〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or persona See the same Author Col. 783 De Libris Ephremi Pariarchae Theopolitani where he confirmeth at large this our assertion Now observe serious Reader of how great a consequence in the Judgement of those who are in this great point most Orthodox the right or wrong use of these words about which we now treat was esteemed and also that they took them in the same sense for which we now plead But I forbear to add more out of the anâ—ients For Calvin Inst. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 2. affirmeth this our proposition of all the Ancient Orthodox without exception and Socinus ingenuously confesseth it Of the Modern writers I affirm the same as is clear from Calvin ibid. and Tremellius in His version of the Text out of the Syriak Pomeâ—ranus on the place and others It is clear then thâ—â— we have both name and thing in Scripture and indeed this Text doth so clearly hold forth this trulie Catholick Doctrine that George Keith is forced to discover that which he by all means endeavoureth to palliat For Truth Defended p. 76.79 He sayeth that this Text is to be understood speaking of Christ as Man only Now I am sure if he could make out this he should do a piece of non such service unto the Arrians and Socinians for this is one of the Texts that they with greatest Care endeavour to pervert and wrest and the Orthodox to vindicate inferring alwayes from it the Divinity of Christ but this he shall never be able to make out for there is nothing more clear than that the whole Context and Scope of the Apostle doth evince that this place speaketh of Christ as God and again who dâ—re say except the Arrians and Socinians with George Keith that Christ as Man can be called the Brightness of the Fathers Glory or the express Image or Character of the Father Man indeed was made according to the Image of God but certain it is that no Creature in Scripture is called the Image of the Father hence when Christ Col 1.15 Is called the Image of the invisible God Divines take the the word GOD for the person of the Father neither at all can it be otherwise understood for Christ is there called the first born of every Creature and he by whom all things were Created and Consist Hence Christ must be called the Image of the invisible God according to his God-head and by â— good Consequence by God must be understood the Person of the Father as a distinct Subsâ—stâ—ncâ— from that of the Son. From all which I conclude that so firm is the Truth of our Doctrine that the very things that seem to infringe and weaken it resolve only into a fair Occasion of and making way for its clearer Evidence and stronger Corroboration Add to all this that the primitive Church carefully retained these Words and Phrases as either being in Scripture in Terminis or bottomed thereon and as being the true Symbols of these Divine Things whereby the Church might most fitly express her mind and repel the Sophistry of Hereticks both before but espâ—cially after the rise of the Arrian Heresie Hâ—nce Iustin Martyr hath a book intituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and describes a Person of the Holy â—rinit◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. And Damasâ—â—â—e Orth. fide and others follow him in this Description These and the like Phrases are generally found in the works of the Fathers as Irenaeus Tertullian and others before the rise of Arrianism but especially after it as Augustin Athanasius Hilarius Cyrillus Alexandrinus Eusebius Rufinus Sozomenes and many others divers of which as Augustin Athanasius hath books with Titles expresly concerning the Holy Trinity But as I saâ—d before after the rise of the Arrian and Sabellian Heresies the Church with greater Care and Acuracy distinguished the words Substance and Subsistence as he that pleases may see in Ruf. l. i. Cap. 29 and in the History of Sozomenes writing of the Council of Alexandria Notable also to thâ—â— purpose and never to be forgotten are the words of Athanasius who in his Symbol thus speaketh Whosoever will be saved before all thingâ— it is necessary that he hold the Catholick Faith which Faith except every man keep wholly and inviolat without doubt he shall eternally pâ—rish this truly is the right Cathoâ—ick Faith that we worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity without confounding the Persons neither separating the Substance c. From which Time to this day the Church hath Religiously Observed these Words and Phrases whereby She might express the Truth and distinguish her self from that Porphyrian sect of the Arrians as Câ—â—stantin the great called â—hem and other Hereâ—ickâ— By this Time. I am confident that he that will not close his Eyes may perceive that the Doctrine of Quakers is all one with that of Arrians Macedonians Sabellians which is the purpose of this Discourse But yet ex abundanti I will transcrib a Passage or two further The first of which is in Truth Def. This compleat Arrian and self contradicter having said pag 75. That It is only the â—â—scriptural Terms of Trinity and Persons which he denyeth and not the Mystery pag 77. He giveth himself the lie and palpably bewrayeth his Arrianism in these words And if Io Alexander â—ir definition of a Person be received that it is an Intelligent Beeing subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another I do not see for my part but that three Persons at this â—ate shall infer 〈◊〉 Intelligent Beeings subsisting incommunicably and consequently three Gods. Behold Reader the the Arrian dashing against the same stumbling-stone upon which Arrians and Socinians have alwayes broken their necks For upon this very Account that it seemed to them to infer three Gods the Arrians and Sabellians of old and the Socinians at this day always malign and endeavour what they can to render odious that most necessary Doctrine of the Holy Trinity With this passage of George Keith well agreeth what Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock impiously belloweh forth pag 19. That there is no Scripture for the Catholick Faith and Trinity and three Persons Before I passe this Matter I cannot but take Notice of the strange dealing of George Keith attempting to make Augustin a Patroniser of his Arrian Doctrine For in Truths Def Cap 5. The Quaker hâ—th these Words And indeed Augustin in his 5 and 7 Books of the Trinity not only sayeth the Words three Persons are improper but disputeth against them as I suppose Io. Alexander for all his School Logick and Philosophy shall hardly be able tâ— answer his Argument the substance of which 〈◊〉 my best remembrance is this The word Person either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple or relative to say the first is absurd otherways therâ— shall be three absolute Beeings or Essence's in God which is absurd If somewhat Relative which is referred or relative to another as Father is relativâ— to a
in the Soul are not God under what notion soever he be taken a Declaration of the Fountain is not the fountain it self Hence the Quakers grand principle that immediat objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their Faith falleth to the Ground and these imprinted Rules are but only secondary Ergo even according to what is here gained from the Quakers the Scriptures are equal even in their primariness to immediat Revelations for the one can no more be called the primary Rule than the other and that by the Quaker his own Concession Moreover seing these immediat Revelations imprinted on the Soul are not the primary but secondary Rule then certainly they ought to be examined according to the primary Rule Now to assert this is most impious Seing these Revelations must be supposed to be self evident and their Divinity already undoubtedly apparent For this is to maintain that we ought to doubt whether or not there is veracity in God and horresco referens Judge that the God of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us But once more how shal these imprinted secondary Rules be examined not by other words or dictats of whatsoever kind for to do this will cost the examiner a journey to in finitum to which he will not come in haste seing these other Dictats or Revelations are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain more than the first and to assert that these Revelations may be examined according to God himself and not by the Word of God is to go some stages beyond the wildest of nonsense and again there is very good Reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primary than the Scriptures both being given by the same Spirit seing the primarinesse is not the immediatness but the chief binding power the prerogative to be the touch-stone of all Doctrines Now this notion of a primary Rule being had there is very good Reason to wonder why the Dictats of the Spirit should be preferred before the Scriptures seing God hath told whether mediatly or immediatly it 's all one the Quakers themselves dare not deny that God hath indeed said it that they are able to make the Man of God wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.16 17. And hath commanded and commended the perusal of them as the Book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest in the matters of greatest import Isai. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2 Pet. 1.19 20. With many other places But on the other hand in all the Scriptures there is not so much as the least intimation that all persons within the Church and faâ— less all men have divine immediat Objective Revelations by which they may examine and discern good from evil and here he is very angry with his adversary because he accused him of confounding in his Apology the principal Rule and the principal Leader and yet as though he had not confounded them compleatly enough in his Apology he here again in his Vindication in one and the same page viz. 38. both calleth the Spirit as imprinting Truths into the Soul the primary Rule as was even now cited and also the same Spirit the principal Leader as imprinting Rules into the Soul to walk by by which Rules must be understood the Truths he spake of just now above here the Reader may see that not only the same thing is both Principal Leader and principal Rule but also that there is not so much as a Metaphysical formality betwixt them for both of them is God under the notion of imprinting Rules or Truths into the soul yet the confidence I shal not say the impudence hath he to deny that he confounded them 8. But the Quakers well knowing that if God speaking in the Holy Scriptures be admitted Judge of the present Debates between us and them Or if the Holy Scriptures be not Esteemed False Ambiguous and Nonsensical then their cause is lost and their great Diana of Immediat Revelations and the rest of their Monstruous and Impious Doctrine falls to the ground they assert with the Papists that the Spirit of God Speaking in the Scriptures is not his own Interpreter and so bereave the Scriptures of that which is the Soul Sense and Marrow thereof denying all Scripture Interpretation though never so Genuine and Clear except they have Immediat Objective Revelation to tell them that such a Meaning is true Hence they say they may very well reject all our Interpretations and Consequences of Scripture seeing we do not pretend to the Spirit that gave forth the Scripture but declare our selves Enemies to it Thus replyeth George Keith to Mr. Iohn Alexander Truths Def. Chap. 8. Behold Reader the grossest of Popish Shiftâ—â— to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine for the Papists still say that we can know nothing Certainly because we reject their Doctrine of Infallibility just so do the Quakers maliciously belying the whole Reformed Churches Impiously crying out that they are Enemies to the Spirit of God and that because we examine all Doctrines and Practices by the written Word of God. Hence we find that the Spirit the Quakers pretend to is Diametrically opposite to the Scriptures and therefore the Spirit of Lies and Delusion at this they are enraged and cannot away with it Nam trepidant immisso lumine manes Hence William Pen thus speaketh Rej. Pag. 72. Let them shew me that Scripture that plainly and uninterpretatly tells me such a proposition is true and such a One is false that only consists of their additional Meanings such a new Nick-named People Right and such wrong and they do their busines If they cannot as it is impossible they should they must have recourse to some thing else to Rule and Determine and what can that be besides that Eternal Spirit Thou seest Judicious Reader that according to the Quakers God speaking in the Scriptures cannot tell us what is true or what is false who are Right or who are Wrong of the same Nature is that which the Quakers have in their Queries to Mr. Iohn Alexander in which they often require an Answer to be given in plain words of Scripture and in particular Querie 10. They have these Words We say they expect plain Scriptures from you for this without any Shuffling Meanings Consequences or else never pretend Scripture Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings Consequences which have been your Rule Hence according to this Doctrine our Saviour laboured but in vain when he proved the resurrection of the Dead from the Scriptures Matth. 22.31 32. for the Sadducees might have answered that such express words were not in the Pentateuch viz. That the dead should rise again and therefore they were not bound to believe it tho the inference were never so clear except they had a new immediate Revelation which they might have said we have not and who could have proved the contrary yea if this Doctrine be true a man doth not sin tho
Behold now reader the identity of the doctrine of Quakers with that of Arrians from whom they have learned it But some perhaps may object saying that this identity is only in words to whom I answer Either the things imporâ—ed by these words and phrases and given by Christians Generally as the meaning thereof and contained in Scripture or not now if the first be true then to stir up strife about these words proves only the raisers thereof ridiculous But 2. Supposing that the thingâ— themselves which Christians understand by these words or phrases are holden forth in Scripture then to deny that we may use them is founded on this Hypothesis viz. that in Explication of Scriptures or disputs about the meaning theâ—eof it is impious and unlawful to use any words or phrases except they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the same Letters and syllables in Scripture tho we be never so sure that as to the sense and meaning thereof they be found in the Scripâ—ures but this Hypothesis if true overthroweth all Scripture consequences interpretation of Scripture blasts the hope of ever getting Hereticks refuted which none will deny except â—n Arrian or the like Hereticks and while these deny it they only oppose their own practice to their own opinion seeing they themselves as other dâ—sputantâ— endeavour to draw Consequenâ—es from Scripture and paraphrase upon it to make it peak for themselves Now that this absurd and blasphemous consequence sticks fast to this their Hypothesis appears from no few places of Scripture and among others Math. 22.31 32. For if our Saviour had stuck to the meer Letters and Syllablâ—s of Exod. 3.6 I am the God of Abraham c. without deduction of a consequence from them and so an exposition of them he should never from these words have evinced against the Saâ—ducees the Resurrection of the dead But I need not stay longer to evince this for certain it is and already proved not only from the Quakers obstinate denyall of a free and positive Conâ—ession of their Faith anent this matter but also from their useing of the same weapons with which the Arrians attempted the subversion of this trulie Catholick Doctrine as also sufficiently by the express words of Fox and these of the Principles of the Priests but this Arrian Self Contradicting shift they are forced â—o usâ— being conscious to themselves as the Arrians before â—hem that their Doctrine cannot be proof against the firm and demonstrative deductions which the Orthodox bring from Scripture with which as so many Battering-Rams they with ease overthrow this Antirripitarian Impietie Therefore the other Branch of the Dilemma viz. That the sense of these words i. e. That which all Christians understand as the Meâ—ning thereof according to the Quakers is not in Scripture And indeed this is the Truth And so the Quakers are Arrians the evicting of which is the intent of this present discourse But yet farther that this is Truth viz. That the Quakers are Arrians if not worse and deny that fundamental Doctrine of the persons of the â—oly Trinity and that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost also are of the same substance with the Father and distinct persons from him is most evident from their perpetual hellish raisings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinitie calling it an Abominable and stinking Doctrine as these that heard them told me and when they were reproved their reply was thou knowest not the Truth Again they demonstrate to the world that they are the Frye of Arrius while they reject the Common Translation and Exposition of Heb. 1. â— Admitted by all except the Arrians and their Brethren For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be rendred Person or Subsistence as all the Lexicographers and in particular Scapula Pasor Scrivelius upon the word and all the Interpreters both ancient as Pareus in locum sheweth and modern Dutch Divines and English Translation render it but Substance for certainly thus it must be rendred â—f the word Person or Subsistence be rejected then it shall irresistiâ—ly follow that the Father and the Son are divided in substance which was the Doctrine of Arrius both in Maâ—ter and Termâ— hence it is clearâ—r than day-light that these men are his Disciples yea it is to be observed that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place ought to be rendered Subsistentia or Persona then if a man believe the Scriptures and that words are the true Symbols of things it is not possible that he be in Judgment an Arrian Aâ— contrariwise if a Man believe that the word ought to â—e rendered Substance presupposing the Truth of the Scriptures and that words are the true Idea's of things he cannot but be an Arrian Hence that for named Arrian Antithesi 4 ta apud Zanchium pag 854 of his forecited book sayes Heâ— 1. Christ is the splendor of the Glorie of God and figure of His Substance Christ is the invisible God Himself says the Church of Rome For this Arrian still calleth all the opposeâ—s of Arrianism members of the Church of Rome as the Quakers do now But it may be here objected that several very Orthodox Writers have in this place translated â—he Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Substantia to which I answer that all the Orthodox both Ancient and Modern while they thus spake did take the word Substantia in the sense that both they and we do the word Persona or Subsistentia This our Assâ—rtion may be most evident to any though but a little acquainted with the ancient and Modern Orthodox i. e. the opposers of Arrians and Socinians writers For Augustin who in several places and in particular lib. 5. and 7. De Trinitate ascribeth to God three Substances or three Subsistences indifferently yet notwithstanding elswhere carefully distinguisheth them and in particular de fide ad Petrum Diaconum â—ap 1. where he sayeth for if as the substance of the Father and the Son is one so also they were 〈◊〉 one person then there should be nothing aâ— all which truly could be called a Trinitie Hence we seâ— that this word Substantia did beaâ— a twofold Signification in the first of which it may be well put into the reâ—t as Equivalent with or the Synonymum of the word Persona without the least shadow of prejudice to our Doctrine it were easie to shew the like ouâ— oâ— Hilarius and others of the Antients I shall content my self to set down the words of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca Col. 299. Giving his Judgment concerning a book of Pierius an ancient Pastor saying as touching the Father and the Son he believeth piously except that he sayeth that they are two Substances and as many Natures howbeit not so as he adhereth to Arrius for as may be gathered from what goes before and followeth he useth the word Substantia for or in the same signification with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
7.13 compared with 10. These Scriptures and many others that might be Cited unanswerably prove that the Scriptures are and ought to be called the Word of God. Several of these Passages with many others calling the Scriptures or a part thereof the Word of God or of the Lord in the singular number are adduced by Mr Brown Chap. 4. N. 2. To all which Robert Barclay's reply Vind pag. 31 is a flat contradiction of these Scriptures saying That the thing which the Prophets spake was only the words which came from the Word of God. Judge therefore Reader if such replies as these can either help the Author or hurt his adversaries Notwithstanding these Men have something to say for themselves and so had they who denyed the fire to be hot or the snow white Their first Reason why the Scriptures are not the Word of God is Because Christ is called the Word of God but this reason sayeth nothing but upon supposition that one word or phrase cannot undergo divers acceptations which is most false yet Robert Barclay in the Vindication of his Apology Pag. 31. to strengthen this Reason sayeth that one epithete or attribute cannot be predicated or affirmed of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by way of eminence without a grosse contradiction But in this he only bewrayes his own ignorance of the Laws of a Contradiction and his desire of contradicting the Scriptures with a shew of Reason For whether by the Word of God Christ or the Scriptures are to be understood this Elogie is still ascribed to either of them with a peculiar eminency But by the diversity of the acceptation the Contradiction is removed which diversity may be easily Perceived by any that read or hear the Scriptures or other Discourses in which mention is made of the Word of God As for Example who could read these two Texts of Scripture Mark. 7.13 and Rev. 19.13 but they would presently see that in the latter of the Texts by the Word of God Christ is to be understood and in the former the Scriptures except he were altogether stupid and so there is not the least appearance of a Contradiction Therefore in short where by the Word Christ is understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken improperly viz. For a Person the essential and substantial Word of God in so much as Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of God or upon other such accounts such improper Attributes being frequently ascribed to Christ as a Door a Vine and the like But on the other hand where by the Word of God we are to understand the Scriptures there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken in a more proper acceptation for a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The same Author hath yet another Reason and it is a rare one viz. That there are moe words in the Scriptures than one Therefore they cannot be called the Word of God. Behold Reader with what ridiculous Shifts these men endeavour to uphold their impiety and oppose themselves to God! Who but he that desired the Fools Coat would thus reason It is a lie to name an Epistle sent from one Person to another a Letter because in it there are moe Letters than one Not only the Jews who were Christs Enemies but even the Apostles themselves had done right in the judgment of this Quaker if when Christ Mark 7.13 called the Scriptures the Word of God they had flatly contradicted him and said this is a lye seing there are moe Words in the Scriptures than one Here is ridiculous folly and impious Blasphemy mixed together And yet worse if worse can be unavoidably followeth this their Doctrine even that the Son of God was not from Eternity For according to them when it is said Hos. 1.2 The Beginning of the Word of the Lord the meaning must be the beginning of Christ. With the like sacrilegious audacity they endeavour to bereave the Scriptures of that sweet and heart-melting Title of the Gospel saying Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are not the Gospel but the Letter The Defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures William Pen undertaketh in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo Pag. 117. His Reasons whereby he would prove it are 1. Because the Gospel is called the Power of God to Salvation so are not the Scriptures To which I answer That the Scriptures may as well be called the Power of God to Salvation as the Gospel seeing it was the same Doctrine which the Apostles both preached to the People and committed to Writing And the Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith by this Doctrine when it is committed to writing as well as when it was Preached by the Apostles 2. By the Power of God to Salvation no other thing can be understood but the Mean Organ or Instrument whereby God exerteth or putteth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners Which kind of Metonymie is frequent in Scripture The next Reason to prove that these Books ought not to be called the Gospel which the Mans copious invention brancheth into two is That the Gospel is everlasting and was Preached before the Scriptures were therefore they are not the Gospel Ans. 1. The Principles of Truth are everlasting and were before any Quakers Books were extant Therefore a Pamphlet which the Quakers have entituled The Principles of Truth carrieth as a token of what is within a lie in the Frontispiece thereof which I believe William Pen will hardly admit Ans. 2. The Doctrine contained in those Books is the same with and therefore no lesse everlasting than the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel Rev. 14.6 cited by Pen. His two last Reasons whereby he would prove those Books not to be the Gospel are that the Gospel is but one and that it is glad Tidings but the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are four and but Narratives and not glad Tidings are of the like nature with the former For he knoweth well enough that Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn deliver not a contrair Doctrine one to another but only divers Narratives of the same Doctrine All which Books contain the glad Tidings of the Birth Life Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour of the World And this I assert in opposition to this Quaker who here discovereth himself in his own Colours in that he denyeth that the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn contain glad Tidings what could the Devil himself utter more black and Hellish than this Behold Reader with what ridiculous Sophistry these men can cheat their own Souls which is so blunt that a school-boy would be ashamed to bring it forth and what black and Hellish Impieties they not only swallow down themselves but with open face avouch before the world Lastly if these Books as for example Mark ought not to be called the Gospel and by the Gospel ought alwayes to be understood the power of God or the essential Attribute of
Spirit which they make the chief and principal Rule of Faith and manners to which Spirit God himself speaking in the Holy Scripture must do obeisance Which Doctrine although we have already everted in the former chapter we shal notwithstanding here propose and vindicate a few Arguments for the further overthrow thereof and detection of the grosse abomination and horrid delusion attending their principles And first I will propose and vindicate an Argument proposed by Mr. Brown Quakerism the plain way to Paganism pag. 46. Which Argument Robert Barclay attempteth to solve Vind pag. 17. which is this If since the Apostles fell asleep and the Canon of the Scriptures was closed all that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of error then it is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo. c. To this he answers 1. that Mr. Brown begs the Question in his presupposing that there are no Apostles now and that the Canon of the Scriptures is closed against which exception I reassume the Argument thus If since the Apostles whose Names are mentioned in Scripture fell asleep and Iohn wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this kind of Revelation have been led by a Spirit of error then this is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo c. There can now no exception be made against the Mâ—jâ—r for none will deny that the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture are dead and that Iohn hath written the Revelation and well enough he knew that Mr. Brown understood no other thing than what we have now said and yet so covetous hath he been of shifting that he behoved to have one though he could not but know that it would serve no longer than it met with an impugner I now come to his answer to the Minor which Mr. Brown makes evident by an induction of many Sects and Hereticks pretending to immediate Revelation all which are known and not denyed by Quakers to have been led by a Spirit of error to which we may add many of the Quakers themselves such as Iâ— Nailor Susanna Parsons who as Pâ—get relateth being moved by this lying Spirit fruitlesly attempted to raise from the dead another of the Quakers one William Pool by name who had murdered himself and Gilpins of whose lying Spirit see at large in Clerks Examples also Iohn Toldervy of whom see a little Book called foot out of snare Robert Church-man and many others of whom you may read at large in Mr. Increase Maithers Book And he requireth an instance of the contrary which is the only way to answer an Induction In stead of which he sayeth that he is bound to prove that there was never one pretending to immediate Revelation but he was also led of the Spirit of error which he hath done untâ—l he give an instance to the contrary or else shew another way of answering an induction which will be new logick which perhaps he may do for he and his Brethren are very displeased with the old 2 ly That he may not be alone in this sore stresse he saith that Mr Menzies doth thus answer Dempster the Jesuite which is an impudent falshood for neither the Jesuits medium nor probation of his Minor is in the least like the Argument which we now vindicate for the Jesuits Argument was this That Religion cannot be true Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a Religion and conform to the true sense and letter of the Scripture or Word of God and he subsumes But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground c. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion Hence it is evident that these two Argumentations have nothing of consanguinity For if these two Argumentations had stricken alike at the two parties against which they were framed then the Jesuits Argument should have run thus Whosoever since the Apostles fell asleep have pretended to or pleaded for the Scriptures as their principal Rule have fallen into palpable errors and open blasphemy so that they became marks of Gods heavy judgment Now where should the Jesuite have found such a long Catalogue of these as Mr. Brown hath found of deluded Enthusiasts But which is the main thing and quite refutes the most falsly and impiously alledged coincidence of these Arguments how easy should it have been to have adduced not only one instance to the contrary but whole volums thereof yeâ— not only the whole primitive Church for diverse Centuries after Christ and all the Reformed Churches both these whom men are pleased to call Calvinists and Lutherans together with the Greek and Abassine Churches But likewise the most grave wise and learned of the Romanists themselves By this time I hope this arch-falshood of the Quaker whereby he would hide the shame of his desperat cause already appeareth again I answer directly to the Jesuit and the Quaker his patron that if we may believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries such as Bellarmin Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrines which we hold in opposition to popeâ—y are most agreeable to the true Sense of Scripture His third answer is that some of the primitive Protestants such as George Wishart and Iohn Huss had immediat Revelation But nequisquam Ajacem possit super are nisi Ajax that he might be sure no other should refute him he refuteth himself and rendereth his instance altogether unserviceable by granting they did not pretend to it as the ground of their Faith and obedience in all matters of doctrine and worship Lastly to the instance of Ia Naylor they answer that he repented again which answer is an evident confirmation of what we plead for viz· that the Quakers Spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them for I believe Ia Naylor acted but according to his light when he received Divine Worship From this argument we may observe these things first if it hold as cogent this is a serious Truth which he sayeth Vindic. page 25. is absurdly affirmed by Iames Durham as he speaks viz. that Christ spake his last words to the Church that is put a close to these writings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church for if all that pretend the like commission or such immediate Revelation of the rule of their Faith about which the question is were led by a Spirit of error then the Revelation was the last Scripture written and sure for any thing he knoweth ought to be written there is no reason to believe that there is any more to be written 2 ly Observe that this Argument is demonstrative for such are all inductions which have no instance to the contrary 3 ly It destroyes wholly the Quakers cause for this kind of Revelation being disproved the very proprium quarti modâ— of the Quakers is destroyed 2dly Moses and the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and all the holy men that were inspired by
assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners yet whâ— can say that this is through default of the Scriptures seeing our Adversaries cannot deny but that they speak both Sense and Truth and that when there is a real Contradiction between two disputing cocerning any Doctrine or Sense and meaning of any text of Scripture this Text speaks for the one and against the other tho the one of the parties either through Ignorance cannot or through prejudice will nor see it and that the sense thereof may be brought forth to the light so that there shall follow a mutual Agreement between the two dissenting parties and consequently that the Scriptures of their own Nature are apt for the removal of differences about things contained in them We have heard their retortion let us now hear their direct answer which is that their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of God Thus it s answered in their Quakerism confirmed to the Students of Aberdeen For which forsooth they bring Scripture proof from Matth. 7.15 16. where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false Prophet But what fruits these thorny prickling Plants have brought and do daily bring forth the world is not ignorant If to deny the Holy Trinitie the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ the resurrection of the Body and to assert the Souls of men yea and devils to to be God Almighty of which abominations we shall ere we end this Treatise undeniably prove the Quakers to be guilty and in a word to vomit out their Malice so as to endeavour the overthrow of whatsoever God in his Sacred Word hath commanded us either to believe or do If these I say be the fruits of the Spirit then indeed the Quakers have them and abound in them and other Fruits we know none except which are of little worth some Stoicisms and ridiculous whimsies in which also some of the Mâ—humetan and other Monks have gone far beyond them yea with these men Envy Pride Contempt of all others are so predominanâ— that tho by this Character oâ—ly it is easiâ—y judged by what Spirit they are acted Add to all this their constant custome of horrible lying Perverting and Railing of which take one or â—wo Instances in the practise of one oâ— their chief leaders Rob Barcl for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth that his Adversaâ—ie inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christs dying for all that Infants come to heaven without Christ But how grosse an unâ—ruth is 〈◊〉 will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun Cap 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence from their deâ—ying of Original Sin and again pag 64.65 he saith that the Westminster Confession saith that God did predestinat to everlasting damnation the most part of men without any respect had to their sin But a more palpable and horrid lie hath scarce been hatched for 〈◊〉 that Confession chap 3. § 7. It is expresly said that God 〈◊〉 â—rdain them to Wrath for their sins Of the like nature is that which he saith pag. 170 That his Adversâ—ry chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil and that a Minister at Ligeâ—wood made a Prayer to the Devil whereas he only â—nferâ—eth from the Quakers Doctrine that they may make a Preaching to the Devil And as for Railing their whole writings are Stuffed with it See for example Hubberthorn against Sherlock whose whole Pamphlet is nothing but an heâ—p of furious Railing his best Language being Thief rude Fellow Enemy to God c. See also Edward Burrougâ—s in answer to Philip Bennet whose best language is Serpent the lake is prepared for thee and such language as this is the marrow of the Quakers refutation of their adversaries Books For in these two now Named Discoursâ—s there is hardly the shadow of so mâ—ch as an Essay to answer But this is the way how they gain the day and obtain the last word How fair an occasion is here offered to shew to the world by a particular Enumeration of their horrid monstruouâ— practices that their fruiâ—s are the Grapes of Sodom and the wine of Gomorrah But they are but too too well known already we forbear therefore to rake into this Dung-hill Certain it iâ— that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit will as soon prove himself â—o be an angel of Light as the Fruits of these High-pretenders will prove them to be acted by the Spirit of God. But more fully to confirm or rather illustrate this argument I shal shew the Identity of their Spirit with that of the old Anabaptists in several particulars A short parallel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers 1. Muncer and the Anabaptists with him denyed that the Scriptures or external word for thus they spake that they might the better viliâ—y the Scriptures were the Word of God but only a Testimony thereof and said that the Word of God was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas lib. 1. cap. 1. The same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers only there is this difference that the Quakers expresse themselves in this matter with more rage and fury than for ought I can find the Anabaptists did as the Reader may may see cap. 1. § 1. of this Treatise 2dly Muncer with his disciples preferred that which they called immediate Revelation and inspirations busked with the specious Title of Fathers will as the Quakers Revelations are now with that of the Spirit to Gods written Word Bullinger Ibid and cap. 2. passim alibi Sleidan comm Calvin Instit lib 1 cap. 9. In this point also the Quakers are their successors or rather the same the name being changed seing they with Robert Barclay propos 2 3. assert that not the Scriptures but the Spirit is the principal Rule of Faith and Manners 3dly The old Anabaptists asserted that the express Words and Phrases of the Scriptures are to be adhered to without any exposition interpretation or deduction Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. alibi In this also their genuine children the Quakâ—rs follow them with both feet as is evident in this Treatise cap. 1. 4ly The Anabaptists of old asserted that the whole Old Testament is now abrogate and pertaineth not to a Christian nor hath any obligation or force upon him in which wicked Doctrine as they followed the Manichaeans so at this day the no lesse wicked Quakers follow them asserting that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by Christ in the new and hath precept or Authority from it as is affirmed by Robert Barclay Vindic P. 178. num 5. Hence it is evident that according to them no part of the Old Testament is more obligatory or binding upon uâ— than the words of Aratus or such heathen Poets are and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these
although his Adversaries Exposition cannot stand but upon a supposition denyed by the Quaker it is little matter for we know the whole Gospel cannot stand but upon many suppositions denyed and cryed out against by that blasphemous party And here pag 51. he Alledgeth that he acknowledgeth the fall of man more fully than his adversary doth because according to his adversary fallen man retained some Relicts of the Image of God by vertue whereof he can do something really good whereas on the other hand according to the Quakers Doctrine man by the â—all was wholly degenerate retaining nothing of the Image of God in whom albeit there remained a Seed of righteousness yet no otherwayes than as a naked seed in barren ground by vertue of which he could do nothing until visited by a new Visitation which he received by vertue of Christ as Mediator Ans. In the judgement of all men who are not so effronted as to give such inconsistances for a sufficient Refutation of their Adversaries It will be counted a compleat contradiction to say that fallen man hath no Reliques of the Image of God and yet notwithstanding hath a Seed of Righteousness in him Seing that Righteousness is one of the chief parts of the Image of God. Eph. 4.24 But the truth is there is a Mystery latent under this doctrine which we must here discover The Mystery is this the Quakers have no other Christ than this that was left in Adam and remaineth in man in his fallen condition to which they give many great names as Light Lâ—fe Measure of God God himself and among others most frequently the Seed for the more full manifestation of which take these following passages 1. Naylor's love to the lost pag. 32. Christ is the Election and the Elect Seed and George Foxs Great myst pag. 24. the promise of God is to the seed that hath been loaded as a Cart with sheaves by the Sâ—nner which seed is the hope of Christians or that which was loaded as a Cart under sheaves George Keith in his way câ—st up pag 99 100 108. Exâ—oneth it to be Christ or the life of Christ and in his Immed Revel pag 44 45 46. Sayeth when God created Man he put his Image Christ the express Image of himself in man he breathed into him the breath of Life he lived in God and Christ the light of men was his life and lived in him then the Lamb was not slâ—in Christ the Lamb the life of man. But when man sinned So the Lamb came to be slain in him from the Foundation of the world that holy meek nature the Lambs nature was slain in him the bowels of the fathers Love stirred in compassion to the work of his own hands that of the Pure creation in man which though shut up in death yet it remained and perished not as to its being it did not become a nothing but remained a beeing and this is the lost which God sent his son into the world to seek and to save not to seek and save the old Adam that birth of the Serpents begetting but to destroy it for it is not capable of Gods Salvation but that which Christ came to save is that of God which proceeded from him the seed of God in man the seed of Abraham whereof Abrams old decayed body as good as dead and Sarahs barren womb was a Type Moreover by this Light of God for all is one they understand Christ or God himself as shall afterward be more fully made out by several express Assertions of the Quakers Hence we may see that the Doctrine of this man is most damnable who acknowledgeth no other Christ but the smal and dark Reliques of the Image of God in mans soul and that his Hypocrisie and dissimulation is unparalellably great and hateful in that even while he pretends to aggredge the fall of man most he then exalteth man even in his lapsed Condition beyond which it is hardly possible to elevat the nature of man for from what is here quoted and shal be more largely afterward alledged out of their writings it is evident that they beleive or at least would perswade others to beleive that Christ has a Personal union with every Son and Daughter of Adam To all this he addeth a most blasphemous and absurd Intimation that this Seed which to him is alone with Christ or God stands in need of a new Visitation of Christ to raise it up and make it active Also here because his Adversary saith from Rom. 7.14 and 1 Cor. 3.1 that the Apostle and all Beleivers are in a certain respect carnal he thinks he hath gotten him in a notable absurdity Saying his Divinity will run thus the Devil and all unregenerate men are in a certain respect spitual and the Apostle and all regenerate men are in a certain respect Carnal But if there be any absurdity in saying that the Apostle and all Beleivers are in a certain respect Carnal it will light upon the Scriptures according to which his Adversary spake and thus the Quakers covertly pursue their Design of wounding the Scriptures through the sides of their Adversaries and altho he shall answer that the Apostle Rom 7. did speak of another in the person of himself I care not seing to all the fifteen Arguments whereby Mr Broun proved the Apostle to be there speaking of himself and not of another the Quaker thinketh it enough to say He giveth us a Preachment upon this place without a syllable more for Solution of these arguments As for these words that the Devils are in a certain respect Spiritual they are none of his Adversaries However the devil may be called Spiritual in respect of his nature seing whatever is a Spirit may be called Spiritual as well as what is a Body may be called Corporeal Hence it is Evident that the Quaker's pretended Absurdities and Blasphemies which he would fix upon his Adversary resolve into meer fictitious Hoâ—goblines fit only to fright Children 16ly Seventhly If Fallen Man retain no knowledge of God no Principles of common Honesty and Morality then there is no difference between a Man and a Brute neither can it be told in what the wisdom of the Wise Gentiles of whom the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 2. who notwithstanding could not perceive the things of God until they were again revealed consisted but the latter is false in both its parts therefore the first Robert Barclay Vindic. pag. 52. answereth that the Wisdom of these Gentiles did consist in the wise and prudent Management of worldly Affairs for it is not yet proved sayeth he that it is necessarily united to a Knowledge of God and things Spiritual since it is said of some Beasts that they have something of this such as Bees and Ants. And that notwithstanding Man differeth from a Brute in many things as in the knowledge of numbers Mathematical and Mechanical Demonstrations Is the Knowledge of such natural Truths that two and three make five
wicked Spirits if he think othewayes let him essay the proof of it 3ly For the sufficiency of their universal Light they thus argue That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin therefore it is sufficient to Salvation But this Sophism is too palpable and gross to take with any that is not altogether willing to be deceived for the Major proposition thereof is most false otherwise the lawful commands of every Parent Heathen as well as Christian should be a sufficient guide to Salvation for disobedience to these is as really a sin as disobedience to our own Light. 4ly To prove that there is a Divine Light purchased by Christ in every man they adduce Iohn 1.9 That was the true Light which enlightneth every man that cometh into the world for Vindication of which place it shall suffice to overthrow what Rob Barclay hath said in the Vindication of his Apology pag 91. For the confirmation of the Quakers gloss on this text of which Mr Broun Quaker path way to Pagan pag 151 152 153 154. had given diverse expositions as 1. that Light may be here taken for the Light of reason 2ly That by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which is savingly enlightned these expositions with others he at large evinceth and illustrateth from Scripture and reason and sheweth that the Quakers joyn with the Socinians in their exposition Now whereas if the Quaker had done any thing to the purpose he ought to have refuted these exposiâ—ions but in stead thereof he sayeth his adversary must be much puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it But this I confess is a strange inference for the Quaker from abundance inferreth penury and because his adversary gave diverse expositions any of which will serve the turn Ergo sayes he he knows not what to answer I was wondering at this Consequence but I presently remembred that the Quakers were Enemies to Logick He himself diverse times hath given several meanings of one place as for Example Isa. 8.20 much therefore he hath been puzled to answer our arguments proving the Scriptures to be our principal Rule which I do really believe tho upon another account Now it is observable that this Quaker almost every where endeavoureth to turn Defendent when he should be impugnant for the Scriptures from which he drew his arguments in his Apology faâ—ling him so that he can prove nothing from them his Adversary having removed the vernishing of his Sophistry he bendeth his whole wit in his Vindication to find out Evasions and Distinctions to defend his own glosse and this artifice he useth here which think of it what he will will serve for nothing except to discover hiâ— Weakness and Conviction of a bad cause and whereas he flouteth at his Adversary inferring from v. 5. of this chapter the darkness comprehended it not that by darkness is meant man in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is natural we say whereas he flouteth at him inferring from this that man while in that Estate is void of all Spiritual and supernatural light saying is not this a learned Refutation Reader He â—heweth only good will as they use to say to have the Doctrine of the Reformed become a mocking stock and shame rubbed upon it if he could for all the expositions given by the Reformed Churches on this place quite contradict that of the Quakers except he will call Socinus and the like Reformed Protestants But the thing incumbent to the Quaker was the urging and vindicating of his Reason viz. that if man in his natural estate cannot comprehend this Light who notwithstanding can comprehend the things of Nature Ergo by this enlightning with which every man is said to be enlightned that cometh into the world is not understood the Light of Nature and Reason which consequence he shal never be able to prove for altho the Light it self viz. Christ be supernatural and the incomprehensible God of Nature yet these little Beams or Sparks of Reason and Conscience which are the Effect and Gift of this great Ligh Christ the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity no lesse than of the Father and Holy Ghost are altogether natural and comprehensible Many places of Scripture beside this they detort and deprave to the end that by the Scriptures themselves they may destroy the Scriptures and prove that the light within which they being pitifully deluded take for the Spirit of God is the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners all which glosses fall to the ground tho upon this one Account that they have couched in them this most dangerous and blasphemous falshood viz. that the dim and dark Light of nature is not only sufficient to guide us to Salvation but which ought to be heard with horror is God himself One of which Scriptures is John 14.26 27. and 16.13 whence they would infer that all Believers are led by immediat objective Revelation as the Apostles were because say they the way that the Apostles were taught which is by immediat Revelation is there holden forth as common to aâ—l Believers and the words to lead and to teach in their proper and native signification denote always an immediat objective leading or teaching Thus Reasoneth Ro. Barclay Vind. pag. 19.20 to which I answer that these being two of the main places that he brought for proving the Spirit to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners he ought to have given some other thing than bare assertions if he had in good earnest intended to overthrow what his Adversary chap. 3. n. 27. said against his meaning of these places which he hath not in the least done for why may not immediat objective Râ—velatâ—on be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not unto all Believers but subjective only whereby they may understand and apply these Truths that were taught immediatly to the Apostles and Prophets upon whose Doctrine the Faith of all Believers is founded as its principal Rule and Foundation Ephes. 2 20. Even as the like Phâ—ases hold forth an immediate objective Teaching to some and yet that only which is meerly mediate as to others as Neh. 9.20 comp with v. 30. 1 Kings 8. 36. Psal. 132.12 Deu. 32.12 Moreover that the words to lead and teach hold forth a mediate objective Teaching or a subjective Illumination far oftner in Scripture than immediate objective Revelation is manifest to any that are acquainted with the Scriptures which if the Quakers deny seing they are the opponents they ought to condescend to a collation of places and shew the contrary Lastly whatever the Quakers say we cannot help it certain it is that no man of sound Judgment will deny that when one readeth the Scriptureâ— and hath his mind illuminated by the Spirit of God that he may understand the wondrous things in Gods Law but such an
Son and therefore a Father is Father of aâ—nother and no man is his own Father theâ— to say the Father is a person is to say the Fatheâ— is the Person of some other and so of the rest which is absurd to the which Argument not as mine but really Augustin's I leave Joh. Alexander to answer Thus George Keith Ans. It seemeth that the Intent of the Quaker is to fasten a false Contradiction on Augustin for none ever used the word Person in Application to the Holy Trinity more frequently than Augustin hath done as is obvious to any that hath but a little acquaintance with his Works And de Trinit Lib. 5. Cap 8. He asserteth that the Latine Fathers yea and these of greatest Authority among them still used the word Person as the most fit that could be imagined for the expressing of this Holy Mystery To whom he assenteth both in this place and else where in the same Books Cited by George Keith We may hence see what the drift of the Quaker is even to render both the Persons and Doctrine of the choicest Champions of Christ odious and contemptable by making them speak self-contradictions and that in these very points anent which if the Body of the Christian World be not grosly deceived they were of all men most Orthodox 2. This same Father de Doctrina Christi Lib 1. Cap 5. Alledgeth that the word Causa cannot sufficiently enough agree to God. And Cap 6. That the word Deus is not fit enough whereby God can be expressed Sure I am that in both these Books mentioned by the Quaker he saith nothing whereby we may conclude that he is more disliking the word Person than the word Causa or Deus But shall I think that George Keith judgeth that according to the mind of Augustin God is not the Creator or first cause of all things And that we sin in expressing him by the Name of God I do not think that the Quaker will assent to this and yet no more Reason hath he to say that according to Augustin it is dangerous to say that there are three Persons in the Trinity For the main Reason why he thinketh that there is some inconsistency in the word Person for the full expressing of that inexpressible Mystery he giveth de Trinit Lib 7. Cap 4 In these words When they enquire of us what Three or how these Three shall be called we set our selves to find some special or general Name neither can we find it because the supereminency of the Deiâ—y exceeds the strength of our Eloquence and God is more truely Comprehended by the Mind than expressed by the Tongue and more truly existeth than comprehended in the Mind This I say is the Reason why Augustin thinketh the word Person not sufficient enough for the Declaration of this incomprehensible Mystery But the same is the Reason why de Doctrina Christ. Lib 1. Cap 5. He thinketh that the word Cause cannot agree to God Hence it is apparent That an Atheist might as well and with as good ground alledge that Augustin in the forecited places did patronize his Atheism and publish to the world that God is not the Supream cause of all things or that there is not a God. 3. I have with care perused these Books of Augustin but could not at all find this Argument which George Keith fathereth upon him I Answer therefore the Argument not as Augustin's but as a sinnowless Argument of George Keith drawn from a simily of natural things which hath little or no proportion to that which is Infinit Hence I say that it can have little or no weight But again the Argument is false and Ridiculous on this Account that the Quakers make every Father the Person of his Son which I am sure is absurd enough For as a Father is the Father of another and yet a distinct Person from another so God the Father is the Father of God the Son and yet a distinct Person from God the Son. Hence the similie â—rought not by Augustin but by the Quaker for the overthâ—ow of the Truth tendeth to the Illustration and clearing thereof From all this Leaâ—n how disingenuous Dealers these men are that can find no better Means for the defence and propagation of their Doctrine than to deceive the Simple by borrowing the Names of the Antient Wortâ—ies whereby to cover their blasphemous Doctrine Thus their best refuge is to broach Lies in Hypocrisies 2. I shall prove that according to the Quakers Doctrine God is the Author of sin which I thus Evince God is the Author of every Substance but according to the Quakers Doctrine Sin is a Substance The Minor I prove Grace is a Substance which is their Common Doctrine therefore sin is a Substance also The consequence Rob Barclay Vind pag 49. denyeth which I thus prove the Antecedent viz. that Grace is a Substance they endeavour to prove by these Reasons First because it is in and by this inward and substantial Seed in their hearts as it cometh to receive nourishment and to have a Birth and Geniture in them they come to have these Spiritual Senses raised by which they are made capable of Tasting Smelling Seeing and Handling the things of God. Thus reasoned Robert Barclay In his Apology pag 95. This is also the Doctrine of George Keith in his Immed Rev. That this Light or Seed or Grace is a Substance because it may feel hear c. Robert Barclays second Reason is because it subsists in the hearts of wicked men even while they are in their wickedness Now if Sin may hear feel and perceive as well as Grace and Light and if it may feel or perceive the things of Satan as really as Grace feels or perceiveth the things of God and if sin may be in the. heart of a real godly person then sin is a Substance according to the Quakers Otherwise these Reasons are reasonlesse But the former is true therefore the laâ—ter The Consequence of the Major is most firm For sin in the heart of one that is truly godly is the same way to be considered as Grace and Light in the heart of the ungodly in this point For I judge this be the Reason why the Quakers Judge that this is the Reason that the Beeing of Grace in the Heart of a wicked Man while in his wickedness proveth it to be a substance viz. Because it can be where its contrary is and strive and wrestle with it which is as evident concerning sin in the heart of a godly man as is clear from Rom. 7. Gal. 5 17 and also from Experience which I believe our Adversaries themselves would hardly deny seing they grant that all Persons that have real Grace are not at all times after Conversion free of sin and wrestling with it Hence the Charge that they most maliciously lay to the Reformed Churches viz. that they make God the Author of Sin is justly returned upon themselves seing God is the Author
of every Substance Which is yet more clear from the twelfth Query sent to Mr Iohn Alexander viz. What is Original Sin Whether it be not the Devil yea or nay For doth not the Original signifie the Beginning What did Christ come to destroy Was it not the Devil and his Works What is more clear than that in those Queries of the Quakers God is made the Author of Sin seing that unlesse they professe and avow Manicheism God created the Devil and this is yet more clear if clearer can be by George Keiths Defence of this Querie Truth defend pag. 177. Where he can find no better Defence of this blasphemy than to call it in effect a purposeless heap of words without all scope saying that the Devil may be called sin in a certain sense by a Metonymy as Christ is called Righteousness or sin called the old Man. And thus George Keith acteth like himself that is playeth the ridiculous babler for pag. 59. in Defence of that Query viz. If every Title in the Bible be the word of God he sayeth that to query a thing will not conclude that the questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is queried The same way he dealeth here with his Antagonist For if the Quakers understood no other thing then the Devil may get the Name of sin as any cause may get the name of its effect Then both they and he in their Defence prove themselves to be pitiful purposeless wranglers making a stur in the World about nothing And of set purpose involving their Discourseâ— in such nonâ—ensical Niceâ—ies that none shal know the meaning thereof Hence we may see that it is but vain Labour to give any Answer to the Quakers For whatever they have said you cannot fix upon them be as clear as it will they will in their next Essay explain it to you in a sense as opposite to that which in the Judgment of all rational men their words carry as Black is opposite to White or Light to Darkness For what is more clear from the Words of the Query than that the Devil is sin it self seing I think no Man except George Keith will desire us to believe that all these Questions are given out for needless amusements of the World importing only these things about which there is not the least shadow of a question or doubt for who ever doubted that the Devil was the cause of Sin Neither is his abuse of Scripture more toâ—lerable seing the Apostle useth a figurative Speech which in a matter known and about which there is no debate as the Matter was about which the Apostle speaketh may contribute much to the illustration and clearing of the purpose but far otherwise was it wheresoever Christ or the Apostles enâ—red intâ— any direct Dâ—sputation or reasoning where they always so spake as these with whom they Reasoned might have easily understood what these Questions and Reasonings tended to In a word he that of set purpose involveth and rendereth unintelligible his Discourse about Matters of such moment in the Judgment of all Rationals proveth himself either a Fool or a Knave Therefore whether George Keith will or not we must do these Questionists right and believe that they thought as they spake that is that the Devil is sin it self And therefore God is the Author of sin 3. I come now to the third thing of which I promised to prove the Quakers guilty viz. That the Soul is God or as they with the like blasphemy speak a part of God. And first to clear the way for the Souls Divinity they deny its Humanity For Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlok pag. 29. sayeth there is no Scripture which speaketh of a Humane Soul. And again pag. 31. to Mr. Sherlok saying that God is not a Spirit as Angels and the Souls of men are he replyeth saying this is confusion For Christ sayeth God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and Truth And there thou art raced without the Doctrine of Christ. And pag. 30. in opposition to Mr. Sherlock who had accused the Quakers of professing and blasphemously boasting of their Equality with God he thus replyeth Thy boasting is excluded without in thy Generation And thou art excluded from the life and mind of the Apostle who said Let the same Mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus who being in the Form of God thought it no Robbery to be equal with God. Phil. 2.5 6. And this thou calleth blasphemy and so thou hast shewed what Spirit thou art of contrary to the Apostle here we have Blasphemy in its highest Degree and an Equality with God proâ—essed and boasted of For the Effectation of which being prompted thereunto by the grand Enemy of Mankind Our first Parents fell from their Excellency and most happy Condition And except Christ had interposed had forever lien together with all their Posterity into that whirle pool and gulf of Incomprehensible Misery only for the desire of aspiring unto â—his of which these Heaven darâ—ing blasphemer boast themselves so that what the Poets feigned of the Gyants contending with the gods for an Equal Right to Heaven with them the Quakers act in Reality But the following discourse will evince that an Equality with God will not please them except they have also an Identity For George Fox the great Prophet and King of the Quakers in his great Myst. pag. 90. In answer to one that said there is a kind of infinitness in the Soul yet it cannot be infinitness in it self speaketh thus Is not the Soul without beginning coming from God returning to God again who hath it in his hand and Christ the Power of God the Bishop of the Soul which bringeth it up to God which came out from him hath this a beginning or ending and is not this infinite in it self again George Fox telleth us in the forecited book pag. 29. that Magnus Byne sayeth that the Soul is not infinite in it self but a Creature and R. Baxter sayeth it is a Spiritual Substance wherâ—unto George Fox Replyeth Consider what a Condition these called Ministers are in they say that which is a spiritual Substance is not infinit in it self but a Creature that which came out of the Creator and is in the Hand of the Creator which bringeth it up unto the Creator again that is infinite in it self Again Great Myst. p. 100. The Quakers are accused for saying there is no Scripture that speaketh of a Humane Soul And for affirming that the Soul is taken up unto God Hereunto George Fox thus answereth God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a Living Soul. And is not this that which cometh out from God is in Gods hand part of God from God and to God again from these passages it is most evident that both the Soul of man yea and the Devils themselves which I tremble to think must be God over all Seing according to these
and born again at once or at one instant of time His ground of which we shall now examine And it is those two places of Scripture viz. Phil. 1.6 He which hath begun a good work c. Gal. 5.7 Ye did run well c. Now these Scriptures say nothing for him For the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus when this Epistle was writ V 1. Now I think none can deny that such are born of God. For the other Place it saith as little for him except for it he would infer the Saints falling away which is false Next that the new Birth of Regeneration as such doeth not admit of degrees but that every one of the Children of God are really converted or born again so that of the Children of â—rath they become the Children of God at one time or Instant is clear For as soon as a man hath true Faith he becometh a Child of God. But that all that belongeth to the Essence of true Faith is infusâ—d in the Soul at once although some legal work in order to it necessarily preceed I think none will deny And the manifold Examples in Scripture shewing that men in a most short time were made to turn from Satan to God prove it I would fain know if the Thief on the Crosse and Jailor were not born again And if they were not perfectly born again But to speak of any imperfection in his new Birth as such that is to say that one may be brought from Nature to Grace and yet but half born again or not fully born again Because he hath not attained unto the ful measure of Grace which is attainable is no less absurd than to say that one is not â—ully born because he is but a little Child Now this Absurdity is not a little removed because what ever they can say the like reason holdeth for the one as well as for the other These to whom the Apostle writeth were perfectly born of God and yet there were some little Children among them 1 Ioh. 2.12 Now they were perfectly born Because they had the Seed of God or the Vnction chap 2.27 which is all one with the Seed Now the abiding of the Seed is given as a reason of the perfection of the New-birth so that they cannot sin Ergo If little Children as well as Fathers had this unction or Seed abiding in them they had this New-birth in the highest perfection pleaded for by Quakers 3 The Apostle 1 Ioh 3.9 speaketh without distinction Whosoever c. and so taketh away the elusion of our Adversaries Next he thinketh here to free himself of Pelagianism of which he was proved to be guilty by saying he alwayes denyed that men might keep the Commands by the power of nature which groundless shiâ—t is overthrown above chap 2. He alâ—ledgeth also that because the Fathers say That none by the strength of Grace did live all their days without sin and the perfection ascribed to some in Scripture was not from nature but from grace therefore they thought men might be free from sin by Grace What miserable manking and clipping is this Is it not added in the very following words immediatly That none attained that measure of holiness in this life that he could live any long time without sin and that this perfection was not full and absolute but which might encrease and was mixed with evil deeds so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees These are the very words of the Antithesis of the Orthodox in opposition to the Pelagians Vos Hist. Pel. Par. Prim Thes 1. pag 146. Now I would desire any to shew me what this Doctrine differeth from that which the reformed Churches hold Let the Reader see Mr. Broun himself pag 333 N 12 13 where he may see this matter handled at large I add these words of Orosius Apol. Cont Pel I do not undertake I presume not I dare not say that I shall be without sin 〈◊〉 long as I shall be in this Corruption which we have And again The man that can be without sin is Christ. He saith here that what his Adversary addeth of the Fathers arguments against Pelagians and Socinians It is not his work to meddle with or to heed what these Sects say But it is not best to do so For in so doing he should fight against himself For they must divide him from himself that divide him either from a Pelagian or a Socinian I was about to admonish the Reader to read especially this fourteenth chapter of Mr. Broun's Book But I need not seing he granteth all we plead for by saying on the matter he doth not care though he be proved a Pelagian and a Socinian And whereas he sayeth he considereth the matter as proposed in Scripture The only way to know the truth of this is to examine his Doctrine which we have done in part And through the Lords assistance shall yet further do it We value not his Recriminations which he hath here but nameth none since nothing that he can say can be of weight against us As these Charges of Pelagianism and Socinianism are against him except he bring the fathers as much fighting against the Doctrine of the reformed churches and the reformed Churches against their Doctrine as these fight against him and his Brethren Again he cometh to the Vindication of his Arguments which are answered by his Adversary pag 337 N 18 19 20 21 22 23 24. And for urging of the first which was That this Doctrine is against the wisdom of God he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of God whereby they may be free from all sin if they use them well This I say he insinuateth for here he mumbleth as one in a confused haste But this is with as great facility denyed as any thing he hath hitherto said For we assert that it is the will of God that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church Triumphant only And for probation of our assertion it is enough to challenge him to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the world except Christ Jesus who never had it but by imputation To me his following words are nonsense He would fain insist over his Adversary because he sayeth pag. 339. N 19. That the heart the renewed part of the man being for God and God only and directly against Satan and all his wayes doings and designs there is no formal service performed unto Satan Saying That then there is some material service performed to the devil But this objection militateth as much against the Apostle saying Rom. 7 That with his flesh he served the Law of sin Which I think the Quakers will hardly distinguish from the Law of Satan 2. If this instance do any thing it will overdo For it tendeth to prove that no Action of any that have gotten saith though in the least degree can be at all tainted with sin We mean their gracious Actions
ought to receive any Command from any man or thing without him yea or from the Scriptures themselves And further denyeth without any limitation that the Scriptures ought to be called a Rule And all this tho most blasphemously and absurdly yet most consonantly to the Quakers Principles Our Vindicator in stead of doing Service to his Party notably prevaricateth their Cause not sticking to give away their great Principles while other shifts for defence thereof fail him 4. What he addeth without the operation of the Spirit men cannot obey to the good of their own Souls is altogether impertinent as if one should in answer to a Man enquiring what Duties he ought to perform to such a Superiour tell him what for the time he was in case to perform so as to reap any Advantage thereby which would be as the Proverb goes falcem pro ligone dare 5. He quietly slideth over without so much as naming these words of Furley viz. yea it is the greatest error of the World that ever was invented and the Ground of all error to affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians which Doctrine as it rendereth any Lover of God and his Word secure from being tainted with Quakerisme so that the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the Poison in like manner it hath rendered our Vindicator speechless denuding him of his Shifts of Primary and Secondary Rule under the Protection of which distinction the Quakers would fain shroud themselves For in these words of Furley there is no mention of a Primary or Secondary Rule which without doubt Furley had made if he had believed the Scripture to be a secondary Rule seing certainly he was not ignorant that the Quakers were branded with the name of being Enemies to Scripture 6. In the last place our Vindicator declareth that all he hath hitherto said in Dâ—fence of Furley was but the patrociny of a very bad and indefendible Cause in that he would fasten upon his Adversary the Falsification of Furleys Words For if they were falsified why attempted he to defend them as they were while the sense was quite altered and perverted as he insinuateth Moreover if those words of Furley were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them as they were written by Furley which doubtlesse he was in case to do if there had been any such thing seing he professeth that he hath Knowledge of the Matter which he doth not professe concerning any Quaker mentioned in his Adversaries Book Hence it is evident that his Adversary is not at all guilty of the ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator but whether or not they light upon the Author I leave it unto men of Judgment to consider 4. From what is said it is most evident that the Scriptures according to the Judgment of Quakers are in no sense to be counted a Rule and lay no obligation upon any to believe and walk according to them Hence William Pen sayeth that the Spirit of God who is God is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian viz. of Faith and Life for of that he is handling Rejoin Pag. 76. And this the most of their Arguments if they prove any thing intend As for Example that common Topick of the Quakers viz. That which was the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith before the Scriptures were written is the Rule of ours now But I subsume that the Scriptures of the old and New Testament were in no respect the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith. Ergo according to the Quakers the Scriptures in no respect can be called the Rule of Faith and Manners but finding that the grossnesse of this Doctrine bewrayeth it self and too palpably unmasketh its abettors they have invented several distinctions under the Covert of which they might shroud themselves and elude all the Arguments whereby the Scriptures are proved to be the Rule of Faith and Manners As that the Scriptures are the Verbal and Histicorical Rule of Faith which is the Devils Faith but not of saving Faith. Thus speaketh William Pen Rejoin Pag. 71. But that wherein they place their Sacred Anchor or main strength is that of Adequate and Primary inadequate or secondary Rule asserting that the Scriptures are not the adequate or compleat and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners but only an inadequate in-compleat and secondary Rule That is that the Scriptures contain not all that we are bound to believe or do and that we ought to believe or practise nothing tho never so clearly holden forth or commanded in the Scriptures as for example that God sent his Son into the World or that we ought to love God or our Neighbour except by a miraculous Revelation from Heaven as Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock speaketh we be told the same thing over again By which Revelation we ought say they to examine the Scriptures And because we deny this Doctrine and abhorre it as the Flood-gate of all errors They cry out that we are carnal Enemies to the Spirit void of Light upon this ground also the Ministers that make the Scriptures the Rule of their Doctrine they call by the Names of Baals Priests Thieves Devils Enemies of God with a thousand of the like denominations wherefore that the State of the Controversy may appear and our Adversaries be deprived of their lurking places I premit this assertion in order to the production of true and saving Faith two Principles are required First The Declaration of the Object or thing to be believed or practised which is commonly called in the Schools Objective Revelation This may be either immediate as it was of old to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles To whom God himself immediatly did speak and dictate his will without the Intervention of any thing as a medium or mids Declaring that Revelation to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles or it may be mediat as it was in respect of those to whom the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles delivered it and as it is in respect of us for whose sake the Prophets and Apostles wrote it Rom. 15.4 The other thing necessary for the Production of Saving Faith is the operation or influence of the Spirit of God whereby the vail of natural blindnesse is removed and the eyes of the soul or the understanding are opened to know and believe the wonderful things contained in Gods written Law and to see these divine Characters that are imprinted upon the Scriptures and to understand the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves so that the Person thus savingly illuminated attendeth to and heartily closeth with what is delivered in the Scriptures And this is ordinarly called Subjective Revelation or more properly Illumination or an application of the Revelation made already hactenus factae as Dr. Baron speaketh This Doctrine is clear and most intelligible to all that will not close their eyes The Truth of which is proven by the following Scriptures Psal. 119. 18. Luk. 24 46. 2 Cor. 3.15 16. Rev.
3.18 Act. 16.14 15. Ezek. 36.26 27. This Distinction is very requisite for clearing of our purpose and liberateth our Doctrine from the Circle which is falsly objected unto us by both Papists and Quakers A DIGRESSION In which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches anent the necessity of the Spirits Operation in order to firm and saving Knowledge and belief of the Holy Scriptures is Explained and Vindicated from the Exceptions of Papists and Quakers FIrst all the Reformed Churches do with 〈◊〉 Consent assert that in order to a firm and saving knowledge and Divine Faith or believing of the Scriptures the illumiâ—nation and operation of the Spirit of God illumiâ—nating and preparing the Soul is absolutly necessâ—â—ry this all the Confessions witnesse and our Dâ—â—vines such as Calvin in his Institution Polanâ— in his Syntagma demonstratively evince Thâ— Doctrine is impugned on the one hand by the Pâ—pists who object first that we commit a Ciâ—â—cle 2. That we are guilty of Enthusiastick dottages of which we justly accuse the Anabaptists and Quakers and the like Enthusiasts with these the Socinians and other Enemies of the grace of God joyn forces accusing us of the same Crimes On the other hand the Quakers perceiving themselves unextricably in the briers and unwilling to be alone affirm confidently that we cannot separat our selves from them as to this matter 3. In order to the silencing of both these parties who like Samsons Foxes when they appear most opposite one to another even then conspire most firmly the ruine of the Church of God I premit that in order to the production of true Faith in God's ordinary way and method two things are necessary as the principles thereof the Word and the Spirit The Word they call principium objectivum an objective principle or an objective revelation because the Scriptures concur objectively declaring truths to be believed even as the Sun objectively demonstrateth and sheweth things that may be seen though no eyes were open to see them so the Scriptures hold forth clearly all that we ought to believe and do even though the understanding of none were opened to behold the wonders contained in Gods written Law. And again 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 irradiant and illustrious Beams of Light. And as the Sun must be supposed to be an objective light declaring himself and other things The same we say of the Scriptures that in themselves they contain and hold forth these heavenly Rays and glorious Beams and Characters of Divinity prior to the Spirits opening of the understanding and enclining the will for peâ—ception and embracing thereof Now noâ—withstanding of alâ— this poor mankind blind by naâ—ure should be in perpetual darknesse if his eyes were not opened Hence another Principle is necessary viz. The Spirits gracious operations enlightening and â—weetly enclining fiâ—ting and disposing the Soul which is the subject or recipient of this light to understand and believe the things contained in these heavenly Oracles And all these the Spirit doth not by dictating or telling into the ear or mind that such and such excellent things are contained in these Writings as a man making an oration to commend such or such a thing but as we said already by removing the natural mist and darkness modo efficientis aut Dâ—vini instrumenti by way of Efficient or dâ—vine â—nstrument in the Hand of God For the Divinâ— Bâ—auty and Celestial Glory of the Scriptures is so transcendent that the removal of the natural blindnesâ— and pravity of the will is enough for ravishing of the hearts into ardent Love obsequious Obedience and in a word a most enâ—ire and total captivity unto them This working of the Spirit upon the soul is commonly called Subjective Revelation because it terminateth upâ—n the soul which is the subject or recipient of the light contained in the Word and may be more properly called an application of Divine Revelation than Revelation it self This subjective working of the Spirit both the Scriptures themselves and all sound Divines illustrat according to them by the opening of the eyes Ps. 119.18 Eye-salve Rev 3.18 Which Examples both illustrate and prove the purpose yea it is observable that in all the Scriptures the Holy Ghost mentioneth no other kind of Revelation as necessary to Salvation but only objective which indeed was sometimes immediat but not necessarily so but other some times mediat and this subjective Revelation or illumination of the Spirit In a word for any thing we can find is all one whether the objective Revelation be mediat or immediat providing it be Divine see among other Scriptures Ps. 119.18 Luk. 24 46 Act. 16 14 31 32 33 34. 2. Cor. 3 15 16. Rev. 3.18 4. Having premised and illustrated this distinction I come in the next place directly to remove the Objections And first that of the Circle in which the Papists endeavour to entangle us For they object that we being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God we answer by the Testimony and Opertaion of the Spirit And again being demanded how we know the Spirit of Truth and discern it from the Spirit of Error We answer by the Scriptures Hence they conclude that we run the round and answer the same by the same and so make a compleat Circle To which I answer that there is here no Circle for a Circle is progressus ab eodem ad idem eodem modo cognitum A Progress from the same to the sâ—me thing by the same kind of Argumentation But so it is not here For there is not the same way of Argumentation For the Word concurreth objectivâ—ly declaring and holding forth what are the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Characters of the Spirit of God argumentaâ—ively so that we can reason because such a Spirit v. g. He that confesseth Jesus Christ hath come in the Flâ—sh is said by the Scripture to be of God therefore I know and believe that this is true Doctrine and that this Spirit is of God. But on the other hand we make no such use of the Spirits inward Testimony or Operations We do not with the phanatical Enthusiasts reason thus the Spirit or a strong impulse which they call the Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures therefore I believe them to be so We say no such thing We only say that the Spirits operations are necessary for disposing the Soul to perceive and understand the things contained in the Scriptures themselves and apply the same so that either for his own satisfaction or redarguing of others he still rationally deduceth all his Arguments from the Scriptures making them or which is all one God speaking in them the formal Object and ultimat ground wherein to resolve his Faith. Two Examples I will give to illustrat my answer and then I have
quible what they will these two Texts are enough to refuâ—e them He alledgeth next that his Adversary only proveth from this place that men may sin in the present time not that they do really and actually sin in the present time Which is false For he from the Context fully refuteth the Socinian Cavil see among other places v. 9. he denâ—eth here that the Seed of sin maketh its Subject sinful But we know no Seed of Sin but that which is really Sin neither doth the Scripture make any Mention of it But this Doctrine is all one with the popish Doctrine of Concupiscence mutato nomine He alledgeth pag. 126. That it will not follow from Eccles. 7.20 That men sin dayly or that all their Actions are imperfect through sinning But he forgetteth to apply that Law to himself which he would impose upon others For though the Text speaketh absolutly without exception yet he will not give a Reason of a Restriction And here again he talketh of his absolute Regeneration But to as little purpose as before He leaveth the Consideration of the Hebrew Text which he thought made for him to the Reader therefore I considered it and found it in the Indicative mood And consequently nothing for him He cometh next to vindicate the meaning of the Socinians and Quakers of Rom. 7 17 which is that the Apostle there speaketh of another in his own person But he passeth all his Adversaries Reasons of our Meaning with one blunt scoffe saying he giveth us a Preachment Which effrontedness I Judge can hardly be parallelled Next he sayeth except he prove that Paul was a Carnal man in respect of sinning at that time he sayeth nothing But his Adversary hath done it from this present Text already so that he durst not so much as present one of his Reasons to his Reader though never so manked and clipped as his Custom is but thought it safest to pass by them whole sale Otherwise perhaps some of the Vulgar Quakers who deluded by this Emissary of the Jesuits might have seen how absurd their Rabbies are in explication of the Scripture and so looked about them before they had been further involved 2. All this effronted and false dealing will not do the turn For the Reason why they reject such a plain meaning of the words and admit such a strange figurative meaning The reason I say moving them to this is because they think the Apostle Paul was above sinning and that they may have him to be an Example of sinless perfection but this helpeth him not a whit For the Apostle Iohn was one of the chief Apostles as well as Paul and yet his sinning in his choicest Frame and under the greatest outlettings of Grace is so manifest that all the Sophistry of Satan hath not yet invented a Shift for the Elusion thereof The like may be said of Peter Gal. 2. and many others which we passe Next he cometh to answer Mr. Browns Argument which is this If we find no instances in Scripture of such Persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancy and dream But the Former is true The Consequence he denyeth And consequently he denyeth that we ought to walk according to the guidance of the Scripture And where is his holding by the Scriptures now which we lately heard of Let Quakers therefore no more cheat the World with saying that they walk according to the Scriptures while with open face they assert that they ought not to be a guide to us or that we ought to believe points of Faith not contained there 2. He sayeth that the Argument concludeth not in the Terms of the Question But the Conclusion is that such a Perfection as the Quakers maintain is but a fancy and a Dream And if he will admit this we are agreed And if he will not he must deny some of the propositionâ— Neither let him object to me that this is not the Argument which he answered unto for the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he choosed to answer unto For either it is it or another if it be it it is well the same Argument then is now urged if it be not it then let him confesse he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the jugular Vein CHAP. VII Of the Quakers Doctrine of Silent Worship and of the Sacraments THis Author in the 12 Section of his Vindication of which the first part is opposed to Mr. Broun's 22 Chapter of Silent waiting maketh a none such clamour as if he were without paralel traduced We shall therefore in the first place consider the chief of these things which he calleth Calumnies and Perversions Whereof the first is That he would have us to understand that Christ's Resurrection was never till now whereas sayes he I only spake with reference to the time since the Apostacy Ans. 1. Any may judge by his 11 Proposition or yet by his chapter annexed thereto if this be a Calumny for whatever he there sayeth may be as well applyed to Heathnish as Popish superstition especially if the Quakers salvation of Heathens be considered 2. He is unhappy in removing his pretended Calumny For the Apostacy was working in the Apostles time and consequently he sayeth nothing 3. Make the best of it ye will this is but only what Munser or Iohn of Leyden said that they might obscure these burning and shining Lights the reformers and marr the work in their hand 4. Their direct opposition to the Orthodox primitive Christians in the most weighty points of Religion such as the Doctrine of the Trinity Free-grace the Sacraments and the like sufficiently demonstrats that they esteem none before themselves except Arrius or Pelagius to have been at all in the way of God. And therefore that hitherto there hath been no spiritual resurrection His second Calumny so called viz. that Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms and abstract from means we have above evinced to be a truth in the first and second Chapters Moreover he here denyeth that studying of Sermons from the Scripture which implyeth reading prayer and Meditations and the like exercise to be means appointed by God. And thus he only confirms what he even now denyed viz that the Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms and abstract from means His third Calumny viz. that the Quakers Spiritual life is nothing but Nature wâ— proved above Cap. 2. to be a truth where we shewed that all the Quakers grace and light is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of God in man. His fourth Calumny is his own and not his Adversaries For his Adversary only inquireth If this Life be common at all times to them Hence he inferreth that he supposeth it to be so the contrary of which for any thing I can learn he supposeth as his Query pag 414. insinuateth His 5 Calumny as to what truth it hath
dependeth upon the controversie of perfection to which he referreth his Reader and I do the like to my survey of his Vindication His next nominal Calumny is that his Adversary supposeth it to be their Doctrine that there is no setting about prayers or other duties without a previous motion of the Spirit Now of all things I wonder most that he calls this a Calumny seing this very thing is asserted by himself in his eleventh proposition How he will reconcile himself with himself I know not well Yet sure his following words are so far from mending the matter that they make it worse which are That they speak not of a previous motion in order of time but in order of nature Neither his proposition nor any part of his Doctrine for any thing can be learned insinuateâ—h any such thing 2. This motion must so far preceed the setting about duty as that the persons perception of the motion must be interjacent according to them For they teach that before duty we must not only be acted by the Spirit but know that we are acted Ergo the motion must be previous in order of time And yet the man is so fraughted with a desire of altercation that he must say some what though he have not much advantage by it otherwise he had not challenged his Adversary as a Calumniator while by the same very expression taxed by himself he is forced to a distinction unheard of heretofore as I think in this matter and in reality a real contradiction of his own Principles And again he alledgeth he is wronged because his Antagonist inferreth from his words in his eleventh Proposition That according to him Gospel-worship putteth away all external Actions But he needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their words Some other things he hath which he calleth Calumnies One thing he taketh very ill and that is that his Antagonist pag 418. compareth the Quakers to the old Pythonicks because of the strange and unusual motions among them Antick fits and strange Pranks I alwayes compared them in such fits to the Cumean Cybil as she is described by Virgil in his 6 Eneid To this he retorts the extraordinary working of the Spirit of God mentioned in the fulfilling of the Scripture called the Stwarton sickness challenging us to assign a difference between this and the strange influence of the Quakers spirit upon them which we can with great facility do for beside that these out-lettings of the Spirit of God made them to cleave more closly to the Scriptures as the only Rule and Star to guide them through the sea of this world to the safe port of their eternal rest And endeared more and more unto the Ministers of Christ Jesus his word and Sacraments we mean that which the Quakers call Water-Baptism the Communion of the Lords Body in Bread and Wine as sure pledges of the Love of Christ commanded by him to be used until his coming to Judgment which are openly contemned and vilified by the Quakers We say beside this these outlettâ—ngs were far from leading them into such strange and unheard of fits as the Quakers are put into of which I could instance a Legion of sure Examples see a late piece written by a new English Minister Mr. Increase Meather See also Paget's Heresiography where he bringeth among other strange Pranks of theirs to which they were moved by the Spirit One Susanna Parsons a zealous Quaker attempting to raise one of their number who had murdered himself from the dead but in vain And this iâ— attested by all the Magistrats of a considerable City in England viz. Worster Anno 1659. See also a little piece called Foot out of snare of the strange and antick influences of this their Spirit on one Iohn Toldervei What shall we say of Iames Naylor who following the Light of this Spirit did arrogat to himself divine honour at Bristol Now though they say he recanted this again it is all one matter For this Antiscriptural Spirit which is their principal Rule can no doubt change it self as it seeth occasion And having too much bewrayed it self with the grossness of its Delusion can easily turn it self to a more subtile way of imposture So that we may in a word say that the difference between the workings of the Spirit of God on his people mentioned in Scripture and these of the faâ—her of lies and deceits on the Pythonicks or Cybills was no more palpable than the difference between the working upon these mentioned by him and that upon the Quakers He sayeth moreover that the story of Gilpin who as Paget sheweth us was mad through Quakerism is refuted long ago But forgetteth to tell by whom or where Next he cometh to wipe off the absurdity of their silent waiting that this their abstracting of their mind from all thoughts so that the soul doth not at all act upon any kind of Object Which posture they say prepareth them for the Spirits motion And this is the result of their asserting that a man ought to do nothing of the Service or Worship of God except they know that they are moved thereto by the Spirit Now such an inturning for he counteth it a great wrong in his Adversary to call it introversion is not possible unto a man except he be sleeping as the experience of the generality of men witnesseth who still perceive their Souls acting upon some Object either good or evil except they be sleeping or in an extasie And so this is a direct following of the Heathens who went and sleeped at the Temples or Groves of their gods that they might have conference with them in dreams But they used to take sheep-skins and ly upon as Virg. in his 7 Book speaking of Latinus which if the Quakers do or not I am uncertain Now in his defence of this pag 147 being challenged as guilty of this absurdity by his Antagonist among other words he hath these viz. If he would understand it of the old man the man of sin that is corrupted we wil say with the Apostle that it ought to be crucified and die And again he sayeth that albeit in one sense they are said to die yet they more truely live and exist citing Gal. 2 20. And this is the substance of what he sayeth on this point To which I answer it is well that at length they forsake their prime Opinion or Characteristical note Hitherto he with his brethren were defending the relinquishing of all thoughts whatsoever in order to the Spirits Motion and our setting about of duty now he only defendeth the leaving of Carnal thoughts But he doth not consider that this Cheat will easily be perceived For there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving For I hope he moveth when and where he listeth Now I say at this time as man cannot Act yea or think warrantably of the things of God according to them Because