shift which he useth is the same with Robert Barclays second shift viâ— That tho the Scriptures are in this place to be understood by Law and Testimony yet it will not follow that they are the principal Rule especially in Gospel times which shift is the same way removed that Robert Barclays was And here he essayeth to prove that people are sent to the Dictate Word or Light within from 2 Pet. 1.19 Deut. 30.14 Rom. 10.8 Ioh. 3.20 21. Iohn 12.36 Which places make not a whiâ— for his purpose yea diverse of them cut the Jugular Vein of Quakerism as shal be evinced in due time He hath moreover here a harangue by which he would prove as it seemeth that God and Christ dwell personally in Believers as God dwelleth in the humane Nature of Christ which is most abominable and false and tho it were true yet should make nothing for him for God and Christ can only be said to dwell in Believers whose Temples they only are But if he meaneth that God dwelleth in Believers only in respect of the habits of Grace implanted in their Souls whereby they are enlightned quickened and upstirred to believe and practise the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures then he sayeth nothing for this indwelling or God thus indwelling is not our principal Rule of Faith and Manners but the chief Leader and efficient Cause of Grace in the Soul. And thus this hodge-podge of most impertinent Words resolves at length into a direct begging of the Question Argument 3d. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrine from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final Decision of the most grave and weighty controversies that ever arose in the world and sent all people unto them as unto a sure and undeceiving Light by the guidance of which we may passe through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the â—lose Ergo the Scriptures are the primary Rule The Consequence is clear if we attend unto the Description of a primary Rule laid down above The Antecedent I prove from Math. 22.29 31 32. Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 and 13 from the 14. to 42. 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Luk. 16.31 Our Adversaries like bats hateing and striking at the Light assault most of these Scriptures And first they endeavour to deprave Matth. 22.29 by telling us that it will no more follow that the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners than the Power of God yea the Power of God say they is rather the Rule being that which quickneth the Soul and Body without which none can truly know the Scriptures thus talketh George Keith in Truth Defended Pag. 68. But this is only a roving at pleasure without consideration what be said providing that the name of the last speaker be obtained for here he confoundeth the Rule with the power whereby we walk according to the Rule Hence as I admonished above he fighteth not against our Doctrine but against the fiction of his confounding brain for whoever said that Euclide cannot be a Rule for Geometricians to walk by because it cannot instill a faculty of reason in an Idiot without which it cannot be understood surely he that should thus Reason would be accounted of all men most ridiculous And yet no lesse ridiculous is this silly sophister for he reasoneth the same way But that I may fully declare either the profound stupidity or willful prejudice of this Quaker I suppose that a man in discourse with another about the Kings Power ignorantly denyeth that the King can do something which by the Laws of the land he is allowed to do the other checks him thus you erre not knowing the Laws of the Land and the power of the King And then proveth from the said Laws that the King hath â—ower to effect that which the other denyed Now should not any man that concluded from this mans discourse that the power of the King is all one with the Laws of the Land or that the power of the King is our Rule in Câ—vils no less than the Laws of the Land are expose himself to the scorn of all knowing persons And yet he inference of thiâ— Quaker differeth not a whit from such a blockish Conclusion Hence we may see that these Mens design iâ— not to speak well but to speak last The next place is Ioh. 5 39. To which Robert Barclay Vind. Pag. 43. attempting to make answer to the end that he may put it beyond all doubt that he is a devout Servant to his Holinesse and a true Roman Catholick stifly asserteth that the Word is to be taken in the indicative mode superciliously rejecting not only all the reformed and Body of primitive Interpreters but also the very Iesuits themselves in whom there is any spark of Conscience or Candour who all understand it in the imperative moode and good Reason they have so to do seing the reading of the Scriptures is all along through the whole Scriptures both commanded Deut. 17 18 19. Deut. 29.29 Exod. 13.9 Ios. 22.5 Deut. 6.8 and 11.18 Isa. 8.20 1 Tim. 4.13 with many others and commended Deut. 33.10 Neh. 8.2 3. Act. 17.11 and 18.24 2 Tim. 3.15 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Rev. 1.3 Besides many more which are sufficient to convince these men of palpable falshood and blasphemy Moreover there is sufficient ground from the Context abundantly to make out our exposition for Christ appeals to the Scriptures as sufficient to decide the then present controversy betwixt him and the Iews saying These are they that testifie of me Where he willeth them to give heed to Moses writings in order to the decision of the Controversy v. 46. Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me But this subterfuge failing him he hath yet some others which we must also remove he asketh therefore in the next place whether the words that Christ spake to the Iews which are recorded in Scripture were less binding to them than the words spoken by Moses and the Prophets If they were lesse binding saith he then he overturneth his own tedious Reasonings by which he laboureth to prove that they are obligative and also he must show how they are binding now upon us and if he say they were binding to the Jews because spoken by Christ his proof falleth to the ground Ans. 1. Perhaps he pleased himself with this Argument having racked his wit to invent sophistry tho blunt as shal appear presently whereby the more to delude his already deluded admirers But I am sure to any rational man that is in earnest it will not have the weight of a Walnut Nor trouble him much even tho he were not in case to answer it seing if this word be to be taken in the imperative mood as we have even now demonstrat then it is as clear as the noon-sun that Christ sendeth the Jews to the Scriptures for the ultimate decision of the greatest Controversy in the World upon which their one thing depended Otherwise the Jews might still
Spirit which they make the chief and principal Rule of Faith and manners to which Spirit God himself speaking in the Holy Scripture must do obeisance Which Doctrine although we have already everted in the former chapter we shal notwithstanding here propose and vindicate a few Arguments for the further overthrow thereof and detection of the grosse abomination and horrid delusion attending their principles And first I will propose and vindicate an Argument proposed by Mr. Brown Quakerism the plain way to Paganism pag. 46. Which Argument Robert Barclay attempteth to solve Vind pag. 17. which is this If since the Apostles fell asleep and the Canon of the Scriptures was closed all that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of error then it is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo. c. To this he answers 1. that Mr. Brown begs the Question in his presupposing that there are no Apostles now and that the Canon of the Scriptures is closed against which exception I reassume the Argument thus If since the Apostles whose Names are mentioned in Scripture fell asleep and Iohn wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this kind of Revelation have been led by a Spirit of error then this is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo c. There can now no exception be made against the Mâ—jâ—r for none will deny that the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture are dead and that Iohn hath written the Revelation and well enough he knew that Mr. Brown understood no other thing than what we have now said and yet so covetous hath he been of shifting that he behoved to have one though he could not but know that it would serve no longer than it met with an impugner I now come to his answer to the Minor which Mr. Brown makes evident by an induction of many Sects and Hereticks pretending to immediate Revelation all which are known and not denyed by Quakers to have been led by a Spirit of error to which we may add many of the Quakers themselves such as Iâ— Nailor Susanna Parsons who as Pâ—get relateth being moved by this lying Spirit fruitlesly attempted to raise from the dead another of the Quakers one William Pool by name who had murdered himself and Gilpins of whose lying Spirit see at large in Clerks Examples also Iohn Toldervy of whom see a little Book called foot out of snare Robert Church-man and many others of whom you may read at large in Mr. Increase Maithers Book And he requireth an instance of the contrary which is the only way to answer an Induction In stead of which he sayeth that he is bound to prove that there was never one pretending to immediate Revelation but he was also led of the Spirit of error which he hath done untâ—l he give an instance to the contrary or else shew another way of answering an induction which will be new logick which perhaps he may do for he and his Brethren are very displeased with the old 2 ly That he may not be alone in this sore stresse he saith that Mr Menzies doth thus answer Dempster the Jesuite which is an impudent falshood for neither the Jesuits medium nor probation of his Minor is in the least like the Argument which we now vindicate for the Jesuits Argument was this That Religion cannot be true Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a Religion and conform to the true sense and letter of the Scripture or Word of God and he subsumes But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground c. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion Hence it is evident that these two Argumentations have nothing of consanguinity For if these two Argumentations had stricken alike at the two parties against which they were framed then the Jesuits Argument should have run thus Whosoever since the Apostles fell asleep have pretended to or pleaded for the Scriptures as their principal Rule have fallen into palpable errors and open blasphemy so that they became marks of Gods heavy judgment Now where should the Jesuite have found such a long Catalogue of these as Mr. Brown hath found of deluded Enthusiasts But which is the main thing and quite refutes the most falsly and impiously alledged coincidence of these Arguments how easy should it have been to have adduced not only one instance to the contrary but whole volums thereof yeâ— not only the whole primitive Church for diverse Centuries after Christ and all the Reformed Churches both these whom men are pleased to call Calvinists and Lutherans together with the Greek and Abassine Churches But likewise the most grave wise and learned of the Romanists themselves By this time I hope this arch-falshood of the Quaker whereby he would hide the shame of his desperat cause already appeareth again I answer directly to the Jesuit and the Quaker his patron that if we may believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries such as Bellarmin Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrines which we hold in opposition to popeâ—y are most agreeable to the true Sense of Scripture His third answer is that some of the primitive Protestants such as George Wishart and Iohn Huss had immediat Revelation But nequisquam Ajacem possit super are nisi Ajax that he might be sure no other should refute him he refuteth himself and rendereth his instance altogether unserviceable by granting they did not pretend to it as the ground of their Faith and obedience in all matters of doctrine and worship Lastly to the instance of Ia Naylor they answer that he repented again which answer is an evident confirmation of what we plead for viz· that the Quakers Spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them for I believe Ia Naylor acted but according to his light when he received Divine Worship From this argument we may observe these things first if it hold as cogent this is a serious Truth which he sayeth Vindic. page 25. is absurdly affirmed by Iames Durham as he speaks viz. that Christ spake his last words to the Church that is put a close to these writings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church for if all that pretend the like commission or such immediate Revelation of the rule of their Faith about which the question is were led by a Spirit of error then the Revelation was the last Scripture written and sure for any thing he knoweth ought to be written there is no reason to believe that there is any more to be written 2 ly Observe that this Argument is demonstrative for such are all inductions which have no instance to the contrary 3 ly It destroyes wholly the Quakers cause for this kind of Revelation being disproved the very proprium quarti modâ— of the Quakers is destroyed 2dly Moses and the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and all the holy men that were inspired by
God to compile a rule of Faith and Life could by Infallible Evidence and infallible proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of God but nothing of this kind the Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentials for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation than the most wicked Enthusiasts as for Example Iohn of Leyden and his followers whom the Quakers themselves dare not deny to have him Acted by a most wicked Spirit of Delusion seeing therefore they will not subject their Revelations to the infallible test of the holy Scriptures but contrarywise will Impiously make the Scriptures stoup to their Revelations they can be no more certain that they are not acted by the Devil or at least by their own giddy-brain and erroneous fancie when they bear us in hand that they are inspired by the Spirit of God than they of Manster were To this Argument they decline so far as they can a direct answer Therefore Robert Barclay Replyeth to Mr. Broun Vind. pag. 21. How cometh it that others pretending to be led by the Scripture as their Rule as much as John Broun have been deceived since the Scripture declares nothing but Truth But how silly this is I have shown above and more largely in my Apology in these paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine Argument he has provided for Atheists and Scepticks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrant of Writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and Extraordinary Revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the Stream cannot be more pure than the Fountain Thus he This Reply resolveth into two Hypothetick Propositions as for the Paragraphs of which he here boasteth as unanswered which take up six pages in his Apology filled with Railing and Gall against all the reformed Churches they prove only that the Scriptures through men corruption are subject to abuse which never man denyed The first is if the Scriptures through the Corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the Patrociny of Errors and corrupt Practices then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Practice exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule unto them than these Revelations can be which Iohn of Leyden held The second is He that will not admit of such Revelations as cannot be distinguished from these which led their followers into the most Blasphemous Opinions and most wicked Practices imaginable He I say that will not admit of these for his principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures which can both be invincibly demonstrated to have proceeded from God and also call themselves sufficient to make one wise unto Salvation provideth an Argument for Atheists and Sceptiâ—ks But thus doth Mr. Broun reason against the Quakers and except this the like other grounds the Quakers have none for this heavy Charge For that his Adversary called the Revelations of the Apostles Prophets uncertain Is a most palpable Untruth the least shadow of which cannot be found in all his Writings except they deduce it by such unreasonable Inferences as these And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his wit or to be numbred amongst Rationals when he made these Deductions by which their palpable Impieties are indeed antidots against seduction But these men have an ordinary Trick of comparing their own Revelations of the Divinity of which they can give no Signs to these of the Apostles and Prophets that were to the conviction of all Opposers proved to be Divine and thus give away and betray the Christian Cause in labouring to defend their own Dottages In the next place therefore let us take a short view of the Quakers principal Rule compared with ours that it may more fully appear which of the parties provide an argument for Atheists Scepticks And 1. We cannot know whether they haâ—â— any Revelations at all they may be lying unto us for any thing we know we have only their naked Word for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures 2ly It being given that they have Revelations of some kind from whence are they from Heaven their own fancy or from Hell This we cannot know they neither do nor can give any mark to distinguish them from these Revelations which all the world are perswaded to have been from Hell or at least from a Vertiginous Fancy Go to then let them speak their mind and attempt the retortion of the argument if they dare upon the Scriptures They yet more fully prove that their Revelations are not from Heaven while they affirm that they are common to all men which if the experience of the World yea of the word of God may be judge is most â—alie 3ly Making a Supposition which will never come to a solid Position that they have divine Revelations we yet cannot know for what end they are given whether to be a principal Rule or not or whether or not through their own corruption they do not wrest and misunderstand or tho they do understand them if they walk according to them nothing of which can be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures we can hear nothing nor 〈◊〉 nothing but some men still amusing the World Crying a new Light without giving any Evidence or proof thereof but only their own Word so are always their oun witnesses in their own cause and therefore by all rational men ought not a little to be suspected 4ly This Spirit inward Light or Revelations of the Quakers for I take all for one can never be able to determine Controversies Seeing two different parties may both of them adduce these Revelations to prove contradictory Assertions Now Seeing neither of the parties is in case to Evince that his Revelations are from God more than the other the Controversie must remain for ever undetermined Seeing they have no common principle in which they can concenter and meet And thus standeth for Examples sake the case betwixt Quakers and Ranters agreeing in this principle of immediat Revelations and yet if their books be to be believed bitter Enemies to one another in several points for which both of them alledge Revelations as their grand Principle and neither of them can evince their Revelations to have proceeded from God more than the other Hence we most rationally conclude that the Controversies betwixt these two parties are indeterminable so long as they stick to this Principle Now this Argument in no ways 〈◊〉 be retorted on the Scriptures for though there have been through the corruption of men wresting the Scriptures many Controversies and that even amongst these who
Pen to defend this passage from the absurdities with which it had been loaded by Hiâ—ks in his first Dialogue pag 3 4. such as that then the Sun Moon Star or Stone is God â—peâ—keth thus George Whitehead inferring from Iohn 1. That if the Life was of the Divine Beeing the Light must be the same for as the Cause is so is the Effect it was never George Whitehead's principle or words that the Life which is the Light of men is but in it self a meer Effect for he owns it in its own beeing to be no other than God himself counterf Christ detect ed pâ—g 56 and again Wil. Pen. Reason against railing pag. 56 We assert the true Light with which every man is enlightned to be in it self the Christ of God and the Saviour of the world The same Willâ— Pen Quakerism a new Nickname pag 9 10. All men are enlightned this Light is Divine because it is the very Light of the world which is God not any effect of his power as a created Light as some men fancy and George Whitehead Dipl pâ— pag 13. to call the Light in every man a meer Creature is conâ—rary to Iohn 1. In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men which Light is Divine and Increated Also George Fox great Myst pag 10. Some câ—ll the Light Consciâ—nce which Light was before Coâ—scâ—ence was or Creature was or Created or made Light was He maâ—e the Sun the Moon and the Light was before thâ—se were made and pâ—g 23. some call it a natural Light which Light was bâ—fore tâ—e word Conscience was or a naâ—ural Light the Sun Moon or Stars either for all things that were made were made by it the natural Light or made Light are created Lights It made the Sun Moon and Stars they were made here it is the natural Light to the naturaâ— Eye and the light that every man is enligâ—tneâ— with that cometh into the world was before thesâ— were made glorified with the Father before the world began Idem pag 185. The Light which every man that cometh into the World is enlightned withal is Christ by whom the world was made And pag 331. The Light which every one that cometh into the world is enlightned withal is not Conscience for the Light was befâ—re any thing was made or Conscience named George Fox younger in a Collection of his Works pag 171. Thus speaketh All mind that Gift of God in your selves which maketh you sensible of your prâ—sent condition you must receive the living principle of God in your own particular vessels which principle I call the Light it being a proper Name for it But I shal not desire to tye up any of you to give this principle of Truth only the name of Light I shall not matter if you call it the Truth or the gift of God are a measure of the eternal Beeing Now Reader did ever the Sun shine upon such a Black and Blasphemous Company of men who durst assert that that dim Light by which most men have enough ado to perceive that there is a Suprem Beeing and notwithstanding of which knowledge they are Ignorant of the true way of the Worship of God the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity the Person of Christ Jesus his Natures and Offices and are at every turn ready to deceive and be deceived I say did ever a company of Men outdo yea or ever equalize these Quakers who dare asâ—eâ—t such a Light as this to be God Notwithstanding of this their matchless exaltation of this Light within every man they again at other times and when occasion serveth depress and bring low the same as much as before they cryed it up For they assert that the Light within any particular person ought to yeild and stoop to the light of their Church or constitut body For William Pen Spirit of Alex pag 14. sayeth We deny that to be a Light which opposeth the judgement of the body Ibid pag 4.5 We as a body have power to determine therefore we abhor renounce rebuke with all severity that rude imagination of the Hat-on in publick prayer and Sp. of the hat pag 21 We have the power and will not such as are in the power do right Ibid. the body will have a true sense feeling and understanding of Motions Visions Revelations and Doctrines therefore it is safest to make her the touchstone in all things relating to God. Behold Reader as the Quakers with the Papists reject the Scriptures from being the Suprem Rule and ultimat Judge So they no less than the grossest of the Romanists ascribe an Infallibility to their Church and make this the suprem Rule and ultimat Judge to which every mans Light within must stoop and yeild though never so clear which is one of the grossest Errors of Popery But yet it is infinitly more gross and impious in the Quakers for in so doing they proclaim the fallibility of that which they maintain to be Christ and God and subject it unto another as capable of deceiving and being deceived which Impiety I am sure is scarcâ— equalized 18ly Although the absurdity of this Doctrine may of it self abundantly secure us that we need not bâ— much concerned let them use what Arguments they will to prove it we being certain that whatever arguments can prove this will equally serve to prove whatever entereth into any mans fancy yet I will propose and enervat these of their arguments which seem to be most strong and plead most for them One of which is proposed by George Keith Truth-defend pag 87. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediat Dictat but there is a Divine Law in all men Of this Argument singled out of all that ever George Keith wrote as the choicest Master-peice to uphold Quakerism and overthrow the authority of the Scriptures he is so confident that by it alone he thinketh to strike the Cause dead But he is hugely mistaken for if by a divine Law he understand any other thing beside Conscience and Reason which he himself together with his Brother Rob Barclay Quakerism confirm pag 3. acknowledgeth to be only natural We deny his Minor the proof of which we expect ad Kalendas Graecas And thus the great Argument of one of the greatest Champions of the Quakers evanisheth into smoak at the very first handling thereof 2ly Rob Barclay Vind pag 39. thus reasoneh what if I should say is not God a Light And is not he in every man and is not this Light within the increated Spirit The Reader may here observe that this Author is diffident of this Argument and fearful to bring it forth and good reason he hath for by this reason he only evinceth that which he elsewhere by all means endeavoureth to evite viz that the Quakers Grace and Light is common to Devils and damned Souls for God can no more be said to be in every Son and Daughter of Adam without exception than in these
of every Substance Which is yet more clear from the twelfth Query sent to Mr Iohn Alexander viz. What is Original Sin Whether it be not the Devil yea or nay For doth not the Original signifie the Beginning What did Christ come to destroy Was it not the Devil and his Works What is more clear than that in those Queries of the Quakers God is made the Author of Sin seing that unlesse they professe and avow Manicheism God created the Devil and this is yet more clear if clearer can be by George Keiths Defence of this Querie Truth defend pag. 177. Where he can find no better Defence of this blasphemy than to call it in effect a purposeless heap of words without all scope saying that the Devil may be called sin in a certain sense by a Metonymy as Christ is called Righteousness or sin called the old Man. And thus George Keith acteth like himself that is playeth the ridiculous babler for pag. 59. in Defence of that Query viz. If every Title in the Bible be the word of God he sayeth that to query a thing will not conclude that the questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is queried The same way he dealeth here with his Antagonist For if the Quakers understood no other thing then the Devil may get the Name of sin as any cause may get the name of its effect Then both they and he in their Defence prove themselves to be pitiful purposeless wranglers making a stur in the World about nothing And of set purpose involving their Discourseâ— in such nonâ—ensical Niceâ—ies that none shal know the meaning thereof Hence we may see that it is but vain Labour to give any Answer to the Quakers For whatever they have said you cannot fix upon them be as clear as it will they will in their next Essay explain it to you in a sense as opposite to that which in the Judgment of all rational men their words carry as Black is opposite to White or Light to Darkness For what is more clear from the Words of the Query than that the Devil is sin it self seing I think no Man except George Keith will desire us to believe that all these Questions are given out for needless amusements of the World importing only these things about which there is not the least shadow of a question or doubt for who ever doubted that the Devil was the cause of Sin Neither is his abuse of Scripture more toâ—lerable seing the Apostle useth a figurative Speech which in a matter known and about which there is no debate as the Matter was about which the Apostle speaketh may contribute much to the illustration and clearing of the purpose but far otherwise was it wheresoever Christ or the Apostles enâ—red intâ— any direct Dâ—sputation or reasoning where they always so spake as these with whom they Reasoned might have easily understood what these Questions and Reasonings tended to In a word he that of set purpose involveth and rendereth unintelligible his Discourse about Matters of such moment in the Judgment of all Rationals proveth himself either a Fool or a Knave Therefore whether George Keith will or not we must do these Questionists right and believe that they thought as they spake that is that the Devil is sin it self And therefore God is the Author of sin 3. I come now to the third thing of which I promised to prove the Quakers guilty viz. That the Soul is God or as they with the like blasphemy speak a part of God. And first to clear the way for the Souls Divinity they deny its Humanity For Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlok pag. 29. sayeth there is no Scripture which speaketh of a Humane Soul. And again pag. 31. to Mr. Sherlok saying that God is not a Spirit as Angels and the Souls of men are he replyeth saying this is confusion For Christ sayeth God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and Truth And there thou art raced without the Doctrine of Christ. And pag. 30. in opposition to Mr. Sherlock who had accused the Quakers of professing and blasphemously boasting of their Equality with God he thus replyeth Thy boasting is excluded without in thy Generation And thou art excluded from the life and mind of the Apostle who said Let the same Mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus who being in the Form of God thought it no Robbery to be equal with God. Phil. 2.5 6. And this thou calleth blasphemy and so thou hast shewed what Spirit thou art of contrary to the Apostle here we have Blasphemy in its highest Degree and an Equality with God proâ—essed and boasted of For the Effectation of which being prompted thereunto by the grand Enemy of Mankind Our first Parents fell from their Excellency and most happy Condition And except Christ had interposed had forever lien together with all their Posterity into that whirle pool and gulf of Incomprehensible Misery only for the desire of aspiring unto â—his of which these Heaven darâ—ing blasphemer boast themselves so that what the Poets feigned of the Gyants contending with the gods for an Equal Right to Heaven with them the Quakers act in Reality But the following discourse will evince that an Equality with God will not please them except they have also an Identity For George Fox the great Prophet and King of the Quakers in his great Myst. pag. 90. In answer to one that said there is a kind of infinitness in the Soul yet it cannot be infinitness in it self speaketh thus Is not the Soul without beginning coming from God returning to God again who hath it in his hand and Christ the Power of God the Bishop of the Soul which bringeth it up to God which came out from him hath this a beginning or ending and is not this infinite in it self again George Fox telleth us in the forecited book pag. 29. that Magnus Byne sayeth that the Soul is not infinite in it self but a Creature and R. Baxter sayeth it is a Spiritual Substance wherâ—unto George Fox Replyeth Consider what a Condition these called Ministers are in they say that which is a spiritual Substance is not infinit in it self but a Creature that which came out of the Creator and is in the Hand of the Creator which bringeth it up unto the Creator again that is infinite in it self Again Great Myst. p. 100. The Quakers are accused for saying there is no Scripture that speaketh of a Humane Soul And for affirming that the Soul is taken up unto God Hereunto George Fox thus answereth God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a Living Soul. And is not this that which cometh out from God is in Gods hand part of God from God and to God again from these passages it is most evident that both the Soul of man yea and the Devils themselves which I tremble to think must be God over all Seing according to these
the begetting of many to a lively hope for which generations to come shall call thee blessed whose beeing and habitation is in the power of the highest in which thou rules and Governs in Righteousness and thy Kingdom is Established in peace and the increase thereof without end Date 21. day of the 12 Moneth 1658. See Tyr detected pag 19. CHAP. VI. Of Perfection ALthough we have already given several instances of the damnable Doctrine of the Quakers together with their miserable defence thereof We shall notwithstanding for the more abundant evicting hereof trace the Footsteps of one of their cheif Authors Robert Barclay in his Vindication of one or two of their cheif principles The first of which shall be that of Perfection The Doctrine of the Quakers in this point is In whom this pure holy birth is fully brought forth the Body of death and sin cometh to be crucified and removed and their hearts united and subjected to the truth so as not to obey any Suggestions or Temptations of the evil one to be free from actual sinning and Transgressing of the Law of God and in that respect perfect Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth And there remaineth alwayes in some part a possibility of sinning where the mind doeth not most diligently and watchfully attend unto the Lord. These are the words of his eight These And afterward he sayeth that there may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural unto him to do Righteousness Let us in the next place consider how he vindicateth this Doctrine which is our main purpose Having vind Sect 9. Spent a while in accusing his Adversarie as guilty of railing and in rejecting his own Brethrens books such as Sauls errand to Damascus In which they maintain themselves to be equal with God. Which is also asserted by Hubberthorn against Sherl pag 30. I say rejecting these or denying that they have said them for he still insinuateth that Hicks only said these things although it be evinced by particular citation of book and page where they are In the next place he giveth away the cause wholly by saying that he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown sayeth N 6. viz. That by perfection in this life is understood a change in the whole man so that he yieldeth impartial obedience to all the Commands of God though in a small degree yet that he may seem to say somewhat he enquireth How this Doctrine is reconciled with that of dayly breaking the Commands in thought word deed In answer to which question it is enough to enquire how he evinceth them to be contradictory Seing he may know if he will that the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as parts and that it is a disconformity to the Law of God and consequently a sin to be deficient in the one as well as in the other And whereas he enquireth if to break Gods Commands dayly in thought word and deed be the way to grow in grace To put off the Old Man and on the New. He but only useth his old Custom viz. maliciously to calumniate For who said such a thing Or from what point of our Doctrine will he prove this We shall attend his proofs of it Which untill we hear we cannot but in reason Judge that he delighteth in malicious lies For though we say according to the Scripture that even the regenerate carrie about a body of death with them until death which defileth all their actions Yet where did any of the reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands is the way to grow in grace as this Man insinuateth they do What kind of light is this he has that teacheth him such a facultie of lying He goeth on saying but he addeth that this perfection rendereth gospel commands useless but are the Commands useless if men obey them But certainly He that is above the breach of the Law as the Quakers say many may be has no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to the obedience thereof And where is his vain subterâ—uge now But that he may yet further contradict himself and his Brethren He sayeth He has shewn in his Apology that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For if some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a bodie of death The most that they have to do is to give thanks and not to pray or repent For I think he will not say that they pray or repent which are in heaven These duties presupponing sorrow of which they are incapable And far lesse Horresco referens these that are equals with God. In opposition to his Adversary shewing that this Doctrine tendeth to the fomenting of pride and security he sayeth but where freedom from sin is where can Pride and Security have place Ans. This answer had been as fit to the Apostles Question Rom. 3 27 as to this Argument For he inferred that boasting might follow upon Justification by works It might then have been as well replyed If a man be perfectly Just and so without sin how can he incur the fault of boasting 2. How will he shew but this Doctrine of his doth bring many under a mistake as if they were secure from sinning when indeed they are not Whereas he sayeth that according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do lesse make uselesse Gods Commands than others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and prayer for forgiveness of God We only refer him to Rom 3.8 where he may have the like Objection with a fit Answer And here he promiseth alwayes to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus And why Because sayes he they must be made useful in breaking the Commands in thought word and deed His reason is a Calumnie if it have sense at all What Ordinance teacheth which we maintain that it is ones duty daylie to break the Commands of God that the Ordinances may be the more useâ—â—l to us If this be not of the same nature with Cavil wiped off by the Apostle Rom 3. then certainly two and three are not five But such malice the Church must resolve to be the Butt of so long as she is militant He goeth on to remove this Absurdity from their Doctrine of Perfection viz. that then none that are regenerat could sin at all but would be beyond the possibility of it Which inference is very clear for the ground which they give for their Doctrine is Ioh. 3.9 He that is born of God doeth not commit sin Which place they abuse taking it without restriction not attending to the context speaking of a Tread and Custom of sin and of a commission of it from Malice like the devil and the wicked his Children Which absurdity that he may evite He assureth that a man is not regene rat
a desperate Cause he conceds all at length For if God hath disposed of the Eternal Estate of every one universal Election is a bottomless Fiction except his Patrons affirm That either all obtain Eternal Life or else that matters fall out otherwise than God hath disposed and determined concerning them 2ly Whatever he hath said relating to Gen. 25.23 For his Opinion before we refuted it before except he mean some other place beside this which he handleth this present Text. viz. Rom. 9. 3ly That their Eternal Estates are there spoken of is clear seing the Apostle without the least shadow of ambiguity speaks of the Children themselves and that the Election of the one and the Rejection of the other was antecedent to their doing good or evil And that this is spoken of the Children themselves in some respect he himself here asserteth Then I say If this be true their Eternal State must be here spoken of seing the Lord loved the Person of Iacob and hated the Person of Esau before they were born or had done either good or evil And that this Assertion may the more evidently appear viz. That God loved the Person of Jacob and hated the Person of Esau even before they were born I shall more particularly vindicat Mal. 1.2.3 from his depravations which follow in his next Objection and Answer thereto The first of which is That this place Mal. 1.2 3. cited here by the Apostle v. 13. to confirm that which he had said concerning Jacob and Esau in the former verses is not to be understood of their Persons but of their Seeds For then this place of Malachi should be adduced by the Apostle to no purpose seing he is here speaking of the Person of Iacob and Esau which to say is both blasphemous and absurd Moreover the Prophet Malachi clearly intimats That he is speaking of the Persons of Iacob and Esau at least rhat he is not speaking of their Seeds so as to exclude their Persons Was not Esau Jacob's brother which Phrase must be understood in the first place of Iacob Esau themselves and secondly of their Seeds Neither is the reason of this Arminian of any weight drawn fâ—om the words of the 3 verse And hath laid his Mountain waste to prove his point yea the very contrary follows from the words Thus I have hated Esau Therefore I have laid his Mountain waste for the Vastation of the Idumean Mountains is mentioned as the effect of divine hatred against the Person of Esau extending it self in a secondary manner to his Posterity Even as the love of God to Iacob did extend it self to his Posterity as is clear from Deut. 10.15 with many other places of Scripture Where it is evident that the love of God did principally and chiefly terminat upon the person of Iacob and secondarly on his Seed and off-spring Furthermore our exposition is clear from the very words of the Text it self For the good Condition or Freedom from Devastatâ—on in which then the Jews were is holden forth by the Prophet to be an Effect of the Love of God to Iacob extending it self to his posterity even as the Destruction of the Edomites was an Effect of his hatred of God to Esau. In a word the good Condition of the Israelites hath the same kind of Relation to the love of God towards Iacob which the Devastation of Edom hath to the hatred of God towards Esau But that the good Condition of the Children of Israel was the Effect of the free love of God to Jacob the Prophet there clearly intimateth and as we said before many other places assert Therefore the Devastation of Edom was the Effect of the hatred of God to Esau extending it selt to his wicked Posterity He sayeth moreover That the cause why God hated Esau's Posterity at that time is declared in the 4 v. In these words We are impoverished but will return c. In which words saith he Their Incorrigible wickedness is declared Reply That Edom was an incorrigible wicked people is true but nothing to his purpose For in this their Resolution considered in it self of which Resolution alone the Prophet speaketh and in reposing themselves in their own Lands there can no wickedness be shewed Hence we conclude with Junius that noble Interpreter of Scripture on the words That in this 4 v. is contained a Decument that God is about to confirm Israel now brought back from Captivity to defend the Land and to magnifie himself in all things but on the other hand that he was about to deprive the Idumeans whom he had Reprobâ—t of all power to return or rebuild their Common wealth tho they had endeavoured to do it Add to all this the body of Orthodox writers both Ancient and Modern approving our meaning of this place we shall name two But as Gylippus was to the Lacaedemonians they me accounted in stare omnium The one is Hierom among the Ancients upon the place who saith He doth not only say I loved Jacob before he was born but also I hated Esau before he was brought forth But I also have reserved my love and hatred for their Posterity The other is Luther De servo Arbitrio Cap 161 who sayes It is not therefore the temerity of the Idumeans which is reproved but the ingratitude of the Children of Israel who see not what God bestoweth upon them and of what he depriveth their Brethren the Idumites for no other cause but because he loved the one and hated the other In which place Luther largely demonstrats that the Prophet here speaks of these things which he did to Israel and Edom as the Effect of his eternal love and hatred in opposition to Erasmus who by special Command of the Pope did undertake the defence of the Pelagian Doctrine in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio Add to all these the History of Jacob and Esau as a good Commentarie on both places now in hand which declareth that Esau was a profane Person Heb 12.16 and elsewhere and that Jacob got grace and so was saved which is more than a demonstration that the Lord determined from all Eternity to save the one and passe by the other which is the thing we plead for That which he sayes in the fourth place is true but nothing to his purpose Seing the Question is whether or not the Apostle in this place handleth the matter of Eternal Election and Reprobation In the fifth place he taketh the place of the old Libertins who denyed that any godly man ought to be subject to any Magistrat tho never so just if he want true Grace by reason of which Doctrines huge Confusions were raised in Germany as also by Venner who with his Complices began to raise great Tumults in England while he minded to make this Doctrine of our Author practicable He goeth on to deprave the 14. and 15. verses The substance of what he saith we shall faithfully deliver in so far as he militats