he worship the Crocodile Ibis Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians yea a man may believe or do whatever cometh into his brain for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular as for Example Robert Anthonie or Christopher forbidden or commanded to do any thing According to this principle also they deny all Means and helps for expounding of the Scriptures all Commentaries and Expositions witness amongst others these words of Geo Fox in his Primmar to Europe Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity and that upon this ground because as he sayeth these Words are not found expresly in Scripture The same way Rob B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn 2.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the words at the first sound and without any explication or clearing of them argumenteth from them He that hath an Anointing abiding in him teaching him all things so that he needs no man to teach him hath an inward and immediat Teacher and hath some things inwardly and immediatly revealed unto him The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34 So that whatever they say or can say to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie but just Charge they shall only twist Contradictions the faster And suitable to this Doctrine iâ— the Practice of Quakers who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World that they are Illuminat as the Prophets and Apostles were yes if not more have never yet for any thing I can learn benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless and unworthy except by detorting of them to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat as they would bear us in hand there can be no reason Alledged whey they benefit not the World by illustrating the Scriptures with clear Commentaries and such Helps as may be most 〈◊〉 for understanding thereof if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good which I think they will not say Or else that all such Help are superfluous And indeed this they stick not to say publishing to the World in Print that all Catechetical Doctrine â—nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist learned from Papists yea the very Scriptures themselveâ— they call by way of Deâ—raction the Letter in by Divinity worse Add to all this their Doctrine of silent waiting their railing against studied Sermons and explications of Scripture And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures according to the Example of Christ Jesus but in stead thereof the Light within These and many other things which might be said sufficiently evince that this their Revelation or new Light is unto them in place of Commentaries Catechismâ— or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures yea and the Scriptures themselves So that this one Darling of theirs renders all others needless Moreover they deny with the old Manichees that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us and as for the N. T. William Pen saith that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost and sticketh not to say that without their Spirit we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends Add to all this that this Doctrine of the Quakers viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and manners or chief Judge of Controversies is downright Popish and as good reason they should be both their Arguments to prove it and their Answers to our Arguments against it altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists which might easily be illustrat in every particular Some Examples we have given already to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18 From which place we usually reason that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated to which place the Papists answer that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone and that it will no more follow from this place that Traditions ought not to be added to the Scriptures as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners then it will follow from Deut. 4.2 That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay as these may do with the like support of their cause both in his Apologie and Vindication and when Mr. Broun telleth him that this as all the rest is a Popish shift He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But how pitiful and shameful this shift is none see not for can he say that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches which they hold in opposition to papists either this he must say otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause and an Effronted Defender For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens and Iews yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet as they say will affirm that Protestants are Papists or Papists Protestants upon that account Hence it is clear that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point so this Quaker is conscious of it seeing he could not but know that if this shift did him any Service to distinguish him from a Papist It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself and prove him to be no Papist So we see that the very shifts that these men use under the covert of which they may Luâ—k contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine and gross Hypocrisie in refusing the Name when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something which they call the Spirit of God as we have heard and again in contradiction to this the Soul of Christ extended and dilated of which say they every man is a partaker But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the
the Spirit is the principal Rule to them therefore whatever is not done by this inward Command is not of Faith and consequently sin All which they plead for Therefore before this motion come a man may not excercise his mind concerning religious maâ—ters and thoughts â—o endeavour to love fear and walk with God now is this only to relinquish carnal thoughts or the thoughts of carnal things Or was the Apostles living or Christ in him by the life of Mortification and Faith a meer abstracting from all Exercise of the faculties of the Soul. This I think none will say exercising reason And yet this he must say if he speak according to his Principles otherwise they will be necessiâ—â—te to let their reasonings against all worship to which we are premoved by a sensible Enthusiasm or Inspiration of the Spirit fall to the ground which is the substance of Skeen's Queries of which he boasteth 2. We come to the Vindication of some Arguments which by him are called Nibling quibles The first is If there be times appointed by God then according to them the Spirit is limited To which he answereth that they limit times of worship so as not to exclude other times But this answer presupposeth that every duty doth not prerequire immediat Inspiration which is false according to them as George Keith endeavoureth to prove in his book of Immed Rev and to defend in his disput with Aberdeen Students 2. Either these times appointed by them which recur weekly are appointed by God or not If they be not then how dare they keep them as a thing inviolable Seing the Lord determineth the time as well as the nature of the worship to his people And Ieroboam 1 Kings 13. Is condemned for appointing an Anniversary day not appointed by God as well as for changing the Religion Ergo they limit the Spirit in appointing a day perpetually recurring or else they have a previous motion in order to the appointing of every meeting which he doth not assert or grant Here he sayeth he followeth Calvin in denying the Sabbaths morality from whom as also the generality of Protestants we differ in this matter But that he may see his misâ—ake herein and that we neither differ from Calvin in his more deliberat thoughts nor from the generality of Protestants He may ready learned Crawfords Apologetical Exercitation for the morality of the Sabbath day Cap. 2. And there beside both the Fathers generality of Protestants he may find that Calvin himself in his Commentary on the Gen written 27 years after the Institutions sayeth the same that we do Let him see also most Learned Torretin on this head who at large vindicateth Calvin from this Imputation Next he sayeth That none can be fitter for the Worship of God than such as make silence and in turning of the mind necessary to their entry to Worship And thus he thinketh he has answered his Adversaries Argument pag 413 against their Worship drawn from the Quakers want of preparation But if this in turning were an abstracting from worldly things only and looking unto God and considering our own sinful state and frame and the necessity of holiness in order to approaching unto God he would say well But seing in the same page and with the same breath he reasoneth against this also ridiculously saying that then there should be a progressus in infinitum he only confirmeth that which we have proved before viz. That the Quakers silent waiting is a meer Extasie or all one with sleeping And contradicteth what he said even now above Here he alledgeth that the Apostles if they had pleased might have written moe Books of Scripture than they wrot and seing they wrote them not I doubt not but the Apostles if this be true may be taxed of neglect of their Duty For I think he will not deny but these Books had beeâ— very useful and that the Apostles were obliged to lay out themselves for the Churches good 〈◊〉 much as they could The Scriptures brought iâ— his Apology for this silent waiting he forgettetâ— to presse therefore his Adversary answers to 〈◊〉 inference from them must stand till he find timâ— to reinstaâ—re his Arguments He referreth us to George Keith his way cast up insinuating that he is the man can prove this Silent waiting But he will just prove it as he has done as soon as any judgeth his Book worthy of an answer Otherwise might he not have borrowed some of his Brothers Arguments to refute his Adversaries Answers as well as throughout the whole of his Books be a debter to Pelagius Bellarmin Socinus Ostorodius Volkellius and the like rather than said stark nought Here he granteth that Peter and Paul had a natural man in which the Devil might work and a Spiritual man which can resist and so contradicteth his Doctâ—ine of Perfection or at least his explication of the 7 of the Rom. for if this be true there is no ground for explaining that place of another then the Apostle himself His following words are arhapsodie or railing in which he all along accuseth his adversarie calling him and his Brethren Priests subintellige of Baal for so the Quakers speak greedy Merchants of Babylon persecuters with more of such stuff Next he granteth that ceasing to do evil is not without all action of the Minde E. when the Quakers think not at all nor exercise the faculties of their soul and consequently have no action of the mind which is their silent waiting they never cease to do evil And it 's like there be too much truth in this Because his adversarie sayeth pag 424. That watching is not a turning inward but a looking outward also Then sayeth he men shut up in a Dungeon could not watch Spiritually the repeating of which is more than the refuting For well he knew that his adversary understood by looking outwardly minding of God and our distance from him and the like Whereas what the Quakers mean by watching and waiting we heard above Mr. Brown out of Doctor Stillingfleet of the Phanaticism of the Church of Rome and out of the Sermons of one Taulerus a Phantastick Monk applauded notwithstanding by Bellarmin and others of the chief Papists from pag 429 to the end of that Chapter evinceth that the Quakers in this point not only in substance but for the most part in expressions agree exactly with the wildest dottages of Popery To which he answereth that his adversary misseth his Aim For he cannot prove sayeth he that the chief preachers amongst the Quakers ever heard of Taulerus Ans. yea on the contrary he gaineth his design for thus it is evinced that there is a great sibness betwixt their genious's which he confirmeth the more while he granteth the truth of the bulk of what Taulerus sayeth Section II. Of Baptism The contempt the Quakers vent against the Sacraments is so well known that it will be superfluous to tell the Reader in the entrie that they deny them
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
Gods Power for thus they with abominable Suenchfeldius understand Rom. 1.16 then the meaning of Mark 1.1 must be the Beginning of the Power of God of Iesus Christ the Son of God which place if it have any Sense thus understood must have a black one viz. That the Power of God. i. e. God Himself was not before Mark wrote his Book or else that the first Verse is a lie let them chuse which of them they will admit 2. But with no less Earnestness and Industrie do these men labour to clothe the Scriptures with base Epithets and contemptible Aspersions than to bereave them of the honourable Titles and Divine Encomies of which God their Author hath thought them worthy not unlike the Heathens who the better to induce Lions and other Wild-beasts to devour the Christians sewed them in Skins of other Beasts hated by these to whose Fury they exposed them This Charge I make out by these following Expressions of the Quakers for they ordinarly call the Scriptures the Letter and by way of Disparagement Writings as the Queries given to Mr. Iohn Alexander witnesse such a Letter about the meaning of which not two are agreed Robert Barclay's Apolog. cap. 2. Ink and Paper Cited by Mr. Hicks in his Dialogues Pag 41 And that It is Idolatry to call the Scripture a Means George White-head in his D. P. pag. 13. and account them no better than an old Almanack witness Hollbrow cited by Hicks pag 20. And that it is dangerous for People to read them Fox and Huberthorn in Truths Defence pag. 101. And that Faith grounded on the Scriptures is but an empty and implicite Faith and bespeaks such Persons void of the knowledge of God Christ and to be yet in their sins And that such Men walk in their own Fancies and Imaginations Christ ascended pag. 11. and that that which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any to wit of the Quakers Is of as great Authority as the Scriptures yea greater George White-head in his Apolog. pag. 49 And he that perswades the People to let the Scriptures be a Rule of Faith and Practice would keep the People in darkness for whoever walketh by the Rule without them teach men so to do would make void the Covenant of Life and Peace Edward Burrows pag. 62. And that is no Command to me which is a Command to another Neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another Edward Burrows pag. 47. And again he says such as go to Duty in imitation of the Letter which was a Command to others their Sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord. And Pag. 105. That they that take up a Command from the Scriptures are in the Witchcraft And that if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ Sayes one Nicolas Lucas cited by Mr. Hicks Dialog 2. Pag. 5. and evinced by him against Pen Dialog 3. pag 86. Moreover William Pen in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo pag 70. Saith but we have good Reason to deny them to be the Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversies which can neither give nor govern Faith nor judge of Controversies and again pag. 73. In short The Scriptures are not the Rule but a Declaration of Faith and Knowledge And Chap. 3. pag. 35. He endeavoureth what he can to render the Scriptures altogether uncertain Saying I cannot but observe after what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been both first Collected and then conveyed through the several succeeding Ages And again Are we sure that the Iudgment of those who Collected them was sufficient to determin what was Right and what not For that which gives Scripture its Canon is not plurality of Voices but that Word of God which gave it forth If that Divine Counsellour preceeded not what assurance have our Anti-revelation-adversaries of their Doctors Choice and granting that they have not rejected any Writing given forth by the Holy Ghost which is a great Question and that which they have given us was in the main Writ by his Inspiration which I believe Yet how we shall be assured that in above 300 years so many hundred Copies as were doubtless taken should be Pure and Vncorrupted Considering the private Dissensions the readiness of each Party to bend things to their own Belief with the growing and succeeding Faults of leaving out adding transposing c. which Transscribers might be guilty of perhaps more through Carelessness than Design is beyond Iohn Faldo's Skil upon his principles to inform us From hence we may observe the uncertainty of John Faldo's Word of God who by Authorities can never prove the Scriptures to be given forth by Inspiration nor that they are truly collected neither could these Persons who first made them Canonical be assured of the exactness of those copies they then found Extant Nor was the Collectors Iudgment infallible And to come nearer to our Times Learned Men tell us of little less than 3000 several Readings in the Scriptures of the New Testament in Greek Thus ye see he laboureth with all his Pith to overthrow the extrinsical Arguments whereby the Divinity of the Scriptures is proved And on the other wing of this Ethnick Army Robert Barclay Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures saying in his Apolog. Chap. 2. That they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue placed in these Writings and in his Vindication I had almost said Abridgment of his Apology he denyeth That there is any stamp of Divine Authority upon the Scriptures and impiously ascribeth the same to some other Spirit separate from and besides the Scriptures which cannot be the Spirit of God Seeing he himself asserteth elsewhere That this Spirit is in all men and the Scripture saith That some men have not the Spirit of God. But shall not the Scriptures which were dictate by the living God carry something of the Stile of the Author Shall the writings of Livy Virgil or Cicero carry such Evidences that they were theirs So that a Humanist may distinguish the True from the Counterfit although he had never heard these men immediatly relate Sing or Declaim Surely this will be denyed of none but a Quaker Shall then God himself be outstripped and overcome by these Writers The Scriptures then according to the Quakers have no Majesty of Stile no harmony of Parts no Scope of the whole c. Nor any such Notes whereby they may declare themselves to be the Dictates of the Living God. Hence we may see That these men are fitter Companions for Porphyrie and Celsus the two Heathnish Champions than for a Christian seeing they bend all their Wit and Skil to revive again Heathnisme under the name of Quakerisme I shall only add for confirmation of my Assertion the Words of Benjamin Furly a Quaker in Rotterdam cited by Mr. Hicks in his Quakers appeal answered pag. 16. There is nothing Sayes he
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
the left and to the decision of which they were ultimately bound to stand in all Doubts and Controversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from Gods written Law they were commanded not to swerve or stray to the Right hand or left and were bound ultimately to stand to its Decision in all doubts and Controversies and that under highest paines Therefore to them it was the primary Rule the Major Proposition is incontrovertible The Minor is proved from two most pregnant places of Scripture Deut. 5.31 32. and 17 9 10 11. In both which places by the Law is to be understood that which God gave unto the Iews by Moses in writing as is evident to any that read the Texts Which Texts have been egregiously vindicat by our Divines writing against Bellarmin and the rest of the asserters of papal infallibility with whose shifts I am certain all that the Quakers can say will be found to co-incide 2. This Minor Proposition is clear from Is. 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to these it is because there is no light in them The first Shift that the Quakers use to elude the force of this Scripture with is that by Law Testimony is meaned the light within So sayeth Robert Barclay in both Apology and Vindication but for this exposition we must take their word for none of them giveth the least colour of Reason for it But that by this Law the Scriptures are to be understood these following Texts evince Exod. 32.15 and 34.29 Deut. 31.24 26. 2 King. 22.8 Nehem 8. v. 3 8. Psal. 78.5 Again God commanded that even the King himself and consequently the rest of the people Deut. 17.18 19. Should live according to this written Law to the end be might fear the Lord under which all the Duties of Religion are ordinarly comprehended Now shal any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose that the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discussing thereof or that tho the Kings doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law he was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him I say who in his wit will believe this yea to think so is to deny the immutability of God. Moreover this is by far the more frequent acceptation of the Word Law or Testimony Hence when the saving Work of Grace is understood by the Word Law there is something added whereby we may understand that the Word Law is to be taken in a more unusual acceptation as Rom. 7.23 and 8.2 But we need say no more for they sufficiently overthrow this their Exposition in that they give nothing for the proof thereof except it be their own most absurd Hypothesis But Robert Barclay hath yet another shift he granteth that this place may be understood of the Scriptures and asserteth that this is only spoken to the Jews and therefore that to them the Scriptures were a more principal Rule than to us and that as they were to try all things by the outward Law so we are to try all in the first place by the word within and accuseth his Antagonist of base disingenuity for leaving out these words in the first place And granteth only that the Scriptures were a more principal Rule to the Iews but denyeth that they were the primary Rule Ans. Whatever be understood by Law and Testimony in that place whether it be the Scriptures or Spirit it must be the primary Rule for to this Law they were ultimately bound for the Law and Testimony spoken of here was the ultimate and Principal Rule because whatever was spoken not according to these was to be rejected as the product of darkness 2. It is evident that this Law and Testimony here spoken of is the absolutely principal and ultimate Rule because to seek to it is all one with seeking unto God The Text is Let a people seek unto their God viz. speaking in the Law and Testimony which is put for one and the same thing Hence we see that this Law and Testimony here spoken of was the absolutely principal Rule to the Jews In the third place the Charge of disingenuity that he layeth to his Adversary is altogether groundlesse for certainly he or any man else of Sense and Reason was bound to understand those words In the first place in the one branch of the Parallel as well as in the other otherwise his Parallel will not only hault but prove wholly lame and without sense now seing as I think he will not deny that his Adversary ought to suppose he had to do with a Man of sensâ— and Reason who dealt but rationally in understanding both Branches of the Parallel to run alike He ought not thus to accuse him but seinâ— he will have himself to be thus understood to thâ— end that he may evite a self Contradiction let uâ— see if he have any advantage hereby Now the 〈◊〉 why he maketh his Parallel so manked is that 〈◊〉 may not be compelled to grant the Scriptures 〈◊〉 have been the primary Rule to the Jews and so this he earnestly pleadeth but if they were not a primary and principal Rule to them and so but a secondary Rule only and yet have not such a high and principal place under the New Testament as under the old then they shal not be so much as a secondary Rule to us and therefore but a tertiary only And if this be not beside a Contradiction to the Quakers own concessions who grant the Scriptures to be a secondary Rule a complex of most horrible impiety most wild and absurd nonsense that can readily be imagined I leave to the whole Christian World to judge from which many other wild dottages clearly flow such as The Spirit it self is but a secondary Rule even altho it be a Rule or else that although the Church have a tertiary yet it wants a secondary Rule with these and many other such horrid and most nonsensical Consequences is this Doctrine of the Quakers inseparably attended And whereas in the last place he requireth proof wherefore Mr. Brown rejecteth the version of the Septuagint we shal only referre him to solid Baillie in his Chronology and acute Voglesange in his Theological exerciâ—rations where he will find the Septuagint rejected with Reason enough Thus far Robert Barclay George Keith the other Champion of the Quakers in hiâ— Book against Mr. Iohn Alexander falsly called Truth Defended its true name being Truth depraved Pag 80 Shewetâ— his cause to be mortally wounded with the force of this Scripture Argument for he dare not expresly deny that by Law and Testimony the Scriptures are to be understood indeed he really granteth it in that he adventureth not to handle any of the places of Scripture brought by Mr. Alexander for the proof thereof and yet he detaineth the Truth captive and wiâ—l not confesse that which he dare not deny The
without which other Tests or Rules we might be deceived and misled then the Scriptures could not in truth be called able to make the Man of God wise through Faith unto Salvation But we need not insist for how clear soever the matter be little Justice Truth or fair dealing is to be expected at the hands of those who call Scriptures compared Scriptures perverted and deny that as false the Truth of which themselves cannot but see for I query what difference can be imagined between these two phrases able to make Timothy which was a man of God wise unto Salvation and able to make the Man of God perfect To abuse the Scriptures at this rate I think is gross and impious enough and yet no better all along doth this Author treat them Of which a pregnant Example followeth for Vind. pag. 41. in opposition to Mr. Brown proving the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures from Ioh. 20.31 2 Cor. 3 14. Psal. 119.70 He saith that from this Doctrine it would follow that all Boâ—ks written after such a time were superfluous If this answer be sufficient many a superfluity there shal be in Scripture for if the writing of a Book after there are so many written as contain all things necessary for Faith and practise if we say the writing of another Book which may be either explicative of the Books before written or contain many things for the bene esse of a Christian be superfluous how much more then shall the repetition of the same things in the same words and the same method be superfluous but according to him the former is true well then the Quakers Conclusions are that the scriptures are Battologies Lastly for we love rather to plead by the weight than by the multitude of Arguments we evince that the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and primary Rule of Faith and manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves And first that they are an adequat and compleat Rule is granted by R. B. who Vind. pag. 36. speaketh thus next he carps at my saying the chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in the Scriptures asking where we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith I answer freely In the Scripture And again R. B and George Keith with joint suffrages grant that the Scriptures are a full enough Declaration of all Doctrines and principles both essential and integral of the Christian Religion Quak. confirm or rather self confuted pag. 38. Behold Reader thou hast our Adversaries granting to their own Contradiction all we plead for The other Branch viz. that they are the Primary Rule our Adversaries themselves also at unawares grant for Rob Barclay in his second These sayeth that the Spirit is not to be subiected to the outward Testimony of the Scriptures as a more noble Rule where it is clear that according to him the Spirit may be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as to a more noble and certain Rule Now this being granted the Cause is yielded for it is certain that a primary rule is in no case to be subjected unto its secondary or the Rule which is ruled by it For I think the Acts of Parliament are not at all to be subjected to these of an inferiour Court. Now if the Quakers would hold by this and grant that a man swerveth not from his duty tho he subject all suggestions and motions to the Scriptures as a sure Tryal and Test thereof let them call it a more noble Rule or what they will they might the more easily be born with But it is evident by their pleading for the Spirit as their primarie Rule that they will in no Case subject their impulses and Motions to the Scriptures Our Adversaries grant also That the Scriptures have proceeded from God and therefore infallible Now I hope that which is infallible needs not be subjected unto and tryed by a more sure Rule for more sure than infallible is impossible I know nothing they can say except that which G. K. said on the stage at Aberdeen That we may beguile our selves with them viz. by interpretation thereof To which I answer That the effective illumination of the Spirit of God is sufficient to secure us from this hazard which is no more objective Revelation than the Eye-salve is the Sun. 6. But our Adversaries soon repenting of their Liberality endeavour to overthrow all their own Concessions and to prove that the Scriptures are neither an Adequate nor Primarie Rule some of their Objections we shall name that the Reader may Judge of the rest And first they Object out of Bellarmine de Certitudine Iust. That the Scriptures cannot shew unto a man that he hath true Faith for say they as the Jesuite did before them Such a mans Name is not in all the Word of God For altho the Scriptures contain the true marks of Faith who shall perswade me that I have these Marks that I believe that I obey Thus R. B. reasoned in his Apologie To which his Antagonist answereth ' That it is no less absurd to say that this is the work of a Rule than for R. B. Supposing that he had killed a man to deny that the Law could put him to death because no Law saith that R. B. hath killed a man or to deny that he is a Quaker because the Law sayeth no such thing of him in particular To which he replyeth Vind. pag. 45.46 That such examples are poor Arguments and miserably halt for R. B. saith he his Confessing himself to be a Quaker acknowledging every one of their Doctrines is enough to prove him one in the sense of the Law of the Land and the Judge is to condemn him as a Murderer if convict by witnesses that he really did the dead and both these relate to outward things which can be proven by outward Testimonies for without the certainty of the evidence the Judge cannot pronounce his Sentence But is a mans own confessing or affirming that he hath the true Maâ—ks of Faith enough to prove he has them and what are the Witnesses to apply the examples of committing of Murder by which a man shall know he has these Marks and who shall examine the witnesses and judge of the certainty and clearness of their Evidence must it be the man that is accused who useth that method Ans. 1. Both Doctrine and proof he hath learned from his old friend Bellarmin who de Cert Iust. calleth the same Sophism a Theological demonstration contradicting not only the Scriptures but divers of the Papists themselves as Amesius sheweth Bellarmin also accounteth this Inspiration of the Quakers the only way whereby a man can be firmlie assured of his having Faith or that he shall have Salvation And therefore appropriateth it to St. Francis and St. Galla and the like which dottage is sufficiently refuted exploded and derided by Ames and others who have undertaken the Refutation of Bellarmin Hence we may see that if there be 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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
monsters of men that which is a spiritual Substance is infinit of it self and not a Creature and therefore God himself For none will deny that both the Souls of men and the Devils themselves are spiritual substances Hence it will follow that God or a part of God as they most blasphemously speak committeth sin which confirmeth that which we said before viz. that according to the Quakers Doctrine God is the Author of sin From this Monstruous Doctrine it also followeth that God or a part of God is condemned and is and shall be tormented in Hell for ever It followeth also from this Doctrine that God is divided in parts and that one part of him is Bishop and Ruler over another These and a thousand other such hellish Blasphemies follow upon this Doctrine in which it is needless to insist For as Calvin said Fatuitas dogmatis me securum reddit The very Poison it self being so black and hellish at its very first appearance carrieth along with it a sufficient Antidot For we may well Cry out with Photius Col 403. of the wicked Maniehean and Heathnish â—aâ—er of Christ Agapius who was the Quakers Ancestor in this Blasphemy O hudge madness and indeed if such a sad matter did permit any Jesting One might readily phansie that the Devil were now doting through old Age for certainly he seemeth to be deprived of his ordinarie Slight and Subtility that could find no gilding or Varnishing whereby to cover the Superlative Impiety of this Doctrine but what he wanteth in Deceit he hath requited in Strength who could thus Captivat and Impose upon the Judgement of Rational Animals so that they drunk down this Potion so manifestly pestiferous Several of these passages were cited by Mr. Broun The palpable abominableness of which wholly rendred them incapable of any Defence or shew of any honest meaning And the manifest Evidence thereof from the Quakers own Books made them altogether undenâ—able Therefore Robert Barclay as he dealeth with all the rest passeth them over with Silence And yet as if a Sport could have diverted any serious Man from the abhorrency of Quakerism in the last Section of his Vindication he maketh himself ridiculous saying that Mr. Hicks who cited some of these passages Succumbed in a Disput against the Quakers and from this giveth out that Hicks and such others are not to be believed say what they will of the Quakers notwithstanding that Robert Barclay adventureth not to challenge either Mr. B. or Hicks of any particular miscarriage in their particular Citations of the Quakers Books This was therefore a strange Influence and more admirable than that of the Remora upon a Ship that Hicks his supposed failing had on this multitude of blasphâ—mous passages that it loosed R Bar and his Brethren from any Obligation to answer for them though they be to be found exactly as they are cited He here mentioneth several Books written by Quakers as answers to what Hicks and Faldo hath said and among thers Pen's Invalidity of Faldo's Vindication In which book Pen sometimes proclaimeth himself a Sadducee as in the point of Resurrection sometimes a Papist as in the point of Justification At other times more Antichristian than most of Pagans Endeavouring with might and main not only to robb the Holy Scriptures of their Divinity but also of common Sense Of which Doctrine the Reader hath gotten a taste above And O that it might be the lot of all the obstinate Opposers of the Truths of God thus to bewray at once both Weakness and wickedness even when they think to appear like so many Goliahs for strength and to Justifie their Adversaries Charge even while they attempt the removal thereof as William Pen hath done This horrible Impiety these men following the Manicheans whom Augustin de Civ Dei. Lib. 7 Cap 2 8. de Genesi ad Lit. refuteth both in principles and Probation father upon the Holy Scriptures viz. Gen 2 7. where it is said That God breathed into mans nostrils the Breath of Life or Lives On this place also Roâ— Bar. Vind Sect 5 par 1 foundeth or at least seemeth to found his opinion of a Substantial Light and Seed distinct from the Soul that remained with Adam after his fall But these Opinions though contrary to one another are both contrary to the Truth For there is nothing either in the Words and Phrases or Scope and Context that favoureth either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in the least favour either of them which according to the consent of the best Hebreans is to be taken Metaphorically and efficiently not properly sive instar Causae materialis materially Neither doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 help them any more which according to the mind of all sound Interpreters as Pareus on the place sheweth and Lexicographers as Buxtorf Lewsden Bithner Leigh signifieth only the rational Soul of man. Hence the Opinion of Rob Bar. is overthrown Moreover this word is used Isa. 2.22 where the holy Ghost sayeth that Mans breath is in his nostrils to the end that he may demonstrate the frailty of man. Hence we may conclude that nothing of God or of his Divine Nature can by the force or significancy of this word be necessarily imported 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifieth Beasts as well as Men All the forecited Authors understand by it the Soul of man And tell us that these who are no more critical considering it is in the plural number take Sensitive as well as Rational here to be meaned Others judge this Criticism to be neglected because that oftentimes in the Hebrew a word is Voce pluralis significatu singularis Vide Leigh Critica Sacra pag 72. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet further confirmeth that no other thing is to be understood in this place but the soul of man. For the Dust of the Earth formed by God into the Body of man and this breath of Life became a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a living Soul as also that the Soul of man is nothing Divine properly so called Seing this word sometimes signifieth the body of man. As Psal. 16.10 and elsewhere signifieth any living creature Moreover the scope of the place which is to repeat more fully the Creation of man which in the former Chapter was more shortly hinted at evinceth that there is nothing here to be understood but the creation of the Soul and Body of man. But we need not insist to prove our negative from this place seing this is the only place on which our Adversaries build their Affirmatives It is enough for us to challenge them to bring forth the least appearance of reason for them which as they have not done hitherto so shall never be able to do Again as they to the horrour of all men elevat the Creature not only to an equality but an Identity with the Creator and so make that which is lesse than nothing all in all and God over
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