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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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