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
Rusticus ad Clericum OR THE PLOW-MAN REBUKING THE PRIEST In ANSWER to Verus Patroclus Wherein the False-hoods Forgeries Lies Perversions and Self-contradictions of WILLIAM 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 By JOHN ROBERTSON Vtque dâ—vâ—â—â—â—â— verum Nebulas Manes 〈…〉 aucupunt Pariuntque Monstraâ— qâ—â—is nec est pes nec caput â—eu vacua Magnos aâ—â—â—innitus cient Prov 4. 16. For they sleep not except they have done mischief and their sleep is taken away except they cause some to fall 17. For they eat the Bread of Wickedness and drink the Wine of Violence Printed in the Year 1694. Rusticus ad Clericus OR THE PLOW-MAN REBUKING THE PRIEST In Answer to VERVS PATROCLVS c. FRIEND AS Our Neighbours and Countrey-Men who are acquainted with our Principles and Practises know us to be Lovers of all Mankind such as seek the Good of All and the prejudice of none So we have no such Enemies as the Clergie now Regnant and some of their bigotted Disciples whom they have bewitched with fair words and smooth speeches to believe all they say without examining whether it be true or false This Tribe of Lying Levites have now for many years made use of all the unworthy Methods their Wiâ— and Malicé could invent to Blacken Desame Slander and Misrepresent Us This is no New thing It is but the Doctrine of Demetrius the Silver Smith For they wâ—ll know that if people were taught to believe according to the Scriptures that GOD would reach his people himself And that be who knoweth not Christ in him to teach him is a Reprobate That they who know him not thus let in to the Conscience to parge it from deadworks and to Reign as King Lord and Lawgiver are at best but nominal Christians Than certainly their 〈◊〉 Trade of Preaching for hyre would be at an end for upholding whereof all his bustle is made in the World All their clamours concerning the Scriptures Christ Trinity so called original sin c. Are but meer pretences For let an Angel from Heaven teach any thing contrary to the Westminster Consession and Catechisms though never so consonant to the Holy Scriptures he must expect â—â— better acceptance from these Men then to be branded with the odious name of Heretick as if they alone had becti commissionate to sect bounds to the Faith of all Mankind My Reader must not expect from me a long and Rhetorical Introduction who have been more accustâ—med to use Pâ—ough then the Pen for nigh Thirty Years together I was 〈…〉 and but 〈◊〉 in the City And therefore if I treat mâ—â—â— Adâ—erâ—ary with any lets decorâ—â—â— then he may suppose to be due to a man of his Robe I hope my Rustick Education will excuse me and the rather because I have little or no knowledge of him but what I gather from his Book which at first view gave me no good Character of him by his falsing soul upon the Bishop of Andrews Certainly no generous man will strick a fallen Foe And although he would 〈◊〉 that he did not complain for stopping his book yet is evident that he exposeth the Bishop and his Brethren to the Fate of his Predecestor if the Rabble would but take the Allarum The next thing I learn of him is that he is a Presbyterian Preacher 〈…〉 his seeking a License from the 〈◊〉 of Andrews be no great sign â—â— his Zeal and seems to intimate that if the Prelate should get a new Throw for the Chair our Author might be brought to cry peccavi Pater c. If information hold and if such then consequently a sworn Enemy to all Mankind except those of his own Fraternity by the Solemn League and Covenant Yea his being a Clergie man is dangerous For as Machiavel tells us they have been now for more than a thousand years forming and setting up an interest distinct and separate from all the rest of Mankind And when the Popish Clergie were justly extruded because of their Cruelty and Insolency Lo here we have their Successours no less insolent ctnel and covetous if they had but power And this was foretold by the same Machiavel in his Letter to Zenob page 28. who faith thus But this I will prophesie before I conclude That if Princes shall perform this business by halves and leave any root of this Clergie or Priest craft as it is now in the ground Or if that Famous Reformer fled some years since out of Piccardie to Geneva who is of so great Renown for Learning and Parts and who promises us so perfect a Reformation shall not in his model wholly extirpare this sort of Men Then I say I must foretell That as well the Magistrate as this Workman will find themselves deceived in their Expectations And that the least Fibra of this plant will overrun again the whole Vineyard of the LORD and turn to a diffusive Papacie in everie Diocie perhaps in every Parish c. Whether we have seen this prophesie fulfilled by the Disciples of the same Reformer Calvine let the unbyassed Reader judge The next thing in his praeludium all his work being like a Stage play is That albeit this Knight Errant with his Achillean Armour and Titanian Boldness words borrowed from himself from the Blind Poet hath bid Defvance to all that profess christianity And hath concluded them all except his own way Hereticks Yet in opposition to the Quakers he calleth in for Auxihary Forces a Prelatick Preacher and an Independent and chiefly an Anabaptist whom in his book he calls wicked and abominable as the Pharises joyned with the Sudducees Herodians and Romans to crucifie CHRIST As for the Prelatick Clergie he saith it is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianism And in his Frontispecce he hath told you their Fate that is They are to be rejected But what more Is then no Civil Sanction follows upon Presbyterian Excommunication If it 〈◊〉 the Sâ—ing it will be nothing regarded â—â—t of old it was not so For the first step 〈…〉 â—urse thâ—◠〈…〉 prâ—scribe And â—â— brought in alive thâ—â— there was in stoâ—e prison◠〈◊〉 Bâ—â—â—shments Axes and Halters for Heretiques And our 〈◊〉 is so 〈◊〉 delighted in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it seems he covets the offiâ—e but Blessed be the LORD the Civil Magistrats are now become â—â—eâ— than to be the Clergies 〈◊〉 And their â—oâ—g experience of the HONEST and PEAâ—EABLE PRINCIPLES of the QVAKERS hath confirmed the Magistrate in a â—etter Opinion of Them As â—â— the 〈◊〉 of his Adulatory Epistle to his Patron I shall only say that he hath rather 〈◊〉 theâ— oblidged his Patron by â—â—pousing him to such a Cast-Mâ—â—â—ress as is the Controversie against the Quakers which never Man yet underâ—ook but caâ—e off with Disgrace After he hath sufficiently and a little more then become a Protestant rated the Episcopal Party he faâ—â—â— to the 〈◊〉 of his Dedication About the end whereof he hath these words Go on therefore my Lord espouâ—â—ng the Cause of the true Protestant
may inform us by the next what he intends by these words Whether a Substonce or an accident or only the dim spunks of his extinguished Lantern His next work is is to prove us Pelagians and remits his Reader to his second Chapter which I also do When R B tells J B that the Fathers he cites thought that men might be free from sin by Grace Our Author calls it mancking and clipping and saith Is it not added in the very following words immediatly that none attained that measure of Holiness in this life that he could live any long time without Sin and that this perfection was not full and absolur but which might increass and was mixed with evil deeds so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees Here these Fathers say any long time without sin and therefore I must ask our Author of what extant this long time is I am sure one day is a very short time and no wayes deserves the word long to be added and yet if they grant t is but one day The West minister Divines have done with it for ever I hope our Author will not accuse Augustine of Pelagianism and therefore I must let him see that Augnstine saith as much as R B Also John Humphry perfection page 7 saith Augustine in his second Book Chap 15. De Peo mer rem and de Spiritu Litera hath the luck to treat industriously on this matter Alia est Questio utrum esse possit Homo in hae vita sine pectato Alia utrum sit It is one question whether a man can be in this life without sin and another whether he be so For the former Question he destinguisheth of what is possible by Grace and what is possible by our own strength to hold that any man by his free will only without Grace is able to keep all GOD's Commandments and be without sin is that Grand Pelagian Doctrine against which he sets his face and deâ—astes it But that it is possible to attain this by Grace or the special assistance of GOD's Spirit he thinks it best it seems to grant He thinks it not fit nor safe to say any nor all of GOD's Commandements are impossible Besides Where GOD Vouchsafs his Grace the work he pleads is to be ascribed unto him to whom nothing is impossible And I hope this being all we plead for will forever aquite us of Pelagianism and come pesce all the slanderous tongues of our ignorant and malicious Adversaries As for his Orosms The first is a modest saying like that of R B before mentioned but the second is a heedless expression The man that can be without sin is Christ from which it would follow that Adam was Christ who could have been without sin and once was without it And I hope there are are some now who are clansed from all their Polutions washed and purged from all their sins according to the Scriptures yet are not Christs But because R B saith it is not his work to meddle with what is said against the Pelagians and Socinians he will herefore conclude him a Pelagian and Socinian What triffling is this Beeause our Author will not defend Mahumentism and Judaism therefore he is a Jew and a Mahumetan Is this as good consequence And yet in such doth our Author delight But the best is that he saith Nothing that R B. can say can be of weight against us And why so Patroclus Are Presbyterians Infallible or in accountable Or when came they by this priviledge I thought they had been subject to mistakes as much as other men And here he turns to the Fathers again But the Fathers of the three first Centuries only are reputed Orthodox by Presbyterianâ—â— And it is clear they fall in with Papists there and have as much need of a Purgatory as they His Next is to answer this Viz. That this Doctrine is against the Wisdom of GOD. Our Author answereth Saying he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of GOD whereby they may be free from all sin if they use them well Adding that he mumbleth as one in a confused haste but our Authors hast is much greater For R B hath write a whole page and more upon this Argument and our Author does not take notice of six lines of it But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insinuateth this That the only wife GOD A being to gather to Himself a peculiar People Holy and Righteous And for that Effect sent His Son into the World to save them from their sins and hath given them his Hâ—ly Spirit to sanctifie them throughout and to cleanse them from all sin as the Scripture testifie Now to say that he cannot compass that end is to derogate from the Wisdom of GOD. But he answers This â—â— with great facility denyed for we say saith our Author that it is the Will of GOD that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church triumphant only Sat pro imperio He might have left this to the Pope Now for proof of this hold assertion he saith It is enough to challenge him to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the World except Jesus Christ who never had it but by Imputation Thus the Man who tells us Affirmenti incumbit probatio but he confesseth Infants have no sin but by Imputation And I would fain know when Enoch and Elijah were punged Whether in the World before their Translation or in the Empereal Heaven into which they either entered with their sins or were freed from sin in the World And if so he may tell us with the next how long they were so freed before their Translation for I can assure him they had no need of Purgatory To R B's alledging from J â—'s words That he confessed there was some material service performed to the devil He answereth This objection militats as much against the Apostle Saying Rom 7. That with his flesh he served the law of sin For answer to which I remitt him to the 17 and 20 verses of the same Chapter Neither hath he yet proven that Paul speaks here of his present State as the second verse of the next Chapter doth evince That this Instance will overdo he is mistaken upon his begging the Question that the best and most gracious Action of the Saints are tainted with sin which we must take his word for His next is That it is the Will of GOD that his People be under a warefare so long as they are here To which R B answers But is it the Will GOD that they he alwayes overcome After this he adds his own words in stead of his Adversaries according to his Jugling Custome But let us heat his Answer He saith They are 〈◊〉 alwayes overcome What Is not daily while they are in this Life alwayes If to break the Commands of GOD daily in thought word and deed as long as they live be not alwayes he may tell us the difference next
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
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
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
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
and Manners For Answer Let the Reader observe That this is but a These And that our Adversaries themselves grant the first part of it Reason therein adduced But the Argument to prove the second part he hath never mentioned as being too hot for his fingers Which is this following Apol page 44. That which is not the Rule of my faith in believing the Scriptures themselves is not the Adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners But the Scriptures are not nor can be the Rule of that Paith by which I believe them c Therefore c This he hath taken no nottice of But gives us a long Citation out of R B his Vindication page 37. And then tells us the Coherence will be made out Ad Calendas Graecas As if it were the Custom when Men publish Theses to set down in the Body of them all the Arguments to prove them But seeing he will have a Coherence let him take it thus The Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Founta in and when the streams fail men use to recurr to the Fountain Therefore when the Scriptures cannot resolve the doubts which ordinarly arise among Christians They ought to recurr to the Fountain That this hath been the practise of the Saints in all ages is manifest from the Scripture I shall instance one or two with divers before cited That Divid was a Man of GOD and Knew the Scriptures I hope mine Adversary will not deny and that he had Abiathar the Priest with him to help him to the right sence of them if need were when he was at Keilab Yet he was necessitate to recurr to the Fountain enquire of the Lord Will Saul come down And will the Man of Keilab ver me up unto him 1 Sam 23 9 10 11 12 And again at Ziglâ—g when the people were like to stone him Did he not then enquire of the LORD 1 Sam 30. 8 And I would willingly know what the Presbyterians means by seeking the LORD in theit straits except it be to ask his Counsel when all other means fail them Hence all his boast evanisheth Next he challengeth his Adversary as confounding the principal Rule and Original Ground together calling it None-sense ridiculous and nothing to the purpose But he should have remembred that in page 46. He hath cited Ephes 2. 20. To prove the Scripture to be the Foundation and all along calls them the Principal Rule If this be sense so the other Sanum Reprênsor debet habere Caput In page 64. He comes to begg the Question in terminis and tells us positively The Scriptures are the Primary Rule And Concludes Thus we understand the Primarie Rule and while he doth not so ho but mistaketh the Question This indeed is imperious Logick and more becoming a Grecian Hero then a Presbyterion Priest But he must Know that the word Primary is out of doors As it signifies First And before he give it another signification he will need to alter all the Lexicons I have yet seen For there was a Rule of Faith before there was a Book in the World And therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Primary Rule Next he comes to his Acyrologie to let us know he hath studied Rhetorick Saying to call a Person of Rule is a great Inductive of Confusion But to call GOD and Christ the habits of Grace as the doth in page 38 is a far more improper speech Then he cites R. B's words in answer to J Brown but not fully and draweth his consequences from them the words are these For I was never so absurd as to call GOD simply considered or the Spirit of GOD in obstracto but as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians From hence he deduceth two Conclusions First that the Quakers Grand principle that Immediate objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their faith falleth to the ground And that these Imprinted truths are but secondary But who seeth not deceit and malice in this consequence Certainly he must fear his cause when he takes such weak Pillars to underprop it For any man of candor may see that R B intendeth only to prove that truths Imprinted and not the Imprinter to be the Rule And he consesseth it to be one Acylogie or improper speech And to conclude the Ruine of his Adversaries cause from one improper speech is either great folly or great malice so that his Antecedent being tightly understood according to the Authors sense his consequence together will all he hath deduced from it is a meer Non-sequitur His other Consequence depending upon the first falleth with it Only he hath been assert that these Revelations are self evident and that to assert otherwayes were impious And a little after to judge that the GOD of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us Well then Patroclus it seemes there are yet such Revelations by thine own consession as are self evident which we may take notice of in due time He proceeds saying There is very good reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primarie then the Scriptures both being given by the same spirit seeing the primariness is not the immediateness but the thief binding power and the prerogative to be the Touch-stone of all doctrines But who denyeth this prerogative to the Scriptures of being a Rule to try all Doctrines of Men how holy so ever Have not his Adversaries granted all this times And what then I hope to believe this proposition is an Act of Faith no where mentioned in Scripture neither is it self evident and therefore needeth a Rule Yea more the scriptures of the New Testament make mention of a Rule only three times to wit 2 Cor. 10. 15 16. Gal. 6. 16. and Phil. 3. 16. And if Patroclus with all his prudence and wisdom comparing Scripture with Scripture can twist and twine a sense out of these Scriptures to prove his matter he may boast of it Next he cites 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. in these words they are able to make the man of GOD wise unto salvation But whether there be such words there let the Reader judge Then he plainly sheweth us what he intends and it is the book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest c. If this be true then certainly the Tennor of the New Covenant is made void and they who lived under the Law had a rea dier access unto GOD and to know His Mind then they who live under the Gospel And yet the difference is evident for as the Law was an outward Rule written by Moses the outward Leader of outward Israel so CHRIST the SpiritualLeader of Spiritual Israel writteth His Spiritual Law in the heart I shall add one argument thus That which was a Rule to the Faith-makers at Westminster in composing their form of Faith and imposing it upon the Nations may
serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth was their Rule Ergo c. The Major I hope they will not deny and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance which was as followeth Die Jovis 6 of July 1643. I A B do seriouslie and solemnlie protest in the presence of Almightie GOD That in this Assemblie whereof I am a Member I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be Truth Or in point of Discipline but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glorie of GOD and to the Good and Peace of the Church Hence it is evident That their Conscience was their Rule But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Errour whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom let Patroclus choose And to help him in his Election he may consult his Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum who a little after he hath told him that his ultimate Rule is a monster Tells him also That nothing can possiblie interpose between the Authoritie of GOD and the conscience and that its dictates are uncontrollable Next he tells us That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil But the Scripture saith not that men are condemned for want of Light But because Light iâ— come into the World but Men love darâ—ness rather than light And also that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men He closeth up this Number accusing R B for confounding the principal Rule and the principal Leader but these are his Acâ—rologian mistakes and not his Adversaries confusion For any man not maliciously byassed may see that he intends no more but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39 saying that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit is more primarie and principallie the Rule than the Scriptures some things written and received only from another This he hath maliciously passed by together with the Question following which he could not answer so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisiâ—al formalities return upon his own head In page 67 He comes to the interpreter of Scripture where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetorick like that of hiâ— Brother Mackquair the Arch-scold saying The Quakers well knowing That if GOD speaking in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them or if the Holy scripture be not â—steemed false ambiguous and nonsenfical then their cause is lost What more malicious and wicked falshood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People who from their Hearts abhore any such thought concerning the Scriptures as to esteem them false ambiguous and nonsensical Or what end could this â—nicâ—ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth Except it be to raise their Beloved Refoâ—meâ—s the Rabble to stone us as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow had almost been stoned to Death by them But he saith The Quakers well knowing c. If this were true we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster Who in chap 23 numb 4 of their Confession say Infidelitie or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authoritie nor free the People from their due Obedience to him While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King a Pious as well as Protestant Prince Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture â—alse ambiguous or nonesensical Wherefore he should have said If the Spirit of GOD which dictated the Scriptures be the only true Interpreter of Scripture then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost As for his phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures and a little after The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort is confessed But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood and in effect a meer sham to amuse his Reader As for example When Patroâ—lus stepeth up into his Pulpit and readeth a sentence of Scripture which may be somewhat obscure As this my Body He begines to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors then of the Lutherian and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text. Now I would willingly know whetheâ— it be GOD or Man that speaks here The First he would be affraid of as Enthusiastiok And if the Second What becomes of his Phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures So the Reader may see That it is a meer humane device to keep up a sordid Trade for by this Trade they have their Living as the Silver Smiths had of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake But let the Reader know That we fully owne the Spirit of GOD which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means such as Reading Meditation Prayer and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures as many of our Friends have published to the World So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following falls to the ground being built upon no one solid Argument But I shal take notice of some of them And First He citeth George Keith Saying We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth but declare themselves Enemies to it To this he Answereth Behold Reader The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine Answer If this be true then Patroclus is a great Liar For in page 32. he saith The Papists have gone too low resolving their Faith ultimatly in Men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo And in that foregoing page placeth themselves in the middle So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists then we And in good earnest any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practises will find the Difference nothing but Pretence For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters then the Papists Only Blessed be the LORD they have not such
not blinded him Whereby he seeks to bespatter and blaken the Quakers so as so render them the object of the Magistrates severity Or expose them to the rage of his beloved Reformers the Rabble For First he saies they have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of GOD adding his wonted phrase speaking in the Scriptures But if I shall ask him Doth GOD now-a-dayes speak at all to his Church He would readily answer me No And within four pages he labours to prove that GOD hath spoke his last words to his Church Which is also clear from their Confession of Faith chap 1 so that as is said before this phrase is a meer cheat Secondly he saith We have most impiously and self-deceiving lie given up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which they call the Spirit of GOD as we have heard Here he falslie insinuates That we give up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which is not the Spirit of GOD which is a gross untruth For GOD knoweth and our Consciences bear us witness that we own no other Spirit but the same which Christ promised to His followers John 14. 16. I shall pray the Father and be shall give you another Comforter that be may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the World cannot receive because it seeth Him not neither knoweth Him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you and shall be in â—on And Vers 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost Whom the Father will send in my Name He shall teach you all things And 15 Ch 26. 8. and 16. 17 18. The Comforter who will reprove the World of sin c. This is that Spirit of Truth To whose Guidance we have given and do give up our selves And if he mean any other thing he is a wicked Slanderer and Callumniator Next he adds And again in contradiction to this the Soul of CHRIST Extended and Dilated This is a part of George Keiths Book called The way cast up To which book he promiseth an Answer But the Man is able and can answer for himself against all the Presbyterian Priests in Scotland Then he sayes But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the Spirit And it not this Scripture Language GOD who commanded Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts And was not this the Apostles Message that GOD is Light And how frequently is the Holy Ghost in scripture called simply the Spirit without any addition But he adds to which Spirit GOD himself speaking in the Scriptures must 〈◊〉 obey the same This blasphemous Gibberish being the invention of his own brain deserves no answer But may well be added to the Presbyterian Eloquence at the next impression But I pass by the rest of his railing and come to his defence of his Brother John Browns Argument which is this If since the Apostles fell a sleep and the Cannon of the Scripture was closed All that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a Primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of errour then it is not the way of CHRIST But the former is true c. Ergo c. To which R B hath answered and our Author accepts his answer and changeth the argument thus If since the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture fell a sleep and John wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this Kynd of Revelation have been led by a spirit of error Then this is not the wayof Christ But the former is true Ergo c. And now he thinketh there can be no exception against his argument but that it will certainly do his business yet is he like to be mistaken For first his argument seems to insinuate that before the Apostles fell a sleep immediate Revelation was the Primary Rule and if it was so it continues to be so yet by his own former Concessions For GOD hath not changed his Rule so that if he makes his argument to speak to the purpose he must say thus all who pretended to this kind of Revelation as well before as since the Apostles fell a sleep were led by a Spirit of error which I think he would be loath to affirm Secondly He will gain very little tho I grant his argument in terminis for I have as little kindness for pretenders as he hath or can have and do readily grant that all who pretend to this kynd of Revelations and have them not are led by a Spirit of error as well as that all Presbyterians who pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule and do not frame their Faith and manners according to them are Hipocrites and are led by a spirit of error So that except his Argument say all who have been led really and truely by the Spirit of Truth of whom Christ promised that he should teach them all things and lead into all truth were led by a Spirit of error He doth but â—eat the air and fight with his own shaddow For we have had pretenders amongstus whom we have denyed and rejected And what he brings concerning the corruptions of men we deny not For as men of Corrupt minds may pretend to the Scriptures so they may pretend to the Spirit but the LORD hath alwayes hitherto given his Church a spirit of discerning whereby such pretenders have been detected rejected and denyed And did not Zedeâ—iah the Son of Chenaanah pretend to the Spirit with as much confidence as Mieajah 1 King 22. 24. When he smote Micajah and said Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee Will it follow from hence That Micajah was led by a spirit of errour because Zedekiah pretended to the same spirit Or that the Presbyterians are led by a spirit of errour Because the Lutherians Anabaptists Independants and Arminians pretend to the same Rule with them So as the Scriptures may be wrested to the condemnation of the Wresters Our Author must confess that he needs a Guide to tell him when he goeth astray And whereas he citeth some called Quakers who have erred whether truely or falsly I know not I will bring him ten for one among the Presbyterians Yea and the greatest part of the Presbyterian Ministry of Scotland about the year 1661 foully deserted the good old cause and yet no less pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule then they had formerly done He falls next to prove that there is no Consanguinity betwixt the Jesuits argument to Jo Menzies and this of J B But let the Reader consider whether both Arguments terminate in the same thing For the Jesuites presseth J M to produce his Grounds and Principles And our Author in page 78 saith his Argument is demonstrative except his Adversary can produce any Instance to the contrary And if this be no Consanguinity let the Reader judge And whereas he turneth over the Jesuites Argument he might well have expected that the Jesuite would and might have said so of
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
right to the Scripture but Presbyterian Priests Secondly That for Fruits he enumerats four gross and abominable Untruths wherewith he chargeth us To witt That we deny the Holy Trinity the Person of our Lord JESUS CHRIST The Resurrection of the Body and that we assert the Souls of Men yea and devils too to be GOD Almighty Of all which he saith he will prove the Quakers to be undenyably guilty before he end his Treatise This needs no Answer But to say The Lord rebuke this lying spirit which hath gone forth in the mouth of this lying false Accuser For the LORD GOD whom we serve knoweth our Innocency in this matter and will in his due time vindicat his people from these malicious Callumniators But Thirdly The Man might have considered that these are points of Faith and not of Works and that our Saviour spoke here of Works and not Faith only The most wicked Man in the Nation may believe all the Westminster Creed as well as Patroclus doth and yet receive the Sentence in verse 23. of the same Chapter Depart from me ye workers of iniquity And therefore tho he should add another Forsooth to it I will betake me to the Fruits mentioned in Scripture and then let the World which he sayes is not ignorant judge between them and us Galat 5. 20. Where these are reckoned for Fruits of the Flesh Variance Emulations Wrath Strife Seditions Envyings Murthers c. Which whither they have been peculiar to that Tribe let the Nation judge On the other hand the Fruits of the Spirit are Love Peace Joy Long-suffering Gentleness Faith Meekness Temperance c. And whether the people in derision called Quakers be found in the Exercise of such Fruits let such as are acguainted with their conversations bear Witness for or against them And I may say without reflection if to devour and destroy be the fruits of Abbadon and Apollyon These are the only Spirits the Presbyterian Fruits can lay claim to which to enumerat were to writ a history but the late Advocat George Maekenzie hath given an Epitome of them to which I refer the Reader In page 84. He chargeth R. B. with three lies Citing his Vindication But how groundlessly will be evident to any who will be at the pains to examine R. B's words to which for brevity I refer the Reader Only this the first is as really John Browns as his two Hypothetick propositions are his own in page 79. To which R B. answers what a horrible lie is this The Second is no lie For in chap 3 Num 2. Of the Westminerr Confession we have these words Altho GOD knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed Conditions yet he hath not decreed anything because be foresaw it as future or as that it would come to pass upon such conditions And in the very next words they add By the Decree of GOD for the Manifestation of His Glory some men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting Life and others fore ordained unto everlasting death Let him interpret this with the next for if it bear not all that R. B. saith it is no better then the Answers of the Delphick Oracle So that which he calls a palpable and horrid Lie will be found to be a manifest Truth to any that can read the Confesfion above cited His third is that I. B. makes a preaching to the devil to deny which is impudence with a Witness And as for railing in pulpit and print it is too well known to the Nation to seek to cover it Whereof Brown and Mackquare are two famons instances neither is our Author a Novice in that ignoble art wherein lest he should come short of his Brethren he giveth us a short parralel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers This is an old blast from a new horn a work already done by George Meldrum when he was Preacher at Aberdeen and fully answered by George Keith without any reply To which I might remit my Reader but because it is not yet printed I shall touch at some of them and it is to be suspected not without cause that the hand of Joab is in all this His first is That these men said The Word of GOD was a certain heavenlie thing distinct from the Scriptures Adding the same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers Answer What was their Doctrine I know not for I see little ground to believe their Adversaries did not belie them more then that our Adversaries do not belie us now which they are not ashamed to do in the face of the Sun but our Doctrine is well known to be That Christ is the Word of GOD according to the Scriptures and that the Scriptures are the words of GOD. His second is about immediat Revelation But our Doctrine on this head is sufficient ly cleared in the foregoing Treatise His third is That the express words and phrases of the Scripture is to be adhered to without anie exposition interpretation or deduction That is a gross Callumny may be seen in page 67. of his own Book where he accuseth George Keith of poperie for rejecting their interpretations without the Spirtt And it is manifest we have always contended that the Spirit was the only true Interpreter of hard Scriptures where they were heard to be understood and that the express Words were to be adhered to where plain His Fourth is that we assert that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by CHRIST in the new and hath precept or authority from it For which he citeth R B's vindication page 178. Num 5. And to show the Reader his base ingenuity I shall transcribe R B's words which are these He seeks maliciously to inferr that I deny all authority of the Old Testament which is a horid callumny But since there are many things therein which himself will acknowledge are not binding upon us now What shall be the Rule whereby we shall judge what we are now tyed to and what not c. If this be to deny the obligation of the Old Testament or to say it is abrogat let the Reader judge But it seems our Author thinketh the Ninth Commandement to be abrogated else he would not so confidently bear false witness against his Neighbour His fifth inslance of Original sin he referreth to his third Chapter and so shall I. His sixth is That Christ made no satisfaction for sins and compared them who taught the contrary to the Seribes and Pharisees to assert which of the people called Quakers is gross and detestable injustice forgerie and malice But to cover this he addeth another no less false as to us that it is damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ c. Which he promiseth to prove in his fifth Chapter but will never be able to prove any thing like
will accompany the Wicked to Hell cannot be called Grace Divine or any thing supernatural He should have said that which suffereth in Hell For certainly all that is natural to Man must suffer in Hell but that which causeth Man to suffer in Hell can be no part of his Nature Hence Causin in his Holy Court Tom. 3. Pag. 433. The Darkness of Hell is apprehended as most intollerable Evil and that with just cause Notwithstanding I affirm the grearest Torment of the Damned and hight of their notable Calamities is Light I say Light of Science and Knowledge c. His Sixth Argument is That Men have naturally some Relicks of the Image of God and can do some things contained in the Law of God we must firmly conclude from that express Text Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles who have not the Law do by Nature the things contained in the Law First He proceeds upon his former deceitful Insinuations as if we denied that fallen Man or Man in the Fall could do any Action good as to the substance as he saith now he can do some things contained in the Law of God whereas the Devil could confess Christ before Men as in Luke 4. 34. I know thee who thou art the Holy One of God This is a meer Quibble For the Question is Whether Man by Nature as Fallen and corrupted can do any thing that is acceptable to God which he should have proven or else been silent And as to that Scripture he citeth it maketh nothing for but against him For clearing of which I shall ask him this Question-Whether the Actions done by these Gentiles who not having the Law did by Nature the things contained in the Law which shew the work of the Law written in their Hearts were acceptable to God or not If he say not He contradicts the Apostle Vers 26. Therefore if Vncircumcision keep the Righteousness of the Law shall not his Vncircumsion he counted for Circumcision And Vers 27. And shall not Vncircumcision which is by nature if it fulfil the Law judge thee who by the Letter and Circumeision dost transgress the Law And Act. 10. 34 35. Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that fearth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him If he say these Actions done by the strength of fallen and corrupted Nature were acceptable to God then it follows that Man by Nature in the Fall can please God and so have no need of a S viour I shall here add a Saying of J. Humfrey with the Approbation foresaid of R. Baxter in his Book of Election and Redemption Pag. 29. 30. It is agreeable to that Righteousness of God which is revealed in the Gospel and to common Reason that when Christ died to Redeem the World from the Law of Works because through the weakness of the Flesh it was impossible for us to perform the same The new Terms which he hath procured for us in the remedying Law should be so adopted to our fallen Estate as to be made no less possible for us or within our power now than the Covenant of Nature was to Adam in the state of Innocency There is no Interpretation of Scripture must be admitted against universal Reason and the Goodness of God Now to say that the Just and Merciful GOD would require fallen Man to walk without Light to act without Power is contrary to the Goodness of GOD and universal Reason and to the Tenor of the new and remedving Covenant In page 104 He saith Men by nature have the knowledge of Politicks and the prudent management of Worldly affairs Therefore men may be said to have the Law writen in their Hearts without a New Govenant dispensation Because the second table of the Law which is a Rule for Politicks is the Law of GOD as well as the first This can import nothing less then this That because he had natural and corrupt reason he had nothing more Or that he that hath his senses hath not Reason For Nimrod had Politicks and so had Moses but Nimrod had not such a foundation for his Politicks And why Because Moses Government was a Theoeracie Nimrods an humane Monarchy And therefore Moses needed the immediat Teachings of GOD for his Politicks Nimrod only Reason Tho he had more if he had regarded it And yet the second Table of the Law is more like Penal Statutes then Politick Laws And whereas he saith That Jo Brown hath proven by many demonstrations that the writing of the Law in the Heart cannot at all be taken in this place for any part of the New Covenant He might have been so kind to his Reader as to have given one of these many demonstrations before he had so railed at and gloryed over his Adversary Especially considering that John Browns Books are so rare to be seen and seldom or never objected to us by any man of sense His next is in answer to R B's saying If Romans 2. 14. Be understood of corrupt nature It would contradict that of 1 Cor 2. 14. Where it is said The Natural Man cannot know the things of GOD. To which he Replyes That Mr. Brown as he calls him hath utterly denyed this contradiction to follow upon their exposition of this place But hath neither given us the Exposition nor the Harmony of the places This might pass in the Pulpit but it is shameful in Print he had better waved it as he hath done many more But if the Reader will be at the pains to look Beza's Notes he will find that he expresly saith on 1 Cor 2. 14. The Natural man is he that hath no further Light of Unstanding then that which he hath brought with him even from his Moâ—bers womb As Jude defineth it Verse 19. And upon the word Spiritual Man he hath noted That is by Vertue of the Holy Ghost Now let the Reader compare what our Author hath said in the foregoing page upon Rom 2. 14. And what Beza saith upon 1 Cor 2. 14. And see whether our Anthors answer be sufficient to take away the contradiction Yet we must get Foam and Froath not a little the usuall product of troubled waters Nevertheless it is manifest this one note of Beza's overturns all he hath said for his extinguished Lanthorn In page 105. After a citation of R B's words concerning the fall of man he saith It willl be counted a compleat Contradiction to say that fallen man hath no Relicts of the Image of GOD and yet hath a Seed of Righteousness seeing that Righteousness is one of the chief parts of the Image of GOD. But wherein lyeth the Contradiction here In saying he who hath the Seed hath not the Fruit Or in saying that the Seed tho sown in all kinds of Grounds needs an influence from Heaven before it can bring forth Fruit And to use his own similitude till the Candle of his extinguishrd Lanthorn be of new lighted again it can do us no
malicious Author like an Advocat pleading at a Barr Bawls Cryes Rants and Tears and will perfâ—â— nefâ—s have us guilty of Arrianism And first he sets down that Arrian herefie to be That the Son is separated from or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of GOD the Father Now I charge him and all the Presbyterians in the World to produce on sentence in our Writings bearing this Doctine which I am sure they cannot Moreover Philip Melanchton in Chron Carionis page 264. Saith That Arrius denyed the Divinity of Christ and That the Son was Co-Eternal with the Father that he was a Creature ex non existentibus That is ex nibile All which we detest and abhor But to stop his mouth for ever I tell him we owne the Nicen Creed which I shall here insert so farr as concerns this Contraversy I believe in one LORD JESUS CHRIST the only begotten Son of GOD born of the Father before all Ages GOD of God Light of light True GOD of true God Begotten not made Consubstantial with the Father by whom all things were made who for us Men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was Incarnat of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and became Man was also crucified for us suffered under Pontius Pilate was buried and arose again the third day according to the Scriptures he ascended to Heaven sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father and is to come again with Glory to judge the Quick and the Dead of whose Kingdom there shall be no end And now what can our most malicious Adversaties require more of us for I hope it is evident to all Men that it is the words of Mans Wisdom invented that we oppose and not the Mystery it self And here by the way I must tell him that this Counsel hath been no friend to Presbytry For we read of no Presbyters there but such as were Legats sent by Bishops who for age or sickness could not come As also that they appointed two Metrapolitan Bishops one in Rome and another in Alexandria See Chron Carionts page 205. The rest of his Tatle is only about the Translation of Hebr 1. 3. For which he citeth a number of Lexioons I have none of them by me but one Serevellius who in his Lexieon Graco Latinum translats it Persona and in his Lexcon Latino Grâ—cum translats it Substantia But Hiâ—rom Erasmus and Melanchton translats it Substantia And so if George Keith have said any thing which offends our Author in this or any other point he may deall with his Books when he hath a mind and I do not Question his ability to answer for himself I cannot omit one notable proof he gives to prove his salsehoods Thus It is most evident from their perpetual bellish roillings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity calling it an abominable and stinking Doctrine as they that heard them told me c. Now Reader consider what can be expected from such an Adversary whose malice blinds him that he cannot see his own folly Perhaps as great a Liar as himself told him a Tale and he will print and publish it to the World to defame an Honest and Innocent Body of People This is Hicks and Faldo downright As for the Word Persona it is not to be found in the Nicen Creed and not only Augustine but Jerom and Laurentius Valla find fault with it as no fit word to express the Mystery But a late Writter who calls himself a Protestant Minister poircâ— eâ—gh rationales de DEO c. disputeth at large against the word Persona to whom I refert our Author That it is an unscriptural word he confesseth and then why may we not seek plain Scripture for it as well as his Brother Jo Brown in page 175 saith It is considerable that no where in Scripture we find it affirmed expresiv that Christ died for all Men. why then is all this trouble made But it seems Presbyterians may do many things which are not allowable to others seeing they would fain be accounted Dictators over all Consciences in Brittan But I hope what is said will suffice to clear us of Arrianism to any prejudiced Reader And therefore I shall proceed to his second Calumny Which is that according to the Quakers doctrine GOD is Author of sin We have heard of some Witches who after they were condemned have impeached many Innocent Persons So our Author being unable to clear his Brethren of that guilt charged justly on them by R B and fully proven would have the Quakers as guilty as they Solatium est miseris multos habere pares But two Blacks make not a White His Argument is GOD is the Author of every Substance But according to the Quakers sin is a substance Ergo c. He proves his Minor thus Grace is a Substance therefore sin is a substance He saith R B denyeth the Consequence which he thus proveth Sin can hear feel and perceive as well as Grace and Light it may feel and perceive the things of Satan as well as Light And Grace feels or perceives the Things of GOD and may be in the Heart of a real Godly person Therefore it is a Substance Thus our Auther Answer The Scripture is cleat That the Life of the Son of GOD is the light of men and that this is a substance I think he will not dare to deny and he hath seemed to grant that there was a substantial life in Adam before the fall which he saith was extinguished by the fall Hence came the darkness the Death the Polution the Corruption the lust the flesh or Body of Death and all sin as the West-minster Confession teacheth Now to compare these together and to say the light enlighteneth therefore the darkness enlighteneth the life of Christ in man feeleth and perceiveth therefore Death Polution and Corruption doth feell and perceive is a most wild consequence and if he intend to make the seed of the Serpent every way equal to the seed of the Woman it s but the path way to Manichism and indeed he hath manifested his favour to the Serpents seed very much by contending so warmly for its Kingdom in his Chapter of perfection But it will not do for no Man can deny that he hath had the Counsels Prohibitions Approbations and Reproofs of the Light and Grace of GOD either before or after the doing of the Good or evil act which speak forth a living and substantial Principle Whereas the other is a meer defect privation weakness corruption and a want And hath more of the nature of an accident tho I dare not call it one That is which may be present or absent without destroying its Subject For Adam had no sin and was better without it then with it And so will our Author if ever he have the good Luck to be delivered from it tho contrary to his Faith And Christ the best Man that ever was never had it as he
ther the Glory of God not the 〈…〉 of the people We haâ—e no malâ— knowing that he who hates his Brother is a Murtherer and no Murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him To the Examples of Enoch and Noah being called perfect He saith R B confesseth they once bad sin Therefore how came they at another time to be free of it altogether The answer is easie 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness As for the word Perfection its having diverse significations It may be so But I am sure it can never be truely predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed. He comes next to vindicate their Arguments for the Devils Kingdom or Sinning Term of Life The first whereof is 1 John 2. 3. misunderstood by them If we say we have no sin c Answer first I say with Augustine upon the Galatians Aliud est non peccare aliud non habere percatum Secondly The following words of the Apostle are If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness And he that is cleansed from sin is the same that was before said to have sin Now it is said in the 7th verse The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Here cleanseth is in the present Tense Now to be defiled with sin and cleansed from all sin at the same time seems a contradiction and therefore must be admitted to be two several times Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next To his Answer That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin then that the Apostle James was a Curser when he said of the tongue herewith curse we men Our Author Replyes There is no Parity And why Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time No But saith he James speaketh of gross outbreakings and John simply of the nature of sin Very good I see our Author can distinguish betwixt morial and venial sins Of which sure lying must be one in his Judgement or else he had been unsainted long since But knowing this would not do he tells us the Apostle John even in his best Frame had sinful actions and citeth Revel 19. 10 11. and 22. 8 9. The first place is That he falls down at his feet to worship him And the second is That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel But admit they both meant so our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins if a sin at all For it was but a mistaking the Angel who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power and the Earth was enlightned with his Glory I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake but stopped him And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant And so these two Texts he boasts of can do hm no service To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer but It 's false And again we know c without any Reason but his imperious assertion which deserves to be neglected Next he indeavours to prove from Ecclesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily c. Which place he little urgeth only tells us He hath considered the Hebrew and hath found it the Indicative Mood So saith our Author Ergo verum But he must excuse me to think Jerom and Junius Tremellius as good Linguists as he and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood and may not sin His next is Rom 7. 17. From which Texts he saith J B. hath proved That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it least his Arguments should have been sound like these he cites page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it if he but read the next Chapter throughout The second verse whereof cleareth this matter where the Apostle saith The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the law of sin and death And many times after witnesseth a better Condition As that he had sought the good fight c Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD c And Phil 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered That of Peter proves no more then that a Man may sin which is not denyed He comes at last to his great Argument If we find no Instances in Scripture of such persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancie and dream But the former is true Ergo c. For answer let the Reader observe first that our Author finding his Brothers Argument fully refuted by R B hath not attempted the Vindieation of it But he saith the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he chooseth to answer unto Answer Either this Argument which he answereth unto was to the purpose or not If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments but one proponed three different wayes any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose If it was not to the purpose as was the greatest part of his book then he might have spared it But because R B took not our Authors argument to task which perhaps was not there he saith he must confess he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein This is a Rhodomontado expression more like Don Quixot then a sober man writing about Religion tho very ordinary with our Author But let us see what cause there is for all this froath First then I deny his Minor for I can find him many recorded in Scripture of whom there is no failing recorded to wit Enoh Melchizedeck Elias John the Baptist and many of the Prophets and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians saith That many were born holy and free from all sin and particularly Elias and John Baptist Secondly I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation which he seems here to insinuate for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture But that the sins of the Saints are recorded that we may shun them not that we should follow them neither is there
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