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
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
in no sense to be accounted a Rule He citeth VVilliam Penn to prove it Rejoynder page 76. I beseech thee Reader here to take notice of this mans double dealing and dissingenuâ—ity For first VVilliam Penn in page 69 and 70 confesseth the Scriptures to be a Rule but not the Rule by way of excellency as the Reader may see there and in Râ— Barclays his appologie Theses Tertia And because he Citeth VVilliam Penn to prove his false assertion let the Reader know they are no words of VVilliam Penn but of one Thomas Colliar a great Professor whose words VVilliam Penn Citeth against Faldo some whereof I shall transcribe General Epistle page 249. And truely my Brethren it is my earnest desite to see souls to live more in the Spirit and less in the Letter then they will see that we judge of the Litter by the Spirit and not of the Spirit by the Lettâ—er Which occasions so much ignorance amongst us and these who profess themselves to be our Teachers are chief in this Trespass The Spirit of GOD who is GOD is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian and in page 48 he saith That some seting the Scriptures in the Room of the spirit they make them an Idol His next Citation of VVilliam Penn in page 18 is his Rejoynder page 71 where he Citeth these words the scriptures are the verbal and Historical Rule of Faith which is the devels faith William Penns words are these For Faith in his I Faldâ— sense rises no higher then so many articles laid down suppose truely according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can belive as well as he This Faith I call meerly verbal and Historical c. And this is the candour of our insulting adversary Let the Reader judge whose reputation can be safe who deals with such an impudent Calumniator In the same page and in contradiction to himself he mentions a distinction of primary and Secondary Well Patroelus it seems the Quakers own the scriptures in some sense to be a Rule therefore Patroclus consesseth himself to have belyed them in the foregoing page His third is Huberthorn The words are except by a Miraculous Revelation from Heaven These words sound harshly and so fit to defame the Quakers But if yet thou hast retained any shamesacedness or the least grain of honesty I charge thee tell me Have not George Keith in his Books on that subject and Robert Barelay in his Appollogie sufficiently cleared the Quakers in that point So far that if thou wilt rightly state the contraversie thou must lay aside all these expressions of miraculous extraordinary and the like But who can expect fare dealing from a man of thy manners And therefore to stop the mouth of this Callumniator I shall tell the Reader what George Kieth sayes to obviat such accusations immediate Revel page 2. First we do not understand the foretelling things to come c. Secondly page 3 We do not bereby understand the Revelation of an other Gospel c. Thirdly in page 7. Not an outward audible voice c. Fourthly Nor any outward audible voice Fifthly Nor dreams and visions c. Sixthly Nor any outward Miracles c. And now let the Reader judge with what candour this man hath represented us Page 18 and 19. He saith in order to the Production of true saving Faith two principles are required First the declaration of the object or thing to be believed c. Now the thing he would have me believe is that the scripture is the Rule of Faith and Life and in order to this he presents me the Bible Is I ask him how shall I believe this book to be the Rule of Faith and Life He answereth me the book saith so tho there be no such word in it And this is objective Revelation and needs no more but an application of this Revelation already made And the second he calls subjective revelation but he must excuse me to tell him that before he can perswaed me to believe that proposition laid down in the Westminster Confession or Catecbism Quest 2 that the scripture is the only rule He will need to produce me better arguments for the Holy Ghost according to the Westminster Confession Chap 7 Act 3 must be given to make men willing and able to believe and this is more then an application He tells us that this revelation was either mediate or immediate Who denyes this But I hope when it was mediate it needed the immediate operation of the spirit to make them able and willing to believe and so the operation of the Spirit was the Rule of this Faith whereby they choosed or rejected these mediate Revelations That the illumination of the spirit is necessary for understanding of the soriptures no man denyeth But it is to be regarated that he and his Brethren take upon them to expond scripture to others while they have it not and mock and persecute Others who bear witness for it To prove subjective Revelation he bringeth several Scriptures Among others Luke 24. 46. The Words are these And said unto them Tbus it is Written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Now the Question will be whether this was an objective or a subjective Revelation I affirm it to be Objective and that CHRIST did here reveal to them things they never knew before nor had occasion to know albeit they might have been darkly shadowed forth in the Scriptures So that Christ speaking to them and at the same time opening their Understandings both Patroclus principles concurred immediatly to the production of their Faith with out the Bible Neither is he limited to Scripture words tho he may and often does make use of them And these words He spoke are not to be found in all the Old Testament And the Quakers do not pretend to revelation of New Things but a new Revelation of the Good Old Things Secondly Consider that he calls his first Principle a Declaration of the Object or Thing to be believed Now the Scriptures are the Object or Thing to be believed And therefore according to himself the Declaration is necessary And I must ask Patroclus what this Declaration is Sure he can intend nothing here but the Glosses Commentaries Paraphrases which he and his Brethren make upon the Scriptures whereby they get their Living But if Men were but once convinced that Christs sheep hear his Voice and that his Spirit teacheth them and bringeth all things to their remembrance whatsoever they have heard of or from him Then that sordid Trade of Preaching for hâ—re and Divining for money would soon come to an end And Men would say with Thomas a Kempis Let not Moses and the Prophets speake to me but thou O LORD my GOD. And with the Psalmist I will bear what the LORD GOD will speake in me Whereas now pretend what they will they are as positive in their dogmatising and no less
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
Our Adversaries themselves saith he at unawates grant Very well Patroelus it is a fine trick of a Souldier to take his Enemies napping and vanquish by stratagem but it seems there is some difficulty in it He citeth R Barkclays 2d Theses saying That the Spirit is not to be subjected to the Scriptures as a more noble Rule Therefore saith he The Spirit is to be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as a more noble Rule Answer first He should have said These Divine Revelations for they are the words of the These But we have often acknowledged that all Doctrines of Men how holy soever or how much soever they pretend to the Spirit are to be tryed by the Scriptures and if they be contrary to them are to be rejected But this proves nothing of their being the Primary Rule to us more then to Enoch who was a Man of GOD and had true Faith and walked with GOD before there was a line of Scripture in the World Again he saith Our Adversaries grant that the Scriptures proceeded from GOD and therefore are infalible and more sure than infalible is impossible This is a strange Argument The Scriptures are infallible because they proceeded from GOD or were inspired by the Spirit of GOD And shall the Inspiration of the Spirit be fallible or a more uncertain Rule then that which it dictated These words sound harshly But I expect when Patreclus comes to be serious in cold Blood he will grant That if there be more or less in the Case of Infallibility he will grant the more to the Spirit which dictated the Scriptures and from which they derive all their Infallibility Certainty and Excellency Here I desire the Reader may observe that his Arguments and the Scriptures cited by him tend only to set up Moses Law to be the Primary Rule of Faith and Life And not one word of the Scriptures of the New Testament so that he contends for Judaism rather then Christianity For Christ said It hath been said of Old an Eye for an Eye c But I say unto you resist not evil c So that the Jewish Law is not in all things to be a Rule for Christians Otherwayes Patroclus may ofter Sacrifice as well as take Tithes In page 54. 55 and 56. He ranteth and roareth against R B as a Jesuite because he alledgeth he hath taken an Argument of Bellarmines to prove the Scriptures not to be an Adequate Rule but what a silly kind of Reasoning this is tho true may easily appear Bellarmine sayes there is one GOD so do I therefore I am a Jesuite The Jesuites say That Dominion is founded upon Grace And so do the Presbyâ—erians Therefore the Preshyterians are Jesuites Then he comes to vindicate John Brown's simile of killing a Man And at last giveth us the Law the Judge and the Witnesses The Scriptures are saith he the Rule whereby to make the Examen the enâ—â—ghined â—â—solence the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a â—ilial Disposition c Together the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself the Witnesses But first I must ask him whether it be the Man himself or the Judge that needs this Spiritual Wisdome and Christian prudence to apply the Rule Secondly Whether the Judge be a Person distinct form the person judged for to use his own Simile If the Man â—â— yet be his own Judge he is not like to suffer Thirdly What he meaneth by the Ex Position he gives us of the Spirit of Adoption As if he thinketh it nothing else but a Filial Disposition inclining the believer to come to GOD as his Words imply Behold Reader what a Judgement is here to be expected Where the Man himself dislected into so many Parts is the Applyer of the Rule the Judge and the Witnesses And yet in page 57 He confesseth That for the infallible Assurance of the Person himself the thing standeth in need of or requireth an inward Judge and inward Witnesses Which I hope must be things distinct from the Person himself to whom they are to give infallible certainty As for his pretending That it belongeth not properly to a Rule of Faith to tell a Man whether he hath true Faith or not is not to the purpose For an adequate Rule of Faith must put me beyond doubting what I am to believe and what not Otherwayes it is no adéquate Rule And to conclude I would advise him to be sparing in calling Men Anti-Christian For I know no people except the Papists to whom the definition of Antichrist given by the Apostles is more agreeable then to the Presbyterians That is He exalteth himself above all that is called God or the civil Magistrates who are called Gods in Scripture Goodman saith they may kill wicked Princes as monsters and oruel beasts Knox History Fol 78. If neither the Magistrate nor the people do their office in deposing or killing the King then the Minister must Ex-communicat such a King Goodman page 110. Any privat Man may do it against the greatest Prince A privat Man having some special motion may kill a Tyrant If these Doctrines be not more like Anti-Christ than the Doctrine he accuserh let the Reader judge In Page 57 he cometh to another Argument of R. B's There are many things that the Scripture cannot determine To which I B Answers That General Rules are enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdome If this be not flatly to contradict the Scriptures concerning the chief Instances cited by R B Let the Reader judge after he hath read and considered the following Scriptures Rom. 8 16. The Spirit it self beareth Witness with our spirits that we are the Children of GOD. 1 John 4. 13. Hereby do we know that we dwell in Him and He in us because He hath given us of his Spirit And Vers 5. 6. And it is the Spirit that beareth Witness because the Spirit is Truth To these Scriptures cited by R B He hath not answered one Word Buâ— all his Answers are Quibles As first If we need Revelation for Spiritual Actions we need them also for Natural Actions Poor Man Are we contending for a Rule for Eating and Drinking as he talks If he be sick let him consult the Physician what and when he shall Eat But if he mean the Fasts appointed by the Presbyterian Clergie his Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Perswasion have need to consult an higher Oracle And when he is hungry and thirsty his stomach can teach him Nevertholess Whether we eat or drink we are to do it to the Glorie of GOD. His second Answer is ridiculous alledging that a system of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a sufficient Rule tho the Books comprehended not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever shall exist But the Question is Whether a system of these Arts can put a Man beyond doubting in every Emergent that may occurr in these Arts when practised And not whether their Names be there or not As whether he
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
power As for his saying We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD because they try all Doctrines and Practises by the Scriptures This contains two Lyes First That we condemn all the Resormed Churches For R B hath cited severals of them who are of his Judgement and more may be cited in its place And Secondly The Reasou is a gross Lye For we alwayes owned That all Doctrines and Practises of Men were to be tryed by the Scriptures Next he saith Hence we find That the spirit of the Quakers is Diametrically opposite is the scriptures and therefore the spirit of lyes and delusion Whence I pray thee Patroelus Because we reject private Presbyterion Interpretations Which are but Mans wit and work This Consequence will be made out as thou sayest ad Kalendas Graecas When in a vapouring humour he giveth a Latine phrase and maketh us Ghosts and Hobgoblins But he hath not yet fallen upon the right spell to conjureus except it be his cutting our Juglar Veins which he yet wants power tho not will to do His next os any weight is That from our denying their Interpretations It follows That our Saviovr laboured invain when he proved the Resurrection of the Dead from the scriptures But he might have considered that he was GOD as well as Man who spoke there and that his Word was sufficient Secondly That this Scripture was an Argument ad bominem to the Sadducees who believed Moses Law better then Christ Thirdly The Consequence will be very gross That because Christ who had the Spirit above measure proved an Article of Faith by Scripture Therefore every Presbyterian Priest pedant may by his own natural and acquired parts without the Spirit interpret Scripture But there is at present too great contraversie which seems to bring a firie brand in the tail of it like to destroy all that is profitable or beautysul in the Nation as it hath once already done and to hazard the lives and estates of many well meaning men and good Patriots That is whether there be any difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Church Now if our Author can decide this contraversie by Scripture to the silence of the Malignants as our Saviour did the Saddusees he will do better service to his Native Country then by all his weak and deceitful wranglings against the poor Quakers who are not compeating with him for the Chair But his next consequence is very odd Yea saith he if this Doctrine be true A man doth not sin if he worship the Grocodale lbis Dog or Cat with the old Aegyptians Yea a man may believe or do whatsoever cometh in his Brain c. First ' This Doctrine that the Spirit of GOD is the only true interpreter of Scripture can bring no such consequence along with it For GOD never taught a man to commit Idolatry and to say that a general prohibation is not binding upon a man because his name is not in it is rediculous and no man that I know ever thought it But Secondly If his consequence be true then no Idolater sinned before Moses Law was written Yea according to our Author the Aegyptians he speaks of did not sin For if they had no inward Law sure they had no outward Law And borresco referens the old World sinned not to deserve the Flood because they had no written Law nor any Presbyterian Priest to interperate scripture Next he sayes we deny all Commentaries and expofitions of scripture He should have added which are meerly mans work without the Spirit of Christ if he will not be accounted a liar Then he chargeth R B for laying that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct Person of the Trinity I shall set down R B's own words that the Reader may see how fairly he deals with R B Thus I desire to know of him in what Scripture he finds these words that the Spirit is a diltinct Person of the Trinity For I freely acknowledge according to the Scripture that the Spirit of GOD proceed eth from the Father and the Son and is GOD And then asketh him whether any hath reason to think he truely makes the Scripture the Rule of his Faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or cannot find words in it to express the chief Articles of his Creed And now whether R B hath not fully confessed the the Mystrie and only denyed words of mans invention let the Reader judge Next he challengeth him for taking the words 1 John 2. 27. At the first sound and without any explication but he hath no leasure to give us any explication nor to disprove what he said from the words But concludes thus So that what ever they say or can say to liberate their doctrine from this most weighty but just charge they shall only twist contradictions the faster This is a great blow from a Graecian Gallant but hath not the weight of a Fear ther For we own the scripture for a Rule and the best outward Rule in the World and yet disown the Presbyterian expositions and Commentaries on them so long as they deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the work And whereas he challengeth us for not writing Commentaries The World is so overloaded with Commentaries of Mans making each almost contradicting another upon the same text that we think it best to let Patroclus abound in his own sense till GOD reveal that also unto him Phil. 3. 15. After this for about a page he doth nothing but rail and rove at randum as if Patroelus like he had the Trojans in chase and were upon execution And to sum up his Victory he concludes us Bapists because forsooth we deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and 〈◊〉 and the chief Judge of contraversies Answer First He hath need here of some of his Metaphisical formalities to distinguish betwixt the Rule or Law and the Judge But this we may expect next The Reason he giveth is because our Arguments as he alleageth conclude with theirs and instanceth that of Revel 22 18 compared with Deut 4 2 but hath brought nothing to disprove the inference Only telling us to this purpose may Bellarmine answer and the rest of the Jesuites But the difference lyeth here the Papists would thereby set up the Roman Church and unwritten Traditions to be the primary rule But we the Teachings of the Spirit of CHRIST so that according to patroclus own words in page 32 we differ as far as Heaven and Earth And he hath chosen a middle place for himself and his Brethren in which of the Limbos he may tell us next And let this suffice to answer all his Rovings to the end of the Chapter Chapter II. of Immediate Revelation HE begins this Chapter with an hâ—dgpodg of railing lyes nonsense and contradictions such as a man pretending to sense and Learning may be ashamed of if his desperate malice had
his Followers c. To this Argument he sers down R. B's Answer but slily omitteth what followeth which is And therefore most weak is his Reasoning in page 461 That such Revelations cannot be more sure then the Scriptures which are the Objective Revelations of the Apostles written down since the certainty of these Writtings depends upon the certainty of these Revelations by which they were written And if any case that Maxim of the Schools hold it must in this Propter quod unum quodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And this may serve to answer his talk of a chief binding power and prerogative to be the Touchstone of all Doctrines For if they be so it is because they were Divinely inspired And therefore Divine Inspirations must be much more so But let us consider his Argument First He saith The Prophets and Apostles for Christ wrote no Scripture could by infallible Evidence and proofs even to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposets demonstrate that they were sent of GOD but whence came it then that their greatest Opposers did not receive their Testimony Why did they persecur them even to death As their Successors the Presbâ—terians and their Brethren the Independents have done to some of us Was it not because they were not convinced that they were sent of GOD Or was it because they maliciouslie hardened their hearts and would not believe it The same is the case with our Author and his Brethren at this day But perhaps he expecteth miracles for Proofs and Evidences And in this followeth the footstepts of his predecestors the Papists who dealth so by the first Reformers And the same Answer the first Reformers gave to the Papists may serve him For as they said They needed not Miracles because they preached not a New Gospel So we pretend not Revelations of New Things But a New Revelation of the Good old things And again what can he pretend to that we want He hath produced nothing Only in page 81 He saith on the other hand It is beyond denyall that we have the Scriptures And is it not as true that we have them But the Question is Who hath the true sense of them The Papists say They are the only true Infallible Proponders J B and our Author say Christian prudence and Wisdom comparing the Text with the Text And we say The Holy Spirit who gave them forth is the only Right Interpreter Et ad buc sub judice lis est But he falls upon R Barkclay for saying That others pretending to be led by the Scriptures as their Rule as much as J B have been deceived To which he answers If the Scriptures through the corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the patrocinic of errours and corrupt practises Then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Life exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule to them then these Revelations can be which Jobn of Leyden held This he saith is the first proposition into which R B's Argument resolveth And the second is no better then this Viz He that will not admit of such Revelations which cannot be distinguished from these that led their followers into the most blasphemous opinions and most wicked practises immaginable He who will not admit of them for his Principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures c Provideth an Argument for Atheists and Scepticks Answer Could the Devil himself in his most cunning subtile transformings have more deceitfully and dissingenuously represented this sober and discreet Answer of R B But it seems the man is past all shame For first He insinuats that R B saith That men firmly believing and clearly understanding the Scriptures and squaring their practise exactly conform to them may err as did John of Leyden Secondly That he ownes the Revelations which John of Leyden pretended to to be a Rule And thirdly That he denyeth the Scriptures to be a Rule All which three are gross and notorious Lyes unworthy of a man of any Candor or Honesty His second Proposition is drawn from these words of R B And indeed this is a fine Argument he hath produced for Scepticks and Atheists for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrand for writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and extraordinary Revelation And if such be as he affirms uncertain then the Truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarly be uncertain Now the man certainly knew that R B was pleading for none other Revelation but Divine Inward and Immediat Revelations But being straitned by this Answer he betakes himself to the covers of Deceit and the refuge of Lyes for his Reply instead of the Revelation of the Spirit of GOD which he knew his Adversary meant he puts in the Revelations of Jobn of Leyden Which impudent treachery is obvious to Reader at first view Hence he might conclude That because Micajah wrought no Miracles to prove his prophesie more then the Priests of Achab did therefore he was not to be believed And because Jobn Huss George Wishart and Samuel Rutherfoord wrought to Miracles Therefore they were no more to be trusted then Jobn of Leyden For Miracles only excepted I know no proofs he can lay claim to but we can do the same But the best is That in page 80 he would father these Deductions upon his Adversary Saying And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his Witt or to be numbred among Rationals when he made these Deductions c. Truly he is very weak Reader That seeth not this man 's affronted deceit And seeing the Deductions are intirely his own and none of R B's He must by his own Confession be numbred among Brutes And whereas he saith That J B never called the Revelations of the Prophets uncertain He should have told what hath made Divine Revelation uncertain now which he cannot Or have proven that it is altogether ceassed which he dare not undertake tho it be an Article of his Faith And thus by denying the certainty of Divine Revelations for R B pleads for none else let the Reader judge if lie have not laboured to confirm his Brothers Atgument for Atheists and Seepticks In page 81. He thinks to put an end to the contraversie by some positions whereof the first is to this purpose We cannot know whether they have any Revelation at all They may be lyeing unto us For any thing we know we have only their naked words for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures This had been very suitable language for their predecestors The Jews when they stoned the Proto-Martyr Stephen Acts 7. 56. When he said Behold I see the Heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the Right Hand of GOD And for Joash the King when he
they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue in these Writings c And so runs on for a whole page in tragical Exclamations To all which I shall only return the words of Calvine instit cap. 1. Numb 24. Quare si Conscientiis optime consultum volumus ne instabili dubitatione perpetuo vacillent altius petenda quam ab humanis vel rationibus vel judiciis vel conjecturis scripture Authoritas Nempe ab Interiori spiritus sancti Testification Etsi enim Reverentiam suâ— sibi ultro Majestate conciliat tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit cum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostris And a little after Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat talis denique sensus qui nisi ex caelesti Revelatione nasci nequeat Non aliud loquâ— quam quod apud se experitur fidelium unusquisque Thus Calvine In English thus Wherefore if we would take the best course to provide for the peace or clearness of our own Consciences that they may not perpetually fluctuatâ— with an unstable uncertaintie the Authoritie of the Scripture is to be deduced higher then either from Humane Reasons Judgements or Conjectures viz. From the Inward-witnes bearing of the Holy Spirit For albeit its own Native Majestie doth gain to it a peculiar Reverence yet then doth it seriously affect us when it is sealed upon our hearts And a little after Such then is that Perswasion which requires not Reasons and such that Perception which cannot be bred but of a Revelation from Heaven I do not speak any other thing then what every one of the Faithful finds experimentally true in himself And now let the Reader judge whether R B hath said any more then Calvine hath said That every one of the Faithful experienceth in himself Yet what is sound Doctrine in Calvine must be Heathnism in R B And whereas he saith shall the writings of Livie Virgil and Cicere carry such evidences that they were theirs so that a Humanist may distinguish c. Shall then GOD Himself be outstriped and overcome by these Writers Answer Albeit we neither deny the Majesty of Stile Harmony of parts or any other Divine Characters in the scriptures which may declare their Author Yet we confidently affirm that the forelaid writings of Livie Virgil and Cicero which are the things of a man can only be known by the spirit of a man and not of a beast So we say the scriptures being the things of GOD can only and alone be known by the Spirit of GOD as saith the Apostle in so many words But he proceeds and citeth the word as he alledgeth of Benjamin Furley and for his Author gives Hicks the Forger And then he falls a glorying as if he had done his business fully saying by this time I have aboundantly justified my charge Soft Patroclus till thou put off thine Armour An I cannot but wonder with what confidence or rather impudence this man and his brother Brown can cite these books of Faldo Hicks c. Which have been so fully manifestly convicted of falsehood forgery and perversion that their Authors are become detasteable to all honest and unbyasled men and whom our present adversary accounteth Hereticks And what a case must the Quakers be in if such Janizaries in Religion who have been known to undertake the contraversy for hire and have been found to be men of no integrity I say if such men their sworn Enemies shall be held sufficient witnesses against them If I should produce the Papists Testimonies against Luther and Beza what would Protestants say And albeit R B chargeth Brown with it as a callumniator yet our Author hath not brought the least proof to mend the matter nor the Citation of any book but his beloved Baptist Mr. Hicks as he calls him And whereas he saith they have Cited book and page for their other Citations so did Patroclus cite William Penns Rejoynder when he accused him for saying the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John did not contain glade tidings so the Proverb is veryfied in all of them A Priest a Liar no news And so till he prove these to have been the words of Benjamine Furley I have done with him And here I must tell Patroelus I have seen Browns book which was lent by an old and learned Minister so called of the National Church with the Caveat I would not said he lend you this Book but that I know ye would get it from some other For if all the coppies were in my hands they should never be more seen I acknowledge they are a scandle to our Profession and the Anthor a stain to his function But said he do not think we allow them And the truth is except Polwart and Montgomeries flyting I never râ—ad its fellow But to return to what R B answereth in the matter of Benjamin Furley he hath set it down at large and spends a deal of labour upon it He begins with R B his delemma to which he answereth Seeing R B insinuateth that there are an subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any therefore his dilemma is impertinent c. Now let the Reader judge what cander we can expect from this man who hath out done both Hieks and Faldo they cired book and page yet were found Forgers He cites nothing yet would be trusted let him mend this fault with the next before he produce his argumentum ad hominem and his absurd and malicious consequence upon it Which is that according to the Quakers men are not oblidged to abstain from Murther without such an immediate objective Revelation as Moses and the Prophets had Answer This is very dissingenuous did ever any Quakers pretend to give a new Law to the World and confirm it by miracles as did Moses Or did they ever teach That the Foretelling of things to come as did the Prophets was necessary to Salvation The Quakers pretend to no new Revelations of new things but to a new Revelation of the good old things as shall be seen more hereafter And for such stuff it may take with Patroclus Hearers but every Man of Sense will deteast such dealing His second Answer to this Dilemma is yet no better For saith he Tho the Illumination of the Spirit be of abjolute necessity for such a knowledge of the Scriptures whereby we may know GOD revealed in them and have true Love and Faith and Fear c. Yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound reason only can distinguish betwixt Commands given to a particular people for a certain time and these that hind at all times must have abandoned the exercise of Reason This the Summ of what he saith Answer first What he meaneth by the Word Only I see not Except he think Reason can do something more But what this is he hath not been so
honest as to tell us He hath said before that the Illumination of the Spirit is absolutly necessary to such a knowledge of the Scriptures as iâ— usefull to beget Faith Love and Fear of of GOD. c. But he would teach us another Knowledge which reason cannot produce But if he will allow me the first I shal allow him the last to get his Living by Only I must tell the Reader that in this he outdoes the Socinian who in his Catechism aforesaid Cap 3. quest 3. Laid the blame of the Differences about the sense of the Scriptures on their not imploting the Gift of the Holy Spirit which GOD hath promised to those that call upon Him And lastly I wonder to see a pretended Presbyterian cite the Examples of the third and fifth Commandemenâ—s Of which two precepts they have been such notorious Transgressors His third Answer is as unhappy as the rest For he laboureth to caâ—se R. B. to contradict B. F. While he hath neither cleared his Brethren Hicks and Brown from being reputed Calumniators Nor hath attempted any way to prove these to have been the Words of B. F. But thinks the World is bound to believe him because he saith it Where I leave him to rave till he bring better proof He tells us Fourthly That it is impertinent to say that without the Operation of the spirit men cannot obey the Good of their own Souls And is saith he falcem pro ligone dare Answer It seems the Man intends an Obedience which is not for the good of Mens own Souls And what this can be except it be either superstition or supererogation I am to learn As for his Proverb I fear if the Men of his Robe did not get the Sickle before the Spade That is did not eat the Fruit before they planted a Vineyard we should see many of them with Lean cheecks and Lank sides But as he hath told us before of two kinds of Knowledge one from the Spirit another from Reason So he tells here of two kinds of Duties one profitable for the Soul but the other he hath not told us for what and such are many of his Duties like to be In the fifth place he chargeth B. F. with Blasphemie for saying that it is as he alledgeth the greatest Error in the World that ever was invented and the ground of all errour to affirm that the Seriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians And then he tells us the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the poison and hath rendred R. B. speechless Well Patroelus And is this all the proof that yet we have against B. F. Now three times printed without proof And R. B. might have justly rejected it at first and here with falls what thou brings in the last place which was a sufficient answer to I B and is yet to thee till thou clear him of these ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator as thou calls them which neither thou nor he have ever yet attempted But I must ask thee a little What thou intends here by blasphemy For whatever the old signification of the Word may have been I am sure a Blasphemer is now taken for a Man who by injurious word or thought hurteth the Divine Majesty So that except the Scripture be Patroclus God he cannot find Blasphemy in the foresaid Words Lastly All the Proof we have is If says he the words were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them Here we have a new Law if any Man call Patroclus a Thief he is bound to prove himself an honest Man And hence it shall follow that no Lyar can be punished To conclude this particular Not withstanding this Author accuseth the Quakers as Velifiers of the Scriptures Yet GOD is our Witness that it is far from our Intention but on the contrary we have a high and reverent esteem of them And altho some years agoe this Language might have passed for good Coyn Yet now Blessed be the LORD we are better known both by our Principles and practices not only to our Neighbours but to many knowing Men all Brittan over then we formerly were So that a malicious Priest will not be so readily trusted being a kind of men who cannot sleep unless they have wounded some either in their persons or Reputations I shal here only desire the Reader to see Duplessis of the Trueness of Christian Religion cap 6. Where he shall see That before the Canon of the Scriptures were filled up yea before many of them were written CHRIST is called the Word of GOD not only by the Jews but by the Heathen Philosophers and their Oracles So that there was a Word of GOD before the Scriptures And secondly If the Preaching of the Gospel be glad Tidings Then the Preaching of Patroclus is not the Preaching of the Gospel According to Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you good Tidings of great joy which shall be to all people Whereas his Doctrine of Reprobation is the most sad and lamentable Tydings that ever was preached to Man kind For first by their Confession of Faith cap. 3. A certain number are elected from Eternity and the means foreordained to bring them to Glory and all the rest of Mankind are ordained to dishonour and wrath Now the means whereby this end is attained and fore ordained for that purpose are according to their Catechism The Word Saoraments and Prayer And so according to Patroclus All Mankind who want these mens are reprobates consider then Reader into how narrow a Compass he brings all people The World being divided into 30 parts There be yet 19 of them Pagan and six Mabumitan and only five Christian The half of this five is of the Romish Communion want the use of the Bible The Lutherans he saieth in his Epistle to the Reader deserve not the Name of Reformed but are to be accounted Capital Adversaries The Church of England is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianizm and Episcopacy is an Antichristian Hierarchy The French Protestants are for passive obedience and Non Resistance And even Geneva it self errs in two great points Viz. In allowing Lawful Recreations on the Sabbath day and denying Tithes to the Clergie And our English Presbyterians are such enemies to the Scottish Covenant that they have gone near to Anathematize it For R Baxter in his hundreth propositions wherein he sayeth all Protestants are aggreed Propos 99 saith If any will make their unnecessary forms of Synods and other adjuncts to seem so necessary as to enter Leagues and Covenants to make them the terms of the Churches Unity GOD will not owne such terms nor waves nor will they be durable c. With much more to this purpose And now let the Reader judge whither Patroelus Gospel be glad tidings to all people We are now come to the Rule of Faith and Life page 17 where having begun with a great lie Viz. That in the judgement of the Quakers the Scriptures are
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
false except his ipse dixit And therefore I may not take his word Secondly What had all the Patriarchs before Moses Law and even Moses himself to try their Revelations by Yet they believed them upon their own self evidence Yea Balaam who had no well disposed Intellect yet knew and believed his Revelations to be Divine And Lastly Doctor Barron in his Book against Turnbul saith That the most noble kind of Revelation is that which is by intellectual speaking or illumination as Thomas and Swarez teach Thirdly He saith We insinuate That the Apostle in this Comparison gave out that one of the things compared was more certain than the other Which saith he is most false Seing considered in themselves both have all certainly possible But in respect of us saith he The Scriptures are more sure because less subject to be counterfeited or wrested either by the Devil or our own fancie But here it seems he hath forgotten himself for this same Apostle hath told us that the Scripture can be wrested But who saith that the teachings of the Spirit of truth can be so None but Patroclus And so the comparison holds that which can be wrested is less sure then that which cannot be wrested He adds the Apostle hath his eye upon his Country men And so have I upon mine who pretend so much to the Scriptures and yet wrest them grosly to their own damnation Page 46. comes to prove that by these words more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures after he hath told us that albeit immediat Revelation were meant or understood by the more sure word of Prophesie it would be no advantage to us because it is recommended to us As that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures and so not the Principal rule but a means to explain the Principal Rule and for this he brings no proof but we must take his word and then he will make us Quid libet ex quo libet First He saith by these words a more sure word of Prophesie is understood the Scriptures because any phrase of the like import is alwayes taken for the Scriptures as Luke 16 29. Eph 2. 20. Matt. 7. 12. And yet he confesseth in a Parenthesis the words Logos Propheticos are not to be sound in all the Scripture besides but by the words Law and Prophets are meant the Scriptures Ergo by the more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures This is a non seqitur with a witness The rest of his arguments such as if our Adversarys were not affronted and impudently bold such as would adventure upon any thing c. and the like Are not worthy of any answer But seeing he would explain one Scripture by another I will help him to one more sit John 1. 4 5. Where it is said In Him was Life and the Life was the Light of men and the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not How like this is to the more sure word of Prophesie which shineth as a Light in a dark place But the life of CHRIST the light in men is a seare Crow to Presbyterian Priests they cannot abide it One reasonless reason he gives us is because men are commended for searching the Scriptures But I would be obliged to him if he would form a Syllogism upon the medium and draw his conclusion from it In page 48 he tells us that Luther Calvin c. Understand it so Is this fare dealing Patroclus Dost thou agree with Luther or even with Calvin in all things If thou say yea I 'le prove that contrary and yet their Testimony must oblige us Then he computes us among Ancient Hereticks but he would not be satisfied if I should compute him and his brethren among Mahumitans for beliving a Stoical Fate Lastly He leaveth us to graple with William Penn's Rejoynder page 334 who he sayeth yieldeth to him what we deny To satisfie the Reader I shall set down some of William Penns words He sayeth John Faldo acknowledgeth That the writings of the Prophets are not more true in themselves than any other Revelation of the mind of GOD but more certain with respect to the Jews who bad a greater esteem for and testimony of the writings of the Prophets to be of GOD and not a delusion then of Peters Revelation So that we here have saith William Penn from John Faldo himself The scripture is not set above the Spirit as the more sure word the thing promoted of old by our enemies and which we only oppose For I doubt not but the Scriptures were more lure to the Jews then CHRIST Himself else they would never have thought to find Eternal life in them whilst they neglected yea persecuted him Which whether it was their perfection or imperfection so to do I leave with the judgement of my serious Reader which I likewayes do whether Patroclus be a fair adversary or any honest man He comes next to Luke 16. 31. If they â—ear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded thô one rose from the dead First Let the Reader observe that this is a Parable and that the Presbyterians believe that any such apparitions are but Devils assuming the body or the shape of the dead And therefore any thing may be more certain to them then such a Testimony and we read of none such but that of Samuel to Sâ—ul Secondly This Scripture brings no comparison betwixt the Scripture and the Spirit and whereas he saith let the Quakers prove that every man hath such a spirit as the Quakers alledge this shall come in its own place Next he proveth the Scriptures to be the Primary Rule because otherwise Abraham might have said the Spirit of GOD directeth every man immediatly If they hear not him they will hear none else If Abraham said so it seems Patroclus would have been displeased But a greater then Abraham said so even the LORD JESUS John 14. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things whose teaching are preferable to all the writings in the world seeing he taught them what they wrote and their being dictated by him giveth them all their excellency He saith R Barkclay saying The Scriptures were a written Rule to the Jews only is nothing to the purpose but he should not have belyed him for he saith they were a more principal Rule to the Jews But never that they were a principal Rule to the Jews He passeth by what he said upon the Scripture Viz. Page 40. This Parable was used by Christ to the Jews to shew them their Hypocrisie who albeit they deceitfully pretended to reverence and solâ— low Moses and the Prophets Yet they did not really hear them else they would have acknowledged him of what Moses the Prophets did so clearly write since he did as great and convincing Mitacles before them as if they had
the Testimony of one Risen from the Dead In like manner the Presbyterians now albeit they pretend so much to reverence the writings of the Apostles yet they will not really hear them else they would not fight swear nor exact a forced mantainance even from these who are not of the communion of their Church His Third argument is Certainly saith he the voice of one of the Glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the Face of GOD is no less to be accounted immediate Revelation then the voice of the high Priest unto the people c. But he should have proved that GOD took his method to reveal his mind unto his people which he never did But the High Priest was a Tipe of Christ and a Mediator betwixt GOD and the Jews So that to deny this to be immediate because it was first spoken to the High Priest is to deny the words of Christ to be immediate to his people because he saith he had heard and received them of the Father or that the light of the Sun is not immediate because it is conveyed to us through the Air. Only let him tell me whether the supream Magistrate who is at present troubled with the clamours of the two kinds of Clergy-men in Scotland can go and inquire of the LORD and have as certain an answer which of the two Church Government are Jure Divino as the Jews many times had and then he sayes something For the Jews had the Scriptures Moses and the Prophets as well as we and yet were many times necessitat to go and enquire of the LORD which evidently proves they had a higher rule then Moses Law In page 50 he giveth an argument like the rest Viz. Gods way of Revealing himself to us is as immediat as it was to the Jews because we have those that were inspired by GOD speaking to us tho Dead Hence he concludes that the Scriptures are as immediat to us as the voice of Moses or the High Priest or the Prophets was to the Jews This Argument is singular for deceit solly for First where did any Quaker deny the Scriptutes to be the Primary Rule upon the account of their not being immediatly revealed we acknowledege that they were immediatly revealed to the Prophets and Apostles recorded by them but this doth not let them above the Spirit which did reveal them and so his gross lie and his argument are both answered and yet he might have considered that the promise of Christ is more full to his people then it was to the Jews As he may read Matt 10 19 20. It shall be given you the same hour what ye shall speak for it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you His fourth argument from 2 Then 3. 15. Is That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the man of GOD wise through faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule c. But the Scriptures are able to do so c. Therefore they are a sufficient Rule Answer This argument militates nothing against us for the Question is not whether the Scriptures be a Rule but whether they be the Primary Rule which this Argument toucheth not and Faith is added here as a principal ingredient which themselves acknowledge to be a work of the Spirit this Faith hath a rule as also that faith whereby a man believes the Divine Authority of the Scriptures let him tell me with the next what is the Rule of this Faith He tells next The scriptures are Causa exemplaris and therefore the Primary Rule they call them causa formalis Causa materialis causa exemplaris And the word make would seem to make them causa efficiens so that according to them they are To Pan and the Spirit Vers Nihil From the Scriptures being Causa exemplaris he saith I evidently inferr that they are the adequat Primary Rule because if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in Scripture Or if they were subject to another Test c. They could not in truth be called able to make the man of GOD wise unto Salvation This I have answered before if he understand the Essentials and fundamentals of the Christian Religion It is confessed they do contain them but there are many things occur in our Christian course as he words it which the Scriptures do not determine Such as whether it was Christian or Antichristian course for the Presbyterians to come up to Bothwel-Bridge to fight against the King And Secondly Whether the late assembly ought to have united with their Brethren of the Episcopal perswasion till they had undergone Pennance for their Apostasie upon the Stool of Repentance The First brought much trouble upon the Nation and the Second is feared to be of no better consequence except our Author bring us clear Scripture to determine the case to the satisfaction of all parties He saith little Justice Truth or fare dealing is to be expected from us But far less from him so long as he trusts more to Aristotles Elenobis in frameing deceitful Sophisms then to the Testimony of the Spirit of Christ the reason he gives for this great calumny is because R. B. accuseth his brother John Brown for perverting the Scriptute 2 Tim 3. 16. Now it is evident that the 16 Ver hath no such word in it and that the 17 Vers saith only That the man of GOD may be perfect So the difference here is very obvious which R. B. hath largely handled in the same 41 page and our Author takes no notice of it but most deceitfully insinuates that he makes the scriptures Tautologies because he cannot evite the distinction there made by R. B. To which place never touched by our Author I refer my Reader Lastly saith he For we love rather to plead by weight of Arguments then by multitude of Arguments Answer If this had been true thou had spared a dale of Paper and pains We evine saith he That the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and Primary Rule of Faith and Manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves Answer If this be true it is manifest that allhe hath said on that Subject is superfluous Against whom did the Man write Omerciless Adversarie This is like the Papists in Q Marys time Tho you recant and be received into the Church yet you must burn But let us hear what he faith His Proofs are these First R Barkclay's Vindication page 36. The chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in Scripture And we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith in tho Scriptures And George Keith saith That the Scriptures are a full enough declaration of all Doctrines and Principles c. Both these I have cleared before granting all that they said And yet have proven that many things may and do occurr which the Scriptures do not clearly determine The other Branch that they are the Primary Rule
is to take upon him to be General of an Army as R B tells his Adversary page 45 of his Vindication The Question is how James and Peter Knew they should take upon them to Rule But in case these systems faile to satisfie a Man at a strait which I hope any experienced Souldier will confess and the daily new Inventions do fully evince What then is the Souldier to recurr to Is it not to that by which the first Man wrote the System That is his Reason And see if that can help him when his Book cannot Yea have there not been good Souldiers who could neither Read nor Write Yes General Lesly who did more for the Presbyterian Interest then Patroelus and Achilles both can do And will a Mathematician receive a Mathematical Proposition set down in a System hand over head without satisfying his Reason These are poor similes and rather hurtful then helpful to his Cause If by these he minds to prove That humane prudence can assure a man that he is a Child of God I am apt to suspect by his Book that he hath never troden this narrow Path himself Else he would have spoken other Language Next he comes to answer for his Brethren the Remonstrants and Publick Resolutioners comparing then indeed to Paul and Barnabas But he hath forgot to tell us which of them was in the right and to decide the Contraversie by plain Scripture to the stopping the mouths of the other Party but I doubt this would have puzled his prudence As for his Instance of Paul and Barnabas their contention was not for matters of Faith or Doctrine as Beza testifieth and the Scripture saith no where that they did not meet again But our Assembly Men never reconciled to this day But knowing this will not do he giveth a better Answer Saying The Corruptions of Men are only to be charged with this Ah! Lamentable The whole General Assemblie of the Church of Scotland corrupt men What guides then had such poor Laicks as I Put all this saith nothing except he decide the Contraversy by plain Scripture Which when he hath done I shall say It 's pity he was not present at the Assembly Next he falls upon some other Arguments which he tells us are scraped out of Bellarmine and therefore deserve no Answer Which Answer whether true or false I know not having never read Bellarmines Works But I find this is a fair shift to win off and an Hebergeon proof against any Dart. He spendeth his whole page 60. on Reflections First on James Naylor he might have remembered Major Weir But De mortuis nill c I disdain to scrape in that Dung-hill Next he compares us to the Papists saying As the Papists to cover the rest of their Abominations have invented a greater and more dangerous than them all that is Their Churches Infallibility So this Spirit of the Quakers knowing that upon tryal he will be found to be a Counterfeit hath taken the Counsel given by Alcibiades to Pericles that is To study how he may secure himself with the hazard of a Tryal And here he cites William Penn's Rejoinder Part. 1. Chap. 5. about the Man of Philippi I beseech the Reader to peruse the place cited by him that he may see him past all shame or care of being reputed an honest Man For First he says W. Penn useth it as an Argument to prove The Scriptures cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life whereas in the same Page W. Penn hath owned them for a Rule of Faith and Life tho not the Rule by way of Excellency nor as Patroclus saith the Primary Rule Secondly He makes no Argument of it but an Instance as he doth that of Ananias and Saphira That the Scriptures could not be a Rule to Peter nor Paul in these cases as he doth that also of flying or standing in the time of Persecution and asketh what do Professors mean when they advise People to seek the Lord in this oâ— the other Case Why do they not go seek the Scriptures rather and much more which for brevity lomit To evite all which he makes a Nonsensical Argument and denies the Antecedent when he had none And then falls a Railing for a whole Page together a part whereof I have set down above For Answer to which First The Quakers own no other Spirit but the Comforter whom Christ promised to send to Reprove the World for Sin for they never refused to subject the Spirits and Doctrines of Men to the Scriptures and therefore if he have called the Spirit of Truth a Counterfier the just God will Rebuke him for his Blasphemy And this poor Man who can pretend to no more Infallibility than the Pharisees of old who had the Scriptures as well as he and yet were found guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost may be affraid he be found in the same Case with them But I wish he may find Repentance Secondly The Presbyterians may be no less fitly compared with the Papists For their Doctrines being tryed by the Scriptures they being Interpreters themselves it is a meer sham to speak of a Tryal For whatever Interpretation doth not agree with the Analogie of Faith is to be rejected Now the Analogie of Faith is of their own composing so that Faith and Tryal and all is but Mans work and in fine a very cheat But next he must give us the most deadly blow of all Saying We are beyond the reach of a Conviction But the Reader may excuse him a little being now among his Brethren the Grecian Hero's Alcibiades and Pericles But who told him this that the Quakers were beyond the reach of a Conviction Sure not the Scriptures For there is no such Sentence in them all Nor the Spirit for he cannot indure Divine Inspiration the Capital Enemy of the Presbyterian Priesthood Who then Imagination A thing the Presbyterians call Faith The very counterfeit he hath been talking of just now Next he tells us That Prophesies of future Events may well be brought to the Scripture Test Then I beseech him tell me what Scripture Test could Noah his Prophefie of the Flood have been brought to Or George Wisharts Prophesie of the Cardinals being Killed in such a place and not in another In the close he saith Paul was Divinely inspired and the Actions were conform to Scripture consonant and warranted by the Promise of Christ C But it seems he hath forgotten what he said in page 39. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines by the Scriptures who were Immediatly inspired as well as Paul But any thing will serve after such a fatal blow as he hath lately given Page 61. He saith The ground of their Arguments with which they stand and fall is this The Scriptures are not the Fountain it self but a Declaration of the Fountain Therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge nor vet the adequat Primary Rule of Faith
caused Zachariah to be stoned to Death and for Achab to Mieajab and many other of the Prophets who wrought no Miracles to prove their Mission But Christs sheep bear his voice and know it from the voice of a stranger whom they will not follow Tho ravenous Wolves in Sheeps cloathing neither can not will believe it to be his voice And whereas he saith it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures Is it not beyond denyal that we have them also Or do any who profess Christianity want them Or what Advantage have they by them which others have not Except it be to make a sordid Tarde of selling their Interpretations of them So that we dare attempt the Retortion very easily thus the Lutherians Independants Baptists Socinians and Arminians c had the Scriptures as well as the Presbyterians have them So that the Controversy is only Who have the true sense of them each party pretending to it And now I ask him what infallible Signs Evidences and Proofs can he give to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposers as he words it to demonstrate that the Presbyterians and none else have the true sense of the Scriptures Which till he do the retortion stands good But to take his words as they lye I can compare them to nothing better then to the words of the Pharisees Joh 9. 29. We know that GOD spake by Moses as for this fellow we know not from whence be is His second is It being given that they have Revelations of some kind From whence are they From Heaven Their own fancy or from hell Answer We plead for no Revelations but such as are Divine And therefore as his Question is blasphemous so it is no less impertinent then to say It being given that Patroelus is a Man from whence is he Whether the son of a Man or a horse or of a mad Dogg But he proves they are not from Heaven because they are common to all men Yet Bonum quo communius co melius Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World and GOD is just He never punished a man for breach of a Law which he never made known to him Thirdly he saith If they have Divine Revelations we know not for what end they are given Whether to be a principal Rule or not whether by their own corruptions they do not wrest and misunderstand them Or if they walk according to them Nothing of which can be said of the Scriptures Answer first For what end they are given Job 14. 26. To teach you all things And 16. 13. He will guide you into all Truth And that they are the principal Rule is sufficiently proved before The second part is an impudent self contradiction where he saith That wresting or misunderstanding through corruption cannot be said of the Scriptures Whereas he hath frequently covered himself before with saying in the very foregoing page next save one That the Scriptures through mans corruption are subject to abuse never man denyed Thus goeth he backward and foreward And Thirdly He saith They know not if we walk according to them But we well know that they walk not according to the Scriptures And it 's strange with what impudency the man can obtrude such sayings upon the World He would insinuate in page 79. That they squared their practice exactly according to the Scriptures and here he would have us walk according to Divine Revelation Whereas they have told the World in their Larger Catechism That no man is able to keep GOD's Commands by any Grace received in this Life Then he giveth us the reason of his Ignorance thus For we can hear nothing nor see nothing c Who can help his spiritual deasness and blindness None but the Spiritual Physitian of Souls whom he is rejecting In page 82. He cometh to the Judge of contraversy where he laboureth to prove two things Viz That the Spirit of God cannot be a Judge of Contraversy And that the Scriptures are apt to be a Judge of Contraversy Which he dares not to say absolutely but for removal of differences about things contained in them The Reason he gives is Because two different parties may both of them adduce Revelations to prove contradictory assertions And that the one of them cannot evince his Revelations to be from GOD more then the other This is the substance of what he saith against the Spirit and for the Scriptures he saith thus Now this Argument can in no wayes be retorted on the Scriptures For tho there hath been through the corruption of men wresting of Scripture in any Contraversy And that even among these who assert the Scripture to be the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners Yet who can say That this is through default of the Scriptures seing our Adversarys cannot deny but that they speak both sense and Truth c And a little after so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties c. First Let the Reader observe his self contradiction Saying The Scriptures may be wrested by the corruption of men And yet in page 81. He saith Nothing of this can be said of the Scriptures Secondly That be confesseth because he cannot deny it that there have been and yet are wresting of Scriptures and many Contraversies even among such as assert the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners And therefore it is evident that his conclusion falls Viz so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties For this agreement hath neither followed nor is like to follow by all his endeavours And Thirdly The Scriptures can never give a sentence being but a Law And every Law needs a Judge to determine But the matter is in plain terms we must admit the General Assembly to be Judge which will determine and convince neither by the Spirit nor by Scripture nor by Reason But by Force and Furie Ares halters Fire and Sword Fourthly If this had been true all the difference among Protestants would have come to a mutual agreement before now or else he must say They are all corrupt men except the Presbyterians As for what he faith of the Ranters who learned from you to make GOD Author of all their wicked actions their fruits make them manifest as your fruits do you notwithstanding of both your Pretences In page 83. He saith We have heard their Retortions Let us now hear their direct Answer That their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of GOD For which forsooth they bring Scripture Proof from Matthew 7. 15. 16. Where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false prophet Thus he And then falls a railing with great bitterness lies and false accusations which is always his last Refuge when he is straitned But let the Reader observe First That he mocks at Scripture proof tho he dare not deny it adding a Forsooth to it as if none had
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
Revelation except Prophets and Aposâ—les therefore among them the seventy Disciples and Luke who wrote two books of the New Testament and many others mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles But Thirdly The foundation of Faith as well as the Rule of Faith hath still been the same in all ages of the Church as he hath formerly confessed and therefore if immediaâ— objective Râ—vâ—lation was so to the Prophers and Apostles as he granteth it must also be the same to the present professors of Christianity and this shall suffice for his Membrum negatum In page 124. He falls upon the last argument he deals with calling it the chief of his Apostolik Arguments tho I find no such argument in all R B's apologie which he setteth down thus Enoch Noah Abraham and some others had Immediate objective Revelation therefore the whole Church had it He and his Brother John Brown deny the consequence but hath he not hereby cut his own throat by givving way to Tradition as the Rule of that Church saith for sure they had no Scripture and therefore had no other foundation for their Faith nor Rule for their life but Tradition And so having pleaded before that what was their Rule must be ours he must confess that in default of Scripture and Revelation there remains nothing for them but Tradition which must continue to be our Rule also For this the Papists owe him thanks A little after he confesses there was more of GOD in these dark times of the Old World then there is now Viz. In respect of Immediate Revelation But I would know the Reason of this Seeing the Promises are greater even to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh Is his hand shortned or his Ear heavie Or is he dead as our Author insinuats or hath he lest off to care for his Church No But our iniquities have separated him from us and our unbelief But to do his Business fully he adds How will the prove that ever Abel had Immediat Objective Revelations I Answer GOD hath alwayes communicated as much of himself to the Righteous as to the wicked but wicked Crin had Immediat Objective Revelations Ergo Righteous Abell had them Then he tells us that the third fourth and fifth Proposision of the second These falls to the ground But upon what ground he saith so let the candid Reader Judge He concluds this Chapter with a peece of his first Dream of the Trojan Warr and citing Virgil he tells us like the Irojan Warr its couplings being cut the whole Faorick of Quakerism tumbleth down about the Ears of its Authors and Builders It 's a pitty the poor man should have read this Poets and others on the History of Irov For the Reader may see how he extravages upon that Subject it hath quite spoiled him But he hath been a little mistaken here for Patroclus did not live to see the Trojan Tower fall And if he will stretch the Allegory a little further he may remember that the Posterity of the Trojans brought the Posterity of the Greeks under their subjection and made them Tributaries which may happen to be the face of this Author and his Brethren But sure I am this Language is more like a Gallant bowling over his Cups in a Tavern then a lober Christian writing for the satisfaction of a Dissenter Chapter III. Of Original Sin IN this Chapter he begins with his old clamour of Pelagianism But now deservedly we shall see anone And first I shall cite the Westminster Confession Chap 6. Numb 2 By this sin they fell from their Original Righteousness and Communion with GOD so became dead in sin wholly defilled in all the faculties parts of Soul and Body And Numb 4. From this original corruption whereby we are utterly indisposed disabled made opposite to all Good wholly inclined to all evil do proceed all actual Transgressions To both these willingly assent But how this agreeth with the dark Lantern doctrine of our Author who for twenty eight pages together in the foregoing Chapter hath laboured with all the force he hath to prove that fallen man retained such a pottion of the Image of GOD which he calleth Righteousness as there by to know one Infinite Omnipotent GOD who is to be Loved Feared and Adored and that men should Love their Neighbour as themselves which is no more then to do to others as they would be done by let the Reader Judge And expect his Brethren will take notice of him not only for calumniating us but for giving the Lie to the Westminster Confession And here I must take notice of a word he hath inserted into some of his Arguments maliciously insinuating That we said A wicked man could do no Action that was good upon the matter or as to the substance of that Action This is no word of ours but foisted in by him to render us the more odious For we know a wicked man may feed the hungry or cloath the naked And as I told him before The devil confessed Christ before Men to be the Holy One of GOD Which as to the substance of the Action was better then some of our Presbvterian Solemnities Whereof one was their solemn Fast and Humiliation for the Prevalency of EPISCOPACIE appointed for all the Ministers of the Nation immediatly after their late Re-Establishment By which act they resolved to murther the Consciences of their Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Perswasion who esteem EPISCOPACIE a Right and Lawful Church Government And after this for some other pretence to have turned them out of their Livings which is their Lives Many of them being so poor as they cannot subsist without them Which they had certainly done if their beloved Beformers the Babble had been as obedient in the North as they were in the West Now we read of a desperat Millanoise who having forced his Adversary for fear of his Life to blasphem and abjure GOD immediatly killed him calling it a noble revenge to murther both Soul and Body at once Let out Author make the Application and for bear his malicious Fastings and black mouth'd Calumnies for the future Moreover the gross Doctrines of Pelagius were First That man had no loss by Adam and so were as apt from their birth to serve GOD as Adam was before the Fall Secondly That men have no absolute need of Grace of Love and the Gift of the Holy Spirit Only it did facilitat or make the work the easier but Man by his nature could do good without Grace Thirdly He affirmed all the Grace was at best Objective such as the Outward Preaching of the Gospel c. But he denyed any Subjective Grace or any Grace that moved or enclined the Will immediatly unto GOD. All which we renounce And therefore let out Author and his Brethren be for ever hereafter silent of that false and unjust Calumny of Pelagianism Having thus cleared the Truth of the false Accusation of Pelagianism I find nothing more of
boast of their Revelations and Inspirations comparing themselves to the Apostles calling themselves perfect c. A heap of gross untruths And yet this is the best return we meet with to mend one lie by making two or three more In page 220 contrary to that of Ephes 4 5 from which R B infers if Water Baptism be to continue there should be two Baptisms J B answers it might be as well said that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament c. Upon which our Authour saith he grants his consequence and challengeth his Adversary of Levity for such an Argument Here he begins with a lie for R B saith if he can answer no better then by smyling at it we must pity the Levity of his Spirit Now let the Reader judge if the Argument was the ground of the challenge or his laughing at that which he could not answer But R B answereth What then As long as the outward continued there were two to wit the outward and inward that of the Flesh and that of the heart and let him stretch the simile as far as he can it will help him nothing for the Apostle saith Rom. 2. 28. That it is not Circumcision which is outward in the flesh because it was a Figure and all Figures were to cease even so of the other That is not CHRISTS Baptism which is outward to the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience I Pet. 3. 21. But he comes again to Faith saying he may as well conclude from this place that there is but one Faith as that there is but one Baptism And yet faith our Author there are diverse kinds of Faith mentioned in the Scripture as the Doctrine of Faith Galat. 1. 23. The profession of Faith 1 Tim. 1. 19. The Faith of Miracles or the like This is if learned at all so learned that I freely acknowledge I cannot understand it to wit that the profession of Faith is one Faith the Doctrine of Faith another The Faith of Miracles a third Faith And the One Faith a fourth Faith in which none of the other Three are concerned This will require four several and different definitions which when our Author giveth us we may judge of the truth of his assertion till then he must excuse me to think he deserves a smyle no less then R. B. did from his Brother J. B. and will find he hath begged the Question as well as his Brother did For I perceive he builds upon his own mistake That no man who hath this one Faith can miscarry But I tell him some have made shipwrack of Faith and of a good Conscience And this is the Scripture testimony So albeit some might work Miracles and thereafter become wicked yet this faith nothing against their having true Faith at that time And if he faith every one who hath true faith doth not work miracles The answer is easie such a great measure of Faith is not required for Salvation yet difference in the measure makes no difference in the kind Neither doth it follow that Baptism with Water is included in this one Baptism For the Apostle Peter plainly contra-distinguisheth them 1 Pet. 3. 21. So Robert Barclays Argument which Patroclus minding his old Friend Achilles mocks at stands in full force Which because he hath so minchingly set down I will set down at large and expect a more solid answer next the Argument is this seing such as were baptized with water were not therefore baptized with the Baptism of CHRIST therefore water Baptism cannot be the Baptism of CHRIST But he comes to his old trade again accusing R. B. of Socinianism and a little after must be at Circumcision again alleadging that what ever can be said against Water Baptism from I Pet. 3. 21. Will militate as much against Circumcision under the Law But it is manifest that the Law was a Figurative Typical and Shadowy-Dispension which stood in mears and drinks and diverse Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances imposed on them untill the time of Reformation But that the Gospel was such a dispensation I think our Author will not dare assert And therefore the difference is very evident that altho Circumcision was to continue among the rest Carnal Ordinances until the time of Reformation Yet the Gospel being a spiritual dispensation in which Carnal Ordinances Types Shadows were to cease after the Substance was come see Col. 2. from 16. to the end so Johns Baptism was to cease among the rest of the shadows seeing John was sent only to the Jews to prepare the way of the LORD His next assault is nothing but wind and froth wherein he challengeth R. B. for denying John Browns Expositions of Gal. 3. 27. and Col. 2. 12. Which J. B. saith may be understood of putting on CHRIST by profession tho not in Truth and Reality For which Eposition saith R. B. I shall expect his proof next time if he hath any And now let the Reader judge if our Author have any ground for his boasting And whether he who hath undertaken the defence of John Brown was concerned to have proven this spurious interpretation of his Brother to be the meaning of the Apostle For Robert Barkclay was no further concerned then to deny it as I think any sincere Christian will do And therefore it is manifest that the seared Consciences are his own his Brothers who dare adventure to cheat the World by putting a senso upon the Apostles words which was never intended by him In the next place he referrs us to J. Brown which is a fair Go-by but subjoyns more like a Pope than a Presbyter if they be distinguishable very imperiously Next I say faith he that Johns Baptism as being instituted by CHRIST and comprehending the thing signified is not only Baptism with Water but CHRISTS whole true Baptism and so this quibling is groundless And why Because our Authour sayeth so But lest he should quarrel let us consider what he hath said First then faith he Johns Baptism as being instituted by CHRIST c. Answer That all the Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances of the Law were instituted by CHRIST is not denyed But that Johns Baptism was instituted by Christ after he took Flesh of the Virgin Mary is denyed and the Scriptures proves the contrary Acts 19. 4. Next he faith and comprehending the thing signified Very well I hope our Author will no more quarrel with the Papists about opus operatum For if Water Baptism Johns baptism comprehend the thing signified then it is the Laver of Regeneration consers Grace and is absolutely necessary to Salvation But the Papists will hardly accept of him for conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipsi He hath said in page 219. that John could only administer the sign And in his other page he asserts That Johns Baptism comprehends the thing signified this language will need a gloss He comes now to the words of John He must
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