifest to all men c. Printed in the Year 1676. Friendly Reader Had we not more regarded the interest of the Truth for whose sake we can shun no abasement then the significancy of those with whom we have this rencountre we should have rather chused to be silent then answer them they being of so small reputation among their own that neither teachers nor people will hold themselves accomptable for any of their positions and seeme zealous to have it believed they would not bestow time to read it nor yet hold themselves obliged to approve it However since we certainly know that in the second part of their book to which this reply is they have scraped together most of the chief arguments used against us and borrowed not a little from G. Ms. manuscripts with whose work that yet appears not we have been these seven years menaced which like the materialls of a building managed by unskilfull workmen though they be by them very confusedly put together yet being the chief things can be said against us we have throughly handled for the Readers satisfaction which may be serviceable to the Truth without respect to the insignificancy of those against whom it is written As for the first part of their book we have also answered it but distinct from this it consisting of many particularityes of matters of fact which perhaps might have proved taedious to many Readers that may be this be edified and think it of no great consequence that the Students are proved lyars which even many of their own party think is not any spot in their religion so litle are they looked upon among their own yet those that are curious may also have that first part As for this second part wherein our principles are handled we iudge we deal with the Clergy in generall however they seek to shift it and hide themselvs since their book is licenced by the bishop of Edinburgh and he being challenged said he did it not without a recommendation from Aberdeen So that no man of reason can deny but they are accountable for the errours and impertinencies which we have herein observed which we leave Reader to thy serious examination remaining Thy Friends R. B. G. K. The CONTENTS SECTION 1. Concerning immediat Revelation Pag. 1. SECTION 2. The Students argument against the Spirits being the rule proved one with the Iesuit Dempsters 12 SECTION 3. Concerning the supper perfection and Womens speaking 18 SECTION 4. Concerning the necessity of immediat Revelations to the building up of true faith 27 SECTION 5. Concerning Worship 41 SECTION 6. Concerning Baptism 56 SECTION 7. Concerning the Ministry 65 SECTION 8. Concerning Liberty of Conscience 75 The CONCLUSION Wherin their observations upon R. B. his Offer and their last Section of the Q. Revileings as they terme them are examined 83 QUAKERISM CONFIRMED SECTION FIRST Concerning immediate Revelation wherin the Second part of the Students book from Pag. 44. to Pag. 66. is Answered IN their first section they alledge we doe wickedly put many indignities upon the holy Scriptures and that we monopolise the Spirit to our selves which are grosse lyes but that they are against the Spirit is no malicious accusation but a thruth as will appear to any true discerner Their comparing us when wee plead for the Spirit to them who cryed the Temple the Themple is unequall and profane they that cryed the Temple the Temple rejected the Spirit of God and relyed too much on the Temple and outward priviledges but dare they blame any for relying too much on the Spirit of God Again in their first subjection they committ a grosse deceit in which they follow G. M. their master who useth the same in his manuscript to us in alleadging they are more for the Spirit then we becaus they affirme that the efficacy of the Spirit is insuperable For wee doe affirme that the efficacy of the Spirit is in a true sense insuperable as namely wher the mind is well disposed See R. B. his thesis wher he useth the word insuperably but that the Spirit doth insuperably move or irrestibly force the ill disposed minds of all in whom it operats is false and contrary to scripture which saith that some resist the Spirit yea and is contrary to the experience of all who are acquainted with the Spirits workings that know that the Spirit many tymes worketh so gently that his operation may be resisted therfore said the Apostle Quench not the Spirit Now that doctrine which is contrary both to Scripture and experience is not for the spirit but against it Again how are they more for the spirit then we seing they affirm the Spirits influence is but only effective as having no evidence in it self sufficiently to demonstrat that it is of God we say it hath as being both effective and objective 2. They say the influence of the spirit is only given to some we say to all 3. They say it is so weak that it can bring none to a perfect freedom from sin in this life though never so much improved we say it can yea 4. They say commonly the influence of the spirit cannot keep the best Saint one moment from sin we say it can keep them for whole dayes yea alwayes if they improve it as well as they can 5. They say a Man may and ought to pray without the spirit which we deny and so we leave it to the judicious if here they do not commit a gross deceit Lastly in their stating the question they accuse us falsely as if we did hold that all men ought to judge and examine all the materiall objects of faith and Articles of religion by inward revelations as if all men were bound to an impossibility all men have not all the materiall objects of faith propounded unto them for some of the materiall objects of faith are meerly accidentall unto all mens salvation as to believe that Abraham begat Isaak and Isaak Iacob c. others although not accidentall yet are but integrall parts and not essentiall of Christian religion such as the outward history of Christ c. and so by this distinction divers of these arguments are answered without more ado especially the first two where they spend much paper fighting with their own shaddow telling us that the heathens have no revelations shewing the birth passion resurrection c. of Iesus Christ which we do grant for the belief of such things is only necessary to them to whom they are propounded and the Scriptures alledged by them at most prove no more it were a needless labour and not worth the pains to answer particularly to all
is not objective which we altogether deny but as to this inward call we ask them if it hath not in it the nature of a command so that he who hath it is bound to obey it if they say not then a man may lawfully disobey it and resist it although it be of God if they say it is a command then it is objective for it is the nature of all reall and true commands to be objective Again if by disposition they mean the meer qualification that enables a man to be a preacher how can that be a call seing a man may be fit or able for an office that hath not a call thereunto being already in another office that he is fit for also So that they bew ray grosse ignorance in confounding the ability and the call which are distinct things And here they require of us to prove our immediate call by miracles or any extraordinary thing which can only be from God and so cannot agree to false teachers And it having been told them by R. B. that the Papists made the same objection against the first reformers they call this an impertinent pratling but for all the disparity they shew the impertinent pratling falls upon themselves They confesse the first reformers had an extraordinary call in respect of their heroick gifts yet they also had a mediat call They owned the holy Scriptures for their principall rule and preached no other Gospel c. To this we answer that all of them had a mediate call is a meer alledgance without any proofe yea the history of the reformation sheweth the contrary Again it is abundantly evident out of their owne writings that the most eminent of them did lay no weight upon that outward call which some of them had from the Popish church but did plead that seing the visible succession of the church and ministry was interrupted by the apostasie that they needed no outward call but did betake themselves to the extraordinary see for this Sadeell de legit vocatione ministrorum and when they used any argument of a mediate call it was but by way of arg ad hominem as now if any of us called Quakers hade ever had the mediate call from the nationall churches as some in England indeed had namely S. F. who was a Parish priest nor will it prove that the first reformers had an extraordinary call because they owned the Scriptures as their principall rule and preached no other Gospell otherwise all the nationall preachers now would have an extraordinary call because they pretend to owne the Scriptures as their principall rule and to preach no other Gospell yea we owne the Scriptures as much as the first reformers did and we do acknowledge them that they are the principall externall rule and to be preferred to all other outward writings and testimonies but we can not preferre them to the inward testimony and word of God in our hearts as neither did the most eminent of these called reformers but indeed preferred the inward testimony and word to the outward as is proved in the book called Quakerisme no Popery Now whatever proofe or evidence the first reformers could give of their exrtaordinary call the Quakers can give the same that which they mainly insisted on was the soundnesse of their doctrinee accompanyed with the holynesse of their life and good effect of their ministry whereby soules were converted unto God as Sadeel in the treatise above mentioned de legit voc Min. sheweth at length and let our adversaries disprove this evidence if they can which we say is as good an evidence to us as it was to them and though false teachers may pretend unto the same yet it can be proved that it doth not justly belong unto them As for Popery and Mahumetanism it can be proved that they are contrary to Scripture but our adversaries have not proved nor can that our doctrine is so and we are most willing to bring the matter to this issue we doubt not but to give better and stronger evidences from Scripture and reason to convince gainsayers in a rationall way then our adversaries can But that we make the efficacy of our doctrine taken precisely by it selfe and without being accompanied with the soundnesse of it c an evidence of our Call is a meer calumny of the Students Now let us see what they have to say for Their outward and mediate call They cite divers Scriptures to prove that the Apostles ordained Elders but doth this prove that their ordination which they derive from the apostate church of Rome is a true ordination and necessary Yea it is clear and confessed by the most judicious Protestants that true and lawfull ordination and succession hath not continued in the church since the Apostles dayes but hath suffered an interruption by the generall apostasie that as a flood overflowed the earth and that although God still preserved a church yet she had not a visible outward succession becaus she was not visible all along here selfe and before our adversaries can make the halfe of their argument good they must prove that not only a true church hath continued ever since the Apostles dayes but that she hath been visible having a true visible succession of visible teachers who were good and faithfull men all along to convey it downe to this day But to inferre that ordination hath continued becaus of the command if the command had been universall doth not follow seing many things commanded may be unpractised through unfaithfulnesse to the command Now it is certain that generally the visibly ordained bishops have not been faithfull men for many hundred years and so kept not to the substance of that true ordination that was in the Apostles times but lost it through unfaithfulnesse and set up a shaddowe in its roome the like may be said of other things And the ordination being once lost it can not be recovered again from a meer Scripture command otherwise all may pretend to a power to ordain for the Scripture doth not command one more then another yea we find no generall command in Scripture for ordination only that it was practised which we deny not and with it there was a spirituall gift of the holy Ghost conveyed which was the main and only thing that made the ordination and laying on of hands effectuall and without which it is but a shaddow as may be seen at this day in the Nationall church for who among them dare say that they either give or receive that spirituall gift of the holy Ghost which was then given and received therewith 1 Tim. 4 14. Their second argument is from Heb. 6. 1 2. whereby they would inferre that laying on of hands is a part of the foundation of Christianity but that Scripture saith no such thing for the doctrine of Baptismes and laying on of hands relates to the 3 ver as a thing that the Apostle intended to open and this said he will we doe
have a supernaturall end nor can it teach them that they are to love feare serve and worship God from a supernaturall principle of Gods grace which are the greatest duties required of man and if it can not teach men and convince them of their greatest duties it followeth that it can not convince them of the great sins that are contrarie unto those duties Also Nature can not teach men the mystery of regeneration which yet is needfull to be knowne for men who are but too much addicted to naturall reason and searchings into the book of nature but despise the divine and supernaturall illumination of Christ in them think regeneration a fiction or unnecessary thing Other instances could be given but least they should call them the Q. errours we shall forbear contenting our selves with such as our adversaries acknowledge to be true But 2. if it were granted that the book of Nature could in some sort discover all things necessary to salvation without supernaturall light which yet we deny it doth not follow that therfore divine supernaturall objective revelation is not necessary becaus the discovery that the book of nature and naturall reason gives to men of divine things as of the power wisdom justice goodnesse love and mercy of God is but dimm weak faint and barren and is no more a proportionat object to the spirituall sensations of the soul then a report of meat and drink and cloathing are a sutable or proportionat object to the tast and feeling of the outward man the souls of men need not only to be convinced that ther is a God who is good loving mercifull powerfull and just but they need also in order to their salvation to have a feeling of his divine power to see and tast that he is good to handle that word of life to know Christ in themselves to have the love of God shed abroad in them by the holy Spirit which love is a sensible and perceptible object and so is objective For if the Scriptures be nota sufficient objective revelation of God and the things of his kingdom much lesse the book of nature c but the first is true therefore the second is true also Now that the Scriptures are not a sufficient objective revelation of God c. G K. hath proved at large in his book of Immed Revela and we need not produce any new arguments here untill the Students or their masters refute those already set downe in that book only this we say in short Nature and Scripture tell us that ther is a God but they can neither give us a sense sight or tasting of him or of his love or of his Spirituall judgments as these things are inwardly experienced where God reveals them Nature can not refresh or comfort the soul nor pour in wine and oil into it when it is wounded with sin and although it could tell that God can doe this what comfort could that be to the soul unlesse God himselfe doe it and make the soul sensibile of his hand reaching unto it the Spirituall things themselves that nature can not afford Also nature cannot discover the Spirituall judgments of God in the soul wherby he cleanseth it from sin as by water and fire Now as to the second branch of their argument that the Scriptures are a sufficient objective revelation of all things necessary to salvation this we altogether deny as is said for although the scripture is a full enough declaration of all doctrines and principles both essentiall and integrall of Christian religion yet the Scripture doth propose divine things and objects but as a Card or Mappe doth a land and the fruits of it to the outward eye Now as this is not a sufficient objective proposall because we need to see the Land it selfe and to tast and eat and drink of the fruit of it so our souls need a more near and immediat discovery of God then the Scripture which is but a report of him that he may feed and nourish us by his divine manifestations and here in the prosecution of this argument they are at great paines to prove that the Scriptures are given from God which we deny not although some of their proofes be weak but whatever reasons can be brought to prove that the Scriptures are given from God if the inward testimony of the Spirit of God be not believed and received these reasons cannot beget any divine saving faith wherof only wee speak but a meer humane and naturall faith or conviction As to that place of Scripture 2 Cor. 4 3 4 if our gospell c that is say they the outward gospell but doth Paul say so Nay Look the Greek text and you will find the contrary that the Gospell he spake of was hidd in them that are lost so the Greek Therefore it was inward and this Scripture they bring to prove that the Scriprures have objective evidence and perspicuity in themselves whereas Paul doth not say of the Scripture but of the Gospell which is the power of God And whereas they query If a person may have immediat objective revelations who hath not his mind wel disposed and if so what advantage would he have by them which he might not have without them by the Scriptures We answer much every way becaus the Scripture is not able to dispose his mind as our adversaries grant but these immediate objective revelations are also really effective and have sufficient power and ability in them to dispose his mind if he do not resist them Again wheras they query May a person be wel disposed who hath not such revelations We answer No yet he may want some and have other some but if he may yet there is need of such revelations even as if a mans eye or tast were never so wel disposed he needeth the objects themselves and as painted bread or a discourse of bread can not satisfie the naturall tast and appetite no more can the Scripture words satisfie the tast and appetite of the soul. They cite 2 Tim. 3 15 16 17. to prove that the Scriptures of Old and New Testament are the principall compleat and infallible rule of faith and manners but this place doth not say that they are so the Scripture we grant but deny their consequence which is merly begged without a proofe They confesse pag. 90. that the Scriptures are not sufficient every way so as to exclude the inward efficiency of the Spirit and the concurrence of other causes Very wel Enough to overthrow their whole argument for among other causes divine inspiration is a maine for indeed the inward efficiency of the Spirit is that objective revelation which we plead for only they deny it to be objective wheras we say it is both effective and objective as if a man should grant that the light and heat of the fire doth both enlighten us and warme us but deny that either that light or heat of the fire is objective to our discerning
restriction comprehends inward as wel as outward acts of evil Seing then they put a restriction though to their own selfe-condemnation they confesse it to be unlawfull which they are forced to doe else hypocrites would be comprehended whom they confesse to be tares that are not to be meddled with We that judge it no wise unlawfull becaus without other clear texts be contradicted there must be here a restriction may restrict it to things civil and morall excluding matters of worship and difference in opinion for the reasons often before mentioned Their 3. argument wholly misses the matter which is the practice of many princes even approved of God in coercing Idolatries c for since all the examples they give are of the kings of Judah and Israël under the Law it nowise meets the present controversie which is concerning the power of Christian Magistrats under the Gospell Lastly They argue that the Prophets of the Old Testament have prophesied that it should be the office of Christian Magistrats to coërce false prophets for which they alledge Deut. 18 20. he that shall speak in the name of other Gods shall die Very wel he saith not shall be put to death in a judiciall way It is said The soul that sinneth shall die it will not therefore follow that every soul that sinneth shall be killed by the Magistrate But though it be understood of putting to death it reacheth not the case we being under the Gospell not under the Law where also it was not lawfull so to doe for different opinions and interpretations of the Law but onely for rejecting the true God and his Law and introducing new and strange Gods Their other proofe is from Zech. 13 1 2 c where it is said that the fathers and the mothers of the false Prophets shall say unto them Thou shalt not live and thrust them through when they prophesy This is so farre from being taken literally that the Students dare not take it so themselves else the father and and the mother might doe the businesse without troubling the magistrate and afterwards the text speaks of those who were not to live of their having wounds in their hands and being alive which shewes the understanding here is to be spirituall and seing the Students do not understand it literally of the persons to whom the text ascribes this coërcing and that there is not the least word of a magistrate in the place for them to affirme that it is not to be understood of the magistrate is but miserably to begg the question They begin their 8. Sect. pag. 126. affirming that Quakerism tends to Anarchie and confusion and treason alledging we would pull down the Magistrate if we could and set up our own spirituall Magistrates as Iohn of Leyden c. For this malitious insinuation they give no reason but such an one as destroyes it to wit our giving in Resist not evil pluck not up the tares as repeals of some lawes in the Old Test. Now let men of reason judge whether treason be the tendency of these mens principles that affirme evil is not to be resisted or how these can doe violence to the Magistrate without contradicting their principles and then it can not be the tendency of them and wheras they conclude saying That Quakerism as they conceive beyond all doubt tends to Anarchie confusion of state and treason Their conceptions are very false in this matter and we may upon farr better grounds retort this upon the Students Confraternity the Clergy who through their ambition and turbulency did from the pulpits blow the trumpet of all the late confusion and treason in the civil warrs and shew themselves exact disciples of Iohn of Leyden acting his pranks upon the stage of Great Britaine a charge they have not to lay to the Quakers Their next effort is to prove we deny the necessity of Professing Christianity becaus we believe those not bound to believe the history of Christ from whom God hath necessarily withheld the knowledge of it for they confesse that wee believe these obliged to believe them to whom they are revealed But they must here also act like themselves in makeing that a horrible crime in us which their owne chiefe doctors affirme who being pressed by the Arminians with this argument That which every man is bound to believe is true But every man is bound to believe that Christ died for them therfor it is true They deny the Minor plainly affirming that those that have not heard of Christ are not bound to believe he died for them so according to the Students themselves are guilty of denying the necessity of professing Christianity as well as we But further they say wee are guilty of this becaus we set up a new Christ in every man that is borne and growes up unto a perfect substantiall birth as their first charge in this matter hitts at their owne Doctors so this second is common with us to the Apostle Paul for the Students dispute like blind men striking at random that heed not what they hit seing the Apostle calls Christ within of which we speak the hope of glory which is neither a new Christ nor yet another then he that died at Ierusalem who did travell that he might be brought forth in the â—alatians and calls him the new man borne in and put on by others So if in this the Apostle did not deny the outward sufferings of Christ neither doe we unlesse the Students can shew how our doctrine differs from his or contradicts it which they have not yet attempted to doe As for that question of I. Penington How can outward blood cleanse we referre them to his owne book in defence of that expression as quarrelled by J. Hicks called the flesh and blood of Christ of which there were divers printed coppies at Aberdeen befor the Students book was put to the presse The CONCLUSION Wherin their observations upon R. B. his Offer and their last Section of the Q. Revileings as they term them are examined IN the end of the account of our dispute I renewed an offer to the preachers of Aberdeen as being the persons we were principally concerned withall giving the reasons therfore and shewing the good effects that might proceed therefrom as in the same offer may be seen at this the Stud. seeme to have gone mad and fret and fume like persons possessed alledging I betake my selfe to railing as my last refuge but whether there be any railing in that Offer is left to the judicious Reader to examine The Students notwithstanding their clamours give not one instance of it but whether they have any better reason to answer it withall then railing let the Reader judge For upon this occasion pag. 127. 128. they call me vaine and arrogant like a very Thraso ignorant and foolish one whose weakenesse and ignorance is renowned a bold barkr but a soft biter These are the modest young men that professe to be against railing that