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
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
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
angry to be contradicted then their Ancestors the Papists Hence it is evident that it is their Interpretations sense and Preachments upon the Scriptures which they would have to be the Rule of Faith and the Declaration of the Object In page 20 He makes a digression wherein he tels us the same things overagain therefore I shal only touch suchthings as chiefly concern the matter in hand if yet lawful for a Plowman to touch his school-terms by which that Trib have darkned Counsell with words without Knowledge And if Patroclus be a Parochus or Parish Priest I am sure the tenth man of his Hearers cannot understand his Terms First He confounds the Matterial with the formal Object saying as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own ltradiant and illustrious Beams And this in contradiction both to Calvine and him self To Calvine in the place before cited Where he saith That to settle the Conscience such a Perswasion is necesseary as needeth no Reasons And such a sense as cannot be attained but by Divine Revelation To himself in page 23. Where he saith We being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD We answer by the Testimony and operation of the Spirit And herein he may reconcile himself to himself and his friends when he hath Leasure Secondly In page 22 speaking of subjective Revelation he calls the spirit an Instrument in the hand of GOD This Language sounds not sweetly to me for I believe the Spirit is GOD and therefore cannot like these Words GOD an Instrument in the Hand of GOD. 3ly He tells us in page 23 That subjective revelation is more properly called an Application then Revelation it self And yet in the same page he calls it the Testimony and Opcration of the Spirit Now a Testimony is a Witness bearing And we know a dumb Man cannot be a Witness But he hath told us That the Spirit speaks neither to the Ear nor the Mind and so cannot bear a Testimony This is palpable confusion Fourthly page 24. He saith so that we can Reason because surch spirit v g He that confesleth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is said by the Scriptures to be of GOD Therefore I know and believe that is true Doctrine and that this spirit is of GOD. If this Scripture be taken Literally by Patroclus and that he intends as he Writes I must confels I expected not so much Charity at his hands For at this rate he accepteth Papists Lutherians yea and the Palagian Chureb of England who all believe that Christ is come in the flesh But I will expect a Commentary upon the Words with the next Fifthly In the same page he saith We do not with the Fanatical Enthusists reason thus The Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures Therefore I believe them to be so But he hath given us no Reason why he believes such and such Books to be the Scriptureâ— For which we must wait his Leasure Sixibly His lame example of the Sun and Ey-salve is no better He saith by means of the Salve he seeth and knoweth the Sun And again by the Sun Light he may perceive what is Eyâ—salve and what is not But he might have considered That tho he see that Sun and Ey-salve both he needeth his Natural Understanding to know the Sun and to discern what is Ey-salve and what is not And as in Naturals so in Spirituals No man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in him so the things of GOD no man knoweth but by the spirit of God Seventhly In page 26. He chargeth R. B. for calling the Westminster Divines dark c. Because they not separate the Word from the Spirit But said that the Testimony of the Spirit was in ant with the Word And then reflects upon R. B's Vindication page 33. But takes no notice of what he saith page 33. and 34. Because they were too hot for his fingers He citeth Isaiah 59. 21. My spirit which is in thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth c Observe First That the Tenot of this Covenant is Spiritual My Spirit which is in thee Secondly That they are distinct tho not contrary else they needed not the copulative Conjunction And Tbirdly They are called Words and not Word So then Patroclus confesseth That GOD putteth Words in his mouth to preach to his People I shall allow him to be concerned in this Covenant And I hope he will not here after be angry with the Quakers calling the Scriptures the Words of GOD. Eightly He saith there was never the least contraversy betwixt the Briâ—tish and Transmarine Divines on this head but an intire Harmony This is another Lie I shall instance one Joâ— VV Bajer Profeslor os Divinity at Jena in Germany writting on that Subject against the Quakers page 33. and 34. Saith the in ward Illuminations and Operations of the Spirit are altogether necessary to beget true and saving Faith in Men and that these inward Illuminations are objective or by way of Object Which is not very Harmonious with Patroclus Doctrine of Application And this is all the discovery he hath made of R B's Non such weakness and extream disingeunity which he hath left undiscovered till his next Printing And now in page 26. He saith he comes directly to the Objection Saying First The Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we speak properly an Application of the things revealed in Scripture then a Revelation of Testimony strictly so taken Observe First That this being granted all these words of Protestant VVriters such as the Testimony Illumination Inspiration Perswasion of the Spirit are but meer cheats and impostures put upon Mankind And that Calvine when he speaketh of Divine Revelation as necessary to beget True Faith meant no such thing nor any of these Authors he citeth are to be understood according to their own words but according to Patroclus sense and thus he and his Brethren deal by the Scriptures Headds Whereas the Revelations to which the Quakers pretend are altogether objective like that of the Prophers This is another Lie for the Quakers own both Subjective and Objective Revelations as hath been showen above I shall here and Luk. 24. 32. Did not our Hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the way and while he opened to us the Scriptures Now let the Reader judge whether this was an Objective Revelation as well as Subjective Their bearts burnt and he opened to them the Scriptures Now Opening presupposeth a Shulting and the Lamb only is found worthy to open the Seals of the Book That is Poreveal the Object In page 27. He saith we assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be
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
rightly conclude Now that this Major is particular will be evident if he explain himself what he means by the word That By which he cannot understand Man nor beast nor Angel nor any other thing if he speake sense but that Book And so his Argument will run thus That particular Book which was dictate c But the Book called the BIBLE or the Scripture was dictate c Therefore c If he thinks I have wronged him let him explain himself next and make his Major universal Secondly This is a direct begging of the Question for it is denyed that a Book can be the Primary Rule of Faith for there was Faith before there was a Book in the World and the World was two thousand years without Scriptures and if they had no Rule nor Law to walk by then they had no sin For where there is no Law there is no transgression If they had a Rule it was certainly Prior to the Scriptures and consequently the Primary Rule except that Patroclus would say That GOD had changed his Rule His Minor is a very uncontravetted Truth in the first part of it But he must excuse me to distinguish the second And contains the whole Counsel of GOD Which I think Robert Barkelay hath done to very good Purpose That the Scriptures containe a full account of all the Essentials and fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion But that many things occurr dayly of which the Scriptures do not clearly determine our Experience clearly proveth And first as to Faith I desire he may give me plain Scripture for Persons in the God head Sacraments in the Church and keeping Holy Sunday This was required by K CHARLES the Martyr from Alexander Henderson But how it was Answered the Papers which past betwixt them will evince Secondly As to Life I ask whether it was lawfull for me in my Youth to take the League and Covenant Being first contrary to the Command of Christ Swear not at all And then contrary to the command of the Supreem Magistrate Yea in opposition to Him whome the Scripture commands me to obey This was a Case of Conscience to me and yet by the Presbyterian Church I was commanded his non obstantibus to take it And by George Gillespie in his Casses of Conscience the refusing of the Covenant is called sinful in it self a great dishonour to GOD and a great scandal to the Church no less punishable then the killing of the Apostles Nevertheless I must say I can find no Scripture which allows me to take it And again there is a great doubt at present seeming to arise in the minds of many Protestants and Well-wishers to the Government Which is whether the Popish Monarchical tyrranie in Church Government or Presbyterian Democratical tyrranie be more eligible for it is now become a common Litanie from Popery and Presbytrie libera nos c. As for that great and incureable Schism which destroyed Presbytrie in the Assembly at Dundee Whether a Malignant having in the Nation an Estate Wife and Children might lawfully fight in defence of his Native Country In Case of a forraign Invasion These and such like doubts saith he page 56 Are to be resolved by the Scriptures applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdome This is strange That there was neither Christian prudence nor Spiritual Wisdome in all the whole General Assembly That they split upon such a trivial Question and never reconciled again to this day But the cause was They lacked Wisdome and did not ask of GOD who giveth liberally and upbraideth not For had they been taught of GOD and received the Word of Wisdome from his Mouth they would have seen this contraversie to be as impertinent as that about Easter in the Primitive Church Next in page 39 he saith The corruptions of men are to be charged with all these defects This is very true for the corruptions of men and chiefly of the Clergie have separated them from knowing or seeking to know the mind and Counsel of GOD by the teachings of his Spirit and to lean to their own corrupt Wisdom their natural and acquired parts hence some of them have not stuck to affirm that a wicked Reprobate a man void of grace and of the spirit of Christ may be a sufficient Minister Before I leave his first argument with his spurious definition of a Rule I will give him another which I think he will like the better because it comes from his brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum Who sayes The mind and will of GOD however notified to us is the Rule of our obedience Now if Patroclus will prove that the mind and will of GOD was never notified or made known to mankind before Moses wrote the Pentateuch I shall grant to him that the Scriptures are the primary or principal Rule for the words signifie no more but first or belonging to first for the two words Primary or Principal being Latine words signifie no more but first or belonging to first if we believe our Lexicons To prove that the Scriptures contain the whole Counsel of GOD he citeth Acts. 20 27. Whert Paul sayeth to the Elders of Ephesus That he had not shuned to declare unto them all the Counsel of GOD. Here observe that this was before he had written his Epistle to the Ephesians and therefore I intreat Patroclus to inform us where we may find Pauls Preachings recorded that he mentioneth here wherein we may find all the Counsel of GOD For it seems the Fathers at the Counsel of Laodicea have forgotten to add them to the Cannon His second Argument is thus That which was the Principal rule to the Jews is the Principal Rule to us But the Scriptures were the Principal Rule to them therefore they must be the same to us Answer To begin with his Major he saith it is Robert Barkclay's This is the hight of deceit dissingenuity and Impudence For in the second Chapter of his apologie cited by our Author there is no such word to be found In this Chapter he chiefly treateth of the formal object of faith and but little of the Rule he proveth that indeed that Divine immediat Revelation was the formal object of the Faith of the Ancients and citeth Noah and Abraham for examples whom I believe to have had Faith and also a Rule for their Faith before there was either Scripture or a Jew in the World So that granting the Major he gains nothing by it unless he can prove that the Scripture was the Primary Rule of Noah and Abrahams Faith or else that GOD hath changed his Rule His Minor I deny for the same reason Secondly I acknowledge that Moses Law which is a part of the Scripture was more a Rule to the Jews and more binding upon them then upon any of the Nations or any living either then or since And this is all that his after reasonings can prove But what if I should say with other Protestant Writers that the was
is now a miracle among Presbyterian Priests To trace him in all his Raillings and Boastings reflections against Ro Barkelay and Geo Keith were very needless The Reader may see them of no weight I shall therefore here take notice of some of the Scriptures cited by him in page 34. To prove that by the Law and the Testimonie is understood the Law of Moses on Exod 32. 15. And Moses turned and went down from the Mount and the two Tahles of the Testimony were in his hand c. 34. â—9 With the two Tables of Testimony in Moses hand c. Now I beseech the Reader to consider what this Man can make from hence or from any of the rest to prove that Isaiah meant the two Tables of the Law to be a Primarie Rule either to Jews or Christians Was never the Moral Law a Law to Mankind until it was written in Tables of Stone Then certainly Cain had not sinned in killing of Abell If there had been no Law against Murther Or what more can he make of this Scripture if he make the Law and Testimonie to be the Ten Commandements But this That whoever speaketh or acteth contrary unto them It is because he is dark not knowing the Mind of the LORD nor hearkning to the Voice of the Divine Light in him which would have taught him to speak and act according to that Moral Law But I would willingly learn of him whether he would have the whole Law of Moses Moral Judicial and Levitical or Ceremonial to be the Primarie Rule to Christians now a dayes For the Moral is confessed by all parties to be binding upon all Mankind and that it was Imprinted upon the Souls of all Men even before it was written But the Judicial Law as well as the Ceremonial Law hath been rejected by all Christians except the Presbyterians who composed Cargils Covenant What then would the man be at I can conjecture nothing but this The Presbiterians have three beloved Doctrines Viz Swearing Fighting and Tithes which no one Line of the New Testament seems to favour and therefore they would have the Law reinforced least these their Darlings fall To conclude The Law was added saith Paul because of Transgression Therefore there was a Law or Rule transgressed before this Law was added And that it was a Written Law let Patroclus prove with the next I shall now come to his third Argument page â—9 Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final decision of the most grave and weighty Contraversies that ever arose in the World And sent all people into them as a most sure and undeceiving Light by the Guiding of which we may pass through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the close Ergo the Scriptures are the Primary Rule c. To prove the Consequence of this Argument he sendeth us to the Definition of a may be Rule in his first Argument which is proven to be lame and a begging of the Question Next to prove his Antecedent he citeth a Bundle of Scriptures for merly adduced by his Brethren and answered divers times But he thinks all the rest but Bunglers and therefore he will have at them again The First is Mat. 22. 29 31 32. Te do err not knowng the Scriptures nor the Power of GOD. He begins with a parcel of Presbyterian Rbetorick saying Our Adversaries are like Baits c. Let the Reader judge whether I have occasion here for a Repartee but I le spare him There be Two Things in the Citation for the Ignorance of which the Jews are blamed to wit Of the Scriptures and the Power of God Now if this prove one of them to be a Rule it cannot miss to prove the other to be a Rule also And so the Contraversy remains in stain quo prius that is Whether the Scriptures or Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God Teaching and Revealing the Mind and Will of God to his People is to be preferred The Quakers never denied the Scriptures to be a Rule but only that they were subordinat to the Teachings of Christ by His Spirit Whom He promiseth to send and that he should Teach them all Things And this I say is preferrable and he hath brought nothing to prove the contrary This cleareth George Keith from what he alledgeth of his confounding the Rule with the Power And as for his Simile of Euclid it will nothing mend his Matter for certainly Euclid had a Rule by which he wrote his Book which was the Dictats of his Reason and except his Propositions can be demonstrated to me by Reason I am not bound to believe them Therefore the Dictats of my Reason are a more Noble and Excellent Rule to me than Euclid's Propositions tho the Book be an excellent Help for me to attain to that Art And whereas he hath talked very disdainfully though wrongfully of consounding the Scriptures and the Power of God he should have remembred that in Page 36. He hath said That to seek to the Scriptures is all one with seeking unto GOD Whether this vergeth upon Blasphemy let the Reader Judge But to put our Stupidity or prejudice beyond doubt he brings us another simile of a King Answer Above all things he should have shunned dilcoursing upon this Topick For it is impossible to keep a Presbyterion Priest within his Bounds Here he hath described a King in Querpo subordinate to the Laws and limited by them Whereas it is well known That the King is the fountain of our Law our Legislator And by the same Authority whereby he makes Laws can cashier annul and rescind them And it is a known Maxim in Law Rex non potest peccare But this is the old Doctrine of Lex Rex and Jus Populi And that famous peece The Hynd let loose Now if this his Simile prove any thing it will be this That as according to their Dialect The King can do nothing but what the Law of the Land allows So GOD can do nothing but what the Scripture allows And consequently CHRIST could not command the Man to take up his Bed and walk upon the Sabbath day because no Scripture then written allowed it The next place is John 5. 39. Here he challengeth R. B. as a Papist for saying the Words ought to have been Translated Ye search the Seriptures But Patroclus If I shall cite Bellarinine against the payment of Tiths who say they Are not due by any Law of GOD or Nature since the coming of Christ Will thou also call me a Papist If thou do thou att mistaken And so art thou in him And when thou can prove that there are no errors in the Translation thou may stick by this The Scriptures thou brings prove nothing for this Translation for they do not mention it And we never denyed it that the reading of the Scripture was both commanded and commended Yet thou art not ashamed to say They
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
and Manners For Answer Let the Reader observe That this is but a These And that our Adversaries themselves grant the first part of it Reason therein adduced But the Argument to prove the second part he hath never mentioned as being too hot for his fingers Which is this following Apol page 44. That which is not the Rule of my faith in believing the Scriptures themselves is not the Adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners But the Scriptures are not nor can be the Rule of that Paith by which I believe them c Therefore c This he hath taken no nottice of But gives us a long Citation out of R B his Vindication page 37. And then tells us the Coherence will be made out Ad Calendas Graecas As if it were the Custom when Men publish Theses to set down in the Body of them all the Arguments to prove them But seeing he will have a Coherence let him take it thus The Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Founta in and when the streams fail men use to recurr to the Fountain Therefore when the Scriptures cannot resolve the doubts which ordinarly arise among Christians They ought to recurr to the Fountain That this hath been the practise of the Saints in all ages is manifest from the Scripture I shall instance one or two with divers before cited That Divid was a Man of GOD and Knew the Scriptures I hope mine Adversary will not deny and that he had Abiathar the Priest with him to help him to the right sence of them if need were when he was at Keilab Yet he was necessitate to recurr to the Fountain enquire of the Lord Will Saul come down And will the Man of Keilab ver me up unto him 1 Sam 23 9 10 11 12 And again at Ziglâ—g when the people were like to stone him Did he not then enquire of the LORD 1 Sam 30. 8 And I would willingly know what the Presbyterians means by seeking the LORD in theit straits except it be to ask his Counsel when all other means fail them Hence all his boast evanisheth Next he challengeth his Adversary as confounding the principal Rule and Original Ground together calling it None-sense ridiculous and nothing to the purpose But he should have remembred that in page 46. He hath cited Ephes 2. 20. To prove the Scripture to be the Foundation and all along calls them the Principal Rule If this be sense so the other Sanum Reprênsor debet habere Caput In page 64. He comes to begg the Question in terminis and tells us positively The Scriptures are the Primary Rule And Concludes Thus we understand the Primarie Rule and while he doth not so ho but mistaketh the Question This indeed is imperious Logick and more becoming a Grecian Hero then a Presbyterion Priest But he must Know that the word Primary is out of doors As it signifies First And before he give it another signification he will need to alter all the Lexicons I have yet seen For there was a Rule of Faith before there was a Book in the World And therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Primary Rule Next he comes to his Acyrologie to let us know he hath studied Rhetorick Saying to call a Person of Rule is a great Inductive of Confusion But to call GOD and Christ the habits of Grace as the doth in page 38 is a far more improper speech Then he cites R. B's words in answer to J Brown but not fully and draweth his consequences from them the words are these For I was never so absurd as to call GOD simply considered or the Spirit of GOD in obstracto but as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians From hence he deduceth two Conclusions First that the Quakers Grand principle that Immediate objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their faith falleth to the ground And that these Imprinted truths are but secondary But who seeth not deceit and malice in this consequence Certainly he must fear his cause when he takes such weak Pillars to underprop it For any man of candor may see that R B intendeth only to prove that truths Imprinted and not the Imprinter to be the Rule And he consesseth it to be one Acylogie or improper speech And to conclude the Ruine of his Adversaries cause from one improper speech is either great folly or great malice so that his Antecedent being tightly understood according to the Authors sense his consequence together will all he hath deduced from it is a meer Non-sequitur His other Consequence depending upon the first falleth with it Only he hath been assert that these Revelations are self evident and that to assert otherwayes were impious And a little after to judge that the GOD of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us Well then Patroclus it seemes there are yet such Revelations by thine own consession as are self evident which we may take notice of in due time He proceeds saying There is very good reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primarie then the Scriptures both being given by the same spirit seeing the primariness is not the immediateness but the thief binding power and the prerogative to be the Touch-stone of all doctrines But who denyeth this prerogative to the Scriptures of being a Rule to try all Doctrines of Men how holy so ever Have not his Adversaries granted all this times And what then I hope to believe this proposition is an Act of Faith no where mentioned in Scripture neither is it self evident and therefore needeth a Rule Yea more the scriptures of the New Testament make mention of a Rule only three times to wit 2 Cor. 10. 15 16. Gal. 6. 16. and Phil. 3. 16. And if Patroclus with all his prudence and wisdom comparing Scripture with Scripture can twist and twine a sense out of these Scriptures to prove his matter he may boast of it Next he cites 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. in these words they are able to make the man of GOD wise unto salvation But whether there be such words there let the Reader judge Then he plainly sheweth us what he intends and it is the book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest c. If this be true then certainly the Tennor of the New Covenant is made void and they who lived under the Law had a rea dier access unto GOD and to know His Mind then they who live under the Gospel And yet the difference is evident for as the Law was an outward Rule written by Moses the outward Leader of outward Israel so CHRIST the SpiritualLeader of Spiritual Israel writteth His Spiritual Law in the heart I shall add one argument thus That which was a Rule to the Faith-makers at Westminster in composing their form of Faith and imposing it upon the Nations may
not blinded him Whereby he seeks to bespatter and blaken the Quakers so as so render them the object of the Magistrates severity Or expose them to the rage of his beloved Reformers the Rabble For First he saies they have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of GOD adding his wonted phrase speaking in the Scriptures But if I shall ask him Doth GOD now-a-dayes speak at all to his Church He would readily answer me No And within four pages he labours to prove that GOD hath spoke his last words to his Church Which is also clear from their Confession of Faith chap 1 so that as is said before this phrase is a meer cheat Secondly he saith We have most impiously and self-deceiving lie given up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which they call the Spirit of GOD as we have heard Here he falslie insinuates That we give up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which is not the Spirit of GOD which is a gross untruth For GOD knoweth and our Consciences bear us witness that we own no other Spirit but the same which Christ promised to His followers John 14. 16. I shall pray the Father and be shall give you another Comforter that be may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the World cannot receive because it seeth Him not neither knoweth Him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you and shall be in â—on And Vers 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost Whom the Father will send in my Name He shall teach you all things And 15 Ch 26. 8. and 16. 17 18. The Comforter who will reprove the World of sin c. This is that Spirit of Truth To whose Guidance we have given and do give up our selves And if he mean any other thing he is a wicked Slanderer and Callumniator Next he adds And again in contradiction to this the Soul of CHRIST Extended and Dilated This is a part of George Keiths Book called The way cast up To which book he promiseth an Answer But the Man is able and can answer for himself against all the Presbyterian Priests in Scotland Then he sayes But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the Spirit And it not this Scripture Language GOD who commanded Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts And was not this the Apostles Message that GOD is Light And how frequently is the Holy Ghost in scripture called simply the Spirit without any addition But he adds to which Spirit GOD himself speaking in the Scriptures must 〈◊〉 obey the same This blasphemous Gibberish being the invention of his own brain deserves no answer But may well be added to the Presbyterian Eloquence at the next impression But I pass by the rest of his railing and come to his defence of his Brother John Browns Argument which is this If since the Apostles fell a sleep and the Cannon of the Scripture was closed All that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a Primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of errour then it is not the way of CHRIST But the former is true c. Ergo c. To which R B hath answered and our Author accepts his answer and changeth the argument thus If since the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture fell a sleep and John wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this Kynd of Revelation have been led by a spirit of error Then this is not the wayof Christ But the former is true Ergo c. And now he thinketh there can be no exception against his argument but that it will certainly do his business yet is he like to be mistaken For first his argument seems to insinuate that before the Apostles fell a sleep immediate Revelation was the Primary Rule and if it was so it continues to be so yet by his own former Concessions For GOD hath not changed his Rule so that if he makes his argument to speak to the purpose he must say thus all who pretended to this kind of Revelation as well before as since the Apostles fell a sleep were led by a Spirit of error which I think he would be loath to affirm Secondly He will gain very little tho I grant his argument in terminis for I have as little kindness for pretenders as he hath or can have and do readily grant that all who pretend to this kynd of Revelations and have them not are led by a Spirit of error as well as that all Presbyterians who pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule and do not frame their Faith and manners according to them are Hipocrites and are led by a spirit of error So that except his Argument say all who have been led really and truely by the Spirit of Truth of whom Christ promised that he should teach them all things and lead into all truth were led by a Spirit of error He doth but â—eat the air and fight with his own shaddow For we have had pretenders amongstus whom we have denyed and rejected And what he brings concerning the corruptions of men we deny not For as men of Corrupt minds may pretend to the Scriptures so they may pretend to the Spirit but the LORD hath alwayes hitherto given his Church a spirit of discerning whereby such pretenders have been detected rejected and denyed And did not Zedeâ—iah the Son of Chenaanah pretend to the Spirit with as much confidence as Mieajah 1 King 22. 24. When he smote Micajah and said Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee Will it follow from hence That Micajah was led by a spirit of errour because Zedekiah pretended to the same spirit Or that the Presbyterians are led by a spirit of errour Because the Lutherians Anabaptists Independants and Arminians pretend to the same Rule with them So as the Scriptures may be wrested to the condemnation of the Wresters Our Author must confess that he needs a Guide to tell him when he goeth astray And whereas he citeth some called Quakers who have erred whether truely or falsly I know not I will bring him ten for one among the Presbyterians Yea and the greatest part of the Presbyterian Ministry of Scotland about the year 1661 foully deserted the good old cause and yet no less pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule then they had formerly done He falls next to prove that there is no Consanguinity betwixt the Jesuits argument to Jo Menzies and this of J B But let the Reader consider whether both Arguments terminate in the same thing For the Jesuites presseth J M to produce his Grounds and Principles And our Author in page 78 saith his Argument is demonstrative except his Adversary can produce any Instance to the contrary And if this be no Consanguinity let the Reader judge And whereas he turneth over the Jesuites Argument he might well have expected that the Jesuite would and might have said so of
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
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
Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost wherein the Kingdom of GOD standeth But our Author returns to his old trade of citations and gives us an English Minister and Paget for his Authors which books I never saw and may be as great liars as himself Who may the next time be cited as a famous Author but admitt all these were truths as they are not What then If our Author will but invite me with the next I will give him undenyable Instances of Presbyterian Priests that have farr out done all these Instances of his in abominable wickedness not mentioned in the Presbyterian Eloquence but this is a pitiful way of Reasoning He cannot omit Virgil and Latinus to shew us that he reads the Heathen Poets it seems as carefully as the Bible Otherwise he had never inserted such a foolish tale as the Heathen Lying upon Sheeps Skins And malitiously adds which if the Quakers do or not I am uncertain This one Sentence in the end renders all the rest uncertain and rediculous But it is Observable in our Adversaries that when a Scottish Priest hath a lie to vent he goeth to England for it and in England they fetch it from Scotland Holland or some forraignplace at a distance to cover deceit and malice And now at last we are come to silent waiting upon the LORD or turning inward our minds to hear what the LORD will speak in us As David saith I will hear what the LORD will speak in me c. This our Author saith is impossible to a man except he be sleeping or in an extacie But giveth no proof but ipse dixit As for Extasies I know them not but sleeping men have their minds sometimes very busse and even our Author himself I doubt is not quite free from dreams And because he cites Virgil here I think he who so much delights in Heathen Poets might have been at the pains to read some Christian Poets As Boetus de Consol Phil 3 lib metrum 1â— where he will find this matter clearly held forth And even Beza commendeth silence tho not that turning in of the mind which that other speaks of But whereas he sayes the Soul must act upon some object He sheweth how ignorant he is of true self-denyal as one of his Transmarine Divines saith purae negationes sui c. These pure acts of self-denyal are that a man cease from his own works his own willing and running and from his thoughts and imginations which are only evil continually and are as clouds and obstacles which hinder of that Divine inward peace giving light in the bottom of the Soul These Clouds therefore being removed the light immediatly shineth upon the denyal of self neither saith he can there be a vacuum here but these are Heresies as well as Mysteries to our Presbyterian Clergie who Preach Pray and Praise in their own willings and by their own strength without waiting for Divine assistance or the influence of the Spirit of Christ without which they affirm a man may be a sufficient Minister But saith he R. B. saith the Old Man the Man of sin that is corrupted must dye and be crucified And again saith he albeit in one sense they are said to die Yet they more truely live Gal 2. 20. Upon this our Author quibles saying that in stead of relinquishing all thoughts he now only defendeth the living of â—arnal thoughts but this he calls a cheat For saith he there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving c. And what then Must Patroclus Preach Yea altho Christ hath said Without me ye can do nothing Yea Calvine saith on the Fourth Commandmant The Sabbath is a resting from our own works that GOD may Work in us As for a time betwixt which seems to be the only thing he quibles upon I have told before and now again that how soon the Clouds are dissipat by a true self-denyal The Sun of Righteousness immediatly appeareth and there is no vacuum As to what he talketh of the Apostle I hope when he was dead and Christ lived in him our Author will not be so gross as to say that he acted without Christ as to Spiritual things tho the faculties of his Soul were as vived and active as our Authors now are What he saith in page 214 on this subject only sheweth his ignorance in these things or want of experience or that he thinks GOD to be at a distance and to require a time to come to man to work upon him after he hath denyed self His next Quible is concerning appointed times for meeting together to wait upon the LORD Alledging that we should have a previous motion to every Meeting otherwise saith he They limit the Spirit But might not our Author have allowed us the use of this Interpreter of Scripture in such Externall cases as appointing Meetings to wit His Christian Prudence and Wisdom For I hope our Author will not say that Meeting together is an Act of Worship and therefore I refer him to Quakerism confirmed for a full Answer to his Quibles which if he had been just he had taken notice of here In his Vindication of Calvine about Sabbath Day he doth him very little kindness telling the World he contradicteth himself twenty seven years after he had wrote his Institutions I wish he had done so with his doctrine of Reprobation also But we have many famous Protestants for us in that matter as well as Calvine As Dr. Barnes William Tindal and almost all Christians He chargeth R. B. with a contradiction for saying That Peter and Paul had a Natural Man in which the devil might work and a Spiritual Man which might resist This he saith contradicts his dectrine of Perfection or at lest his Exposition of Rom 7. For the strst R. B. alwayes asserted a Natural and Spiritual Man as may be seen in all his Writtings And for the Second It is one thing to say the Devil may work and the Spirit resist and another to say the Devil doth work and overcome The first may be said of Paul in his best state The second is our Adversarys doctrine which we deny And thus his alledged Contradiction is a meet false Insinuation In the next place he accuseth R. B. of Railing He should have said R. Maequair and used his own phrase Quis tulerit Graccbos c. But he calls them Priests saith he understand of Baal Thus he hath helped R. B. For conscius ipse sibi de se putat omnia dici To defend his Brother saying That Watching is not a turning inward but a looking outward To which R. B. replyeth Then a man shut up in a dungeon could not watch spiritually He answers That by looking outwardly they understand minding GOD and our distance from him and the like This is Nonsense as if by looking outward a man could see GOD. His bauble about Thaulerus is nothing but a malicious Insinuation of our being Papists which none