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
good nor affoord us any Light but smoak and stink But the absurdities are his own in contradicting the Westminster Catechism Which to the Question What is original sin Answereth It is the want of Original Righteousness and the corruption of our whole nature c. Now let the Reader compare this Answer with our Authors Doctrine Who saith That fallen man hath so much Original Righteousness as to Know Love Fear and Adore the Infinite and Omnipotent GOD and to do to others as he would be done by which our Saviour sayes are the two great commandements And then consider how consonant he is to his Principles But all these absurdities and many more they are forced to run into for defence of that Abyss of abominations their darling Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation After this being conscious to himself he hath said nothing to purpose he flyoth to the covers of deceit and refuge of Lies Saying There is a Mystery latent under this Doctrine which we must here discover The Quakers have no other Christ then this that was left in Adam and remaineth in man in his fallen condition to which they give many great Names as Light Life measure of GOD GOD Himself and most frequently the Seed Then he citeth some broken Passages out of Books which whether true or false I am indifferent For they are chiefly out of two Books of George Keiths yet unanswered And if our Author please to enter the lists with him I shall be willing to be a Spectator Till then it is currish manners to snarle at his heels while he dare not set his face to it But I pray thee Patroclus should I set my self to pick out sentences out of Presbyterian Books What a Hodge podge of None-sense and Blasphemy could I make up together Thinkest thou they did well who have presently published that Pamphlet of the Presbyterian Eloquence But that Consequence thou drawest from these thy assertions is such a horrid and detestable Lie as needs no other Answer But the LORD rebuke that lying spirit that is gone forth and entered the mouths of the Presbyterian Clergie He who searcheth our Hearts knoweth that we are falsly accused And that we owne no other Christ but Jesus the Son of the living GOD and the Virgin Mary And I hope all Men of Candor and Ingenuity will acknowledge that we should know what we believe better then this malicious Railer doth So I hope they will hereafter give no credit to him nor his Brethren thus misrepresenting us as about the end of page 107 He saith We believe or at least would perswade others to believe that Christ hath a Personal Vnion with every son and daughter of Adam O! impudent Slanderer the poyson of Asps is under his tongue Next he calls it Blasphemy to say That the seed needs a new Visitation to raise it up But hath not told us where the Blasphemy lyeth In page 108 To clear his Brother John Brown of the absurdity of asletting that the Devils and all unregenerate men are in a certain respect Spiritual and the Apostle and all Regenerate men are in a certain respect carnal He giveth us a very ready solution of it thus Whatever is a Spirit may be called Spiritual and whatever is a body may be called Corporal and so the Devil is a spirit and unregenerate men have souls Therefore they are spiritual and the Apostle had flesh therefore he was Carnal To prove this futher he saith John Brown hath given 15 arguments Whereof our Author could not bestow one upon us but if they be no better then the last we got he hath done well to be frugall of his paper and think it enough to vaper a little and tell us all these are but fictions hobgoblins fit only to fright children His seventh argument is If fallen man retain no knowledge of GOD no principles of common honesty morality then there is no difference betwixt a Man and a bruit neither can it be told in what the Wisdom of the wise Gentiles consisted of whom the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 2. Who notwithstanding could not perceive the things of GOD until they were again revealed but the latter is falle in both its parts therefore the First Answer this argument serveth only to make a muster the substance whereof hath been handled before for it is grounded upon the false supposition that Mankind received no benefite by the second Covenant but was left in that miserable condition brought upon him by the fall which is contrary to the scope of the whole Scripture and our Author hath been so wary as to contradict it himself in his very arguments Saying who not withstanding could not perceive the things of GOD until they were again revealed whereas he hath said before That man by nature could know and understand the first and second Table of the Law Yea know GOD to be Infinite Omnipotent and that he should be loved feared and Adored and that we should love our Neighbour as our self which is nothing more then to do to others as we would be done by What need then of a new Revelation seeing this is the Law and the Prophets He citeth 1 Cor 2. In all which Chapter I can find nothing but what contradicts him to his Teeth and Beza's note at the end of it is We are indued with the Spirit of Christ who openeth unto us these secrets which by all other means are unsearchable Mark and also all truth whatsoever Now if all Truth whatsoever be unsearchable without the Spirit of Christ as Beza saith they are what is become of our Authors dark Lantern whereby as by the light of corrupt nature he will have men to know that great truth the foundation of all Truth Viz. That there is an Infinite and Omnipotent GOD who is to be Loved Feared and Adored Add to this That no man knoweth the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son shall Reveal him And then let the Reader consider whether Beza and the Scriptures are better to be believed then our Author his dark Lantern As to the Wisdom of the Wise Gentiles there is a Wisdom whereby GOD is known and a Wisdom whereby GOD is not known So saith the Scripture The World through Wisdom knew not GOD and that some men were bruitish in their knowledge and as Jude saith what they knew naturally as bruit in these things they corrupt themselves This is Mans natural Wisdom But Job who was one of the wise Gentiles tells us that the Inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding Aristotle also Another of the wise Gentiles tells us in his Ethicks Lib 10 Chap 4. 7. They that did these things did them not as men but as having something Divine or of GOD in them And Dindvmus said to Alexander the Great If thou wilt hearken to my words thou shalt possess of my goods who have GOD to my friend and whose inspiration I injoy within me I have instanced Aristotle to him already
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
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
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
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
and Manners For Answer Let the Reader observe That this is but a These And that our Adversaries themselves grant the first part of it Reason therein adduced But the Argument to prove the second part he hath never mentioned as being too hot for his fingers Which is this following Apol page 44. That which is not the Rule of my faith in believing the Scriptures themselves is not the Adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners But the Scriptures are not nor can be the Rule of that Paith by which I believe them c Therefore c This he hath taken no nottice of But gives us a long Citation out of R B his Vindication page 37. And then tells us the Coherence will be made out Ad Calendas Graecas As if it were the Custom when Men publish Theses to set down in the Body of them all the Arguments to prove them But seeing he will have a Coherence let him take it thus The Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Founta in and when the streams fail men use to recurr to the Fountain Therefore when the Scriptures cannot resolve the doubts which ordinarly arise among Christians They ought to recurr to the Fountain That this hath been the practise of the Saints in all ages is manifest from the Scripture I shall instance one or two with divers before cited That Divid was a Man of GOD and Knew the Scriptures I hope mine Adversary will not deny and that he had Abiathar the Priest with him to help him to the right sence of them if need were when he was at Keilab Yet he was necessitate to recurr to the Fountain enquire of the Lord Will Saul come down And will the Man of Keilab ver me up unto him 1 Sam 23 9 10 11 12 And again at Ziglâ—g when the people were like to stone him Did he not then enquire of the LORD 1 Sam 30. 8 And I would willingly know what the Presbyterians means by seeking the LORD in theit straits except it be to ask his Counsel when all other means fail them Hence all his boast evanisheth Next he challengeth his Adversary as confounding the principal Rule and Original Ground together calling it None-sense ridiculous and nothing to the purpose But he should have remembred that in page 46. He hath cited Ephes 2. 20. To prove the Scripture to be the Foundation and all along calls them the Principal Rule If this be sense so the other Sanum Reprênsor debet habere Caput In page 64. He comes to begg the Question in terminis and tells us positively The Scriptures are the Primary Rule And Concludes Thus we understand the Primarie Rule and while he doth not so ho but mistaketh the Question This indeed is imperious Logick and more becoming a Grecian Hero then a Presbyterion Priest But he must Know that the word Primary is out of doors As it signifies First And before he give it another signification he will need to alter all the Lexicons I have yet seen For there was a Rule of Faith before there was a Book in the World And therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Primary Rule Next he comes to his Acyrologie to let us know he hath studied Rhetorick Saying to call a Person of Rule is a great Inductive of Confusion But to call GOD and Christ the habits of Grace as the doth in page 38 is a far more improper speech Then he cites R. B's words in answer to J Brown but not fully and draweth his consequences from them the words are these For I was never so absurd as to call GOD simply considered or the Spirit of GOD in obstracto but as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians From hence he deduceth two Conclusions First that the Quakers Grand principle that Immediate objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their faith falleth to the ground And that these Imprinted truths are but secondary But who seeth not deceit and malice in this consequence Certainly he must fear his cause when he takes such weak Pillars to underprop it For any man of candor may see that R B intendeth only to prove that truths Imprinted and not the Imprinter to be the Rule And he consesseth it to be one Acylogie or improper speech And to conclude the Ruine of his Adversaries cause from one improper speech is either great folly or great malice so that his Antecedent being tightly understood according to the Authors sense his consequence together will all he hath deduced from it is a meer Non-sequitur His other Consequence depending upon the first falleth with it Only he hath been assert that these Revelations are self evident and that to assert otherwayes were impious And a little after to judge that the GOD of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us Well then Patroclus it seemes there are yet such Revelations by thine own consession as are self evident which we may take notice of in due time He proceeds saying There is very good reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primarie then the Scriptures both being given by the same spirit seeing the primariness is not the immediateness but the thief binding power and the prerogative to be the Touch-stone of all doctrines But who denyeth this prerogative to the Scriptures of being a Rule to try all Doctrines of Men how holy so ever Have not his Adversaries granted all this times And what then I hope to believe this proposition is an Act of Faith no where mentioned in Scripture neither is it self evident and therefore needeth a Rule Yea more the scriptures of the New Testament make mention of a Rule only three times to wit 2 Cor. 10. 15 16. Gal. 6. 16. and Phil. 3. 16. And if Patroclus with all his prudence and wisdom comparing Scripture with Scripture can twist and twine a sense out of these Scriptures to prove his matter he may boast of it Next he cites 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. in these words they are able to make the man of GOD wise unto salvation But whether there be such words there let the Reader judge Then he plainly sheweth us what he intends and it is the book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest c. If this be true then certainly the Tennor of the New Covenant is made void and they who lived under the Law had a rea dier access unto GOD and to know His Mind then they who live under the Gospel And yet the difference is evident for as the Law was an outward Rule written by Moses the outward Leader of outward Israel so CHRIST the SpiritualLeader of Spiritual Israel writteth His Spiritual Law in the heart I shall add one argument thus That which was a Rule to the Faith-makers at Westminster in composing their form of Faith and imposing it upon the Nations may
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
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
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