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
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
is now a miracle among Presbyterian Priests To trace him in all his Raillings and Boastings reflections against Ro Barkelay and Geo Keith were very needless The Reader may see them of no weight I shall therefore here take notice of some of the Scriptures cited by him in page 34. To prove that by the Law and the Testimonie is understood the Law of Moses on Exod 32. 15. And Moses turned and went down from the Mount and the two Tahles of the Testimony were in his hand c. 34. â—9 With the two Tables of Testimony in Moses hand c. Now I beseech the Reader to consider what this Man can make from hence or from any of the rest to prove that Isaiah meant the two Tables of the Law to be a Primarie Rule either to Jews or Christians Was never the Moral Law a Law to Mankind until it was written in Tables of Stone Then certainly Cain had not sinned in killing of Abell If there had been no Law against Murther Or what more can he make of this Scripture if he make the Law and Testimonie to be the Ten Commandements But this That whoever speaketh or acteth contrary unto them It is because he is dark not knowing the Mind of the LORD nor hearkning to the Voice of the Divine Light in him which would have taught him to speak and act according to that Moral Law But I would willingly learn of him whether he would have the whole Law of Moses Moral Judicial and Levitical or Ceremonial to be the Primarie Rule to Christians now a dayes For the Moral is confessed by all parties to be binding upon all Mankind and that it was Imprinted upon the Souls of all Men even before it was written But the Judicial Law as well as the Ceremonial Law hath been rejected by all Christians except the Presbyterians who composed Cargils Covenant What then would the man be at I can conjecture nothing but this The Presbiterians have three beloved Doctrines Viz Swearing Fighting and Tithes which no one Line of the New Testament seems to favour and therefore they would have the Law reinforced least these their Darlings fall To conclude The Law was added saith Paul because of Transgression Therefore there was a Law or Rule transgressed before this Law was added And that it was a Written Law let Patroclus prove with the next I shall now come to his third Argument page â—9 Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final decision of the most grave and weighty Contraversies that ever arose in the World And sent all people into them as a most sure and undeceiving Light by the Guiding of which we may pass through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the close Ergo the Scriptures are the Primary Rule c. To prove the Consequence of this Argument he sendeth us to the Definition of a may be Rule in his first Argument which is proven to be lame and a begging of the Question Next to prove his Antecedent he citeth a Bundle of Scriptures for merly adduced by his Brethren and answered divers times But he thinks all the rest but Bunglers and therefore he will have at them again The First is Mat. 22. 29 31 32. Te do err not knowng the Scriptures nor the Power of GOD. He begins with a parcel of Presbyterian Rbetorick saying Our Adversaries are like Baits c. Let the Reader judge whether I have occasion here for a Repartee but I le spare him There be Two Things in the Citation for the Ignorance of which the Jews are blamed to wit Of the Scriptures and the Power of God Now if this prove one of them to be a Rule it cannot miss to prove the other to be a Rule also And so the Contraversy remains in stain quo prius that is Whether the Scriptures or Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God Teaching and Revealing the Mind and Will of God to his People is to be preferred The Quakers never denied the Scriptures to be a Rule but only that they were subordinat to the Teachings of Christ by His Spirit Whom He promiseth to send and that he should Teach them all Things And this I say is preferrable and he hath brought nothing to prove the contrary This cleareth George Keith from what he alledgeth of his confounding the Rule with the Power And as for his Simile of Euclid it will nothing mend his Matter for certainly Euclid had a Rule by which he wrote his Book which was the Dictats of his Reason and except his Propositions can be demonstrated to me by Reason I am not bound to believe them Therefore the Dictats of my Reason are a more Noble and Excellent Rule to me than Euclid's Propositions tho the Book be an excellent Help for me to attain to that Art And whereas he hath talked very disdainfully though wrongfully of consounding the Scriptures and the Power of God he should have remembred that in Page 36. He hath said That to seek to the Scriptures is all one with seeking unto GOD Whether this vergeth upon Blasphemy let the Reader Judge But to put our Stupidity or prejudice beyond doubt he brings us another simile of a King Answer Above all things he should have shunned dilcoursing upon this Topick For it is impossible to keep a Presbyterion Priest within his Bounds Here he hath described a King in Querpo subordinate to the Laws and limited by them Whereas it is well known That the King is the fountain of our Law our Legislator And by the same Authority whereby he makes Laws can cashier annul and rescind them And it is a known Maxim in Law Rex non potest peccare But this is the old Doctrine of Lex Rex and Jus Populi And that famous peece The Hynd let loose Now if this his Simile prove any thing it will be this That as according to their Dialect The King can do nothing but what the Law of the Land allows So GOD can do nothing but what the Scripture allows And consequently CHRIST could not command the Man to take up his Bed and walk upon the Sabbath day because no Scripture then written allowed it The next place is John 5. 39. Here he challengeth R. B. as a Papist for saying the Words ought to have been Translated Ye search the Seriptures But Patroclus If I shall cite Bellarinine against the payment of Tiths who say they Are not due by any Law of GOD or Nature since the coming of Christ Will thou also call me a Papist If thou do thou att mistaken And so art thou in him And when thou can prove that there are no errors in the Translation thou may stick by this The Scriptures thou brings prove nothing for this Translation for they do not mention it And we never denyed it that the reading of the Scripture was both commanded and commended Yet thou art not ashamed to say They
is to take upon him to be General of an Army as R B tells his Adversary page 45 of his Vindication The Question is how James and Peter Knew they should take upon them to Rule But in case these systems faile to satisfie a Man at a strait which I hope any experienced Souldier will confess and the daily new Inventions do fully evince What then is the Souldier to recurr to Is it not to that by which the first Man wrote the System That is his Reason And see if that can help him when his Book cannot Yea have there not been good Souldiers who could neither Read nor Write Yes General Lesly who did more for the Presbyterian Interest then Patroelus and Achilles both can do And will a Mathematician receive a Mathematical Proposition set down in a System hand over head without satisfying his Reason These are poor similes and rather hurtful then helpful to his Cause If by these he minds to prove That humane prudence can assure a man that he is a Child of God I am apt to suspect by his Book that he hath never troden this narrow Path himself Else he would have spoken other Language Next he comes to answer for his Brethren the Remonstrants and Publick Resolutioners comparing then indeed to Paul and Barnabas But he hath forgot to tell us which of them was in the right and to decide the Contraversie by plain Scripture to the stopping the mouths of the other Party but I doubt this would have puzled his prudence As for his Instance of Paul and Barnabas their contention was not for matters of Faith or Doctrine as Beza testifieth and the Scripture saith no where that they did not meet again But our Assembly Men never reconciled to this day But knowing this will not do he giveth a better Answer Saying The Corruptions of Men are only to be charged with this Ah! Lamentable The whole General Assemblie of the Church of Scotland corrupt men What guides then had such poor Laicks as I Put all this saith nothing except he decide the Contraversy by plain Scripture Which when he hath done I shall say It 's pity he was not present at the Assembly Next he falls upon some other Arguments which he tells us are scraped out of Bellarmine and therefore deserve no Answer Which Answer whether true or false I know not having never read Bellarmines Works But I find this is a fair shift to win off and an Hebergeon proof against any Dart. He spendeth his whole page 60. on Reflections First on James Naylor he might have remembered Major Weir But De mortuis nill c I disdain to scrape in that Dung-hill Next he compares us to the Papists saying As the Papists to cover the rest of their Abominations have invented a greater and more dangerous than them all that is Their Churches Infallibility So this Spirit of the Quakers knowing that upon tryal he will be found to be a Counterfeit hath taken the Counsel given by Alcibiades to Pericles that is To study how he may secure himself with the hazard of a Tryal And here he cites William Penn's Rejoinder Part. 1. Chap. 5. about the Man of Philippi I beseech the Reader to peruse the place cited by him that he may see him past all shame or care of being reputed an honest Man For First he says W. Penn useth it as an Argument to prove The Scriptures cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life whereas in the same Page W. Penn hath owned them for a Rule of Faith and Life tho not the Rule by way of Excellency nor as Patroclus saith the Primary Rule Secondly He makes no Argument of it but an Instance as he doth that of Ananias and Saphira That the Scriptures could not be a Rule to Peter nor Paul in these cases as he doth that also of flying or standing in the time of Persecution and asketh what do Professors mean when they advise People to seek the Lord in this oâ— the other Case Why do they not go seek the Scriptures rather and much more which for brevity lomit To evite all which he makes a Nonsensical Argument and denies the Antecedent when he had none And then falls a Railing for a whole Page together a part whereof I have set down above For Answer to which First The Quakers own no other Spirit but the Comforter whom Christ promised to send to Reprove the World for Sin for they never refused to subject the Spirits and Doctrines of Men to the Scriptures and therefore if he have called the Spirit of Truth a Counterfier the just God will Rebuke him for his Blasphemy And this poor Man who can pretend to no more Infallibility than the Pharisees of old who had the Scriptures as well as he and yet were found guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost may be affraid he be found in the same Case with them But I wish he may find Repentance Secondly The Presbyterians may be no less fitly compared with the Papists For their Doctrines being tryed by the Scriptures they being Interpreters themselves it is a meer sham to speak of a Tryal For whatever Interpretation doth not agree with the Analogie of Faith is to be rejected Now the Analogie of Faith is of their own composing so that Faith and Tryal and all is but Mans work and in fine a very cheat But next he must give us the most deadly blow of all Saying We are beyond the reach of a Conviction But the Reader may excuse him a little being now among his Brethren the Grecian Hero's Alcibiades and Pericles But who told him this that the Quakers were beyond the reach of a Conviction Sure not the Scriptures For there is no such Sentence in them all Nor the Spirit for he cannot indure Divine Inspiration the Capital Enemy of the Presbyterian Priesthood Who then Imagination A thing the Presbyterians call Faith The very counterfeit he hath been talking of just now Next he tells us That Prophesies of future Events may well be brought to the Scripture Test Then I beseech him tell me what Scripture Test could Noah his Prophefie of the Flood have been brought to Or George Wisharts Prophesie of the Cardinals being Killed in such a place and not in another In the close he saith Paul was Divinely inspired and the Actions were conform to Scripture consonant and warranted by the Promise of Christ C But it seems he hath forgotten what he said in page 39. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines by the Scriptures who were Immediatly inspired as well as Paul But any thing will serve after such a fatal blow as he hath lately given Page 61. He saith The ground of their Arguments with which they stand and fall is this The Scriptures are not the Fountain it self but a Declaration of the Fountain Therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge nor vet the adequat Primary Rule of Faith
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
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
is the sin of nature Answer The Major containeth many great lies in it and the Minor is a gross untruth which he and all the Presbyterians in the World can never proves from the words of the Apostles rightly understood the indeed they have a saculty of causing the Scripture speak contraries as we have seen and heard at Aberdeen upon the Text Holiness becomes thy house O LORD c. I shall therefore insert one sentence more of J H There are some apt to conceive only that Adam being the root of Mankind Humane nature it self sinned in him and so when we come to exist his guilt is derived upon our persons as virtually and seminally in him no otherwise then Levi is said to have payed tythes to Melchisedeck in the Loins of Abraham I should saith he incline to this explanation but that I see not then why all the sins of Adam besides of all out Progenitors should not be ours also upon the same account as much as that first transgression He rails at R B for denying the Major of this argument and telling John Brown how he had abused the Scriptures soisting in words of his own to deceive the simple Reader I desire the Reader may be at the pains to see R B's viâ—dication and then judge betwixt him and his adversary In page 136 he reproacheth R B for saying shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adams sins But it would have wronged the cause to tell why R B said so which was because J Brown had challenged him for adding an interpretation tho he told him it was so and therfore he saith I am content there be neither addition nor so much as consequences made use of adding let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adams sin and now I intreat the Reader to compare the Books and see what candor integrity or honesty is among such adversaries or what Justice we can expect from men of such foreheads as can raise a calumny on such a foundation which themselves gave first ground for He talks aboundantly about the Salvation of Infants but to no purpose forging Blasphemous consequences and Fathering them upon R B while they are his own if they be Blasphemies For he never said that Infants are not saved by Christ only and hath sufficiently cleared himself in his Vindication from this but repeated callumny To R B's saying Infants are under no Law he answereth in three instances that Children are forefaulted and deprived of their Fathers Estate for their Fathers faults 2 That the Children of Sodom c. And of â—â—re and of Achan c. Were punished for their Fathers sins But its strange with what confidence he can repeat these tales which R B hath so fully answered and it is manifest they suffered not for Adams sin if they were at all punished for sin it must needs be the sin of their immediat Parents And in the very words of Austustine cited by himself in page 141 he saith shall they sin that are under no command That is under no Law He would abuse R B as saying Augustine did not think Infants guilty of original sins Whereas he only citeth Augustine to prove they are under no Law which the words plainly impott His Third is a very rare one Thus If in any point of Religion and Faith the admirable depth of the Judgement and secret Counsel of GOD be to be seen certainly it is to be observed here c. I would fain learn from this Author what worse the Faith and Christian Religion would have been tho this contraversy of Infants being condemned for Adams sin while Adam himself was pardoned had never been started in the Church by such capricious Clergiemen as our Author Or does he believe that the belief of this Doctrine is absolutely necessary to Salvation Certainly if it be so the number will be few and somewhat more few then Shepherd makes them in his Sincere Convert But he saith The depth of the secret Counsel of GOD is to be seen and observed here If seen and observed here then it is no secret and if it be secret it is no where seen nor observed But the Presbyterians to know the secret Counsel of GOD and yet deny the Revelation of his Spirit This is unaccountable Doctrine But he sends us to Paul's Sanctuary Who â—rt thou c If he had added the rest of the Doctrine he asserts To wit Who dare deny That GOD condemneth innocent Infants for that sin he hath pardoned to the Transgressour he had come off fairly But he answers Paul's Question saying we answer therefore First That Adam was a publict person standing and falling in the room of his Posterity in whose name and behalf the Covenant of works was made with him as their Representative So that his first sin was not personal but the sin of the whole Nature I wonder whence our Author hath gathered all this Stuff for in all the Scriptures is no such Doctrine to be found And he denys any other Means of Knows ledge And therefore upon good ground lâ—râ—pâ—at it as R B hath done But he should have proved that the Nature of the Covenant of works was on this wise That altho Adam died by the breach of it yet he should be pardoned yea and put in a better Condition then he was before the fall But his innocent Posterity even Infants who never had accession to that sin not had a being for some thousands of years after the same should be condemned Eternally to hell fire for that first sin And till he prove this he saith nothing to the Contraversy But he labours to prove That Adam seased to be a publict person after the fall Because he died in the day he did eat and so became dead in Law What strained Consequences are these Did not Adam live again the same day And was he not a publict person in the Second Covenant made with him the same day Or was there any other Man then on the Earth to make a Covenant with Or was not the Remissiion of that sin through the promised seed Jesus Christ of as large an extent as the sin was That as Adam the Transgresiour was not condemned eternally for that sin So neither was any of his Posterity condemned for that sin only Which I have shewed before to be the mind of as good Protestants as our Author To prove that for Adams one sin only all Mankind are condemned he giveth us a Philosophiek Axiom Bonum ex integrd eausa malum ex quolibet defectu And citeth Isaiah 53. 31. But he should have told us in what verse of this Chapter it is said That Christ suffered for Adams sin For I find not such thing in it But our sins our Transgressions out Iniquities We all as sheep have gone astray We have turned every one to his own way and the LORD hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all And