desire thou may consider That there is not one of the thirteen wherein he hath not either grosly belyed or deceitfully misrepresented us And in some things these Anabaptists as in his twelsth Instance for which he hath cited no Book he alledgeth they denyed the Lawfulness of all Warrs Wheras Sleidans Commentaries lib 5. Mieneer incited the Boors of Germanie to undertake the Holy Warr as he called it against the Princes Telling them That he was commanded of GOD to cut off all wicked persons and Princes And how well this agrees with the Presbyterian practises and Doctrines is but too nottour Read the Hynd let loose and Zions Plea Fol 262. Strick the Basilick Veine Nothing but this will cute the Pleurisee of our State And to say That they were for Libertie of Consâ—ience is no less inconsistent with their Practises for they laboured to propagate their Religion by the Sword And so did our Presbiterians Yea and put themselves under a necessity so to do by a solemn Oath Only the difference betwixt Muneer and the Presbiterians was this I lle crueem seeleris preâ—ium tulit hi diadema There was another Doctrine common to them both Anabaptists and Presbiterians Viz all is Durs Which Text they expounded thus That all the wealth of the World belonged properlie to the Saints and whatsoever other men possessed was but by usurpation Agreeable to this was the practise of our Presbiterians who after they had got possession of the Kings Revenue the Bishops Rents the Papists Estates and these they called Malignants and were squeezing the Nation with insupportable Cesses and Excise They at last devised a trick how the Israelite might robe the Aegyptian by forcing every man who was not as Zealous as the servency of the times required To lend them his money upon the publick Faith commonly called the Blind Bonds which Faith certainly will never justifie them For the wicked borrweth and paveth not again Yet in all this the Judgement of GOD was visible for the most part of them who gote the spoil of their Native Country lest their Heirs in a worse condition then they might have done if they had never meddled By all this it is evident That the Mans malice hath blindfolded him and that all his Lies and Perversions cannot help his bad cause But their enmity and hatred to Truth drives them on tho they might remember that he who hates his Brother is a murtherer and no murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him Had it not been as easie for him to have said The Lollards taught several Doctrines which the Quakers hold and which we have neglected tho we desire to be accounted their Successors Such as First It is not lawful to Fight for the Faith Secondlie That Tiths ought not to be paid to Ecclesiastical Persons Thirdlie That every faithful Man and Woman is a Priest Fourthly That in no case it is lawful to Swear Fifthly That true Christians receive the Body of Christ every day c. All these we should have acknowledged tho this backsliding and degenerat Tribe have denied them Next we come to his third Argument against Divine immediat Revelation viz If the Spirit or the Light within every Man were the Supream and Principal Rule then these who persecuted to Death the Apostles and Saints of God did not Sin in so doing but I am sure the latter is false Ergo the former To prove the Consequence of the Major he citeth Paul and John 16. 2. alledging That Paul walked according to his Light and that his Light taught him that according to all he had for Light he ought to do many things against the Professors and Servants of Jesus Christ Answer Let the Reader observe First His constant disingenuity whereof he hath been so often found guilty For he should have said If the Teachings of the Spirit of Christ and His Light wherewith He hath enlightned every Man be the principal Rule c. Which would have urged upon Blasphemy if the rest of his Argument had been added to it Which notwithstanding is the true state of the Controversy Secondly Observe how blind the Man is for he hath fallen in the Ditch he digged for us Paul saith he according to all that he had for Light Ought to do many things against the Servants of Jesus c. But Paul had the Scriptures and was learned in the knowledge of them for Light Ergo according to our Author Paul according to the Light of the Scriptures ought to persecute the Saints Thirdly By this Argument the Old World yea all who lived before Moses wrote had no Sin because no Scripture and the Light of Christ and Teachings of the Spirit was no sufficient Rule to them All the Mahumitans and Pagans at this day have no Rule therefore no Sin These are the wild Consequences of this Argument Fourthly His instancing Paul is very impertinent For Paul had the Scriptures and was one of them who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures and no doubt he thought them a Rule for his persecuting the Saints For he said he had lived blemlesly according to the Low And therefore it could be no other thing but the Light of Christ and the teachings of his Spirit which brought Paul to a better Understanding And whereas he saith in his next Argument That Paul never counteracted his Light was always of the same Judgement and therefore never had a true Light till the day of his Conversion This clearly contradicts the Scriptures and the experience of all Ages John 12 Chap. 36. While ye have Light believe in the Light that ye may be the children of the Light Hence it is clear Men have Light before Conversion or becoming Children of Light And again he said John 3. 19. The condemnation of the World was not for want of Light but for Loving darkness more then Light Every Servant received a Talent and it was said From him that had not shall be taken away even that which he hath All which intimats that it is not want of Light but not believing in nor taking heed to the Light that causeth Men to err And Prov 1. 23. Turn ye at my Reproof behold I will pouer out my Spirit upon you c. 24. I have called and ye refused and I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded verse 25. Ye have set at naught all my Counsells and would none of my reproofs 30 They would none of my Counsel they despised all my reproofes therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own waies Hence it is manifest That CHRIST the Light the Wisdom of GOD calls reproves stretcheth out his hand oflers his Councils even to such as reject him and do not regard him and therefore are at last rejected by him And lastly The Experiences of all Ages sheweth that it is a Law engraven or imprinted on the Souls of all men not to do that to another which we would not should be done to our selves
false except his ipse dixit And therefore I may not take his word Secondly What had all the Patriarchs before Moses Law and even Moses himself to try their Revelations by Yet they believed them upon their own self evidence Yea Balaam who had no well disposed Intellect yet knew and believed his Revelations to be Divine And Lastly Doctor Barron in his Book against Turnbul saith That the most noble kind of Revelation is that which is by intellectual speaking or illumination as Thomas and Swarez teach Thirdly He saith We insinuate That the Apostle in this Comparison gave out that one of the things compared was more certain than the other Which saith he is most false Seing considered in themselves both have all certainly possible But in respect of us saith he The Scriptures are more sure because less subject to be counterfeited or wrested either by the Devil or our own fancie But here it seems he hath forgotten himself for this same Apostle hath told us that the Scripture can be wrested But who saith that the teachings of the Spirit of truth can be so None but Patroclus And so the comparison holds that which can be wrested is less sure then that which cannot be wrested He adds the Apostle hath his eye upon his Country men And so have I upon mine who pretend so much to the Scriptures and yet wrest them grosly to their own damnation Page 46. comes to prove that by these words more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures after he hath told us that albeit immediat Revelation were meant or understood by the more sure word of Prophesie it would be no advantage to us because it is recommended to us As that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures and so not the Principal rule but a means to explain the Principal Rule and for this he brings no proof but we must take his word and then he will make us Quid libet ex quo libet First He saith by these words a more sure word of Prophesie is understood the Scriptures because any phrase of the like import is alwayes taken for the Scriptures as Luke 16 29. Eph 2. 20. Matt. 7. 12. And yet he confesseth in a Parenthesis the words Logos Propheticos are not to be sound in all the Scripture besides but by the words Law and Prophets are meant the Scriptures Ergo by the more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures This is a non seqitur with a witness The rest of his arguments such as if our Adversarys were not affronted and impudently bold such as would adventure upon any thing c. and the like Are not worthy of any answer But seeing he would explain one Scripture by another I will help him to one more sit John 1. 4 5. Where it is said In Him was Life and the Life was the Light of men and the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not How like this is to the more sure word of Prophesie which shineth as a Light in a dark place But the life of CHRIST the light in men is a seare Crow to Presbyterian Priests they cannot abide it One reasonless reason he gives us is because men are commended for searching the Scriptures But I would be obliged to him if he would form a Syllogism upon the medium and draw his conclusion from it In page 48 he tells us that Luther Calvin c. Understand it so Is this fare dealing Patroclus Dost thou agree with Luther or even with Calvin in all things If thou say yea I 'le prove that contrary and yet their Testimony must oblige us Then he computes us among Ancient Hereticks but he would not be satisfied if I should compute him and his brethren among Mahumitans for beliving a Stoical Fate Lastly He leaveth us to graple with William Penn's Rejoynder page 334 who he sayeth yieldeth to him what we deny To satisfie the Reader I shall set down some of William Penns words He sayeth John Faldo acknowledgeth That the writings of the Prophets are not more true in themselves than any other Revelation of the mind of GOD but more certain with respect to the Jews who bad a greater esteem for and testimony of the writings of the Prophets to be of GOD and not a delusion then of Peters Revelation So that we here have saith William Penn from John Faldo himself The scripture is not set above the Spirit as the more sure word the thing promoted of old by our enemies and which we only oppose For I doubt not but the Scriptures were more lure to the Jews then CHRIST Himself else they would never have thought to find Eternal life in them whilst they neglected yea persecuted him Which whether it was their perfection or imperfection so to do I leave with the judgement of my serious Reader which I likewayes do whether Patroclus be a fair adversary or any honest man He comes next to Luke 16. 31. If they â—ear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded thô one rose from the dead First Let the Reader observe that this is a Parable and that the Presbyterians believe that any such apparitions are but Devils assuming the body or the shape of the dead And therefore any thing may be more certain to them then such a Testimony and we read of none such but that of Samuel to Sâ—ul Secondly This Scripture brings no comparison betwixt the Scripture and the Spirit and whereas he saith let the Quakers prove that every man hath such a spirit as the Quakers alledge this shall come in its own place Next he proveth the Scriptures to be the Primary Rule because otherwise Abraham might have said the Spirit of GOD directeth every man immediatly If they hear not him they will hear none else If Abraham said so it seems Patroclus would have been displeased But a greater then Abraham said so even the LORD JESUS John 14. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things whose teaching are preferable to all the writings in the world seeing he taught them what they wrote and their being dictated by him giveth them all their excellency He saith R Barkclay saying The Scriptures were a written Rule to the Jews only is nothing to the purpose but he should not have belyed him for he saith they were a more principal Rule to the Jews But never that they were a principal Rule to the Jews He passeth by what he said upon the Scripture Viz. Page 40. This Parable was used by Christ to the Jews to shew them their Hypocrisie who albeit they deceitfully pretended to reverence and solâ— low Moses and the Prophets Yet they did not really hear them else they would have acknowledged him of what Moses the Prophets did so clearly write since he did as great and convincing Mitacles before them as if they had
serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth was their Rule Ergo c. The Major I hope they will not deny and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance which was as followeth Die Jovis 6 of July 1643. I A B do seriouslie and solemnlie protest in the presence of Almightie GOD That in this Assemblie whereof I am a Member I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be Truth Or in point of Discipline but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glorie of GOD and to the Good and Peace of the Church Hence it is evident That their Conscience was their Rule But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Errour whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom let Patroclus choose And to help him in his Election he may consult his Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum who a little after he hath told him that his ultimate Rule is a monster Tells him also That nothing can possiblie interpose between the Authoritie of GOD and the conscience and that its dictates are uncontrollable Next he tells us That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil But the Scripture saith not that men are condemned for want of Light But because Light iâ— come into the World but Men love darâ—ness rather than light And also that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men He closeth up this Number accusing R B for confounding the principal Rule and the principal Leader but these are his Acâ—rologian mistakes and not his Adversaries confusion For any man not maliciously byassed may see that he intends no more but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39 saying that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit is more primarie and principallie the Rule than the Scriptures some things written and received only from another This he hath maliciously passed by together with the Question following which he could not answer so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisiâ—al formalities return upon his own head In page 67 He comes to the interpreter of Scripture where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetorick like that of hiâ— Brother Mackquair the Arch-scold saying The Quakers well knowing That if GOD speaking in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them or if the Holy scripture be not â—steemed false ambiguous and nonsenfical then their cause is lost What more malicious and wicked falshood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People who from their Hearts abhore any such thought concerning the Scriptures as to esteem them false ambiguous and nonsensical Or what end could this â—nicâ—ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth Except it be to raise their Beloved Refoâ—meâ—s the Rabble to stone us as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow had almost been stoned to Death by them But he saith The Quakers well knowing c. If this were true we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster Who in chap 23 numb 4 of their Confession say Infidelitie or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authoritie nor free the People from their due Obedience to him While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King a Pious as well as Protestant Prince Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture â—alse ambiguous or nonesensical Wherefore he should have said If the Spirit of GOD which dictated the Scriptures be the only true Interpreter of Scripture then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost As for his phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures and a little after The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort is confessed But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood and in effect a meer sham to amuse his Reader As for example When Patroâ—lus stepeth up into his Pulpit and readeth a sentence of Scripture which may be somewhat obscure As this my Body He begines to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors then of the Lutherian and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text. Now I would willingly know whetheâ— it be GOD or Man that speaks here The First he would be affraid of as Enthusiastiok And if the Second What becomes of his Phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures So the Reader may see That it is a meer humane device to keep up a sordid Trade for by this Trade they have their Living as the Silver Smiths had of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake But let the Reader know That we fully owne the Spirit of GOD which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means such as Reading Meditation Prayer and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures as many of our Friends have published to the World So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following falls to the ground being built upon no one solid Argument But I shal take notice of some of them And First He citeth George Keith Saying We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth but declare themselves Enemies to it To this he Answereth Behold Reader The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine Answer If this be true then Patroclus is a great Liar For in page 32. he saith The Papists have gone too low resolving their Faith ultimatly in Men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo And in that foregoing page placeth themselves in the middle So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists then we And in good earnest any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practises will find the Difference nothing but Pretence For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters then the Papists Only Blessed be the LORD they have not such
may inform us by the next what he intends by these words Whether a Substonce or an accident or only the dim spunks of his extinguished Lantern His next work is is to prove us Pelagians and remits his Reader to his second Chapter which I also do When R B tells J B that the Fathers he cites thought that men might be free from sin by Grace Our Author calls it mancking and clipping and saith Is it not added in the very following words immediatly that none attained that measure of Holiness in this life that he could live any long time without Sin and that this perfection was not full and absolur but which might increass and was mixed with evil deeds so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees Here these Fathers say any long time without sin and therefore I must ask our Author of what extant this long time is I am sure one day is a very short time and no wayes deserves the word long to be added and yet if they grant t is but one day The West minister Divines have done with it for ever I hope our Author will not accuse Augustine of Pelagianism and therefore I must let him see that Augnstine saith as much as R B Also John Humphry perfection page 7 saith Augustine in his second Book Chap 15. De Peo mer rem and de Spiritu Litera hath the luck to treat industriously on this matter Alia est Questio utrum esse possit Homo in hae vita sine pectato Alia utrum sit It is one question whether a man can be in this life without sin and another whether he be so For the former Question he destinguisheth of what is possible by Grace and what is possible by our own strength to hold that any man by his free will only without Grace is able to keep all GOD's Commandments and be without sin is that Grand Pelagian Doctrine against which he sets his face and deâ—astes it But that it is possible to attain this by Grace or the special assistance of GOD's Spirit he thinks it best it seems to grant He thinks it not fit nor safe to say any nor all of GOD's Commandements are impossible Besides Where GOD Vouchsafs his Grace the work he pleads is to be ascribed unto him to whom nothing is impossible And I hope this being all we plead for will forever aquite us of Pelagianism and come pesce all the slanderous tongues of our ignorant and malicious Adversaries As for his Orosms The first is a modest saying like that of R B before mentioned but the second is a heedless expression The man that can be without sin is Christ from which it would follow that Adam was Christ who could have been without sin and once was without it And I hope there are are some now who are clansed from all their Polutions washed and purged from all their sins according to the Scriptures yet are not Christs But because R B saith it is not his work to meddle with what is said against the Pelagians and Socinians he will herefore conclude him a Pelagian and Socinian What triffling is this Beeause our Author will not defend Mahumentism and Judaism therefore he is a Jew and a Mahumetan Is this as good consequence And yet in such doth our Author delight But the best is that he saith Nothing that R B. can say can be of weight against us And why so Patroclus Are Presbyterians Infallible or in accountable Or when came they by this priviledge I thought they had been subject to mistakes as much as other men And here he turns to the Fathers again But the Fathers of the three first Centuries only are reputed Orthodox by Presbyterianâ—â— And it is clear they fall in with Papists there and have as much need of a Purgatory as they His Next is to answer this Viz. That this Doctrine is against the Wisdom of GOD. Our Author answereth Saying he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of GOD whereby they may be free from all sin if they use them well Adding that he mumbleth as one in a confused haste but our Authors hast is much greater For R B hath write a whole page and more upon this Argument and our Author does not take notice of six lines of it But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insinuateth this That the only wife GOD A being to gather to Himself a peculiar People Holy and Righteous And for that Effect sent His Son into the World to save them from their sins and hath given them his Hâ—ly Spirit to sanctifie them throughout and to cleanse them from all sin as the Scripture testifie Now to say that he cannot compass that end is to derogate from the Wisdom of GOD. But he answers This â—â— with great facility denyed for we say saith our Author that it is the Will of GOD that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church triumphant only Sat pro imperio He might have left this to the Pope Now for proof of this hold assertion he saith It is enough to challenge him to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the World except Jesus Christ who never had it but by Imputation Thus the Man who tells us Affirmenti incumbit probatio but he confesseth Infants have no sin but by Imputation And I would fain know when Enoch and Elijah were punged Whether in the World before their Translation or in the Empereal Heaven into which they either entered with their sins or were freed from sin in the World And if so he may tell us with the next how long they were so freed before their Translation for I can assure him they had no need of Purgatory To R B's alledging from J â—'s words That he confessed there was some material service performed to the devil He answereth This objection militats as much against the Apostle Saying Rom 7. That with his flesh he served the law of sin For answer to which I remitt him to the 17 and 20 verses of the same Chapter Neither hath he yet proven that Paul speaks here of his present State as the second verse of the next Chapter doth evince That this Instance will overdo he is mistaken upon his begging the Question that the best and most gracious Action of the Saints are tainted with sin which we must take his word for His next is That it is the Will of GOD that his People be under a warefare so long as they are here To which R B answers But is it the Will GOD that they he alwayes overcome After this he adds his own words in stead of his Adversaries according to his Jugling Custome But let us heat his Answer He saith They are 〈◊〉 alwayes overcome What Is not daily while they are in this Life alwayes If to break the Commands of GOD daily in thought word and deed as long as they live be not alwayes he may tell us the difference next