angry to be contradicted then their Ancestors the Papists Hence it is evident that it is their Interpretations sense and Preachments upon the Scriptures which they would have to be the Rule of Faith and the Declaration of the Object In page 20 He makes a digression wherein he tels us the same things overagain therefore I shal only touch suchthings as chiefly concern the matter in hand if yet lawful for a Plowman to touch his school-terms by which that Trib have darkned Counsell with words without Knowledge And if Patroclus be a Parochus or Parish Priest I am sure the tenth man of his Hearers cannot understand his Terms First He confounds the Matterial with the formal Object saying as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own ltradiant and illustrious Beams And this in contradiction both to Calvine and him self To Calvine in the place before cited Where he saith That to settle the Conscience such a Perswasion is necesseary as needeth no Reasons And such a sense as cannot be attained but by Divine Revelation To himself in page 23. Where he saith We being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD We answer by the Testimony and operation of the Spirit And herein he may reconcile himself to himself and his friends when he hath Leasure Secondly In page 22 speaking of subjective Revelation he calls the spirit an Instrument in the hand of GOD This Language sounds not sweetly to me for I believe the Spirit is GOD and therefore cannot like these Words GOD an Instrument in the Hand of GOD. 3ly He tells us in page 23 That subjective revelation is more properly called an Application then Revelation it self And yet in the same page he calls it the Testimony and Opcration of the Spirit Now a Testimony is a Witness bearing And we know a dumb Man cannot be a Witness But he hath told us That the Spirit speaks neither to the Ear nor the Mind and so cannot bear a Testimony This is palpable confusion Fourthly page 24. He saith so that we can Reason because surch spirit v g He that confesleth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is said by the Scriptures to be of GOD Therefore I know and believe that is true Doctrine and that this spirit is of GOD. If this Scripture be taken Literally by Patroclus and that he intends as he Writes I must confels I expected not so much Charity at his hands For at this rate he accepteth Papists Lutherians yea and the Palagian Chureb of England who all believe that Christ is come in the flesh But I will expect a Commentary upon the Words with the next Fifthly In the same page he saith We do not with the Fanatical Enthusists reason thus The Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures Therefore I believe them to be so But he hath given us no Reason why he believes such and such Books to be the Scriptureâ— For which we must wait his Leasure Sixibly His lame example of the Sun and Ey-salve is no better He saith by means of the Salve he seeth and knoweth the Sun And again by the Sun Light he may perceive what is Eyâ—salve and what is not But he might have considered That tho he see that Sun and Ey-salve both he needeth his Natural Understanding to know the Sun and to discern what is Ey-salve and what is not And as in Naturals so in Spirituals No man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in him so the things of GOD no man knoweth but by the spirit of God Seventhly In page 26. He chargeth R. B. for calling the Westminster Divines dark c. Because they not separate the Word from the Spirit But said that the Testimony of the Spirit was in ant with the Word And then reflects upon R. B's Vindication page 33. But takes no notice of what he saith page 33. and 34. Because they were too hot for his fingers He citeth Isaiah 59. 21. My spirit which is in thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth c Observe First That the Tenot of this Covenant is Spiritual My Spirit which is in thee Secondly That they are distinct tho not contrary else they needed not the copulative Conjunction And Tbirdly They are called Words and not Word So then Patroclus confesseth That GOD putteth Words in his mouth to preach to his People I shall allow him to be concerned in this Covenant And I hope he will not here after be angry with the Quakers calling the Scriptures the Words of GOD. Eightly He saith there was never the least contraversy betwixt the Briâ—tish and Transmarine Divines on this head but an intire Harmony This is another Lie I shall instance one Joâ— VV Bajer Profeslor os Divinity at Jena in Germany writting on that Subject against the Quakers page 33. and 34. Saith the in ward Illuminations and Operations of the Spirit are altogether necessary to beget true and saving Faith in Men and that these inward Illuminations are objective or by way of Object Which is not very Harmonious with Patroclus Doctrine of Application And this is all the discovery he hath made of R B's Non such weakness and extream disingeunity which he hath left undiscovered till his next Printing And now in page 26. He saith he comes directly to the Objection Saying First The Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we speak properly an Application of the things revealed in Scripture then a Revelation of Testimony strictly so taken Observe First That this being granted all these words of Protestant VVriters such as the Testimony Illumination Inspiration Perswasion of the Spirit are but meer cheats and impostures put upon Mankind And that Calvine when he speaketh of Divine Revelation as necessary to beget True Faith meant no such thing nor any of these Authors he citeth are to be understood according to their own words but according to Patroclus sense and thus he and his Brethren deal by the Scriptures Headds Whereas the Revelations to which the Quakers pretend are altogether objective like that of the Prophers This is another Lie for the Quakers own both Subjective and Objective Revelations as hath been showen above I shall here and Luk. 24. 32. Did not our Hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the way and while he opened to us the Scriptures Now let the Reader judge whether this was an Objective Revelation as well as Subjective Their bearts burnt and he opened to them the Scriptures Now Opening presupposeth a Shulting and the Lamb only is found worthy to open the Seals of the Book That is Poreveal the Object In page 27. He saith we assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be
believed or done which they deny This is another Lie For the Quakers believe the Scriptures to be a Rule subordinat to the Spirit containing a full and sufficient Declaration of all Christian Doctrine Thirdly Saith he We believe the Scriptures to be the principal and ultimat Rule into which our Faith is lastly to be refolved For answer to this I shall only set down the words of one of his Brethren Viz The Author of that Book called Melius Inquirendum page 303. I would sain be informed sayes he what an ultimat Rule signifies with him that pretends to speak plain English to then that understand nothing else I have heard of a subordinate and ultimat End And I have heard also of a near and a remote Rule but an ultimate Rule like that Monster which was like a Horse and yet not a Horse is like Sense but in Truth very None-sense Thus he and yet as great a Calvinist as Patroclus After some Repetitions he comes to his Citations and begins with Luther in these Words If any thing should deliver any Doctrine which it could not prove by Scripture he would spit in its face knowing certainly that it were the Devil I know no Quaker but will say as much Yea I know no Protestant but will say as much Yet the contraversies are no whit leslened by all this because they reject the Spirit by which alone the Scriptures can be understood and without which they are a sealed book as well to the learned Patroclus as to the unlearned Plowgh man And here let the Reader observe what is become the fate of the Fathers as well as of the Scriptures To be cited By all parties Papist against Papists and Protestant against Protestants and Calvine is made to speak for all ends and all purposes But he hath told us that such a perswasion concerning the authority of seripture is needfull as cannot be brought forth but by Divine Revelation Inst Chap Numb 24. All these his citations for three pages serve for nothing else but to make one party of his pretended Transmarine Divines contradict another If he had done any thing he should have proven R B's citations to have been either spurious or impertinent else if they contradict his citations Patroclus errs in his affirming an Harmony among them In page 31 he saith after some of his Brethtens Rhetorick it can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches But hath taken no notice of what R B hath cited out of their Confessions but we must take his word In the end of page 31 and the beginning of page 32 he summeth up what he hath said and hath done the Quakers a favour that whereas some of his blind brethren have called them Papists he hath set them and the Papists at such a distance as he hath left room for himself to hang betwixt them as Erasmus is said to have hung betwixt Heaven and hell For saith he page 32 The Papists have gone too low resolving their faith ultimatly in men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high that is to resolve their Faith in GOD Patroclus resolves his faith in a Book and neither in GOD nor man Let the Reader judge which of the three is the best Foundation He concludes with a Greek fable of Ixion Et quiquid Graecia mendâ—x audet in Historia most profainly compares a desire after Divine Revelation which Pauls commands to pray for to the adulterous desire of Ixion after Juno and then talks of the production of Hipocentaurs that is in broad Scots Troopers or if he will Apostolical Dragoons Like those of France And now let the Kingdom of Seotland judge from fourty years experience whether the Quakers or the Presbyterian Clergie have been most fruitful in producing such Hipocentaurs In page 32 he layeth down his Thesis thus The scriptures are the adequat compleat and primary or prineipal Rule of faith and manners Observe first the word primary signifies first and he hath before called them the Vltimate Rule This is the first and the last he hath called them The word of GOD he hath called them the Gospel and now the first and the last which are Epithets belonging only to Christ Tertul ltb 2 Carm Adversurs Mar Atque ideo non verbe Librised Missus in orbem Ipse Christus Evangelium est Si cernere vultis Thus Englished Not the words of the book but Christ who is Into the World sent the Gospell is Observe Secondly That he hath here given away the Cause for the Catechism saith The Scriptures are the only Rule Whereas his asserting a Primary implyes a Secondary And now we are come to his Arguments whereof the first is That which was dictat or given out by the Infallible God and containeth the whole Counsell of GOD may well serve to be a compleat and principal Rule But the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the Infallible GOD and contain the whole Counsell of GOD. Therefore They may well serve for to be a compleat and principal Rule Answer first Observe That all his boasting is come to no more then a May be saying It may serve to be a Primary Rule And I must tell him That a Cart-load of May-bees are not worth One-is Secondly I must tell him That his definition of the Rule of Faith and Manners is New and I cannot accept of it And before I proceed to take notice of his Arguments I shall give my Reader an account of the Scope of this Mans Labours First He cannot deny that the Quakers owne the Scriptures for a Rule and his Work proves no less tho in contradiction to himself in page 17. And I can assure my Reader That it is the constant care of every true Quaker to square his Life according to the Scriptures Secondly His offering to prove them to be a Primary Rule implyes as I have said a Secondary And this must be the Teachings of the Spirit for he hath not told us of another Hence the Reader may see what the Tendancy of his Argumentations is To wit To exalt the Letter above the Spirit The Creature above the Creator a Book above GOD In which I cannot agree with him Yet GOD knows I reverence the Scriptures as much as any Presbyterian in the World And if the Quakers slighted them as this false Accuser slandereth them I would have no fellowship with them And certainly it is not so much the Scriptures as their own Glosses and Interpretations they plead for For if Patroclus would speak what he thinks I doubt not but he would say That the Westminster Confession and Directory Especially having the Covenant joyned to it might serve for a Rule of Faith and Life His Argument set down before erreth in the very form according to the Rules of Logick Which are when both Propositions are particular nothing follows And again particular nothing follows And again the Major being particular in the first figure cannot
power As for his saying We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD because they try all Doctrines and Practises by the Scriptures This contains two Lyes First That we condemn all the Resormed Churches For R B hath cited severals of them who are of his Judgement and more may be cited in its place And Secondly The Reasou is a gross Lye For we alwayes owned That all Doctrines and Practises of Men were to be tryed by the Scriptures Next he saith Hence we find That the spirit of the Quakers is Diametrically opposite is the scriptures and therefore the spirit of lyes and delusion Whence I pray thee Patroelus Because we reject private Presbyterion Interpretations Which are but Mans wit and work This Consequence will be made out as thou sayest ad Kalendas Graecas When in a vapouring humour he giveth a Latine phrase and maketh us Ghosts and Hobgoblins But he hath not yet fallen upon the right spell to conjureus except it be his cutting our Juglar Veins which he yet wants power tho not will to do His next os any weight is That from our denying their Interpretations It follows That our Saviovr laboured invain when he proved the Resurrection of the Dead from the scriptures But he might have considered that he was GOD as well as Man who spoke there and that his Word was sufficient Secondly That this Scripture was an Argument ad bominem to the Sadducees who believed Moses Law better then Christ Thirdly The Consequence will be very gross That because Christ who had the Spirit above measure proved an Article of Faith by Scripture Therefore every Presbyterian Priest pedant may by his own natural and acquired parts without the Spirit interpret Scripture But there is at present too great contraversie which seems to bring a firie brand in the tail of it like to destroy all that is profitable or beautysul in the Nation as it hath once already done and to hazard the lives and estates of many well meaning men and good Patriots That is whether there be any difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Church Now if our Author can decide this contraversie by Scripture to the silence of the Malignants as our Saviour did the Saddusees he will do better service to his Native Country then by all his weak and deceitful wranglings against the poor Quakers who are not compeating with him for the Chair But his next consequence is very odd Yea saith he if this Doctrine be true A man doth not sin if he worship the Grocodale lbis Dog or Cat with the old Aegyptians Yea a man may believe or do whatsoever cometh in his Brain c. First ' This Doctrine that the Spirit of GOD is the only true interpreter of Scripture can bring no such consequence along with it For GOD never taught a man to commit Idolatry and to say that a general prohibation is not binding upon a man because his name is not in it is rediculous and no man that I know ever thought it But Secondly If his consequence be true then no Idolater sinned before Moses Law was written Yea according to our Author the Aegyptians he speaks of did not sin For if they had no inward Law sure they had no outward Law And borresco referens the old World sinned not to deserve the Flood because they had no written Law nor any Presbyterian Priest to interperate scripture Next he sayes we deny all Commentaries and expofitions of scripture He should have added which are meerly mans work without the Spirit of Christ if he will not be accounted a liar Then he chargeth R B for laying that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct Person of the Trinity I shall set down R B's own words that the Reader may see how fairly he deals with R B Thus I desire to know of him in what Scripture he finds these words that the Spirit is a diltinct Person of the Trinity For I freely acknowledge according to the Scripture that the Spirit of GOD proceed eth from the Father and the Son and is GOD And then asketh him whether any hath reason to think he truely makes the Scripture the Rule of his Faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or cannot find words in it to express the chief Articles of his Creed And now whether R B hath not fully confessed the the Mystrie and only denyed words of mans invention let the Reader judge Next he challengeth him for taking the words 1 John 2. 27. At the first sound and without any explication but he hath no leasure to give us any explication nor to disprove what he said from the words But concludes thus So that what ever they say or can say to liberate their doctrine from this most weighty but just charge they shall only twist contradictions the faster This is a great blow from a Graecian Gallant but hath not the weight of a Fear ther For we own the scripture for a Rule and the best outward Rule in the World and yet disown the Presbyterian expositions and Commentaries on them so long as they deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the work And whereas he challengeth us for not writing Commentaries The World is so overloaded with Commentaries of Mans making each almost contradicting another upon the same text that we think it best to let Patroclus abound in his own sense till GOD reveal that also unto him Phil. 3. 15. After this for about a page he doth nothing but rail and rove at randum as if Patroelus like he had the Trojans in chase and were upon execution And to sum up his Victory he concludes us Bapists because forsooth we deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and 〈◊〉 and the chief Judge of contraversies Answer First He hath need here of some of his Metaphisical formalities to distinguish betwixt the Rule or Law and the Judge But this we may expect next The Reason he giveth is because our Arguments as he alleageth conclude with theirs and instanceth that of Revel 22 18 compared with Deut 4 2 but hath brought nothing to disprove the inference Only telling us to this purpose may Bellarmine answer and the rest of the Jesuites But the difference lyeth here the Papists would thereby set up the Roman Church and unwritten Traditions to be the primary rule But we the Teachings of the Spirit of CHRIST so that according to patroclus own words in page 32 we differ as far as Heaven and Earth And he hath chosen a middle place for himself and his Brethren in which of the Limbos he may tell us next And let this suffice to answer all his Rovings to the end of the Chapter Chapter II. of Immediate Revelation HE begins this Chapter with an hâ—dgpodg of railing lyes nonsense and contradictions such as a man pretending to sense and Learning may be ashamed of if his desperate malice had
in no sense to be accounted a Rule He citeth VVilliam Penn to prove it Rejoynder page 76. I beseech thee Reader here to take notice of this mans double dealing and dissingenuâ—ity For first VVilliam Penn in page 69 and 70 confesseth the Scriptures to be a Rule but not the Rule by way of excellency as the Reader may see there and in Râ— Barclays his appologie Theses Tertia And because he Citeth VVilliam Penn to prove his false assertion let the Reader know they are no words of VVilliam Penn but of one Thomas Colliar a great Professor whose words VVilliam Penn Citeth against Faldo some whereof I shall transcribe General Epistle page 249. And truely my Brethren it is my earnest desite to see souls to live more in the Spirit and less in the Letter then they will see that we judge of the Litter by the Spirit and not of the Spirit by the Lettâ—er Which occasions so much ignorance amongst us and these who profess themselves to be our Teachers are chief in this Trespass The Spirit of GOD who is GOD is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian and in page 48 he saith That some seting the Scriptures in the Room of the spirit they make them an Idol His next Citation of VVilliam Penn in page 18 is his Rejoynder page 71 where he Citeth these words the scriptures are the verbal and Historical Rule of Faith which is the devels faith William Penns words are these For Faith in his I Faldâ— sense rises no higher then so many articles laid down suppose truely according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can belive as well as he This Faith I call meerly verbal and Historical c. And this is the candour of our insulting adversary Let the Reader judge whose reputation can be safe who deals with such an impudent Calumniator In the same page and in contradiction to himself he mentions a distinction of primary and Secondary Well Patroelus it seems the Quakers own the scriptures in some sense to be a Rule therefore Patroclus consesseth himself to have belyed them in the foregoing page His third is Huberthorn The words are except by a Miraculous Revelation from Heaven These words sound harshly and so fit to defame the Quakers But if yet thou hast retained any shamesacedness or the least grain of honesty I charge thee tell me Have not George Keith in his Books on that subject and Robert Barelay in his Appollogie sufficiently cleared the Quakers in that point So far that if thou wilt rightly state the contraversie thou must lay aside all these expressions of miraculous extraordinary and the like But who can expect fare dealing from a man of thy manners And therefore to stop the mouth of this Callumniator I shall tell the Reader what George Kieth sayes to obviat such accusations immediate Revel page 2. First we do not understand the foretelling things to come c. Secondly page 3 We do not bereby understand the Revelation of an other Gospel c. Thirdly in page 7. Not an outward audible voice c. Fourthly Nor any outward audible voice Fifthly Nor dreams and visions c. Sixthly Nor any outward Miracles c. And now let the Reader judge with what candour this man hath represented us Page 18 and 19. He saith in order to the Production of true saving Faith two principles are required First the declaration of the object or thing to be believed c. Now the thing he would have me believe is that the scripture is the Rule of Faith and Life and in order to this he presents me the Bible Is I ask him how shall I believe this book to be the Rule of Faith and Life He answereth me the book saith so tho there be no such word in it And this is objective Revelation and needs no more but an application of this Revelation already made And the second he calls subjective revelation but he must excuse me to tell him that before he can perswaed me to believe that proposition laid down in the Westminster Confession or Catecbism Quest 2 that the scripture is the only rule He will need to produce me better arguments for the Holy Ghost according to the Westminster Confession Chap 7 Act 3 must be given to make men willing and able to believe and this is more then an application He tells us that this revelation was either mediate or immediate Who denyes this But I hope when it was mediate it needed the immediate operation of the spirit to make them able and willing to believe and so the operation of the Spirit was the Rule of this Faith whereby they choosed or rejected these mediate Revelations That the illumination of the spirit is necessary for understanding of the soriptures no man denyeth But it is to be regarated that he and his Brethren take upon them to expond scripture to others while they have it not and mock and persecute Others who bear witness for it To prove subjective Revelation he bringeth several Scriptures Among others Luke 24. 46. The Words are these And said unto them Tbus it is Written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Now the Question will be whether this was an objective or a subjective Revelation I affirm it to be Objective and that CHRIST did here reveal to them things they never knew before nor had occasion to know albeit they might have been darkly shadowed forth in the Scriptures So that Christ speaking to them and at the same time opening their Understandings both Patroclus principles concurred immediatly to the production of their Faith with out the Bible Neither is he limited to Scripture words tho he may and often does make use of them And these words He spoke are not to be found in all the Old Testament And the Quakers do not pretend to revelation of New Things but a new Revelation of the Good Old Things Secondly Consider that he calls his first Principle a Declaration of the Object or Thing to be believed Now the Scriptures are the Object or Thing to be believed And therefore according to himself the Declaration is necessary And I must ask Patroclus what this Declaration is Sure he can intend nothing here but the Glosses Commentaries Paraphrases which he and his Brethren make upon the Scriptures whereby they get their Living But if Men were but once convinced that Christs sheep hear his Voice and that his Spirit teacheth them and bringeth all things to their remembrance whatsoever they have heard of or from him Then that sordid Trade of Preaching for hâ—re and Divining for money would soon come to an end And Men would say with Thomas a Kempis Let not Moses and the Prophets speake to me but thou O LORD my GOD. And with the Psalmist I will bear what the LORD GOD will speake in me Whereas now pretend what they will they are as positive in their dogmatising and no less
not blinded him Whereby he seeks to bespatter and blaken the Quakers so as so render them the object of the Magistrates severity Or expose them to the rage of his beloved Reformers the Rabble For First he saies they have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of GOD adding his wonted phrase speaking in the Scriptures But if I shall ask him Doth GOD now-a-dayes speak at all to his Church He would readily answer me No And within four pages he labours to prove that GOD hath spoke his last words to his Church Which is also clear from their Confession of Faith chap 1 so that as is said before this phrase is a meer cheat Secondly he saith We have most impiously and self-deceiving lie given up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which they call the Spirit of GOD as we have heard Here he falslie insinuates That we give up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which is not the Spirit of GOD which is a gross untruth For GOD knoweth and our Consciences bear us witness that we own no other Spirit but the same which Christ promised to His followers John 14. 16. I shall pray the Father and be shall give you another Comforter that be may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the World cannot receive because it seeth Him not neither knoweth Him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you and shall be in â—on And Vers 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost Whom the Father will send in my Name He shall teach you all things And 15 Ch 26. 8. and 16. 17 18. The Comforter who will reprove the World of sin c. This is that Spirit of Truth To whose Guidance we have given and do give up our selves And if he mean any other thing he is a wicked Slanderer and Callumniator Next he adds And again in contradiction to this the Soul of CHRIST Extended and Dilated This is a part of George Keiths Book called The way cast up To which book he promiseth an Answer But the Man is able and can answer for himself against all the Presbyterian Priests in Scotland Then he sayes But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the Spirit And it not this Scripture Language GOD who commanded Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts And was not this the Apostles Message that GOD is Light And how frequently is the Holy Ghost in scripture called simply the Spirit without any addition But he adds to which Spirit GOD himself speaking in the Scriptures must 〈◊〉 obey the same This blasphemous Gibberish being the invention of his own brain deserves no answer But may well be added to the Presbyterian Eloquence at the next impression But I pass by the rest of his railing and come to his defence of his Brother John Browns Argument which is this If since the Apostles fell a sleep and the Cannon of the Scripture was closed All that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a Primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of errour then it is not the way of CHRIST But the former is true c. Ergo c. To which R B hath answered and our Author accepts his answer and changeth the argument thus If since the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture fell a sleep and John wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this Kynd of Revelation have been led by a spirit of error Then this is not the wayof Christ But the former is true Ergo c. And now he thinketh there can be no exception against his argument but that it will certainly do his business yet is he like to be mistaken For first his argument seems to insinuate that before the Apostles fell a sleep immediate Revelation was the Primary Rule and if it was so it continues to be so yet by his own former Concessions For GOD hath not changed his Rule so that if he makes his argument to speak to the purpose he must say thus all who pretended to this kind of Revelation as well before as since the Apostles fell a sleep were led by a Spirit of error which I think he would be loath to affirm Secondly He will gain very little tho I grant his argument in terminis for I have as little kindness for pretenders as he hath or can have and do readily grant that all who pretend to this kynd of Revelations and have them not are led by a Spirit of error as well as that all Presbyterians who pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule and do not frame their Faith and manners according to them are Hipocrites and are led by a spirit of error So that except his Argument say all who have been led really and truely by the Spirit of Truth of whom Christ promised that he should teach them all things and lead into all truth were led by a Spirit of error He doth but â—eat the air and fight with his own shaddow For we have had pretenders amongstus whom we have denyed and rejected And what he brings concerning the corruptions of men we deny not For as men of Corrupt minds may pretend to the Scriptures so they may pretend to the Spirit but the LORD hath alwayes hitherto given his Church a spirit of discerning whereby such pretenders have been detected rejected and denyed And did not Zedeâ—iah the Son of Chenaanah pretend to the Spirit with as much confidence as Mieajah 1 King 22. 24. When he smote Micajah and said Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee Will it follow from hence That Micajah was led by a spirit of errour because Zedekiah pretended to the same spirit Or that the Presbyterians are led by a spirit of errour Because the Lutherians Anabaptists Independants and Arminians pretend to the same Rule with them So as the Scriptures may be wrested to the condemnation of the Wresters Our Author must confess that he needs a Guide to tell him when he goeth astray And whereas he citeth some called Quakers who have erred whether truely or falsly I know not I will bring him ten for one among the Presbyterians Yea and the greatest part of the Presbyterian Ministry of Scotland about the year 1661 foully deserted the good old cause and yet no less pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule then they had formerly done He falls next to prove that there is no Consanguinity betwixt the Jesuits argument to Jo Menzies and this of J B But let the Reader consider whether both Arguments terminate in the same thing For the Jesuites presseth J M to produce his Grounds and Principles And our Author in page 78 saith his Argument is demonstrative except his Adversary can produce any Instance to the contrary And if this be no Consanguinity let the Reader judge And whereas he turneth over the Jesuites Argument he might well have expected that the Jesuite would and might have said so of
and Reason for the very words before it are The Lightsined in the darkness That is according to our Author Man in his Natural Estate who could comprehend natural things but could not comprehend the Light Therefore according to our Author his own Confession The Light must be Supernatural or else the darkness would have comprehended it After a little vapour he saith Altho the Light Christ be supernatural yet the little Beams and Sparks of Reason and Conscience are Natural But who ever denyed this The thing he was to proove as well as assert Was That the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men and the Light which Men are commanded to believe in is Natural Which he may either do or be silent for ever Next he rails a while and concluds with an abominable Lie Viz That we assert That the dim and dark Light of Nature is GOD himself This he hath learned from the Father of Lies the Prince of Darkness and to him it will return and he with it except he repent The next Argument he deals with is R B's page 19. 20. of his Vindication I shall intreat the Reader to look the place and compare it with our Authors bungling upon it R B proveth by Rom 8. 9. 14. 1 John 2. 27. John 6. 45. John 14. 16. 17. That the Promises of the Spirit to teach lead and guide were common to all Believers and not particular to the Apostles To which our Author replys he should have given some other thing for proof then bare Assertions For so he calls all the Scripture proofs he hath brought but meddles not with one word of them But our Adversary will not serve us so he will give us Questions for all and ask us Why may not Immediat Objective Revelation be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not to all Believers Answer Because GOD had promised before to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh And Paul tells us after If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his As for the Scriptures he cites they nothing touch us for we never denyed the use of Means in the leadings of the same Spirit as R B hath shewn at large in the place last cited But in stead of a solid Answer to R B's Argument he boldly beggs the Question Saying Whatever the Qnakers say we cannot help it Certain it is that no man of sound Judgement will deny that when one reads the Scriptures and hath his mind Illuminated by the Spirit he hath that promise fulfilled to him of which we now speak Very well Patroclus This is more like a a Pope then a Prevbyter But the man hath told us he cannot help it The next Argument he assaults R B's Apologie page 38. That which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind are forced ultimatly to recurr unto when pressed to the last That for because of which all other foundations are recommended and accounted worthy to be believed and without which they are granted to be of no weight at all must needs be the only most true certain and unmoveable foundation of all Christian Faith But Inward Immedist Objective Revelation by the Spirit is That c Ergo c. To this he offers two Answers The first by a Simile thus A man just now possessing a peece of Land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors by vertue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago spake mouth to mouth with that Prince dead ages out of mind Thus that into which the present Possessor of such peece of Land when pressed to the last recurreth unto and for which other Grounds or Charters are comended or valide Must of necessity be the most immoveable ground of and warrand for such a peece of Land his possessâ—ion of it But the Grant or Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago First By word of mouth tho again committed to writtings Is that which the present Possesser being pressed to the last recurreth to Ergo The present Possessor had discourse immediate mouth to mouth with a Prince in many ages back e're the present Pâ—ssessor was born This he And then as if he had done some notable feat he falls a roaring insulting and mocking his adversary saying These must be admirable fellows c. Their strongest argument serve only to prove the Authors to be in a Paroxism of folly moving langhter in a very Heraclitus But it seems our Author hath been in a Paroxism of madness and blasphemy for his Simile can conclude nothing less then this Viz. That Christ is dead the Spirit of Christ iâ— dead ages out of mind that no man heareth his voice now nor can recur to him to be satisfied of his doubts that he hath broken all his promises to his Church of being with them to the end of the World of sending the Comforter to teach them and lead them into all truth and that great promise he that is with you shall be in you Many more are the promisses in the Old Testament as in Jeremiah Joel and that in Isaiah 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the LORD Testified unto as fulfilled in 1 John 2. 20 27. If the Preaching and Printing such gross blasphemy as these which naturally and unavoidably flow from this simile be fit to move laughter and not rather terror and astonishment in the Author let the Reader judge I shall here add two Arguments fit for this place First Christs Sheep hear his voice But the Presbyterian Clergy hear not his voice Ergo They are not of his Sheep Secondly Where there is no Vision there the people perish But among the Presbyterian Clergie there is no vision Ergo Their people perish But blessed be the LORD we know and believe according to the Scriptures That Christ our Prince is dead ages out of mind but liveth and Reigneth for ever and that he is Faithful and True and that he is alwayes present with his Church that he standeth at the door of their heart and knocketh if any open to him he entereth and that he dwelleth in them and walketh in them and is to them a GOD and they to him a people and that if any be otherwayes minded he will even reveal this also unto them Phil 3. 15. So let our Author glory in his Chartor which we have as well as he but be warr to blasphem the Spirit of Christ lest the end thereof be no laughter but weeping and gnashing of teeth His Second answer is By distinguishing immediate objective Revelation granting it was Immediate and ohjective in respect of the Apostles and Prophets but not in respect of the present prosessors of Christianity Answer First he here maketh the ground and foundation of See his page 33. the Faith of the prophets and Apostles one thing and that of the present professors of Christianity another thing which is absurd Secondly be excludes all Christians from Immediat Objective
foreordained from Eternity that Adam should sin and that all Mankind should die and that the far greater part of them should be reprobates and be damned eternally For the Westminster Catechism saith GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass But all these things comes to pass Ergo GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained them His next is Rom 6. 23. The wages of sin is death Where saith he Death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages of sin If the Apostle had meant more kinds of Deaths then one it is like he would have said deaths in the plural number But the Apostle intends here no other kind of death then the same kind of Life he mentions in the same sentence which is Eternal The words are For the wages of sin is death But the Gift of GOD is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our LORD Now to cause the first speak of bodily death and the last of Eternall Life is so strained an Interpretation as might nauseat a Reader He would mock R B for saying The whole Creation suffered a decay for Adams sin But it seems he hath forgotten that GOD cursed the Earth for mans sake and yet the Earth was not guilty of Mans sin But saith he The body shall after the resurrection live as well as the Soul and therefore bodily death is a punishment of sin This is pretty singular for it is acknowledged by all that the body is a meer Instrument to the Soul And at this rate our Anthors Pen is guilty of all the Lies and blasmphemies in his book and Patroclus Swordguilty of the blood of all the Trojans he killed But proves nothing that bodily death was here meant by the Apostle yea he confesseth that bodily death is not a punishment to believers â—eing the sting thereof is removed by Christ Now are we come to his second Argnment I spoke of To wit That as we are justified by the Righteousness imputed to us So infants are damned by the sin of Adam imputed to them So that it the first be false in the Presbâ—terian sense the last is also false I shall first tell him what J Humphrey saith of it Treatise of Justification page 21. As for what they add usually saith he in the definition that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us and made ours by Faith as an Instrument I must confess they are notions which as they never came into the head of Saint Augustine nor were received I suppose into the Church till within a Centurie or two of years since so do I question whether a Centurie or two more may not wear them quiâ—e away again Again page 25. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us as if it were ours in its self it must be the Righteousness of his active or passive Obedience or both If his active Obedience be imputed to us then we must be look upon in him as such who have committed no sin nor omitted any Duty And then what need will there be of Christs Death How shall Christ die for our sins if we be lookt upon in Christ as having none at all If Christs passive Obedience be imputed then must we be lookâ— upon as such who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the Law and born the full curse of it And then how shall there be â—oom for any Pardon The Man who payes his full debt by himself or Surity can in no sense be forgiven by his Creditor If Christs active and passive Obedience both are imputed then must GOD he made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of works in the business of Justification when nothing is more aparent in Scripture then that by Grace we are Justified and by Grace saved A little after he saith There was no need to bring in this notion of Christs imputed Righteousness into the Church But that our Protestants mistake themselves and forget that we are justified and saved by the Covenant of Grace and not by the Law of Moses or Covenant of our Creation And in the foregoing page he saith I would fain know whether any of the Disciples James John or Paul himself whether Clemens Roman or Alexanderin Justine Martyr Cyprian Ambross Augustine or any of the Fathers Whether Gounsels or School men whether John Huss or Wickliff or any Father or Holy writer without resting on some bare incoherent scraps of sentences did ever understand or receive the full notion of Faiths instrumentality and the imputation of a passive Righteousness before Luther And if not whether it be possible it should be of any such moment as is made of it by most Protâ—stants I have set down these that the Reader may see we are not alone in this matter but that as good Protestants as the Presbyterians yea and some of themselves to wit Baxteâ— are of the same mind with us And yet in page 134 he is so confident of this his new notion unknown as this man saithâ— to the Apostles Fathers Counsels and first Protestants that he asserâ—eth either Adams sin to be such as by it all have sinned and by it death without exception is brought upon all mankind or else that the Spirit of God speaketh nonsence in this Text. Certainly the Apostles were plain men and had more plain simple and less intricat thoughts of the Christian Doctrines then our School-men have devised and I believe few of them would have understood their terms of Art now in vogue and if the Appostles or rather the Spirit of GOD had intended any such Doctrine as necessary to our Salvation It would not have needed Hathenish Philosophie and Logick to have strained a consequence from the Text which prehaps the writer never intended and our School mens seeking to cause the Doctrine of Christ quadrate with Heathenish Philosophie hath beeh the baâ—e of Christianity tho is he now made no less then absolutely necessary to the being of a Minister And yet for all this man is so confident let the Reader but look to the 16 Verse of the Chapter where the comparison is made and he will see that condemnation Eternal death is meant and not bodily Death His other Argument that Death Reigned from Adam to Moses can prove nothing for bodily Death hath Reigned from Adam to Patroclus and what than Ergo Infants are condemned for Adams sin for none can die but sinners this is boldly to begg the question and no more His great Argument in page 135 is That sin which is descrived to us by the Apostle that he saith brought Death upon all men that men sinned by it and were made sinners even they who could not as yet actually sin that they all became guilty of Death and Condemnation That sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation But the first sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostle c. Ergo that sin
of the Quakers with the Scriptures Oh! That he or any else could awaken them to that diligence and that they would put on that Nobility commended in the Bereans and come to an impartial search not as Patroclus Faldo and Hicks represent them but as they are indeed But Reader he intends nothing less For after all thy pains except thou will implicitly allow his Character of the Quakers and take his sense of the Quakers he will be sure to Stigmatise thee for a Heretick All their clamouring the Scriptures the Scriptures is but a meer Jugle it s their own Gloss they intend Interpres loquitur Litera Sacra silet A little after he tells us ignoti nulld cupido very true for if the principles of the dispysed Quakers were but well known Patroclus Book would be hissed out of Doors And therefore in the end of this Epistle he saith touch not taste not handle not the unclean thing strange Doctrine try and try not I have told you what they are stop your ears and run upon them The rest of his Epistle being all Satyr composed of Railing Lies Forgeries and false insinuations I omit he bringing me no better proof for them then his own confident assertion or rather impudent calumny in these words in a word I say That as the Doctrine of the Quakers is a heap of none such Blasphemies â—o their defences are meer subterfuges Very well Patroclus this is borrowed Armour indeed and that from the 〈◊〉 in Cathedra I say ergo verum est Take his word Reader and his book is superfluous This is no humble confidence as he elsewhere words it But if 〈◊〉 was puzelled to distinguish 〈◊〉 a Pope and Presbyters in Hell he would not have been cleared of his doubts by reading this passage And now to his Book CHAPTER FIRST Of the Holy SCRIPTURES HE begins with a citation of Scripture A good Name is better then precious Oyntment the more shame for Patroclus who hath laboured to rob the Quakers of it by all the black-mouth'd detractions he could invent to defame them His first charge is That the quakers deny that the Seriptures are or ought to be called the Word of GOD. Answer This appears to me but a meer Logomathia in Patroclus For that the word Logos is diversly translated in Scripture we confess As Preaching 1 Cor 1. 18. Utterance 1 Cor 1. 5. Speech Cor 4. 6. And divers otherwayes Now that the Scriptures in such senses may be called Logos That is the speech discourse oâ— words of the Logos or Word of GOD which he spoke to the Pattiarchs Prophets and Apostles and by them recorded for the benefite of the Church we willingly grant But the Word of GOD being a Name so peculiatly atoributed to CHRIST JESUS who being a Jealous GOD will not give his Glory to another Out of meer tenderness of Conscience we can singly from the bottom of our hearts say and not in the least from any difesteem of disparagement of the Scriptures which are our delight to meditate in and peruse often do we scruple to give them that Escential Tittle or Name of Christ it being so solemnly and frequently by the Scriptures themselves attributed to the Son of God As in that remarkable place John 1. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word was mads Flesh which can no wayes be said of the Scriptures And there be Three that bear Record in Heaven The Father The Word and the Spirit And his Name is called the Word of God Now len any sober unbyassed Christian People judge whether we deserve all these black Epithets this Author loads us with meerly for being tender of Attributing the Sacred Name of the Creator to a Creature But he bringeth a bundle of Citations to as little purpose as the Westminster Confession uses to do in such case As R. B. hath remarked in the end of his Confession of Faith The Impertinency of which Citations may be clearly apparent by inserting the Word Soripture in place of the Word of the Lord. As Numbers 3. 16. And Moses numbredthem according to the Word of the Lord Patroclus sense is and Moses numbred them according to the Scriptures whereas yet there was none extant Second is Duter 5. and 5. I stood between the Lord and you at that time to shew you the Word of the Lord Now how impertinent would it beto say That Moses had the Bible in his hand to shew the Israelites Among all the test of his Citations he lays most hold on Hosea 1 and 2. The Beginning of the Word of the LORD by Hosea This sayeth he is a Denying of the Eternity of the Son of God But how grosly he erreth here may be seen above by divers Accoptations we grant of the Word As in Psalm 19 2 The same Word signifieth Speech Now to take this Word for the Scripture would be a gross lye For it was not the Beginning of the Scripture much having been written before And therefore the true meaning of this place to all single heatted ones 〈◊〉 clearly the time when Christ the Word of the Lord began to speak to Hosea Or as the Latin hath it Prinoipiam loquendi Domini in Hosea There are no more of his citations that seem to have any weight but that of Mark 7. 18. compared with verse 10. I shall begin at the 9 And he said unto them full well ye reject the Commandment of GOD that ye may keep your own Traditions Verse 10. For Moses said Honour thy Father and thy Mother c. Verse 13. Making the Word of GOD of none effect Now that this Word mentioned by the Evangelist was one of the Ten Words spoken on Mount Sinai we do not deny And that every Commandement Precept Promise or Threatning in the Scripture is a Word of God we fully acknowledge And so all he can make of this is That the fifth Commandment here meaned is one of the 〈◊〉 Words that came from Christ the Word the Eternal Son of God And whereas he quibles upon the word Per eminentiam or by way of Eminency This fifth Commandment before mentioned shall furnish us an Example The King of Scotland is an Epichet predicated of the chief Magistrat Now I ask him if this Epithet can be predicated per emmentiam of any other Man Book or thing in the Nation without Treason And see if his Properly and Improperly will serve him here The very Committee of Estates altho it exercised the Regal Power in the Late Rebellion did not usurp the Title of King tho they were a little too familiar with his Authority and Person But I hope hereafter Patroclus will be a little more tender of the Titles of the King of Kings Having granted the Contraversy in Terminis For in page 3 He granteth that Christ is the â—ssential and Substantial Word of God The principal Dictator of the Mind of God And that the
doth the Scriptures themselves in distinction from the Spirit As 2 〈◊〉 3. 6. Except Patroclus intend to turn Socinian who understood this place on Scriptures to be meant of the Gospel or Scriptures of the New Testament as may be seen in the Cracovian Catechism Page 162 163. Asserting the Holy Spirit to be the Ipsum Evangelium and at best to be but a certain hope of Eternal life promised to us Secondly they call the Scriptures Writings Is not this plain Soots for Scriptura Or what difference is there betwixt Scriptures and Writings It seems the fault is that the word is not a little Latinized But every Quaker is not so good a Linguist as Patroclus His third charge is that the Quakers call them them a letter about the meaning whereof nor two are agreed Now Patroclus I pray thee for once deal ingenuously with me and ommiting many other instances answer only these two First if the Scriptures be so plain and obvious to every well disposed intelect as your party word it how came the whole Ministry of Scotland to differ so faâ—r in the year 16â—0 about so easle a case as whether it was Lawful for the Mallignats to fight for their Native Country against a Forraign Enemie And secondly It is well known that about the year 1661 after divers Presbyterian Ministers were suspended from the exercise of their Ministry who notwithstanding did not submit but continued preaching and gathered to themselves congregations in the desart to the great distuâ—bance of the Nation On the other hand in the year 1689 several hundreds of the Episcopal Ministers have been suspended and their Flocks left destitute Yet all of them have submitted and are silent Now seeing both parries acknowledge the same Scripture Tellme I pray thee whether they be agreed about the meaning and bring me plain Scripture to decide these two contraversies â—t eris mihi Magnus Apollo After this in Page 7 he falls upon citations where he promiscuously and at all adventures cites Hicks and Fâ—lâ—â— upon whose Bankrupt Faith he layes no small stress I alwayes doubted Patroclus to be no sound Presbyterian For sure they who could not allow Malignants to fight for their Native Country would never allowes Sectaries to contend for the Faith which certainly is more Precious then all outward things But especially they being men who by their open forgeries and falsehoods have forefeited their Credit with all Honest Men I shall be at the pains with one or two of them tho they desorve no notice In Page 8 he ciâ—es one N L Cited by Hicks and saith he evinced by him against Pen That if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ these words Hicks saith were spoken by N L To one he knows very wâ—ll upon publishing this in his Book N L gives forth a Testimony under his hand dated London 29th 3d. Moneth 1673 denying he ever spoke such words or any thing like them calling it an abominable lie wicked slander and appeals to GOD to clear his ◠〈◊〉 But after some search Nicholas is sent to one Henry Stout to prove the matter who at last gave his Testimony in write under his hand thus I Henry Stout of Hartford never in all my dayes heard Nicholas Lucas speak the words nor any of the like importance or tendencie as charged on him be Tho Hicks nor before any man else that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my conscience that he hath most grosly wronged N L To which I subscribe H Stout So now let the Reader judge what seared Consciences and Brazen faces these men have or our Patroclus to cite such a base and false calumny The second Citation is that of William Penns Rejoynder Page 70 73. We have good reason to deny them to be the rule of Faith and Judge of contraversy which can neither give nor govern Faith nor Judge of Contraversies If he added the rest I should have left it to the Reader to Judge without more And therefore I shall only add these following words as they ly Viz. As the many different perswasâ—ons in the World fully prove For then all that have the Scriptures would be of one perswasion as it is most certain those are who have walk by the one Spirit Let the Word be joyned and then Judge The other part of his Citation is Page 73 thus in short the Scriptures are not the Rule but a declaration of Faith and knowledge Here he stops But I intreat the Reader before he trust these men to be at the pains to read the Book Cited by him There he shall see wither William Penn and his friends deserves to be called disparragers of the Scriptures and that it looks more like malice and interest that acts these men than the love of Truth The rest of his Citations at least many of them I never saw nor read but in such books as his Page 9. About the end he falls upon a long Citation of William Penns rejoynder concerning the Canon The Authority of those who gathered it the Transcribers and their dissentions the exactness of the coppies And lastly that some learned men of our times tell us of little less then 3000 several readings in the Scriptures of the Nâ—w Testament in Greek Answer Can he say William Penn hath lied in what he hath Written If he do I will produce him Protestant Authors who confess no less But if he had added the rest of William Penns words he had done more honestly but not so much to his purpose and therefore I will do him the kindness to set down a few of them Farr be it from me saith William Penn to Write this in any the least undervalue of that Holy Record It 's only to shew the weak foundation my Adversaries foundation stands upon I believe great and Good Things of them and that from no less evidence then the Eternal VVord that gave them forth Which hath often times given my Soul a deep Savour of these blessed Truths it declares of c And after many such expressions he concludes We accept them as the Words of GOD Himself And by the assistance of his Spirit they are read with great Instruction and Comfort I esteem them the best of Writings and desire nothing more frequently then that I may lead the Life they exhort to Thus William Penn Whereby the Reader may perceive the malice and disingenuity of Patroclus in concealling the Words which would have vindicated him from that soul charge of vilifying the Scriptures And I desire the Reader will only compare Patroclus and his Party with the Pharaseâ—s who while they extolled the Scriptures were found the murderers and persecuters of CHRIST and his Apostles Having thus dissingenuously dealt with William Penn he fails upon R. B. in these words On the other hand of this Ethnick Army R. B. Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures Citing his Apologie Chap 2. That
they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue in these Writings c And so runs on for a whole page in tragical Exclamations To all which I shall only return the words of Calvine instit cap. 1. Numb 24. Quare si Conscientiis optime consultum volumus ne instabili dubitatione perpetuo vacillent altius petenda quam ab humanis vel rationibus vel judiciis vel conjecturis scripture Authoritas Nempe ab Interiori spiritus sancti Testification Etsi enim Reverentiam suâ— sibi ultro Majestate conciliat tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit cum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostris And a little after Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat talis denique sensus qui nisi ex caelesti Revelatione nasci nequeat Non aliud loquâ— quam quod apud se experitur fidelium unusquisque Thus Calvine In English thus Wherefore if we would take the best course to provide for the peace or clearness of our own Consciences that they may not perpetually fluctuatâ— with an unstable uncertaintie the Authoritie of the Scripture is to be deduced higher then either from Humane Reasons Judgements or Conjectures viz. From the Inward-witnes bearing of the Holy Spirit For albeit its own Native Majestie doth gain to it a peculiar Reverence yet then doth it seriously affect us when it is sealed upon our hearts And a little after Such then is that Perswasion which requires not Reasons and such that Perception which cannot be bred but of a Revelation from Heaven I do not speak any other thing then what every one of the Faithful finds experimentally true in himself And now let the Reader judge whether R B hath said any more then Calvine hath said That every one of the Faithful experienceth in himself Yet what is sound Doctrine in Calvine must be Heathnism in R B And whereas he saith shall the writings of Livie Virgil and Cicere carry such evidences that they were theirs so that a Humanist may distinguish c. Shall then GOD Himself be outstriped and overcome by these Writers Answer Albeit we neither deny the Majesty of Stile Harmony of parts or any other Divine Characters in the scriptures which may declare their Author Yet we confidently affirm that the forelaid writings of Livie Virgil and Cicero which are the things of a man can only be known by the spirit of a man and not of a beast So we say the scriptures being the things of GOD can only and alone be known by the Spirit of GOD as saith the Apostle in so many words But he proceeds and citeth the word as he alledgeth of Benjamin Furley and for his Author gives Hicks the Forger And then he falls a glorying as if he had done his business fully saying by this time I have aboundantly justified my charge Soft Patroclus till thou put off thine Armour An I cannot but wonder with what confidence or rather impudence this man and his brother Brown can cite these books of Faldo Hicks c. Which have been so fully manifestly convicted of falsehood forgery and perversion that their Authors are become detasteable to all honest and unbyasled men and whom our present adversary accounteth Hereticks And what a case must the Quakers be in if such Janizaries in Religion who have been known to undertake the contraversy for hire and have been found to be men of no integrity I say if such men their sworn Enemies shall be held sufficient witnesses against them If I should produce the Papists Testimonies against Luther and Beza what would Protestants say And albeit R B chargeth Brown with it as a callumniator yet our Author hath not brought the least proof to mend the matter nor the Citation of any book but his beloved Baptist Mr. Hicks as he calls him And whereas he saith they have Cited book and page for their other Citations so did Patroclus cite William Penns Rejoynder when he accused him for saying the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John did not contain glade tidings so the Proverb is veryfied in all of them A Priest a Liar no news And so till he prove these to have been the words of Benjamine Furley I have done with him And here I must tell Patroelus I have seen Browns book which was lent by an old and learned Minister so called of the National Church with the Caveat I would not said he lend you this Book but that I know ye would get it from some other For if all the coppies were in my hands they should never be more seen I acknowledge they are a scandle to our Profession and the Anthor a stain to his function But said he do not think we allow them And the truth is except Polwart and Montgomeries flyting I never râ—ad its fellow But to return to what R B answereth in the matter of Benjamin Furley he hath set it down at large and spends a deal of labour upon it He begins with R B his delemma to which he answereth Seeing R B insinuateth that there are an subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any therefore his dilemma is impertinent c. Now let the Reader judge what cander we can expect from this man who hath out done both Hieks and Faldo they cired book and page yet were found Forgers He cites nothing yet would be trusted let him mend this fault with the next before he produce his argumentum ad hominem and his absurd and malicious consequence upon it Which is that according to the Quakers men are not oblidged to abstain from Murther without such an immediate objective Revelation as Moses and the Prophets had Answer This is very dissingenuous did ever any Quakers pretend to give a new Law to the World and confirm it by miracles as did Moses Or did they ever teach That the Foretelling of things to come as did the Prophets was necessary to Salvation The Quakers pretend to no new Revelations of new things but to a new Revelation of the good old things as shall be seen more hereafter And for such stuff it may take with Patroclus Hearers but every Man of Sense will deteast such dealing His second Answer to this Dilemma is yet no better For saith he Tho the Illumination of the Spirit be of abjolute necessity for such a knowledge of the Scriptures whereby we may know GOD revealed in them and have true Love and Faith and Fear c. Yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound reason only can distinguish betwixt Commands given to a particular people for a certain time and these that hind at all times must have abandoned the exercise of Reason This the Summ of what he saith Answer first What he meaneth by the Word Only I see not Except he think Reason can do something more But what this is he hath not been so
honest as to tell us He hath said before that the Illumination of the Spirit is absolutly necessary to such a knowledge of the Scriptures as iâ— usefull to beget Faith Love and Fear of of GOD. c. But he would teach us another Knowledge which reason cannot produce But if he will allow me the first I shal allow him the last to get his Living by Only I must tell the Reader that in this he outdoes the Socinian who in his Catechism aforesaid Cap 3. quest 3. Laid the blame of the Differences about the sense of the Scriptures on their not imploting the Gift of the Holy Spirit which GOD hath promised to those that call upon Him And lastly I wonder to see a pretended Presbyterian cite the Examples of the third and fifth Commandemenâ—s Of which two precepts they have been such notorious Transgressors His third Answer is as unhappy as the rest For he laboureth to caâ—se R. B. to contradict B. F. While he hath neither cleared his Brethren Hicks and Brown from being reputed Calumniators Nor hath attempted any way to prove these to have been the Words of B. F. But thinks the World is bound to believe him because he saith it Where I leave him to rave till he bring better proof He tells us Fourthly That it is impertinent to say that without the Operation of the spirit men cannot obey the Good of their own Souls And is saith he falcem pro ligone dare Answer It seems the Man intends an Obedience which is not for the good of Mens own Souls And what this can be except it be either superstition or supererogation I am to learn As for his Proverb I fear if the Men of his Robe did not get the Sickle before the Spade That is did not eat the Fruit before they planted a Vineyard we should see many of them with Lean cheecks and Lank sides But as he hath told us before of two kinds of Knowledge one from the Spirit another from Reason So he tells here of two kinds of Duties one profitable for the Soul but the other he hath not told us for what and such are many of his Duties like to be In the fifth place he chargeth B. F. with Blasphemie for saying that it is as he alledgeth the greatest Error in the World that ever was invented and the ground of all errour to affirm that the Seriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians And then he tells us the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the poison and hath rendred R. B. speechless Well Patroelus And is this all the proof that yet we have against B. F. Now three times printed without proof And R. B. might have justly rejected it at first and here with falls what thou brings in the last place which was a sufficient answer to I B and is yet to thee till thou clear him of these ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator as thou calls them which neither thou nor he have ever yet attempted But I must ask thee a little What thou intends here by blasphemy For whatever the old signification of the Word may have been I am sure a Blasphemer is now taken for a Man who by injurious word or thought hurteth the Divine Majesty So that except the Scripture be Patroclus God he cannot find Blasphemy in the foresaid Words Lastly All the Proof we have is If says he the words were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them Here we have a new Law if any Man call Patroclus a Thief he is bound to prove himself an honest Man And hence it shall follow that no Lyar can be punished To conclude this particular Not withstanding this Author accuseth the Quakers as Velifiers of the Scriptures Yet GOD is our Witness that it is far from our Intention but on the contrary we have a high and reverent esteem of them And altho some years agoe this Language might have passed for good Coyn Yet now Blessed be the LORD we are better known both by our Principles and practices not only to our Neighbours but to many knowing Men all Brittan over then we formerly were So that a malicious Priest will not be so readily trusted being a kind of men who cannot sleep unless they have wounded some either in their persons or Reputations I shal here only desire the Reader to see Duplessis of the Trueness of Christian Religion cap 6. Where he shall see That before the Canon of the Scriptures were filled up yea before many of them were written CHRIST is called the Word of GOD not only by the Jews but by the Heathen Philosophers and their Oracles So that there was a Word of GOD before the Scriptures And secondly If the Preaching of the Gospel be glad Tidings Then the Preaching of Patroclus is not the Preaching of the Gospel According to Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you good Tidings of great joy which shall be to all people Whereas his Doctrine of Reprobation is the most sad and lamentable Tydings that ever was preached to Man kind For first by their Confession of Faith cap. 3. A certain number are elected from Eternity and the means foreordained to bring them to Glory and all the rest of Mankind are ordained to dishonour and wrath Now the means whereby this end is attained and fore ordained for that purpose are according to their Catechism The Word Saoraments and Prayer And so according to Patroclus All Mankind who want these mens are reprobates consider then Reader into how narrow a Compass he brings all people The World being divided into 30 parts There be yet 19 of them Pagan and six Mabumitan and only five Christian The half of this five is of the Romish Communion want the use of the Bible The Lutherans he saieth in his Epistle to the Reader deserve not the Name of Reformed but are to be accounted Capital Adversaries The Church of England is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianizm and Episcopacy is an Antichristian Hierarchy The French Protestants are for passive obedience and Non Resistance And even Geneva it self errs in two great points Viz. In allowing Lawful Recreations on the Sabbath day and denying Tithes to the Clergie And our English Presbyterians are such enemies to the Scottish Covenant that they have gone near to Anathematize it For R Baxter in his hundreth propositions wherein he sayeth all Protestants are aggreed Propos 99 saith If any will make their unnecessary forms of Synods and other adjuncts to seem so necessary as to enter Leagues and Covenants to make them the terms of the Churches Unity GOD will not owne such terms nor waves nor will they be durable c. With much more to this purpose And now let the Reader judge whither Patroelus Gospel be glad tidings to all people We are now come to the Rule of Faith and Life page 17 where having begun with a great lie Viz. That in the judgement of the Quakers the Scriptures are
givenparticularly for that Nation and was binding upon no other Nation in the World as J Humphry in his book called Medioeria to which Richard Baxter a Famous Presbyterian assents and subscrives I am of the same mind R Baxter of the Covenants page 14. The Old Covenant is that which GOD made with the Jews when Moses led them in the Wilderness the new is that which we have under the Gospel the Old Covenant then is not the Covenant of works for that was made with all in Adam and as written in our hearts must be Eternally obligatory but the Old Covenant was made with the Jews in opposition to other Nations and as peculiar to them is vanished binds not And for the same reason he sayeth it is not the Covenant of Grace which is called the New Covenant But saith he the new is not the old The argument he bringeth to prove his Minor is that from which the Jews might not swerve to the right nor left hand and to the decision of which they were ultimatly bound to stand in all doubts and contraversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from GOD's Writtin Law c. Therefore to them it was the Primary Rule Answer First This argument proveth no more then this is already granted Viz. That Moses Law was a more Principal Law to the Jews then to any other Nation But untill he prove the Children of Israel to have had no Law no Rule of Faith nor Life before Moses wrote that Law his argument can conclude nothing Secondly Mine Adversary may tell me whether they were to stand to the decision of the Law in a matter which the Law did not decide for we find that after the Law was given In many things the Law giver Moses could not decide without immediate Revelation as in the matter of the Daughters of Zelophehad But when the case was proposed to him he went and enquired of the Lord And again when the Law was finished and Joshua to succeed him What saith the LORD Numb 29. 21. And he to wit Joshua shall stand before Eleazer the Priest who shall ask Counsel for him after the judgement of Vrim before the LORD If this be ultimatly to recurr to the Scriptures of Moses Law the Reader may judge To prove his Minor he citeth one place which I cannot omit Dut 17 9 10 11 And thou shall come unto the Priests the Levits and unto the Judge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the Sentence of Judgement and thou shall do according to the sentence which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee and thou shall observe to do according to all that they inform thee Now Reader could the Pope of Rome have sought out a Scripture more fitt to have established his universal Dictatorship over Christendome then this Is there one word of Scripture Law or Testimony here No but the Priests the Levites and the Judge That is in Broad Scots The General Assembly and Committee of Estates who were as absolute in their Determinations as ever the Pope and his Conclave But Patroclus must know that he and his Brethren are not Levites altho they take the Tithes nor am I to take their Counsel till they assure me that they have the Judgement of Vrim His second Proof for his Minor is Isaiah 8. 20. To the Law and to the Testimony if they speake not according to these it is because there is no light in them This Scripture hath been so much tossed by the Adversaries of Truth and so often answered That Patroclus who promiseth greater Matters then his Brethren had brought might have let it alone He denyes that this Law and Testimony can be inward And sayes For this Exposition we must take their word c But he hath forgotten it seems that William Penn in his Rejoynder hath given him other Mens words for it and perhaps better Mens then himself And because the Book is not so common among Presbyterians I shall here insert some of the Testimonys cited by William Peen First Dell Tryal of Spirits page 16. Wherefore they who are true believers saith he and have received Christs Spirit their Judgement is to be preferred in the Tryal of spirits before a whole council of Clergie Men And they onlie who can try Spirits by the Spirit of GOD and Doctrines by the Word of GOD written in their hearts by the Spirit can in measure discern all Spirits in the World And the Spirit of Christ which dwelleth in all true Christians cannot deceive nor be deceived in the tryal of spirits Collier General Epistle page 249. and page 258. Obj I st it is said Isa 8 20. To the Law and to the Testimony c Ans Truth There is the Law and the Testimony in the Spirit as well as in the Letter The Law of GOD is in the Heart There it is written and there it testifies the Truth of GOD And if any Man speake not according to this Rule it is because there is no Light nor Morning arisen in them the Spiritual Man judgeth all things yet be himself is judged of no man These were the words of two Famous Professors who were no Quakers Next he citeth some Scriptures to prove that Moses Law is understood by the Law and Testimony As if GOD had made voide his Promise To write his Law in the Heart and put it in the inward parts But of this a little after In page 35. He begins with a Question drawn from Deut 17. 18 19. Now sayes he Shall any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose That the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discusing thereof Or tho the King's doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law He was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him I say who in his Witts will believe this Very well Patroclus I am one so stupid as to believe that when a doubt arose which Moses Law could not clearly determine that the King was bound to enquire of the LORD Of which the Scriptures gives us many examples As 1 Samuel 23. 2. 4. and 30. 8. 2 Sam 2. 1. and 5. 19. 1 Kings 22. 7. And 2 Kings 22. Where the King the High Priest the Scribe and some others had the Book of the Law and knew not what to do with it but sent to enquire of the Lord and that by the mouth of a Woman But he hath been so warrie in his second Querie as to add Tho the Kings doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law Yet hath not the Candour to tell us what the King was to do in case his doubt was not clearly discussed by the Law As for the word Miraculous Revelation c It is his own a fine bugbear to fright his silly Disciples from asking Counsel of GOD For I am apt to believe that Divine Revelation
false except his ipse dixit And therefore I may not take his word Secondly What had all the Patriarchs before Moses Law and even Moses himself to try their Revelations by Yet they believed them upon their own self evidence Yea Balaam who had no well disposed Intellect yet knew and believed his Revelations to be Divine And Lastly Doctor Barron in his Book against Turnbul saith That the most noble kind of Revelation is that which is by intellectual speaking or illumination as Thomas and Swarez teach Thirdly He saith We insinuate That the Apostle in this Comparison gave out that one of the things compared was more certain than the other Which saith he is most false Seing considered in themselves both have all certainly possible But in respect of us saith he The Scriptures are more sure because less subject to be counterfeited or wrested either by the Devil or our own fancie But here it seems he hath forgotten himself for this same Apostle hath told us that the Scripture can be wrested But who saith that the teachings of the Spirit of truth can be so None but Patroclus And so the comparison holds that which can be wrested is less sure then that which cannot be wrested He adds the Apostle hath his eye upon his Country men And so have I upon mine who pretend so much to the Scriptures and yet wrest them grosly to their own damnation Page 46. comes to prove that by these words more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures after he hath told us that albeit immediat Revelation were meant or understood by the more sure word of Prophesie it would be no advantage to us because it is recommended to us As that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures and so not the Principal rule but a means to explain the Principal Rule and for this he brings no proof but we must take his word and then he will make us Quid libet ex quo libet First He saith by these words a more sure word of Prophesie is understood the Scriptures because any phrase of the like import is alwayes taken for the Scriptures as Luke 16 29. Eph 2. 20. Matt. 7. 12. And yet he confesseth in a Parenthesis the words Logos Propheticos are not to be sound in all the Scripture besides but by the words Law and Prophets are meant the Scriptures Ergo by the more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures This is a non seqitur with a witness The rest of his arguments such as if our Adversarys were not affronted and impudently bold such as would adventure upon any thing c. and the like Are not worthy of any answer But seeing he would explain one Scripture by another I will help him to one more sit John 1. 4 5. Where it is said In Him was Life and the Life was the Light of men and the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not How like this is to the more sure word of Prophesie which shineth as a Light in a dark place But the life of CHRIST the light in men is a seare Crow to Presbyterian Priests they cannot abide it One reasonless reason he gives us is because men are commended for searching the Scriptures But I would be obliged to him if he would form a Syllogism upon the medium and draw his conclusion from it In page 48 he tells us that Luther Calvin c. Understand it so Is this fare dealing Patroclus Dost thou agree with Luther or even with Calvin in all things If thou say yea I 'le prove that contrary and yet their Testimony must oblige us Then he computes us among Ancient Hereticks but he would not be satisfied if I should compute him and his brethren among Mahumitans for beliving a Stoical Fate Lastly He leaveth us to graple with William Penn's Rejoynder page 334 who he sayeth yieldeth to him what we deny To satisfie the Reader I shall set down some of William Penns words He sayeth John Faldo acknowledgeth That the writings of the Prophets are not more true in themselves than any other Revelation of the mind of GOD but more certain with respect to the Jews who bad a greater esteem for and testimony of the writings of the Prophets to be of GOD and not a delusion then of Peters Revelation So that we here have saith William Penn from John Faldo himself The scripture is not set above the Spirit as the more sure word the thing promoted of old by our enemies and which we only oppose For I doubt not but the Scriptures were more lure to the Jews then CHRIST Himself else they would never have thought to find Eternal life in them whilst they neglected yea persecuted him Which whether it was their perfection or imperfection so to do I leave with the judgement of my serious Reader which I likewayes do whether Patroclus be a fair adversary or any honest man He comes next to Luke 16. 31. If they â—ear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded thô one rose from the dead First Let the Reader observe that this is a Parable and that the Presbyterians believe that any such apparitions are but Devils assuming the body or the shape of the dead And therefore any thing may be more certain to them then such a Testimony and we read of none such but that of Samuel to Sâ—ul Secondly This Scripture brings no comparison betwixt the Scripture and the Spirit and whereas he saith let the Quakers prove that every man hath such a spirit as the Quakers alledge this shall come in its own place Next he proveth the Scriptures to be the Primary Rule because otherwise Abraham might have said the Spirit of GOD directeth every man immediatly If they hear not him they will hear none else If Abraham said so it seems Patroclus would have been displeased But a greater then Abraham said so even the LORD JESUS John 14. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things whose teaching are preferable to all the writings in the world seeing he taught them what they wrote and their being dictated by him giveth them all their excellency He saith R Barkclay saying The Scriptures were a written Rule to the Jews only is nothing to the purpose but he should not have belyed him for he saith they were a more principal Rule to the Jews But never that they were a principal Rule to the Jews He passeth by what he said upon the Scripture Viz. Page 40. This Parable was used by Christ to the Jews to shew them their Hypocrisie who albeit they deceitfully pretended to reverence and solâ— low Moses and the Prophets Yet they did not really hear them else they would have acknowledged him of what Moses the Prophets did so clearly write since he did as great and convincing Mitacles before them as if they had
the Testimony of one Risen from the Dead In like manner the Presbyterians now albeit they pretend so much to reverence the writings of the Apostles yet they will not really hear them else they would not fight swear nor exact a forced mantainance even from these who are not of the communion of their Church His Third argument is Certainly saith he the voice of one of the Glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the Face of GOD is no less to be accounted immediate Revelation then the voice of the high Priest unto the people c. But he should have proved that GOD took his method to reveal his mind unto his people which he never did But the High Priest was a Tipe of Christ and a Mediator betwixt GOD and the Jews So that to deny this to be immediate because it was first spoken to the High Priest is to deny the words of Christ to be immediate to his people because he saith he had heard and received them of the Father or that the light of the Sun is not immediate because it is conveyed to us through the Air. Only let him tell me whether the supream Magistrate who is at present troubled with the clamours of the two kinds of Clergy-men in Scotland can go and inquire of the LORD and have as certain an answer which of the two Church Government are Jure Divino as the Jews many times had and then he sayes something For the Jews had the Scriptures Moses and the Prophets as well as we and yet were many times necessitat to go and enquire of the LORD which evidently proves they had a higher rule then Moses Law In page 50 he giveth an argument like the rest Viz. Gods way of Revealing himself to us is as immediat as it was to the Jews because we have those that were inspired by GOD speaking to us tho Dead Hence he concludes that the Scriptures are as immediat to us as the voice of Moses or the High Priest or the Prophets was to the Jews This Argument is singular for deceit solly for First where did any Quaker deny the Scriptutes to be the Primary Rule upon the account of their not being immediatly revealed we acknowledege that they were immediatly revealed to the Prophets and Apostles recorded by them but this doth not let them above the Spirit which did reveal them and so his gross lie and his argument are both answered and yet he might have considered that the promise of Christ is more full to his people then it was to the Jews As he may read Matt 10 19 20. It shall be given you the same hour what ye shall speak for it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you His fourth argument from 2 Then 3. 15. Is That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the man of GOD wise through faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule c. But the Scriptures are able to do so c. Therefore they are a sufficient Rule Answer This argument militates nothing against us for the Question is not whether the Scriptures be a Rule but whether they be the Primary Rule which this Argument toucheth not and Faith is added here as a principal ingredient which themselves acknowledge to be a work of the Spirit this Faith hath a rule as also that faith whereby a man believes the Divine Authority of the Scriptures let him tell me with the next what is the Rule of this Faith He tells next The scriptures are Causa exemplaris and therefore the Primary Rule they call them causa formalis Causa materialis causa exemplaris And the word make would seem to make them causa efficiens so that according to them they are To Pan and the Spirit Vers Nihil From the Scriptures being Causa exemplaris he saith I evidently inferr that they are the adequat Primary Rule because if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in Scripture Or if they were subject to another Test c. They could not in truth be called able to make the man of GOD wise unto Salvation This I have answered before if he understand the Essentials and fundamentals of the Christian Religion It is confessed they do contain them but there are many things occur in our Christian course as he words it which the Scriptures do not determine Such as whether it was Christian or Antichristian course for the Presbyterians to come up to Bothwel-Bridge to fight against the King And Secondly Whether the late assembly ought to have united with their Brethren of the Episcopal perswasion till they had undergone Pennance for their Apostasie upon the Stool of Repentance The First brought much trouble upon the Nation and the Second is feared to be of no better consequence except our Author bring us clear Scripture to determine the case to the satisfaction of all parties He saith little Justice Truth or fare dealing is to be expected from us But far less from him so long as he trusts more to Aristotles Elenobis in frameing deceitful Sophisms then to the Testimony of the Spirit of Christ the reason he gives for this great calumny is because R. B. accuseth his brother John Brown for perverting the Scriptute 2 Tim 3. 16. Now it is evident that the 16 Ver hath no such word in it and that the 17 Vers saith only That the man of GOD may be perfect So the difference here is very obvious which R. B. hath largely handled in the same 41 page and our Author takes no notice of it but most deceitfully insinuates that he makes the scriptures Tautologies because he cannot evite the distinction there made by R. B. To which place never touched by our Author I refer my Reader Lastly saith he For we love rather to plead by weight of Arguments then by multitude of Arguments Answer If this had been true thou had spared a dale of Paper and pains We evine saith he That the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and Primary Rule of Faith and Manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves Answer If this be true it is manifest that allhe hath said on that Subject is superfluous Against whom did the Man write Omerciless Adversarie This is like the Papists in Q Marys time Tho you recant and be received into the Church yet you must burn But let us hear what he faith His Proofs are these First R Barkclay's Vindication page 36. The chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in Scripture And we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith in tho Scriptures And George Keith saith That the Scriptures are a full enough declaration of all Doctrines and Principles c. Both these I have cleared before granting all that they said And yet have proven that many things may and do occurr which the Scriptures do not clearly determine The other Branch that they are the Primary Rule
Our Adversaries themselves saith he at unawates grant Very well Patroelus it is a fine trick of a Souldier to take his Enemies napping and vanquish by stratagem but it seems there is some difficulty in it He citeth R Barkclays 2d Theses saying That the Spirit is not to be subjected to the Scriptures as a more noble Rule Therefore saith he The Spirit is to be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as a more noble Rule Answer first He should have said These Divine Revelations for they are the words of the These But we have often acknowledged that all Doctrines of Men how holy soever or how much soever they pretend to the Spirit are to be tryed by the Scriptures and if they be contrary to them are to be rejected But this proves nothing of their being the Primary Rule to us more then to Enoch who was a Man of GOD and had true Faith and walked with GOD before there was a line of Scripture in the World Again he saith Our Adversaries grant that the Scriptures proceeded from GOD and therefore are infalible and more sure than infalible is impossible This is a strange Argument The Scriptures are infallible because they proceeded from GOD or were inspired by the Spirit of GOD And shall the Inspiration of the Spirit be fallible or a more uncertain Rule then that which it dictated These words sound harshly But I expect when Patreclus comes to be serious in cold Blood he will grant That if there be more or less in the Case of Infallibility he will grant the more to the Spirit which dictated the Scriptures and from which they derive all their Infallibility Certainty and Excellency Here I desire the Reader may observe that his Arguments and the Scriptures cited by him tend only to set up Moses Law to be the Primary Rule of Faith and Life And not one word of the Scriptures of the New Testament so that he contends for Judaism rather then Christianity For Christ said It hath been said of Old an Eye for an Eye c But I say unto you resist not evil c So that the Jewish Law is not in all things to be a Rule for Christians Otherwayes Patroclus may ofter Sacrifice as well as take Tithes In page 54. 55 and 56. He ranteth and roareth against R B as a Jesuite because he alledgeth he hath taken an Argument of Bellarmines to prove the Scriptures not to be an Adequate Rule but what a silly kind of Reasoning this is tho true may easily appear Bellarmine sayes there is one GOD so do I therefore I am a Jesuite The Jesuites say That Dominion is founded upon Grace And so do the Presbyâ—erians Therefore the Preshyterians are Jesuites Then he comes to vindicate John Brown's simile of killing a Man And at last giveth us the Law the Judge and the Witnesses The Scriptures are saith he the Rule whereby to make the Examen the enâ—â—ghined â—â—solence the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a â—ilial Disposition c Together the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself the Witnesses But first I must ask him whether it be the Man himself or the Judge that needs this Spiritual Wisdome and Christian prudence to apply the Rule Secondly Whether the Judge be a Person distinct form the person judged for to use his own Simile If the Man â—â— yet be his own Judge he is not like to suffer Thirdly What he meaneth by the Ex Position he gives us of the Spirit of Adoption As if he thinketh it nothing else but a Filial Disposition inclining the believer to come to GOD as his Words imply Behold Reader what a Judgement is here to be expected Where the Man himself dislected into so many Parts is the Applyer of the Rule the Judge and the Witnesses And yet in page 57 He confesseth That for the infallible Assurance of the Person himself the thing standeth in need of or requireth an inward Judge and inward Witnesses Which I hope must be things distinct from the Person himself to whom they are to give infallible certainty As for his pretending That it belongeth not properly to a Rule of Faith to tell a Man whether he hath true Faith or not is not to the purpose For an adequate Rule of Faith must put me beyond doubting what I am to believe and what not Otherwayes it is no adéquate Rule And to conclude I would advise him to be sparing in calling Men Anti-Christian For I know no people except the Papists to whom the definition of Antichrist given by the Apostles is more agreeable then to the Presbyterians That is He exalteth himself above all that is called God or the civil Magistrates who are called Gods in Scripture Goodman saith they may kill wicked Princes as monsters and oruel beasts Knox History Fol 78. If neither the Magistrate nor the people do their office in deposing or killing the King then the Minister must Ex-communicat such a King Goodman page 110. Any privat Man may do it against the greatest Prince A privat Man having some special motion may kill a Tyrant If these Doctrines be not more like Anti-Christ than the Doctrine he accuserh let the Reader judge In Page 57 he cometh to another Argument of R. B's There are many things that the Scripture cannot determine To which I B Answers That General Rules are enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdome If this be not flatly to contradict the Scriptures concerning the chief Instances cited by R B Let the Reader judge after he hath read and considered the following Scriptures Rom. 8 16. The Spirit it self beareth Witness with our spirits that we are the Children of GOD. 1 John 4. 13. Hereby do we know that we dwell in Him and He in us because He hath given us of his Spirit And Vers 5. 6. And it is the Spirit that beareth Witness because the Spirit is Truth To these Scriptures cited by R B He hath not answered one Word Buâ— all his Answers are Quibles As first If we need Revelation for Spiritual Actions we need them also for Natural Actions Poor Man Are we contending for a Rule for Eating and Drinking as he talks If he be sick let him consult the Physician what and when he shall Eat But if he mean the Fasts appointed by the Presbyterian Clergie his Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Perswasion have need to consult an higher Oracle And when he is hungry and thirsty his stomach can teach him Nevertholess Whether we eat or drink we are to do it to the Glorie of GOD. His second Answer is ridiculous alledging that a system of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a sufficient Rule tho the Books comprehended not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever shall exist But the Question is Whether a system of these Arts can put a Man beyond doubting in every Emergent that may occurr in these Arts when practised And not whether their Names be there or not As whether he
right to the Scripture but Presbyterian Priests Secondly That for Fruits he enumerats four gross and abominable Untruths wherewith he chargeth us To witt That we deny the Holy Trinity the Person of our Lord JESUS CHRIST The Resurrection of the Body and that we assert the Souls of Men yea and devils too to be GOD Almighty Of all which he saith he will prove the Quakers to be undenyably guilty before he end his Treatise This needs no Answer But to say The Lord rebuke this lying spirit which hath gone forth in the mouth of this lying false Accuser For the LORD GOD whom we serve knoweth our Innocency in this matter and will in his due time vindicat his people from these malicious Callumniators But Thirdly The Man might have considered that these are points of Faith and not of Works and that our Saviour spoke here of Works and not Faith only The most wicked Man in the Nation may believe all the Westminster Creed as well as Patroclus doth and yet receive the Sentence in verse 23. of the same Chapter Depart from me ye workers of iniquity And therefore tho he should add another Forsooth to it I will betake me to the Fruits mentioned in Scripture and then let the World which he sayes is not ignorant judge between them and us Galat 5. 20. Where these are reckoned for Fruits of the Flesh Variance Emulations Wrath Strife Seditions Envyings Murthers c. Which whither they have been peculiar to that Tribe let the Nation judge On the other hand the Fruits of the Spirit are Love Peace Joy Long-suffering Gentleness Faith Meekness Temperance c. And whether the people in derision called Quakers be found in the Exercise of such Fruits let such as are acguainted with their conversations bear Witness for or against them And I may say without reflection if to devour and destroy be the fruits of Abbadon and Apollyon These are the only Spirits the Presbyterian Fruits can lay claim to which to enumerat were to writ a history but the late Advocat George Maekenzie hath given an Epitome of them to which I refer the Reader In page 84. He chargeth R. B. with three lies Citing his Vindication But how groundlessly will be evident to any who will be at the pains to examine R. B's words to which for brevity I refer the Reader Only this the first is as really John Browns as his two Hypothetick propositions are his own in page 79. To which R B. answers what a horrible lie is this The Second is no lie For in chap 3 Num 2. Of the Westminerr Confession we have these words Altho GOD knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed Conditions yet he hath not decreed anything because be foresaw it as future or as that it would come to pass upon such conditions And in the very next words they add By the Decree of GOD for the Manifestation of His Glory some men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting Life and others fore ordained unto everlasting death Let him interpret this with the next for if it bear not all that R. B. saith it is no better then the Answers of the Delphick Oracle So that which he calls a palpable and horrid Lie will be found to be a manifest Truth to any that can read the Confesfion above cited His third is that I. B. makes a preaching to the devil to deny which is impudence with a Witness And as for railing in pulpit and print it is too well known to the Nation to seek to cover it Whereof Brown and Mackquare are two famons instances neither is our Author a Novice in that ignoble art wherein lest he should come short of his Brethren he giveth us a short parralel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers This is an old blast from a new horn a work already done by George Meldrum when he was Preacher at Aberdeen and fully answered by George Keith without any reply To which I might remit my Reader but because it is not yet printed I shall touch at some of them and it is to be suspected not without cause that the hand of Joab is in all this His first is That these men said The Word of GOD was a certain heavenlie thing distinct from the Scriptures Adding the same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers Answer What was their Doctrine I know not for I see little ground to believe their Adversaries did not belie them more then that our Adversaries do not belie us now which they are not ashamed to do in the face of the Sun but our Doctrine is well known to be That Christ is the Word of GOD according to the Scriptures and that the Scriptures are the words of GOD. His second is about immediat Revelation But our Doctrine on this head is sufficient ly cleared in the foregoing Treatise His third is That the express words and phrases of the Scripture is to be adhered to without anie exposition interpretation or deduction That is a gross Callumny may be seen in page 67. of his own Book where he accuseth George Keith of poperie for rejecting their interpretations without the Spirtt And it is manifest we have always contended that the Spirit was the only true Interpreter of hard Scriptures where they were heard to be understood and that the express Words were to be adhered to where plain His Fourth is that we assert that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by CHRIST in the new and hath precept or authority from it For which he citeth R B's vindication page 178. Num 5. And to show the Reader his base ingenuity I shall transcribe R B's words which are these He seeks maliciously to inferr that I deny all authority of the Old Testament which is a horid callumny But since there are many things therein which himself will acknowledge are not binding upon us now What shall be the Rule whereby we shall judge what we are now tyed to and what not c. If this be to deny the obligation of the Old Testament or to say it is abrogat let the Reader judge But it seems our Author thinketh the Ninth Commandement to be abrogated else he would not so confidently bear false witness against his Neighbour His fifth inslance of Original sin he referreth to his third Chapter and so shall I. His sixth is That Christ made no satisfaction for sins and compared them who taught the contrary to the Seribes and Pharisees to assert which of the people called Quakers is gross and detestable injustice forgerie and malice But to cover this he addeth another no less false as to us that it is damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ c. Which he promiseth to prove in his fifth Chapter but will never be able to prove any thing like
desire thou may consider That there is not one of the thirteen wherein he hath not either grosly belyed or deceitfully misrepresented us And in some things these Anabaptists as in his twelsth Instance for which he hath cited no Book he alledgeth they denyed the Lawfulness of all Warrs Wheras Sleidans Commentaries lib 5. Mieneer incited the Boors of Germanie to undertake the Holy Warr as he called it against the Princes Telling them That he was commanded of GOD to cut off all wicked persons and Princes And how well this agrees with the Presbyterian practises and Doctrines is but too nottour Read the Hynd let loose and Zions Plea Fol 262. Strick the Basilick Veine Nothing but this will cute the Pleurisee of our State And to say That they were for Libertie of Consâ—ience is no less inconsistent with their Practises for they laboured to propagate their Religion by the Sword And so did our Presbiterians Yea and put themselves under a necessity so to do by a solemn Oath Only the difference betwixt Muneer and the Presbiterians was this I lle crueem seeleris preâ—ium tulit hi diadema There was another Doctrine common to them both Anabaptists and Presbiterians Viz all is Durs Which Text they expounded thus That all the wealth of the World belonged properlie to the Saints and whatsoever other men possessed was but by usurpation Agreeable to this was the practise of our Presbiterians who after they had got possession of the Kings Revenue the Bishops Rents the Papists Estates and these they called Malignants and were squeezing the Nation with insupportable Cesses and Excise They at last devised a trick how the Israelite might robe the Aegyptian by forcing every man who was not as Zealous as the servency of the times required To lend them his money upon the publick Faith commonly called the Blind Bonds which Faith certainly will never justifie them For the wicked borrweth and paveth not again Yet in all this the Judgement of GOD was visible for the most part of them who gote the spoil of their Native Country lest their Heirs in a worse condition then they might have done if they had never meddled By all this it is evident That the Mans malice hath blindfolded him and that all his Lies and Perversions cannot help his bad cause But their enmity and hatred to Truth drives them on tho they might remember that he who hates his Brother is a murtherer and no murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him Had it not been as easie for him to have said The Lollards taught several Doctrines which the Quakers hold and which we have neglected tho we desire to be accounted their Successors Such as First It is not lawful to Fight for the Faith Secondlie That Tiths ought not to be paid to Ecclesiastical Persons Thirdlie That every faithful Man and Woman is a Priest Fourthly That in no case it is lawful to Swear Fifthly That true Christians receive the Body of Christ every day c. All these we should have acknowledged tho this backsliding and degenerat Tribe have denied them Next we come to his third Argument against Divine immediat Revelation viz If the Spirit or the Light within every Man were the Supream and Principal Rule then these who persecuted to Death the Apostles and Saints of God did not Sin in so doing but I am sure the latter is false Ergo the former To prove the Consequence of the Major he citeth Paul and John 16. 2. alledging That Paul walked according to his Light and that his Light taught him that according to all he had for Light he ought to do many things against the Professors and Servants of Jesus Christ Answer Let the Reader observe First His constant disingenuity whereof he hath been so often found guilty For he should have said If the Teachings of the Spirit of Christ and His Light wherewith He hath enlightned every Man be the principal Rule c. Which would have urged upon Blasphemy if the rest of his Argument had been added to it Which notwithstanding is the true state of the Controversy Secondly Observe how blind the Man is for he hath fallen in the Ditch he digged for us Paul saith he according to all that he had for Light Ought to do many things against the Servants of Jesus c. But Paul had the Scriptures and was learned in the knowledge of them for Light Ergo according to our Author Paul according to the Light of the Scriptures ought to persecute the Saints Thirdly By this Argument the Old World yea all who lived before Moses wrote had no Sin because no Scripture and the Light of Christ and Teachings of the Spirit was no sufficient Rule to them All the Mahumitans and Pagans at this day have no Rule therefore no Sin These are the wild Consequences of this Argument Fourthly His instancing Paul is very impertinent For Paul had the Scriptures and was one of them who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures and no doubt he thought them a Rule for his persecuting the Saints For he said he had lived blemlesly according to the Low And therefore it could be no other thing but the Light of Christ and the teachings of his Spirit which brought Paul to a better Understanding And whereas he saith in his next Argument That Paul never counteracted his Light was always of the same Judgement and therefore never had a true Light till the day of his Conversion This clearly contradicts the Scriptures and the experience of all Ages John 12 Chap. 36. While ye have Light believe in the Light that ye may be the children of the Light Hence it is clear Men have Light before Conversion or becoming Children of Light And again he said John 3. 19. The condemnation of the World was not for want of Light but for Loving darkness more then Light Every Servant received a Talent and it was said From him that had not shall be taken away even that which he hath All which intimats that it is not want of Light but not believing in nor taking heed to the Light that causeth Men to err And Prov 1. 23. Turn ye at my Reproof behold I will pouer out my Spirit upon you c. 24. I have called and ye refused and I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded verse 25. Ye have set at naught all my Counsells and would none of my reproofs 30 They would none of my Counsel they despised all my reproofes therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own waies Hence it is manifest That CHRIST the Light the Wisdom of GOD calls reproves stretcheth out his hand oflers his Councils even to such as reject him and do not regard him and therefore are at last rejected by him And lastly The Experiences of all Ages sheweth that it is a Law engraven or imprinted on the Souls of all men not to do that to another which we would not should be done to our selves
This the Heathens taught before Christ preached it And therefore persecution cannot be but esteemed a sin against Light and tho Paul by the prejudice of his Education and a blind Zeal for upholding of that Law or form of Worship which was to be abolished did ignorantly and inconsideratly ruo on to persccute the Saints Yet it can no more be said that he acted according to all he had for Light then it can be said that the Presbyterians acted according to the Scripture in the that Murther of the Arch Bishop And tho this may serve to answer the two following Arguments Yet what seems to have weight in them I shall take notice of His Fourth Argument is Divine Light is alwayes consonant to it self But the Light within one Man is quite contradictory and opposite to that within another as the many and great Contraversies in all ages do but too well make out This is easily answered and no less easily retorted For who dare deny but the Scriptures is alwayes cousonant to it self And yet how many and great are the Contraversiies among these who profess it to be their only Rule Was the Command of GOD to Saul Dubious to destroy Amaleck No But Saul disobeyed it The like is the example of Jonah Is not the Counsel of GOD alwayes consonant to it self yet men reject it And for his Argument from the pertinacy of Heathens and Hereticks I am ready to think nothing of it when I consider the madness of mine own Country men who would rather choose to he hanged then pray for their Lavvful King in obedience to a plaine Scriptute precept All the Conntraversies in the World as well as all the Warrs are the product of mens lusts and neither is the Scripture nor the Light culpable but carnal corrupt minds of Men Especially the Clergy See 1 Corinth 3. and 3. His Fifth Argument is a singular one The substance whereof is There are many in the World whereof I am one sayes he who by all the Light they have attained to and after an impartial search firmlie believe without so much as one thought from the Light with in to the contrarie that Quakerism is the path-way to utter destruction It must therefore be so if the Doctrine that every man must follow his Light be true This Argument is sufficiently Answered before only his Instance of himself is strange I would therefore ask him wil lingly Had he never any check for all the Lies Slanders Perversions and deceitful Insinuations published in his Book If he say nay I must say Certainly the man is in a very desperate condition and to be pittyed But I doubt not the day shall come in which the Light now by him so much despysed will speak to him in a Language that shall not be very pleasing to him and which all his deceitful Quibles cannot silence I wish it may be in Merey His Ipse dixi hath no force with me He firmly believes That all the other Professions of Christianity except his own are the path way to utter destruction It is therefore true Because dumb idol Shep berd hath said so whose right Eye is utterly darkned and whose right Hand is clean dryed up If the light in him be darknes how great is that darkness His Sixth Argument is If GOD suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testament to walk in their own wayes then all and every one bath not sufficient Grace and Light whereby they may come to Salvation But the former Is true Ergo the latter for proof of his Minor he citeth Acts 14. 16. And telleth us that the Evidence of the Consequence strangly straitneth Bellarmine But it doth not straiten ns for we know that the Spirit of the LORD strove with the Old World he Called and they refused He Gave his Counsel but they rejected it therefore he suffered them to walk in their own wayes Rom 1. 10. For the wrath of GOD is rovealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men c 19. Because that which may be known of GOD is manifest in them for GOD hath shewed it unte them And verse 21. Because when they knew GOD they glorified him not as GOD c So in verse 26 he saith for this cause GOD gave them up to vile affections So that GOD is just who requireth no more of man then he giveth him And certninly some of these Gentiles whom this Author and his brethren will have reprobats and to have had no Light nor Knowledge of GOD seem to have had more true Religion then many Presbyterians have at this day For which read Morney du Plesse a Protestant Writter his Book called Of the trueness of the Christian Religion and Augustine de Civitate Dei I could cite many Authoâ—s but William Penn and George Keith have done it abundantly already Only Du Plesse clearly proveth from thir Books That they believed on GOD Father Son and Spirit The Creation of all things by him the fall of Man the immortality of the Soul and futur rewards and punishments Yea many things concerning the coming of Christ Was not Balaam one of the Gentiles Were Job and his friends Israelites had they the Scriptures I shall only cite two sayings of Seneca The first in his 74 Epistle at the end Nulla sine DEO c Thus Englished There is no good Mind without GOD There are Divine Seeds sown in the bodys of Men which if a good Husbandman receiveth then cometh forth Fruits like to their Original and arise like unto those of which they were born But if an evil husband-man then like barren and watrish ground it kills the seed and maketh filth in stead of Corn. And Epistle 41. GOD is nigh unto thee He is with thee He is in thee The Holy Ghost sitteth within us an Observer and Keeper of all our Good and evil Actions and as he is dealt with by us so dealleth he with us Who told Seneca these things if he had no light But Epictetus his Motto Bear and forbear is an Evangelick precept which I never yet knew a Presbyterian who had learned it Neither needed our Authorto have gone so farr back as the Old Testament For GOD hath now suffered the Presbyterians for many years to walk in their own wayes For tho there was a good beginning among them many years ago How soon they betook themselves to the arm of flesh GOD left them to their own wayes as Samuel Rutherford saith God turned his back upon them and never since looked over his shoulder unto them This may serve to answer his seventh argument drawn from Ephes 2. 12. Where the Gentiles are said to be or have been without Christ Aliens from the common-wealth of Israel c. Therefore they had not sufficient Grace and Light This again impeacheth the justice of GOD to condemn men for breaking a Law which they never had contrary to that Scripture where there is no
Law there is no transgression And if he bad but considered the 3 4 and 5 Verse of the same Chapter he would have found that Paul placeth himself and the Jews in the same condition with the Gentiles And the only difference was that the Jews had the outward Law which was added because of transgreffion and yet could not make the comeâ—s thereunto perfect His Eight argument is from Amos 3. 2. You have I known of all the Families of the Earth And Psalm 149. 19. 20. He sheweth his word unto Jacob his Statutes and Judgements unto Israel c. From hâ—nce he inferts that they who have not the Sâ—riptures never had a Light sufficient to guide them to Salvation But he is somewhat craftie in his expresion saying These to whom GOD did not give his word which I fully grant But if hereby he understands the Scriptures it is great impudence to assert it for then it will follow that Abel Enoch Noaâ—h Abraham Job c. Had never a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation Then he raileth a little and is very angry at such as say The Light shined in the darkness but the darkness comprehended it not He may if he please rail at me next for telling him that the world was never condemned for want os Light but for loving darkness more then Light A little after he rants tho without reason saying Now I say who but a Quaker will from this inferr that all Nations in all ages had the knowledge of the word Statutes and Judgements of GOD who but a Presbyterian will deny that GOD may be known without the Scriptures And that the word of GOD is GOD and was known before there was a Book in the World As for the Statutes and Judgements given to Israel they were peculiar to that Nation as his elder Brother R Baxter hath confessed above and GOD is no respecter of persons but in every Nation be that feareth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him Acts 10. 34. And Doctor Barron against Turnbul page 56. Saith Potuit DEUS olim imo etiam bodis potest sine Scriptura Ecclesiam suam Colligere tueri That is GOD could of old â—ea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripturâ— The next Scripture he mets with is that of Jude Vers 15. That some men have not the Spirit This R Barkelay hath answered in Quakerism confirmed citing the words of our Saviour Viz. From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath Intimating thereby that men may be said in one sense to have and in an other not to have the Spirit To this our Author replyeth that altho these wicked servants had gifts and abused them yet no such thing can be said here because they are said to be twice dead c. And senswal But if it be lawful to look to the context which in the end of this page he is very unwilling to allow unto us he will find by the examples there adduced that even they had something too For in Vers 5 and 6 he compares them to the children of Israel who were brought out of Aegâ—pt and on their way to the Land of Rest yet were destroyed for unbelief and then the Angels saith he who keep not their first Estate Where it is manifest they had a first Estate To which they might have kept that they were Twice dead proves that they were once Living And their being sensual saith no more but that all such as reject the Counsel of the LORD and dispise his reproofs do as in the 18 Verse walk after their ungodly lusts and become sensual more and more Are not all men by nature sensual And yet Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World is it not said the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul and an evil Spirit from GOD came upon him Yet at sometimes he was inforced to cry out thou art more Righteous then 1 0 my Son David But the Spirit of GOD hath given us special symptoms whereby we may know and discern these men viz. The malicious cruelty of Cain the insatiable avarice of Ballaam the sedicious practices of Korah and the speaking evil of Dignities The first three speak for themselves and for the Fourth take this instance of the Hind let loose where the Author speaking of King Charles the Second sayeth Notwithstanding of all his numerous brood of Bastard brats begotten in adulterâ— and Iâ—â—â—st Yet he died a Child 's lâ—ss poultron and had the unlamented burial of an Ass and none to succed him but he who Murthered him Horresco referens c. Next he saith The knowledge of some things are absolutely necessary to Salvation But all men have not this knowledge therefore all men have not sufficient light to guide them unto Eternal life This is a meer Non sequitur such another as to say some men shut their eyes and will not see Ergo the Sunshineth not I have told him before that the World is not condemned for want of light but for loving darkness and I acknowledge where the Scriptures are to be had The knowledge of them is indispensibly necessary but where that cannot be had I say with Doctor Barron GOD could of old yea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripture And I think our Author dar not say that the Spirit of Christ which taught the Apostles to write Scripture cannot teach men now all things necessary to Salvation Or if he say that he hath limited himself that he will not I shall expect his proof of it by the next for I believe no such thing as yet His Ninthly is no argument but a new warr undertaken against the Light of Christ He begins with his usual forth saying will overthrow another principil of the Quakers upon which the whole fabrick of Quakerism is builded He had said in his first argument that the whole fabrick of Quakerism was overthrown This then must be superfluous but the man forgets himself sometimes and must be pardoned He begins according to his custom with three gross lies Ist that we aslert that man in his fallen estate cannot do any thing that is as to the substance of the action good for an unregenerate man may plow which is good as to the substance of the action and yet the Plowing of the wicked is sin Secondly He accuseth us as Socinians whereas he himself is the Soeinian in that he acknowledgeth that fallen man by nature can know that there is a GOD who is to be Loved Feared and Adored page 99. And that we ought to do unto another as we would he should do unto us page 110. This is to say nature fallen and corrupted can teach us to love GOD and and our Neighbour which is the summ of the Law and the Prophets against which Socinian Doctrine R B hath bestowed more then a whole page of his apologie His Third lie is that the whole
into a Question How infants if not guilty to come to Heaven without the death and meriâ—s of Christ What he intends by this Quâ—stion is hard to be understood it s much if he knows what he â—ayes for we never said nor believed that any person Infants or Old man came to Heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ So that his Question if it have any sense at all must be what need have Infants of Christ if they he not sinners nor guilty of Adams sin This is â—nswerâ—d by R B page 61 They have â—eâ—d of Christ who died for them as a Saviour to deliver them from the seed of sin â—nd corruption in them which is called â—aâ—th and the Old man that they may â—uâ— off this â—â—d sing the song of the Reâ—eemed as John Brown words it But how by what means he doth this he hath oâ— tollâ—us and I desire not to be 〈◊〉 above what is revealed â—â—s answe◠〈◊〉 B's Question how elect infants come to besaved whom he accounts guilâ—y of 〈◊〉 Is by the imputed Righteousness of Christ But then what becomes of the 〈◊〉 mentality of Faith without which they deny imputation let him help this same â—nswer with the next His next is These who in the sight of GOD are dogs are guilty persons to be excluded from Heaven and therefore to be cast into hell but whole Nations without exception are â—uen therefore Infants being a part of these Nations deserve to be excluded from Heaven and â—ent unto hell To â—rove his Minor he bringeth Matt. â—â— 26. It is â—â— meet to take the Childrens bread and â—ast it to dogs but it seems he hatâ— forgoten to look unto the 28 Verse O Woman Great is thâ— Faith c. And â—â— they be dogs who have Faith yea and great faith I must ask him who are Children And iâ— such who have great Faith deserve to be excluded from heaven and sent to hell He might have considered that many of the Gentiles who formerly wallowed in the lusts of the Flesh and were dogs came afterwards to be washed from their polutions and that Publicans and sinners entered the Kingdom of Heaven when such professing Sâ—ribâ—s and Pharisies as our Author were shut out The other place he citeth 1 Cor â— 14. For the unbelieving husband is Sanctified bâ— the wife and the unbelieving wife is Sanctified by the Husband else were your Children unclean but now are they holy Iâ— this be any thing to the purpose it is against our Author seeing it relates to the uncleanness and holiness of the immediate Parents and can never be thought to intend Adams sin but any thing may serve to make a Muster His next is â—en 1â— 14. The man Child that is Vncircumâ—ised shall be cut off Hence he saith that Mr. Brown inferreth that Children may be in some sense apablâ— of breach of Covenant and therefore under a Law desiring his adversary to chaw his Cude upon it First I observe how timorously they propose this argument with a may â—e and in some sense But it is strange how men pretending to sense could propone in it for whose sin was it iâ— the Child was un-Circumcised Could it Circumcise it self or could it desire another to do it Or did ever the Just and Merciful GOD require such an impossibility of an Infant of â—ight dayes old It was therefore the Father and not the Child who was oblidged by this Covenant and who sinned in case of Non performance So that R B needed not trouble himself with such nonsensical stuff His fourth pregnant Argument is John 3. None â—an enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again Upon this he argueth the New Birth is a Gift of GOD which he may withhold from whom he will And therefore without prejudice to his Justice may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven But none are excluded from it but guilty persons which I believe none will deny Therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons I answer in short when he tells us hâ—w his Elect Infants are born again he may take the same waâ— with the rest For I have told him before I pretend not to be wise above what is revealed But his Doctrine of Imputation will not serve his turn here Lastly He comes to answer that of Ezek 18. 20. For which he bringeth no answer But tells us Mr. Brown hath cleared this Text Why then did he meddle with it But he sayes it contradicteth the second Commandment Answer No such matter for the second Commandment saith Visiting the sins of the Fathers upon the Children c Which is generally expounded of Temporary punishments and relates to the immediat Parents But Ezekiel saith The Soul that sinnâ—th it shall die which is meaned of Eternal punishments And now to conclude I must ask this great Pretender to a knowledge of the secret Counsel of GOD and the state of Infants after death Whether they shall continue Infants and be such every way at the Resurection and to all Eternity as they are the time of their decease And I shall expect his answer with the next Chapter IV. Of GOD. HE begins this Chapter with three malicious and false Accusations according to his custome saying in this Chapter I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things each of which is enough to Un-Christian the Maintainer thereof But I hope not the Denyer thereof His three things are First That they deny the Holy Trinity with Arrius and Sahellius Secondly That their Doctrine maketh GOD the author of sin Thirdly That they bold the Soul of Man to be GOD. All which three we positively deny our selves to be guilty of and I hope all sober and unprejudiced Men will acknowledge that we know what we believe better then this our deceitful and malicious Enemie doth And therefore this whole Chapter needeth no other Answer But the LORD rebuke this lying spirit that is gone forth into the mouths of these lying Propâ—ets Who take pleasure to defamâ— and bespatter innocent Men thereby to lay them open to the fury of their bigotted Admires and blind folded followers But the just GOD who searcheth our Hearts knoweth our Innocency and will in due time rip off these covers of deceit and take away this refuge of Lies wherewith these Men cover themselves that they may hurt the Innocent To begin with the first R B in his Apologie George Keith in his Book of The Way cast up have so fully vindicated us from the Arrians and Sabellian herefies that I wonder with what face this Author can accuse us And it is evident to all single hearted Men who read our Writings that it is the Words only we oppose To wit words invented by the deformers of Christianity the Clergie who by their heathenish philosophie by a new name called School Divinity have invented and brought into the Church these heathenish and unscriptural terms which we reject Nevertheless this perverse and
Spiraculum Vitarum be tells us of three or four Lexieo graphers upon whose skill of the Language his faith depends But William Penn tells him of Rabbi Nâ—bmunni Hiskuni and P Fagius And as I told him before R Barkelay told him of Athanasius and Gallus Alexandrinus whose Authority is as good as his Lexico-graphers if not better And therefore we must expect better proofs next His last Citation in page 176 is nothing to his purpose except that any thing which he thinks can blaken the Quakers is pertinent enough But I must ask him here doth he allow of Henry Forsides Answer To wit Being asked For what end Christ wept over Jerusalem He Answered As he was humane he mourned and his God-head deareed them to bell If thou owest this answer thou and he are the Blasphemers in asserting a will in Christ as Man contrary to the Will of GOD for no Man mouths for what he desires and delights in But certainly Christ as Man delighted in fulfiling the Decrees of GOD. But the words he carps at are The Eternal tendered over them This he calls a subjecting that most pure and impassible Being to the weakest Frailties of Mankind Poor Man Doth not the Scripture say That it repented the Lord that he had made Man and is grieved him at his Heart Gen 6. 6. And Eph 4. 30. Grieve not the Good Spirit of GOD. Chapter V. Of CHRIST and His Benefits OUR Author begins this Chapter with his ordinary Ingenuity as he ended the last Saying The Quakers in words ordinarly acknowledge that Christ is GOD and Man Yea Patroclus and in Write too if thou could learn to write the Truth But saith he They maintain a Spiritual and Heavenly Nature in Christ which they call the Heavenly Man which did exist before the Incarnation of Christ and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this Man the Church in all ages did feed Then he giveth us a bundle of Citations out of George Keiths Book The way east up But never one of the Scripture Arguments which he bringeth to prove these assertions Which she weth evidently that they have been too hot for his Fingers This is not like the Champion Patroclus And he might have considered that George Keith was a Philosopher and therefore might have allowed us one Casuist and have discussed him before they had charged his Doctrines upon us But he tells us it is a clear Consequence of this Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures and addeth To this they Answer Quak Confession page 33. That it will no more follow from their Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures then it will follow from ours who assert that Christ assumed into Vnion with the Divine Nature a Body and a Soul But with no better Candour hath he cited this place then his Brother Hicks and Faldo used to I shall therefore set down the words But if they argue that at least Christ hath three Natures in himself We say their own Principle will conclude that as much as ours For the God-head is one Nature The Nature of the Soul is a second And the Nature of the Body is the third And our Adversaries themselves teach That as GOD is three Persons in one Nature So Christ is three Natures in one Person Who seeth not here that our Author hath disingenuously skipt over the strength of the answer to wit the latter part of it which is an argume nt ad hominem and that themselves are owners of that which they would make an absurdity in others But if he have leasure he may read the Cantabridgian Philosopher H More concerning the Astral bodies of men For which I find him not censured by any as making men to be Monsters and so you may allow George Keith some latitude in such Metaphisical stuff however he is of Age and can answer for himself His next is in page 179 where he chargeth us with quite anihilating and destroying the Divinity of Christ for which he citeth a book of one Christopher Aitkinson in the time of Oliver Cromwel But I ask him hath he this book Or hath he taken it upon trust Or found it folding up wares in some Grossers Shop For my part I never saw this book nor know I if there be such a book Extant in this World but he hath had two sufficient answers the first that G Aitkinson was not a Quaker the Second if he deny Christ to be a man we 〈◊〉 him who do say that Christ is both GOD and Man And here let the Reader observe that J Brown thought this a good answer to R B as is to be seen Vind page 67 But our Author will hear no such thing and affirmeth in page 181 That this confession serveth only to prove us guilty of the most wicked Hypocrisie lieing and self-contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover our abominations to prove this heap of gross and unworthy calumnies he betakes himself to George Keiths book again and the places before cited quite ommitting as before all the arguments used by George Keith and never offering us one argument to prove his false accusations of Hypocrisie lieing and false accusation but proceeds like a scolding Kailwife reeling and roaring like a drunken man foaming out his own shame But he saith these Doctrines of George Keiths destroy all the arguments for proving the Divinity of Christ of which he mentioneth one By him all things were Created But was the power of the Logos lessened by taking that Flesh of the Virgin And was he not as able to have Created the World after his Incarnation and Assumption of that Body as he was from Eternity And then what did his being the Heavenly Man the first born of every Creature hinder the Logos from Creating the World and all things therein As for his Vbiquity George Keith hath aboundantly cleared himself in the Book before cited to which I referr him and shall now come to his Dilemma which is this If all things were created by Christ as Man Then either the Manhood of Christ is Created or not If Created then it is Created by it self then which there is nothing more absurd if Uncreated then there is an uncreated Man and a Man that is Coeternal with GOD. Answer The fallacie of this Dilemmâ— lyeth in the first supposition and is obvious to a very mean understanding To wit If all things were Created as Man This was never asserted by George Keith as his own words cited by this impudent Author will easily prove page 93 The Word made Flesh Created all things Now except he will say that he was weakened or disabled by assuming a Body he can make nothing of his Delemma for he was still and is and will be for ever the same Eternal and Omnipotent GOD as well as Man If he ask who made that Heavenly Body I answer The same GOD Almighty who made the Body which he took of the Virgin and so his Consequence of an Vnereated
may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural to him to do Righteousness Tho I be wearied with such Perversions and Paultry stuff I am inforced to transcribe R B's Words to evince yet once more his dissigenuity Apol page 170. Lastly tho I affirm that after a Man hath arrived to such a condition in which a man may not sin he yet may sin I will nevertheless not deny but there may be a State attainable in this Life in which to do Righteousness may become so natural to the regenerate Soul that in the stability of this Condition they cannot sin Others may perhaps speak more certainly of this State as having arrived to it For me I shall speak modestly as acknowledging my self not to have arrived at it Yet observe dare not deny it for that it sâ—mâ— to be so positively asserted by the Apostle 1 John 3. 9. He that is born of GOD sineth not neither can he because the Seed of GOD remaineth in him Now let the Reader Judge whether to assert be one thing and not dare to deny be another thing And the Reason our Author gives is It is so natural to him to do Righteousness Whereas R B's Reason why he dare not deny it is because the Apostle seems so positively to assert it But this is not the first we have met with The next we get is another peece of Hicks one of his wicked abominable Anabaptists as he words it which I intend no more to concern with But he tells us R B hath given away the Cause Vind Sect. 9. Saying That he pleadeth for no more then Mr. Brown saith Numb 6. To wit That by Penfection in this Life is understood a change in the whole Man So that he yeildeth Impartial Obedience to all the Commands of GOD tho in a small degree Thus our Author Certainly it 's strange what the man could promise to himself by such base and unworthy dissimulations For R B citeth John Browns words page 328. 329. In regeneration the whole man is changed so that he is now born a new Creature sanctified wholly in Mind Heart Spirit Affection Conscience Memory and Body tho but in a small measure or degree yielding Impartial Obedience through the Grace of GOD unto all GODS Precepts waving none These are the Words cited by R. B. and miserably mancked by our Author who hath skipped over the most matterial parts of his Brothers words that he may have the more room but this is a very mean subterfuge and will not long cover him For saith he R. B. enquireth how this Doctrine is reconciled with that of daily breaking the Commands in thought Word and deed In answer to which question saith he It is enough to enquire How he evineeth them to be contradictory Observe Reader That according to this Man for I will not think that his brethren will own him to be changed in the whole Man to be born a new Creature to be wholly sanctified in the mind heart Spirit Affections Conscience Memory and Body c. And to break the Commands daily in thought word and Deed are no wayes contrary and need no Reconciliation Behold this Mans Sanctification And let him tell me with the next what difference there is betwixt his Holiness or Sanctification and other Mens wickedness where malice is wanting As for that he adds That the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as as parts He might have known that we are to be judged by the Gospel and not by the Law Next he saith And whereas he enquireth If to break Gods Commands daily in Thought Word and Deed be the way to grow in Grace To put off the Old Man and put on the New This he calls a malicious calumny But who gave the occasion for it Did not â— B. bring this for a proof that Men sin daily in thought Word and deed viz. That Christians are exborted to grow in Grace To put off the Old Man which is corrupt to put on the nor Man to mortifie their Members And now I leave it to the Reader to judge whether R. B's question were pertinent and neither malicious nor calumnious Yet our Candid Author must add something that he may still be like himself Asking Where did any of the Reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands to grow in Grace as this Man insinuates they do First he hath added the Word Indeavour and then he hath fathered the import of l. B's argument upon R. B's question Is this honesty To tell his Adversary His Light teacheth him a faoulty of Lying while himself is both the Lyet and the Forger He goeth no to give us I. B's second Proof thus This perfection renders Gospel Commands useless R. B. Answers by a Simile Asking Are the Laws useless if Men obey them He answers He that is above the Breach of the Law hath no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to his Obedience thereof Is not this a poor Subterfuge How shall a Man obey the Law if he know it not Or how obey it if he take not heed to order his Conversation according to it And is then the Law useless him But he might have remembred that R. B. asserted a possibility of sinning and only modestly said he durst not deny a further State because the Apostle seemed positively to assert it But the Apostle saith Against such there is no Law he may tell us next who these are But to summ up this Paragraph he will not only fasten a contradiction upon R. B. but also Blasphemy saying But that he â—hay further contradict himself and his Brethren He saith in his Apologie that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For saith our Author If some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a body of death the most that they have to do is to give Thanks and not to pray or repent Is not this a profound as well as fair Disputant Did his Adversary ever say That any were equal with GOD No And therefore the Blasphemy is his own for which he hath need to repent And so had the best Saints for that all have sinned and whosoever hath sinned need to repent and pray for Forgiveness And if he will consult the Scriptures he may see that after the Intimation of Pardon the Saints have mourned and prayed for Forgiveness See 2 Sam. 12. 13. Compated with Psalm 51. 14. But his Malice blinds him in this and many more things He comes now to John Browns next proof Viz This doctrine tends to foment pride and Securitie and taketh away diligent Watchfulness Holy fear Humility c. To which R. B. answers But where Freedom from Sin is where can pride and Securitie have place or Diligence and Humility be wanting But with him to sin is the way not to be proud and secure but to be watchfull
and humble For answer he sends to Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what Law of Works Nay But by the Law of Faith But prithee Patroclus what saith this for thee Are we boasting in our own strength or in the strength of the Grace of God Or do we depend upon the Law of Works No But on the Law of Faith which purifieth the heart and worketh by Love If to exalt the Grace of God as sufficient be to boast in thy Sense thou hast Liberty to abound in thy own sense wherein no good Christian will own thee But he giveth us another citation of R B's in these words That according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do less make useless God commands then others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for forgiveness of God Will thou never deal honestly Did R. B. once mention a perfection of degrees But to I. B's argument That the keeping the Commands of God takes away the exercise of Repentance Prayer c. He returns thus If this his Argument hold true to prove that Men must sin all their Life-time and break the Commands every day in thought word and deed then the greatest sinners and most prefligate Villains do less make useless Gods Commands then others because they affoord more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for Forgiveness of sins For answer he sendeth to Rom 3. 8. Let us do evil that good way come Which saying tho it was falsly and slanderously said of the Apostle Yet is truly said of him and and his Brother I. Brown who have thus asserted it in terminis By saying That the Keeping of Gods Commands renders the Ordinances of Christ useless His very next Words are a gross Lie saying And here he promiseth always to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus 〈…〉 Words are these As for such Ordinances â—s must be made useful by dayily breaking God's Commands in shought Word and Deed I resolve never to cry but always to cry down And here let the Reader take notice of his Blasphemy who assetâ—s the Ordinances of Christ Jesus to be such As for his â—â—llowing Question it is Nonsense Fâ—â— he R. B. never said that any Ordinance taught it but that he and his Brother have taught here That this is the use of their Ordinances but not of the Ordinances of Christ is obvious to every Reader 〈◊〉 the next place we have another of J. B's Proofs That then noâ—e that are regeneraâ— could Sic at all but would be beyond the possibility of it For which the citeth John 3. 9. and Expounds it of a trade and custom of finning from Malice like the Deâ—â—â— and the Wioked his Children And 〈…〉 prove that Regeneration adteth of no Degrees but is one instan taneous Act. To the First to wit J. Brown's Argument I say it is a wild Conscequence to conclude from a posse non peccare to a non posse peccare And yet Calvin in his Instit cireth Augustine saying Ade fuisse libertatem posse non peccare nostram vero multo majorem non posse peccare And still our Author takes R. B's modest Expression I dare not deny for a full Assertion As for his Exposition of 1 Joh. 3. 9. of a Trade and Custom of Malice like the Devil It is a meeâ— Dream there being no shadow for it in the Context His Doctrine of being Regenerat in an instant contradicts his Brother John Brown Numb 18. who says It may be begin where some Members may yet the to be mortified But according to J. B. elsewhere the Man is wholly sanctified in Mind Heart Spirit Affections Conscience Memory and Body Behold Reader how these our Adversaries reel and stagger like drunken Men I shall therefore here give him the Sense of Augustine set down by J. Brown and approven by R. Baxter in his Paper of Perfection pag. 13. He tells us that Augustine in his Book layes some two or three of these Texts together To wit Solomon Paul James John and offers us this Solution That which is born of GOD sinâ—eth not which is as much as to say there is that which is born of GOD in the true Christian and that which is not born of him Where is then the full and compleat Regeneration at one Instant The two Scriptures Phil 1. 8. and Gaâ— 5. â— He makes very short work with Telling us the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus when this Epistle was written Ergo they were wholly sanctisied in Mind Heart Spirit c As J Brown saith the Regenerate Man is And yet breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed To the other place he saith It sayes as little for him from it he would infer the Saints falling away which is false sayes he but I hope he will not deny that Paul was in part regenerate when he said Lest when I have preached the Gospel to others I my self should be a east away He spends page 195 proving Regeneration to be accomplished at one instant not by Scripture for that fails him here Only he instanceth two Saying I would sain Know If the thief on the Cross and the Jâ—â—â—â— were not him again 〈…〉 from a Particular to an Universal 〈◊〉 Jâ—mes and John saw Christ Transâ—â—guâ—ed therefore all men did so Rnoch 〈◊〉 were translated Therefore all the Saints are so What he speaks of Children in Christ R. B. grants that they are under a possibility of sinning and a capaâ—â—â— thereunto but modestly again Tin page 120 saith dare noâ— affirm But that there man be some 〈…〉 sin 〈◊〉 He proceeds alledging from 1 John 2. 12. That thee to whom the Apostle wrote were perfectly 〈◊〉 of GOD but that Scripture saith no such thing only that their sins were forgâ—â—â—n which according to himself is the first Act of Justification and proceedath Sanctification of the whole man as 〈◊〉 words it in mind heare c. And so not perfect Regeneration But doth this prove that these Children did break dayly the Commands of GOD in thought word and deed That they were perfectly born of GOD the proveth because saith he They had the seed of GOD or Vnction abiding in them But the Seed before it come to perfection or â—obring forth froit in requites a time and I hope our Author will not deny that the young man mentioned here by the Apostle who had overcome the Evil one were more perfectly and fully Regenerated then the Children tho the Children were perfect as to their measure So that it follows not that any of them did break the commands of GOD dayly in thought word and deed which only is the matter in debate no more then it follows that how soon the seed is in the Womb it is as perfectly a man as when it comes to the use of reason But seeing he here talks of the Seed of GOD and of the Unction I desire he
want of precep's and examples in abundance for us without them But before I leave this matter I shall give one argument yet If there be any who need no Repentance then certainly there be some who do not break GOD's Commands dayly in thought word and deed but the first is true Ergo c. The Minor is proved by Luke 15. 7. Chapter VII Of Waiting in silence And of the Sacraments OUR Author Denominates his seventh Chapter of silent Worship which is a word of his own Coyning and none of ours and then falls to a vindication of his brother J B's Calumnies The first whereof is John Brown asserts that R B would have them understand that Christs Spiritual Resurrection was never till now R B answereth I speak only with reference to the time sinâ—e the Apostacie and not to the primitive times before Our Author sayes first any may judge by his eleventh proposition c. Or by this Chapter annexed thereto I am truely willing that any be judge that is not byassed as most part of the Clergie are And therefore I inteat the Reader to see R. B's Apologie page 247 where he will find this calumny more clearly obviated His second answer is he is unhappy in removing this calumny for the Apostacie was working in the Apostles time But he is more unhappy in over turning one of the two chirâ— grounds of the Protestant Religion assigned to the Jesuite by J M To wit the Father in the first three Centuries But shews ignorance here as well as malice for if there was no true Spiritual worshp in the Church after the Apostasie began to work Then according to our Author there was no Spiritual Worship in the Church till the Reformation The contrary of which R B asserteth Yea even in the darkest times of Popery he citeth Bernard Bonaventur Taulerus and Thomas a Kâ—mpis and also commends the first Reformers for denying the Popish abominable superstition and Idolatrie of the Mass the Adoration of Saints and Angels the Veneration of the Reliques the Visitation of Sepulchres Yet nevertheless Our Author in his third and fourth answer compares us to Muncer John of Lyden Arrius Pelagius and what not And it 's much he hath not called us Papists too But let the Reader judge whether he hath mended J B's matter and not rather added lie to lie and calumny to calumny The second Calumny he defends is That we acknowledge no motion nor inward breathing of the Spirit but what is extraordinary and meerly Enthusiastick As also That we abstract from all means Which Calumny our Author saith he hath above evinced to be a Truth in his first and second Chapters How truely the Reader must Judge But he giveth us a second Instance R B denyeth that Studied Sermons are means appointed of GOD for what he adds are his own words and not R B's but behold the Argument Studied Sermons are denyed Ergo all means are denyed Be ashamed His third is That the Quakers spiritual life is nothing but Nature Thus he saith he proved Chapter 2d That all their Grace and Light is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of GOD in Man To which I also refer the Reader And withall I must desire the Reader to take notice of our Authors little Tricks in his Parallel betwixt us and the Anabaptists he referrs to what follows of his Book And in the end of his Book he referrs to what is past thinking it's like his own implicite Hearers will take it on trust But I expect thou will trace him better which if thou do thou will soon find what he is for all his vaine boast The fourth Calumny he denyeth and saith his Adversary only enquireth it If this be a sufficient Answer let him consult his own Book page 167. 168. and 169. Where he will needs have a Query to import a full affirmation of the thing queried and so proves himself signally dissingenious and also leaves his brother in the myre The fifth Calumny he saith depends upon the Contraversy about Perfection and so shifts it The sixth Calumny he insists on is That there is no setting about Prayer or other Duties without a previous motion of the Spirit The Nicery is in the word Previous and therefore I shall referr him to the fifth Section of Quakerism confirmed where that matter is fully handled and all his Quibles Answered Which Book I perceive the Man hath read and so might either been silent or brought us some new thing which he hath not yet done The seventh Calumny is That Gospel Worship putteth away all external actions And upon this Calumny his brother â— B had charged a Contradiction upon R B Yet our Author bestows no more answer upon both But He needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their Words If this be fair dealing let the Reader Judge He tells us next That J B compareth us to the Old Pithonicks And as if his brother had not been slanderous enough he adds I alwayes compared them in such fitts to the Cumaena Sybilli as she is descrived by Virgil 6. Aenead And John Brown passim That we are acted by the Devll possest by him at his pleasure To all which I shall again with R B modestly reply That of all men the Presbyterians might have for born this had they but remembred the Stuartown sickness But our Author giveth us a mighty difference thus These at Stuartown after these outlettings of the Spirit upon them cleaved to the Scriptures as the only Rule and were endeared to the Ministers of Jesus Christ and his Word and Sacraments We mean saith he Water-baptism and the Communion of the Lord Body in Bread and Wine c Which sayes he were commanded by Christ to be used until his coming to Judgement Which are contemned and vilified by the Quakers And for all this we must trust our Authors word But how comes it then that our present Presbyterians who are found in all these things now have no such Outlettings of the Spirit Yea why are they found the chief Opposers and blasphemers of such Out-lettings of the Spirit If they were good then I think they should be expected and waited for now But this would savour of Enthusiasm and therefore cannot be endured But I must tell our Author the true Reason why these Outlettings of the Spirit ceased among them To wit Because they foresook that Power which reached them at first and betook themselves to Men who in stead of the Gospel of peace preached up Warrs Seditions Tumults Scrife and Contention And in stead of Prayers Tears preached up Swords and Spears in stead of Suffering fighting and contending with the Civil Magistrate Which was never the way of CHRIST not Christians As for Water-Baptism and Bread and Wine it is no good Argument that they cleaved to them which are called Meats and Drinks and Divers Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances while they wanted that Righteousness