doth the Scriptures themselves in distinction from the Spirit As 2 〈◊〉 3. 6. Except Patroclus intend to turn Socinian who understood this place on Scriptures to be meant of the Gospel or Scriptures of the New Testament as may be seen in the Cracovian Catechism Page 162 163. Asserting the Holy Spirit to be the Ipsum Evangelium and at best to be but a certain hope of Eternal life promised to us Secondly they call the Scriptures Writings Is not this plain Soots for Scriptura Or what difference is there betwixt Scriptures and Writings It seems the fault is that the word is not a little Latinized But every Quaker is not so good a Linguist as Patroclus His third charge is that the Quakers call them them a letter about the meaning whereof nor two are agreed Now Patroclus I pray thee for once deal ingenuously with me and ommiting many other instances answer only these two First if the Scriptures be so plain and obvious to every well disposed intelect as your party word it how came the whole Ministry of Scotland to differ so faâ—r in the year 16â—0 about so easle a case as whether it was Lawful for the Mallignats to fight for their Native Country against a Forraign Enemie And secondly It is well known that about the year 1661 after divers Presbyterian Ministers were suspended from the exercise of their Ministry who notwithstanding did not submit but continued preaching and gathered to themselves congregations in the desart to the great distuâ—bance of the Nation On the other hand in the year 1689 several hundreds of the Episcopal Ministers have been suspended and their Flocks left destitute Yet all of them have submitted and are silent Now seeing both parries acknowledge the same Scripture Tellme I pray thee whether they be agreed about the meaning and bring me plain Scripture to decide these two contraversies â—t eris mihi Magnus Apollo After this in Page 7 he falls upon citations where he promiscuously and at all adventures cites Hicks and Fâ—lâ—â— upon whose Bankrupt Faith he layes no small stress I alwayes doubted Patroclus to be no sound Presbyterian For sure they who could not allow Malignants to fight for their Native Country would never allowes Sectaries to contend for the Faith which certainly is more Precious then all outward things But especially they being men who by their open forgeries and falsehoods have forefeited their Credit with all Honest Men I shall be at the pains with one or two of them tho they desorve no notice In Page 8 he ciâ—es one N L Cited by Hicks and saith he evinced by him against Pen That if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ these words Hicks saith were spoken by N L To one he knows very wâ—ll upon publishing this in his Book N L gives forth a Testimony under his hand dated London 29th 3d. Moneth 1673 denying he ever spoke such words or any thing like them calling it an abominable lie wicked slander and appeals to GOD to clear his ◠〈◊〉 But after some search Nicholas is sent to one Henry Stout to prove the matter who at last gave his Testimony in write under his hand thus I Henry Stout of Hartford never in all my dayes heard Nicholas Lucas speak the words nor any of the like importance or tendencie as charged on him be Tho Hicks nor before any man else that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my conscience that he hath most grosly wronged N L To which I subscribe H Stout So now let the Reader judge what seared Consciences and Brazen faces these men have or our Patroclus to cite such a base and false calumny The second Citation is that of William Penns Rejoynder Page 70 73. We have good reason to deny them to be the rule of Faith and Judge of contraversy which can neither give nor govern Faith nor Judge of Contraversies If he added the rest I should have left it to the Reader to Judge without more And therefore I shall only add these following words as they ly Viz. As the many different perswasâ—ons in the World fully prove For then all that have the Scriptures would be of one perswasion as it is most certain those are who have walk by the one Spirit Let the Word be joyned and then Judge The other part of his Citation is Page 73 thus in short the Scriptures are not the Rule but a declaration of Faith and knowledge Here he stops But I intreat the Reader before he trust these men to be at the pains to read the Book Cited by him There he shall see wither William Penn and his friends deserves to be called disparragers of the Scriptures and that it looks more like malice and interest that acts these men than the love of Truth The rest of his Citations at least many of them I never saw nor read but in such books as his Page 9. About the end he falls upon a long Citation of William Penns rejoynder concerning the Canon The Authority of those who gathered it the Transcribers and their dissentions the exactness of the coppies And lastly that some learned men of our times tell us of little less then 3000 several readings in the Scriptures of the Nâ—w Testament in Greek Answer Can he say William Penn hath lied in what he hath Written If he do I will produce him Protestant Authors who confess no less But if he had added the rest of William Penns words he had done more honestly but not so much to his purpose and therefore I will do him the kindness to set down a few of them Farr be it from me saith William Penn to Write this in any the least undervalue of that Holy Record It 's only to shew the weak foundation my Adversaries foundation stands upon I believe great and Good Things of them and that from no less evidence then the Eternal VVord that gave them forth Which hath often times given my Soul a deep Savour of these blessed Truths it declares of c And after many such expressions he concludes We accept them as the Words of GOD Himself And by the assistance of his Spirit they are read with great Instruction and Comfort I esteem them the best of Writings and desire nothing more frequently then that I may lead the Life they exhort to Thus William Penn Whereby the Reader may perceive the malice and disingenuity of Patroclus in concealling the Words which would have vindicated him from that soul charge of vilifying the Scriptures And I desire the Reader will only compare Patroclus and his Party with the Pharaseâ—s who while they extolled the Scriptures were found the murderers and persecuters of CHRIST and his Apostles Having thus dissingenuously dealt with William Penn he fails upon R. B. in these words On the other hand of this Ethnick Army R. B. Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures Citing his Apologie Chap 2. That
honest as to tell us He hath said before that the Illumination of the Spirit is absolutly necessary to such a knowledge of the Scriptures as iâ— usefull to beget Faith Love and Fear of of GOD. c. But he would teach us another Knowledge which reason cannot produce But if he will allow me the first I shal allow him the last to get his Living by Only I must tell the Reader that in this he outdoes the Socinian who in his Catechism aforesaid Cap 3. quest 3. Laid the blame of the Differences about the sense of the Scriptures on their not imploting the Gift of the Holy Spirit which GOD hath promised to those that call upon Him And lastly I wonder to see a pretended Presbyterian cite the Examples of the third and fifth Commandemenâ—s Of which two precepts they have been such notorious Transgressors His third Answer is as unhappy as the rest For he laboureth to caâ—se R. B. to contradict B. F. While he hath neither cleared his Brethren Hicks and Brown from being reputed Calumniators Nor hath attempted any way to prove these to have been the Words of B. F. But thinks the World is bound to believe him because he saith it Where I leave him to rave till he bring better proof He tells us Fourthly That it is impertinent to say that without the Operation of the spirit men cannot obey the Good of their own Souls And is saith he falcem pro ligone dare Answer It seems the Man intends an Obedience which is not for the good of Mens own Souls And what this can be except it be either superstition or supererogation I am to learn As for his Proverb I fear if the Men of his Robe did not get the Sickle before the Spade That is did not eat the Fruit before they planted a Vineyard we should see many of them with Lean cheecks and Lank sides But as he hath told us before of two kinds of Knowledge one from the Spirit another from Reason So he tells here of two kinds of Duties one profitable for the Soul but the other he hath not told us for what and such are many of his Duties like to be In the fifth place he chargeth B. F. with Blasphemie for saying that it is as he alledgeth the greatest Error in the World that ever was invented and the ground of all errour to affirm that the Seriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians And then he tells us the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the poison and hath rendred R. B. speechless Well Patroelus And is this all the proof that yet we have against B. F. Now three times printed without proof And R. B. might have justly rejected it at first and here with falls what thou brings in the last place which was a sufficient answer to I B and is yet to thee till thou clear him of these ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator as thou calls them which neither thou nor he have ever yet attempted But I must ask thee a little What thou intends here by blasphemy For whatever the old signification of the Word may have been I am sure a Blasphemer is now taken for a Man who by injurious word or thought hurteth the Divine Majesty So that except the Scripture be Patroclus God he cannot find Blasphemy in the foresaid Words Lastly All the Proof we have is If says he the words were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them Here we have a new Law if any Man call Patroclus a Thief he is bound to prove himself an honest Man And hence it shall follow that no Lyar can be punished To conclude this particular Not withstanding this Author accuseth the Quakers as Velifiers of the Scriptures Yet GOD is our Witness that it is far from our Intention but on the contrary we have a high and reverent esteem of them And altho some years agoe this Language might have passed for good Coyn Yet now Blessed be the LORD we are better known both by our Principles and practices not only to our Neighbours but to many knowing Men all Brittan over then we formerly were So that a malicious Priest will not be so readily trusted being a kind of men who cannot sleep unless they have wounded some either in their persons or Reputations I shal here only desire the Reader to see Duplessis of the Trueness of Christian Religion cap 6. Where he shall see That before the Canon of the Scriptures were filled up yea before many of them were written CHRIST is called the Word of GOD not only by the Jews but by the Heathen Philosophers and their Oracles So that there was a Word of GOD before the Scriptures And secondly If the Preaching of the Gospel be glad Tidings Then the Preaching of Patroclus is not the Preaching of the Gospel According to Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you good Tidings of great joy which shall be to all people Whereas his Doctrine of Reprobation is the most sad and lamentable Tydings that ever was preached to Man kind For first by their Confession of Faith cap. 3. A certain number are elected from Eternity and the means foreordained to bring them to Glory and all the rest of Mankind are ordained to dishonour and wrath Now the means whereby this end is attained and fore ordained for that purpose are according to their Catechism The Word Saoraments and Prayer And so according to Patroclus All Mankind who want these mens are reprobates consider then Reader into how narrow a Compass he brings all people The World being divided into 30 parts There be yet 19 of them Pagan and six Mabumitan and only five Christian The half of this five is of the Romish Communion want the use of the Bible The Lutherans he saieth in his Epistle to the Reader deserve not the Name of Reformed but are to be accounted Capital Adversaries The Church of England is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianizm and Episcopacy is an Antichristian Hierarchy The French Protestants are for passive obedience and Non Resistance And even Geneva it self errs in two great points Viz. In allowing Lawful Recreations on the Sabbath day and denying Tithes to the Clergie And our English Presbyterians are such enemies to the Scottish Covenant that they have gone near to Anathematize it For R Baxter in his hundreth propositions wherein he sayeth all Protestants are aggreed Propos 99 saith If any will make their unnecessary forms of Synods and other adjuncts to seem so necessary as to enter Leagues and Covenants to make them the terms of the Churches Unity GOD will not owne such terms nor waves nor will they be durable c. With much more to this purpose And now let the Reader judge whither Patroelus Gospel be glad tidings to all people We are now come to the Rule of Faith and Life page 17 where having begun with a great lie Viz. That in the judgement of the Quakers the Scriptures are
givenparticularly for that Nation and was binding upon no other Nation in the World as J Humphry in his book called Medioeria to which Richard Baxter a Famous Presbyterian assents and subscrives I am of the same mind R Baxter of the Covenants page 14. The Old Covenant is that which GOD made with the Jews when Moses led them in the Wilderness the new is that which we have under the Gospel the Old Covenant then is not the Covenant of works for that was made with all in Adam and as written in our hearts must be Eternally obligatory but the Old Covenant was made with the Jews in opposition to other Nations and as peculiar to them is vanished binds not And for the same reason he sayeth it is not the Covenant of Grace which is called the New Covenant But saith he the new is not the old The argument he bringeth to prove his Minor is that from which the Jews might not swerve to the right nor left hand and to the decision of which they were ultimatly bound to stand in all doubts and contraversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from GOD's Writtin Law c. Therefore to them it was the Primary Rule Answer First This argument proveth no more then this is already granted Viz. That Moses Law was a more Principal Law to the Jews then to any other Nation But untill he prove the Children of Israel to have had no Law no Rule of Faith nor Life before Moses wrote that Law his argument can conclude nothing Secondly Mine Adversary may tell me whether they were to stand to the decision of the Law in a matter which the Law did not decide for we find that after the Law was given In many things the Law giver Moses could not decide without immediate Revelation as in the matter of the Daughters of Zelophehad But when the case was proposed to him he went and enquired of the Lord And again when the Law was finished and Joshua to succeed him What saith the LORD Numb 29. 21. And he to wit Joshua shall stand before Eleazer the Priest who shall ask Counsel for him after the judgement of Vrim before the LORD If this be ultimatly to recurr to the Scriptures of Moses Law the Reader may judge To prove his Minor he citeth one place which I cannot omit Dut 17 9 10 11 And thou shall come unto the Priests the Levits and unto the Judge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the Sentence of Judgement and thou shall do according to the sentence which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee and thou shall observe to do according to all that they inform thee Now Reader could the Pope of Rome have sought out a Scripture more fitt to have established his universal Dictatorship over Christendome then this Is there one word of Scripture Law or Testimony here No but the Priests the Levites and the Judge That is in Broad Scots The General Assembly and Committee of Estates who were as absolute in their Determinations as ever the Pope and his Conclave But Patroclus must know that he and his Brethren are not Levites altho they take the Tithes nor am I to take their Counsel till they assure me that they have the Judgement of Vrim His second Proof for his Minor is Isaiah 8. 20. To the Law and to the Testimony if they speake not according to these it is because there is no light in them This Scripture hath been so much tossed by the Adversaries of Truth and so often answered That Patroclus who promiseth greater Matters then his Brethren had brought might have let it alone He denyes that this Law and Testimony can be inward And sayes For this Exposition we must take their word c But he hath forgotten it seems that William Penn in his Rejoynder hath given him other Mens words for it and perhaps better Mens then himself And because the Book is not so common among Presbyterians I shall here insert some of the Testimonys cited by William Peen First Dell Tryal of Spirits page 16. Wherefore they who are true believers saith he and have received Christs Spirit their Judgement is to be preferred in the Tryal of spirits before a whole council of Clergie Men And they onlie who can try Spirits by the Spirit of GOD and Doctrines by the Word of GOD written in their hearts by the Spirit can in measure discern all Spirits in the World And the Spirit of Christ which dwelleth in all true Christians cannot deceive nor be deceived in the tryal of spirits Collier General Epistle page 249. and page 258. Obj I st it is said Isa 8 20. To the Law and to the Testimony c Ans Truth There is the Law and the Testimony in the Spirit as well as in the Letter The Law of GOD is in the Heart There it is written and there it testifies the Truth of GOD And if any Man speake not according to this Rule it is because there is no Light nor Morning arisen in them the Spiritual Man judgeth all things yet be himself is judged of no man These were the words of two Famous Professors who were no Quakers Next he citeth some Scriptures to prove that Moses Law is understood by the Law and Testimony As if GOD had made voide his Promise To write his Law in the Heart and put it in the inward parts But of this a little after In page 35. He begins with a Question drawn from Deut 17. 18 19. Now sayes he Shall any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose That the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discusing thereof Or tho the King's doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law He was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him I say who in his Witts will believe this Very well Patroclus I am one so stupid as to believe that when a doubt arose which Moses Law could not clearly determine that the King was bound to enquire of the LORD Of which the Scriptures gives us many examples As 1 Samuel 23. 2. 4. and 30. 8. 2 Sam 2. 1. and 5. 19. 1 Kings 22. 7. And 2 Kings 22. Where the King the High Priest the Scribe and some others had the Book of the Law and knew not what to do with it but sent to enquire of the Lord and that by the mouth of a Woman But he hath been so warrie in his second Querie as to add Tho the Kings doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law Yet hath not the Candour to tell us what the King was to do in case his doubt was not clearly discussed by the Law As for the word Miraculous Revelation c It is his own a fine bugbear to fright his silly Disciples from asking Counsel of GOD For I am apt to believe that Divine Revelation
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
may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural to him to do Righteousness Tho I be wearied with such Perversions and Paultry stuff I am inforced to transcribe R B's Words to evince yet once more his dissigenuity Apol page 170. Lastly tho I affirm that after a Man hath arrived to such a condition in which a man may not sin he yet may sin I will nevertheless not deny but there may be a State attainable in this Life in which to do Righteousness may become so natural to the regenerate Soul that in the stability of this Condition they cannot sin Others may perhaps speak more certainly of this State as having arrived to it For me I shall speak modestly as acknowledging my self not to have arrived at it Yet observe dare not deny it for that it sâ—mâ— to be so positively asserted by the Apostle 1 John 3. 9. He that is born of GOD sineth not neither can he because the Seed of GOD remaineth in him Now let the Reader Judge whether to assert be one thing and not dare to deny be another thing And the Reason our Author gives is It is so natural to him to do Righteousness Whereas R B's Reason why he dare not deny it is because the Apostle seems so positively to assert it But this is not the first we have met with The next we get is another peece of Hicks one of his wicked abominable Anabaptists as he words it which I intend no more to concern with But he tells us R B hath given away the Cause Vind Sect. 9. Saying That he pleadeth for no more then Mr. Brown saith Numb 6. To wit That by Penfection in this Life is understood a change in the whole Man So that he yeildeth Impartial Obedience to all the Commands of GOD tho in a small degree Thus our Author Certainly it 's strange what the man could promise to himself by such base and unworthy dissimulations For R B citeth John Browns words page 328. 329. In regeneration the whole man is changed so that he is now born a new Creature sanctified wholly in Mind Heart Spirit Affection Conscience Memory and Body tho but in a small measure or degree yielding Impartial Obedience through the Grace of GOD unto all GODS Precepts waving none These are the Words cited by R. B. and miserably mancked by our Author who hath skipped over the most matterial parts of his Brothers words that he may have the more room but this is a very mean subterfuge and will not long cover him For saith he R. B. enquireth how this Doctrine is reconciled with that of daily breaking the Commands in thought Word and deed In answer to which question saith he It is enough to enquire How he evineeth them to be contradictory Observe Reader That according to this Man for I will not think that his brethren will own him to be changed in the whole Man to be born a new Creature to be wholly sanctified in the mind heart Spirit Affections Conscience Memory and Body c. And to break the Commands daily in thought word and Deed are no wayes contrary and need no Reconciliation Behold this Mans Sanctification And let him tell me with the next what difference there is betwixt his Holiness or Sanctification and other Mens wickedness where malice is wanting As for that he adds That the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as as parts He might have known that we are to be judged by the Gospel and not by the Law Next he saith And whereas he enquireth If to break Gods Commands daily in Thought Word and Deed be the way to grow in Grace To put off the Old Man and put on the New This he calls a malicious calumny But who gave the occasion for it Did not â— B. bring this for a proof that Men sin daily in thought Word and deed viz. That Christians are exborted to grow in Grace To put off the Old Man which is corrupt to put on the nor Man to mortifie their Members And now I leave it to the Reader to judge whether R. B's question were pertinent and neither malicious nor calumnious Yet our Candid Author must add something that he may still be like himself Asking Where did any of the Reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands to grow in Grace as this Man insinuates they do First he hath added the Word Indeavour and then he hath fathered the import of l. B's argument upon R. B's question Is this honesty To tell his Adversary His Light teacheth him a faoulty of Lying while himself is both the Lyet and the Forger He goeth no to give us I. B's second Proof thus This perfection renders Gospel Commands useless R. B. Answers by a Simile Asking Are the Laws useless if Men obey them He answers He that is above the Breach of the Law hath no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to his Obedience thereof Is not this a poor Subterfuge How shall a Man obey the Law if he know it not Or how obey it if he take not heed to order his Conversation according to it And is then the Law useless him But he might have remembred that R. B. asserted a possibility of sinning and only modestly said he durst not deny a further State because the Apostle seemed positively to assert it But the Apostle saith Against such there is no Law he may tell us next who these are But to summ up this Paragraph he will not only fasten a contradiction upon R. B. but also Blasphemy saying But that he â—hay further contradict himself and his Brethren He saith in his Apologie that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For saith our Author If some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a body of death the most that they have to do is to give Thanks and not to pray or repent Is not this a profound as well as fair Disputant Did his Adversary ever say That any were equal with GOD No And therefore the Blasphemy is his own for which he hath need to repent And so had the best Saints for that all have sinned and whosoever hath sinned need to repent and pray for Forgiveness And if he will consult the Scriptures he may see that after the Intimation of Pardon the Saints have mourned and prayed for Forgiveness See 2 Sam. 12. 13. Compated with Psalm 51. 14. But his Malice blinds him in this and many more things He comes now to John Browns next proof Viz This doctrine tends to foment pride and Securitie and taketh away diligent Watchfulness Holy fear Humility c. To which R. B. answers But where Freedom from Sin is where can pride and Securitie have place or Diligence and Humility be wanting But with him to sin is the way not to be proud and secure but to be watchfull
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
in no sense to be accounted a Rule He citeth VVilliam Penn to prove it Rejoynder page 76. I beseech thee Reader here to take notice of this mans double dealing and dissingenuâ—ity For first VVilliam Penn in page 69 and 70 confesseth the Scriptures to be a Rule but not the Rule by way of excellency as the Reader may see there and in Râ— Barclays his appologie Theses Tertia And because he Citeth VVilliam Penn to prove his false assertion let the Reader know they are no words of VVilliam Penn but of one Thomas Colliar a great Professor whose words VVilliam Penn Citeth against Faldo some whereof I shall transcribe General Epistle page 249. And truely my Brethren it is my earnest desite to see souls to live more in the Spirit and less in the Letter then they will see that we judge of the Litter by the Spirit and not of the Spirit by the Lettâ—er Which occasions so much ignorance amongst us and these who profess themselves to be our Teachers are chief in this Trespass The Spirit of GOD who is GOD is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian and in page 48 he saith That some seting the Scriptures in the Room of the spirit they make them an Idol His next Citation of VVilliam Penn in page 18 is his Rejoynder page 71 where he Citeth these words the scriptures are the verbal and Historical Rule of Faith which is the devels faith William Penns words are these For Faith in his I Faldâ— sense rises no higher then so many articles laid down suppose truely according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can belive as well as he This Faith I call meerly verbal and Historical c. And this is the candour of our insulting adversary Let the Reader judge whose reputation can be safe who deals with such an impudent Calumniator In the same page and in contradiction to himself he mentions a distinction of primary and Secondary Well Patroelus it seems the Quakers own the scriptures in some sense to be a Rule therefore Patroclus consesseth himself to have belyed them in the foregoing page His third is Huberthorn The words are except by a Miraculous Revelation from Heaven These words sound harshly and so fit to defame the Quakers But if yet thou hast retained any shamesacedness or the least grain of honesty I charge thee tell me Have not George Keith in his Books on that subject and Robert Barelay in his Appollogie sufficiently cleared the Quakers in that point So far that if thou wilt rightly state the contraversie thou must lay aside all these expressions of miraculous extraordinary and the like But who can expect fare dealing from a man of thy manners And therefore to stop the mouth of this Callumniator I shall tell the Reader what George Kieth sayes to obviat such accusations immediate Revel page 2. First we do not understand the foretelling things to come c. Secondly page 3 We do not bereby understand the Revelation of an other Gospel c. Thirdly in page 7. Not an outward audible voice c. Fourthly Nor any outward audible voice Fifthly Nor dreams and visions c. Sixthly Nor any outward Miracles c. And now let the Reader judge with what candour this man hath represented us Page 18 and 19. He saith in order to the Production of true saving Faith two principles are required First the declaration of the object or thing to be believed c. Now the thing he would have me believe is that the scripture is the Rule of Faith and Life and in order to this he presents me the Bible Is I ask him how shall I believe this book to be the Rule of Faith and Life He answereth me the book saith so tho there be no such word in it And this is objective Revelation and needs no more but an application of this Revelation already made And the second he calls subjective revelation but he must excuse me to tell him that before he can perswaed me to believe that proposition laid down in the Westminster Confession or Catecbism Quest 2 that the scripture is the only rule He will need to produce me better arguments for the Holy Ghost according to the Westminster Confession Chap 7 Act 3 must be given to make men willing and able to believe and this is more then an application He tells us that this revelation was either mediate or immediate Who denyes this But I hope when it was mediate it needed the immediate operation of the spirit to make them able and willing to believe and so the operation of the Spirit was the Rule of this Faith whereby they choosed or rejected these mediate Revelations That the illumination of the spirit is necessary for understanding of the soriptures no man denyeth But it is to be regarated that he and his Brethren take upon them to expond scripture to others while they have it not and mock and persecute Others who bear witness for it To prove subjective Revelation he bringeth several Scriptures Among others Luke 24. 46. The Words are these And said unto them Tbus it is Written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Now the Question will be whether this was an objective or a subjective Revelation I affirm it to be Objective and that CHRIST did here reveal to them things they never knew before nor had occasion to know albeit they might have been darkly shadowed forth in the Scriptures So that Christ speaking to them and at the same time opening their Understandings both Patroclus principles concurred immediatly to the production of their Faith with out the Bible Neither is he limited to Scripture words tho he may and often does make use of them And these words He spoke are not to be found in all the Old Testament And the Quakers do not pretend to revelation of New Things but a new Revelation of the Good Old Things Secondly Consider that he calls his first Principle a Declaration of the Object or Thing to be believed Now the Scriptures are the Object or Thing to be believed And therefore according to himself the Declaration is necessary And I must ask Patroclus what this Declaration is Sure he can intend nothing here but the Glosses Commentaries Paraphrases which he and his Brethren make upon the Scriptures whereby they get their Living But if Men were but once convinced that Christs sheep hear his Voice and that his Spirit teacheth them and bringeth all things to their remembrance whatsoever they have heard of or from him Then that sordid Trade of Preaching for hâ—re and Divining for money would soon come to an end And Men would say with Thomas a Kempis Let not Moses and the Prophets speake to me but thou O LORD my GOD. And with the Psalmist I will bear what the LORD GOD will speake in me Whereas now pretend what they will they are as positive in their dogmatising and no less
angry to be contradicted then their Ancestors the Papists Hence it is evident that it is their Interpretations sense and Preachments upon the Scriptures which they would have to be the Rule of Faith and the Declaration of the Object In page 20 He makes a digression wherein he tels us the same things overagain therefore I shal only touch suchthings as chiefly concern the matter in hand if yet lawful for a Plowman to touch his school-terms by which that Trib have darkned Counsell with words without Knowledge And if Patroclus be a Parochus or Parish Priest I am sure the tenth man of his Hearers cannot understand his Terms First He confounds the Matterial with the formal Object saying as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own ltradiant and illustrious Beams And this in contradiction both to Calvine and him self To Calvine in the place before cited Where he saith That to settle the Conscience such a Perswasion is necesseary as needeth no Reasons And such a sense as cannot be attained but by Divine Revelation To himself in page 23. Where he saith We being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD We answer by the Testimony and operation of the Spirit And herein he may reconcile himself to himself and his friends when he hath Leasure Secondly In page 22 speaking of subjective Revelation he calls the spirit an Instrument in the hand of GOD This Language sounds not sweetly to me for I believe the Spirit is GOD and therefore cannot like these Words GOD an Instrument in the Hand of GOD. 3ly He tells us in page 23 That subjective revelation is more properly called an Application then Revelation it self And yet in the same page he calls it the Testimony and Opcration of the Spirit Now a Testimony is a Witness bearing And we know a dumb Man cannot be a Witness But he hath told us That the Spirit speaks neither to the Ear nor the Mind and so cannot bear a Testimony This is palpable confusion Fourthly page 24. He saith so that we can Reason because surch spirit v g He that confesleth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is said by the Scriptures to be of GOD Therefore I know and believe that is true Doctrine and that this spirit is of GOD. If this Scripture be taken Literally by Patroclus and that he intends as he Writes I must confels I expected not so much Charity at his hands For at this rate he accepteth Papists Lutherians yea and the Palagian Chureb of England who all believe that Christ is come in the flesh But I will expect a Commentary upon the Words with the next Fifthly In the same page he saith We do not with the Fanatical Enthusists reason thus The Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures Therefore I believe them to be so But he hath given us no Reason why he believes such and such Books to be the Scriptureâ— For which we must wait his Leasure Sixibly His lame example of the Sun and Ey-salve is no better He saith by means of the Salve he seeth and knoweth the Sun And again by the Sun Light he may perceive what is Eyâ—salve and what is not But he might have considered That tho he see that Sun and Ey-salve both he needeth his Natural Understanding to know the Sun and to discern what is Ey-salve and what is not And as in Naturals so in Spirituals No man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in him so the things of GOD no man knoweth but by the spirit of God Seventhly In page 26. He chargeth R. B. for calling the Westminster Divines dark c. Because they not separate the Word from the Spirit But said that the Testimony of the Spirit was in ant with the Word And then reflects upon R. B's Vindication page 33. But takes no notice of what he saith page 33. and 34. Because they were too hot for his fingers He citeth Isaiah 59. 21. My spirit which is in thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth c Observe First That the Tenot of this Covenant is Spiritual My Spirit which is in thee Secondly That they are distinct tho not contrary else they needed not the copulative Conjunction And Tbirdly They are called Words and not Word So then Patroclus confesseth That GOD putteth Words in his mouth to preach to his People I shall allow him to be concerned in this Covenant And I hope he will not here after be angry with the Quakers calling the Scriptures the Words of GOD. Eightly He saith there was never the least contraversy betwixt the Briâ—tish and Transmarine Divines on this head but an intire Harmony This is another Lie I shall instance one Joâ— VV Bajer Profeslor os Divinity at Jena in Germany writting on that Subject against the Quakers page 33. and 34. Saith the in ward Illuminations and Operations of the Spirit are altogether necessary to beget true and saving Faith in Men and that these inward Illuminations are objective or by way of Object Which is not very Harmonious with Patroclus Doctrine of Application And this is all the discovery he hath made of R B's Non such weakness and extream disingeunity which he hath left undiscovered till his next Printing And now in page 26. He saith he comes directly to the Objection Saying First The Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we speak properly an Application of the things revealed in Scripture then a Revelation of Testimony strictly so taken Observe First That this being granted all these words of Protestant VVriters such as the Testimony Illumination Inspiration Perswasion of the Spirit are but meer cheats and impostures put upon Mankind And that Calvine when he speaketh of Divine Revelation as necessary to beget True Faith meant no such thing nor any of these Authors he citeth are to be understood according to their own words but according to Patroclus sense and thus he and his Brethren deal by the Scriptures Headds Whereas the Revelations to which the Quakers pretend are altogether objective like that of the Prophers This is another Lie for the Quakers own both Subjective and Objective Revelations as hath been showen above I shall here and Luk. 24. 32. Did not our Hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the way and while he opened to us the Scriptures Now let the Reader judge whether this was an Objective Revelation as well as Subjective Their bearts burnt and he opened to them the Scriptures Now Opening presupposeth a Shulting and the Lamb only is found worthy to open the Seals of the Book That is Poreveal the Object In page 27. He saith we assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be
are sufficient to convince these Men of palpable falshood and blasphemy This is Language for the Pulpit among the Hood-winked hearers but will trouble no unprejudiced Reader As to the great stress he layeth upon these words And these are they that testifie of me Therefore they are the Primary Rule Did he not say The Works which I do They hear witness of Me And if we may believe History the Sybills testified of him Doth this prove that they were the Primary Rule But the very foregoing Verse is to be considered And ve have not his Word abiding in you for whom be hath sent him ve believe not And verse 36. I have a greater Witness then that of John For the works which the Father hath given me to finish the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me Here let him consider that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every thing is to be proven Our Saviour bringeth here four Witnesses The Testimony of John The Works which he did The Word of GOD abiding in Men and the Scriptures The contraversy is not whether any of these or all of them were Witnesses but which of them was the greatest and most Preferrable And if the Works which He then did were a greater Witness then the Testimony of John who was inferiour to none of the Prophets Then the Works which He now doth in the Hearts and Souls of Believers by His Word abiding in them in healling all their Infirmities quickning and enlightning their dead Souls and speaking peace to them is a greater Witness then the Scriptures He falls next upon R. Bs. Dilemma Which he saith hath not the weight of a Walnut It seems the hardness of the shell hath blunted his teeth that he hath not reached the Kernal For saith he If the words are to be taken in the Imperative mood as we have even now demonstrated then it is as clear as the Noon Sun c. But how hath he demonstrated it That the Word bears not the Indicative Signification as well as the Imperative is obvious to any that understands the Conjugations And the Scriptures brought to prove it I shall touch some of them Deut 17. 18 19. And be shall read therein all the days of his Life Ergo The Words John 5 39. Are to be taken in the Imperative Mood If this be not as wild a consequence as to say William Jamison is verus Patroelus by a Metempychosis Ergo The whole Church of England are Hereticks which he hath boldly asserted in his Adultory Epistle to his Patron I leave it to the Reader to Judge The next he brings is Deut 29. 29. The Secret things belong to the LORD our GOD but those Things which are revealed belong to us and to our Children for ever that we may do all the Words of this Law Ergo The Words of John are to be taken in the Imperative mood Who would follow such an Adversary at this Rate But seeing he is so good at Wall-nuts I will give him another of the same kind to break Either the Words of John the Baptist who was as great a Prophet as Isaiah were as much a Rule to the Jews when spoken by him as they are now to us when recorded in a Book or as the words of Isaiah formerly recorded in a Book or they were not If they were Then the Works which Christ worketh now in the Souls of His Servants must be a greater Witness then the words of John recorded in a Book As well as the Works he then did were a greater Witness But if he say they were not so much a Rule when spoken as when written I ask him how they came by that excellency by being Written Or was it the Council of I aodicea that gave it Page 43 He saith He hath broken one of the Horns of his Dilemma and made his Consequence a meer Nonsequitor And why Because he hath confessed saith he in a word That the Words of Christ and his Apostles as then spoken now recorded in Scripture were of themselves no less binding upon the Jews then these spoken by Moses and the Prophets But this hath strengthned the Dilemma for if they were as binding and yet needed a Rule to try them by Then the Writtings of Moses and the Prophets needed a Rule to try them by and that Rule another Rule Et sic infinitum That all Doctrines of Men may be tryed and ought so to be by the Scriptures was never denyed And hath no way given away his Cause But as for what follows That it might be lawful to imbrace any impulse or suggestion which he thought was the Spirit of GOD Without further Examination thereof is a gross untruth but ordinary to him and his Brethren And therefore he hath wisely foreborn to tell us where R Barkelay said so His third Scriptute is Acts 17. 11. He saith His Adversaries can find nothing to darken and deprive it and therefore he waves it Not being willing to meddle with what R B saith there To wit If the Bereans were oblidged to believe and receive Pauls Testimony because he preached the Truth to them by Authority from GOD Then their using them or his commending of them for using the scriptures Will not prove the scriptures to be the Primary Rule Yea more a Rule than the Doctrine they tryed by it For it the Doctrine preached by Paul to the Bereans had been but recorded in a Book it had presently become a Primary Rule The fourth is 2 Peter 1. 19. We have a more sure word of prophesie c. This place he will have to be meant of the scriptures His first proofi is Because saith he This presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation where the senses go along And so their spirit is contrary to sense But this is an old Cavil against Christianity and brought on the stage by Julian the Apostat in his Book against the Primitive Christians This Doctrine said he sigbteth against common sense See Chron Carionis page 278. To this he addeth another Why should this Glorious Vision of which the Apostles had Divine and infollible Evidence c Be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit â— Answer Why should uld it be uncertain and suspected in respect of the scriptures And why should it become the Primary Rule when recorded in a Book and not the Rule when spoken immediatly on the Mount If thou say Because it is more obvious to sense then it seems thy Religion is more sensual than Spiritual His second Argument is That this Revelation according to us brings along with it its own self Evidence and perswades the Soul to embrace and close with it as Divine But this is both groundless and therefore false saith he because we assert that unless the Understanding be well disposed Revelation tho immediate is not evident Answer first He here brings nothing to prove this That it is groundless and
the Testimony of one Risen from the Dead In like manner the Presbyterians now albeit they pretend so much to reverence the writings of the Apostles yet they will not really hear them else they would not fight swear nor exact a forced mantainance even from these who are not of the communion of their Church His Third argument is Certainly saith he the voice of one of the Glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the Face of GOD is no less to be accounted immediate Revelation then the voice of the high Priest unto the people c. But he should have proved that GOD took his method to reveal his mind unto his people which he never did But the High Priest was a Tipe of Christ and a Mediator betwixt GOD and the Jews So that to deny this to be immediate because it was first spoken to the High Priest is to deny the words of Christ to be immediate to his people because he saith he had heard and received them of the Father or that the light of the Sun is not immediate because it is conveyed to us through the Air. Only let him tell me whether the supream Magistrate who is at present troubled with the clamours of the two kinds of Clergy-men in Scotland can go and inquire of the LORD and have as certain an answer which of the two Church Government are Jure Divino as the Jews many times had and then he sayes something For the Jews had the Scriptures Moses and the Prophets as well as we and yet were many times necessitat to go and enquire of the LORD which evidently proves they had a higher rule then Moses Law In page 50 he giveth an argument like the rest Viz. Gods way of Revealing himself to us is as immediat as it was to the Jews because we have those that were inspired by GOD speaking to us tho Dead Hence he concludes that the Scriptures are as immediat to us as the voice of Moses or the High Priest or the Prophets was to the Jews This Argument is singular for deceit solly for First where did any Quaker deny the Scriptutes to be the Primary Rule upon the account of their not being immediatly revealed we acknowledege that they were immediatly revealed to the Prophets and Apostles recorded by them but this doth not let them above the Spirit which did reveal them and so his gross lie and his argument are both answered and yet he might have considered that the promise of Christ is more full to his people then it was to the Jews As he may read Matt 10 19 20. It shall be given you the same hour what ye shall speak for it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you His fourth argument from 2 Then 3. 15. Is That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the man of GOD wise through faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule c. But the Scriptures are able to do so c. Therefore they are a sufficient Rule Answer This argument militates nothing against us for the Question is not whether the Scriptures be a Rule but whether they be the Primary Rule which this Argument toucheth not and Faith is added here as a principal ingredient which themselves acknowledge to be a work of the Spirit this Faith hath a rule as also that faith whereby a man believes the Divine Authority of the Scriptures let him tell me with the next what is the Rule of this Faith He tells next The scriptures are Causa exemplaris and therefore the Primary Rule they call them causa formalis Causa materialis causa exemplaris And the word make would seem to make them causa efficiens so that according to them they are To Pan and the Spirit Vers Nihil From the Scriptures being Causa exemplaris he saith I evidently inferr that they are the adequat Primary Rule because if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in Scripture Or if they were subject to another Test c. They could not in truth be called able to make the man of GOD wise unto Salvation This I have answered before if he understand the Essentials and fundamentals of the Christian Religion It is confessed they do contain them but there are many things occur in our Christian course as he words it which the Scriptures do not determine Such as whether it was Christian or Antichristian course for the Presbyterians to come up to Bothwel-Bridge to fight against the King And Secondly Whether the late assembly ought to have united with their Brethren of the Episcopal perswasion till they had undergone Pennance for their Apostasie upon the Stool of Repentance The First brought much trouble upon the Nation and the Second is feared to be of no better consequence except our Author bring us clear Scripture to determine the case to the satisfaction of all parties He saith little Justice Truth or fare dealing is to be expected from us But far less from him so long as he trusts more to Aristotles Elenobis in frameing deceitful Sophisms then to the Testimony of the Spirit of Christ the reason he gives for this great calumny is because R. B. accuseth his brother John Brown for perverting the Scriptute 2 Tim 3. 16. Now it is evident that the 16 Ver hath no such word in it and that the 17 Vers saith only That the man of GOD may be perfect So the difference here is very obvious which R. B. hath largely handled in the same 41 page and our Author takes no notice of it but most deceitfully insinuates that he makes the scriptures Tautologies because he cannot evite the distinction there made by R. B. To which place never touched by our Author I refer my Reader Lastly saith he For we love rather to plead by weight of Arguments then by multitude of Arguments Answer If this had been true thou had spared a dale of Paper and pains We evine saith he That the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and Primary Rule of Faith and Manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves Answer If this be true it is manifest that allhe hath said on that Subject is superfluous Against whom did the Man write Omerciless Adversarie This is like the Papists in Q Marys time Tho you recant and be received into the Church yet you must burn But let us hear what he faith His Proofs are these First R Barkclay's Vindication page 36. The chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in Scripture And we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith in tho Scriptures And George Keith saith That the Scriptures are a full enough declaration of all Doctrines and Principles c. Both these I have cleared before granting all that they said And yet have proven that many things may and do occurr which the Scriptures do not clearly determine The other Branch that they are the Primary Rule
Our Adversaries themselves saith he at unawates grant Very well Patroelus it is a fine trick of a Souldier to take his Enemies napping and vanquish by stratagem but it seems there is some difficulty in it He citeth R Barkclays 2d Theses saying That the Spirit is not to be subjected to the Scriptures as a more noble Rule Therefore saith he The Spirit is to be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as a more noble Rule Answer first He should have said These Divine Revelations for they are the words of the These But we have often acknowledged that all Doctrines of Men how holy soever or how much soever they pretend to the Spirit are to be tryed by the Scriptures and if they be contrary to them are to be rejected But this proves nothing of their being the Primary Rule to us more then to Enoch who was a Man of GOD and had true Faith and walked with GOD before there was a line of Scripture in the World Again he saith Our Adversaries grant that the Scriptures proceeded from GOD and therefore are infalible and more sure than infalible is impossible This is a strange Argument The Scriptures are infallible because they proceeded from GOD or were inspired by the Spirit of GOD And shall the Inspiration of the Spirit be fallible or a more uncertain Rule then that which it dictated These words sound harshly But I expect when Patreclus comes to be serious in cold Blood he will grant That if there be more or less in the Case of Infallibility he will grant the more to the Spirit which dictated the Scriptures and from which they derive all their Infallibility Certainty and Excellency Here I desire the Reader may observe that his Arguments and the Scriptures cited by him tend only to set up Moses Law to be the Primary Rule of Faith and Life And not one word of the Scriptures of the New Testament so that he contends for Judaism rather then Christianity For Christ said It hath been said of Old an Eye for an Eye c But I say unto you resist not evil c So that the Jewish Law is not in all things to be a Rule for Christians Otherwayes Patroclus may ofter Sacrifice as well as take Tithes In page 54. 55 and 56. He ranteth and roareth against R B as a Jesuite because he alledgeth he hath taken an Argument of Bellarmines to prove the Scriptures not to be an Adequate Rule but what a silly kind of Reasoning this is tho true may easily appear Bellarmine sayes there is one GOD so do I therefore I am a Jesuite The Jesuites say That Dominion is founded upon Grace And so do the Presbyâ—erians Therefore the Preshyterians are Jesuites Then he comes to vindicate John Brown's simile of killing a Man And at last giveth us the Law the Judge and the Witnesses The Scriptures are saith he the Rule whereby to make the Examen the enâ—â—ghined â—â—solence the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a â—ilial Disposition c Together the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself the Witnesses But first I must ask him whether it be the Man himself or the Judge that needs this Spiritual Wisdome and Christian prudence to apply the Rule Secondly Whether the Judge be a Person distinct form the person judged for to use his own Simile If the Man â—â— yet be his own Judge he is not like to suffer Thirdly What he meaneth by the Ex Position he gives us of the Spirit of Adoption As if he thinketh it nothing else but a Filial Disposition inclining the believer to come to GOD as his Words imply Behold Reader what a Judgement is here to be expected Where the Man himself dislected into so many Parts is the Applyer of the Rule the Judge and the Witnesses And yet in page 57 He confesseth That for the infallible Assurance of the Person himself the thing standeth in need of or requireth an inward Judge and inward Witnesses Which I hope must be things distinct from the Person himself to whom they are to give infallible certainty As for his pretending That it belongeth not properly to a Rule of Faith to tell a Man whether he hath true Faith or not is not to the purpose For an adequate Rule of Faith must put me beyond doubting what I am to believe and what not Otherwayes it is no adéquate Rule And to conclude I would advise him to be sparing in calling Men Anti-Christian For I know no people except the Papists to whom the definition of Antichrist given by the Apostles is more agreeable then to the Presbyterians That is He exalteth himself above all that is called God or the civil Magistrates who are called Gods in Scripture Goodman saith they may kill wicked Princes as monsters and oruel beasts Knox History Fol 78. If neither the Magistrate nor the people do their office in deposing or killing the King then the Minister must Ex-communicat such a King Goodman page 110. Any privat Man may do it against the greatest Prince A privat Man having some special motion may kill a Tyrant If these Doctrines be not more like Anti-Christ than the Doctrine he accuserh let the Reader judge In Page 57 he cometh to another Argument of R. B's There are many things that the Scripture cannot determine To which I B Answers That General Rules are enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdome If this be not flatly to contradict the Scriptures concerning the chief Instances cited by R B Let the Reader judge after he hath read and considered the following Scriptures Rom. 8 16. The Spirit it self beareth Witness with our spirits that we are the Children of GOD. 1 John 4. 13. Hereby do we know that we dwell in Him and He in us because He hath given us of his Spirit And Vers 5. 6. And it is the Spirit that beareth Witness because the Spirit is Truth To these Scriptures cited by R B He hath not answered one Word Buâ— all his Answers are Quibles As first If we need Revelation for Spiritual Actions we need them also for Natural Actions Poor Man Are we contending for a Rule for Eating and Drinking as he talks If he be sick let him consult the Physician what and when he shall Eat But if he mean the Fasts appointed by the Presbyterian Clergie his Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Perswasion have need to consult an higher Oracle And when he is hungry and thirsty his stomach can teach him Nevertholess Whether we eat or drink we are to do it to the Glorie of GOD. His second Answer is ridiculous alledging that a system of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a sufficient Rule tho the Books comprehended not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever shall exist But the Question is Whether a system of these Arts can put a Man beyond doubting in every Emergent that may occurr in these Arts when practised And not whether their Names be there or not As whether he
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
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
the Presbyterians in Scotland who have fallen into palpable errours and have felt heavy Judgements Notwithstanding of all their pretences to the Scriptures for their Rule For their work of Deformation falsly by them called Reformation began with the Sword raged with the Pestilence and sickned with the famine And was at last utterly destroyed By 〈…〉 of their ovvn Brood O C But the Man will so farr exceed J M That he tells us How easie had it been to have adduced whole Vollumns whereas I believe J M was much abler to deall with his Antagonist then our Frothie Au. hoc with all his Grecian sophistry A little after he taketh all the Christian World upon his side Yea Christian and Antichristian Papists Protestants and Greeks tho in his Epistle to the Reader he calls the Lutherians their capital Enemies certainly Patroclus hath made a notable Multer against the Quakers if all were true But I pray him whence come all these divisions if ye be all of one mind I wonder how a Man in his Witâ—s could talk at this rate Next after a peece of Froathie Triumph he sayes I answer directly to the Jesuite and the Quaker his Patron If we may Believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries Such as Bellarmine Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrine which we hold in opposition to Popery are most agreeable to the true sense of Scripture Answer If I had thought so as he alledgeth upon these Doctors To wit That the true sense of the 〈◊〉 had been upon the Presbyterian side in their Contraversie with us I should never have opposed them For sure I am GOD cannot contradict Himself And I would willingly learn from Patroelus upon what ground they could burn Protestants when they believed the true sense of the scriptures to be on their side Neither can I believe the Papists are so gross as to believe the first and practise the second For I suppose the greatest difference betwixt the Presbyterians and Papists and all their other Opposers is about the true sense of the Scripture And therefore he raveth when he calleth R. B the Jesuites patron For I am certain that he neither believed you nor the Jesuites to have the true sense of the Scriptures And so his direct Answer comes to a direct nothing to the purpose To R B â— Third Answer Viz That George Wishart and John Huss had Immediat Revelation c He replyeth That R B granteth They did not pretend to them as the ground of their Faith and Obedience in all Matters of Faith Worship and Doctrine But certainly they did it in some Matters for none of them could pretend to an outward call to preach the Protestant Doctrine and Worship And yet they both preached it and I believe upon a better Ground than a Presbyterian Call But however our Author does not deny that these Men had Immediat Revelation And consequently his serious Truth absurdly affirmed by James Durbame Viz That Christ hath spoke his last words to his Church is a fabulous untruth Next he falls again upon James Naylor And because R B saith He repented again our Author draws a Noble Consequence from it thus Which Answer is an evident Confirmation of what we plead for To wit That the Quakers spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them For I believe J N acted but according to his Light c. This is just as much as to say he that sinneth against the Law of GOD and repenteth he evidently confirmeth that the Law of GOD hath given him the cheat and deceived him Absit Blasphemia And further About the beginning of the Covenant your Ministers had sworn Canonical Obedience to their Ordinaries Then they swore the Extirpation of them their Office And about twenty years after swore again Canonical Obedience In all which Three contrary Oaths they pretended the Scripture for their Rule Was it therefore the Scripture which gave them the cheat and deceived them No surely So James Nayler sinned against his Light and the Law of GOD in his heart and Repented and confessed he had sinned against his Light and condemned himself under his hand tho this malicious man insinuates the contrary which I doubt he can say of few of his Brethren who perjured themselves in taking the Covenant From what hath been said he drawes three Consequences first his serious truth before mentioned to wit That CHRIST hath spoken his last words to his Church And to help his Brother out of this Quagmire he adds That is put a close to these writtings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church being ashamed to deny that there were immediate Divine Revelations after the Writting of the Revelation being so much testified to in Church History And themselves having called Samuel Rutherfoord a great Seer much upon his Masters secreets But how will he deal with his Brother Jurieu who in his account of the Shepherdess of Daphine comes very near to assure us of an age at hand Wherein we shall have Men divinely inspired vâ—a and able to work Miracles And in his Book upon the Revelation tells us That the first Reformation begun by Luther which he calls the Harvest was carried on by the Ministry of Men But the second which is yet to come he calls the Vintage and saith It will be by the Inspiration of GOD And in his Characters of the Kingdom of CHRIST he gives for one of them That there shall be a plentifull pouring out of the Spirit whereof he saith That which the Apostles received at Jerusalem was but a Type I could instance many others some who have had it and others who have foretold of it But this being a Modern Writer a Calvinist and a Sufferer well esteemed of by all protestants I thought might suffice to shew that all the Calvinists believe not this serious Truth as he call it His two following Consequences deduced from his Argument formerly answered and Refuted are of no force For blessed be the LORD we can instance Thousands who neither have fallen into palpable Errors nor open Blasphemy Nor have marks of GOD's heavy Judgements but have lived and died in Favour with GOD and Good Men tho persecuted by the Presbyterians and Independents their Brethren By whose unjust Judgement some of them have been put to cruel death His third Consequence being a meer windie bauble deserves no answer His second Argument is Moses and the Prophets CHRIST and the Apostles and all the Holy Men that were Inspired by GOD tâ— Compile a Rule of Faith and Life c Could by infallible Evidence and infallible Proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of GOD But nothing of this kind Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentialls for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation then the most wicked Enthusiasts As for example John of Layden and
Law there is no transgression And if he bad but considered the 3 4 and 5 Verse of the same Chapter he would have found that Paul placeth himself and the Jews in the same condition with the Gentiles And the only difference was that the Jews had the outward Law which was added because of transgreffion and yet could not make the comeâ—s thereunto perfect His Eight argument is from Amos 3. 2. You have I known of all the Families of the Earth And Psalm 149. 19. 20. He sheweth his word unto Jacob his Statutes and Judgements unto Israel c. From hâ—nce he inferts that they who have not the Sâ—riptures never had a Light sufficient to guide them to Salvation But he is somewhat craftie in his expresion saying These to whom GOD did not give his word which I fully grant But if hereby he understands the Scriptures it is great impudence to assert it for then it will follow that Abel Enoch Noaâ—h Abraham Job c. Had never a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation Then he raileth a little and is very angry at such as say The Light shined in the darkness but the darkness comprehended it not He may if he please rail at me next for telling him that the world was never condemned for want os Light but for loving darkness more then Light A little after he rants tho without reason saying Now I say who but a Quaker will from this inferr that all Nations in all ages had the knowledge of the word Statutes and Judgements of GOD who but a Presbyterian will deny that GOD may be known without the Scriptures And that the word of GOD is GOD and was known before there was a Book in the World As for the Statutes and Judgements given to Israel they were peculiar to that Nation as his elder Brother R Baxter hath confessed above and GOD is no respecter of persons but in every Nation be that feareth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him Acts 10. 34. And Doctor Barron against Turnbul page 56. Saith Potuit DEUS olim imo etiam bodis potest sine Scriptura Ecclesiam suam Colligere tueri That is GOD could of old â—ea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripturâ— The next Scripture he mets with is that of Jude Vers 15. That some men have not the Spirit This R Barkelay hath answered in Quakerism confirmed citing the words of our Saviour Viz. From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath Intimating thereby that men may be said in one sense to have and in an other not to have the Spirit To this our Author replyeth that altho these wicked servants had gifts and abused them yet no such thing can be said here because they are said to be twice dead c. And senswal But if it be lawful to look to the context which in the end of this page he is very unwilling to allow unto us he will find by the examples there adduced that even they had something too For in Vers 5 and 6 he compares them to the children of Israel who were brought out of Aegâ—pt and on their way to the Land of Rest yet were destroyed for unbelief and then the Angels saith he who keep not their first Estate Where it is manifest they had a first Estate To which they might have kept that they were Twice dead proves that they were once Living And their being sensual saith no more but that all such as reject the Counsel of the LORD and dispise his reproofs do as in the 18 Verse walk after their ungodly lusts and become sensual more and more Are not all men by nature sensual And yet Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World is it not said the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul and an evil Spirit from GOD came upon him Yet at sometimes he was inforced to cry out thou art more Righteous then 1 0 my Son David But the Spirit of GOD hath given us special symptoms whereby we may know and discern these men viz. The malicious cruelty of Cain the insatiable avarice of Ballaam the sedicious practices of Korah and the speaking evil of Dignities The first three speak for themselves and for the Fourth take this instance of the Hind let loose where the Author speaking of King Charles the Second sayeth Notwithstanding of all his numerous brood of Bastard brats begotten in adulterâ— and Iâ—â—â—st Yet he died a Child 's lâ—ss poultron and had the unlamented burial of an Ass and none to succed him but he who Murthered him Horresco referens c. Next he saith The knowledge of some things are absolutely necessary to Salvation But all men have not this knowledge therefore all men have not sufficient light to guide them unto Eternal life This is a meer Non sequitur such another as to say some men shut their eyes and will not see Ergo the Sunshineth not I have told him before that the World is not condemned for want of light but for loving darkness and I acknowledge where the Scriptures are to be had The knowledge of them is indispensibly necessary but where that cannot be had I say with Doctor Barron GOD could of old yea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripture And I think our Author dar not say that the Spirit of Christ which taught the Apostles to write Scripture cannot teach men now all things necessary to Salvation Or if he say that he hath limited himself that he will not I shall expect his proof of it by the next for I believe no such thing as yet His Ninthly is no argument but a new warr undertaken against the Light of Christ He begins with his usual forth saying will overthrow another principil of the Quakers upon which the whole fabrick of Quakerism is builded He had said in his first argument that the whole fabrick of Quakerism was overthrown This then must be superfluous but the man forgets himself sometimes and must be pardoned He begins according to his custom with three gross lies Ist that we aslert that man in his fallen estate cannot do any thing that is as to the substance of the action good for an unregenerate man may plow which is good as to the substance of the action and yet the Plowing of the wicked is sin Secondly He accuseth us as Socinians whereas he himself is the Soeinian in that he acknowledgeth that fallen man by nature can know that there is a GOD who is to be Loved Feared and Adored page 99. And that we ought to do unto another as we would he should do unto us page 110. This is to say nature fallen and corrupted can teach us to love GOD and and our Neighbour which is the summ of the Law and the Prophets against which Socinian Doctrine R B hath bestowed more then a whole page of his apologie His Third lie is that the whole
next let him hear Plato whom he also nameth Phaed The Light and Spirit of GOD saith he are as Wings to the Soul or as that which raiseth up the Soul into a sensible Communion with GOD above the World which the mind of man is ready to be mire it self with It could add many more but these may suffice to shew that the wise Gentiles derived their Knowledge of GOD from an higher principle then our Authors dark Lantern I shall only add one to wit Philo the Jew Leg Alleg Lib 1. How should the Soul of man know GOD if he did not inspire her and take hold of her by his Divine Power In page 110 he saith the defect of the Wisdom of the Heathens was in this that they could not perceive Christ but he should have remembred the last words of Plato whom he nameth related by Marcilius Ficinus who wrote his life being asked by some that visited him how long men should attend to his writings He answered till that more Holy and Divine Person should appear to visit the World whom all men ought to follow And that Elogue of Virgil which seems to have at first crackt him is a plain intimation of their knowledge of the comming of Christ and that they did not receive him when he came is not to be attributed to their want of Light any more then the Phariseer who had the Law and the Prophets For we see that many of the Gentiles were more ready to receive the Gospel then these learned Rabbies who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures As for the difference between a Man and a bruit it is reason which GOD gave for the Government and preservation of the outward man for which see Poiret In page 111. He tells us a Hen hath skill in Arithmetick If this be true certainly the Presbyterian hens must be wiser then ours for our women who look after the poultry assure me that our Hens have no such skill but that a cunning man like out Author may steall half her Eggs from her and never be quarrelled If he read Le Grands Natural History he may get better Instances But this is rediculous His eight Argument is from Rom 1. 19. 20. Because that which may be known of GOD is manifest in them for GOD hath shewed it unto them From hence he concludes that there is some Reliques of the Divine Image or Natural Knowledge left in Man And to say that the true Knowledge of GOD and Divine Things is not Natural Man but the Fruits of Christs purchase to Mankind after the Fall in and by the Covenant of Grace This he calls pure Paganism And to prove all this he only cryes Who would dare to say or affirm that what was common to the Heathens Yea and Devils also was as really saving and the Fruit of Christs purchase as that which is proper to the Godly Answer I verily believe the Devils have more knowledge then he how they came by it I am not concerned he may ask them when he hath occasion But I know none ever asserted it to be saving except it be his Brother John Brown when he printed his Preaching to them But Mankind was not left in the same condition For Christ was preached to them immediatly after the fall And to deny that they received Grace were to contradict the Scriptures For that the Seed sown in the stoney ground and in the Good Ground was the same none but a Presbyterian will deny And that the Tallent given to the unfaithful servant was as true Money as the rest I think all will confess Or else how could he have been condemned for not improving it So that if he condemn us here he must condemn the Scriptures with us Which also saith That GOD wills all men to be saved But here they tells us That GOD hath a revealed Will to save them and yet a secret will to damn them O impudent and pervetle Generation Who dare accuse the Righteous GOD of Truth with bypocrisie The wise Gentiles whom they reject would have abhored such doctrine Moteover it is very absurd to say from this Scripture Rom. 1. 19. That man had the Knowledge of GOD by Nature For First The Apostle saith It was manifest in them not in the Creatures without them tho that was also an Adminacle to help their Knowledge but their Knowledge was inward and all that might be known therefore not any imperfect Knowledge And Secondly GOD hath shewed it unto them That is GOD hath manifested or revealed to man in himself that which may be known of GOD For the words Shewed and Manifested are the same in the Greek and very consonant to that other saying of the same Apostle The things of GOD can no man know but by the Spirit of GOD. In the rest of page 112. and 113. He takes the Liberty to scold raile and lie at random All which I pass by except this And yet saith he this Natural Light is to the Quakers their God their Christ their Grace and whatsoever else is necessary to Sal vation To prove this he giveth us an heap of Citations which it seems he hath gathered from his Brethren Hicks and Faldo the known Forgers I shall shew his disingenuity in the first of these of Citations by setting down William Penn's words whereby the Reader may know whose footsteeps our Author hath followed Christian Quaker page 116 If then the Life of the Word be the Light of Men unless the Life of the Word he Natural the Light of it must be supernatural Divine and Infinite as becomes the Life of the Word to be And this checks the dull ignorance or base deceit of Thomas Hicks who either could not or would not understand George Whitehead when he said the Light must be Divine because the Life from whence it comes is so and the Effect is alwayes of the same nature with the cause in any other sense then this That because saith T Hicks GOD is the cause of Beasts and Trees therefore they are God Which strange Construction of George Whitehead's words bewtays either great stupidity or disingenuity I would ask the very angry man Is there no effect of Power beside that of Nature Did the Father of T H beget a Beast or a Man when he begat him Surely unless he has abandoned all understanding me thinks he that makes in his Book so notable a distinction betwixt Reason and Railing by using so little of the one and so much of the other should put put one betwixt a Natural and Potential Effect I mean such an Effect as proceeds from Nature and one that comes from meer Power The Divine Life can naturally produce nothing that is not as Divine as it self But its Power had made all that is not of its self as well inanimate as animate Beeings I have set down William Penn's words at length That the Reader may see how little Conscience these men make of traducing honest Men And
and Reason for the very words before it are The Lightsined in the darkness That is according to our Author Man in his Natural Estate who could comprehend natural things but could not comprehend the Light Therefore according to our Author his own Confession The Light must be Supernatural or else the darkness would have comprehended it After a little vapour he saith Altho the Light Christ be supernatural yet the little Beams and Sparks of Reason and Conscience are Natural But who ever denyed this The thing he was to proove as well as assert Was That the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men and the Light which Men are commanded to believe in is Natural Which he may either do or be silent for ever Next he rails a while and concluds with an abominable Lie Viz That we assert That the dim and dark Light of Nature is GOD himself This he hath learned from the Father of Lies the Prince of Darkness and to him it will return and he with it except he repent The next Argument he deals with is R B's page 19. 20. of his Vindication I shall intreat the Reader to look the place and compare it with our Authors bungling upon it R B proveth by Rom 8. 9. 14. 1 John 2. 27. John 6. 45. John 14. 16. 17. That the Promises of the Spirit to teach lead and guide were common to all Believers and not particular to the Apostles To which our Author replys he should have given some other thing for proof then bare Assertions For so he calls all the Scripture proofs he hath brought but meddles not with one word of them But our Adversary will not serve us so he will give us Questions for all and ask us Why may not Immediat Objective Revelation be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not to all Believers Answer Because GOD had promised before to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh And Paul tells us after If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his As for the Scriptures he cites they nothing touch us for we never denyed the use of Means in the leadings of the same Spirit as R B hath shewn at large in the place last cited But in stead of a solid Answer to R B's Argument he boldly beggs the Question Saying Whatever the Qnakers say we cannot help it Certain it is that no man of sound Judgement will deny that when one reads the Scriptures and hath his mind Illuminated by the Spirit he hath that promise fulfilled to him of which we now speak Very well Patroclus This is more like a a Pope then a Prevbyter But the man hath told us he cannot help it The next Argument he assaults R B's Apologie page 38. That which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind are forced ultimatly to recurr unto when pressed to the last That for because of which all other foundations are recommended and accounted worthy to be believed and without which they are granted to be of no weight at all must needs be the only most true certain and unmoveable foundation of all Christian Faith But Inward Immedist Objective Revelation by the Spirit is That c Ergo c. To this he offers two Answers The first by a Simile thus A man just now possessing a peece of Land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors by vertue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago spake mouth to mouth with that Prince dead ages out of mind Thus that into which the present Possessor of such peece of Land when pressed to the last recurreth unto and for which other Grounds or Charters are comended or valide Must of necessity be the most immoveable ground of and warrand for such a peece of Land his possessâ—ion of it But the Grant or Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago First By word of mouth tho again committed to writtings Is that which the present Possesser being pressed to the last recurreth to Ergo The present Possessor had discourse immediate mouth to mouth with a Prince in many ages back e're the present Pâ—ssessor was born This he And then as if he had done some notable feat he falls a roaring insulting and mocking his adversary saying These must be admirable fellows c. Their strongest argument serve only to prove the Authors to be in a Paroxism of folly moving langhter in a very Heraclitus But it seems our Author hath been in a Paroxism of madness and blasphemy for his Simile can conclude nothing less then this Viz. That Christ is dead the Spirit of Christ iâ— dead ages out of mind that no man heareth his voice now nor can recur to him to be satisfied of his doubts that he hath broken all his promises to his Church of being with them to the end of the World of sending the Comforter to teach them and lead them into all truth and that great promise he that is with you shall be in you Many more are the promisses in the Old Testament as in Jeremiah Joel and that in Isaiah 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the LORD Testified unto as fulfilled in 1 John 2. 20 27. If the Preaching and Printing such gross blasphemy as these which naturally and unavoidably flow from this simile be fit to move laughter and not rather terror and astonishment in the Author let the Reader judge I shall here add two Arguments fit for this place First Christs Sheep hear his voice But the Presbyterian Clergy hear not his voice Ergo They are not of his Sheep Secondly Where there is no Vision there the people perish But among the Presbyterian Clergie there is no vision Ergo Their people perish But blessed be the LORD we know and believe according to the Scriptures That Christ our Prince is dead ages out of mind but liveth and Reigneth for ever and that he is Faithful and True and that he is alwayes present with his Church that he standeth at the door of their heart and knocketh if any open to him he entereth and that he dwelleth in them and walketh in them and is to them a GOD and they to him a people and that if any be otherwayes minded he will even reveal this also unto them Phil 3. 15. So let our Author glory in his Chartor which we have as well as he but be warr to blasphem the Spirit of Christ lest the end thereof be no laughter but weeping and gnashing of teeth His Second answer is By distinguishing immediate objective Revelation granting it was Immediate and ohjective in respect of the Apostles and Prophets but not in respect of the present prosessors of Christianity Answer First he here maketh the ground and foundation of See his page 33. the Faith of the prophets and Apostles one thing and that of the present professors of Christianity another thing which is absurd Secondly be excludes all Christians from Immediat Objective
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
that knoweth us will believe Thomas a Kempis was a Papist yet his Book of the Imitation of Christ is more spiritual than any Presbyterian Book I ever yet saw And if he will call me a Papist for saying so I cannot help it but I am sure it is false And if Popery should prevail in the Nation which GOD forbid it would soon appear whether they or we were the truest Protestants To conclude this matter It is evident That our Author is against all Spirituall Worship Mental prayer Quietness of mind c. As opposite to that sordid Trade of Preaching for hire and divining for money And if Michael Molmos of whom all Protestants that I have seen mention him writ favourably had appeared Glasgow Scotalnd when he appeared at Rome and Naples in Italy It is manifest our Presbyterian Clergie would have accused him as fiercely here as the Jesuites did there Which among other things may shew that they are not mistaken who call them Cousin-Germans Section Second Of BAPTISM HERE our Author very wisely passeth by a great part of the Contraversie To wit whether Sprinkling of Infants the only Baptism now in being in the Presbyterian Church be either the Baptism of John or of CHRIST Both which we deny And this our Author should first have proved before he had accused For admit another man be wrong in his Religion he can never be oblieged to change untill his Adversary prove his to be right Neither is it just to desire him to come from his own tho wrong to yours except you can prove yours to be right But for this he must consult his good Friend Hicks the Anabaptist whose weapons he hath often borrowed in this conflict Secondly The Westminster Confession chap. 27. num 4. saith Neither of the Sacraments may be dispensed by any but by a Minister of the Word lawfully ordained Now we deny that any of the Presbyterian Priest-hood are such and therefore tho these sings were to continue they may not dispense them These our Authour knewwell enough but skips over them But it is observable That the Scriptures cited in the Confession to prove this Article do all of them point to an inward Call one is Hebrews 5. 4 and no man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of GOD as was Aaron I hope this was not to derive his Call from an Apostate Idolatrous Church as that of Rome from which our Presbyterian Priests are not ashamed to derive theirs Thirdly The Presbyterians acknowledge that these signs are not absolutely necessary to Salvation and in the time of their last Reign limited Baptism to Preaching dayes and refused to the Children of Ignorant or Scandalous Parents by which means many Infants dyed without it Tho they say that the contempt of it is damnable And since the late Revolution I read of one of them who said It was but the Relicts of Popish Superstition to be curious for Baptising of Children And that he knew a good and godly Minister who lived to a great Age and was never Baptized What then needs all this clamour against us The first thing he takes notice of is the many divisions and disputes among Christians about these Signs which he fasly calls one of R. Bs. Apologetical Arguments whereas it is nothing but a part of his Introduction as any that reads his Apology may see And in his Vindication he tells his Adversary page 162. he hath not used it as an Argument at all And in his Apologie tells them how much it would contribute to Peace that they would lay aside such Heathnish and Barbarous words as these Nevertheless our Authour will have him a Heathen for this advice to procure unity but it is too manifest that tho Salamanders we have to do with are Peace-haters Next he falls upon the word Sacrament which he must confess is not a Scripture expression and from this draweth a foolish consequence to wit Ergo the thing is not in them he should have said Ergo it s a Humane invention introduced by the Apostacy and therefore to be laid aside by the Reformation but he is not so ingenuous but he saith the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture but the thing imported by the word is Why may not then the Scripture words be used and both these words laid aside Except our Clergie think they can word better than the Spirit of GOD. But our Authour who is so well acquaint with the Latine Poets cannot be so ignorant of their Historians as not to know the true and most common signification of Sacrament to be a Military Oath And therefore I think there is no presbyterian ceremony that I know which so well deserves the name of a Sacrament as the Solemn League and Covenant His next business is to deal with Ephes 4. 5. from Which R. B. proves there is but one Baptism to which J. Brown answereth the Scripture no where saith that there is but one only Baptism To which R. B. replyeth it will as well prove that there is one onely Baptism as that there is One only GOD But our Author very candidly quites the matter and betakes himself to Faith And because there are saith he more kinds of Faiths than one the Text must be so expounded concerning Baptism But let me have the one Faith and the one Baptism mentioned here and our Author may take all the rest to himself for there is a false Faith which I covet not But in page 219 he asserteth That the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased And in page 224 he boldly asserts That Johns Baptism is Christs whole true Baptism but sayes nothing to prove it From which Doctrine it followeth That whosoever is Baptized with water is Baptized with the Holy Ghost Secondly That as many as are baptized with water have put on CHRIST And Thirdly That the Apostle Paul erred grievously in Acts 19 when he said unto what then were ye baptized seeing they had received Johns Baptism before But the man is so confused all through this Section that he knows not what he asserts for in the same page 219 he again asserts That Johns Baptism was no Figure of the New Testament Baptism this he asserts without any proof yet fearing it may not pass he adds Otherwise if the Sign be opposed to the thing signified we may understand the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire spoken of Matth 3 of Sanctification and Mortification What a hodg-podg is this Schition like to fight and flee or to change shapes like a Proteus And first tells us Dogmatically it is no Figure And then if it be as a sign opposed to thing signified c. That Sanctification as well Mortification is a part of the one Baptism is not denyed To R Bs. saying it is alye That he would have none to be Baptized in the Spirit but such as are endued with these Extraordinary Gifts To this I say he answers But do they not still
they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue in these Writings c And so runs on for a whole page in tragical Exclamations To all which I shall only return the words of Calvine instit cap. 1. Numb 24. Quare si Conscientiis optime consultum volumus ne instabili dubitatione perpetuo vacillent altius petenda quam ab humanis vel rationibus vel judiciis vel conjecturis scripture Authoritas Nempe ab Interiori spiritus sancti Testification Etsi enim Reverentiam suâ— sibi ultro Majestate conciliat tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit cum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostris And a little after Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat talis denique sensus qui nisi ex caelesti Revelatione nasci nequeat Non aliud loquâ— quam quod apud se experitur fidelium unusquisque Thus Calvine In English thus Wherefore if we would take the best course to provide for the peace or clearness of our own Consciences that they may not perpetually fluctuatâ— with an unstable uncertaintie the Authoritie of the Scripture is to be deduced higher then either from Humane Reasons Judgements or Conjectures viz. From the Inward-witnes bearing of the Holy Spirit For albeit its own Native Majestie doth gain to it a peculiar Reverence yet then doth it seriously affect us when it is sealed upon our hearts And a little after Such then is that Perswasion which requires not Reasons and such that Perception which cannot be bred but of a Revelation from Heaven I do not speak any other thing then what every one of the Faithful finds experimentally true in himself And now let the Reader judge whether R B hath said any more then Calvine hath said That every one of the Faithful experienceth in himself Yet what is sound Doctrine in Calvine must be Heathnism in R B And whereas he saith shall the writings of Livie Virgil and Cicere carry such evidences that they were theirs so that a Humanist may distinguish c. Shall then GOD Himself be outstriped and overcome by these Writers Answer Albeit we neither deny the Majesty of Stile Harmony of parts or any other Divine Characters in the scriptures which may declare their Author Yet we confidently affirm that the forelaid writings of Livie Virgil and Cicero which are the things of a man can only be known by the spirit of a man and not of a beast So we say the scriptures being the things of GOD can only and alone be known by the Spirit of GOD as saith the Apostle in so many words But he proceeds and citeth the word as he alledgeth of Benjamin Furley and for his Author gives Hicks the Forger And then he falls a glorying as if he had done his business fully saying by this time I have aboundantly justified my charge Soft Patroclus till thou put off thine Armour An I cannot but wonder with what confidence or rather impudence this man and his brother Brown can cite these books of Faldo Hicks c. Which have been so fully manifestly convicted of falsehood forgery and perversion that their Authors are become detasteable to all honest and unbyasled men and whom our present adversary accounteth Hereticks And what a case must the Quakers be in if such Janizaries in Religion who have been known to undertake the contraversy for hire and have been found to be men of no integrity I say if such men their sworn Enemies shall be held sufficient witnesses against them If I should produce the Papists Testimonies against Luther and Beza what would Protestants say And albeit R B chargeth Brown with it as a callumniator yet our Author hath not brought the least proof to mend the matter nor the Citation of any book but his beloved Baptist Mr. Hicks as he calls him And whereas he saith they have Cited book and page for their other Citations so did Patroclus cite William Penns Rejoynder when he accused him for saying the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John did not contain glade tidings so the Proverb is veryfied in all of them A Priest a Liar no news And so till he prove these to have been the words of Benjamine Furley I have done with him And here I must tell Patroelus I have seen Browns book which was lent by an old and learned Minister so called of the National Church with the Caveat I would not said he lend you this Book but that I know ye would get it from some other For if all the coppies were in my hands they should never be more seen I acknowledge they are a scandle to our Profession and the Anthor a stain to his function But said he do not think we allow them And the truth is except Polwart and Montgomeries flyting I never râ—ad its fellow But to return to what R B answereth in the matter of Benjamin Furley he hath set it down at large and spends a deal of labour upon it He begins with R B his delemma to which he answereth Seeing R B insinuateth that there are an subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any therefore his dilemma is impertinent c. Now let the Reader judge what cander we can expect from this man who hath out done both Hieks and Faldo they cired book and page yet were found Forgers He cites nothing yet would be trusted let him mend this fault with the next before he produce his argumentum ad hominem and his absurd and malicious consequence upon it Which is that according to the Quakers men are not oblidged to abstain from Murther without such an immediate objective Revelation as Moses and the Prophets had Answer This is very dissingenuous did ever any Quakers pretend to give a new Law to the World and confirm it by miracles as did Moses Or did they ever teach That the Foretelling of things to come as did the Prophets was necessary to Salvation The Quakers pretend to no new Revelations of new things but to a new Revelation of the good old things as shall be seen more hereafter And for such stuff it may take with Patroclus Hearers but every Man of Sense will deteast such dealing His second Answer to this Dilemma is yet no better For saith he Tho the Illumination of the Spirit be of abjolute necessity for such a knowledge of the Scriptures whereby we may know GOD revealed in them and have true Love and Faith and Fear c. Yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound reason only can distinguish betwixt Commands given to a particular people for a certain time and these that hind at all times must have abandoned the exercise of Reason This the Summ of what he saith Answer first What he meaneth by the Word Only I see not Except he think Reason can do something more But what this is he hath not been so
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