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
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.
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
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
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
the Spirit is the principal Rule to them therefore whatever is not done by this inward Command is not of Faith and consequently sin All which they plead for Therefore before this motion come a man may not excercise his mind concerning religious maâ—ters and thoughts â—o endeavour to love fear and walk with God now is this only to relinquish carnal thoughts or the thoughts of carnal things Or was the Apostles living or Christ in him by the life of Mortification and Faith a meer abstracting from all Exercise of the faculties of the Soul. This I think none will say exercising reason And yet this he must say if he speak according to his Principles otherwise they will be necessiâ—â—te to let their reasonings against all worship to which we are premoved by a sensible Enthusiasm or Inspiration of the Spirit fall to the ground which is the substance of Skeen's Queries of which he boasteth 2. We come to the Vindication of some Arguments which by him are called Nibling quibles The first is If there be times appointed by God then according to them the Spirit is limited To which he answereth that they limit times of worship so as not to exclude other times But this answer presupposeth that every duty doth not prerequire immediat Inspiration which is false according to them as George Keith endeavoureth to prove in his book of Immed Rev and to defend in his disput with Aberdeen Students 2. Either these times appointed by them which recur weekly are appointed by God or not If they be not then how dare they keep them as a thing inviolable Seing the Lord determineth the time as well as the nature of the worship to his people And Ieroboam 1 Kings 13. Is condemned for appointing an Anniversary day not appointed by God as well as for changing the Religion Ergo they limit the Spirit in appointing a day perpetually recurring or else they have a previous motion in order to the appointing of every meeting which he doth not assert or grant Here he sayeth he followeth Calvin in denying the Sabbaths morality from whom as also the generality of Protestants we differ in this matter But that he may see his misâ—ake herein and that we neither differ from Calvin in his more deliberat thoughts nor from the generality of Protestants He may ready learned Crawfords Apologetical Exercitation for the morality of the Sabbath day Cap. 2. And there beside both the Fathers generality of Protestants he may find that Calvin himself in his Commentary on the Gen written 27 years after the Institutions sayeth the same that we do Let him see also most Learned Torretin on this head who at large vindicateth Calvin from this Imputation Next he sayeth That none can be fitter for the Worship of God than such as make silence and in turning of the mind necessary to their entry to Worship And thus he thinketh he has answered his Adversaries Argument pag 413 against their Worship drawn from the Quakers want of preparation But if this in turning were an abstracting from worldly things only and looking unto God and considering our own sinful state and frame and the necessity of holiness in order to approaching unto God he would say well But seing in the same page and with the same breath he reasoneth against this also ridiculously saying that then there should be a progressus in infinitum he only confirmeth that which we have proved before viz. That the Quakers silent waiting is a meer Extasie or all one with sleeping And contradicteth what he said even now above Here he alledgeth that the Apostles if they had pleased might have written moe Books of Scripture than they wrot and seing they wrote them not I doubt not but the Apostles if this be true may be taxed of neglect of their Duty For I think he will not deny but these Books had beeâ— very useful and that the Apostles were obliged to lay out themselves for the Churches good 〈◊〉 much as they could The Scriptures brought iâ— his Apology for this silent waiting he forgettetâ— to presse therefore his Adversary answers to 〈◊〉 inference from them must stand till he find timâ— to reinstaâ—re his Arguments He referreth us to George Keith his way cast up insinuating that he is the man can prove this Silent waiting But he will just prove it as he has done as soon as any judgeth his Book worthy of an answer Otherwise might he not have borrowed some of his Brothers Arguments to refute his Adversaries Answers as well as throughout the whole of his Books be a debter to Pelagius Bellarmin Socinus Ostorodius Volkellius and the like rather than said stark nought Here he granteth that Peter and Paul had a natural man in which the Devil might work and a Spiritual man which can resist and so contradicteth his Doctâ—ine of Perfection or at least his explication of the 7 of the Rom. for if this be true there is no ground for explaining that place of another then the Apostle himself His following words are arhapsodie or railing in which he all along accuseth his adversarie calling him and his Brethren Priests subintellige of Baal for so the Quakers speak greedy Merchants of Babylon persecuters with more of such stuff Next he granteth that ceasing to do evil is not without all action of the Minde E. when the Quakers think not at all nor exercise the faculties of their soul and consequently have no action of the mind which is their silent waiting they never cease to do evil And it 's like there be too much truth in this Because his adversarie sayeth pag 424. That watching is not a turning inward but a looking outward also Then sayeth he men shut up in a Dungeon could not watch Spiritually the repeating of which is more than the refuting For well he knew that his adversary understood by looking outwardly minding of God and our distance from him and the like Whereas what the Quakers mean by watching and waiting we heard above Mr. Brown out of Doctor Stillingfleet of the Phanaticism of the Church of Rome and out of the Sermons of one Taulerus a Phantastick Monk applauded notwithstanding by Bellarmin and others of the chief Papists from pag 429 to the end of that Chapter evinceth that the Quakers in this point not only in substance but for the most part in expressions agree exactly with the wildest dottages of Popery To which he answereth that his adversary misseth his Aim For he cannot prove sayeth he that the chief preachers amongst the Quakers ever heard of Taulerus Ans. yea on the contrary he gaineth his design for thus it is evinced that there is a great sibness betwixt their genious's which he confirmeth the more while he granteth the truth of the bulk of what Taulerus sayeth Section II. Of Baptism The contempt the Quakers vent against the Sacraments is so well known that it will be superfluous to tell the Reader in the entrie that they deny them
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