that our Author cares not to joyn with Anabaptists Independents whom he accounts Hereticks Yea to take Hell rather then to want some Lie to alledge against the Quakers wherefore I shall trouble you no more with his Citations being fully Answered by others but shall proceed to see what more he hath to say In the end of page 115 he falls a railing and clamouring dispetatly Telling us that by this dim light Men have enough adoe to perceive that there is a Supream Beeing what then is become of his late great assertions That this dim light of Nature Reason Conscience extinguished Lantern c. Could teach men that there was one GOD that he was Infinite Omnipotent to be Loved Feared and Adored and to do others as they would be done by which is the substance of the Law and the Prophets This is confusion and contradiction with a Witness yet he glories in the end and heaps togeher lies in Hypocrsie which deserve no answer In page 116 He would insinuat that we depress the light as much as formerly we had exalted it because when some pretending to it have erred we say their Doctrines are to be subjected to the Judgement of the Church This he calls Popery and at last worse Viz. A subjecting of Christ and GOD to another as capable of deceiving and being deceived Bur I would know from this windie man whether if he or any Presbyterian should teach any Doctrine contrary to the Covenant and Confession of Faith and pretend Scripture for it I say whether he would be lyable to the Judgement of the General Assembly and whether it were the mans pretences or the Scriptures which the Assembly takes upon thē to judge even so we neither take upon us to judge Christ nor his Light which can neither deceive nor be deceived But the deceit and follv of such pretenders as our Author and his Brethren who pretend to the Scriptures and neither understand them not walk according to them In the next place after a little of his accustomed froath be saith he will propose and enervat those of their Arguments which seem to be most strong c. And begins with George Keith citing Truth defended page 87 but is page 85. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediate dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men ergo c. To this he answereth by denying the Minor which I cannot but admire seeing George Keith hath so abundantly proven it in the same page yet never noticed by our Author But he thinks he hath guarded himself sufficiently in his Preface to the Reader by forbidding them to touch or handle such unclean things as George Keiths books But all this deceit will not cover him for George Keith tells him First that he hath proven this by many arguments in his book of Immediat Revelation Secondly the Americans whom his Adversary names transgress the Divine Law therefore they have a Divine Law For where there is no Law there is no transgression And thirdly he cited Bishop Sanderson saying the Law in the hearts of all men is as really the word of GOD as that Printed in our Bibles But Patroclus reads not this and therefore makes short work with it and glories as if he had Vanquished Euforbis by whose Dart Patroclus fell The next he attempts is R B's Vindication page 39 But this is no Argument as he would falsly insinuate but written to stop the Mouth of a windy man J Brown charging him with Blasphemy But he proceeds page 118. That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin Therefore it is sufficient to Salvation Answer First he hath neither told us where not by whom this Argument is used and may be his own for any thing I know But Secondly he seems to confess that they sin who do not obey the Light And Thirdly his answer is very nonsensical to wit it is sin to disobey the Lawful commands of Parents which commands are not sufficient to Salvation But what made that disobedience to Parents to be sin If the Law of GOD had not commanded obedience to them Every sin is a transgression of the Law of GOD and therefore every sin presupposeth a Divine Law and here I must tell him that his brother the author of Melius Inquirendum tells him page 303. All that conscience dictats as a Counlelour all that Conscience determines as a judge is in the name of the Supream and Soveraion JEHOVAH adding there is one Lawgiyer who is able to Save and to destroy and a little after Conscience hath in its Commission to dictate before the fact as well as to reflect upon the fact it teaches what we ought to do as well as examine whether we have done well or not By these it appears this man was of the mind that that there was a Divine Law in all men call it by what name he will Next he comes to John 1. 9. That was the true light which enlighteneth every man coming into the World where he giveth two glosses of it J Browns First that Light may be taken for the Light of reason This is nonsence as if man could be a man without reason It is every man not every bruit he enlightneth and till we understand more we believe it is reason makes the difference so the gloss must run thus he enlighteneth every reasonable creature with the light of Reason The Second gloss is that by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which savingly enlightened Upon this R B saith he is puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it Whereupon our airy Author insults saying He inferrs penurie from abundance But sayes he I remembred they were Enemies to Logick But less stoath might have sufficed For I am sure if he had not been puzled he would never have given two such contrary Exposicions The first making the Light meerly natural yet Universal The second Gloss making it saving and supernatural but special and not Universal Which evidently shews that Jo Brown and our Author who would defend him are both in Babel And therefore it being a matter of Consequence to know whether the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men the Light where with every Man is inlightned be Natural or Supernatural Universal or Special Saving or Damning It concerns our Advetlary to consult the General Assembly which of the two Glosses may be best to hold by seing both cannot stand In the rest of this page he doth nothing but undervalue his Adversary whether Justly let the Reader Judge His next Combat is with John 1. 5. The darkness comprehended it He saith That by darkness is meant mon in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is Natural Whence he inferis that man in this estate is void of all Spiritual and Supernatural Light Which Inference is void of all Sense
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
serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth was their Rule Ergo c. The Major I hope they will not deny and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance which was as followeth Die Jovis 6 of July 1643. I A B do seriouslie and solemnlie protest in the presence of Almightie GOD That in this Assemblie whereof I am a Member I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be Truth Or in point of Discipline but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glorie of GOD and to the Good and Peace of the Church Hence it is evident That their Conscience was their Rule But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Errour whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom let Patroclus choose And to help him in his Election he may consult his Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum who a little after he hath told him that his ultimate Rule is a monster Tells him also That nothing can possiblie interpose between the Authoritie of GOD and the conscience and that its dictates are uncontrollable Next he tells us That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil But the Scripture saith not that men are condemned for want of Light But because Light iâ— come into the World but Men love darâ—ness rather than light And also that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men He closeth up this Number accusing R B for confounding the principal Rule and the principal Leader but these are his Acâ—rologian mistakes and not his Adversaries confusion For any man not maliciously byassed may see that he intends no more but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39 saying that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit is more primarie and principallie the Rule than the Scriptures some things written and received only from another This he hath maliciously passed by together with the Question following which he could not answer so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisiâ—al formalities return upon his own head In page 67 He comes to the interpreter of Scripture where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetorick like that of hiâ— Brother Mackquair the Arch-scold saying The Quakers well knowing That if GOD speaking in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them or if the Holy scripture be not â—steemed false ambiguous and nonsenfical then their cause is lost What more malicious and wicked falshood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People who from their Hearts abhore any such thought concerning the Scriptures as to esteem them false ambiguous and nonsensical Or what end could this â—nicâ—ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth Except it be to raise their Beloved Refoâ—meâ—s the Rabble to stone us as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow had almost been stoned to Death by them But he saith The Quakers well knowing c. If this were true we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster Who in chap 23 numb 4 of their Confession say Infidelitie or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authoritie nor free the People from their due Obedience to him While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King a Pious as well as Protestant Prince Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture â—alse ambiguous or nonesensical Wherefore he should have said If the Spirit of GOD which dictated the Scriptures be the only true Interpreter of Scripture then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost As for his phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures and a little after The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort is confessed But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood and in effect a meer sham to amuse his Reader As for example When Patroâ—lus stepeth up into his Pulpit and readeth a sentence of Scripture which may be somewhat obscure As this my Body He begines to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors then of the Lutherian and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text. Now I would willingly know whetheâ— it be GOD or Man that speaks here The First he would be affraid of as Enthusiastiok And if the Second What becomes of his Phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures So the Reader may see That it is a meer humane device to keep up a sordid Trade for by this Trade they have their Living as the Silver Smiths had of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake But let the Reader know That we fully owne the Spirit of GOD which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means such as Reading Meditation Prayer and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures as many of our Friends have published to the World So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following falls to the ground being built upon no one solid Argument But I shal take notice of some of them And First He citeth George Keith Saying We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth but declare themselves Enemies to it To this he Answereth Behold Reader The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine Answer If this be true then Patroclus is a great Liar For in page 32. he saith The Papists have gone too low resolving their Faith ultimatly in Men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo And in that foregoing page placeth themselves in the middle So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists then we And in good earnest any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practises will find the Difference nothing but Pretence For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters then the Papists Only Blessed be the LORD they have not such