ther the Glory of God not the 〈…〉 of the people We haâ—e no malâ— knowing that he who hates his Brother is a Murtherer and no Murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him To the Examples of Enoch and Noah being called perfect He saith R B confesseth they once bad sin Therefore how came they at another time to be free of it altogether The answer is easie 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness As for the word Perfection its having diverse significations It may be so But I am sure it can never be truely predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed. He comes next to vindicate their Arguments for the Devils Kingdom or Sinning Term of Life The first whereof is 1 John 2. 3. misunderstood by them If we say we have no sin c Answer first I say with Augustine upon the Galatians Aliud est non peccare aliud non habere percatum Secondly The following words of the Apostle are If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness And he that is cleansed from sin is the same that was before said to have sin Now it is said in the 7th verse The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Here cleanseth is in the present Tense Now to be defiled with sin and cleansed from all sin at the same time seems a contradiction and therefore must be admitted to be two several times Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next To his Answer That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin then that the Apostle James was a Curser when he said of the tongue herewith curse we men Our Author Replyes There is no Parity And why Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time No But saith he James speaketh of gross outbreakings and John simply of the nature of sin Very good I see our Author can distinguish betwixt morial and venial sins Of which sure lying must be one in his Judgement or else he had been unsainted long since But knowing this would not do he tells us the Apostle John even in his best Frame had sinful actions and citeth Revel 19. 10 11. and 22. 8 9. The first place is That he falls down at his feet to worship him And the second is That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel But admit they both meant so our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins if a sin at all For it was but a mistaking the Angel who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power and the Earth was enlightned with his Glory I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake but stopped him And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant And so these two Texts he boasts of can do hm no service To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer but It 's false And again we know c without any Reason but his imperious assertion which deserves to be neglected Next he indeavours to prove from Ecclesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily c. Which place he little urgeth only tells us He hath considered the Hebrew and hath found it the Indicative Mood So saith our Author Ergo verum But he must excuse me to think Jerom and Junius Tremellius as good Linguists as he and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood and may not sin His next is Rom 7. 17. From which Texts he saith J B. hath proved That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it least his Arguments should have been sound like these he cites page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it if he but read the next Chapter throughout The second verse whereof cleareth this matter where the Apostle saith The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the law of sin and death And many times after witnesseth a better Condition As that he had sought the good fight c Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD c And Phil 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered That of Peter proves no more then that a Man may sin which is not denyed He comes at last to his great Argument If we find no Instances in Scripture of such persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancie and dream But the former is true Ergo c. For answer let the Reader observe first that our Author finding his Brothers Argument fully refuted by R B hath not attempted the Vindieation of it But he saith the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he chooseth to answer unto Answer Either this Argument which he answereth unto was to the purpose or not If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments but one proponed three different wayes any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose If it was not to the purpose as was the greatest part of his book then he might have spared it But because R B took not our Authors argument to task which perhaps was not there he saith he must confess he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein This is a Rhodomontado expression more like Don Quixot then a sober man writing about Religion tho very ordinary with our Author But let us see what cause there is for all this froath First then I deny his Minor for I can find him many recorded in Scripture of whom there is no failing recorded to wit Enoh Melchizedeck Elias John the Baptist and many of the Prophets and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians saith That many were born holy and free from all sin and particularly Elias and John Baptist Secondly I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation which he seems here to insinuate for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture But that the sins of the Saints are recorded that we may shun them not that we should follow them neither is there
desire thou may consider That there is not one of the thirteen wherein he hath not either grosly belyed or deceitfully misrepresented us And in some things these Anabaptists as in his twelsth Instance for which he hath cited no Book he alledgeth they denyed the Lawfulness of all Warrs Wheras Sleidans Commentaries lib 5. Mieneer incited the Boors of Germanie to undertake the Holy Warr as he called it against the Princes Telling them That he was commanded of GOD to cut off all wicked persons and Princes And how well this agrees with the Presbyterian practises and Doctrines is but too nottour Read the Hynd let loose and Zions Plea Fol 262. Strick the Basilick Veine Nothing but this will cute the Pleurisee of our State And to say That they were for Libertie of Consâ—ience is no less inconsistent with their Practises for they laboured to propagate their Religion by the Sword And so did our Presbiterians Yea and put themselves under a necessity so to do by a solemn Oath Only the difference betwixt Muneer and the Presbiterians was this I lle crueem seeleris preâ—ium tulit hi diadema There was another Doctrine common to them both Anabaptists and Presbiterians Viz all is Durs Which Text they expounded thus That all the wealth of the World belonged properlie to the Saints and whatsoever other men possessed was but by usurpation Agreeable to this was the practise of our Presbiterians who after they had got possession of the Kings Revenue the Bishops Rents the Papists Estates and these they called Malignants and were squeezing the Nation with insupportable Cesses and Excise They at last devised a trick how the Israelite might robe the Aegyptian by forcing every man who was not as Zealous as the servency of the times required To lend them his money upon the publick Faith commonly called the Blind Bonds which Faith certainly will never justifie them For the wicked borrweth and paveth not again Yet in all this the Judgement of GOD was visible for the most part of them who gote the spoil of their Native Country lest their Heirs in a worse condition then they might have done if they had never meddled By all this it is evident That the Mans malice hath blindfolded him and that all his Lies and Perversions cannot help his bad cause But their enmity and hatred to Truth drives them on tho they might remember that he who hates his Brother is a murtherer and no murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him Had it not been as easie for him to have said The Lollards taught several Doctrines which the Quakers hold and which we have neglected tho we desire to be accounted their Successors Such as First It is not lawful to Fight for the Faith Secondlie That Tiths ought not to be paid to Ecclesiastical Persons Thirdlie That every faithful Man and Woman is a Priest Fourthly That in no case it is lawful to Swear Fifthly That true Christians receive the Body of Christ every day c. All these we should have acknowledged tho this backsliding and degenerat Tribe have denied them Next we come to his third Argument against Divine immediat Revelation viz If the Spirit or the Light within every Man were the Supream and Principal Rule then these who persecuted to Death the Apostles and Saints of God did not Sin in so doing but I am sure the latter is false Ergo the former To prove the Consequence of the Major he citeth Paul and John 16. 2. alledging That Paul walked according to his Light and that his Light taught him that according to all he had for Light he ought to do many things against the Professors and Servants of Jesus Christ Answer Let the Reader observe First His constant disingenuity whereof he hath been so often found guilty For he should have said If the Teachings of the Spirit of Christ and His Light wherewith He hath enlightned every Man be the principal Rule c. Which would have urged upon Blasphemy if the rest of his Argument had been added to it Which notwithstanding is the true state of the Controversy Secondly Observe how blind the Man is for he hath fallen in the Ditch he digged for us Paul saith he according to all that he had for Light Ought to do many things against the Servants of Jesus c. But Paul had the Scriptures and was learned in the knowledge of them for Light Ergo according to our Author Paul according to the Light of the Scriptures ought to persecute the Saints Thirdly By this Argument the Old World yea all who lived before Moses wrote had no Sin because no Scripture and the Light of Christ and Teachings of the Spirit was no sufficient Rule to them All the Mahumitans and Pagans at this day have no Rule therefore no Sin These are the wild Consequences of this Argument Fourthly His instancing Paul is very impertinent For Paul had the Scriptures and was one of them who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures and no doubt he thought them a Rule for his persecuting the Saints For he said he had lived blemlesly according to the Low And therefore it could be no other thing but the Light of Christ and the teachings of his Spirit which brought Paul to a better Understanding And whereas he saith in his next Argument That Paul never counteracted his Light was always of the same Judgement and therefore never had a true Light till the day of his Conversion This clearly contradicts the Scriptures and the experience of all Ages John 12 Chap. 36. While ye have Light believe in the Light that ye may be the children of the Light Hence it is clear Men have Light before Conversion or becoming Children of Light And again he said John 3. 19. The condemnation of the World was not for want of Light but for Loving darkness more then Light Every Servant received a Talent and it was said From him that had not shall be taken away even that which he hath All which intimats that it is not want of Light but not believing in nor taking heed to the Light that causeth Men to err And Prov 1. 23. Turn ye at my Reproof behold I will pouer out my Spirit upon you c. 24. I have called and ye refused and I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded verse 25. Ye have set at naught all my Counsells and would none of my reproofs 30 They would none of my Counsel they despised all my reproofes therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own waies Hence it is manifest That CHRIST the Light the Wisdom of GOD calls reproves stretcheth out his hand oflers his Councils even to such as reject him and do not regard him and therefore are at last rejected by him And lastly The Experiences of all Ages sheweth that it is a Law engraven or imprinted on the Souls of all men not to do that to another which we would not should be done to our selves
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
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
serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth was their Rule Ergo c. The Major I hope they will not deny and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance which was as followeth Die Jovis 6 of July 1643. I A B do seriouslie and solemnlie protest in the presence of Almightie GOD That in this Assemblie whereof I am a Member I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be Truth Or in point of Discipline but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glorie of GOD and to the Good and Peace of the Church Hence it is evident That their Conscience was their Rule But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Errour whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom let Patroclus choose And to help him in his Election he may consult his Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum who a little after he hath told him that his ultimate Rule is a monster Tells him also That nothing can possiblie interpose between the Authoritie of GOD and the conscience and that its dictates are uncontrollable Next he tells us That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil But the Scripture saith not that men are condemned for want of Light But because Light iâ— come into the World but Men love darâ—ness rather than light And also that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men He closeth up this Number accusing R B for confounding the principal Rule and the principal Leader but these are his Acâ—rologian mistakes and not his Adversaries confusion For any man not maliciously byassed may see that he intends no more but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39 saying that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit is more primarie and principallie the Rule than the Scriptures some things written and received only from another This he hath maliciously passed by together with the Question following which he could not answer so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisiâ—al formalities return upon his own head In page 67 He comes to the interpreter of Scripture where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetorick like that of hiâ— Brother Mackquair the Arch-scold saying The Quakers well knowing That if GOD speaking in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them or if the Holy scripture be not â—steemed false ambiguous and nonsenfical then their cause is lost What more malicious and wicked falshood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People who from their Hearts abhore any such thought concerning the Scriptures as to esteem them false ambiguous and nonsensical Or what end could this â—nicâ—ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth Except it be to raise their Beloved Refoâ—meâ—s the Rabble to stone us as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow had almost been stoned to Death by them But he saith The Quakers well knowing c. If this were true we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster Who in chap 23 numb 4 of their Confession say Infidelitie or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authoritie nor free the People from their due Obedience to him While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King a Pious as well as Protestant Prince Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture â—alse ambiguous or nonesensical Wherefore he should have said If the Spirit of GOD which dictated the Scriptures be the only true Interpreter of Scripture then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost As for his phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures and a little after The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort is confessed But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood and in effect a meer sham to amuse his Reader As for example When Patroâ—lus stepeth up into his Pulpit and readeth a sentence of Scripture which may be somewhat obscure As this my Body He begines to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors then of the Lutherian and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text. Now I would willingly know whetheâ— it be GOD or Man that speaks here The First he would be affraid of as Enthusiastiok And if the Second What becomes of his Phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures So the Reader may see That it is a meer humane device to keep up a sordid Trade for by this Trade they have their Living as the Silver Smiths had of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake But let the Reader know That we fully owne the Spirit of GOD which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means such as Reading Meditation Prayer and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures as many of our Friends have published to the World So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following falls to the ground being built upon no one solid Argument But I shal take notice of some of them And First He citeth George Keith Saying We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth but declare themselves Enemies to it To this he Answereth Behold Reader The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine Answer If this be true then Patroclus is a great Liar For in page 32. he saith The Papists have gone too low resolving their Faith ultimatly in Men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo And in that foregoing page placeth themselves in the middle So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists then we And in good earnest any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practises will find the Difference nothing but Pretence For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters then the Papists Only Blessed be the LORD they have not such
power As for his saying We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD because they try all Doctrines and Practises by the Scriptures This contains two Lyes First That we condemn all the Resormed Churches For R B hath cited severals of them who are of his Judgement and more may be cited in its place And Secondly The Reasou is a gross Lye For we alwayes owned That all Doctrines and Practises of Men were to be tryed by the Scriptures Next he saith Hence we find That the spirit of the Quakers is Diametrically opposite is the scriptures and therefore the spirit of lyes and delusion Whence I pray thee Patroelus Because we reject private Presbyterion Interpretations Which are but Mans wit and work This Consequence will be made out as thou sayest ad Kalendas Graecas When in a vapouring humour he giveth a Latine phrase and maketh us Ghosts and Hobgoblins But he hath not yet fallen upon the right spell to conjureus except it be his cutting our Juglar Veins which he yet wants power tho not will to do His next os any weight is That from our denying their Interpretations It follows That our Saviovr laboured invain when he proved the Resurrection of the Dead from the scriptures But he might have considered that he was GOD as well as Man who spoke there and that his Word was sufficient Secondly That this Scripture was an Argument ad bominem to the Sadducees who believed Moses Law better then Christ Thirdly The Consequence will be very gross That because Christ who had the Spirit above measure proved an Article of Faith by Scripture Therefore every Presbyterian Priest pedant may by his own natural and acquired parts without the Spirit interpret Scripture But there is at present too great contraversie which seems to bring a firie brand in the tail of it like to destroy all that is profitable or beautysul in the Nation as it hath once already done and to hazard the lives and estates of many well meaning men and good Patriots That is whether there be any difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Church Now if our Author can decide this contraversie by Scripture to the silence of the Malignants as our Saviour did the Saddusees he will do better service to his Native Country then by all his weak and deceitful wranglings against the poor Quakers who are not compeating with him for the Chair But his next consequence is very odd Yea saith he if this Doctrine be true A man doth not sin if he worship the Grocodale lbis Dog or Cat with the old Aegyptians Yea a man may believe or do whatsoever cometh in his Brain c. First ' This Doctrine that the Spirit of GOD is the only true interpreter of Scripture can bring no such consequence along with it For GOD never taught a man to commit Idolatry and to say that a general prohibation is not binding upon a man because his name is not in it is rediculous and no man that I know ever thought it But Secondly If his consequence be true then no Idolater sinned before Moses Law was written Yea according to our Author the Aegyptians he speaks of did not sin For if they had no inward Law sure they had no outward Law And borresco referens the old World sinned not to deserve the Flood because they had no written Law nor any Presbyterian Priest to interperate scripture Next he sayes we deny all Commentaries and expofitions of scripture He should have added which are meerly mans work without the Spirit of Christ if he will not be accounted a liar Then he chargeth R B for laying that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct Person of the Trinity I shall set down R B's own words that the Reader may see how fairly he deals with R B Thus I desire to know of him in what Scripture he finds these words that the Spirit is a diltinct Person of the Trinity For I freely acknowledge according to the Scripture that the Spirit of GOD proceed eth from the Father and the Son and is GOD And then asketh him whether any hath reason to think he truely makes the Scripture the Rule of his Faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or cannot find words in it to express the chief Articles of his Creed And now whether R B hath not fully confessed the the Mystrie and only denyed words of mans invention let the Reader judge Next he challengeth him for taking the words 1 John 2. 27. At the first sound and without any explication but he hath no leasure to give us any explication nor to disprove what he said from the words But concludes thus So that what ever they say or can say to liberate their doctrine from this most weighty but just charge they shall only twist contradictions the faster This is a great blow from a Graecian Gallant but hath not the weight of a Fear ther For we own the scripture for a Rule and the best outward Rule in the World and yet disown the Presbyterian expositions and Commentaries on them so long as they deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the work And whereas he challengeth us for not writing Commentaries The World is so overloaded with Commentaries of Mans making each almost contradicting another upon the same text that we think it best to let Patroclus abound in his own sense till GOD reveal that also unto him Phil. 3. 15. After this for about a page he doth nothing but rail and rove at randum as if Patroelus like he had the Trojans in chase and were upon execution And to sum up his Victory he concludes us Bapists because forsooth we deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and 〈◊〉 and the chief Judge of contraversies Answer First He hath need here of some of his Metaphisical formalities to distinguish betwixt the Rule or Law and the Judge But this we may expect next The Reason he giveth is because our Arguments as he alleageth conclude with theirs and instanceth that of Revel 22 18 compared with Deut 4 2 but hath brought nothing to disprove the inference Only telling us to this purpose may Bellarmine answer and the rest of the Jesuites But the difference lyeth here the Papists would thereby set up the Roman Church and unwritten Traditions to be the primary rule But we the Teachings of the Spirit of CHRIST so that according to patroclus own words in page 32 we differ as far as Heaven and Earth And he hath chosen a middle place for himself and his Brethren in which of the Limbos he may tell us next And let this suffice to answer all his Rovings to the end of the Chapter Chapter II. of Immediate Revelation HE begins this Chapter with an hâ—dgpodg of railing lyes nonsense and contradictions such as a man pretending to sense and Learning may be ashamed of if his desperate malice had
caused Zachariah to be stoned to Death and for Achab to Mieajab and many other of the Prophets who wrought no Miracles to prove their Mission But Christs sheep bear his voice and know it from the voice of a stranger whom they will not follow Tho ravenous Wolves in Sheeps cloathing neither can not will believe it to be his voice And whereas he saith it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures Is it not beyond denyal that we have them also Or do any who profess Christianity want them Or what Advantage have they by them which others have not Except it be to make a sordid Tarde of selling their Interpretations of them So that we dare attempt the Retortion very easily thus the Lutherians Independants Baptists Socinians and Arminians c had the Scriptures as well as the Presbyterians have them So that the Controversy is only Who have the true sense of them each party pretending to it And now I ask him what infallible Signs Evidences and Proofs can he give to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposers as he words it to demonstrate that the Presbyterians and none else have the true sense of the Scriptures Which till he do the retortion stands good But to take his words as they lye I can compare them to nothing better then to the words of the Pharisees Joh 9. 29. We know that GOD spake by Moses as for this fellow we know not from whence be is His second is It being given that they have Revelations of some kind From whence are they From Heaven Their own fancy or from hell Answer We plead for no Revelations but such as are Divine And therefore as his Question is blasphemous so it is no less impertinent then to say It being given that Patroelus is a Man from whence is he Whether the son of a Man or a horse or of a mad Dogg But he proves they are not from Heaven because they are common to all men Yet Bonum quo communius co melius Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World and GOD is just He never punished a man for breach of a Law which he never made known to him Thirdly he saith If they have Divine Revelations we know not for what end they are given Whether to be a principal Rule or not whether by their own corruptions they do not wrest and misunderstand them Or if they walk according to them Nothing of which can be said of the Scriptures Answer first For what end they are given Job 14. 26. To teach you all things And 16. 13. He will guide you into all Truth And that they are the principal Rule is sufficiently proved before The second part is an impudent self contradiction where he saith That wresting or misunderstanding through corruption cannot be said of the Scriptures Whereas he hath frequently covered himself before with saying in the very foregoing page next save one That the Scriptures through mans corruption are subject to abuse never man denyed Thus goeth he backward and foreward And Thirdly He saith They know not if we walk according to them But we well know that they walk not according to the Scriptures And it 's strange with what impudency the man can obtrude such sayings upon the World He would insinuate in page 79. That they squared their practice exactly according to the Scriptures and here he would have us walk according to Divine Revelation Whereas they have told the World in their Larger Catechism That no man is able to keep GOD's Commands by any Grace received in this Life Then he giveth us the reason of his Ignorance thus For we can hear nothing nor see nothing c Who can help his spiritual deasness and blindness None but the Spiritual Physitian of Souls whom he is rejecting In page 82. He cometh to the Judge of contraversy where he laboureth to prove two things Viz That the Spirit of God cannot be a Judge of Contraversy And that the Scriptures are apt to be a Judge of Contraversy Which he dares not to say absolutely but for removal of differences about things contained in them The Reason he gives is Because two different parties may both of them adduce Revelations to prove contradictory assertions And that the one of them cannot evince his Revelations to be from GOD more then the other This is the substance of what he saith against the Spirit and for the Scriptures he saith thus Now this Argument can in no wayes be retorted on the Scriptures For tho there hath been through the corruption of men wresting of Scripture in any Contraversy And that even among these who assert the Scripture to be the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners Yet who can say That this is through default of the Scriptures seing our Adversarys cannot deny but that they speak both sense and Truth c And a little after so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties c. First Let the Reader observe his self contradiction Saying The Scriptures may be wrested by the corruption of men And yet in page 81. He saith Nothing of this can be said of the Scriptures Secondly That be confesseth because he cannot deny it that there have been and yet are wresting of Scriptures and many Contraversies even among such as assert the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners And therefore it is evident that his conclusion falls Viz so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties For this agreement hath neither followed nor is like to follow by all his endeavours And Thirdly The Scriptures can never give a sentence being but a Law And every Law needs a Judge to determine But the matter is in plain terms we must admit the General Assembly to be Judge which will determine and convince neither by the Spirit nor by Scripture nor by Reason But by Force and Furie Ares halters Fire and Sword Fourthly If this had been true all the difference among Protestants would have come to a mutual agreement before now or else he must say They are all corrupt men except the Presbyterians As for what he faith of the Ranters who learned from you to make GOD Author of all their wicked actions their fruits make them manifest as your fruits do you notwithstanding of both your Pretences In page 83. He saith We have heard their Retortions Let us now hear their direct Answer That their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of GOD For which forsooth they bring Scripture Proof from Matthew 7. 15. 16. Where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false prophet Thus he And then falls a railing with great bitterness lies and false accusations which is always his last Refuge when he is straitned But let the Reader observe First That he mocks at Scripture proof tho he dare not deny it adding a Forsooth to it as if none had
World perceiveth clearly that there is no light common to all mankind except some small Relicts of that once bright shinning of GOD like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantron And herein lyes the stress of the contraversie We on the other hand assert that when man had by his fall brought himself and his posterity into a miserable condition GOD had mercy on him and entered into a new Covenant with him in the seed of the Woman CHRIST JESUS Upon better terms then the former Covenant and that Christ the Light did of New Enlighten him or to use his own words Light the Candle of that extinguished Lantron whereby he might see and know the things of GGD and be saved from out of that miserable estate whereinto he had brought himself his fall and that this is most consonant to Scripture and sound reason will appear by the Sequal First The Covenant of works was made with Adam in his integrity and the Covenant of Grace was made with man in his fallen estate and confirmed to Abraham and David and all the Law and ratified by by the Death of Christ under the Gospel Now the question here is whether the Covenant of Grace left mankind in the same condition it found him That is to the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantron which our Author saith are never able to shew the wandering traveler in the dark night his way homeward or whether Christ the Mediator of this Covenant the Light which enlightneth every man coming into the World did give unto man light and grace sufficient for fullfilling the Terms of this New Covenant For to deny this were to impeach the justice of GOD For the Adam had sufficient Light Grace and Power to fulfill the First Covenant I hope our Author will not deny And to assert that his Posterity had not Light nor Grace sufficient to fulfill the Terms of the Second Covenant were no less then to say that men were nothing bettered by the Covenant of Grace but were left to seek their way with their extinguished Lanthron And that the Old World was drowned and they damned for want of Light or Knowledge of the Will of GOD which is absurd as well as contrary to the Scriptures For the Spirit of GOD strove with them and told Caâ—in that if he did well he should be accepted and if he did evil sin lay at the door Which saying presupposeth that Cain knew the God and the evil Did not Christ preach to the Old World in the dayes of Noah I Pet 3. 19. And if this be true that fallen man had no Law nor Light but an extinguished Lanthorn by what Law could the men of Sodom and Gomorah be condemned I know nothing he can say to this but that direful Doctrine of Reprobation which yet will not serve his turn Secondly That this Light wherewith Christ hath enlightned every man is supernatural sufficient is so largely proved by Samuel Fisher William Penn George Keith and Ro Barkclay and all the Objections answered is nottour to any who hath been at pains to read their Writings so that it might suffice to direct my Reader thereto Yet shall I take notice of what seems to have any weight In the first he comes above board and calls it Reason And then for I wave his railing and reflections Reason is Natural and Man is Rational That Man excrising his Reason and contemplating the Works of Creation and Providence cannot but conclude that they are the Product of an Infinite and Omnipotent Creator who is to be Loved Feared and adored which thoughts as to the substance of the Action are certainly good And what saith all thi to the purpose Are not the prayers and plowing of the wicked as good as the substance of the Action and yet sin But the Question is Whether man had no other Principle in him whereby he could discern these things but his natural and corrupt Reason which was the thing incumbent upon him to prove and which he hath wholly omitted Seeing the Apostle saith The natural man cannot discern the Things of GOD. His Second Argument is Whatever is in man and common to all Mankind is Natural but some sparks of the Knowledge of a Deitie and some good Thoughts as the desire of self-preservation are in man common to all Mankind Ergo c The Major is false otherwayes it would follow That the Grace of GOD which bringeth to Salvation which is in Man and hath appeared to all Men must be Natural and the Life of Christ the Light of Men must be Natural both which are absurd His Third is much to the same purpose That which is originally born with every Man and up to more and more maturity is undoubtedly natural but some remainders of the Knowledge of God are originally that is in the Principle or Inclination born with Man and grows up to more and more maturity according to the growth of him in whom they are Ergo c. They are Natural Certainly if this Argument hold Man that lives long and grows up to a great hight must acquire a great Knowledge of God which is ridiculous And Seneea had more Knowledge than this Author as before cited who said There were Divine Seeds sown in Man which grew according to the entertainment they melt with And whether this of Seneea be more consonant to our Saviour's Parable of the Sower and the Seed than our Author's Argument let the Reader judge The Seed was sown by Christ in all Grounds the Seed gtew Ergo according to our Author it was Natural And the Talents were given to the profitable and unprofitable Servants and they grew as they were improved Ergo they were Natural His Fourth Argument is That which is common to Devils is not supernatural But to know and believe that there is a God which is of it self a good thought is common to Devils Ergo c. When our Author gives us a learned Treatise of Nature of Angels of their Fall and what they Lost and what they Retained And tells us whence he learned it and then proves that Men and the Devils in their nature in their Fall and since their Fall are in all things alike he may have an Answer For my part I seek not to be wise above what is revealed I know that Men and Angels Fell and that Man was Redeemed by Christ and not Devils And that he purchased for Man Grace whereby he might attain to Faith Repentance and New Ohedience which are the Terms of the Second Covenant I know also the Devils believe that there is a God and that this their belief of His immutable Justice is no small patt of their present as well as future Torment where by they know that they shall be eternally tormented in Hell And if ever our Author come there which God forbid he will find this to be a part of his Nature as he would insinuate in his next Argument where he saith That which
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
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
may inform us by the next what he intends by these words Whether a Substonce or an accident or only the dim spunks of his extinguished Lantern His next work is is to prove us Pelagians and remits his Reader to his second Chapter which I also do When R B tells J B that the Fathers he cites thought that men might be free from sin by Grace Our Author calls it mancking and clipping and saith Is it not added in the very following words immediatly that none attained that measure of Holiness in this life that he could live any long time without Sin and that this perfection was not full and absolur but which might increass and was mixed with evil deeds so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees Here these Fathers say any long time without sin and therefore I must ask our Author of what extant this long time is I am sure one day is a very short time and no wayes deserves the word long to be added and yet if they grant t is but one day The West minister Divines have done with it for ever I hope our Author will not accuse Augustine of Pelagianism and therefore I must let him see that Augnstine saith as much as R B Also John Humphry perfection page 7 saith Augustine in his second Book Chap 15. De Peo mer rem and de Spiritu Litera hath the luck to treat industriously on this matter Alia est Questio utrum esse possit Homo in hae vita sine pectato Alia utrum sit It is one question whether a man can be in this life without sin and another whether he be so For the former Question he destinguisheth of what is possible by Grace and what is possible by our own strength to hold that any man by his free will only without Grace is able to keep all GOD's Commandments and be without sin is that Grand Pelagian Doctrine against which he sets his face and deâ—astes it But that it is possible to attain this by Grace or the special assistance of GOD's Spirit he thinks it best it seems to grant He thinks it not fit nor safe to say any nor all of GOD's Commandements are impossible Besides Where GOD Vouchsafs his Grace the work he pleads is to be ascribed unto him to whom nothing is impossible And I hope this being all we plead for will forever aquite us of Pelagianism and come pesce all the slanderous tongues of our ignorant and malicious Adversaries As for his Orosms The first is a modest saying like that of R B before mentioned but the second is a heedless expression The man that can be without sin is Christ from which it would follow that Adam was Christ who could have been without sin and once was without it And I hope there are are some now who are clansed from all their Polutions washed and purged from all their sins according to the Scriptures yet are not Christs But because R B saith it is not his work to meddle with what is said against the Pelagians and Socinians he will herefore conclude him a Pelagian and Socinian What triffling is this Beeause our Author will not defend Mahumentism and Judaism therefore he is a Jew and a Mahumetan Is this as good consequence And yet in such doth our Author delight But the best is that he saith Nothing that R B. can say can be of weight against us And why so Patroclus Are Presbyterians Infallible or in accountable Or when came they by this priviledge I thought they had been subject to mistakes as much as other men And here he turns to the Fathers again But the Fathers of the three first Centuries only are reputed Orthodox by Presbyterianâ—â— And it is clear they fall in with Papists there and have as much need of a Purgatory as they His Next is to answer this Viz. That this Doctrine is against the Wisdom of GOD. Our Author answereth Saying he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of GOD whereby they may be free from all sin if they use them well Adding that he mumbleth as one in a confused haste but our Authors hast is much greater For R B hath write a whole page and more upon this Argument and our Author does not take notice of six lines of it But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insinuateth this That the only wife GOD A being to gather to Himself a peculiar People Holy and Righteous And for that Effect sent His Son into the World to save them from their sins and hath given them his Hâ—ly Spirit to sanctifie them throughout and to cleanse them from all sin as the Scripture testifie Now to say that he cannot compass that end is to derogate from the Wisdom of GOD. But he answers This â—â— with great facility denyed for we say saith our Author that it is the Will of GOD that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church triumphant only Sat pro imperio He might have left this to the Pope Now for proof of this hold assertion he saith It is enough to challenge him to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the World except Jesus Christ who never had it but by Imputation Thus the Man who tells us Affirmenti incumbit probatio but he confesseth Infants have no sin but by Imputation And I would fain know when Enoch and Elijah were punged Whether in the World before their Translation or in the Empereal Heaven into which they either entered with their sins or were freed from sin in the World And if so he may tell us with the next how long they were so freed before their Translation for I can assure him they had no need of Purgatory To R B's alledging from J â—'s words That he confessed there was some material service performed to the devil He answereth This objection militats as much against the Apostle Saying Rom 7. That with his flesh he served the law of sin For answer to which I remitt him to the 17 and 20 verses of the same Chapter Neither hath he yet proven that Paul speaks here of his present State as the second verse of the next Chapter doth evince That this Instance will overdo he is mistaken upon his begging the Question that the best and most gracious Action of the Saints are tainted with sin which we must take his word for His next is That it is the Will of GOD that his People be under a warefare so long as they are here To which R B answers But is it the Will GOD that they he alwayes overcome After this he adds his own words in stead of his Adversaries according to his Jugling Custome But let us heat his Answer He saith They are 〈◊〉 alwayes overcome What Is not daily while they are in this Life alwayes If to break the Commands of GOD daily in thought word and deed as long as they live be not alwayes he may tell us the difference next
Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost wherein the Kingdom of GOD standeth But our Author returns to his old trade of citations and gives us an English Minister and Paget for his Authors which books I never saw and may be as great liars as himself Who may the next time be cited as a famous Author but admitt all these were truths as they are not What then If our Author will but invite me with the next I will give him undenyable Instances of Presbyterian Priests that have farr out done all these Instances of his in abominable wickedness not mentioned in the Presbyterian Eloquence but this is a pitiful way of Reasoning He cannot omit Virgil and Latinus to shew us that he reads the Heathen Poets it seems as carefully as the Bible Otherwise he had never inserted such a foolish tale as the Heathen Lying upon Sheeps Skins And malitiously adds which if the Quakers do or not I am uncertain This one Sentence in the end renders all the rest uncertain and rediculous But it is Observable in our Adversaries that when a Scottish Priest hath a lie to vent he goeth to England for it and in England they fetch it from Scotland Holland or some forraignplace at a distance to cover deceit and malice And now at last we are come to silent waiting upon the LORD or turning inward our minds to hear what the LORD will speak in us As David saith I will hear what the LORD will speak in me c. This our Author saith is impossible to a man except he be sleeping or in an extacie But giveth no proof but ipse dixit As for Extasies I know them not but sleeping men have their minds sometimes very busse and even our Author himself I doubt is not quite free from dreams And because he cites Virgil here I think he who so much delights in Heathen Poets might have been at the pains to read some Christian Poets As Boetus de Consol Phil 3 lib metrum 1â— where he will find this matter clearly held forth And even Beza commendeth silence tho not that turning in of the mind which that other speaks of But whereas he sayes the Soul must act upon some object He sheweth how ignorant he is of true self-denyal as one of his Transmarine Divines saith purae negationes sui c. These pure acts of self-denyal are that a man cease from his own works his own willing and running and from his thoughts and imginations which are only evil continually and are as clouds and obstacles which hinder of that Divine inward peace giving light in the bottom of the Soul These Clouds therefore being removed the light immediatly shineth upon the denyal of self neither saith he can there be a vacuum here but these are Heresies as well as Mysteries to our Presbyterian Clergie who Preach Pray and Praise in their own willings and by their own strength without waiting for Divine assistance or the influence of the Spirit of Christ without which they affirm a man may be a sufficient Minister But saith he R. B. saith the Old Man the Man of sin that is corrupted must dye and be crucified And again saith he albeit in one sense they are said to die Yet they more truely live Gal 2. 20. Upon this our Author quibles saying that in stead of relinquishing all thoughts he now only defendeth the living of â—arnal thoughts but this he calls a cheat For saith he there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving c. And what then Must Patroclus Preach Yea altho Christ hath said Without me ye can do nothing Yea Calvine saith on the Fourth Commandmant The Sabbath is a resting from our own works that GOD may Work in us As for a time betwixt which seems to be the only thing he quibles upon I have told before and now again that how soon the Clouds are dissipat by a true self-denyal The Sun of Righteousness immediatly appeareth and there is no vacuum As to what he talketh of the Apostle I hope when he was dead and Christ lived in him our Author will not be so gross as to say that he acted without Christ as to Spiritual things tho the faculties of his Soul were as vived and active as our Authors now are What he saith in page 214 on this subject only sheweth his ignorance in these things or want of experience or that he thinks GOD to be at a distance and to require a time to come to man to work upon him after he hath denyed self His next Quible is concerning appointed times for meeting together to wait upon the LORD Alledging that we should have a previous motion to every Meeting otherwise saith he They limit the Spirit But might not our Author have allowed us the use of this Interpreter of Scripture in such Externall cases as appointing Meetings to wit His Christian Prudence and Wisdom For I hope our Author will not say that Meeting together is an Act of Worship and therefore I refer him to Quakerism confirmed for a full Answer to his Quibles which if he had been just he had taken notice of here In his Vindication of Calvine about Sabbath Day he doth him very little kindness telling the World he contradicteth himself twenty seven years after he had wrote his Institutions I wish he had done so with his doctrine of Reprobation also But we have many famous Protestants for us in that matter as well as Calvine As Dr. Barnes William Tindal and almost all Christians He chargeth R. B. with a contradiction for saying That Peter and Paul had a Natural Man in which the devil might work and a Spiritual Man which might resist This he saith contradicts his dectrine of Perfection or at lest his Exposition of Rom 7. For the strst R. B. alwayes asserted a Natural and Spiritual Man as may be seen in all his Writtings And for the Second It is one thing to say the Devil may work and the Spirit resist and another to say the Devil doth work and overcome The first may be said of Paul in his best state The second is our Adversarys doctrine which we deny And thus his alledged Contradiction is a meet false Insinuation In the next place he accuseth R. B. of Railing He should have said R. Maequair and used his own phrase Quis tulerit Graccbos c. But he calls them Priests saith he understand of Baal Thus he hath helped R. B. For conscius ipse sibi de se putat omnia dici To defend his Brother saying That Watching is not a turning inward but a looking outward To which R. B. replyeth Then a man shut up in a dungeon could not watch spiritually He answers That by looking outwardly they understand minding GOD and our distance from him and the like This is Nonsense as if by looking outward a man could see GOD. His bauble about Thaulerus is nothing but a malicious Insinuation of our being Papists which none