in the Soul are not God under what notion soever he be taken a Declaration of the Fountain is not the fountain it self Hence the Quakers grand principle that immediat objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their Faith falleth to the Ground and these imprinted Rules are but only secondary Ergo even according to what is here gained from the Quakers the Scriptures are equal even in their primariness to immediat Revelations for the one can no more be called the primary Rule than the other and that by the Quaker his own Concession Moreover seing these immediat Revelations imprinted on the Soul are not the primary but secondary Rule then certainly they ought to be examined according to the primary Rule Now to assert this is most impious Seing these Revelations must be supposed to be self evident and their Divinity already undoubtedly apparent For this is to maintain that we ought to doubt whether or not there is veracity in God and horresco referens Judge that the God of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us But once more how shal these imprinted secondary Rules be examined not by other words or dictats of whatsoever kind for to do this will cost the examiner a journey to in finitum to which he will not come in haste seing these other Dictats or Revelations are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain more than the first and to assert that these Revelations may be examined according to God himself and not by the Word of God is to go some stages beyond the wildest of nonsense and again there is very good Reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primary than the Scriptures both being given by the same Spirit seing the primarinesse is not the immediatness but the chief binding power the prerogative to be the touch-stone of all Doctrines Now this notion of a primary Rule being had there is very good Reason to wonder why the Dictats of the Spirit should be preferred before the Scriptures seing God hath told whether mediatly or immediatly it 's all one the Quakers themselves dare not deny that God hath indeed said it that they are able to make the Man of God wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.16 17. And hath commanded and commended the perusal of them as the Book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest in the matters of greatest import Isai. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2 Pet. 1.19 20. With many other places But on the other hand in all the Scriptures there is not so much as the least intimation that all persons within the Church and faâ— less all men have divine immediat Objective Revelations by which they may examine and discern good from evil and here he is very angry with his adversary because he accused him of confounding in his Apology the principal Rule and the principal Leader and yet as though he had not confounded them compleatly enough in his Apology he here again in his Vindication in one and the same page viz. 38. both calleth the Spirit as imprinting Truths into the Soul the primary Rule as was even now cited and also the same Spirit the principal Leader as imprinting Rules into the Soul to walk by by which Rules must be understood the Truths he spake of just now above here the Reader may see that not only the same thing is both Principal Leader and principal Rule but also that there is not so much as a Metaphysical formality betwixt them for both of them is God under the notion of imprinting Rules or Truths into the soul yet the confidence I shal not say the impudence hath he to deny that he confounded them 8. But the Quakers well knowing that if God speaking in the Holy Scriptures be admitted Judge of the present Debates between us and them Or if the Holy Scriptures be not Esteemed False Ambiguous and Nonsensical then their cause is lost and their great Diana of Immediat Revelations and the rest of their Monstruous and Impious Doctrine falls to the ground they assert with the Papists that the Spirit of God Speaking in the Scriptures is not his own Interpreter and so bereave the Scriptures of that which is the Soul Sense and Marrow thereof denying all Scripture Interpretation though never so Genuine and Clear except they have Immediat Objective Revelation to tell them that such a Meaning is true Hence they say they may very well reject all our Interpretations and Consequences of Scripture seeing we do not pretend to the Spirit that gave forth the Scripture but declare our selves Enemies to it Thus replyeth George Keith to Mr. Iohn Alexander Truths Def. Chap. 8. Behold Reader the grossest of Popish Shiftâ—â— to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine for the Papists still say that we can know nothing Certainly because we reject their Doctrine of Infallibility just so do the Quakers maliciously belying the whole Reformed Churches Impiously crying out that they are Enemies to the Spirit of God and that because we examine all Doctrines and Practices by the written Word of God. Hence we find that the Spirit the Quakers pretend to is Diametrically opposite to the Scriptures and therefore the Spirit of Lies and Delusion at this they are enraged and cannot away with it Nam trepidant immisso lumine manes Hence William Pen thus speaketh Rej. Pag. 72. Let them shew me that Scripture that plainly and uninterpretatly tells me such a proposition is true and such a One is false that only consists of their additional Meanings such a new Nick-named People Right and such wrong and they do their busines If they cannot as it is impossible they should they must have recourse to some thing else to Rule and Determine and what can that be besides that Eternal Spirit Thou seest Judicious Reader that according to the Quakers God speaking in the Scriptures cannot tell us what is true or what is false who are Right or who are Wrong of the same Nature is that which the Quakers have in their Queries to Mr. Iohn Alexander in which they often require an Answer to be given in plain words of Scripture and in particular Querie 10. They have these Words We say they expect plain Scriptures from you for this without any Shuffling Meanings Consequences or else never pretend Scripture Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings Consequences which have been your Rule Hence according to this Doctrine our Saviour laboured but in vain when he proved the resurrection of the Dead from the Scriptures Matth. 22.31 32. for the Sadducees might have answered that such express words were not in the Pentateuch viz. That the dead should rise again and therefore they were not bound to believe it tho the inference were never so clear except they had a new immediate Revelation which they might have said we have not and who could have proved the contrary yea if this Doctrine be true a man doth not sin tho
3.18 Act. 16.14 15. Ezek. 36.26 27. This Distinction is very requisite for clearing of our purpose and liberateth our Doctrine from the Circle which is falsly objected unto us by both Papists and Quakers A DIGRESSION In which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches anent the necessity of the Spirits Operation in order to firm and saving Knowledge and belief of the Holy Scriptures is Explained and Vindicated from the Exceptions of Papists and Quakers FIrst all the Reformed Churches do with 〈◊〉 Consent assert that in order to a firm and saving knowledge and Divine Faith or believing of the Scriptures the illumiâ—nation and operation of the Spirit of God illumiâ—nating and preparing the Soul is absolutly necessâ—â—ry this all the Confessions witnesse and our Dâ—â—vines such as Calvin in his Institution Polanâ— in his Syntagma demonstratively evince Thâ— Doctrine is impugned on the one hand by the Pâ—pists who object first that we commit a Ciâ—â—cle 2. That we are guilty of Enthusiastick dottages of which we justly accuse the Anabaptists and Quakers and the like Enthusiasts with these the Socinians and other Enemies of the grace of God joyn forces accusing us of the same Crimes On the other hand the Quakers perceiving themselves unextricably in the briers and unwilling to be alone affirm confidently that we cannot separat our selves from them as to this matter 3. In order to the silencing of both these parties who like Samsons Foxes when they appear most opposite one to another even then conspire most firmly the ruine of the Church of God I premit that in order to the production of true Faith in God's ordinary way and method two things are necessary as the principles thereof the Word and the Spirit The Word they call principium objectivum an objective principle or an objective revelation because the Scriptures concur objectively declaring truths to be believed even as the Sun objectively demonstrateth and sheweth things that may be seen though no eyes were open to see them so the Scriptures hold forth clearly all that we ought to believe and do even though the understanding of none were opened to behold the wonders contained in Gods written Law. And again as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own irradiant and illustrious Beams of Light. And as the Sun must be supposed to be an objective light declaring himself and other things The same we say of the Scriptures that in themselves they contain and hold forth these heavenly Rays and glorious Beams and Characters of Divinity prior to the Spirits opening of the understanding and enclining the will for peâ—ception and embracing thereof Now noâ—withstanding of alâ— this poor mankind blind by naâ—ure should be in perpetual darknesse if his eyes were not opened Hence another Principle is necessary viz. The Spirits gracious operations enlightening and â—weetly enclining fiâ—ting and disposing the Soul which is the subject or recipient of this light to understand and believe the things contained in these heavenly Oracles And all these the Spirit doth not by dictating or telling into the ear or mind that such and such excellent things are contained in these Writings as a man making an oration to commend such or such a thing but as we said already by removing the natural mist and darkness modo efficientis aut Dâ—vini instrumenti by way of Efficient or dâ—vine â—nstrument in the Hand of God For the Divinâ— Bâ—auty and Celestial Glory of the Scriptures is so transcendent that the removal of the natural blindnesâ— and pravity of the will is enough for ravishing of the hearts into ardent Love obsequious Obedience and in a word a most enâ—ire and total captivity unto them This working of the Spirit upon the soul is commonly called Subjective Revelation because it terminateth upâ—n the soul which is the subject or recipient of the light contained in the Word and may be more properly called an application of Divine Revelation than Revelation it self This subjective working of the Spirit both the Scriptures themselves and all sound Divines illustrat according to them by the opening of the eyes Ps. 119.18 Eye-salve Rev 3.18 Which Examples both illustrate and prove the purpose yea it is observable that in all the Scriptures the Holy Ghost mentioneth no other kind of Revelation as necessary to Salvation but only objective which indeed was sometimes immediat but not necessarily so but other some times mediat and this subjective Revelation or illumination of the Spirit In a word for any thing we can find is all one whether the objective Revelation be mediat or immediat providing it be Divine see among other Scriptures Ps. 119.18 Luk. 24 46 Act. 16 14 31 32 33 34. 2. Cor. 3 15 16. Rev. 3.18 4. Having premised and illustrated this distinction I come in the next place directly to remove the Objections And first that of the Circle in which the Papists endeavour to entangle us For they object that we being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God we answer by the Testimony and Opertaion of the Spirit And again being demanded how we know the Spirit of Truth and discern it from the Spirit of Error We answer by the Scriptures Hence they conclude that we run the round and answer the same by the same and so make a compleat Circle To which I answer that there is here no Circle for a Circle is progressus ab eodem ad idem eodem modo cognitum A Progress from the same to the sâ—me thing by the same kind of Argumentation But so it is not here For there is not the same way of Argumentation For the Word concurreth objectivâ—ly declaring and holding forth what are the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Characters of the Spirit of God argumentaâ—ively so that we can reason because such a Spirit v. g. He that confesseth Jesus Christ hath come in the Flâ—sh is said by the Scripture to be of God therefore I know and believe that this is true Doctrine and that this Spirit is of God. But on the other hand we make no such use of the Spirits inward Testimony or Operations We do not with the phanatical Enthusiasts reason thus the Spirit or a strong impulse which they call the Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures therefore I believe them to be so We say no such thing We only say that the Spirits operations are necessary for disposing the Soul to perceive and understand the things contained in the Scriptures themselves and apply the same so that either for his own satisfaction or redarguing of others he still rationally deduceth all his Arguments from the Scriptures making them or which is all one God speaking in them the formal Object and ultimat ground wherein to resolve his Faith. Two Examples I will give to illustrat my answer and then I have
done The first is that known Example of the Eye-salve and the Sun For one by the Eye-salve or some efficacious Medicament of this nature removing the Tunicle may come to the sight and knowledge of the Sun So that he may say by means of the Salve or its opening of the Eyes he seeth and knoweâ—h the Sun and again by the Suns light he may perceive what is Eye-salve and what not This egregiously illustrateth the purpose and yet is many stages from a Circle The second Example is of a Logâ—cian his Reason and his Systeme of Logick which containeth Rules to discern sound reason from fallacy and sophistry For the Logician knoweth by his own reason that such a Book is sound containing true Reason and not fallacies This he can demonstrat by his own Reason as the mean and yet doth not thus argument my own reason teacheth me so therefore it is so but from reason in actu exercito and the nature of the things contained in the Book which by means of his own reason he seeth to be clear Truths And again by the Book he knoweth what is sound reason and what not By this time I hope we are fully freed of the Circle in which the Romanists would fain have us entangled being covetous of company for I could requit them with two unextricable Circles if time did permit 5. I come to the Removal of the second Objection viz that we cannot distinguish our selves in this point from Quakers and the like Enthusiasts This Objection not only the Papists but also the Quakers urge what they can to the end that they may make the Reformed Churches symbolize with themselves To this purpose Robert Barclay in his Apology attempted to make Calvin the French and Dutch Confessions and the Westminster Divines Patronisers of their Doctrine because they said that we cannot firmly know and savingly believe the Divinity of the Scriptures without the inward Testimony or Operation of the Spirit of God. But he calleth the Divines of Westminster dark dishonest and confused because they did not separat the Word from the Spirit but said that this Testimony or Operation of the Spirit was in and with the Word but neglecteth the consideration of Isai. 59.21 the Scripture upon which they build this their saying And again Vind. pag. 33. Where he abridging his Apology bringeth up again these things ut respondeant ultimae primis he neglecteth the special and chief Reasons whereby his adversary pag. 61. shewed that there was no discord between Calvin French and Dutch Confessions and our Divines Add hereto that it is well known that there was never the least controversy between the Brittish and Transmarine Protestants on this head but contrariwise a most entire harmony Having therefore discovered this none-such weakness and extream disingenuity I come directly to the objection and answer both Papists and Quakers together we distinguish our selves from these Enthusiasts for first the Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we will speak properly an application of the things revealed in Scripture than a Revelation or Testimony strickly so taken whereas the Revelation to which the Quakers pretend is altogether objective like that of the Prophets 2. We assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be believed or done Which they deny 3. We assert the Scriptures to be the principal and ultimate rule into which our Faith is lastly to be resolved Hence we examine all Doctrines of men all internal Suggestions by the Scriptures as the infallible Test or Touchstone hence we maintain that the Spirit 's Testimonie is still in and with the Word so that it may be known what is the true and what is the false Spirit by the Word so that the work of the Spirit is to enlighten the understanding and dispose the soul to perceive the Characters of Divinity naturally ingraffed in the Scriptures All which the Quakers deny and assert the quite contrary Now this our Doctrine is by a full and most harmonious consent delivered and asserted by the reformed Churches and most eminent and shining lights therein Luthers words are that if any thing should deliver any Doctrine which it could not prove by Scripture he would spit in its face knowing certainly that it were the Devil Sinopsis Pur. Theol Disp. 2 Pag. 20. But the Holy Ghost by these Divine Characters of the Scripture begetteth Divine and saving Faith in our hearts Maccov Locâ— Com pag. 28. The Testimony of the Spirit is a light so enlightening our understanding that it followeth it sweetly and sheweth the arguments in the things themselves impressed in the things which are to be believed but before unknown Woleb Comp. Theol pag. 4. The Spirit of God perswadeth the hearts of Believers internally of the Divinity of the Scriptures in so much as he openeth the eyes and illuminateth the heart of him who after previous invocation of the Spirit of God readeth the Scriptures so that by this illumination the man shal behold the wonderful things of God and acknowledge Gods Voice speaking in the Scriptures The like Doctrine hath Wallet in his Sinopsis Papiâ—migener Contr. in many places where he asserreth in terminis that this Testimony of the Spirit is 〈◊〉 and with the Scriptures The Words of godly and learned Whitaker are clear as they are cited by Mr. Crawford in a short but learned tracâ—at de Princ. fiâ— obj et effect Whereas ye say that we reject the Testimony of the Church and judge our selves taught by the alone internal perswasion of the Spirit we hold the Ministry of the Church in honour internal perswasions without the external word we shun as sanatical impostures we judge out of the scriptures we believe with the scriptures or because of their Testimony and therefore Hereticks i. e. Enthusiasts we neither are nor can be But of all men must clearly Calv. Inst. L. 1 C. 9. asserteth our Doctrine and strongly refuteth these Enthusiasts for Sect 1. he thus speaketh furthermore these who having rejected the scriptures imagine to themselves a way I know not what of approaching to God are to be judged not so much possâ—ssed with error as acted with madness there have arisen of late some giddy heady persons who disdainfully pretending the rule of the spirit cast off all reading and deride the simplicity of these who follow the dead and killing Letter as they term it But I would know of them what spirit that is by whose breathing they are so lifted up as to be bold to despise the Doctrine of the scriptures as abject and childish if they answer it is the spirit of Christ that security must be very ridiculous for I believe they will grant the Apostles of Christ and others faithful in the primitive Church to have been illuminat by no other Spirit but none of these learned from it to contemn the word of God but every one of them had them
have with good Reason replyed that this would not do the turn seing the Scriptures themselves were but a secondary Rule to be subjected unto another without the Determination of which they could never acqâ—iesce in the Scriptures decision how clearly soever they speak for the one party and against â—he oâ—â—er I answer 2dly that the words of Christ spoken both before and at that time were binding on the Jews he having given sufficient proofs of his Deity Notwithstanding of which Christ referreth them to those Writings about the divinity of which they were beyond all doubting and had abundance of subjective as well as objective certainty To these I say he referreth them as the Principal Rule and Test whereby to determine the great Controversy then in agitation I say in a Word that the words Christ and his Apostles spake and now recorded in Scriptures were of themselves no lesse binding on the Iews than these spoken by Moses and the Prophets tho the Iews throw their wilfull ignorance and prejudice which was their own great fault the great Cause of which was the neglect of the Scriptures which testifie of Christ did not believe the Divinity of the one as they did that of the other hence one of the horns of this Dilemma is broken and his consequence a meer non sequitur He here grants that if Christs Doctrine ought to be tried by the Scriptures then much more private Enthusiasms But denyeth that it will hence follow that the Scriptures are the primary Rule which I prove for if the Doctrine of Christ be subject to the Scriptures trial then no man can deny that even these things which are divine immediat Revelations may be brought to the Scripture trial that we may know whether they be divine or not as well as the Jews ought to bring the Doctrine of Christ to the Scriptures that they might clearly see whether it was divine or not seing whatever can be said for exemption of these Revelations from trial with good ground might be said for exeeming of the Doctrine of Christ. Moreover by granting that privat Enthusiasms ought to be tryed by the Scripture he yieldeth all he was this whole time pleading for which was that it might be lawful to embrace any impulse or suggestion which he thought was the Spirit of God without further examination thereof The third Scripture viz. Act. 17.11 is so clear that our Adversaries can find nothing wherewith to darken and deprave it It is true that Robert Barclay Vind. pag. 44. sayeth It is the same way answered as Iohn 5.39 Therefore I say our meaning is the same way vinâ—icate Nâ—xt all his verbal shifâ—s are wholly excluded here seing such an high commendation given by the Spirit of God to these Bereans ought to have no lesse weight with us than a Command The next place assaulted by them is 2 Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of prophecy c. which place thâ—y will have to be understood of the Spirit not â—f the Scriptures of which assertion Robert Barclay pag. 26. giveth this Reason that the Description or Narration of a thing is not more sure than the hearing or seeing of the same and therefore the Scriptures which are but a Narration and Description of such and such things cannot be more sure than the sight or hearing of the same Hence he would infer that the discoverie the Apostles had made to them upon the mount were really surer than the Scriptures but not so sure as the Spirit George Keith Truth Defended pag. 63. hath a long discourse which resolves in this that the Apostle is making a Comparison between Gods outward Word to the Ear and inwâ—rd to the Heart which he sayeth is more sure to a man than Gods immediat speaking if it be heard with the outward ear But such reasoning as this is as easily everthrown as invented for it presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation where the Testimony of the senses goes along And so their spirit is an enemy to sense Otherwise why should this glorious vision made to the Apostles of the Truth of which they had divine and infallible evidence to whom God spake as immediatly as to Moses on the Mount be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit 2. To talk at this rate is to presuppose that wherever God revealeth himself unto any person some other way than by speaking into his ear that this Revelation bringeth along with it its own evidence and perswadeth the soul to embrace and close with it as divine which is both groundlesse and therefore false and contrary to their own principles who assert that unlesse the understanding be well disposed Revelation tho immediat is not evident 3. It insinuateth that the Apostle in this comparison gave out that one of the things compared was in it self really more uncertain than the other which is most false seing considered in themselves both real immediat Revelation and the Scriptures have all certainty possible therefore this is only to be understood in respect of us to whom the Scriptures are more sure in that they are lesse subject to be counterfeited or wrested by either the Devil or our own sancy than immediat Revelations are The Apostle hath also his eye upon his Countrey-men the Iews to whom he speaketh who tho they were now Christians gave in special manner credit to the old Testament as Act 17.11 and else where 4. Tho by this more sure word of Prophecy were understood immediat Revelations the advantage that the Quakers could reap thereby could not be great For this Word of Prophecy being studied and attended to is recommended to us by the Apostle as that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures Hence it will follow even according to the Quakers exposition that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of our Faith seing that if any of the two be it the Text to be explained much rather than the means or helps whereby it is to be explained ought to have this Denomination we have seen the invalidity of his Reason as also the small advantage tho it had been valid We shal in the next place shew why by this more sure word of Prophecy we understand the Scriptures And first because any phrase of the like import as for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prophetick Word or Word of Prophecy it is not in all the Scripture beside for any thing I know in so many syllables such as the Prophets Luk. 16.29 Apostles Prophets Eph. 2.20 The Law and the Prophets Math. 7.12 Are always taken for the Scriptures so that when any did utter such expressions but especially while they discoursed of a guide in Faith and Manners they were still understood as speaking of the Scriptures who I pray ever understood that phrase Luk. 16.31 Moses and the Prophets any other way than that Joh. 6.45 It is written in the Prophets And indeed if our Adversaries were not eâ—â—ronted and
assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners yet whâ— can say that this is through default of the Scriptures seeing our Adversaries cannot deny but that they speak both Sense and Truth and that when there is a real Contradiction between two disputing cocerning any Doctrine or Sense and meaning of any text of Scripture this Text speaks for the one and against the other tho the one of the parties either through Ignorance cannot or through prejudice will nor see it and that the sense thereof may be brought forth to the light so that there shall follow a mutual Agreement between the two dissenting parties and consequently that the Scriptures of their own Nature are apt for the removal of differences about things contained in them We have heard their retortion let us now hear their direct answer which is that their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of God Thus it s answered in their Quakerism confirmed to the Students of Aberdeen For which forsooth they bring Scripture proof from Matth. 7.15 16. where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false Prophet But what fruits these thorny prickling Plants have brought and do daily bring forth the world is not ignorant If to deny the Holy Trinitie the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ the resurrection of the Body and to assert the Souls of men yea and devils to to be God Almighty of which abominations we shall ere we end this Treatise undeniably prove the Quakers to be guilty and in a word to vomit out their Malice so as to endeavour the overthrow of whatsoever God in his Sacred Word hath commanded us either to believe or do If these I say be the fruits of the Spirit then indeed the Quakers have them and abound in them and other Fruits we know none except which are of little worth some Stoicisms and ridiculous whimsies in which also some of the Mâ—humetan and other Monks have gone far beyond them yea with these men Envy Pride Contempt of all others are so predominanâ— that tho by this Character oâ—ly it is easiâ—y judged by what Spirit they are acted Add to all this their constant custome of horrible lying Perverting and Railing of which take one or â—wo Instances in the practise of one oâ— their chief leaders Rob Barcl for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth that his Adversaâ—ie inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christs dying for all that Infants come to heaven without Christ But how grosse an unâ—ruth is 〈◊〉 will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun Cap 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence from their deâ—ying of Original Sin and again pag 64.65 he saith that the Westminster Confession saith that God did predestinat to everlasting damnation the most part of men without any respect had to their sin But a more palpable and horrid lie hath scarce been hatched for 〈◊〉 that Confession chap 3. § 7. It is expresly said that God 〈◊〉 â—rdain them to Wrath for their sins Of the like nature is that which he saith pag. 170 That his Adversâ—ry chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil and that a Minister at Ligeâ—wood made a Prayer to the Devil whereas he only â—nferâ—eth from the Quakers Doctrine that they may make a Preaching to the Devil And as for Railing their whole writings are Stuffed with it See for example Hubberthorn against Sherlock whose whole Pamphlet is nothing but an heâ—p of furious Railing his best Language being Thief rude Fellow Enemy to God c. See also Edward Burrougâ—s in answer to Philip Bennet whose best language is Serpent the lake is prepared for thee and such language as this is the marrow of the Quakers refutation of their adversaries Books For in these two now Named Discoursâ—s there is hardly the shadow of so mâ—ch as an Essay to answer But this is the way how they gain the day and obtain the last word How fair an occasion is here offered to shew to the world by a particular Enumeration of their horrid monstruouâ— practices that their fruiâ—s are the Grapes of Sodom and the wine of Gomorrah But they are but too too well known already we forbear therefore to rake into this Dung-hill Certain it iâ— that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit will as soon prove himself â—o be an angel of Light as the Fruits of these High-pretenders will prove them to be acted by the Spirit of God. But more fully to confirm or rather illustrate this argument I shal shew the Identity of their Spirit with that of the old Anabaptists in several particulars A short parallel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers 1. Muncer and the Anabaptists with him denyed that the Scriptures or external word for thus they spake that they might the better viliâ—y the Scriptures were the Word of God but only a Testimony thereof and said that the Word of God was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas lib. 1. cap. 1. The same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers only there is this difference that the Quakers expresse themselves in this matter with more rage and fury than for ought I can find the Anabaptists did as the Reader may may see cap. 1. § 1. of this Treatise 2dly Muncer with his disciples preferred that which they called immediate Revelation and inspirations busked with the specious Title of Fathers will as the Quakers Revelations are now with that of the Spirit to Gods written Word Bullinger Ibid and cap. 2. passim alibi Sleidan comm Calvin Instit lib 1 cap. 9. In this point also the Quakers are their successors or rather the same the name being changed seing they with Robert Barclay propos 2 3. assert that not the Scriptures but the Spirit is the principal Rule of Faith and Manners 3dly The old Anabaptists asserted that the express Words and Phrases of the Scriptures are to be adhered to without any exposition interpretation or deduction Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. alibi In this also their genuine children the Quakâ—rs follow them with both feet as is evident in this Treatise cap. 1. 4ly The Anabaptists of old asserted that the whole Old Testament is now abrogate and pertaineth not to a Christian nor hath any obligation or force upon him in which wicked Doctrine as they followed the Manichaeans so at this day the no lesse wicked Quakers follow them asserting 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 as is affirmed by Robert Barclay Vindic P. 178. num 5. Hence it is evident that according to them no part of the Old Testament is more obligatory or binding upon uâ— than the words of Aratus or such heathen Poets are and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these
Doctrine Lastly say they If he deny Christ 〈◊〉 be Man we disown him who do say that Christ is both God and Mâ—n This is a good confession And a man that knew them not might easily thinâ— that we wronged them by charging them witâ— the denyal of the Divinity of Christ. But notwithstanding hereof this confession serveth only to prove these Men guilty of most wicked hypocrisie lying and self Contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover their abominations For whosoever taketh but an overly veiw of the passages above cited of George Keiths way cast up he may clearly see that if these passages be true Doctrine the greatest arguments for establishing the Divinity of Christ are for ever gone For I appeal to the writings of all who have refuâ—ed the Doctrine of Arrius and Socinus if prov 8.23 Be not brought as one of the main texts to prove the Eternity and Divinity of Christ as also Psal. 110 by which Christ himself silenced and for ever stopped the mouths of the Pharisees who denyed his God-head Matth. 22 43 44 45 46. Neither is there a greater argument than that by him all things were Created And yet if these forecited passages be true the denyers of Christs Divinity have an easie answer that all these things are verified of Christ as man only And so the greatest arguments for the Divinitie of Christ fall to the Ground Now let any man judge if the Quakers do not what in them lye to overthrow the Divinity of Christ seeing they endeavour to undermine and destroy all the arguments by which it is underpropped Moreover this Doctrine robbeth God of his incommunicable attributs in ascribing Omnipresence or Ubiquitie to a Man. But before I leave this point I propose this dilemma to the Quakers If all things were created by Christ as Man then either the Manhood of Christ is created or not if created then it is created by it self than which there is nothing more absurd If uncreated then there is an uncreated man and a man that is coeternal with God. Which Blasphemie it s hardly able to equalize far lesse to outdo From all which it is most evident that the Quakers doe what in them lyeth to evert the fundamental Doctrines and basis of the Christian Religion viz. the Godhead of Christ. And in this they are more wicked than the professed Arrians or Socinians that they add deep dissimulation and hypocrisie to their horrid impiety whereas the Arrians and Socinians more ingenuous than they profess in words what they really believe It is also clear that in stead of their Christ they embrace a meer chimerical non entity seing there is nothing more contradictiorie than that either the Soul or the Body of a man which is a meer creature can be every where or from Eternitie Lastly observe that the Quakers put no distinction betwixt their Christ and their light within and that the light within is nothing but the smal dark Relicts of the Image of God or the dimm light of nature as we have already evinced And so their Christ their God and all that is dear unto them resolve at length into this almost quenched spunk in which all who have trusted in stead of finding the safe port of Eternal happiness have alwayes met with certain Shipwrack In favours of this Spiritual AntiChrist or Antichristian figment which they account for their Christ they decry vilifie and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be precious and dear to a Christian for what will they not deny seing they deny the Godhead of Christ they therefore with open mouth blaspheme and deny Jesus Christ as a person without them or as any thing distinct from their Imaginary Christ or light within of many which we could cite take a few passages for proof hereof first Geo Whith Dip. Pl. pag 13. Jesus Christ a person without us is not Scripture Language but the Anthropomorphits and Mugletonians And in his Appen to Reas against Rail pag 21. The Socinian telleth us of a personal Christ and that the man Christ Jesus our Lord hath in Heaven a place remote from Earth a humane body but doth he believe him to be the eternal God while he imagineth him to be a personal Christ a humane Body so Limited and confined to a remotness And William Pen counterfit christian pag 77 78. Give me one place that mentioneth Christ to be a distinct person without us art thou destitute of common Sense as to think of proving the Quaker no christian because he denyeth that Doctrine not expressed in the Scripture George Fox Great Myst 206 If there be any other Christ but he that was crucified within he is the false Christ and he that hath not this Christ that was risen and crucified within is a reprobate Though Devils and reprobats may make a talk of him without And Great Myst pag 207 God's Christ is not distinct from his Saints nor his Body for he is within them not distinct from their Spirits Ib. pag 16. Such are deceived that say Christ is distinct from His Saints Moreover the Quakers Doctrins Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 33 in opposition to Mr. Henry Foreside who said that Christ mourned over Jerusalem as He was Humane answer as for the Word Humane it is not Scripture Language it speaketh not that Language Certainly by this speech of these Quakers no other thing can be understood but that Christ hath no Humane Nature For though the word Humane were not found in the Scripture if the thing imported by it be found in Scripture then they must confesse themselves to have been ridiculous and purposeless pratlers which I believe they will not do and therefore its evident that they deny the Humane Nature of Christ. Again the Quakers speak as contemptibly of the Body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as if he were the basest of Men as these words of Isaac Peningtoun witnesse can outward blood cleanse We must enquire therefore saith he whether it was the blood of the Vail Or of that Spiritual Man viz. of Flesh Blood and bones which took on Him the Vail or Humane Nature And the Mystery of iniquitie Lyeth in the Blood of Christ sayeth Edward Billings And Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlock who had said that Christ was not capable of Faith and Repentance saith here I charge thee to be a lyar and Slanderer for he was capable of Faith and Repentance What then is clearer than that according to these Mens Doctrinâ— the Spotless Lamb of God was really defiled with sin and stood in need of another Saviour to believe in Moreover as we have already heard they still distinguish between the outward inward body of Christ wickedly absurdly ascribing to their imaginarie inward body of Christ all that the Scripture attributeth to the Blessed Body of Christ that dyed at Ierusalem such as sufferings Death Resurrection and â—he like by which distinction
dependeth upon the controversie of perfection to which he referreth his Reader and I do the like to my survey of his Vindication His next nominal Calumny is that his Adversary supposeth it to be their Doctrine that there is no setting about prayers or other duties without a previous motion of the Spirit Now of all things I wonder most that he calls this a Calumny seing this very thing is asserted by himself in his eleventh proposition How he will reconcile himself with himself I know not well Yet sure his following words are so far from mending the matter that they make it worse which are That they speak not of a previous motion in order of time but in order of nature Neither his proposition nor any part of his Doctrine for any thing can be learned insinuateâ—h any such thing 2. This motion must so far preceed the setting about duty as that the persons perception of the motion must be interjacent according to them For they teach that before duty we must not only be acted by the Spirit but know that we are acted Ergo the motion must be previous in order of time And yet the man is so fraughted with a desire of altercation that he must say some what though he have not much advantage by it otherwise he had not challenged his Adversary as a Calumniator while by the same very expression taxed by himself he is forced to a distinction unheard of heretofore as I think in this matter and in reality a real contradiction of his own Principles And again he alledgeth he is wronged because his Antagonist inferreth from his words in his eleventh Proposition That according to him Gospel-worship putteth away all external Actions But he needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their words Some other things he hath which he calleth Calumnies One thing he taketh very ill and that is that his Antagonist pag 418. compareth the Quakers to the old Pythonicks because of the strange and unusual motions among them Antick fits and strange Pranks I alwayes compared them in such fits to the Cumean Cybil as she is described by Virgil in his 6 Eneid To this he retorts the extraordinary working of the Spirit of God mentioned in the fulfilling of the Scripture called the Stwarton sickness challenging us to assign a difference between this and the strange influence of the Quakers spirit upon them which we can with great facility do for beside that these out-lettings of the Spirit of God made them to cleave more closly to the Scriptures as the only Rule and Star to guide them through the sea of this world to the safe port of their eternal rest And endeared more and more unto the Ministers of Christ Jesus his word and Sacraments we mean that which the Quakers call Water-Baptism the Communion of the Lords Body in Bread and Wine as sure pledges of the Love of Christ commanded by him to be used until his coming to Judgment which are openly contemned and vilified by the Quakers We say beside this these outlettâ—ngs were far from leading them into such strange and unheard of fits as the Quakers are put into of which I could instance a Legion of sure Examples see a late piece written by a new English Minister Mr. Increase Meather See also Paget's Heresiography where he bringeth among other strange Pranks of theirs to which they were moved by the Spirit One Susanna Parsons a zealous Quaker attempting to raise one of their number who had murdered himself from the dead but in vain And this iâ— attested by all the Magistrats of a considerable City in England viz. Worster Anno 1659. See also a little piece called Foot out of snare of the strange and antick influences of this their Spirit on one Iohn Toldervei What shall we say of Iames Naylor who following the Light of this Spirit did arrogat to himself divine honour at Bristol Now though they say he recanted this again it is all one matter For this Antiscriptural Spirit which is their principal Rule can no doubt change it self as it seeth occasion And having too much bewrayed it self with the grossness of its Delusion can easily turn it self to a more subtile way of imposture So that we may in a word say that the difference between the workings of the Spirit of God on his people mentioned in Scripture and these of the faâ—her of lies and deceits on the Pythonicks or Cybills was no more palpable than the difference between the working upon these mentioned by him and that upon the Quakers He sayeth moreover that the story of Gilpin who as Paget sheweth us was mad through Quakerism is refuted long ago But forgetteth to tell by whom or where Next he cometh to wipe off the absurdity of their silent waiting that this their abstracting of their mind from all thoughts so that the soul doth not at all act upon any kind of Object Which posture they say prepareth them for the Spirits motion And this is the result of their asserting that a man ought to do nothing of the Service or Worship of God except they know that they are moved thereto by the Spirit Now such an inturning for he counteth it a great wrong in his Adversary to call it introversion is not possible unto a man except he be sleeping as the experience of the generality of men witnesseth who still perceive their Souls acting upon some Object either good or evil except they be sleeping or in an extasie And so this is a direct following of the Heathens who went and sleeped at the Temples or Groves of their gods that they might have conference with them in dreams But they used to take sheep-skins and ly upon as Virg. in his 7 Book speaking of Latinus which if the Quakers do or not I am uncertain Now in his defence of this pag 147 being challenged as guilty of this absurdity by his Antagonist among other words he hath these viz. If he would understand it of the old man the man of sin that is corrupted we wil say with the Apostle that it ought to be crucified and die And again he sayeth that albeit in one sense they are said to die yet they more truely live and exist citing Gal. 2 20. And this is the substance of what he sayeth on this point To which I answer it is well that at length they forsake their prime Opinion or Characteristical note Hitherto he with his brethren were defending the relinquishing of all thoughts whatsoever in order to the Spirits Motion and our setting about of duty now he only defendeth the leaving of Carnal thoughts But he doth not consider that this Cheat will easily be perceived For there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving For I hope he moveth when and where he listeth Now I say at this time as man cannot Act yea or think warrantably of the things of God according to them Because
a sweet Gospel Minister E. There is no reason to Judge that John was a Legal Minister or had Legal commands Next he cometh to vindicate what he deduced from 1 Cor. 1.17 Where he only seeketh to shift neglecting whollie what his adversary sayeth see Pag. 476. N. 12. The first of these shiftings are That because his Antagonist sayeth why did Paul baptise if he had not a Commission He answereth that this a quarrelling with the Apostle What strange disingenuitie is this To say he quarrelleth with the Apostle when he only quarrelled with the Quakers exposition And upon the supposed truth of this inferred this absurditie that the Apostle did that which he ought not to do which being false his exposition cannot be true Thus a Man might say still when one inferred an absurditie from his exposition of a place of Scripture that he were fixing absurdities upon the Spirit of God. For he knoweth that we expone Pauls words that he was not sent â—o baptise for the lesse principal part of his errand according to Hos 6.6 Matth 9. Ier 2.23 and many other places even though there be no explicative clause following as he alledgeth is in Hos. 6.6 providing that there be no absurditie following upon this gloss And beside this there are good reasons why we should so expone the phrase here For first the Apostle insinuateth clearly that all these Corinthians were Baptised without reproving them for it Whereas he still reproveth the Gentiles for using of and tenaciously sticking to Jewish Rites or any man that imposed them upon them either by example or doctrine as the body of the Epistle to the Gal. doth declare 2. he doth not say that his Fellow-Apostles were not sent to baptise but nameth himself alone 3. He still did administrat this Sacrament to the Gentiles upon their embracing of Christianity as his recorded practise doth declare which Mr. Brown hath shewed but the Quaker most disingenuously passeth over let him not therefore object that to expone the like phrase where the thing is said not to be for to be less principal would make wild work Seing we give sufficient reasons for our explication of this place and do not plead for the phrase to be still so exponed but only where the Nature of the subject matter will permit it 3. He cometh pag 166. to answer our argument from Matth 28 19. And first he denyeth that the Apostles while Christ was with them baptised with Christs warrand and sayeth he will wait his adversaries proof of it Ans He hath done it already from Iohn 3.26 and 4 3. Of which places the Quaker durst not adventure to take notice We shall therefore wait what he sayeth the next time against them 2. He sayeth the Apostle did eat the passover with Christs warrand yet it followeth not that we ought to do it Ans. There is no paritie between these two practises will he say that ever the eating of the passover was imposed upon the Gentiles as they did Baptism as a necessarie consequent of their embracing of Christianity as the whole Tenor of the Acts of the Apostles declareth 2. The Passover was a Legal Custom introduced many hundreds of Years before whereas Baptism was but in its verie rise and beginning 2. He sayeth that though it be joyned with Discipline as Circumcision was joyned with it among the Iews it will no more follow that Baptism is to be continued then that Circumcision is to be continued Ans that the Baptism here spoken of is to be continued I think himself will not deny We speak now of the institution of an ordinance given to the Christian Church Therefore this his consequence of Circumcision is vain and without the least appearance of Reason Lastly this Reason is wholly non-sense for none can perceive what it levelleth at 3. He denyeth that the Apostles constant practice can declare that Baptism with water is the meaning of the Command For sayeth he the practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declareth this to be false Ans 1. That this which he sayeth of the Apostle is false we have proved above 2. All things practised by the Apostle must be reduced to three sorts either commanded permitted or simply sinful This last I think they will not say their practice of Baptism was neither do they say it but only that it was an indifferent Jewish Riâ—e permitted for the time as Circumcision or the like But this is false For either such Rites were not at all imposed on the Gentiles Or if they were they were after abrogated As for example abstinence from blood and things strangled enjoyned Act 15. This I say was again abrogat 1 Cor 10. and in the Epistles to the Gal. and Tim. 2. That it is not an indifferent Jewish Rite clearly appeareth from this that the reason why they impose Jewish Rites upon any Christian whether Jew or Gentile was to bear with the Jews for a time and to condescend to their weakness But the condition of baptism was still their embracing of Christ and the ground of it their receiving of them into the Church In a word Condescension to the Jews weakness is in Scripture ever holden forth to be the ground of the imposition of Legal Rites upon Christians So that there is mention made of this ground for every particular Rite imposed but this condescension is never said to be the ground of imposing Baptism but a quite other ground given which we named already 3. If this had been a thing only permitted for a time and to be abrogat afterwards then either the Apostles unrepealed practice which they exercised toward all Christians indifferently and that as such were not sufficient to walk by Or else this was abrogat afterward but the last they cannot shew from Scripture Therefore it is false and the first absurd From all which it followeth that this was a Commanded practice And I desire any man of Reason to Judge whether all the Apostles perpetual unrepealed practice or these mens naked assertions be the best Commentarie on this place 4. He denyeth that the word Baptism as we expone it is taken in its proper signification and sayeth that it is not necessarie to take it as we do for Baptism with water in so many places as it must be taken for baptism with the spirit Ans. This a meer assertion In opposition to which I say that he shall not be able to give one place of Scripture where this word is undoubtedly taken in their sense but I shall give him two where the word is taken in the sense which here we plead for and that undoubtedly And so there is a double improprietie in the Quakers expâ—sition of the word fiâ—st against the Grammatical and 2. the Scriptural propriety We expect therefore according to his own Postulatum that he will give some more weighty reasons the next time of this explication Next I reason thus To Baptise with the Spirit is not in all the
Gods Power for thus they with abominable Suenchfeldius understand Rom. 1.16 then the meaning of Mark 1.1 must be the Beginning of the Power of God of Iesus Christ the Son of God which place if it have any Sense thus understood must have a black one viz. That the Power of God. i. e. God Himself was not before Mark wrote his Book or else that the first Verse is a lie let them chuse which of them they will admit 2. But with no less Earnestness and Industrie do these men labour to clothe the Scriptures with base Epithets and contemptible Aspersions than to bereave them of the honourable Titles and Divine Encomies of which God their Author hath thought them worthy not unlike the Heathens who the better to induce Lions and other Wild-beasts to devour the Christians sewed them in Skins of other Beasts hated by these to whose Fury they exposed them This Charge I make out by these following Expressions of the Quakers for they ordinarly call the Scriptures the Letter and by way of Disparagement Writings as the Queries given to Mr. Iohn Alexander witnesse such a Letter about the meaning of which not two are agreed Robert Barclay's Apolog. cap. 2. Ink and Paper Cited by Mr. Hicks in his Dialogues Pag 41 And that It is Idolatry to call the Scripture a Means George White-head in his D. P. pag. 13. and account them no better than an old Almanack witness Hollbrow cited by Hicks pag 20. And that it is dangerous for People to read them Fox and Huberthorn in Truths Defence pag. 101. And that Faith grounded on the Scriptures is but an empty and implicite Faith and bespeaks such Persons void of the knowledge of God Christ and to be yet in their sins And that such Men walk in their own Fancies and Imaginations Christ ascended pag. 11. and that that which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any to wit of the Quakers Is of as great Authority as the Scriptures yea greater George White-head in his Apolog. pag. 49 And he that perswades the People to let the Scriptures be a Rule of Faith and Practice would keep the People in darkness for whoever walketh by the Rule without them teach men so to do would make void the Covenant of Life and Peace Edward Burrows pag. 62. And that is no Command to me which is a Command to another Neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another Edward Burrows pag. 47. And again he says such as go to Duty in imitation of the Letter which was a Command to others their Sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord. And Pag. 105. That they that take up a Command from the Scriptures are in the Witchcraft And that if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ Sayes one Nicolas Lucas cited by Mr. Hicks Dialog 2. Pag. 5. and evinced by him against Pen Dialog 3. pag 86. Moreover William Pen in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo pag 70. Saith but we have good Reason to deny them to be the Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversies which can neither give nor govern Faith nor judge of Controversies and again pag. 73. In short The Scriptures are not the Rule but a Declaration of Faith and Knowledge And Chap. 3. pag. 35. He endeavoureth what he can to render the Scriptures altogether uncertain Saying I cannot but observe after what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been both first Collected and then conveyed through the several succeeding Ages And again Are we sure that the Iudgment of those who Collected them was sufficient to determin what was Right and what not For that which gives Scripture its Canon is not plurality of Voices but that Word of God which gave it forth If that Divine Counsellour preceeded not what assurance have our Anti-revelation-adversaries of their Doctors Choice and granting that they have not rejected any Writing given forth by the Holy Ghost which is a great Question and that which they have given us was in the main Writ by his Inspiration which I believe Yet how we shall be assured that in above 300 years so many hundred Copies as were doubtless taken should be Pure and Vncorrupted Considering the private Dissensions the readiness of each Party to bend things to their own Belief with the growing and succeeding Faults of leaving out adding transposing c. which Transscribers might be guilty of perhaps more through Carelessness than Design is beyond Iohn Faldo's Skil upon his principles to inform us From hence we may observe the uncertainty of John Faldo's Word of God who by Authorities can never prove the Scriptures to be given forth by Inspiration nor that they are truly collected neither could these Persons who first made them Canonical be assured of the exactness of those copies they then found Extant Nor was the Collectors Iudgment infallible And to come nearer to our Times Learned Men tell us of little less than 3000 several Readings in the Scriptures of the New Testament in Greek Thus ye see he laboureth with all his Pith to overthrow the extrinsical Arguments whereby the Divinity of the Scriptures is proved And on the other wing of this Ethnick Army Robert Barclay Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures saying in his Apolog. Chap. 2. That they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue placed in these Writings and in his Vindication I had almost said Abridgment of his Apology he denyeth That there is any stamp of Divine Authority upon the Scriptures and impiously ascribeth the same to some other Spirit separate from and besides the Scriptures which cannot be the Spirit of God Seeing he himself asserteth elsewhere That this Spirit is in all men and the Scripture saith That some men have not the Spirit of God. But shall not the Scriptures which were dictate by the living God carry something of the Stile of the Author Shall the writings of Livy Virgil or Cicero carry such Evidences that they were theirs So that a Humanist may distinguish the True from the Counterfit although he had never heard these men immediatly relate Sing or Declaim Surely this will be denyed of none but a Quaker Shall then God himself be outstripped and overcome by these Writers The Scriptures then according to the Quakers have no Majesty of Stile no harmony of Parts no Scope of the whole c. Nor any such Notes whereby they may declare themselves to be the Dictates of the Living God. Hence we may see That these men are fitter Companions for Porphyrie and Celsus the two Heathnish Champions than for a Christian seeing they bend all their Wit and Skil to revive again Heathnisme under the name of Quakerisme I shall only add for confirmation of my Assertion the Words of Benjamin Furly a Quaker in Rotterdam cited by Mr. Hicks in his Quakers appeal answered pag. 16. There is nothing Sayes he
in the Scripture that is a Duty upon me or which I am obliged to Obey because there recorded Whatsoever is a Command to me I must not receive from any man or thing without me nay not the Scripture it self yea it is the greatest Error in the world that ever was invented and the ground of all Error to Affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians 3. By this time I have abundantly justified my Charge having set down already so much of this blasphemous Doctrine as I am confident hath filled my Reader with Horrour and Indignation if he retain but the least spark of Christianity or love to the Holy Scriptures And O that while we consider these Abominations we could mourn and tremble in Contemplation of our heavy Transgressions that have provocked the Holy God in his just Judgment to let loose and permit these satanical Spirits to rage abroad and pollute the very Air with their poysonous Breath and pestiferous Blasphemy This last passage I should not have set down were it not that Robert Barclay in his Vindication of his Apology of the many scores of passages quoted out of the Quakers own Books by Mr. Brown to prove the blasphemousness and absurdity of their Doctrine in the Defence of this only adventureth to say somewhat I shal therefore set down what he sayeth and refute the same His words are Vind. Pag. 37. But what he urgeth of this further Pag 57. and 59. from the saying of some Quakers affirming that it 's not a Command to them which is given to another albeit I might justly reject it as impertinent till he prove it for the Reasons above Declared upon this occasion yet because he mentions Benjamin Furley in Rotterdam having some Knowledge of that Matter I answer whether will he say All the Commands in Scripture to every Person therein mentioned are binding upon every individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and what binds me not must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will confess enlightening the understanding to make the Distinction Then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their Duty and sure they cannot obey before they know But if he say that tho they should want that operation of the Spirit and did not know nor acknowledge them to be their Duty yet that they are binding upon them neither Benjamin Furley nor any Quaker will deny But even the Commands of Gods Spirit and the Precepts of the Scripture which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shal be justly condemned for not obeying albeit by the perversness of their hearts and Wills they either refuse to obey or will not acknowledge them so that his urging of that Pag. 60 and 61. And his pleading for it is unnecessary and needs no Answer yet who could say they could obey to any advantage of their souls without this operation of the Spirit since whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But as to these words said to be written by Benjamin Furley he is challenged to prove they are his without adding or diminishing and it is very well known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the Sense and before he has answered this Challenge and freed himself from the just Censure of a Callumniator albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs and upon the Testimony of their Adversaries Thus he All the Reasons he gave above why he ought not to vindicate the blasphemous Passages cited out of several Quakers were because these Passages were cited by these that are adversaries to Quakers such as Hicks Stalham and the like who still cite Book and Page of the Quakers where they are to be found so truly that this Vindicator hath not one instance to give where they have dealt unfaithfully Hence this Reason according to him proveth his Vindication unworthy of an answer seing the citation of Passages is enough to Vindicate these Authors from an unjust charge Therefore let it be observed that the whole multitude of Passages which are fraughted with Blasphemies and Absurdities even to the begetting of an utter detestation at the Principles of this party in the hearts of all the Lovers of the Holy Scriptures which are cited by Mr. Brown remain without any Vindication or Mollification except that which rendereth the Author of this Vindication ridiculous and the Principles of his party more abominable But let us come to the Matter of Furley of which he sayes he has some Knowledge we may therefore expect a sufficient Resolution about it as for other passages of this Nature he insinuateth a profound ignorance concerning them wherefore he meriteth a sharp Censure from his Brethren for undertaking that of which he was altogether ignorant and they the note of folly for the permission of the publication of the same for in Reason we ought to suppose that they revised it In the first place The Dilemma wherewith he endeavoureth the Protection of his Brother is altogether impertinent and helpeth him not a whit for seing he insinuateth that there are no subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any this Dilemma if it can do any thing it will only be Argumentum ad hominem And so according to the Quakers men shal not be bound to obey any of the Commands of God As for Example to abstain from Murder except the Lord by an immediat objective Revelation such as he gave to Moses or the rest of the Prophets enjoined this unto them Behold Reader the dangerous Conclusion The abominablenesse of which maketh this Vindicator use many Shifts and Tergiversations to varnish the same notwithstanding of which it inevitably recurreth and sticketh fast unto him 2. Neither doth this Dilemma involve his Adversary or any of the Reformed in any thing like the absurd Doctrine of the Quakers for although the subjective illumination of the Spirit be very necessary for the true Understanding of the Scriptures yea and of absolute necessity for such a knowledge of them whereby we know God revealed in them so that we have true Love and Fear and Faith in him as the Effects and Concomitants of this knowledge yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound Reason only can distinguish between Commands given to a particular People for a certain time such as to offer Sacrifice or to abstain from Swines-flesh and these who bind at all times as for example Not to prophane the Name of God or to honour Parents must have abandoned the exercise of Reason 3. While he alledgeth That neither Benjamin Furley or any other Quaker will deny that Scripture Precepts which concern all are binding upon all he openly contradicteth Furley who denyeth that he
ought to receive any Command from any man or thing without him yea or from the Scriptures themselves And further denyeth without any limitation that the Scriptures ought to be called a Rule And all this tho most blasphemously and absurdly yet most consonantly to the Quakers Principles Our Vindicator in stead of doing Service to his Party notably prevaricateth their Cause not sticking to give away their great Principles while other shifts for defence thereof fail him 4. What he addeth without the operation of the Spirit men cannot obey to the good of their own Souls is altogether impertinent as if one should in answer to a Man enquiring what Duties he ought to perform to such a Superiour tell him what for the time he was in case to perform so as to reap any Advantage thereby which would be as the Proverb goes falcem pro ligone dare 5. He quietly slideth over without so much as naming these words of Furley viz. yea it is the greatest error of the World that ever was invented and the Ground of all error to affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians which Doctrine as it rendereth any Lover of God and his Word secure from being tainted with Quakerisme so that the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the Poison in like manner it hath rendered our Vindicator speechless denuding him of his Shifts of Primary and Secondary Rule under the Protection of which distinction the Quakers would fain shroud themselves For in these words of Furley there is no mention of a Primary or Secondary Rule which without doubt Furley had made if he had believed the Scripture to be a secondary Rule seing certainly he was not ignorant that the Quakers were branded with the name of being Enemies to Scripture 6. In the last place our Vindicator declareth that all he hath hitherto said in Dâ—fence of Furley was but the patrociny of a very bad and indefendible Cause in that he would fasten upon his Adversary the Falsification of Furleys Words For if they were falsified why attempted he to defend them as they were while the sense was quite altered and perverted as he insinuateth Moreover if those words of Furley were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them as they were written by Furley which doubtlesse he was in case to do if there had been any such thing seing he professeth that he hath Knowledge of the Matter which he doth not professe concerning any Quaker mentioned in his Adversaries Book Hence it is evident that his Adversary is not at all guilty of the ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator but whether or not they light upon the Author I leave it unto men of Judgment to consider 4. From what is said it is most evident that the Scriptures according to the Judgment of Quakers are in no sense to be counted a Rule and lay no obligation upon any to believe and walk according to them Hence William Pen sayeth that the Spirit of God who is God is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian viz. of Faith and Life for of that he is handling Rejoin Pag. 76. And this the most of their Arguments if they prove any thing intend As for Example that common Topick of the Quakers viz. That which was the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith before the Scriptures were written is the Rule of ours now But I subsume that the Scriptures of the old and New Testament were in no respect the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith. Ergo according to the Quakers the Scriptures in no respect can be called the Rule of Faith and Manners but finding that the grossnesse of this Doctrine bewrayeth it self and too palpably unmasketh its abettors they have invented several distinctions under the Covert of which they might shroud themselves and elude all the Arguments whereby the Scriptures are proved to be the Rule of Faith and Manners As that the Scriptures are the Verbal and Histicorical Rule of Faith which is the Devils Faith but not of saving Faith. Thus speaketh William Pen Rejoin Pag. 71. But that wherein they place their Sacred Anchor or main strength is that of Adequate and Primary inadequate or secondary Rule asserting that the Scriptures are not the adequate or compleat and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners but only an inadequate in-compleat and secondary Rule That is that the Scriptures contain not all that we are bound to believe or do and that we ought to believe or practise nothing tho never so clearly holden forth or commanded in the Scriptures as for example that God sent his Son into the World or that we ought to love God or our Neighbour except by a miraculous Revelation from Heaven as Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock speaketh we be told the same thing over again By which Revelation we ought say they to examine the Scriptures And because we deny this Doctrine and abhorre it as the Flood-gate of all errors They cry out that we are carnal Enemies to the Spirit void of Light upon this ground also the Ministers that make the Scriptures the Rule of their Doctrine they call by the Names of Baals Priests Thieves Devils Enemies of God with a thousand of the like denominations wherefore that the State of the Controversy may appear and our Adversaries be deprived of their lurking places I premit this assertion in order to the production of true and saving Faith two Principles are required First The Declaration of the Object or thing to be believed or practised which is commonly called in the Schools Objective Revelation This may be either immediate as it was of old to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles To whom God himself immediatly did speak and dictate his will without the Intervention of any thing as a medium or mids Declaring that Revelation to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles or it may be mediat as it was in respect of those to whom the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles delivered it and as it is in respect of us for whose sake the Prophets and Apostles wrote it Rom. 15.4 The other thing necessary for the Production of Saving Faith is the operation or influence of the Spirit of God whereby the vail of natural blindnesse is removed and the eyes of the soul or the understanding are opened to know and believe the wonderful things contained in Gods written Law and to see these divine Characters that are imprinted upon the Scriptures and to understand the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves so that the Person thus savingly illuminated attendeth to and heartily closeth with what is delivered in the Scriptures And this is ordinarly called Subjective Revelation or more properly Illumination or an application of the Revelation made already hactenus factae as Dr. Baron speaketh This Doctrine is clear and most intelligible to all that will not close their eyes The Truth of which is proven by the following Scriptures Psal. 119. 18. Luk. 24 46. 2 Cor. 3.15 16. Rev.
rather in greater reverence as their writings plainly testify And indeed so it was foretold by Isaiah for when he sayeth my spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shal not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed for ever he doth not tie the people of the Iews to an outward Doctrine as if he taught them the first principles but rather that it will be the true and ful felicity of the Church in Christs Kingdom to be ruled no less by the voice than spirit of God. From whence we collect that what are inviolably conjoyned by the Prophet are most sacrilegiously separat by these Villans And again Sect. 2. If any spirit neglecting the Wisdom of God bring any other Doctrine he is justly to be suspected of vanity and of a lie What when satan transfigureth himself into an angel of light what Authority shall the spirit have with us except it be discerned by some sure Character and he is clearly demonstrat to us by the Voice of God except these miserable men desire willingly to run into their own Destruction when they rather seek the spirit from themselves than from the spirit of God. But they pretend that it is unworthy that the spirit of God to whom all things are to be subjected should be subjected to the scriptures as if it were ignominious to the Holy Ghost to be every where alike and conform to himself and never diverse indeed if it were tryed by a humane angelick or any other Rule he were to be corrected or chastised if ye will but while it is compared with it self while it is considered in it self who will then say that there is injury done to it and so it is brought to a Tryal I confesse but such a one as that thereby he would manifest to us his Majesty it ought to be sufficient to us as soon as the spirit manifesteth it self to us but lest the delusions of satan should creep in under the notion of the spirit of God he would have us know him in his image imprinted in the scripture he is the Author of the scriptures he cannot be unlike and diverse from himself whatever therefore he sheweth himself to be in the scriptures such he must be forever That is no conâ—umely to him except we judge it honour worthy to forsake and degenerat from it self Much more to this purpose hath the Reverend and Judicious Author with which he confoundeth these spiritual Antichristians as well these of our time as of his own and indeed if one should read this Chapter and not know the Author he would presently conclude that it had been written of direct purpose against the Quakers Judge therefore Reader if Robert Barclay had any ground to alledge him as the Patroniser of his Doctrine The fourth Difference betwixt us and the Quakers consists in this that we asâ—err if there be a God in Heaven the Books of the Old and New Testament may be evinced to have proceeded from him even to the silencing the most profligat though sharp witted Atheists if any such merit this epithet whereas on the other hand They deny any Characters of Divinity ingraffed in the Word as hath already and shal yet more appear and thus they expose the jugular Vein of Christianity to the Heathens and indeed the whole tendency of all their writings and discourse is to decry and vilify these sacred Oracles and though they deny this to the end they may the better cheat silly Souls I care not for out of their own mouths and Books they shal be judged and found guilty These abominations are not committed in a Corner It can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches which is certainly sufficient in the case But many other differences I could give but these may suffice for answer to the second Objection From all which I conclude that between the extreams of the Papists Church and the Quakers Spirit medius tutissimus ibit the midway by resolving our faith ultimately in the Scriptures or in God speaking in them is the safest way And as two extream Vices never agree more in the nature of Vice than when they reced most from Virtue lying in the middle and therefore seemingly or physically reced from one another so the greater odds that seem to be between Papists and Quakers they are the more nearly relyed in error for the Papists have gone too low resolving their faith ultimately in men the Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo hence they Ixion-like thinking to find the fair Iuno of divine Revelation but lighting upon a cloud of their own brain in stead thereof have procreat the strange Hippocentaurs of their monstrous Doctrines at which the World now admires and is amazed 5. Our Assertion that the Scriptures are the adequate compleat and primary or principal Rule of Faith and Manners we build on these following Arguments and first That which was dictate or given out by the â—â—fallible God and containeth the whole Counsel of God may well serve to be our compleat and principal Rule but the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the infallible God and contain the whole Counsel of God ergo they may well serve to be a compleat and principal Rule The Major is most evident for what further certainty either ought we need we or can we seek for what we believe or do then the words of the most veracious and unerring God and no other thing can be understood by a compleat Rule but that which containeth all things to be believed or done The Minor I prove by parts and first that the Scriptures were given out and dictat by God is clear from 2 Tim 3.16 All Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost Moreover our Adversaries at least the more learned and cautious of them have not yet adventured to deny it but in words at least grant it The second part is no lesse evident from Act. 20.27 Where Paul sayeth that he had not shunned to declare to his hearers all the Counsel of God compared with Chap. 26.22 where the same Apostle sayeth that he taught no other things than those that were in Moses and the Prophets Hence it is clear that even a part of the Scriptures and by a good consequence all the Scriptures contain all that God hath willed us to believe or do The second Argument is That which was the principal Rule to the Jews is the principal Rule to us But the Scriptures were the principal Rule to them Therefore they must be the same to us The Major is Robert Barclay's for which he pleadeth at large Apol. Cap. 2. The Minor I prove thus That from which the Jews might not swerve to the right hand or to
impudently bold they would not adventure to cause a phrase of Scripture to speak that the contrare of which at the first view it proclaimeth 2. Who but one that would adventure upon any thing would make this phrase Word of Prophecy in the 19 v. to speak any other thing than the Prophecy of the Scriptures in the 20 verse or simple Prophecy in the 21 verse seing to do this destroyeth the whole Connexion of the Context 3. The same is evinced by the connexion of this with the following Words for the Apostle giveth his Reason in the 20 Verse why in the 19 he had admonished to study the Scriptures viz. that unlesse they diligently search and study them they would be ready to miss the genuine and fall into a private meaning of the Scriptures that is one which the Scriptures if well attended to would not yield 4. The same is evinced from the general commendation given by the Spirit of God to the searchers of or attenders to the Scriptures as Isa. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 With many other places which are sufficient Commentaries to this Text Whereas on the other hand these our Adversaries no lesse void of Reason then fraughted with audacity cannot bring one Text commanding us to search or take heed to the Light within Add to all this that these our Antagonists contradict the stream of Orthodox Writers upon this place who all give their joint suffrage unto our exposition as Luther Calvin Bullinger Christophorus Imlerus Beza the Dutch Divines who give the same glosse with us yea I dare averr with Confidence that if we except some old Montanists Cataphrygians or the like antient Enthusiasts or of later times the Munserians or such Libertines none hitherto expone this place as the Quakers do But we must yield to them for Hi soli sapiunt alii velut umbra vagantur Doubtless they are the Men and Wisdom shall die with them But I leave them to grapple with their Brother William Pen who in his Rejoynder before cited pag. 334. yieldeth unto us that which they so stifly deny viz. that by the More sure word of Prophesie the Scriptures are to be understood and I passe on to the vindication of Luk. 16.31 If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one rose from the dead Rob Barclay in opposition to Mr Broun Vind. pag. 39.40 reasoning from this place that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith sayeth first That it will not follow from the Scriptures being more sure than the Testimony of one risen from the dead that therefore they are more sure than the Testimony of the Spirit I Ans. Let him once prove that every Man hath such a Spirit as Quakers do alledge and then let the Spirit go hand in hand with the Scriptures but this he shall never be able to do 2. This will follow that Moses and the Prophets were a Rule to the Church at that time Yea even the primarie Rule otherways might not Abraham have said The Spirit of God directeth every man immediatly If they hear not him they will hear none else but this he said not Therefore Abraham or rather Christ in the Parable judged the Scriptures the principal Rule on Earth As for what he says concerning the Scriptures being a principal Rule to the Iews only is nothing to the purpose unless he prove that they are not so to us which if he hath done we have seen above 3. Certainly the voice of one of the glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the face of God is no less to be accounted immediat Revelation than the voice of the High-Priest unto the People when he came out from the Holy of Holies which in the Quakers account was immediate Revelation But the Quakers can make what they will to be Divine Revelation To the end that this may more fully appear we shall consider a passage in his Apologie pag. 4. where he maketh an Objection viz. That after the Dispensation of the Law Gods Method of Speaking was altered To which he answereth that Gods speaking was immediate alwayes to the Iews in that it was immediat alwayes to the High. Priest from between the Cherubims To which I Reply This Answer is strange In that he sayes The mind of God revealed by the High-priest unto the People was to them immediate Revelation for certainly a thing delivered from one person to another by the hand of a third cometh unto that person by the hand of another which other must either be a Mediu◠or Midss or else he must say that three make but two which is a ridiculous Contradiction 2. We say that even according to the Quakers principles Gods way of revealing himself to us now is as immediate as it was to the Jews because we have these that were inspired by God speaking unto us though dead hence they have no reason to go about to prove the Scriptures not to be the principal Rule of Faith on this account that they are not immediate Revelation for that which they contend to have been immediat Revelation was no more immediat than the Scriptures My fourth Argument I draw from 2 Tim. 3.15 And that from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise through Faith unto Salvation From which place I thus Reason That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the Man of God v 17. Wise through Faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule of Direction to guide us in our Christian Course But the Scriptures are able to make Timothy or the Man of God wise unto Salvation Therefore they are a sufficient Rule or Directory to guide u◠in our Christian Course And here it may be observed that R. B. Vind pag. 40 41. is so pressed with the force of this Argument that he can find no better off-come but to challenge his Adversary as guilty of perversion of Scriptures because he compared the 15 and 17 verse◠together saying that the Scriptures were abl◠to make the man of God perfect But to challenge a man for perversion upon such a ground as this is an evident token of too much perversness for if he had but looked unto the 15 verse he might have seen they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to make Timothy which was a Man of God wise through Faith unto Salvation where there is an ability or sufficiency in some kind of Cause ascribed to the Scriptures Now no other sort of ability or sufficiency can be imagined if it be not that of a Rule or causae Exemplaris seu directivae for Faith is added as the instrumental Cause or as the apprehender Hence I evidently infer that the Scriptures are the adequate and primary Rule for if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in the Scripture or if the Scriptures were subject to another Test or Rule to be examined thereby
without which other Tests or Rules we might be deceived and misled then the Scriptures could not in truth be called able to make the Man of God wise through Faith unto Salvation But we need not insist for how clear soever the matter be little Justice Truth or fair dealing is to be expected at the hands of those who call Scriptures compared Scriptures perverted and deny that as false the Truth of which themselves cannot but see for I query what difference can be imagined between these two phrases able to make Timothy which was a man of God wise unto Salvation and able to make the Man of God perfect To abuse the Scriptures at this rate I think is gross and impious enough and yet no better all along doth this Author treat them Of which a pregnant Example followeth for Vind. pag. 41. in opposition to Mr. Brown proving the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures from Ioh. 20.31 2 Cor. 3 14. Psal. 119.70 He saith that from this Doctrine it would follow that all Boâ—ks written after such a time were superfluous If this answer be sufficient many a superfluity there shal be in Scripture for if the writing of a Book after there are so many written as contain all things necessary for Faith and practise if we say the writing of another Book which may be either explicative of the Books before written or contain many things for the bene esse of a Christian be superfluous how much more then shall the repetition of the same things in the same words and the same method be superfluous but according to him the former is true well then the Quakers Conclusions are that the scriptures are Battologies Lastly for we love rather to plead by the weight than by the multitude of Arguments we evince that the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and primary Rule of Faith and manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves And first that they are an adequat and compleat Rule is granted by R. B. who Vind. pag. 36. speaketh thus next he carps at my saying the chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in the Scriptures asking where we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith I answer freely In the Scripture And again R. B and George Keith with joint suffrages grant that the Scriptures are a full enough Declaration of all Doctrines and principles both essential and integral of the Christian Religion Quak. confirm or rather self confuted pag. 38. Behold Reader thou hast our Adversaries granting to their own Contradiction all we plead for The other Branch viz. that they are the Primary Rule our Adversaries themselves also at unawares grant for Rob Barclay in his second These sayeth that the Spirit is not to be subiected to the outward Testimony of the Scriptures as a more noble Rule where it is clear that according to him the Spirit may be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as to a more noble and certain Rule Now this being granted the Cause is yielded for it is certain that a primary rule is in no case to be subjected unto its secondary or the Rule which is ruled by it For I think the Acts of Parliament are not at all to be subjected to these of an inferiour Court. Now if the Quakers would hold by this and grant that a man swerveth not from his duty tho he subject all suggestions and motions to the Scriptures as a sure Tryal and Test thereof let them call it a more noble Rule or what they will they might the more easily be born with But it is evident by their pleading for the Spirit as their primarie Rule that they will in no Case subject their impulses and Motions to the Scriptures Our Adversaries grant also That the Scriptures have proceeded from God and therefore infallible Now I hope that which is infallible needs not be subjected unto and tryed by a more sure Rule for more sure than infallible is impossible I know nothing they can say except that which G. K. said on the stage at Aberdeen That we may beguile our selves with them viz. by interpretation thereof To which I answer That the effective illumination of the Spirit of God is sufficient to secure us from this hazard which is no more objective Revelation than the Eye-salve is the Sun. 6. But our Adversaries soon repenting of their Liberality endeavour to overthrow all their own Concessions and to prove that the Scriptures are neither an Adequate nor Primarie Rule some of their Objections we shall name that the Reader may Judge of the rest And first they Object out of Bellarmine de Certitudine Iust. That the Scriptures cannot shew unto a man that he hath true Faith for say they as the Jesuite did before them Such a mans Name is not in all the Word of God For altho the Scriptures contain the true marks of Faith who shall perswade me that I have these Marks that I believe that I obey Thus R. B. reasoned in his Apologie To which his Antagonist answereth ' That it is no less absurd to say that this is the work of a Rule than for R. B. Supposing that he had killed a man to deny that the Law could put him to death because no Law saith that R. B. hath killed a man or to deny that he is a Quaker because the Law sayeth no such thing of him in particular To which he replyeth Vind. pag. 45.46 That such examples are poor Arguments and miserably halt for R. B. saith he his Confessing himself to be a Quaker acknowledging every one of their Doctrines is enough to prove him one in the sense of the Law of the Land and the Judge is to condemn him as a Murderer if convict by witnesses that he really did the dead and both these relate to outward things which can be proven by outward Testimonies for without the certainty of the evidence the Judge cannot pronounce his Sentence But is a mans own confessing or affirming that he hath the true Maâ—ks of Faith enough to prove he has them and what are the Witnesses to apply the examples of committing of Murder by which a man shall know he has these Marks and who shall examine the witnesses and judge of the certainty and clearness of their Evidence must it be the man that is accused who useth that method Ans. 1. Both Doctrine and proof he hath learned from his old friend Bellarmin who de Cert Iust. calleth the same Sophism a Theological demonstration contradicting not only the Scriptures but divers of the Papists themselves as Amesius sheweth Bellarmin also accounteth this Inspiration of the Quakers the only way whereby a man can be firmlie assured of his having Faith or that he shall have Salvation And therefore appropriateth it to St. Francis and St. Galla and the like which dottage is sufficiently refuted exploded and derided by Ames and others who have undertaken the Refutation of Bellarmin Hence we may see that if there be a
Iesuit more opposite to the Reformed than another with him he joyneth hands He is therefore to be accounted amongst the grossest of Iesuits and these his Romish Cavills are to be neglected being an hundred times sufficiently enervate by our Divines in their Writings against Papists especially in their answers to Bellarmin out of whose Quiver he hath stollen this long ago blunted weapon 2. The task incumbent to him was to evince that it belongeth properly to the Rule of Faith to tell a Man. v. c. Iohn or Iames in particular that he hath true faith whatever therefore he sayeth besides this is besides the purpose But 3. ex abundanti The bare and simple Profession of Quakerism will no more prove one to be a Quaker in earnest than the simple Profession that one hath Faith will prove him to have it indeed Seeing a man may profess himself to be a Quaker and yet be a Iesuit providing there be any difference between them there is therefore more required viz that for any thing Men can know such a man liveth according to the principle of the partie and no more is necessary for the begetting a Judgment of Charity than that a man profess the principles of Christianity Seriously for any thing Men can know practise accordingly but no infallible Evidences that another hath true Faith are any wayes necessarie but only Moral Rational Grounds of certainty those may be had As for the other viz. infallible Evidences those are only necessar to ones self and these they may hâ—ve by the Scripture applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdom the Scriptures themselves being the Rule whereby to make the Examen or Search Is. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2. Tim. 3.15 16 17.2 Pet. 1.19 20. And the enlightned Conscience the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a filial Disposition inclining the Believer to come to God as a Child unto a Father with both great Confidence and Reverence together with the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself Rom. 8.15 16 the witnesses Hence his antâ—-christian Cavills fall to the ground and the similies no more halt the other Examples brought for the illustration of any Matter for all similes halt in some respect otherwayes they should not be similies but the same and to think the similies here used cannot hold because both Judge witnesses are inward in the matter illustrated by these Similies is not only without but against Reason For even as the one thing being outward and to be proved to others not to the Murderer himself who knoweth it well enough requireth an outward Judge and outward witnesses So the other thing being inward the infallible Testimony of which the Person himself standeth only in need of requireth inward Judge and inward Witnesses 7. The same Author hath another Objection prosecuted at large in his Apologie and abbreviated in his Abridgement falsly called his Vindication Pag. 44.45 which is that there are many things that the Scriptures cannot determine as particular individual Actions to which Mr Broun had answered that general Rules were enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdom and also that there should be need of a particular Revâ—lalation for every particular Action as Eating Drinking c. Yea every particular Word This Consequence he denyeth saying that from Spiritual to Natural Actions the necessity of this Revelation will not follow I answer first The Consequence which he denyed he proveth himself for the Reason why Spiritual Actions need particular inspirations is because of their being either Sin or Duty that they may know how to give Spiritual Worship and leave Carnal Worship but this Reason he grants to stretch it self to natural Actions saying if he say those natural Acts under some Circumstances may be sin or duty I confess then the Revelation of the Spirit is needful Therefore if particular Immediate Revelations be necessary for the performances of Spiritual Actions they are also necessary for the performance of Civil or Natural Actions seeing there is nothing more sure than that every individual Action is so Circumstantiat as to become either Sin or Duty 2. Who was ever so absurd and ridiculous as to deny that any System as for example of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a perfect Rule to guide any Mathematician or Souldier upon this account that those Books comprehend not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever should exist with all their particular Actions and the Circumstances thereof I am sure that such a one should be esteemed by all Men to have lost his Wits and yet no better than such are the Quakers Achillean Arguments Next he pleaseth himself in reckoning up some differences amongst Ministers As for example those called Remonstrants and publick Resolutioners and hence would infer the Insufficiency of the Scriptures for decision of Controversies and this he thinketh so strong that he requireth a particular answer to it least Sayeth he he viz. Mr. Brown be said to leap where he cannot step Ans. If this do any thing it will overdo seeing he dare not deny that both Paul Barnabas had immediat Objective Revelations who notwithstanding grew so hot in their Contention Act. 15. that they parted one from another of whose meeting again we hear not in all the Scriptures But he labours so to fix that upon the Scriptures with which the Corruption of men is only to be Charged that he woundeth himself while he thrusteth at his Adversary seing if this Reason be Valid Objective Revelation is no more a sufficient Rule than the Scriptures as this Instance of the division of Paul Barnabas evinceth Beside these the Quakers have a heap of Topicks to prove the Scriptures not a perfect Rule such as they cannot be a Rule to deaf persons therefore they cannot be a rule to those that hear and most men know not the Original Tongues Ergo say they the Scriptures cannot be a compleat Rule They object also the variety of Readings Interpretations and the like which they have scraped out of Bellarmin and his brethren and therefore deserve no more answer than what hath been given to them William Pen in his Rejoynder Part 1. Chap. 5. hath this Objection the Scriptures cannot try and examine particular Motions and Prophesies saying that Paul Act. 16. reproved not the Spirit of Divination which possessed that 〈…〉 Philippi from the Scriptures therefore they cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life But I deny the Antecedent for had Iames Nailor but brought that particular Motion whereby he was prompted to receive Divine Worship to Scripture trial he might have found his Spirit to have been the father of 〈◊〉 and Arch-deceiver of Mankind but as the Papists to cover the rest of their abominations have invented one 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 a Counterfeit hath taken the Councel given by Alcibiades to Pericles
that is to study how he may secure himself from the hazard of a Trial. Hence these men are in all probability beyond the reach of a Conviction but the many Instances not only of other Antiscriptâ—rians but even of themselves who have been most pitifully and palpably acted by the Devil whom they notwithstanding took for God might teach them at length to suspect their Spirit and try before they trust As for the Prophesies of future Events they may well be brought to the Scripture Test to the end we may know whether the thing Prophesied may be expected without contradicting the Scriptures as for Pauls reproof of the Spirit of Divination it is most irrationally Objected Seeing Paul was immediatly Inspired and a Writer of Scripture himself 2â—y This Action was most Consonant to Scripture being abundantly warranted by that promise of Christ Matth 10 to his Apostles that they should cast out Devils They use also many Arguments against the Scriptures being the principal Rule of which the Chief and Ground of almost all the rest with which they stand and fall and therefore meriteth particular Consideration 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 the adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners thus reasoned Rob Barclay in his Appology This consequence is by his adversary judged a Demonstration of the Authors folly pag. 57. as being altogether ridiculous saying who ever dreamed that the Scriptures were God or the Spirit of God To which 〈◊〉 Barclay Vind. pag. 37. thus Replyeth he sayeth I come nearer to the Core of my design which is to set up Enthusiasms in affirming that the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain and yet the Man within three or four lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus â—e goeth backward and forward which he illustrateth by the Example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blamed that account them the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge whither the other branch of my deduction followeth from this That they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and Manners will appear when the Arguments and Objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned and whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my Design because God Himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me For I argue that the Scriptures are not the Original Ground of Knowledge but God not simply considered but as manifesting himself in divine immediat Revelations in the hearts of his children which being the new Covenants Dispensation is the primary and adequate Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not 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 and this may serve to answer all his Cavills upon this Theam Thus he Answer in his Apol. he thus reasoned the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not the principal original of all Truth nor the adequate or primary Rule of Faith. Now this Argumentation which is all one with fallacia plurium interrogationum hath a consequent made up of two parts and therefore there are to be considered here two consequences of which the first or the consequence as to the first part of the inference his adversarie calleth a demonstration of the Authors folly as proving that which never man denyed viz. that the Scriptures are not God himself I add that this is also a demonstration of his Malice for in this his ridiculous argumentation he would perswade the world that the Reformed Churches for against them in that place he bendeth his weapons assert that the Scriptures are God himself Upon this account I say his Adversary accuseth him of folly now in stead of a better off-coming he giveth out that his adversary first denyed his Antecedent and then again presently confessed it whereas he never impugned the Antecedent but blameth him for his consequence of which as we have already said the first part is very ridiculous proving the thing that never one denyed and malicious belieing the whole Reformed Churches and the second part viz. Because the Scriptures are not the Fountain therefore they are not the adequat and primary Rule of Faith a Rope of sand The coherence of which will be made out ad Calendas Graecas He sayeth that the second Branch of his Deduction will appear when the Arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned which is nothing to the purpose in hand for unless he prove that the Scriptures are not the primary and adequate Rule of Faith from this one Topick that they are not the Fountain but a Declaration thereof the argument is gone Hence all this wrangling is but a further proof of his Weakness and Malice In his following Words he confoundeth the Principal Rule and the Original Ground together which are things most distinct and therefore these words are altogether void of good sense or at best they are ridiculous in that they speak nothing to the purpose For he might well have known if he had pleased that by the Primary Rule is understood that which is now among the hands of Christians according to which they ought to examine ultimately all sort of Doctrines and opinions of men or yet suggestions from within concerning divine things and reject or receive as they disagree or agree with this Rule If in this sense he had understood the primary Rule he had not given such mysterious Niceties But the Question is not if God be greater than the Scriptures for as man is above the word of a man so is he above them But the Question is whether or not the Scriptures contain all things necessary in order to Faith and practise and whether or not we ought to see that every Doctrine we embrace be according to them and if swerving from them we ought to reject it tho an Angel from Heaven should teach it Thus we understand the primary Rule and while he doth not so he but mistaketh the Question 2. This Acyrology or improper speech to call a person a Rule is a grand inductive of Confusion for who ever called a teacher a Rule for only the dictats taught are the Rule Here we see that these new Teachers are contrary to all men in their acceptations of Words as well as in Doctrines But whereas he sayeth that he was never so absurd as to call the Spirit of God simply or in abstracto a Rule but as he imprints Truths in the hearts of Believers he doth not answer these things which he calls Cavills for these Rules imprinted
he worship the Crocodile Ibis Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians yea a man may believe or do whatever cometh into his brain for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular as for Example Robert Anthonie or Christopher forbidden or commanded to do any thing According to this principle also they deny all Means and helps for expounding of the Scriptures all Commentaries and Expositions witness amongst others these words of Geo Fox in his Primmar to Europe Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity and that upon this ground because as he sayeth these Words are not found expresly in Scripture The same way Rob B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn 2.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the words at the first sound and without any explication or clearing of them argumenteth from them He that hath an Anointing abiding in him teaching him all things so that he needs no man to teach him hath an inward and immediat Teacher and hath some things inwardly and immediatly revealed unto him The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34 So that whatever they say or can say to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie but just Charge they shall only twist Contradictions the faster And suitable to this Doctrine iâ— the Practice of Quakers who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World that they are Illuminat as the Prophets and Apostles were yes if not more have never yet for any thing I can learn benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless and unworthy except by detorting of them to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat as they would bear us in hand there can be no reason Alledged whey they benefit not the World by illustrating the Scriptures with clear Commentaries and such Helps as may be most 〈◊〉 for understanding thereof if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good which I think they will not say Or else that all such Help are superfluous And indeed this they stick not to say publishing to the World in Print that all Catechetical Doctrine â—nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist learned from Papists yea the very Scriptures themselveâ— they call by way of Deâ—raction the Letter in by Divinity worse Add to all this their Doctrine of silent waiting their railing against studied Sermons and explications of Scripture And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures according to the Example of Christ Jesus but in stead thereof the Light within These and many other things which might be said sufficiently evince that this their Revelation or new Light is unto them in place of Commentaries Catechismâ— or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures yea and the Scriptures themselves So that this one Darling of theirs renders all others needless Moreover they deny with the old Manichees that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us and as for the N. T. William Pen saith that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost and sticketh not to say that without their Spirit we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends Add to all this that this Doctrine of the Quakers viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and manners or chief Judge of Controversies is downright Popish and as good reason they should be both their Arguments to prove it and their Answers to our Arguments against it altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists which might easily be illustrat in every particular Some Examples we have given already to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18 From which place we usually reason that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated to which place the Papists answer that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone and that it will no more follow from this place that Traditions ought not to be added to the Scriptures as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners then it will follow from Deut. 4.2 That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay as these may do with the like support of their cause both in his Apologie and Vindication and when Mr. Broun telleth him that this as all the rest is a Popish shift He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But how pitiful and shameful this shift is none see not for can he say that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches which they hold in opposition to papists either this he must say otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause and an Effronted Defender For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens and Iews yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet as they say will affirm that Protestants are Papists or Papists Protestants upon that account Hence it is clear that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point so this Quaker is conscious of it seeing he could not but know that if this shift did him any Service to distinguish him from a Papist It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself and prove him to be no Papist So we see that the very shifts that these men use under the covert of which they may Luâ—k contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine and gross Hypocrisie in refusing the Name when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something which they call the Spirit of God as we have heard and again in contradiction to this the Soul of Christ extended and dilated of which say they every man is a partaker But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the
Spirit which they make the chief and principal Rule of Faith and manners to which Spirit God himself speaking in the Holy Scripture must do obeisance Which Doctrine although we have already everted in the former chapter we shal notwithstanding here propose and vindicate a few Arguments for the further overthrow thereof and detection of the grosse abomination and horrid delusion attending their principles And first I will propose and vindicate an Argument proposed by Mr. Brown Quakerism the plain way to Paganism pag. 46. Which Argument Robert Barclay attempteth to solve Vind pag. 17. which is this If since the Apostles fell asleep and the Canon of the Scriptures was closed all that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of error then it is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo. c. To this he answers 1. that Mr. Brown begs the Question in his presupposing that there are no Apostles now and that the Canon of the Scriptures is closed against which exception I reassume the Argument thus If since the Apostles whose Names are mentioned in Scripture fell asleep and Iohn wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this kind of Revelation have been led by a Spirit of error then this is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo c. There can now no exception be made against the Mâ—jâ—r for none will deny that the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture are dead and that Iohn hath written the Revelation and well enough he knew that Mr. Brown understood no other thing than what we have now said and yet so covetous hath he been of shifting that he behoved to have one though he could not but know that it would serve no longer than it met with an impugner I now come to his answer to the Minor which Mr. Brown makes evident by an induction of many Sects and Hereticks pretending to immediate Revelation all which are known and not denyed by Quakers to have been led by a Spirit of error to which we may add many of the Quakers themselves such as Iâ— Nailor Susanna Parsons who as Pâ—get relateth being moved by this lying Spirit fruitlesly attempted to raise from the dead another of the Quakers one William Pool by name who had murdered himself and Gilpins of whose lying Spirit see at large in Clerks Examples also Iohn Toldervy of whom see a little Book called foot out of snare Robert Church-man and many others of whom you may read at large in Mr. Increase Maithers Book And he requireth an instance of the contrary which is the only way to answer an Induction In stead of which he sayeth that he is bound to prove that there was never one pretending to immediate Revelation but he was also led of the Spirit of error which he hath done untâ—l he give an instance to the contrary or else shew another way of answering an induction which will be new logick which perhaps he may do for he and his Brethren are very displeased with the old 2 ly That he may not be alone in this sore stresse he saith that Mr Menzies doth thus answer Dempster the Jesuite which is an impudent falshood for neither the Jesuits medium nor probation of his Minor is in the least like the Argument which we now vindicate for the Jesuits Argument was this That Religion cannot be true Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a Religion and conform to the true sense and letter of the Scripture or Word of God and he subsumes But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground c. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion Hence it is evident that these two Argumentations have nothing of consanguinity For if these two Argumentations had stricken alike at the two parties against which they were framed then the Jesuits Argument should have run thus Whosoever since the Apostles fell asleep have pretended to or pleaded for the Scriptures as their principal Rule have fallen into palpable errors and open blasphemy so that they became marks of Gods heavy judgment Now where should the Jesuite have found such a long Catalogue of these as Mr. Brown hath found of deluded Enthusiasts But which is the main thing and quite refutes the most falsly and impiously alledged coincidence of these Arguments how easy should it have been to have adduced not only one instance to the contrary but whole volums thereof yeâ— not only the whole primitive Church for diverse Centuries after Christ and all the Reformed Churches both these whom men are pleased to call Calvinists and Lutherans together with the Greek and Abassine Churches But likewise the most grave wise and learned of the Romanists themselves By this time I hope this arch-falshood of the Quaker whereby he would hide the shame of his desperat cause already appeareth again I answer directly to the Jesuit and the Quaker his patron that if we may believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries such as Bellarmin Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrines which we hold in opposition to popeâ—y are most agreeable to the true Sense of Scripture His third answer is that some of the primitive Protestants such as George Wishart and Iohn Huss had immediat Revelation But nequisquam Ajacem possit super are nisi Ajax that he might be sure no other should refute him he refuteth himself and rendereth his instance altogether unserviceable by granting they did not pretend to it as the ground of their Faith and obedience in all matters of doctrine and worship Lastly to the instance of Ia Naylor they answer that he repented again which answer is an evident confirmation of what we plead for viz· that the Quakers Spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them for I believe Ia Naylor acted but according to his light when he received Divine Worship From this argument we may observe these things first if it hold as cogent this is a serious Truth which he sayeth Vindic. page 25. is absurdly affirmed by Iames Durham as he speaks viz. that Christ spake his last words to the Church that is put a close to these writings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church for if all that pretend the like commission or such immediate Revelation of the rule of their Faith about which the question is were led by a Spirit of error then the Revelation was the last Scripture written and sure for any thing he knoweth ought to be written there is no reason to believe that there is any more to be written 2 ly Observe that this Argument is demonstrative for such are all inductions which have no instance to the contrary 3 ly It destroyes wholly the Quakers cause for this kind of Revelation being disproved the very proprium quarti modâ— of the Quakers is destroyed 2dly Moses and the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and all the holy men that were inspired by
God to compile a rule of Faith and Life could by Infallible Evidence and infallible proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of God but nothing of this kind the Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentials for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation than the most wicked Enthusiasts as for Example Iohn of Leyden and his followers whom the Quakers themselves dare not deny to have him Acted by a most wicked Spirit of Delusion seeing therefore they will not subject their Revelations to the infallible test of the holy Scriptures but contrarywise will Impiously make the Scriptures stoup to their Revelations they can be no more certain that they are not acted by the Devil or at least by their own giddy-brain and erroneous fancie when they bear us in hand that they are inspired by the Spirit of God than they of Manster were To this Argument they decline so far as they can a direct answer Therefore Robert Barclay Replyeth to Mr. Broun Vind. pag. 21. How cometh it that others pretending to be led by the Scripture as their Rule as much as John Broun have been deceived since the Scripture declares nothing but Truth But how silly this is I have shown above and more largely in my Apology in these paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine Argument he has provided for Atheists and Scepticks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrant of Writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and Extraordinary Revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the Stream cannot be more pure than the Fountain Thus he This Reply resolveth into two Hypothetick Propositions as for the Paragraphs of which he here boasteth as unanswered which take up six pages in his Apology filled with Railing and Gall against all the reformed Churches they prove only that the Scriptures through men corruption are subject to abuse which never man denyed The first is if the Scriptures through the Corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the Patrociny of Errors and corrupt Practices then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Practice exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule unto them than these Revelations can be which Iohn of Leyden held The second is He that will not admit of such Revelations as cannot be distinguished from these which led their followers into the most Blasphemous Opinions and most wicked Practices imaginable He I say that will not admit of these for his principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures which can both be invincibly demonstrated to have proceeded from God and also call themselves sufficient to make one wise unto Salvation provideth an Argument for Atheists and Sceptiâ—ks But thus doth Mr. Broun reason against the Quakers and except this the like other grounds the Quakers have none for this heavy Charge For that his Adversary called the Revelations of the Apostles Prophets uncertain Is a most palpable Untruth the least shadow of which cannot be found in all his Writings except they deduce it by such unreasonable Inferences as these And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his wit or to be numbred amongst Rationals when he made these Deductions by which their palpable Impieties are indeed antidots against seduction But these men have an ordinary Trick of comparing their own Revelations of the Divinity of which they can give no Signs to these of the Apostles and Prophets that were to the conviction of all Opposers proved to be Divine and thus give away and betray the Christian Cause in labouring to defend their own Dottages In the next place therefore let us take a short view of the Quakers principal Rule compared with ours that it may more fully appear which of the parties provide an argument for Atheists Scepticks And 1. We cannot know whether they haâ—â— any Revelations at all they may be lying unto us for any thing we know we have only their naked Word for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures 2ly It being given that they have Revelations of some kind from whence are they from Heaven their own fancy or from Hell This we cannot know they neither do nor can give any mark to distinguish them from these Revelations which all the world are perswaded to have been from Hell or at least from a Vertiginous Fancy Go to then let them speak their mind and attempt the retortion of the argument if they dare upon the Scriptures They yet more fully prove that their Revelations are not from Heaven while they affirm that they are common to all men which if the experience of the World yea of the word of God may be judge is most â—alie 3ly Making a Supposition which will never come to a solid Position that they have divine Revelations we yet cannot know for what end they are given whether to be a principal Rule or not or whether or not through their own corruption they do not wrest and misunderstand or tho they do understand them if they walk according to them nothing of which can be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures we can hear nothing nor 〈◊〉 nothing but some men still amusing the World Crying a new Light without giving any Evidence or proof thereof but only their own Word so are always their oun witnesses in their own cause and therefore by all rational men ought not a little to be suspected 4ly This Spirit inward Light or Revelations of the Quakers for I take all for one can never be able to determine Controversies Seeing two different parties may both of them adduce these Revelations to prove contradictory Assertions Now Seeing neither of the parties is in case to Evince that his Revelations are from God more than the other the Controversie must remain for ever undetermined Seeing they have no common principle in which they can concenter and meet And thus standeth for Examples sake the case betwixt Quakers and Ranters agreeing in this principle of immediat Revelations and yet if their books be to be believed bitter Enemies to one another in several points for which both of them alledge Revelations as their grand Principle and neither of them can evince their Revelations to have proceeded from God more than the other Hence we most rationally conclude that the Controversies betwixt these two parties are indeterminable so long as they stick to this Principle Now this Argument in no ways 〈◊〉 be retorted on the Scriptures for though there have been through the corruption of men wresting the Scriptures many Controversies and that even amongst these who
when he persecuted the Church he both acted according to his judgment and that he always was of that judgment and never counteracted his light within and tho he confessed that he did it out of ignorance yet this will not help them for certainly this was all the light he had if we may believe himself and therefore he never had a true light within until the day of his miraculous conversion 5ly This Principle viz. That if every man follow his light within he cannot stray from the Truth overthroweth the whole â—aâ—â—ick of Quakerism with one blow for there are many in the world of which I am one who by all the Light they have attained unto and after the most impartial search firmly believe without so much as one check from the light within to the contrary that Quakerism is the path way to utter destruction It must therefore be so if the Doctrine that every one must follow his light be true 6ly If God suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testament to walk in their own wayâ— then all and every one hath not sufficient Grace and Light whereby they may come to Salvation But the former is true Acts. 14.16 Ergo the latter The evidence of the consequence strangely straitneth Bellarm de grat lib. arbitr for he would â—ain wrett this Text telling us that its meaning is The Grace of God did not so largely flow them as afterwards notwithstanding such a measure of Grace sufficient to divine Providence was not wanting but thus he dissembleth the question which was whether or not it pleased divine providence to give a sufficient measure of Grace to every â—ndividual of the Posterity of Adam 2ly There are many Nations in the world of which I believe the Iesuits and Quakers will not say that they have now more than sufficient Grace to bring them to Salvation Ergo if all Nations had lesse under the Old Testament than these nations have now they had not sufficient Grace 3ly The context evinceth our purpose for the witness of God there spoken of is only the common benignity of Providence viz. fruitful seasons food and gladness from which indeed they might have gathered that there was a God but was this grace alone sufficient to bring them to Salvation this Quakers and Iesuits must either say or else that the Apostle had not wit enough to speak to the purpose for he might have mentioned this sufficient Grace and Light as a Testimony of God in their hearts and told them that this Light within would have led them to Heaven if they had pleased whereas contrariwise he telleth them no such guide but that they were permitted to walk in their own wayes and the same Apostle telleth the Gentiles Ephes. 2.12 That they were without Christ And yet in contradiction to this the Quakers maintain that these Gentiles had the Light of Christ and Christ within them This Answer of Bellarmin I have set down and refuted because it is all one in substance with that which the Quakers use to give to this and the like Texts 7ly Our next Argument we deduce from Ephes. 2.12 and 4.8 Thus These who are without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers to the Covenants of Promise have no hope are without God in the World have their understandings darkened through the blindness that is in them being alienated from the life of God and have blind Hearts and are past feeling add to these 2 Tim. 2.26 That some are taken captive by the Devil at his will. Now these that are in this case cannot have Grace and light sufficient to Salvation But the Gentiles are said here to be in this sad condition Ergo they had not sufficient Grace and Light. The Major which can be only questioned the Spirit of God hath in these places invincibly corroborat by rejecting all the Shifts and quibles that Iesuits and Quakers are able to feign 8ly This Doctrine of the Quakers is clearly overthrown by these Scriptures Amos. 3 2 You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth c. Psal. 147.19 20. He sheweth his Word unto Iacob his Statutes and Iudgments to Israel he hath not dealt so with any Nation as for his Iudgments they have not known them Praise ye the Lord. What can be more clear than that these to whom God did not give his Word Statutes and Judgments never had a light sufficient to guide them unto Salvation yet the Quakers Quakerism confirm pag. 2. who without all shame or conscience care not what they deny or what they affirm providing they can find words to the purpose or not to the purpose all is one have the confidence to deny it Their reasonlesse Reason is because in John 1.5 it s said that the light shined in darkness For who but a Quaker will infer from these words in which the Evangelist asserteth that Christ is the true God who in all ages manifested himself in some measure to the world by which manifestation of God in the Works of Creation and Providence the world might perceive indeed that there was a God but could not notwithstanding comprehend God so as to see and perceive that God the Creator should in the fulness of time cloath himself with mans Flesh and become the Redeemer for to this kind of Knowledge and Comprehension supernatural and divine Light was necessary now I say who but a Quaker will from this inâ—er that all nations in all ages had the Knowledge of the Word Statutes and Judgments of God For sure I am these who are altogether ignorant of them in the Judgment of all men who have not with the Quakers renounced the Scriptures will be esteemed void of a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation with the like impudence page 5. they deprave yea and really contradict Iude v. 19. where the Apostle positively asserteth that some men have not the Spirit for they tell us that men in one sense may be said not to have the Spirit and in another sense to have it even as a rich man who improveth not his money both hath it and hath it not in diverse senses according to which Christ said from him that hath not shall be taken away that which he hath But this perversion is too palpable for surely the Apostle whose Pen God guided intimateth no such thing nor insinuateth the least respect wherein these â—â—en can be said to have the Spirit whereas our Saviour whose words they groundlesly addâ—ce to colour their contradâ—ction of the Apostle pâ—ainly telleth us that these evil servants really had gifts which they abused by neglecting to improve them But on the other hand the Apostle here hath no such thing yea he telleth us that these men were twice dead i. e. I think as dead as can be or altogether void of the Spirit yea it can be no more alledged that these men in any sense had the Spirit than that clouds only
wicked Spirits if he think othewayes let him essay the proof of it 3ly For the sufficiency of their universal Light they thus argue That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin therefore it is sufficient to Salvation But this Sophism is too palpable and gross to take with any that is not altogether willing to be deceived for the Major proposition thereof is most false otherwise the lawful commands of every Parent Heathen as well as Christian should be a sufficient guide to Salvation for disobedience to these is as really a sin as disobedience to our own Light. 4ly To prove that there is a Divine Light purchased by Christ in every man they adduce Iohn 1.9 That was the true Light which enlightneth every man that cometh into the world for Vindication of which place it shall suffice to overthrow what Rob Barclay hath said in the Vindication of his Apology pag 91. For the confirmation of the Quakers gloss on this text of which Mr Broun Quaker path way to Pagan pag 151 152 153 154. had given diverse expositions as 1. that Light may be here taken for the Light of reason 2ly That by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which is savingly enlightned these expositions with others he at large evinceth and illustrateth from Scripture and reason and sheweth that the Quakers joyn with the Socinians in their exposition Now whereas if the Quaker had done any thing to the purpose he ought to have refuted these exposiâ—ions but in stead thereof he sayeth his adversary must be much puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it But this I confess is a strange inference for the Quaker from abundance inferreth penury and because his adversary gave diverse expositions any of which will serve the turn Ergo sayes he he knows not what to answer I was wondering at this Consequence but I presently remembred that the Quakers were Enemies to Logick He himself diverse times hath given several meanings of one place as for Example Isa. 8.20 much therefore he hath been puzled to answer our arguments proving the Scriptures to be our principal Rule which I do really believe tho upon another account Now it is observable that this Quaker almost every where endeavoureth to turn Defendent when he should be impugnant for the Scriptures from which he drew his arguments in his Apology faâ—ling him so that he can prove nothing from them his Adversary having removed the vernishing of his Sophistry he bendeth his whole wit in his Vindication to find out Evasions and Distinctions to defend his own glosse and this artifice he useth here which think of it what he will will serve for nothing except to discover hiâ— Weakness and Conviction of a bad cause and whereas he flouteth at his Adversary inferring from v. 5. of this chapter the darkness comprehended it not that by darkness is meant man in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is natural we say whereas he flouteth at him inferring from this that man while in that Estate is void of all Spiritual and supernatural light saying is not this a learned Refutation Reader He â—heweth only good will as they use to say to have the Doctrine of the Reformed become a mocking stock and shame rubbed upon it if he could for all the expositions given by the Reformed Churches on this place quite contradict that of the Quakers except he will call Socinus and the like Reformed Protestants But the thing incumbent to the Quaker was the urging and vindicating of his Reason viz. that if man in his natural estate cannot comprehend this Light who notwithstanding can comprehend the things of Nature Ergo by this enlightning with which every man is said to be enlightned that cometh into the world is not understood the Light of Nature and Reason which consequence he shal never be able to prove for altho the Light it self viz. Christ be supernatural and the incomprehensible God of Nature yet these little Beams or Sparks of Reason and Conscience which are the Effect and Gift of this great Ligh Christ the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity no lesse than of the Father and Holy Ghost are altogether natural and comprehensible Many places of Scripture beside this they detort and deprave to the end that by the Scriptures themselves they may destroy the Scriptures and prove that the light within which they being pitifully deluded take for the Spirit of God is the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners all which glosses fall to the ground tho upon this one Account that they have couched in them this most dangerous and blasphemous falshood viz. that the dim and dark Light of nature is not only sufficient to guide us to Salvation but which ought to be heard with horror is God himself One of which Scriptures is John 14.26 27. and 16.13 whence they would infer that all Believers are led by immediat objective Revelation as the Apostles were because say they the way that the Apostles were taught which is by immediat Revelation is there holden forth as common to aâ—l Believers and the words to lead and to teach in their proper and native signification denote always an immediat objective leading or teaching Thus Reasoneth Ro. Barclay Vind. pag. 19.20 to which I answer that these being two of the main places that he brought for proving the Spirit to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners he ought to have given some other thing than bare assertions if he had in good earnest intended to overthrow what his Adversary chap. 3. n. 27. said against his meaning of these places which he hath not in the least done for why may not immediat objective Râ—velatâ—on be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not unto all Believers but subjective only whereby they may understand and apply these Truths that were taught immediatly to the Apostles and Prophets upon whose Doctrine the Faith of all Believers is founded as its principal Rule and Foundation Ephes. 2 20. Even as the like Phâ—ases hold forth an immediate objective Teaching to some and yet that only which is meerly mediate as to others as Neh. 9.20 comp with v. 30. 1 Kings 8. 36. Psal. 132.12 Deu. 32.12 Moreover that the words to lead and teach hold forth a mediate objective Teaching or a subjective Illumination far oftner in Scripture than immediate objective Revelation is manifest to any that are acquainted with the Scriptures which if the Quakers deny seing they are the opponents they ought to condescend to a collation of places and shew the contrary Lastly whatever the Quakers say we cannot help it certain it is that no man of sound Judgment will deny that when one readeth the Scriptureâ— and hath his mind illuminated by the Spirit of God that he may understand the wondrous things in Gods Law but such an
one hath that promise of which we now speak fulfilled unto him and thus the only Scripture argument which Robert Barclay attempts to urge in his Vindication falleth to the ground for all the rest of the Scriptures from which he deduced his Apologetick Arguments he slideth over without any Vindication thereof Robert Barclay Apolog. pag. 38. hath another Argument which because he complaineth as if it were not sufficiently solved by his adversary chap. 3. numb last I will set down here and answer formally that there may be no just ground of Complaint The Argumâ—nt thus runs That unto which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind do at last recurr and because of which all other grounds are commended and accounted worthy to be believed must of necessity be the only Rule most certain and immovable ground of all Christian Faith but the inward immediat objective Revelation of the Spirit is that c. Ergo. Resp. the Minor is ambiguous and therefore most fallacious for according to this kind of reasoning they may conclude that a man just now possessing a piece of land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors by Virtue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago spake mouth to mouth with that Prince dead ages out of mind Thus that unto which the present Possessor of such a piece of Land when pressed to the last recurreth unâ—o and for which other Grounds or Charters are commended or valid must of necessity be the most immoveable ground of and Warrand for his possession of such a piece of Ground but the Grant and Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago first by word of Mouth tho again committted to writings is that which the present Possessor being pressed to the last recurreth to Ergo the present Possessor had immediat Discourse mouâ—h to mouth with a Prince many ages back ere the present Possessor was born Certainly these must be admirable Fellows who can conclude and that in modo figura quiâ—libet ex quolibet and thus their strongest Arguments serve only to prove the Authors to â—e in a paroxism of folly moving laughter in a very Heraclite But ex abundante I answer directly to this their blunt Sophism tho forsooth the Quakâ—rs Achillean Argument Thus But inward immediate objective Revelation is that to which all Christians recur c. this is inward immediat objective in Respect of the Apostles and Prophets I grant in Respect of the present Professors of Christianity I deny and let them urge the membrum negatum Of the like Nature is another and that the chief of his Apologetick Arguments viz. Enoch Noah Abraham and some others had immediate objective Revelation therefore the whole Church had it the Consequent his Antagonist chap. 3. numb 11. denyeth as not having the least shadow of Reason let us therefore see how he vindicateth this Argument which is a sine quo non to the whole frame of Quakerism and for this all that he sayeth Vindic pag. 24. is that then it seems there was more of Gods immediat Revelation in those dark times even by his Adversaries Confession than now under the Gospel where the chief pastors of the Church according to him are to expect no such thing neither is it proved that others not mentioned had no immediat Revelations Answ. true it is that even in these dark times there was in some respect viz. of immediate Revelations more of God than there is now and yet lesse in another sense viz. in respect of more large propagation of the Truth of God and of the large Measure of Grace dispensed unto Believers under the New Test But what sayeth this to the probation of the Quakers tremulous consequence how doth it prove that because some few had these Revelations all and every one within the Church had them this is a baculo ad angulum neither are we bound to prove the contrary affirmanti enim incumbit probatio It is enough for us to tell him that it is a groundless fancy to assert it for how will he prove ex gr that ever Abel had immediate objective Revelation and thus the third Proposition of his second These that God did alwayes reveal himself by his Spirit i. e. by immediate objective Revelation to every one of the Church falleth to the Ground and with it the fourth viz. that these Revelations were the formal object of the Faith of the Saints for if it be altogether groundless to say that every Saint had them as we have now seen it is no lesse groundlesse to say that they were the formal Object of their Faith and with these also his fifth Proposition viz. that the same i. e immediat Revelation continueth to be the formal object of the Saints Faith. ea lapsa repente ruinam Cum sonitu trabit Tremulum super agmina late Incidit Like the Trojan Tower its couplings being cutt the whole Fabrick of Quakerism tumbleth down about the ears of its Authors and builders CHAP. III. Concerning Original Sin. HAving canvassed the grand principle of the universal Light and spirit of the Quakers I shall consider some of the chief points of their Religion and lay open the absurdity and blasphemy thereof that the Reader may the better judge of the root having seen the Fruit and of the Bâ—sis by the Superstructure The first of these shall be the doctrine of Original Sin which they joyntly deny asserting that Adams Sin can be imputed to none but himself and therefore none are guilty of the transgression of our first Parents anâ— so lyable to punishment until by their evil walking or actual sins they become transgressors This Doctrine although not so an 〈◊〉 as the Apâ—stles and Prophets yet is as old as the Doctrine of pestifâ—rous Pelagâ—us the first open asserter thereof with Celestius his Disciple Hence all who denyed the Doctrine which now the reformed Churches hold â—â—ent Original sin were esteemed guilty of Pelagiâ—nism which notwithstanding Robert Barclay Vinâ— sect 5. Numb 5. would fain deny but to â—o purpose except to contradict what he himself said in his Apology chap 4. where he granteth that Augustin with whom all the Orthodox whollie agree in this point did hold the same Doctrine with the Westminster Confession in opposition to the Pelagians to which Confession of his tho now by himself retracted or rather contradicted I will add the words of Vincentius Lyrenensis chap 35. adversus haeret cited by the Author of Melius inquirendum who before Caelestius the monstrous Scholar of Pelagius ever denyed that all mankind stood guilty of Adams apostacy from God Moreover whosoever will be at the pains to read the Magdeburgick History centur 5. colum 577 588 589 590. And compare it with the Doctrine of the Quakers in this point he will find an exact harmony between them and the Pelagians both in Doctrine and Probation thereof But we need add no more seing Robert Barclay in the place just now
Scripture applyed to Men Therefore it is not safe without verie solid reasons to expone it so here Again all that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism is sufficiently expressed in the context Er. There is no necessity to flee to this strange exposition Lastly This exposition is the product of the brain of Diabolick Socinus as its first Author which I think will make it be suspected and seing it wants all ground abhorred of all the Lovers of Christ Jesus seing this arch-enemy of his invented all the shifts and sophistry the Devil and he could to destroy both the God-head of Christ and all his Ordinances His following words are answered above Next as for what he sayeth in opposition to the 17. Numb of this chap. in his 168 pag. it is so miserable that I only desire the Reader to compare these two places together Whereas he insinuateth in this page that Peter Commanded expresly the Gentiles to be circumcised which he buildeth upon Gal. 2 12. is most false For the reason why Paul reproved him was his dissimulation mentioned in that chapter and no expresse Command if he will give us Leave to expone Scripture by Scripture He sayeth as if Mr. Brown had denyed it that Iosephus writ before the 200 Year of Christ. Whereas he sayeth that the first which wrot the Jewish Alcoran or Misanioth with a tendencie to destroy Christianitie was Rabi Iehuda Hakkadosh about the 200 year of Christ. As now the Quakers do SECTION II. Concerning the Lords Supper IT is most notour that as the Quakers deny Baptism so they deny the Lords Supper See his 13 proposition with his Apology annexed thereto where he maketh this only to be a Legal Institution It will be needless for me to take Notice of what he sayeth pag 170. viz. That his Adversary pag 489 maketh a Preaching to the Devil whereas he only inferreth from their Doctrine of Universal Salvation to every Creature that they may preach to the Devil according to their own Principles Hence we may learn how impudent these men are Just as if because Robert Barclay had challenged a man of murder he that is challenged should conclude that Robert Barclay called himself a Murderer As false though not so ridiculous is that of which he challengeth one Preaching near Lawther viz. that he prayed to the Devil But he dare not name the man who did it neither these who heard it Therefore let him bear the just censure of a Calumniator to say no more until he name the man and prove it When he cometh to the matter it self he is as weak as before he was wicked For in stead of pressing his Argument against the Lords Supper viz. That if there were a relation between the Body and Blood of Christ and the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament then it would either flow from the nature of the thing or the Command And while his Adversary denyeth that an institution and promise is all one with a Command All his probation is his meer assertion that they are in all respects one neglecting the reason that his Adversary gave for his denyal But why should I take notice of such a shameful Vindication wanting the very shew and appearance of reason To the rest of his 11 paragraph in which by many weighty Arguments this duty is proved from 1 Cor. 11. he sayeth only that he speaketh not to the purpose without so much as attempting to wipe off his reasons He cometh to answer his 12 number and first sayeth that the Blessing and Eating spoken of Mat 14 19. will as much prove a Sacrament as these places of the Gospel and the Epistle to the Corinthians ordinarily brought can do it But this Adversary never inferred any thing of this kind from simple blessing But from other things consiâ—ered with blessing such as This is my Body This is my Blood and the unrepealed Command and Inâ—titution 1 Cor. 11 and the like In Opposition to which he scarcely giveth so much as a shift and far less any solid reason But we must excuse him seing he doth as well as he can His next words are a meer Compend of what he said against our meaning of 1 Cor 11. in his Apology without so much as attempting to answer his Adversaries 14. Num to which I referr the Reader He sayeth indeed which is as good as nothing that the Institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. was a Permission and therefore the practise thereof was not will-worship But upon the same account he may elude any Command in Scripture For that there was a Command for this practice he granteth and that the Apostle correcteth the abuse of this practice he granteth also without so much as mentioning its indifferency Neither can he shew in all the Scripture where this Command was abrogat or the practice prohibited as other things indifferent were What Titanian boldness must this then be to say this was by meer Permission In Opposition to his 16 Num where his Adversary sheweth the disparity between Christs teaching his Apostles Humility by his Example of washing their feet and his Command and Institution of this Ordinance he sayeth meer nothing but calleth him a Pope In Opposition to Num 17. he sayeth he should prove from Scripture how they are safe in practising the one part ridiculously calling the whole Duty one part and not the other meaning the occasional Circumstances of time and place and the number of twelve and the like which he as foolishly calleth another part of the Institution But his Adversary sheweth from many places of Scripture in the forecited Num such as Act 26 7. 1 Cor. 11 18. and 20. That these Circumstances are not to be observed but left indifferent But this man still intendeth to cheat his Reader by passing over the Marrow of what his Adversary sayeth What he sayeth in Opposition to N 18 Is a meer denyal that Act 2 42 is meaned of the Lords Supper without so much as the least attempt to answer his reasons or to Vindicat what he himself said in his Apology in opposition to our meaning of this place Neither is he more happy in answering his 19 Num where he proved that in Act. 20.7 Is understood publick and Sacramental Eating For he according to his Custom slighteth his reason as the Comparer may see what he sayeth in opposition to the follwing number is of the same Nature viz. meer Assertions false Suppositions such as that the Corinthians were superstitious in that they at all practised this Duty of the Lords Supper Yet one thing I will take notice of viz. how he vindicateth his Answer given to that argument drawn from 1 Cor. 11 26. Ye shew forth the Lords death till he come Which is That by Christs coming is understood his inward Spiritual coming Which answer his Adversary so happily impugneth that he on the matter sayeth nothing except ye will call this something viz. That Babes in Christ may have these