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
that is to study how he may secure himself from the hazard of a Trial. Hence these men are in all probability beyond the reach of a Conviction but the many Instances not only of other Antiscriptâ—rians but even of themselves who have been most pitifully and palpably acted by the Devil whom they notwithstanding took for God might teach them at length to suspect their Spirit and try before they trust As for the Prophesies of future Events they may well be brought to the Scripture Test to the end we may know whether the thing Prophesied may be expected without contradicting the Scriptures as for Pauls reproof of the Spirit of Divination it is most irrationally Objected Seeing Paul was immediatly Inspired and a Writer of Scripture himself 2â—y This Action was most Consonant to Scripture being abundantly warranted by that promise of Christ Matth 10 to his Apostles that they should cast out Devils They use also many Arguments against the Scriptures being the principal Rule of which the Chief and Ground of almost all the rest with which they stand and fall and therefore meriteth particular Consideration is this the Scriptures are not the Fountain it self but a declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge nor the adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners thus reasoned Rob Barclay in his Appology This consequence is by his adversary judged a Demonstration of the Authors folly pag. 57. as being altogether ridiculous saying who ever dreamed that the Scriptures were God or the Spirit of God To which 〈◊〉 Barclay Vind. pag. 37. thus Replyeth he sayeth I come nearer to the Core of my design which is to set up Enthusiasms in affirming that the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain and yet the Man within three or four lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus â—e goeth backward and forward which he illustrateth by the Example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blamed that account them the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge whither the other branch of my deduction followeth from this That they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and Manners will appear when the Arguments and Objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned and whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my Design because God Himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me For I argue that the Scriptures are not the Original Ground of Knowledge but God not simply considered but as manifesting himself in divine immediat Revelations in the hearts of his children which being the new Covenants Dispensation is the primary and adequate Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians and this may serve to answer all his Cavills upon this Theam Thus he Answer in his Apol. he thus reasoned the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not the principal original of all Truth nor the adequate or primary Rule of Faith. Now this Argumentation which is all one with fallacia plurium interrogationum hath a consequent made up of two parts and therefore there are to be considered here two consequences of which the first or the consequence as to the first part of the inference his adversarie calleth a demonstration of the Authors folly as proving that which never man denyed viz. that the Scriptures are not God himself I add that this is also a demonstration of his Malice for in this his ridiculous argumentation he would perswade the world that the Reformed Churches for against them in that place he bendeth his weapons assert that the Scriptures are God himself Upon this account I say his Adversary accuseth him of folly now in stead of a better off-coming he giveth out that his adversary first denyed his Antecedent and then again presently confessed it whereas he never impugned the Antecedent but blameth him for his consequence of which as we have already said the first part is very ridiculous proving the thing that never one denyed and malicious belieing the whole Reformed Churches and the second part viz. Because the Scriptures are not the Fountain therefore they are not the adequat and primary Rule of Faith a Rope of sand The coherence of which will be made out ad Calendas Graecas He sayeth that the second Branch of his Deduction will appear when the Arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned which is nothing to the purpose in hand for unless he prove that the Scriptures are not the primary and adequate Rule of Faith from this one Topick that they are not the Fountain but a Declaration thereof the argument is gone Hence all this wrangling is but a further proof of his Weakness and Malice In his following Words he confoundeth the Principal Rule and the Original Ground together which are things most distinct and therefore these words are altogether void of good sense or at best they are ridiculous in that they speak nothing to the purpose For he might well have known if he had pleased that by the Primary Rule is understood that which is now among the hands of Christians according to which they ought to examine ultimately all sort of Doctrines and opinions of men or yet suggestions from within concerning divine things and reject or receive as they disagree or agree with this Rule If in this sense he had understood the primary Rule he had not given such mysterious Niceties But the Question is not if God be greater than the Scriptures for as man is above the word of a man so is he above them But the Question is whether or not the Scriptures contain all things necessary in order to Faith and practise and whether or not we ought to see that every Doctrine we embrace be according to them and if swerving from them we ought to reject it tho an Angel from Heaven should teach it Thus we understand the primary Rule and while he doth not so he but mistaketh the Question 2. This Acyrology or improper speech to call a person a Rule is a grand inductive of Confusion for who ever called a teacher a Rule for only the dictats taught are the Rule Here we see that these new Teachers are contrary to all men in their acceptations of Words as well as in Doctrines But whereas he sayeth that he was never so absurd as to call the Spirit of God simply or in abstracto a Rule but as he imprints Truths in the hearts of Believers he doth not answer these things which he calls Cavills for these Rules imprinted
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
Spirit which they make the chief and principal Rule of Faith and manners to which Spirit God himself speaking in the Holy Scripture must do obeisance Which Doctrine although we have already everted in the former chapter we shal notwithstanding here propose and vindicate a few Arguments for the further overthrow thereof and detection of the grosse abomination and horrid delusion attending their principles And first I will propose and vindicate an Argument proposed by Mr. Brown Quakerism the plain way to Paganism pag. 46. Which Argument Robert Barclay attempteth to solve Vind pag. 17. which is this If since the Apostles fell asleep and the Canon of the Scriptures was closed all that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of error then it is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo. c. To this he answers 1. that Mr. Brown begs the Question in his presupposing that there are no Apostles now and that the Canon of the Scriptures is closed against which exception I reassume the Argument thus If since the Apostles whose Names are mentioned in Scripture fell asleep and Iohn wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this kind of Revelation have been led by a Spirit of error then this is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo c. There can now no exception be made against the Mâ—jâ—r for none will deny that the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture are dead and that Iohn hath written the Revelation and well enough he knew that Mr. Brown understood no other thing than what we have now said and yet so covetous hath he been of shifting that he behoved to have one though he could not but know that it would serve no longer than it met with an impugner I now come to his answer to the Minor which Mr. Brown makes evident by an induction of many Sects and Hereticks pretending to immediate Revelation all which are known and not denyed by Quakers to have been led by a Spirit of error to which we may add many of the Quakers themselves such as Iâ— Nailor Susanna Parsons who as Pâ—get relateth being moved by this lying Spirit fruitlesly attempted to raise from the dead another of the Quakers one William Pool by name who had murdered himself and Gilpins of whose lying Spirit see at large in Clerks Examples also Iohn Toldervy of whom see a little Book called foot out of snare Robert Church-man and many others of whom you may read at large in Mr. Increase Maithers Book And he requireth an instance of the contrary which is the only way to answer an Induction In stead of which he sayeth that he is bound to prove that there was never one pretending to immediate Revelation but he was also led of the Spirit of error which he hath done untâ—l he give an instance to the contrary or else shew another way of answering an induction which will be new logick which perhaps he may do for he and his Brethren are very displeased with the old 2 ly That he may not be alone in this sore stresse he saith that Mr Menzies doth thus answer Dempster the Jesuite which is an impudent falshood for neither the Jesuits medium nor probation of his Minor is in the least like the Argument which we now vindicate for the Jesuits Argument was this That Religion cannot be true Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a Religion and conform to the true sense and letter of the Scripture or Word of God and he subsumes But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground c. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion Hence it is evident that these two Argumentations have nothing of consanguinity For if these two Argumentations had stricken alike at the two parties against which they were framed then the Jesuits Argument should have run thus Whosoever since the Apostles fell asleep have pretended to or pleaded for the Scriptures as their principal Rule have fallen into palpable errors and open blasphemy so that they became marks of Gods heavy judgment Now where should the Jesuite have found such a long Catalogue of these as Mr. Brown hath found of deluded Enthusiasts But which is the main thing and quite refutes the most falsly and impiously alledged coincidence of these Arguments how easy should it have been to have adduced not only one instance to the contrary but whole volums thereof yeâ— not only the whole primitive Church for diverse Centuries after Christ and all the Reformed Churches both these whom men are pleased to call Calvinists and Lutherans together with the Greek and Abassine Churches But likewise the most grave wise and learned of the Romanists themselves By this time I hope this arch-falshood of the Quaker whereby he would hide the shame of his desperat cause already appeareth again I answer directly to the Jesuit and the Quaker his patron that if we may believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries such as Bellarmin Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrines which we hold in opposition to popeâ—y are most agreeable to the true Sense of Scripture His third answer is that some of the primitive Protestants such as George Wishart and Iohn Huss had immediat Revelation But nequisquam Ajacem possit super are nisi Ajax that he might be sure no other should refute him he refuteth himself and rendereth his instance altogether unserviceable by granting they did not pretend to it as the ground of their Faith and obedience in all matters of doctrine and worship Lastly to the instance of Ia Naylor they answer that he repented again which answer is an evident confirmation of what we plead for viz· that the Quakers Spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them for I believe Ia Naylor acted but according to his light when he received Divine Worship From this argument we may observe these things first if it hold as cogent this is a serious Truth which he sayeth Vindic. page 25. is absurdly affirmed by Iames Durham as he speaks viz. that Christ spake his last words to the Church that is put a close to these writings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church for if all that pretend the like commission or such immediate Revelation of the rule of their Faith about which the question is were led by a Spirit of error then the Revelation was the last Scripture written and sure for any thing he knoweth ought to be written there is no reason to believe that there is any more to be written 2 ly Observe that this Argument is demonstrative for such are all inductions which have no instance to the contrary 3 ly It destroyes wholly the Quakers cause for this kind of Revelation being disproved the very proprium quarti modâ— of the Quakers is destroyed 2dly Moses and the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and all the holy men that were inspired by
wicked Spirits if he think othewayes let him essay the proof of it 3ly For the sufficiency of their universal Light they thus argue That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin therefore it is sufficient to Salvation But this Sophism is too palpable and gross to take with any that is not altogether willing to be deceived for the Major proposition thereof is most false otherwise the lawful commands of every Parent Heathen as well as Christian should be a sufficient guide to Salvation for disobedience to these is as really a sin as disobedience to our own Light. 4ly To prove that there is a Divine Light purchased by Christ in every man they adduce Iohn 1.9 That was the true Light which enlightneth every man that cometh into the world for Vindication of which place it shall suffice to overthrow what Rob Barclay hath said in the Vindication of his Apology pag 91. For the confirmation of the Quakers gloss on this text of which Mr Broun Quaker path way to Pagan pag 151 152 153 154. had given diverse expositions as 1. that Light may be here taken for the Light of reason 2ly That by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which is savingly enlightned these expositions with others he at large evinceth and illustrateth from Scripture and reason and sheweth that the Quakers joyn with the Socinians in their exposition Now whereas if the Quaker had done any thing to the purpose he ought to have refuted these exposiâ—ions but in stead thereof he sayeth his adversary must be much puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it But this I confess is a strange inference for the Quaker from abundance inferreth penury and because his adversary gave diverse expositions any of which will serve the turn Ergo sayes he he knows not what to answer I was wondering at this Consequence but I presently remembred that the Quakers were Enemies to Logick He himself diverse times hath given several meanings of one place as for Example Isa. 8.20 much therefore he hath been puzled to answer our arguments proving the Scriptures to be our principal Rule which I do really believe tho upon another account Now it is observable that this Quaker almost every where endeavoureth to turn Defendent when he should be impugnant for the Scriptures from which he drew his arguments in his Apology faâ—ling him so that he can prove nothing from them his Adversary having removed the vernishing of his Sophistry he bendeth his whole wit in his Vindication to find out Evasions and Distinctions to defend his own glosse and this artifice he useth here which think of it what he will will serve for nothing except to discover hiâ— Weakness and Conviction of a bad cause and whereas he flouteth at his Adversary inferring from v. 5. of this chapter the darkness comprehended it not that by darkness is meant man in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is natural we say whereas he flouteth at him inferring from this that man while in that Estate is void of all Spiritual and supernatural light saying is not this a learned Refutation Reader He â—heweth only good will as they use to say to have the Doctrine of the Reformed become a mocking stock and shame rubbed upon it if he could for all the expositions given by the Reformed Churches on this place quite contradict that of the Quakers except he will call Socinus and the like Reformed Protestants But the thing incumbent to the Quaker was the urging and vindicating of his Reason viz. that if man in his natural estate cannot comprehend this Light who notwithstanding can comprehend the things of Nature Ergo by this enlightning with which every man is said to be enlightned that cometh into the world is not understood the Light of Nature and Reason which consequence he shal never be able to prove for altho the Light it self viz. Christ be supernatural and the incomprehensible God of Nature yet these little Beams or Sparks of Reason and Conscience which are the Effect and Gift of this great Ligh Christ the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity no lesse than of the Father and Holy Ghost are altogether natural and comprehensible Many places of Scripture beside this they detort and deprave to the end that by the Scriptures themselves they may destroy the Scriptures and prove that the light within which they being pitifully deluded take for the Spirit of God is the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners all which glosses fall to the ground tho upon this one Account that they have couched in them this most dangerous and blasphemous falshood viz. that the dim and dark Light of nature is not only sufficient to guide us to Salvation but which ought to be heard with horror is God himself One of which Scriptures is John 14.26 27. and 16.13 whence they would infer that all Believers are led by immediat objective Revelation as the Apostles were because say they the way that the Apostles were taught which is by immediat Revelation is there holden forth as common to aâ—l Believers and the words to lead and to teach in their proper and native signification denote always an immediat objective leading or teaching Thus Reasoneth Ro. Barclay Vind. pag. 19.20 to which I answer that these being two of the main places that he brought for proving the Spirit to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners he ought to have given some other thing than bare assertions if he had in good earnest intended to overthrow what his Adversary chap. 3. n. 27. said against his meaning of these places which he hath not in the least done for why may not immediat objective Râ—velatâ—on be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not unto all Believers but subjective only whereby they may understand and apply these Truths that were taught immediatly to the Apostles and Prophets upon whose Doctrine the Faith of all Believers is founded as its principal Rule and Foundation Ephes. 2 20. Even as the like Phâ—ases hold forth an immediate objective Teaching to some and yet that only which is meerly mediate as to others as Neh. 9.20 comp with v. 30. 1 Kings 8. 36. Psal. 132.12 Deu. 32.12 Moreover that the words to lead and teach hold forth a mediate objective Teaching or a subjective Illumination far oftner in Scripture than immediate objective Revelation is manifest to any that are acquainted with the Scriptures which if the Quakers deny seing they are the opponents they ought to condescend to a collation of places and shew the contrary Lastly whatever the Quakers say we cannot help it certain it is that no man of sound Judgment will deny that when one readeth the Scriptureâ— and hath his mind illuminated by the Spirit of God that he may understand the wondrous things in Gods Law but such an
Behold now reader the identity of the doctrine of Quakers with that of Arrians from whom they have learned it But some perhaps may object saying that this identity is only in words to whom I answer Either the things imporâ—ed by these words and phrases and given by Christians Generally as the meaning thereof and contained in Scripture or not now if the first be true then to stir up strife about these words proves only the raisers thereof ridiculous But 2. Supposing that the thingâ— themselves which Christians understand by these words or phrases are holden forth in Scripture then to deny that we may use them is founded on this Hypothesis viz. that in Explication of Scriptures or disputs about the meaning theâ—eof it is impious and unlawful to use any words or phrases except they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the same Letters and syllables in Scripture tho we be never so sure that as to the sense and meaning thereof they be found in the Scripâ—ures but this Hypothesis if true overthroweth all Scripture consequences interpretation of Scripture blasts the hope of ever getting Hereticks refuted which none will deny except â—n Arrian or the like Hereticks and while these deny it they only oppose their own practice to their own opinion seeing they themselves as other dâ—sputantâ— endeavour to draw Consequenâ—es from Scripture and paraphrase upon it to make it peak for themselves Now that this absurd and blasphemous consequence sticks fast to this their Hypothesis appears from no few places of Scripture and among others Math. 22.31 32. For if our Saviour had stuck to the meer Letters and Syllablâ—s of Exod. 3.6 I am the God of Abraham c. without deduction of a consequence from them and so an exposition of them he should never from these words have evinced against the Saâ—ducees the Resurrection of the dead But I need not stay longer to evince this for certain it is and already proved not only from the Quakers obstinate denyall of a free and positive Conâ—ession of their Faith anent this matter but also from their useing of the same weapons with which the Arrians attempted the subversion of this trulie Catholick Doctrine as also sufficiently by the express words of Fox and these of the Principles of the Priests but this Arrian Self Contradicting shift they are forced â—o usâ— being conscious to themselves as the Arrians before â—hem that their Doctrine cannot be proof against the firm and demonstrative deductions which the Orthodox bring from Scripture with which as so many Battering-Rams they with ease overthrow this Antirripitarian Impietie Therefore the other Branch of the Dilemma viz. That the sense of these words i. e. That which all Christians understand as the Meâ—ning thereof according to the Quakers is not in Scripture And indeed this is the Truth And so the Quakers are Arrians the evicting of which is the intent of this present discourse But yet farther that this is Truth viz. That the Quakers are Arrians if not worse and deny that fundamental Doctrine of the persons of the â—oly Trinity and that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost also are of the same substance with the Father and distinct persons from him is most evident from their perpetual hellish raisings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinitie calling it an Abominable and stinking Doctrine as these that heard them told me and when they were reproved their reply was thou knowest not the Truth Again they demonstrate to the world that they are the Frye of Arrius while they reject the Common Translation and Exposition of Heb. 1. â— Admitted by all except the Arrians and their Brethren For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be rendred Person or Subsistence as all the Lexicographers and in particular Scapula Pasor Scrivelius upon the word and all the Interpreters both ancient as Pareus in locum sheweth and modern Dutch Divines and English Translation render it but Substance for certainly thus it must be rendred â—f the word Person or Subsistence be rejected then it shall irresistiâ—ly follow that the Father and the Son are divided in substance which was the Doctrine of Arrius both in Maâ—ter and Termâ— hence it is clearâ—r than day-light that these men are his Disciples yea it is to be observed that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place ought to be rendered Subsistentia or Persona then if a man believe the Scriptures and that words are the true Symbols of things it is not possible that he be in Judgment an Arrian Aâ— contrariwise if a Man believe that the word ought to â—e rendered Substance presupposing the Truth of the Scriptures and that words are the true Idea's of things he cannot but be an Arrian Hence that for named Arrian Antithesi 4 ta apud Zanchium pag 854 of his forecited book sayes Heâ— 1. Christ is the splendor of the Glorie of God and figure of His Substance Christ is the invisible God Himself says the Church of Rome For this Arrian still calleth all the opposeâ—s of Arrianism members of the Church of Rome as the Quakers do now But it may be here objected that several very Orthodox Writers have in this place translated â—he Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Substantia to which I answer that all the Orthodox both Ancient and Modern while they thus spake did take the word Substantia in the sense that both they and we do the word Persona or Subsistentia This our Assâ—rtion may be most evident to any though but a little acquainted with the ancient and Modern Orthodox i. e. the opposers of Arrians and Socinians writers For Augustin who in several places and in particular lib. 5. and 7. De Trinitate ascribeth to God three Substances or three Subsistences indifferently yet notwithstanding elswhere carefully distinguisheth them and in particular de fide ad Petrum Diaconum â—ap 1. where he sayeth for if as the substance of the Father and the Son is one so also they were 〈◊〉 one person then there should be nothing aâ— all which truly could be called a Trinitie Hence we seâ— that this word Substantia did beaâ— a twofold Signification in the first of which it may be well put into the reâ—t as Equivalent with or the Synonymum of the word Persona without the least shadow of prejudice to our Doctrine it were easie to shew the like ouâ— oâ— Hilarius and others of the Antients I shall content my self to set down the words of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca Col. 299. Giving his Judgment concerning a book of Pierius an ancient Pastor saying as touching the Father and the Son he believeth piously except that he sayeth that they are two Substances and as many Natures howbeit not so as he adhereth to Arrius for as may be gathered from what goes before and followeth he useth the word Substantia for or in the same signification with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
Doctrine Lastly say they If he deny Christ 〈◊〉 be Man we disown him who do say that Christ is both God and Mâ—n This is a good confession And a man that knew them not might easily thinâ— that we wronged them by charging them witâ— the denyal of the Divinity of Christ. But notwithstanding hereof this confession serveth only to prove these Men guilty of most wicked hypocrisie lying and self Contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover their abominations For whosoever taketh but an overly veiw of the passages above cited of George Keiths way cast up he may clearly see that if these passages be true Doctrine the greatest arguments for establishing the Divinity of Christ are for ever gone For I appeal to the writings of all who have refuâ—ed the Doctrine of Arrius and Socinus if prov 8.23 Be not brought as one of the main texts to prove the Eternity and Divinity of Christ as also Psal. 110 by which Christ himself silenced and for ever stopped the mouths of the Pharisees who denyed his God-head Matth. 22 43 44 45 46. Neither is there a greater argument than that by him all things were Created And yet if these forecited passages be true the denyers of Christs Divinity have an easie answer that all these things are verified of Christ as man only And so the greatest arguments for the Divinitie of Christ fall to the Ground Now let any man judge if the Quakers do not what in them lye to overthrow the Divinity of Christ seeing they endeavour to undermine and destroy all the arguments by which it is underpropped Moreover this Doctrine robbeth God of his incommunicable attributs in ascribing Omnipresence or Ubiquitie to a Man. But before I leave this point I propose this dilemma to the Quakers If all things were created by Christ as Man then either the Manhood of Christ is created or not if created then it is created by it self than which there is nothing more absurd If uncreated then there is an uncreated man and a man that is coeternal with God. Which Blasphemie it s hardly able to equalize far lesse to outdo From all which it is most evident that the Quakers doe what in them lyeth to evert the fundamental Doctrines and basis of the Christian Religion viz. the Godhead of Christ. And in this they are more wicked than the professed Arrians or Socinians that they add deep dissimulation and hypocrisie to their horrid impiety whereas the Arrians and Socinians more ingenuous than they profess in words what they really believe It is also clear that in stead of their Christ they embrace a meer chimerical non entity seing there is nothing more contradictiorie than that either the Soul or the Body of a man which is a meer creature can be every where or from Eternitie Lastly observe that the Quakers put no distinction betwixt their Christ and their light within and that the light within is nothing but the smal dark Relicts of the Image of God or the dimm light of nature as we have already evinced And so their Christ their God and all that is dear unto them resolve at length into this almost quenched spunk in which all who have trusted in stead of finding the safe port of Eternal happiness have alwayes met with certain Shipwrack In favours of this Spiritual AntiChrist or Antichristian figment which they account for their Christ they decry vilifie and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be precious and dear to a Christian for what will they not deny seing they deny the Godhead of Christ they therefore with open mouth blaspheme and deny Jesus Christ as a person without them or as any thing distinct from their Imaginary Christ or light within of many which we could cite take a few passages for proof hereof first Geo Whith Dip. Pl. pag 13. Jesus Christ a person without us is not Scripture Language but the Anthropomorphits and Mugletonians And in his Appen to Reas against Rail pag 21. The Socinian telleth us of a personal Christ and that the man Christ Jesus our Lord hath in Heaven a place remote from Earth a humane body but doth he believe him to be the eternal God while he imagineth him to be a personal Christ a humane Body so Limited and confined to a remotness And William Pen counterfit christian pag 77 78. Give me one place that mentioneth Christ to be a distinct person without us art thou destitute of common Sense as to think of proving the Quaker no christian because he denyeth that Doctrine not expressed in the Scripture George Fox Great Myst 206 If there be any other Christ but he that was crucified within he is the false Christ and he that hath not this Christ that was risen and crucified within is a reprobate Though Devils and reprobats may make a talk of him without And Great Myst pag 207 God's Christ is not distinct from his Saints nor his Body for he is within them not distinct from their Spirits Ib. pag 16. Such are deceived that say Christ is distinct from His Saints Moreover the Quakers Doctrins Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 33 in opposition to Mr. Henry Foreside who said that Christ mourned over Jerusalem as He was Humane answer as for the Word Humane it is not Scripture Language it speaketh not that Language Certainly by this speech of these Quakers no other thing can be understood but that Christ hath no Humane Nature For though the word Humane were not found in the Scripture if the thing imported by it be found in Scripture then they must confesse themselves to have been ridiculous and purposeless pratlers which I believe they will not do and therefore its evident that they deny the Humane Nature of Christ. Again the Quakers speak as contemptibly of the Body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ as if he were the basest of Men as these words of Isaac Peningtoun witnesse can outward blood cleanse We must enquire therefore saith he whether it was the blood of the Vail Or of that Spiritual Man viz. of Flesh Blood and bones which took on Him the Vail or Humane Nature And the Mystery of iniquitie Lyeth in the Blood of Christ sayeth Edward Billings And Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlock who had said that Christ was not capable of Faith and Repentance saith here I charge thee to be a lyar and Slanderer for he was capable of Faith and Repentance What then is clearer than that according to these Mens Doctrinâ— the Spotless Lamb of God was really defiled with sin and stood in need of another Saviour to believe in Moreover as we have already heard they still distinguish between the outward inward body of Christ wickedly absurdly ascribing to their imaginarie inward body of Christ all that the Scripture attributeth to the Blessed Body of Christ that dyed at Ierusalem such as sufferings Death Resurrection and â—he like by which distinction
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
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
done The first is that known Example of the Eye-salve and the Sun For one by the Eye-salve or some efficacious Medicament of this nature removing the Tunicle may come to the sight and knowledge of the Sun So that he may say by means of the Salve or its opening of the Eyes he seeth and knoweâ—h the Sun and again by the Suns light he may perceive what is Eye-salve and what not This egregiously illustrateth the purpose and yet is many stages from a Circle The second Example is of a Logâ—cian his Reason and his Systeme of Logick which containeth Rules to discern sound reason from fallacy and sophistry For the Logician knoweth by his own reason that such a Book is sound containing true Reason and not fallacies This he can demonstrat by his own Reason as the mean and yet doth not thus argument my own reason teacheth me so therefore it is so but from reason in actu exercito and the nature of the things contained in the Book which by means of his own reason he seeth to be clear Truths And again by the Book he knoweth what is sound reason and what not By this time I hope we are fully freed of the Circle in which the Romanists would fain have us entangled being covetous of company for I could requit them with two unextricable Circles if time did permit 5. I come to the Removal of the second Objection viz that we cannot distinguish our selves in this point from Quakers and the like Enthusiasts This Objection not only the Papists but also the Quakers urge what they can to the end that they may make the Reformed Churches symbolize with themselves To this purpose Robert Barclay in his Apology attempted to make Calvin the French and Dutch Confessions and the Westminster Divines Patronisers of their Doctrine because they said that we cannot firmly know and savingly believe the Divinity of the Scriptures without the inward Testimony or Operation of the Spirit of God. But he calleth the Divines of Westminster dark dishonest and confused because they did not separat the Word from the Spirit but said that this Testimony or Operation of the Spirit was in and with the Word but neglecteth the consideration of Isai. 59.21 the Scripture upon which they build this their saying And again Vind. pag. 33. Where he abridging his Apology bringeth up again these things ut respondeant ultimae primis he neglecteth the special and chief Reasons whereby his adversary pag. 61. shewed that there was no discord between Calvin French and Dutch Confessions and our Divines Add hereto that it is well known that there was never the least controversy between the Brittish and Transmarine Protestants on this head but contrariwise a most entire harmony Having therefore discovered this none-such weakness and extream disingenuity I come directly to the objection and answer both Papists and Quakers together we distinguish our selves from these Enthusiasts for first the Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we will speak properly an application of the things revealed in Scripture than a Revelation or Testimony strickly so taken whereas the Revelation to which the Quakers pretend is altogether objective like that of the Prophets 2. We assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be believed or done Which they deny 3. We assert the Scriptures to be the principal and ultimate rule into which our Faith is lastly to be resolved Hence we examine all Doctrines of men all internal Suggestions by the Scriptures as the infallible Test or Touchstone hence we maintain that the Spirit 's Testimonie is still in and with the Word so that it may be known what is the true and what is the false Spirit by the Word so that the work of the Spirit is to enlighten the understanding and dispose the soul to perceive the Characters of Divinity naturally ingraffed in the Scriptures All which the Quakers deny and assert the quite contrary Now this our Doctrine is by a full and most harmonious consent delivered and asserted by the reformed Churches and most eminent and shining lights therein Luthers words are that if any thing should deliver any Doctrine which it could not prove by Scripture he would spit in its face knowing certainly that it were the Devil Sinopsis Pur. Theol Disp. 2 Pag. 20. But the Holy Ghost by these Divine Characters of the Scripture begetteth Divine and saving Faith in our hearts Maccov Locâ— Com pag. 28. The Testimony of the Spirit is a light so enlightening our understanding that it followeth it sweetly and sheweth the arguments in the things themselves impressed in the things which are to be believed but before unknown Woleb Comp. Theol pag. 4. The Spirit of God perswadeth the hearts of Believers internally of the Divinity of the Scriptures in so much as he openeth the eyes and illuminateth the heart of him who after previous invocation of the Spirit of God readeth the Scriptures so that by this illumination the man shal behold the wonderful things of God and acknowledge Gods Voice speaking in the Scriptures The like Doctrine hath Wallet in his Sinopsis Papiâ—migener Contr. in many places where he asserreth in terminis that this Testimony of the Spirit is 〈◊〉 and with the Scriptures The Words of godly and learned Whitaker are clear as they are cited by Mr. Crawford in a short but learned tracâ—at de Princ. fiâ— obj et effect Whereas ye say that we reject the Testimony of the Church and judge our selves taught by the alone internal perswasion of the Spirit we hold the Ministry of the Church in honour internal perswasions without the external word we shun as sanatical impostures we judge out of the scriptures we believe with the scriptures or because of their Testimony and therefore Hereticks i. e. Enthusiasts we neither are nor can be But of all men must clearly Calv. Inst. L. 1 C. 9. asserteth our Doctrine and strongly refuteth these Enthusiasts for Sect 1. he thus speaketh furthermore these who having rejected the scriptures imagine to themselves a way I know not what of approaching to God are to be judged not so much possâ—ssed with error as acted with madness there have arisen of late some giddy heady persons who disdainfully pretending the rule of the spirit cast off all reading and deride the simplicity of these who follow the dead and killing Letter as they term it But I would know of them what spirit that is by whose breathing they are so lifted up as to be bold to despise the Doctrine of the scriptures as abject and childish if they answer it is the spirit of Christ that security must be very ridiculous for I believe they will grant the Apostles of Christ and others faithful in the primitive Church to have been illuminat by no other Spirit but none of these learned from it to contemn the word of God but every one of them had them
shift which he useth is the same with Robert Barclays second shift viâ— That tho the Scriptures are in this place to be understood by Law and Testimony yet it will not follow that they are the principal Rule especially in Gospel times which shift is the same way removed that Robert Barclays was And here he essayeth to prove that people are sent to the Dictate Word or Light within from 2 Pet. 1.19 Deut. 30.14 Rom. 10.8 Ioh. 3.20 21. Iohn 12.36 Which places make not a whiâ— for his purpose yea diverse of them cut the Jugular Vein of Quakerism as shal be evinced in due time He hath moreover here a harangue by which he would prove as it seemeth that God and Christ dwell personally in Believers as God dwelleth in the humane Nature of Christ which is most abominable and false and tho it were true yet should make nothing for him for God and Christ can only be said to dwell in Believers whose Temples they only are But if he meaneth that God dwelleth in Believers only in respect of the habits of Grace implanted in their Souls whereby they are enlightned quickened and upstirred to believe and practise the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures then he sayeth nothing for this indwelling or God thus indwelling is not our principal Rule of Faith and Manners but the chief Leader and efficient Cause of Grace in the Soul. And thus this hodge-podge of most impertinent Words resolves at length into a direct begging of the Question Argument 3d. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrine from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final Decision of the most grave and weighty controversies that ever arose in the world and sent all people unto them as unto a sure and undeceiving Light by the guidance of which we may passe through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the â—lose Ergo the Scriptures are the primary Rule The Consequence is clear if we attend unto the Description of a primary Rule laid down above The Antecedent I prove from Math. 22.29 31 32. Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 and 13 from the 14. to 42. 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Luk. 16.31 Our Adversaries like bats hateing and striking at the Light assault most of these Scriptures And first they endeavour to deprave Matth. 22.29 by telling us that it will no more follow that the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners than the Power of God yea the Power of God say they is rather the Rule being that which quickneth the Soul and Body without which none can truly know the Scriptures thus talketh George Keith in Truth Defended Pag. 68. But this is only a roving at pleasure without consideration what be said providing that the name of the last speaker be obtained for here he confoundeth the Rule with the power whereby we walk according to the Rule Hence as I admonished above he fighteth not against our Doctrine but against the fiction of his confounding brain for whoever said that Euclide cannot be a Rule for Geometricians to walk by because it cannot instill a faculty of reason in an Idiot without which it cannot be understood surely he that should thus Reason would be accounted of all men most ridiculous And yet no lesse ridiculous is this silly sophister for he reasoneth the same way But that I may fully declare either the profound stupidity or willful prejudice of this Quaker I suppose that a man in discourse with another about the Kings Power ignorantly denyeth that the King can do something which by the Laws of the land he is allowed to do the other checks him thus you erre not knowing the Laws of the Land and the power of the King And then proveth from the said Laws that the King hath â—ower to effect that which the other denyed Now should not any man that concluded from this mans discourse that the power of the King is all one with the Laws of the Land or that the power of the King is our Rule in Câ—vils no less than the Laws of the Land are expose himself to the scorn of all knowing persons And yet he inference of thiâ— Quaker differeth not a whit from such a blockish Conclusion Hence we may see that these Mens design iâ— not to speak well but to speak last The next place is Ioh. 5 39. To which Robert Barclay Vind. Pag. 43. attempting to make answer to the end that he may put it beyond all doubt that he is a devout Servant to his Holinesse and a true Roman Catholick stifly asserteth that the Word is to be taken in the indicative mode superciliously rejecting not only all the reformed and Body of primitive Interpreters but also the very Iesuits themselves in whom there is any spark of Conscience or Candour who all understand it in the imperative moode and good Reason they have so to do seing the reading of the Scriptures is all along through the whole Scriptures both commanded Deut. 17 18 19. Deut. 29.29 Exod. 13.9 Ios. 22.5 Deut. 6.8 and 11.18 Isa. 8.20 1 Tim. 4.13 with many others and commended Deut. 33.10 Neh. 8.2 3. Act. 17.11 and 18.24 2 Tim. 3.15 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Rev. 1.3 Besides many more which are sufficient to convince these men of palpable falshood and blasphemy Moreover there is sufficient ground from the Context abundantly to make out our exposition for Christ appeals to the Scriptures as sufficient to decide the then present controversy betwixt him and the Iews saying These are they that testifie of me Where he willeth them to give heed to Moses writings in order to the decision of the Controversy v. 46. Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me But this subterfuge failing him he hath yet some others which we must also remove he asketh therefore in the next place whether the words that Christ spake to the Iews which are recorded in Scripture were less binding to them than the words spoken by Moses and the Prophets If they were lesse binding saith he then he overturneth his own tedious Reasonings by which he laboureth to prove that they are obligative and also he must show how they are binding now upon us and if he say they were binding to the Jews because spoken by Christ his proof falleth to the ground Ans. 1. Perhaps he pleased himself with this Argument having racked his wit to invent sophistry tho blunt as shal appear presently whereby the more to delude his already deluded admirers But I am sure to any rational man that is in earnest it will not have the weight of a Walnut Nor trouble him much even tho he were not in case to answer it seing if this word be to be taken in the imperative mood as we have even now demonstrat then it is as clear as the noon-sun that Christ sendeth the Jews to the Scriptures for the ultimate decision of the greatest Controversy in the World upon which their one thing depended Otherwise the Jews might still
assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners yet whâ— can say that this is through default of the Scriptures seeing our Adversaries cannot deny but that they speak both Sense and Truth and that when there is a real Contradiction between two disputing cocerning any Doctrine or Sense and meaning of any text of Scripture this Text speaks for the one and against the other tho the one of the parties either through Ignorance cannot or through prejudice will nor see it and that the sense thereof may be brought forth to the light so that there shall follow a mutual Agreement between the two dissenting parties and consequently that the Scriptures of their own Nature are apt for the removal of differences about things contained in them We have heard their retortion let us now hear their direct answer which is that their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of God Thus it s answered in their Quakerism confirmed to the Students of Aberdeen For which forsooth they bring Scripture proof from Matth. 7.15 16. where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false Prophet But what fruits these thorny prickling Plants have brought and do daily bring forth the world is not ignorant If to deny the Holy Trinitie the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ the resurrection of the Body and to assert the Souls of men yea and devils to to be God Almighty of which abominations we shall ere we end this Treatise undeniably prove the Quakers to be guilty and in a word to vomit out their Malice so as to endeavour the overthrow of whatsoever God in his Sacred Word hath commanded us either to believe or do If these I say be the fruits of the Spirit then indeed the Quakers have them and abound in them and other Fruits we know none except which are of little worth some Stoicisms and ridiculous whimsies in which also some of the Mâ—humetan and other Monks have gone far beyond them yea with these men Envy Pride Contempt of all others are so predominanâ— that tho by this Character oâ—ly it is easiâ—y judged by what Spirit they are acted Add to all this their constant custome of horrible lying Perverting and Railing of which take one or â—wo Instances in the practise of one oâ— their chief leaders Rob Barcl for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth that his Adversaâ—ie inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christs dying for all that Infants come to heaven without Christ But how grosse an unâ—ruth is 〈◊〉 will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun Cap 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence from their deâ—ying of Original Sin and again pag 64.65 he saith that the Westminster Confession saith that God did predestinat to everlasting damnation the most part of men without any respect had to their sin But a more palpable and horrid lie hath scarce been hatched for 〈◊〉 that Confession chap 3. § 7. It is expresly said that God 〈◊〉 â—rdain them to Wrath for their sins Of the like nature is that which he saith pag. 170 That his Adversâ—ry chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil and that a Minister at Ligeâ—wood made a Prayer to the Devil whereas he only â—nferâ—eth from the Quakers Doctrine that they may make a Preaching to the Devil And as for Railing their whole writings are Stuffed with it See for example Hubberthorn against Sherlock whose whole Pamphlet is nothing but an heâ—p of furious Railing his best Language being Thief rude Fellow Enemy to God c. See also Edward Burrougâ—s in answer to Philip Bennet whose best language is Serpent the lake is prepared for thee and such language as this is the marrow of the Quakers refutation of their adversaries Books For in these two now Named Discoursâ—s there is hardly the shadow of so mâ—ch as an Essay to answer But this is the way how they gain the day and obtain the last word How fair an occasion is here offered to shew to the world by a particular Enumeration of their horrid monstruouâ— practices that their fruiâ—s are the Grapes of Sodom and the wine of Gomorrah But they are but too too well known already we forbear therefore to rake into this Dung-hill Certain it iâ— that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit will as soon prove himself â—o be an angel of Light as the Fruits of these High-pretenders will prove them to be acted by the Spirit of God. But more fully to confirm or rather illustrate this argument I shal shew the Identity of their Spirit with that of the old Anabaptists in several particulars A short parallel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers 1. Muncer and the Anabaptists with him denyed that the Scriptures or external word for thus they spake that they might the better viliâ—y the Scriptures were the Word of God but only a Testimony thereof and said that the Word of God was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas lib. 1. cap. 1. The same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers only there is this difference that the Quakers expresse themselves in this matter with more rage and fury than for ought I can find the Anabaptists did as the Reader may may see cap. 1. § 1. of this Treatise 2dly Muncer with his disciples preferred that which they called immediate Revelation and inspirations busked with the specious Title of Fathers will as the Quakers Revelations are now with that of the Spirit to Gods written Word Bullinger Ibid and cap. 2. passim alibi Sleidan comm Calvin Instit lib 1 cap. 9. In this point also the Quakers are their successors or rather the same the name being changed seing they with Robert Barclay propos 2 3. assert that not the Scriptures but the Spirit is the principal Rule of Faith and Manners 3dly The old Anabaptists asserted that the express Words and Phrases of the Scriptures are to be adhered to without any exposition interpretation or deduction Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. alibi In this also their genuine children the Quakâ—rs follow them with both feet as is evident in this Treatise cap. 1. 4ly The Anabaptists of old asserted that the whole Old Testament is now abrogate and pertaineth not to a Christian nor hath any obligation or force upon him in which wicked Doctrine as they followed the Manichaeans so at this day the no lesse wicked Quakers follow them asserting that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by Christ in the new and hath precept or Authority from it as is affirmed by Robert Barclay Vindic P. 178. num 5. Hence it is evident that according to them no part of the Old Testament is more obligatory or binding upon uâ— than the words of Aratus or such heathen Poets are and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these
their Fathers transgressions only To whom the Lord asserteth that they had sin enough themselves for which they might be punished doth not at all say that no sin can be imputed to another this meaning we say beside that it is evident from the Context must of necessity be admitted otherwise there shall be a flat contradiction between this and many other texts As for example the second Command This text Mr. Broun pag 119. cleared and everted what the Quakers had said from this place therefore he in his Vindication pag 55. not being in case to force the texâ— to speak for him again saith the words are plain The Son shall not die for the Fathers iniquity And therefore they must stand to the overthrow of his Adversaries Doctrine Such a Combâ—tâ—nt as this is not fit for a second essay CHAP. IV. Of GOD. IN this Chapter I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things each of which is enough to Unchristian the maintainer thereof 1. That they deny the holy Trinity with Arrius and Sabellius 2 That their Doctrine maketh God the Author of in 3. That they hold the Soul of Man to be God. First we shall evince that this Sect really denyeth the Trinity of persons in the God-head and is as abominable if not more as the old Arrians Sabellians Macedonians or the latter Arrians as the Socinians And in the first place we shall give you the words of George Fox a Quaker of great note in his â—rimer to Europe pag 37. What is the Trinity in Unity and whether all these words be â—ot of mens Wisdom and Teaching Ans. To every particular Query word that is queried of you here and what was their first ground and root and â—o the light bring it out and the fiâ—st â—uthor of â—hem and whether or no all this body hath not gotten up since the Apostacy in the transgression where mens wisdom teacheth words and the words the Holy Ghost teacheth is foolishness to them Whether or not this is so Answer me yea or no What are the three Persons in the Trinity How are the three Persons subsistences of the Diety How is the Trinity not the number numbering but the number numbered How is the opinion of the Trinity not only a Church Tradition but a Doctrine expressed in the Scriptures How is the word Hypostasis which you acknowledge any singular Substance used Metaleptically or by taking one thing for another for a person Heb 1.2 Since ye say a person is a singular â—ational and compleat Substance and differing from another by an incommunicable property Answer me this and all the Terms and Words and Queries and things before mentioned What be the Wisdom that hath taught them and Ground and Root they are come from And whether or not they have all come up amongst Christians since the days of the Apostles And learned of the Heathens that knew not Gâ—d that transgressed the life that had nothing but their own Wisdom to teach them who was taught by their own Wisdom and whether that is not pleasing to a carnal man that knows not the things of God How are the Words Persons Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ye grant are not found in so many Syllables in the Scriptures yet agree thereto And George Keith in his Quak No Popery pag 47.104 Sayeth that To speak of Persons in the God-head is an uncertain unscriptural Notion and a barbarous heathnish Terme The Doctrine and Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 19 20. It is a lie that the Scripture doth declare of the three persons or of the Trinity Add to all this that in all theiâ— Treatises there iâ— nothing found concerning the Holy Trinity except enough of this kind of Doctrine of which we have given the Reader a taste I will in the second place shew that thiâ— Doctrine is all one if not worse with the Doctrine of the execrable Arrians For their Doctrine was That the Son is separated or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of God the Father In oppositionâ— o which The Council of Nice sayes chap· I. in their Symbol That the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. of the same individual Substance with the Father Rufin lib. 1. Now it is to be observed whoever hitherto contradicted the Doctrine of this Nicen Symbol were accounted by all Christians Arrians And upon this ground abominated by the whole Church Cane pejus et angue as they speak Next I assert that whosoever denyed that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri that is of the same individual Substance with the Father were by all the Orthodox counted Arrians So that in that unhappy Council of Ariminum when the Arrian Bishops had deceived some of the simpler sort through their Sophistry and made them through their own simpliciâ—y and ignorance of the Greek-tongue to grant that the Son was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri they were judged to involve them in the profession of Arrianism which is clear from Ruf. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1 Cap. 2â— The Argument wherewith they endeavour to prove that the Son was not Consubstantial with the Father was that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in Scripture which appears from this last cited Author They used also this Argument at a Convention at Carthage in the time of Hunnericus with such impudent clamours that they deafned their hearers Christianus Matthias in his Theat Hist. pag 744. So the Reader may seâ— here that the Quakers have learned both their Doctrine and Proofs thereof from the Arrians They ought therefore to have the Name seing they have the thing I will here subjoin the words of a late Arrian in a Pamphlet of his called Antith Christ et Antichristi which the Reader may find inserted and refuted in the 7 Tom. of Zinchius his Works which Words are his 20 Antith to be found in Zaâ—ch Col. 872. 2. Tim. 1. Hold fast the Form of sound Words which thou hast learned of me The Apostle enjoined this to Timothy and aâ—â— tâ—e Ministers of the Church to the end that they may flee strange Words and Phrases in speaking concerning God and the Mysteries of Faith that they may be content with these which he himself used in delivering the Doctrine of Religion these words Trinity Essence three persons â—n one eâ—â—â—nce altho they be neither used by Christ nor Paul but invented by the Councils and Fathers yet say the Orthodox they are necessarily to be keeped in the Church therefore let them confess as the matter is that they are not the disciples of Christ and the Apostles seing so rashly they strive against their precepts and the divine similitude wherewith the Prophets and Apostles did holily expresse the Mystery of the knowledge of God and Christ being laid aside they study new Forms and in teaching the Church they have the same oftentimes in their Mouth not without vile Ignominy boâ—h to the doctrine and Church of Christ.
quible what they will these two Texts are enough to refuâ—e them He alledgeth next that his Adversary only proveth from this place that men may sin in the present time not that they do really and actually sin in the present time Which is false For he from the Context fully refuteth the Socinian Cavil see among other places v. 9. he denâ—eth here that the Seed of sin maketh its Subject sinful But we know no Seed of Sin but that which is really Sin neither doth the Scripture make any Mention of it But this Doctrine is all one with the popish Doctrine of Concupiscence mutato nomine He alledgeth pag. 126. That it will not follow from Eccles. 7.20 That men sin dayly or that all their Actions are imperfect through sinning But he forgetteth to apply that Law to himself which he would impose upon others For though the Text speaketh absolutly without exception yet he will not give a Reason of a Restriction And here again he talketh of his absolute Regeneration But to as little purpose as before He leaveth the Consideration of the Hebrew Text which he thought made for him to the Reader therefore I considered it and found it in the Indicative mood And consequently nothing for him He cometh next to vindicate the meaning of the Socinians and Quakers of Rom. 7 17 which is that the Apostle there speaketh of another in his own person But he passeth all his Adversaries Reasons of our Meaning with one blunt scoffe saying he giveth us a Preachment Which effrontedness I Judge can hardly be parallelled Next he sayeth except he prove that Paul was a Carnal man in respect of sinning at that time he sayeth nothing But his Adversary hath done it from this present Text already so that he durst not so much as present one of his Reasons to his Reader though never so manked and clipped as his Custom is but thought it safest to pass by them whole sale Otherwise perhaps some of the Vulgar Quakers who deluded by this Emissary of the Jesuits might have seen how absurd their Rabbies are in explication of the Scripture and so looked about them before they had been further involved 2. All this effronted and false dealing will not do the turn For the Reason why they reject such a plain meaning of the words and admit such a strange figurative meaning The reason I say moving them to this is because they think the Apostle Paul was above sinning and that they may have him to be an Example of sinless perfection but this helpeth him not a whit For the Apostle Iohn was one of the chief Apostles as well as Paul and yet his sinning in his choicest Frame and under the greatest outlettings of Grace is so manifest that all the Sophistry of Satan hath not yet invented a Shift for the Elusion thereof The like may be said of Peter Gal. 2. and many others which we passe Next he cometh to answer Mr. Browns Argument which is this If we find no instances in Scripture of such Persons as were so perfect as that they did not sin then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancy and dream But the Former is true The Consequence he denyeth And consequently he denyeth that we ought to walk according to the guidance of the Scripture And where is his holding by the Scriptures now which we lately heard of Let Quakers therefore no more cheat the World with saying that they walk according to the Scriptures while with open face they assert that they ought not to be a guide to us or that we ought to believe points of Faith not contained there 2. He sayeth that the Argument concludeth not in the Terms of the Question But the Conclusion is that such a Perfection as the Quakers maintain is but a fancy and a Dream And if he will admit this we are agreed And if he will not he must deny some of the propositionâ— Neither let him object to me that this is not the Argument which he answered unto for the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he choosed to answer unto For either it is it or another if it be it it is well the same Argument then is now urged if it be not it then let him confesse he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the jugular Vein CHAP. VII Of the Quakers Doctrine of Silent Worship and of the Sacraments THis Author in the 12 Section of his Vindication of which the first part is opposed to Mr. Broun's 22 Chapter of Silent waiting maketh a none such clamour as if he were without paralel traduced We shall therefore in the first place consider the chief of these things which he calleth Calumnies and Perversions Whereof the first is That he would have us to understand that Christ's Resurrection was never till now whereas sayes he I only spake with reference to the time since the Apostacy Ans. 1. Any may judge by his 11 Proposition or yet by his chapter annexed thereto if this be a Calumny for whatever he there sayeth may be as well applyed to Heathnish as Popish superstition especially if the Quakers salvation of Heathens be considered 2. He is unhappy in removing his pretended Calumny For the Apostacy was working in the Apostles time and consequently he sayeth nothing 3. Make the best of it ye will this is but only what Munser or Iohn of Leyden said that they might obscure these burning and shining Lights the reformers and marr the work in their hand 4. Their direct opposition to the Orthodox primitive Christians in the most weighty points of Religion such as the Doctrine of the Trinity Free-grace the Sacraments and the like sufficiently demonstrats that they esteem none before themselves except Arrius or Pelagius to have been at all in the way of God. And therefore that hitherto there hath been no spiritual resurrection His second Calumny so called viz. that Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms and abstract from means we have above evinced to be a truth in the first and second Chapters Moreover he here denyeth that studying of Sermons from the Scripture which implyeth reading prayer and Meditations and the like exercise to be means appointed by God. And thus he only confirms what he even now denyed viz that the Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms and abstract from means His third Calumny viz. that the Quakers Spiritual life is nothing but Nature wâ— proved above Cap. 2. to be a truth where we shewed that all the Quakers grace and light is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of God in man. His fourth Calumny is his own and not his Adversaries For his Adversary only inquireth If this Life be common at all times to them Hence he inferreth that he supposeth it to be so the contrary of which for any thing I can learn he supposeth as his Query pag 414. insinuateth His 5 Calumny as to what truth it hath
their answers are either a quite omission and passing by the substance of what is brought for the overthrow of their Doctrine or at best meer shifts or else a most audacious asserting of these things In Terâ—â—oâ—s which are sâ—fficient in the estimat of all Christians to render the Maintainers thereof more abominable than worst of Pagans though they were but only inferred by a long threed of consequences which the Eternity of Christs Manhood and the Souls being a paâ—t of God no less loudlie than impiouslie asserted by them sufficiently witness These I say they either directly maintain even in their last peices or else can never be brought to disown them Of which dealing the Sequel will give diverse undeniable instances which indeed is the main Scope of this discourse Among these Authors I bestowed most thoughts upon Robert Barclay His Vindication of his Apology which I found made up of untruths perversions false suppositions As for example to Vindicat and urge most of the places of Scripture brought in His Apologie as the foundation of his Doctrine he supposeth that from the same texts his Adversarie inferred our contrary doctrine and thinketh it sufficient to desiâ—e his Adversary to prove our Doctrine from these places These are the proper Elements of this Composition but to make up a fourth he knowing that by all men the Quakers were accused of maâ—chless rayling taketh the Start and filleth no small paâ—â— of his book accusing His Adversarie as an unparalelled railer The ground of which accusation is that his adversarie as occasion serveth telleth his Reader that the Quakers and this Apologist among the rest were no less grosse and abominable than Arrians Socinians Pelagians Papists Libertins Anabaptists and the like His Symbolizing with which he adventureth not to deny Which although at other times he doth yet groundleslie as these Papers will in part and more fullie an entire Colation of Quakerism with the Principles of these Sects will demonstrate to any who hath but the least Spunk of ingenuity and Candour I forbear to say although I could that our Vindicator is no novice in the very Crime of which he so oft accuseth his adversarie However the matter be he might have forborn his accusations of that which he knew his Brethren to be of all Men most guilty which not to mention others Burroughs answer to Bennets queries and Hubâ—erthorns reply to Sherlok evidently witness Quis tulerit Grachos de sediâ—â—one querentes The like I say of Geo Keith in his book intituled Truth defended evil enough I am sure For in it he never speaketh to the purpose or toucheth what His Adversarie Mr. John Alexander had said or else marreth in stead of mending the matter for others I forbear to speak of them these mentioned being the most learned of their Authors Neither can I expect any better dealing than these and the like have met with and altho they as some of them have begun to do alâ—eady upbraid me with the infirmity in which divine Providence hath stated me they will instead of doing their business hereby only shew to the World that they have been too docil of a bad Lesson taught them by the Phariâ—ees long ago John. 9. Neither do I intend at present to trouble my self and others with whatsoever they shall give under the name of an answer seing the badness of their cause will not permit them to give any better than What they have given to others In which they have been so unhappie that one would have thought that they of purpose verified that saying of the Poet Causa patrocinlo non bona major erit And although they say that this is only but a shift to save me the labour of a reply I value it not but appeal to all the Reformers Confessions of Faith yea and all the Reformed Churches as sufficient â—mpires in the case Yea and in many points to all Christians of whatsoever profession except the Socinlans who retain nothing of Christian Doctrine but only arrogat to themselves the name Neither let them say with Rob Bar Vind Sect 6 That our Doctrine is contrary to that of some of the reformed Churches in most weightie points as for example Election and Reprobation and the like because in these we oppose the Modern Lutherians seing as Wendelin in his Exercitations and in special Exerc. 16 17 18. Hath fully evicted the Modern Lutherians are altogether opposit in these points to the ancient Lutherans such as Herbrandus Hesnusius Brentius and most of all Luther Himself And therefore are so far as touching these points from deserving the name of Reformed that they ought to be accounted their capital adversaries But not to prefix a long preamble to a short discourse In a word I say that as the Doctrine of Quakers is a heap of Non such Blâ—sphemies so their defences are mera 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Subtertuges so naked and sillie that one would admire how any rational man could satisfie himself with them but Qui bibit inde furit procul hinc discedite queis est Cura bonae mentis qui bibit inde furit He straight runs mad who drinks hereof Flee hence who ever had A Love unto your precious Souls who drinks hereof runs mad Touch not taste not handle not the unclean things For which end I present thee with these Sheets of which that thou may reap profit and advantage to thy Immortal Soul standing in hazard from the infection of the Mortal disease of Quakerism is and shall be the earnest Prayer of thy Servant to serve thee in the Lord. William Jamison CHAP. I. Of the Holy Scriptures A GOOD Name is better than precious ointment saith the Preacher Eccl. 7.1 Whosoever therefore intend to bring either Persons or Things under Disesteem and Contempt labour in the first place to Spoil them of any Good Name or due Titles belonging unto them to the end They may the more easily Effectuate their Purpose This Method the Quakers have thought very fit and apposit whereby to discredit and finally to overthrow the Holy Scriptures For in the first place they endeavour to rob them of the chiefest Titles and most famous Elogies with which the Holy Ghost hath adorned them among which that of being called the Word of God is not the least An Instance of this may be Iames Nailor who in his Answer to the Iews pag 〈◊〉 Saith It 's the Devil that contends for the â—â—â—â—ptures to be the Word of God. Others of Them say They are not the Word of God but the Words of Men that spake them freely Yea generally All the Quakers unanimously deny that the Scriptures are or ought to be called the Word of God But in so doing they flately contradict God speaking in the Scriptures For there they are most frequently called the Word of God As Num. 3.16 Deut. 5.5 1. King. 12.24 Ier. 1.2 and 6.10 and 20. 8. Hos. 1.2 Amos. 8.12 Zeph. 2.5 Luke 22.61 1. Sam. 9.27 Mark.
in the Scripture that is a Duty upon me or which I am obliged to Obey because there recorded Whatsoever is a Command to me I must not receive from any man or thing without me nay not the Scripture it self yea it is the greatest Error in the world that ever was invented and the ground of all Error to Affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians 3. By this time I have abundantly justified my Charge having set down already so much of this blasphemous Doctrine as I am confident hath filled my Reader with Horrour and Indignation if he retain but the least spark of Christianity or love to the Holy Scriptures And O that while we consider these Abominations we could mourn and tremble in Contemplation of our heavy Transgressions that have provocked the Holy God in his just Judgment to let loose and permit these satanical Spirits to rage abroad and pollute the very Air with their poysonous Breath and pestiferous Blasphemy This last passage I should not have set down were it not that Robert Barclay in his Vindication of his Apology of the many scores of passages quoted out of the Quakers own Books by Mr. Brown to prove the blasphemousness and absurdity of their Doctrine in the Defence of this only adventureth to say somewhat I shal therefore set down what he sayeth and refute the same His words are Vind. Pag. 37. But what he urgeth of this further Pag 57. and 59. from the saying of some Quakers affirming that it 's not a Command to them which is given to another albeit I might justly reject it as impertinent till he prove it for the Reasons above Declared upon this occasion yet because he mentions Benjamin Furley in Rotterdam having some Knowledge of that Matter I answer whether will he say All the Commands in Scripture to every Person therein mentioned are binding upon every individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and what binds me not must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will confess enlightening the understanding to make the Distinction Then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their Duty and sure they cannot obey before they know But if he say that tho they should want that operation of the Spirit and did not know nor acknowledge them to be their Duty yet that they are binding upon them neither Benjamin Furley nor any Quaker will deny But even the Commands of Gods Spirit and the Precepts of the Scripture which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shal be justly condemned for not obeying albeit by the perversness of their hearts and Wills they either refuse to obey or will not acknowledge them so that his urging of that Pag. 60 and 61. And his pleading for it is unnecessary and needs no Answer yet who could say they could obey to any advantage of their souls without this operation of the Spirit since whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But as to these words said to be written by Benjamin Furley he is challenged to prove they are his without adding or diminishing and it is very well known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the Sense and before he has answered this Challenge and freed himself from the just Censure of a Callumniator albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs and upon the Testimony of their Adversaries Thus he All the Reasons he gave above why he ought not to vindicate the blasphemous Passages cited out of several Quakers were because these Passages were cited by these that are adversaries to Quakers such as Hicks Stalham and the like who still cite Book and Page of the Quakers where they are to be found so truly that this Vindicator hath not one instance to give where they have dealt unfaithfully Hence this Reason according to him proveth his Vindication unworthy of an answer seing the citation of Passages is enough to Vindicate these Authors from an unjust charge Therefore let it be observed that the whole multitude of Passages which are fraughted with Blasphemies and Absurdities even to the begetting of an utter detestation at the Principles of this party in the hearts of all the Lovers of the Holy Scriptures which are cited by Mr. Brown remain without any Vindication or Mollification except that which rendereth the Author of this Vindication ridiculous and the Principles of his party more abominable But let us come to the Matter of Furley of which he sayes he has some Knowledge we may therefore expect a sufficient Resolution about it as for other passages of this Nature he insinuateth a profound ignorance concerning them wherefore he meriteth a sharp Censure from his Brethren for undertaking that of which he was altogether ignorant and they the note of folly for the permission of the publication of the same for in Reason we ought to suppose that they revised it In the first place The Dilemma wherewith he endeavoureth the Protection of his Brother is altogether impertinent and helpeth him not a whit for seing he insinuateth that there are no subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any this Dilemma if it can do any thing it will only be Argumentum ad hominem And so according to the Quakers men shal not be bound to obey any of the Commands of God As for Example to abstain from Murder except the Lord by an immediat objective Revelation such as he gave to Moses or the rest of the Prophets enjoined this unto them Behold Reader the dangerous Conclusion The abominablenesse of which maketh this Vindicator use many Shifts and Tergiversations to varnish the same notwithstanding of which it inevitably recurreth and sticketh fast unto him 2. Neither doth this Dilemma involve his Adversary or any of the Reformed in any thing like the absurd Doctrine of the Quakers for although the subjective illumination of the Spirit be very necessary for the true Understanding of the Scriptures yea and of absolute necessity for such a knowledge of them whereby we know God revealed in them so that we have true Love and Fear and Faith in him as the Effects and Concomitants of this knowledge yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound Reason only can distinguish between Commands given to a particular People for a certain time such as to offer Sacrifice or to abstain from Swines-flesh and these who bind at all times as for example Not to prophane the Name of God or to honour Parents must have abandoned the exercise of Reason 3. While he alledgeth That neither Benjamin Furley or any other Quaker will deny that Scripture Precepts which concern all are binding upon all he openly contradicteth Furley who denyeth that 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.
rather in greater reverence as their writings plainly testify And indeed so it was foretold by Isaiah for when he sayeth my spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shal not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed for ever he doth not tie the people of the Iews to an outward Doctrine as if he taught them the first principles but rather that it will be the true and ful felicity of the Church in Christs Kingdom to be ruled no less by the voice than spirit of God. From whence we collect that what are inviolably conjoyned by the Prophet are most sacrilegiously separat by these Villans And again Sect. 2. If any spirit neglecting the Wisdom of God bring any other Doctrine he is justly to be suspected of vanity and of a lie What when satan transfigureth himself into an angel of light what Authority shall the spirit have with us except it be discerned by some sure Character and he is clearly demonstrat to us by the Voice of God except these miserable men desire willingly to run into their own Destruction when they rather seek the spirit from themselves than from the spirit of God. But they pretend that it is unworthy that the spirit of God to whom all things are to be subjected should be subjected to the scriptures as if it were ignominious to the Holy Ghost to be every where alike and conform to himself and never diverse indeed if it were tryed by a humane angelick or any other Rule he were to be corrected or chastised if ye will but while it is compared with it self while it is considered in it self who will then say that there is injury done to it and so it is brought to a Tryal I confesse but such a one as that thereby he would manifest to us his Majesty it ought to be sufficient to us as soon as the spirit manifesteth it self to us but lest the delusions of satan should creep in under the notion of the spirit of God he would have us know him in his image imprinted in the scripture he is the Author of the scriptures he cannot be unlike and diverse from himself whatever therefore he sheweth himself to be in the scriptures such he must be forever That is no conâ—umely to him except we judge it honour worthy to forsake and degenerat from it self Much more to this purpose hath the Reverend and Judicious Author with which he confoundeth these spiritual Antichristians as well these of our time as of his own and indeed if one should read this Chapter and not know the Author he would presently conclude that it had been written of direct purpose against the Quakers Judge therefore Reader if Robert Barclay had any ground to alledge him as the Patroniser of his Doctrine The fourth Difference betwixt us and the Quakers consists in this that we asâ—err if there be a God in Heaven the Books of the Old and New Testament may be evinced to have proceeded from him even to the silencing the most profligat though sharp witted Atheists if any such merit this epithet whereas on the other hand They deny any Characters of Divinity ingraffed in the Word as hath already and shal yet more appear and thus they expose the jugular Vein of Christianity to the Heathens and indeed the whole tendency of all their writings and discourse is to decry and vilify these sacred Oracles and though they deny this to the end they may the better cheat silly Souls I care not for out of their own mouths and Books they shal be judged and found guilty These abominations are not committed in a Corner It can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches which is certainly sufficient in the case But many other differences I could give but these may suffice for answer to the second Objection From all which I conclude that between the extreams of the Papists Church and the Quakers Spirit medius tutissimus ibit the midway by resolving our faith ultimately in the Scriptures or in God speaking in them is the safest way And as two extream Vices never agree more in the nature of Vice than when they reced most from Virtue lying in the middle and therefore seemingly or physically reced from one another so the greater odds that seem to be between Papists and Quakers they are the more nearly relyed in error for the Papists have gone too low resolving their faith ultimately in men the Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo hence they Ixion-like thinking to find the fair Iuno of divine Revelation but lighting upon a cloud of their own brain in stead thereof have procreat the strange Hippocentaurs of their monstrous Doctrines at which the World now admires and is amazed 5. Our Assertion that the Scriptures are the adequate compleat and primary or principal Rule of Faith and Manners we build on these following Arguments and first That which was dictate or given out by the â—â—fallible God and containeth the whole Counsel of God may well serve to be our compleat and principal Rule but the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the infallible God and contain the whole Counsel of God ergo they may well serve to be a compleat and principal Rule The Major is most evident for what further certainty either ought we need we or can we seek for what we believe or do then the words of the most veracious and unerring God and no other thing can be understood by a compleat Rule but that which containeth all things to be believed or done The Minor I prove by parts and first that the Scriptures were given out and dictat by God is clear from 2 Tim 3.16 All Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost Moreover our Adversaries at least the more learned and cautious of them have not yet adventured to deny it but in words at least grant it The second part is no lesse evident from Act. 20.27 Where Paul sayeth that he had not shunned to declare to his hearers all the Counsel of God compared with Chap. 26.22 where the same Apostle sayeth that he taught no other things than those that were in Moses and the Prophets Hence it is clear that even a part of the Scriptures and by a good consequence all the Scriptures contain all that God hath willed us to believe or do The second Argument is That which was the principal Rule to the Jews is the principal Rule to us But the Scriptures were the principal Rule to them Therefore they must be the same to us The Major is Robert Barclay's for which he pleadeth at large Apol. Cap. 2. The Minor I prove thus That from which the Jews might not swerve to the right hand or to
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
have with good Reason replyed that this would not do the turn seing the Scriptures themselves were but a secondary Rule to be subjected unto another without the Determination of which they could never acqâ—iesce in the Scriptures decision how clearly soever they speak for the one party and against â—he oâ—â—er I answer 2dly that the words of Christ spoken both before and at that time were binding on the Jews he having given sufficient proofs of his Deity Notwithstanding of which Christ referreth them to those Writings about the divinity of which they were beyond all doubting and had abundance of subjective as well as objective certainty To these I say he referreth them as the Principal Rule and Test whereby to determine the great Controversy then in agitation I say in a Word that the words Christ and his Apostles spake and now recorded in Scriptures were of themselves no lesse binding on the Iews than these spoken by Moses and the Prophets tho the Iews throw their wilfull ignorance and prejudice which was their own great fault the great Cause of which was the neglect of the Scriptures which testifie of Christ did not believe the Divinity of the one as they did that of the other hence one of the horns of this Dilemma is broken and his consequence a meer non sequitur He here grants that if Christs Doctrine ought to be tried by the Scriptures then much more private Enthusiasms But denyeth that it will hence follow that the Scriptures are the primary Rule which I prove for if the Doctrine of Christ be subject to the Scriptures trial then no man can deny that even these things which are divine immediat Revelations may be brought to the Scripture trial that we may know whether they be divine or not as well as the Jews ought to bring the Doctrine of Christ to the Scriptures that they might clearly see whether it was divine or not seing whatever can be said for exemption of these Revelations from trial with good ground might be said for exeeming of the Doctrine of Christ. Moreover by granting that privat Enthusiasms ought to be tryed by the Scripture he yieldeth all he was this whole time pleading for which was that it might be lawful to embrace any impulse or suggestion which he thought was the Spirit of God without further examination thereof The third Scripture viz. Act. 17.11 is so clear that our Adversaries can find nothing wherewith to darken and deprave it It is true that Robert Barclay Vind. pag. 44. sayeth It is the same way answered as Iohn 5.39 Therefore I say our meaning is the same way vinâ—icate Nâ—xt all his verbal shifâ—s are wholly excluded here seing such an high commendation given by the Spirit of God to these Bereans ought to have no lesse weight with us than a Command The next place assaulted by them is 2 Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of prophecy c. which place thâ—y will have to be understood of the Spirit not â—f the Scriptures of which assertion Robert Barclay pag. 26. giveth this Reason that the Description or Narration of a thing is not more sure than the hearing or seeing of the same and therefore the Scriptures which are but a Narration and Description of such and such things cannot be more sure than the sight or hearing of the same Hence he would infer that the discoverie the Apostles had made to them upon the mount were really surer than the Scriptures but not so sure as the Spirit George Keith Truth Defended pag. 63. hath a long discourse which resolves in this that the Apostle is making a Comparison between Gods outward Word to the Ear and inwâ—rd to the Heart which he sayeth is more sure to a man than Gods immediat speaking if it be heard with the outward ear But such reasoning as this is as easily everthrown as invented for it presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation where the Testimony of the senses goes along And so their spirit is an enemy to sense Otherwise why should this glorious vision made to the Apostles of the Truth of which they had divine and infallible evidence to whom God spake as immediatly as to Moses on the Mount be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit 2. To talk at this rate is to presuppose that wherever God revealeth himself unto any person some other way than by speaking into his ear that this Revelation bringeth along with it its own evidence and perswadeth the soul to embrace and close with it as divine which is both groundlesse and therefore false and contrary to their own principles who assert that unlesse the understanding be well disposed Revelation tho immediat is not evident 3. It insinuateth that the Apostle in this comparison gave out that one of the things compared was in it self really more uncertain than the other which is most false seing considered in themselves both real immediat Revelation and the Scriptures have all certainty possible therefore this is only to be understood in respect of us to whom the Scriptures are more sure in that they are lesse subject to be counterfeited or wrested by either the Devil or our own sancy than immediat Revelations are The Apostle hath also his eye upon his Countrey-men the Iews to whom he speaketh who tho they were now Christians gave in special manner credit to the old Testament as Act 17.11 and else where 4. Tho by this more sure word of Prophecy were understood immediat Revelations the advantage that the Quakers could reap thereby could not be great For this Word of Prophecy being studied and attended to is recommended to us by the Apostle as that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures Hence it will follow even according to the Quakers exposition that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of our Faith seing that if any of the two be it the Text to be explained much rather than the means or helps whereby it is to be explained ought to have this Denomination we have seen the invalidity of his Reason as also the small advantage tho it had been valid We shal in the next place shew why by this more sure word of Prophecy we understand the Scriptures And first because any phrase of the like import as for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prophetick Word or Word of Prophecy it is not in all the Scripture beside for any thing I know in so many syllables such as the Prophets Luk. 16.29 Apostles Prophets Eph. 2.20 The Law and the Prophets Math. 7.12 Are always taken for the Scriptures so that when any did utter such expressions but especially while they discoursed of a guide in Faith and Manners they were still understood as speaking of the Scriptures who I pray ever understood that phrase Luk. 16.31 Moses and the Prophets any other way than that Joh. 6.45 It is written in the Prophets And indeed if our Adversaries were not eâ—â—ronted and
impudently bold they would not adventure to cause a phrase of Scripture to speak that the contrare of which at the first view it proclaimeth 2. Who but one that would adventure upon any thing would make this phrase Word of Prophecy in the 19 v. to speak any other thing than the Prophecy of the Scriptures in the 20 verse or simple Prophecy in the 21 verse seing to do this destroyeth the whole Connexion of the Context 3. The same is evinced by the connexion of this with the following Words for the Apostle giveth his Reason in the 20 Verse why in the 19 he had admonished to study the Scriptures viz. that unlesse they diligently search and study them they would be ready to miss the genuine and fall into a private meaning of the Scriptures that is one which the Scriptures if well attended to would not yield 4. The same is evinced from the general commendation given by the Spirit of God to the searchers of or attenders to the Scriptures as Isa. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 With many other places which are sufficient Commentaries to this Text Whereas on the other hand these our Adversaries no lesse void of Reason then fraughted with audacity cannot bring one Text commanding us to search or take heed to the Light within Add to all this that these our Antagonists contradict the stream of Orthodox Writers upon this place who all give their joint suffrage unto our exposition as Luther Calvin Bullinger Christophorus Imlerus Beza the Dutch Divines who give the same glosse with us yea I dare averr with Confidence that if we except some old Montanists Cataphrygians or the like antient Enthusiasts or of later times the Munserians or such Libertines none hitherto expone this place as the Quakers do But we must yield to them for Hi soli sapiunt alii velut umbra vagantur Doubtless they are the Men and Wisdom shall die with them But I leave them to grapple with their Brother William Pen who in his Rejoynder before cited pag. 334. yieldeth unto us that which they so stifly deny viz. that by the More sure word of Prophesie the Scriptures are to be understood and I passe on to the vindication of Luk. 16.31 If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one rose from the dead Rob Barclay in opposition to Mr Broun Vind. pag. 39.40 reasoning from this place that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith sayeth first That it will not follow from the Scriptures being more sure than the Testimony of one risen from the dead that therefore they are more sure than the Testimony of the Spirit I Ans. Let him once prove that every Man hath such a Spirit as Quakers do alledge and then let the Spirit go hand in hand with the Scriptures but this he shall never be able to do 2. This will follow that Moses and the Prophets were a Rule to the Church at that time Yea even the primarie Rule otherways might not Abraham have said The Spirit of God directeth every man immediatly If they hear not him they will hear none else but this he said not Therefore Abraham or rather Christ in the Parable judged the Scriptures the principal Rule on Earth As for what he says concerning the Scriptures being a principal Rule to the Iews only is nothing to the purpose unless he prove that they are not so to us which if he hath done we have seen above 3. Certainly the voice of one of the glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the face of God is no less to be accounted immediat Revelation than the voice of the High-Priest unto the People when he came out from the Holy of Holies which in the Quakers account was immediate Revelation But the Quakers can make what they will to be Divine Revelation To the end that this may more fully appear we shall consider a passage in his Apologie pag. 4. where he maketh an Objection viz. That after the Dispensation of the Law Gods Method of Speaking was altered To which he answereth that Gods speaking was immediate alwayes to the Iews in that it was immediat alwayes to the High. Priest from between the Cherubims To which I Reply This Answer is strange In that he sayes The mind of God revealed by the High-priest unto the People was to them immediate Revelation for certainly a thing delivered from one person to another by the hand of a third cometh unto that person by the hand of another which other must either be a Mediu◠or Midss or else he must say that three make but two which is a ridiculous Contradiction 2. We say that even according to the Quakers principles Gods way of revealing himself to us now is as immediate as it was to the Jews because we have these that were inspired by God speaking unto us though dead hence they have no reason to go about to prove the Scriptures not to be the principal Rule of Faith on this account that they are not immediate Revelation for that which they contend to have been immediat Revelation was no more immediat than the Scriptures My fourth Argument I draw from 2 Tim. 3.15 And that from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise through Faith unto Salvation From which place I thus Reason That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the Man of God v 17. Wise through Faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule of Direction to guide us in our Christian Course But the Scriptures are able to make Timothy or the Man of God wise unto Salvation Therefore they are a sufficient Rule or Directory to guide u◠in our Christian Course And here it may be observed that R. B. Vind pag. 40 41. is so pressed with the force of this Argument that he can find no better off-come but to challenge his Adversary as guilty of perversion of Scriptures because he compared the 15 and 17 verse◠together saying that the Scriptures were abl◠to make the man of God perfect But to challenge a man for perversion upon such a ground as this is an evident token of too much perversness for if he had but looked unto the 15 verse he might have seen they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to make Timothy which was a Man of God wise through Faith unto Salvation where there is an ability or sufficiency in some kind of Cause ascribed to the Scriptures Now no other sort of ability or sufficiency can be imagined if it be not that of a Rule or causae Exemplaris seu directivae for Faith is added as the instrumental Cause or as the apprehender Hence I evidently infer that the Scriptures are the adequate and primary Rule for if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in the Scripture or if the Scriptures were subject to another Test or Rule to be examined thereby
Iesuit more opposite to the Reformed than another with him he joyneth hands He is therefore to be accounted amongst the grossest of Iesuits and these his Romish Cavills are to be neglected being an hundred times sufficiently enervate by our Divines in their Writings against Papists especially in their answers to Bellarmin out of whose Quiver he hath stollen this long ago blunted weapon 2. The task incumbent to him was to evince that it belongeth properly to the Rule of Faith to tell a Man. v. c. Iohn or Iames in particular that he hath true faith whatever therefore he sayeth besides this is besides the purpose But 3. ex abundanti The bare and simple Profession of Quakerism will no more prove one to be a Quaker in earnest than the simple Profession that one hath Faith will prove him to have it indeed Seeing a man may profess himself to be a Quaker and yet be a Iesuit providing there be any difference between them there is therefore more required viz that for any thing Men can know such a man liveth according to the principle of the partie and no more is necessary for the begetting a Judgment of Charity than that a man profess the principles of Christianity Seriously for any thing Men can know practise accordingly but no infallible Evidences that another hath true Faith are any wayes necessarie but only Moral Rational Grounds of certainty those may be had As for the other viz. infallible Evidences those are only necessar to ones self and these they may hâ—ve by the Scripture applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdom the Scriptures themselves being the Rule whereby to make the Examen or Search Is. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2. Tim. 3.15 16 17.2 Pet. 1.19 20. And the enlightned Conscience the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a filial Disposition inclining the Believer to come to God as a Child unto a Father with both great Confidence and Reverence together with the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself Rom. 8.15 16 the witnesses Hence his antâ—-christian Cavills fall to the ground and the similies no more halt the other Examples brought for the illustration of any Matter for all similes halt in some respect otherwayes they should not be similies but the same and to think the similies here used cannot hold because both Judge witnesses are inward in the matter illustrated by these Similies is not only without but against Reason For even as the one thing being outward and to be proved to others not to the Murderer himself who knoweth it well enough requireth an outward Judge and outward witnesses So the other thing being inward the infallible Testimony of which the Person himself standeth only in need of requireth inward Judge and inward Witnesses 7. The same Author hath another Objection prosecuted at large in his Apologie and abbreviated in his Abridgement falsly called his Vindication Pag. 44.45 which is that there are many things that the Scriptures cannot determine as particular individual Actions to which Mr Broun had answered that general Rules were enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdom and also that there should be need of a particular Revâ—lalation for every particular Action as Eating Drinking c. Yea every particular Word This Consequence he denyeth saying that from Spiritual to Natural Actions the necessity of this Revelation will not follow I answer first The Consequence which he denyed he proveth himself for the Reason why Spiritual Actions need particular inspirations is because of their being either Sin or Duty that they may know how to give Spiritual Worship and leave Carnal Worship but this Reason he grants to stretch it self to natural Actions saying if he say those natural Acts under some Circumstances may be sin or duty I confess then the Revelation of the Spirit is needful Therefore if particular Immediate Revelations be necessary for the performances of Spiritual Actions they are also necessary for the performance of Civil or Natural Actions seeing there is nothing more sure than that every individual Action is so Circumstantiat as to become either Sin or Duty 2. Who was ever so absurd and ridiculous as to deny that any System as for example of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a perfect Rule to guide any Mathematician or Souldier upon this account that those Books comprehend not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever should exist with all their particular Actions and the Circumstances thereof I am sure that such a one should be esteemed by all Men to have lost his Wits and yet no better than such are the Quakers Achillean Arguments Next he pleaseth himself in reckoning up some differences amongst Ministers As for example those called Remonstrants and publick Resolutioners and hence would infer the Insufficiency of the Scriptures for decision of Controversies and this he thinketh so strong that he requireth a particular answer to it least Sayeth he he viz. Mr. Brown be said to leap where he cannot step Ans. If this do any thing it will overdo seeing he dare not deny that both Paul Barnabas had immediat Objective Revelations who notwithstanding grew so hot in their Contention Act. 15. that they parted one from another of whose meeting again we hear not in all the Scriptures But he labours so to fix that upon the Scriptures with which the Corruption of men is only to be Charged that he woundeth himself while he thrusteth at his Adversary seing if this Reason be Valid Objective Revelation is no more a sufficient Rule than the Scriptures as this Instance of the division of Paul Barnabas evinceth Beside these the Quakers have a heap of Topicks to prove the Scriptures not a perfect Rule such as they cannot be a Rule to deaf persons therefore they cannot be a rule to those that hear and most men know not the Original Tongues Ergo say they the Scriptures cannot be a compleat Rule They object also the variety of Readings Interpretations and the like which they have scraped out of Bellarmin and his brethren and therefore deserve no more answer than what hath been given to them William Pen in his Rejoynder Part 1. Chap. 5. hath this Objection the Scriptures cannot try and examine particular Motions and Prophesies saying that Paul Act. 16. reproved not the Spirit of Divination which possessed that 〈…〉 Philippi from the Scriptures therefore they cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life But I deny the Antecedent for had Iames Nailor but brought that particular Motion whereby he was prompted to receive Divine Worship to Scripture trial he might have found his Spirit to have been the father of 〈◊〉 and Arch-deceiver of Mankind but as the Papists to cover the rest of their abominations have invented one greater and more dangerous than them all that is their Churches infallibility So this Spirit of the Quakers knowing that upon Tryal he will be found a Counterfeit hath taken the Councel given by Alcibiades to Pericles
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
God to compile a rule of Faith and Life could by Infallible Evidence and infallible proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of God but nothing of this kind the Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentials for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation than the most wicked Enthusiasts as for Example Iohn of Leyden and his followers whom the Quakers themselves dare not deny to have him Acted by a most wicked Spirit of Delusion seeing therefore they will not subject their Revelations to the infallible test of the holy Scriptures but contrarywise will Impiously make the Scriptures stoup to their Revelations they can be no more certain that they are not acted by the Devil or at least by their own giddy-brain and erroneous fancie when they bear us in hand that they are inspired by the Spirit of God than they of Manster were To this Argument they decline so far as they can a direct answer Therefore Robert Barclay Replyeth to Mr. Broun Vind. pag. 21. How cometh it that others pretending to be led by the Scripture as their Rule as much as John Broun have been deceived since the Scripture declares nothing but Truth But how silly this is I have shown above and more largely in my Apology in these paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine Argument he has provided for Atheists and Scepticks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrant of Writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and Extraordinary Revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the Stream cannot be more pure than the Fountain Thus he This Reply resolveth into two Hypothetick Propositions as for the Paragraphs of which he here boasteth as unanswered which take up six pages in his Apology filled with Railing and Gall against all the reformed Churches they prove only that the Scriptures through men corruption are subject to abuse which never man denyed The first is if the Scriptures through the Corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the Patrociny of Errors and corrupt Practices then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Practice exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule unto them than these Revelations can be which Iohn of Leyden held The second is He that will not admit of such Revelations as cannot be distinguished from these which led their followers into the most Blasphemous Opinions and most wicked Practices imaginable He I say that will not admit of these for his principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures which can both be invincibly demonstrated to have proceeded from God and also call themselves sufficient to make one wise unto Salvation provideth an Argument for Atheists and Sceptiâ—ks But thus doth Mr. Broun reason against the Quakers and except this the like other grounds the Quakers have none for this heavy Charge For that his Adversary called the Revelations of the Apostles Prophets uncertain Is a most palpable Untruth the least shadow of which cannot be found in all his Writings except they deduce it by such unreasonable Inferences as these And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his wit or to be numbred amongst Rationals when he made these Deductions by which their palpable Impieties are indeed antidots against seduction But these men have an ordinary Trick of comparing their own Revelations of the Divinity of which they can give no Signs to these of the Apostles and Prophets that were to the conviction of all Opposers proved to be Divine and thus give away and betray the Christian Cause in labouring to defend their own Dottages In the next place therefore let us take a short view of the Quakers principal Rule compared with ours that it may more fully appear which of the parties provide an argument for Atheists Scepticks And 1. We cannot know whether they haâ—â— any Revelations at all they may be lying unto us for any thing we know we have only their naked Word for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures 2ly It being given that they have Revelations of some kind from whence are they from Heaven their own fancy or from Hell This we cannot know they neither do nor can give any mark to distinguish them from these Revelations which all the world are perswaded to have been from Hell or at least from a Vertiginous Fancy Go to then let them speak their mind and attempt the retortion of the argument if they dare upon the Scriptures They yet more fully prove that their Revelations are not from Heaven while they affirm that they are common to all men which if the experience of the World yea of the word of God may be judge is most â—alie 3ly Making a Supposition which will never come to a solid Position that they have divine Revelations we yet cannot know for what end they are given whether to be a principal Rule or not or whether or not through their own corruption they do not wrest and misunderstand or tho they do understand them if they walk according to them nothing of which can be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures we can hear nothing nor 〈◊〉 nothing but some men still amusing the World Crying a new Light without giving any Evidence or proof thereof but only their own Word so are always their oun witnesses in their own cause and therefore by all rational men ought not a little to be suspected 4ly This Spirit inward Light or Revelations of the Quakers for I take all for one can never be able to determine Controversies Seeing two different parties may both of them adduce these Revelations to prove contradictory Assertions Now Seeing neither of the parties is in case to Evince that his Revelations are from God more than the other the Controversie must remain for ever undetermined Seeing they have no common principle in which they can concenter and meet And thus standeth for Examples sake the case betwixt Quakers and Ranters agreeing in this principle of immediat Revelations and yet if their books be to be believed bitter Enemies to one another in several points for which both of them alledge Revelations as their grand Principle and neither of them can evince their Revelations to have proceeded from God more than the other Hence we most rationally conclude that the Controversies betwixt these two parties are indeterminable so long as they stick to this Principle Now this Argument in no ways 〈◊〉 be retorted on the Scriptures for though there have been through the corruption of men wresting the Scriptures many Controversies and that even amongst these who
when he persecuted the Church he both acted according to his judgment and that he always was of that judgment and never counteracted his light within and tho he confessed that he did it out of ignorance yet this will not help them for certainly this was all the light he had if we may believe himself and therefore he never had a true light within until the day of his miraculous conversion 5ly This Principle viz. That if every man follow his light within he cannot stray from the Truth overthroweth the whole â—aâ—â—ick of Quakerism with one blow for there are many in the world of which I am one who by all the Light they have attained unto and after the most impartial search firmly believe without so much as one check from the light within to the contrary that Quakerism is the path way to utter destruction It must therefore be so if the Doctrine that every one must follow his light be true 6ly If God suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testament to walk in their own wayâ— then all and every one hath not sufficient Grace and Light whereby they may come to Salvation But the former is true Acts. 14.16 Ergo the latter The evidence of the consequence strangely straitneth Bellarm de grat lib. arbitr for he would â—ain wrett this Text telling us that its meaning is The Grace of God did not so largely flow them as afterwards notwithstanding such a measure of Grace sufficient to divine Providence was not wanting but thus he dissembleth the question which was whether or not it pleased divine providence to give a sufficient measure of Grace to every â—ndividual of the Posterity of Adam 2ly There are many Nations in the world of which I believe the Iesuits and Quakers will not say that they have now more than sufficient Grace to bring them to Salvation Ergo if all Nations had lesse under the Old Testament than these nations have now they had not sufficient Grace 3ly The context evinceth our purpose for the witness of God there spoken of is only the common benignity of Providence viz. fruitful seasons food and gladness from which indeed they might have gathered that there was a God but was this grace alone sufficient to bring them to Salvation this Quakers and Iesuits must either say or else that the Apostle had not wit enough to speak to the purpose for he might have mentioned this sufficient Grace and Light as a Testimony of God in their hearts and told them that this Light within would have led them to Heaven if they had pleased whereas contrariwise he telleth them no such guide but that they were permitted to walk in their own wayes and the same Apostle telleth the Gentiles Ephes. 2.12 That they were without Christ And yet in contradiction to this the Quakers maintain that these Gentiles had the Light of Christ and Christ within them This Answer of Bellarmin I have set down and refuted because it is all one in substance with that which the Quakers use to give to this and the like Texts 7ly Our next Argument we deduce from Ephes. 2.12 and 4.8 Thus These who are without Christ aliens from the Common-wealth of Israel strangers to the Covenants of Promise have no hope are without God in the World have their understandings darkened through the blindness that is in them being alienated from the life of God and have blind Hearts and are past feeling add to these 2 Tim. 2.26 That some are taken captive by the Devil at his will. Now these that are in this case cannot have Grace and light sufficient to Salvation But the Gentiles are said here to be in this sad condition Ergo they had not sufficient Grace and Light. The Major which can be only questioned the Spirit of God hath in these places invincibly corroborat by rejecting all the Shifts and quibles that Iesuits and Quakers are able to feign 8ly This Doctrine of the Quakers is clearly overthrown by these Scriptures Amos. 3 2 You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth c. Psal. 147.19 20. He sheweth his Word unto Iacob his Statutes and Iudgments to Israel he hath not dealt so with any Nation as for his Iudgments they have not known them Praise ye the Lord. What can be more clear than that these to whom God did not give his Word Statutes and Judgments never had a light sufficient to guide them unto Salvation yet the Quakers Quakerism confirm pag. 2. who without all shame or conscience care not what they deny or what they affirm providing they can find words to the purpose or not to the purpose all is one have the confidence to deny it Their reasonlesse Reason is because in John 1.5 it s said that the light shined in darkness For who but a Quaker will infer from these words in which the Evangelist asserteth that Christ is the true God who in all ages manifested himself in some measure to the world by which manifestation of God in the Works of Creation and Providence the world might perceive indeed that there was a God but could not notwithstanding comprehend God so as to see and perceive that God the Creator should in the fulness of time cloath himself with mans Flesh and become the Redeemer for to this kind of Knowledge and Comprehension supernatural and divine Light was necessary now I say who but a Quaker will from this inâ—er that all nations in all ages had the Knowledge of the Word Statutes and Judgments of God For sure I am these who are altogether ignorant of them in the Judgment of all men who have not with the Quakers renounced the Scriptures will be esteemed void of a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation with the like impudence page 5. they deprave yea and really contradict Iude v. 19. where the Apostle positively asserteth that some men have not the Spirit for they tell us that men in one sense may be said not to have the Spirit and in another sense to have it even as a rich man who improveth not his money both hath it and hath it not in diverse senses according to which Christ said from him that hath not shall be taken away that which he hath But this perversion is too palpable for surely the Apostle whose Pen God guided intimateth no such thing nor insinuateth the least respect wherein these â—â—en can be said to have the Spirit whereas our Saviour whose words they groundlesly addâ—ce to colour their contradâ—ction of the Apostle pâ—ainly telleth us that these evil servants really had gifts which they abused by neglecting to improve them But on the other hand the Apostle here hath no such thing yea he telleth us that these men were twice dead i. e. I think as dead as can be or altogether void of the Spirit yea it can be no more alledged that these men in any sense had the Spirit than that clouds only
swelling with wind can be said to be filled with water yea without all exception or restriction they are called sensual I think few that care what they say will affirm that such have the Spirit of God where doth the Apostle in all this Epistle ever compare these men to these that have money but do not occupy it as the Quakers groundlesly and therefore falsly give out and yet these are the men who cry out upon us for making any Paâ—aphrases upon or Consequences from Scripture though never so clearly deduced from the Text while they themselves by more than a poetick license obâ—rude upon the world flat contradictions of Scripture for the meaning thereof Add â—o these that some things are absolutly necessary to be known in order to Salvation the Knowledge of which can never be evinced that all men had or have therefore it is most groundlesse to assert that all men have a sufficient light to guide them to eternal life to which Robert Barclay replyeth that the knowledge of these things is only necessary necessitate praecepti that is because they are commanded us not necessitate medii i. e. in plain English That Faith in Iesus Christ the knowledge of the Distinction of Father Son and Holy Ghost or that Christ is God and Man c. is not needful in themselves to be known or believed in order to Salvation but how little soever respect he hath to the Scriptures he ought to have had some care and consideration of his own Doctrine for his first These is these words John 17.3 this is eternal life c. where it is plainly asserted without any distinction or limitation that the Knowledge of the Father and the Son as one sending and one that is sent and therefore distinct the one from the other is called eternal life it self i. e if any thing a mean so necessary to eternal life as that without this knowledge it cannot be obtained Moreover the very Notion of Faith without which none can be saved implyeth nothing lesse than a closing with God through Christ and therefore necessarily and of its own nature and not with a respect to a command only presupposeth the knowledge of the distinction of Father and Son and of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ held forth under the Old Testament as one to be incarnate in the fulness of time and in the New Testament as actually incarnate and really and in due Time come in the Flesh. 9ly Before I come to the Quakers Objections I will overthrow one other of the Quakers Principles upon which the whole Fabrick of Quakerism is builded which is That in fallen man there remain no reliques of the Image of God and that by the fall his understanding is so darkned that he cannot by all the Light of Conscience reason and common notions perceive or gather from all or any of the works of creation and providence that there is a Supâ—em being or a God that created him and all things bâ—side In a word they utterly deny that which is called the natural knowledge of God or natural Theology and deny moreover that man in his fallen state can think or do any thing that is in it self or as to the substance of the action â—ood This Doctrine which the Quakers have learned from their dear Friends the Socinians as they are constrained to defend so seeing they assert that every Son and Daughter of Adam have within them a light and guide sufficient for Salvation and the World clearly perceiveth that there is no Light common to all Mankind except some smal Relicts of that once bright shining Image of God like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lanthorn which are never able to shew the wandring Traveler in the dark night his way homeward They are necessitate to say that this Light is supernatural and a fruit of the purchase of Christ and consequently that man as to the things of God hath no more Natural Light than an Ox or Asse See Rob Barclay's fourth These and his Apology cap 4. and Vindication sect 5. 10ly The falshood of this Doctrine we evince by these following arguments and 1. It is not imaginable how one can be rational and yet not be in case to infer from all the works of Creation that there is a supream cause and beeing we say this is not imaginable except to a Socinian and Quaker who can imagin at least say they can imagin what they will. Now the Quakers Quakerism confirm pag 3. Grant that Conscience and Reason are distinguished from the saving Light of Christ in all men and the Revelation thereof as a natural and super-principle natural are distinguished Well then seing reason is natural and man is rational how can he if he but contemplat these admirable Works of Creation and Providence and exercise his reason in so doing not conclude that these are the Product of an Infinit and Omnipotent Creator who is to be Loved Feared and Adored which thoughts of themselves or as to the substance of the Action are certainly good and more Laudable than the Quakers silent waiting which differeth nothing from sleeping although they place a principal part of their worship therein 11ly Secondly whatever is in man and common to all Mankind is natural but some sparks of the knowledge of a Deity as also some thoughts and desires that are good in themselves as for example the desire of self-preservation are in man and common to all mankind Ergo some Relicts of the knowledge of God and thoughts that are of themselves really good are natural The Major is most evident for I defy all the Socinians and Quakers in the world to give one Instance to the contrary the Minor is no lesse undenyable seing there is no nation in the world tho never so barbarous and inhumane who hath not some notions of a Deity and desire to preserve themselves But I know the Quakers dare not deny it otherwayes they will overthrow all their universal Grace and Light by them pleaded for 12ly Thirdly that which is originally born with every one and groweth up to more and more maturity as he in whom it is groweth up is undoubtedly natural But some remainders of the knowledge of God are Originally i e. in the principle and inclination as they speak born with man and grow up to more and more maturity according to the growth of him in whom they are Ergo they are natural The Major is beyond controversie The Minor therefore they can only deny which yet is no lesse clear than the major for they grant that some things that respect natural Sciences and the prudent management of the affairs of the world are not supernatural See the fore-cited Vindication page 52. But certain it is that some sparkles of the knowledge of a Deity are as common and appear as early as these things which they deny not to be natural 13ly Fourthly That which is common to Devils is not supernatural but to know
counted a Tautology in strict Syllogistical aâ—gâ—mentation the scope of which is to evince the same sense by a clearer phrasiology or way of speaking 2. He sayeth that in this argumentation words not in the Text are foisted in viz. they who have not actually sinned But in this he only bewrayeth his Own and his Brethrens capital error that the Scriptures ought not to be interpreted or reasoned from for his adversary used only this argument as a clear deduction from the Text yet because it is not in so many words in the Text he rejecteth it yea he saith Ibid. let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith that Infants are guilty of Adams sin Behold Reader how the Quakers new light hath extinguished the light of sound reason and provided for their ancestors the Sadducees a shield such as it is toward off the argument of our Saviour whereby He to purpose proved the Resurection from the dead but had Robert Barclay been there he had given him more ado by saying shew me the plain Scripture that sayeth the dead shall rise again Moreover we say that this followeth clearly from these words in whom all have sinned To this he answereth that it is to be understood of all that could sin i. e. actuallie having come to the use of reason but this answer hath in its bosom a blasphemous falshood that the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed to Infants and therefore that they are not saved by him only and come to Heaven throw his Righteousness for whatever he say for the defence of this hâ—â—â—nswer doth of its own accord tend to the protection of this Blasphemy for altogether with the like reason it might be replyed to any pleading from this Chapter that the Justification and Salvation of Infants is to be ascribed to the Righteousness of Christ that these are only righteous for the Righteousness of Christ who could be righteous i. e. After the use of reason actually joyned themselves to that Righteousness 2. He may as well say that these received hurt and damage by the sin of Adam who could receive it i. e. actually join themselves to it for there is alike reason for both His reason why Infants cannot sin is because they are under no Law for the proof whereof he refers me to what he has said above whither with him I will return which is num 4. where he requireth in what Countries they use to kill all the Children whose Fathers are put to death for their crimes To which I reply 1. That it is enough to prove Children to be under a Law that tho in non-age or unborn they undergo forfeiture and deprivation of Goods and priviledges for no evil of their own but their Fathers misdemeanors only 2. Both in divine and humane writing Children are recorded to have suffered deaâ—h who had committed no actual sin and yet suffered the same punishment with their Fathers who had actually sinned In divine story the Sodomites I am sure were put to death for their crimes all whose Children were killed with them Gen. 19. Behold reader how easily his most perplexing questions are resolved The like fell out to the Children of Core Numb 16. The Children of Achan Jos. 7. and to the Canaanitish Infants the Children of Benjamin the inhabitants of Iabesh-Gilead of the like examples humane Histories are full of which the reader may see good store collected by that excellent divine Turret in vol. 1. loco 9. Quest 9. pag. 671. I am sure there is nothing more common than for Kings or Common-wealths to sack the Cities and Countries of Obstinate rebells and thus to destroy the Children with the Fathers and to kill the hostages of Covenant-breakers without respect regard to their age examples of which see in Livie decade tertia 3. If in any point of Religion and Faith the admirable depth of the judgmâ—nt and Secret Counsel of God be to be seen certainly it is be observed here for I am sure Mans luxuriant reason can find so much to object against even the very inherent corruption of Man his miseries tho in non-age and his deprivation of the image of God as being the effects or sure consequence of Adams eating of the forbidden fruit as may send the answerer to Pauls Sanctuarie Rom. 9.20 Who art thou c. We answer therefore 1. That Adam was a publick person standing and falling in the Room of his posterity in whose name and behalf the Covenant of works was made with him as their representative so that his first sin was not personal but the sin of the whole Nature To this Robert Barclay replyeth num 6. requiring Mr. Brown to prove by plain Scriptures that Adam ceased to be a publick person after he had committed his first sin Answer he denyeth not if this be proved but that our Doctrine of Original sin will stand for so much he here insinuateth I therefore with the more chearfulness prove that Adam did cease to be a publick person which is evident from this that he died in that day he did eat and therefore made the Covenant void and null now certainly no Man with reason can say that a Man dead in Law as Adam was after the breach of the Covenant by eating can in his future actions be a publick person in respect of the same Law broken by eating Therefore seing the day he did eat did put a term to this Covenant of Life as no man with reason can deny it and a period to this common headship for the one of these standeth and falleth reciprocallie with the other it is clear and manifest to all that Adam after his fall was no more a publick person Moreover the sin of Adam whereby we were damnified is still holden forth as one and not as many sins as for example Rom. 5. All along in the comparison betwixt Christ and Adam Robert Barclay replyeth that we may as well hence conclude that we are only justified by the first act of Christs obedience and so have nothing to do with Christs death and sufferings But by his favour Bonum oritur ex integra causa Malum autem ex defectu qâ—ovis The Scriptures every where and in particular Isa. 53. throughout express a long series of doings and sufferings agreed upon in the Covenant of Redemption none of which could be wanting for the fulfilling of the bargain and accomplishment of our Salvation Whereas on the other hand one defect in Adam was enough to compleat so to speak his fall and make the breach of the Covenant it being an evil thing for the makeing of which one defect is enough And thus his Gordian and insoluble knot for so he accounteth it is with all easiness untyed But we need not insist on this seing he endeavoureth to Shreâ—d himself under the covert of his accustomed antiscriptural dottage calling for plain Scripture that is That Adam was a publick person before his fall in so many Letters and Syllables knowing
forth by the conjunction of man and woman To this argument drawn from Orthodox antiquity Rob. 〈◊〉 Vind. Sect. 2. N 5. replyeth what then â—oth that render our doctrine null Answer Not indeed to a Pelagian which every where and in special here by his open Patrociny of this Hereâ—y he fully demonstrateth himself to be notwâ—thstanding that at other times he would fain deny himself to be one studying to evite the name tho he hug their â—lasphemy Their answer to our Argument drawn from Psal. 51.5 I was shapen in iniquity c. Which by all the Orthodox both primitive writers as Augustin passim and the Reformers as Luther in his Confession is understood of Original sin is most strange viz That David speaketh of the sin of his Mother and not of his own To which it is replyed that thus the marriage duty shall de condemned To this Rob. Barclay Vind Sect 5 N 7. returneth a denyal of the inference which yet is clear seing wherever in all the Scriptures any did bewail the sins of their progenitors they still specified and pointed at the sin in particular as Neh. 9. with many other places but here if any particular fact be specified it must needs be that of the Marriage duty therefore the inference holdeth good here I cannot but take notice of one of his pungent answers or rather questions if ye will Which he proposeth ubi modo in these words And I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scripture he reads of Original sin and whether if the Scripture be the only Rule he cannot find words fit enough to express his Faith or must he shift for them else where Thus he but in Lieu of these I return him another question and desire to be informed of him whether or not he readeth of Actual sin or findeth this in so many words Behold then Reader the desperate tendency of Quakerism which is to make men beleive that there is no sin at aâ— mâ—ntioned in the Scriptures and therefore not at all prohibited For seing on the account that the phrase Original sin is not found in Scriptures he denyeth our Doctrine how clear so ever it be proved by Scriptural deductions he giveth good ground to another for inferring ad hominem that there is not such a thing as Actual sin seing the phrase Actual sin is no where in Scripture to be â—ound more than that phrase Original sin Tâ—e same Truth may be yet further demonstrated by several other pregnant arguments As first Infants for the sin of Adam are deprived of the Image of God therefore there is no reason to deny that they can be accounted guilty of his sin The Antecedent is denyed by none of our present Adversaries The Consequence is also firm for its a punishment yea the greatest of punishments equal with if not greater than the torments of hell to be deprived of the Image of God and therefore of his comfortable presence Communion Love and Favour 2. The Scripture is ignorant of any persons that go to Heaven except these that were guilty persons these whose sin Christ did bear Er Children who have never committed Actual sin are guilty before God. The Consequence is beyond all â—xceptions Thâ— Antecedent also remaineth firm until our Adâ—ersaries adduce some place of Scripture shewing that some persons who never were guilty go to Heaven or are saved without the merits of Christ. Moreover it is clear from the whole tenor of the Scriptures that none are saved but sinners which was Christs errand to the Earth 〈◊〉 the Scripture no where maketh any distinction betwixt guilty persons and sinners and no where sayeth that any are saved but these whose sins Châ—ist did bear and one would in reason think that this can least of all men be denyed by our Adversaries who assert that Christ died for all men without exception Therefore if Infants be not guilty there is no reason to say that Christ â—ied for them or did bear their sins therefore we with all reason enquire which our Adversaries according to their principles can never be able to answer how Infants if not guilty come to heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ They are altogether void of reason while they with Rob Barcl for want of a better answer enquire How these whom we account Elect Infants come to Heaven Seing our reply is at hand viz that they are acquited before God by the imputed righteousness of Christ. 3. Certain it is from the whole tenor of the Scriptures and in special Rev 22.15 That these who in the sight of God are dogâ— are guilty persons and to be excluded from Heaven and therefore to be thrust into Hell but whole Nations without any exception are such Matth. 15.26 Therefore Infants being a part of these Nations deserve to be excluded from Heaven and sent to Hell. Add to this that some Children are said by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.14 To be altogether destitut of Holiness which persons Heb. 12.14 So long as they are so cannot see God. Some of the Fathers in order to prove the Guilt of Infants flowing from Adams transgression made use of Gen. 17.14 The man-child that is uncircumcised shall be cut off This Deduction of some of the Ancients Mr Broun mentioneth pag 132. But expresly telling that he will not urge it but inferreth notwithstanding from this place that Children may be in some sense capable of breach of Covenant and therefore under a Law desiring his Adversary to chew his cud upon this inference which if true overthroweth all this Socinian Doctrine anent Original sin which still presupposeth that Children are under no Law. For reply to which Rob Barcl Vind pag 62. introduceth Mr. Broun as if he had willed him to chew his â—ud on this first deduction viz. that of some of the Fathers passing by the second viz Mr. Broun's own inference without so much as mentioning thereof whereby he declareth that it hath broken his Jaws or at best is not yet digested 4 None can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again Ioh. 3.7 But surely this new-birth or to be born again is the gift of God and a priviledge which he may withhold from whom he will and therefore without prejudice to his justice may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven but none are excluded from it but guilty persons which I believe none will deny therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons 6. The main Objection and that for any thing I know upon which the bulk of all their Objections dependeth against our Doctrine of Original sin the Socinians and Quakers draw from Ezek 18.20 The Son shall not bear the Fathers iniquity c. Hence they infer That no sin can be imputed To which it is answered that this will not follow seing the Lord is there stopping the mouth of the wicked but yet queâ—â—lous Iews as tho they had been altogether guiltless themselves and punished for
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
all blessed for ever so with equal Impiety they bring down the glorious God levelling him with the dust and subject that most pure and Impassible beeing to the weakest frailties of Mankind Alledging that Christ weeped as God and not as man over Ierusalem but that they may want all ground of Complaint Let us hear themselves who in the principles of the Priests of Scotland pag 33. say It was asked of him viz. Henry Foreside of a fore ordained number to destruction and for what Christ wept over Ierusalem He answered as he was Human he mourned and his god-head decreed them to hell this is a lying Doctrine of the devil for after many of them of Ierusalem came to be converted as ye may read in Acts 2. And many of the Priests came to be obedient to the Faith for all being gone astray both Iews and Gentiles Rom 2.9 concluded under sin the pure the Eternal tendered over them who had stopped their ears and closed their eyes to that which was pure of God in them that they might have come to that which is pure and have been gathered under Christs wings Mat. 23 37. Who is pure and so have been converted and healed and have heard with their ears and seen with their Eyes And as for the word Humane that is not Scripture Language it speaketh not that Language CHAP. V. Of Christ and of his Benefits THE Quakers in words commonly acknowledge that Christ is God and Man and account it a wrong when they are accused of the denyal thereof But beside these two Natures they really maintain a third viz. a Spiritual and Heavenly nature in Christ which they call the Heavenly man Christ Jesus which heavenly man they say did exist before the incarnation of Christ Jesus and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this man the Church in all Ages did feed For George Keith in his way cast up pag 38 93 96. Sayeth Christ as Man was and is before all the first and the last Id pag 90. The Man Christ influenceth all Men by his life and is in them and pag 93. The word made flesh created all things and the word only is is not properly the Christ. And George Keith in that Book contendeth at large that Christ before his Incarnation was as properly the Christ as he is now And in the same book pag. 94 he sayeth Christ as man came down from Heaven Idem ibid. Christs Flesh and Blood came down from Heaven pag. 94 95 Thus Christ hath Spiritual Flesh and Blood pag 95. Of his Spiritual flesh and blood did the Saints of old eat drink pag 97.98 He saith The Man Christ is to be understood prov 8.23 I was set up from everlasting from the beginning or ever the earth was And Ps. 110.1 2 3. and pag 99 100 108. It was this life of Christ as Man that was pressed as a Cart c. Amos 2.13 pag 100.108 109. Thus saith he Apostats crucifie to themselves again the Son of God. Heb. 6.6 pag. 100. Thus hath Christ been crucified by the wicked from the beginning Ibid. Christ the Heavenly man lived in Abraham and Moses pag 102. Christ was true and real Man before he was born of Mary pag 103. The word was made flesh from the beginning and dwelt in us pag 104. According to his Heavenly Nature even as Man He Christ was the son of God. pag. 123. The Man Christ is every where That is his Soul is extended into all in his divine seed and body which is his Heavenly Flesh and Blood. From all which beside other most horrid absurdities and blasphemies which follow upon this their Doctrine this is a clear consequent That Christ hath three Natures To this they answer Quak. Confir p. 33 That it will no more follow from their Doctrine that Christ hath three natures than it will follow from ours who assert that Christ assumed into Vnion with the Divine nature a Body and a Soul. But this answer is easily repelled for a Body a Soul considered both together make up but one humane nature Whereas according to their Doctrine he was Man before his incarnation and again man by incarnation seing every incarnation bringeth a man to the World Which incarnation they have not yet denyed at least in words And therefore Christ hath two entire humane Natures and yet these strictly conjoyned together in one man. Which doctrine maketh our blessed Lord a down-right Monster 2. The Quakers doctrine as it rendereth the Humanitie of Christ altogether Monstruous so it quite annihilateth and destroyeth his Divinity For Christopher Atkinson a known Quaker in a book of his entituled The Sword of the Lord in oposition to the sixth of the propositions which Philip Nye Thomas Godwine and Sidrah Simson drew up at the appointment of Cromwel whereby he might regulate himself in the tolleration of Sectaries viz. Christ is God said Hear Sotish minds your imagined God beyond the Stars and your carnal Christ which ye would make appear through your Heathnish Philosophy is utterly denyed and testified against by the light In these words the God-head of Christ is so evidently denyed yeâ— and his manhood too that the Quakers are able to put no Commentarie or glosse upon them which is their usual custom whereby to varnish and make any thing speak what they will And therefore to the Students of Aberdeen who Quak. Canvass pag. 82. Have objected this passage unto them they answer Quak. Conf. pag 36 that they cannot light upon Aitkinsons book But it is not to be believed that such active and bussie Spirits for the promotion of Quakerisme as Robert Barclay and George Keith are men of so great acquaintance and correspondence with the Quakers in England could not obtain the sight of a book which certainly is frequent enough there But it mattereth not much what they say for they stick not to deny passages that are verbatim in their own books Of which kind of dealing take one place of many which might easily be given Will Pen Sand Found pag 26 sayeth that Christ fulfilled the Law only as our pattern or example And yet Reaâ— against Rail pag 78 counteth his adversary Hicks a forger for repeating these words and stifâ—y denyeth that there is such a passage there saying I am very certain that the word only was not there See Hicks Dial. 3. pag 74 75 76. Where you shall find a large bundle of the like impudent and inexcusable lies They say also they can prove that Christopher Aitkinson was not a Quaker which they may easily say but they ought to have proved it not said it only otherwise these words serve only to testifie their dissatisfaction with the ingenuous plainness of Aitkinson in which he unmaâ—keth and â—ayeth open to the World what the rest of the Quakers involve in Clouds of strange and mysterious Language equivocal and hardly intelligible terms being the only covert that they can find under which to shreud their abominable
they render as much as in them lyeth the passion Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus at Ierusalem altogether vain and idle actions And in favours of this their inward body they call the body that our Lord took of the Virgin Mary only a garment and that it 's no constituent of Christ and that Luke 2.26 Where it s said that it was revealed to Simeon that he should not dye till he should see the Lord 's Christ is to be understood of a Spiritual sight or of seeing the Christ within Will. Pen. Rej. to Iohn Faldo part 2th c. 9. 4. As these men deny Christ himself so they deny consequently all the benefits purchased by him For they say that Christ dyed only to be a pattern and example to Believers hence Will. Pen sandy found pag. 26 sayeth unless we become doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy but as our example to fulfill we can never be Iustified before God Nor let any fancy that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their acceptance but only as their pattern Thus it is evident that the Quakers are altogether Socinians in their Judgments of the ends of the death of Christ and so joyn themselves closs with them and Papists in the Doctrine of Justification yea Rob. Bar. denieth not but that his Doctrine of Justification is all one with that of the Counsel of Trent For the proof of which let the reader compare Mr. Brown Chap. 13. N. 8. with Rob. Barclay his Vindication Sect. 8. N. 1. and Apol p. 137.139 He accuseth Luther and the Body of the Primitive protestants as great depravers of the Doctrine of Iustification doers of as great hurt by this their doctrine as ever they did good by what they brok down of Babylon But I will give you their doctrine yet more fully in their own words first Will. Pen serious Apol pag 148. Hath these words and indeed this we deny viz. Justification by the righteousness that Christ fulfilled in his own person for us wholly without us and boldly affirm in the Name of the Lord to be a doctrine of Devils and an arm of the Sea of Corruption which now doth deludge the World. And again Edward Burrows p. 33. To that query of Philip Binnet viz. Whether none be accounted righteous in the sight of God in whom is any Corruption or failing or who do not fulfill the Law and answer every demand of Justice Answereth thus Here thou polluted Beast makes it manifest what thou hast been driving at all this while which is that thou would have thy corruption and filthiness to be accounted righteousness in Gods sight that so thou mayest wallow in filthiness but Iohn sayeth he that commits sin is of the Devil the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil and thou Man of Sin would have it stand God doeth not accept any where there is any failing or who do not fullfill the Law and answer every demand of Justice And Will. Pen Reas against Rail pag 80. We must not conceive that his viz. Abrahams personal offering was not a justifying righteousness but that God was pleased to count it so nor was there any imputation of anothers Righteousness to Abraham but on the contrary his personal obedience was the ground of that just imputation therefore that any should be justified by anothers righteousness imputed and not inherent in him is both ridiculous and dangerous Edward Burrows pag 32. Thou Beast to whom the plagues of God are due and upon whom the wrath of God must be accomplished who would have another righteousness than that which Christ worketh in the Saints Pen. San Fund pag 25. Justification is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness but from the actual performing and keeping of Gods righteous statutes Ibid. pag 25.30 It is a great abomination to say God should condemn and punish his innocent Son that he having satisfied for our sins we might be justified by the imputation of of his perfect righteousness Why should this horrible thing be contended for by Christians 5. With the like fâ—cility I could shew that the Doctrine of the Quakers is in every point contrarie to the Doctrine of Christ contradicting and vilifying all his Ordinances and denying all his benefits I shall content my self with one great instance viz. Of the Resurrection of the dead Concerning which point the Quakers are downright Sadducees For in the hearing of many witnesses Geo Whitehead said This Body shall not rise again Hicks Quak appeal ans pag 21. and Will pen. Reas. against Rail p. 133. Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with the Scripture Reason and the belief of all Men right in their wits And Ibid pag 34. For shame Let us not make such stirr against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation for the absurdity of that is rather outdone than equaled by this carnal Resurrection And the same William Pen in his Invalidity I should have said his Validitie seeing he all along Justifieth his adversaries charges of Mr. Faldos Vindication hath a Chapter prolix enough to defend his down right Sadducism Yea what is more clear in all the Scriptures than Christs visible appearance to judgment And yet Geo Whith Christ Ascended so that according to him he shall never descend pag 22. Sayeth they are like to be deceived who are expecting that Christs second coming will be a personal coming And Ib. he denyeth that he shall come visibly for although sayeth he He shall come in the like manner yet every like is not the same And no wonder it is that the Quakers deny the visible return of Christ to Judgement seing they deny that Christ hath any personal being without men Thus speaketh the same Author pag 18. And again pag 69. Christ in person remot in a Body of Flesh and not in Men is not Scripture Language but added But it is needless to adduce moe passages to shew the detestableness of this Seck enough being said already to discover it I shall only add the words of a Leading Quaker related by Hicks Quak Appeal Ans. pag 12. who being asked what he thought of Christ Jesus born at Bethlehem and dying at Ierusalem answered Iesus Christ at Ierusalem a Type a Figure a shadow that is passed away what have you to do with Christ at Ierusalem have done with him From all this it is evident that according to the Quakers there is not such a thing now in beeing as Christ Jesus that died at Jerusalem And as they deny Christ the Son of God so they arrogat to themselves by a most Diabolical Sacriledge whatsoever the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath appropriated to Christ Jesus of which Lucifer-like aspiring take a taste Iosiah Coal an eminent Quaker thus writeth to Geo Fox Dear Geo Fox who art the Father of many Nations whose life hath reached through us thy Children even to the Isles afar off unto
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
He is angry because his Adversary saith that it is the will of God that his people be under a warfare so long as they are here saying But 〈◊〉 it the will of God that they alwayes be overcomeâ— Seing if their Actions still be stained with sin 〈◊〉 that they may be called service to Satan they cannot but be said to be overcome Ans. They are not alwayes overcome Because sometimes the man as Spiritual prevaileth against himself as carnal And alwayes overcometh at length and at the end of the War though oftentimes foiled in particular Battels The none consideration of which distinction is the ground of this Cavil his following words stand and fall with this Doctrine of Original sin and universal Grace according to his own confession we shall therefore passe them Pag. 123 He repeateth his Argument which is that our Doctrine is injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ. But he forgetteth to shew how Only he sayeth in opposition to his Adversary saying that the Guilt of sin by by this Sacrifice is taken away And also he taketh away the stain thereof piece and piece till in end he give full Victory They refer that to another Life The Question is concerning this Ans. If he were minded to make a Difference betwixt Heaven and Earth he had not made a Question about full Victory in this life 2. How profane a Heart must he have that counteth all the attainments of a Child of God in this Life as good as nothing For notwithstanding of them all he will still have the Sacrifice of Christ to be useless except a man in this Life become as sinless as an Angel. He was concerned to have proved this otherwise not belied the World by giving out that he had fully answered his Adversary But especially he lieth here in that he sayeth he hath fully answered his eight Chapter In which of all places he most failed Of which I shal give the Reader a touch in my Appendix And may be more fully seen by these who compare the Books themselves He will not be content that his Adversary sayeth that the godly and the wicked differ In that the one sinneth with full Purpose of Heart and the other viz. the godly mourneth over and repenteth of his sin and shortcomings but sayeth seing he supposeth the godly to remain in sin all their lifetime the similitude remaineth Ans. And is it so that there is no difference in sinning between him that sinneth through Malice and him that sinneth through Infirmity let him prove this For until he do it we account it an abominable Assertion For the Scripture maketh a clear difference between the shortcomings of the godly and wicked departing from God. And is it no difference that the one repenteth and the other not Next he mentioneth another of his Apologetick Arguments viz. that our Doctrine in this Point maketh the Ministry uselesse But in stead of urging what his Adversary answered which was that upon this very head the Necessity of a Ministry appeareth 2. That it cannot be proved that this ultimat end of the Ministry mentioned Eph. 4 13. is attained here and 3. That there is a Perfection of Parts and another of Degrees I say in stead of urging of all this he only sayeth but the Question is whether or not that perfection is attainable here Ans. He ought to urge his Argument And not propone Questions seing he knoweth well enough that his Adversary as alwayes so here denyeth that a sinless perfection is attainable in this life Now let him prove this from the place and he may be considered But in stead of this for as short as his Book is he must make a Digression to tell us that though Christ was sinlesse yet he admitted of grouth which is nothing to the purpose seing Christ is not said to grow in the Love of God and such moral Perfections about which the Question is but only in that kind of Knowledge the pura nescientia or want of which is no sin or culpable Ignorance Next he sayeth it will not follow from Col. 4.12 and 1 Thes. 3 12. that it is impossible that men should be free of sin here by the Grace of God. These were the Places from which he deduced an Argument for sinless perfection in his Apology And now being answered he thinks it enough for urging of them to bid us prove the contrary from the same places Judge Reader if this man be not pithy And yet he hath all the pith that Socinus and Crellius had from whom he learned the Argument His following Quibles are already answered Only I must take notice that in this pag. 129. he enquireth How these can be said to have renounced the Works of darkness who have need to be washed from their dayly Defilements Ans. Let him read the 12 and 13. of Zechariah and there he may find that these two are consistent And as for his how 's seing he will not see from the Scripture they ought to have no other Answer And whereas he venteth his Malice here in special against the Presbyterians we expect no oâ—her thing at his hand For we know though Qâ—â—kers and Jesuits have an inveterat Hatred against all Protestants Yet in a special Manner theiâ— hate burneth against Presbyterians knowing that these are furthest off from the Church of Rome Some othâ—rs of his Apologetick Arguments he mentioneth in the following page but doth not so much as attempt to urge them Next the Examples of Enoch and Noah he also â—entioneth and again taketh his old Shift viz. the Defendents part â—aying how can we prove thaâ— they were never without sin whileas affirmanti incumbit probatio He doth not deny but they had once sin Now seing he asserteth that at another time they were free of it altogether he ought to prove it And that by another Argument than saying If they had not been altogether free of sin they would not have been called perfect Seing that perfection is variously taken in Scripture and not only for being free of sin as himself confessed above seing he did not contradict what his Adversary said about the Diversity of the Signification of the Word He cometh in the next place to remove our Arguments The first of them is drawn from 1 Joh. 2.8 If we say we have no sin c. and here he sayeth first that this will no more prove that the Apostle Iohn himself sinned dayly than what is said Iames 3.9.10 can be affirmed of the Apostle Iames himself Ans. There is no parity For James speaketh of grosse outbreakings from which the Lâ—rds People are ordinarly kept But here the Apostle speaketh simply of the Nature of sin 2. Certain it is that the Apostle John even in his best frame had sinful Actions and his own Errors Which none will deny that readeth Rev. 19.10 11 and 22 8 9. and I think no Quaker will deny that John was perfectly born again if any ever was Now let them
dependeth upon the controversie of perfection to which he referreth his Reader and I do the like to my survey of his Vindication His next nominal Calumny is that his Adversary supposeth it to be their Doctrine that there is no setting about prayers or other duties without a previous motion of the Spirit Now of all things I wonder most that he calls this a Calumny seing this very thing is asserted by himself in his eleventh proposition How he will reconcile himself with himself I know not well Yet sure his following words are so far from mending the matter that they make it worse which are That they speak not of a previous motion in order of time but in order of nature Neither his proposition nor any part of his Doctrine for any thing can be learned insinuateâ—h any such thing 2. This motion must so far preceed the setting about duty as that the persons perception of the motion must be interjacent according to them For they teach that before duty we must not only be acted by the Spirit but know that we are acted Ergo the motion must be previous in order of time And yet the man is so fraughted with a desire of altercation that he must say some what though he have not much advantage by it otherwise he had not challenged his Adversary as a Calumniator while by the same very expression taxed by himself he is forced to a distinction unheard of heretofore as I think in this matter and in reality a real contradiction of his own Principles And again he alledgeth he is wronged because his Antagonist inferreth from his words in his eleventh Proposition That according to him Gospel-worship putteth away all external Actions But he needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their words Some other things he hath which he calleth Calumnies One thing he taketh very ill and that is that his Antagonist pag 418. compareth the Quakers to the old Pythonicks because of the strange and unusual motions among them Antick fits and strange Pranks I alwayes compared them in such fits to the Cumean Cybil as she is described by Virgil in his 6 Eneid To this he retorts the extraordinary working of the Spirit of God mentioned in the fulfilling of the Scripture called the Stwarton sickness challenging us to assign a difference between this and the strange influence of the Quakers spirit upon them which we can with great facility do for beside that these out-lettings of the Spirit of God made them to cleave more closly to the Scriptures as the only Rule and Star to guide them through the sea of this world to the safe port of their eternal rest And endeared more and more unto the Ministers of Christ Jesus his word and Sacraments we mean that which the Quakers call Water-Baptism the Communion of the Lords Body in Bread and Wine as sure pledges of the Love of Christ commanded by him to be used until his coming to Judgment which are openly contemned and vilified by the Quakers We say beside this these outlettâ—ngs were far from leading them into such strange and unheard of fits as the Quakers are put into of which I could instance a Legion of sure Examples see a late piece written by a new English Minister Mr. Increase Meather See also Paget's Heresiography where he bringeth among other strange Pranks of theirs to which they were moved by the Spirit One Susanna Parsons a zealous Quaker attempting to raise one of their number who had murdered himself from the dead but in vain And this iâ— attested by all the Magistrats of a considerable City in England viz. Worster Anno 1659. See also a little piece called Foot out of snare of the strange and antick influences of this their Spirit on one Iohn Toldervei What shall we say of Iames Naylor who following the Light of this Spirit did arrogat to himself divine honour at Bristol Now though they say he recanted this again it is all one matter For this Antiscriptural Spirit which is their principal Rule can no doubt change it self as it seeth occasion And having too much bewrayed it self with the grossness of its Delusion can easily turn it self to a more subtile way of imposture So that we may in a word say that the difference between the workings of the Spirit of God on his people mentioned in Scripture and these of the faâ—her of lies and deceits on the Pythonicks or Cybills was no more palpable than the difference between the working upon these mentioned by him and that upon the Quakers He sayeth moreover that the story of Gilpin who as Paget sheweth us was mad through Quakerism is refuted long ago But forgetteth to tell by whom or where Next he cometh to wipe off the absurdity of their silent waiting that this their abstracting of their mind from all thoughts so that the soul doth not at all act upon any kind of Object Which posture they say prepareth them for the Spirits motion And this is the result of their asserting that a man ought to do nothing of the Service or Worship of God except they know that they are moved thereto by the Spirit Now such an inturning for he counteth it a great wrong in his Adversary to call it introversion is not possible unto a man except he be sleeping as the experience of the generality of men witnesseth who still perceive their Souls acting upon some Object either good or evil except they be sleeping or in an extasie And so this is a direct following of the Heathens who went and sleeped at the Temples or Groves of their gods that they might have conference with them in dreams But they used to take sheep-skins and ly upon as Virg. in his 7 Book speaking of Latinus which if the Quakers do or not I am uncertain Now in his defence of this pag 147 being challenged as guilty of this absurdity by his Antagonist among other words he hath these viz. If he would understand it of the old man the man of sin that is corrupted we wil say with the Apostle that it ought to be crucified and die And again he sayeth that albeit in one sense they are said to die yet they more truely live and exist citing Gal. 2 20. And this is the substance of what he sayeth on this point To which I answer it is well that at length they forsake their prime Opinion or Characteristical note Hitherto he with his brethren were defending the relinquishing of all thoughts whatsoever in order to the Spirits Motion and our setting about of duty now he only defendeth the leaving of Carnal thoughts But he doth not consider that this Cheat will easily be perceived For there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving For I hope he moveth when and where he listeth Now I say at this time as man cannot Act yea or think warrantably of the things of God according to them Because
See his 12. Proposition and his Apology thereto annexed Vindication pag 162 He cometh to urge one of his Apologetick arguments against these Sacraments in general viz. That the many controversies among Christians about them prove them to be a real pharisie To which when his adversary replyeth that if this argument hold it will overthrow all the parts of the Christian Religion He answereth that he should not have used this argument except he had other weighty ones And then he cryeth out upon his adversary as shewing a malicious genious Judge Reader if he had reason so to cry out and yet no better is the ground of his complaints through the whole of this Treatise But to the main purpose Iulian or Porphyry might as well have used this instance as he for they thought they had weighty Arguments against the Christian Religion And he doeth but meerly think that he hath weighty arguments against the Sacraments as in the Sequel shall appear However in the mean time we may observe that this argument as the most part of the rest is borrowed from the Pagans For this very Argument drawn from the division of Christians they improved what they could to overthrow Christianitie From them the Papists borrowed it wherewith to impugne the Protestants And lastly the Quakers from them and hath placed it where it was again at the first to be a battering piece against Christianitie in general So it hath gone from hand to hand in Circulo Next he cometh to vindiâ—at another argument borrowed from the Papists in their pleadings for traditions against the Scriptures viz. that the word Sacrament is not to be found in Scripture take heed to the consequence Reader E. The thing is not in them Is not this valid But this Argument in its very defence he is forced to let go while he sayeth he denyeth not the thing truly imported by the Trinity Very well then he can say no more of the Sacraments For the thing signified is in the Scriptures and the words Sign or Seal by which though he denyed we very ordinarily express that which we mean by Sacraments is very frequent in Scripture And yet before he want something to say he will cavil though he grant all we plead for before the close as here Pag 163 He cometh to vindicate his meaning of some places of Scripture brought in his Apology wherewith to overthrow Baptism And first Eph. 4.5 where he taketh notice that his Adversary Pag 469 sayeth that the Scripture no where sayeth there is but one only Baptism To which he replyeth that it will as well prove that there is but one only Baptism as there is one only God. Ans First true it is that this Phrase one only Baptism is not found in Scripture 2. The one cannot be so well proved as the other For these ones must be exponed according to the subject matter seing it is beyond debate that it cannot be proved from this place that there is but one only Faith or no kinds thereof but one The Phrase therefore One Baptism will no more prove that there are not diverse kinds thereof than the phrase one Faith can do it in respect of diverse kinds of Faith. If he think otherwise he ought to prove it seing he is the opponent Next he sayeth That his adversary understandeth the extraordinary gifts of Tongues and the like by Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire And hence saith he concludeth that this Baptism is ceased Ans. This is most true which to prove let him compare Act. 1.5 with Chap. 2. For he cannot deny that the Apostles had the Spirit of God before this promise which is together with its fulfilling chap. 2. an explication of the like phrase in Matth 3.11 For the clearing of which I assert that Iohns Baptism was no figure of the New Testament Baptism in opposition to Papists and Quakers who say it was only a figure of the New Testament Baptism Otherwise if the sign which Iohn could only administrat be opposed to the thing signified we may understand the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with the fire spoken of Matth. 3. of Sanctification and Mortification Next he sayeth It is a lie that the Quakers would have none to be baptized with the Spirit but such as have extraordinary Gifts But do they not still boast of their Revelations and inspirations comparing themselves to the Apostles calling themselves perfect and I think these are extraordinary things And as for others beside them they call them only carnal and say they are in darkness these are the most modest of their Expressions and yet enough to prove the thing denyed When his Antagonist telleth him in Opposition to his saying that if this Water-Baptism were to be accounted a true Baptism then there should be two Baptisms contrary to Eph. 4.5 I say when he telleth him that it might as wel be said that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament one in the heart another in the flesh he granteth the Consequence and challengeth his Adversary of Levity in using such an Argument Well then with as little absurdity we grant his Consequence viz. That in some sense there are two Baptisms in the Church though in another Sense there be but one viz. considered complexly of the Sign it is understood in the place in hand and indeed one might as well have reasoned to presse Unity among the Jews that there was but one Circumcision as the Apostle doth from the one Baptism And for any thing I know the Word Circumcision is not used in the plural Number in the Scriptures And if he say that it is spoken of as twofold Rom. 2.28 29 I answer so is Baptism spoken of 1 Pet. 3.21 Another Reason of his Antagonist against his meaning of this place is that he may as well conclude from this place that there is but one Faith as that there is but one Baptism And yet there are diverse kinds of Faith mentioned in Scripture as sometimes for the Doctrine of Faith Gal. 1.23 And for the outward Profession of Faith. 1 Tim. 1.19 The Faith of Miracles or the like To which he answereth that all these are included in the one Faith here spoken of And to say that Baptism with water is included in that one Baptism is a begging of the Question Ans. It is no more a begging of the Question than that all these kinds of Faith are included in this one Faith. If he think otherwise let him prove it But he thinketh it rather fit to shift and give naked assertions For what Reason is there why the Baptism with water is not included in this one Baptism more than that these other kinds of Faith are not included He may shew this if he please for this is that which is incumbent to him to prove That Baptism with Water is not included as well as these various Kinds of Faith. 2. How will he prove that the Faith of Miracles is included in this
a sweet Gospel Minister E. There is no reason to Judge that John was a Legal Minister or had Legal commands Next he cometh to vindicate what he deduced from 1 Cor. 1.17 Where he only seeketh to shift neglecting whollie what his adversary sayeth see Pag. 476. N. 12. The first of these shiftings are That because his Antagonist sayeth why did Paul baptise if he had not a Commission He answereth that this a quarrelling with the Apostle What strange disingenuitie is this To say he quarrelleth with the Apostle when he only quarrelled with the Quakers exposition And upon the supposed truth of this inferred this absurditie that the Apostle did that which he ought not to do which being false his exposition cannot be true Thus a Man might say still when one inferred an absurditie from his exposition of a place of Scripture that he were fixing absurdities upon the Spirit of God. For he knoweth that we expone Pauls words that he was not sent â—o baptise for the lesse principal part of his errand according to Hos 6.6 Matth 9. Ier 2.23 and many other places even though there be no explicative clause following as he alledgeth is in Hos. 6.6 providing that there be no absurditie following upon this gloss And beside this there are good reasons why we should so expone the phrase here For first the Apostle insinuateth clearly that all these Corinthians were Baptised without reproving them for it Whereas he still reproveth the Gentiles for using of and tenaciously sticking to Jewish Rites or any man that imposed them upon them either by example or doctrine as the body of the Epistle to the Gal. doth declare 2. he doth not say that his Fellow-Apostles were not sent to baptise but nameth himself alone 3. He still did administrat this Sacrament to the Gentiles upon their embracing of Christianity as his recorded practise doth declare which Mr. Brown hath shewed but the Quaker most disingenuously passeth over let him not therefore object that to expone the like phrase where the thing is said not to be for to be less principal would make wild work Seing we give sufficient reasons for our explication of this place and do not plead for the phrase to be still so exponed but only where the Nature of the subject matter will permit it 3. He cometh pag 166. to answer our argument from Matth 28 19. And first he denyeth that the Apostles while Christ was with them baptised with Christs warrand and sayeth he will wait his adversaries proof of it Ans He hath done it already from Iohn 3.26 and 4 3. Of which places the Quaker durst not adventure to take notice We shall therefore wait what he sayeth the next time against them 2. He sayeth the Apostle did eat the passover with Christs warrand yet it followeth not that we ought to do it Ans. There is no paritie between these two practises will he say that ever the eating of the passover was imposed upon the Gentiles as they did Baptism as a necessarie consequent of their embracing of Christianity as the whole Tenor of the Acts of the Apostles declareth 2. The Passover was a Legal Custom introduced many hundreds of Years before whereas Baptism was but in its verie rise and beginning 2. He sayeth that though it be joyned with Discipline as Circumcision was joyned with it among the Iews it will no more follow that Baptism is to be continued then that Circumcision is to be continued Ans that the Baptism here spoken of is to be continued I think himself will not deny We speak now of the institution of an ordinance given to the Christian Church Therefore this his consequence of Circumcision is vain and without the least appearance of Reason Lastly this Reason is wholly non-sense for none can perceive what it levelleth at 3. He denyeth that the Apostles constant practice can declare that Baptism with water is the meaning of the Command For sayeth he the practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declareth this to be false Ans 1. That this which he sayeth of the Apostle is false we have proved above 2. All things practised by the Apostle must be reduced to three sorts either commanded permitted or simply sinful This last I think they will not say their practice of Baptism was neither do they say it but only that it was an indifferent Jewish Riâ—e permitted for the time as Circumcision or the like But this is false For either such Rites were not at all imposed on the Gentiles Or if they were they were after abrogated As for example abstinence from blood and things strangled enjoyned Act 15. This I say was again abrogat 1 Cor 10. and in the Epistles to the Gal. and Tim. 2. That it is not an indifferent Jewish Rite clearly appeareth from this that the reason why they impose Jewish Rites upon any Christian whether Jew or Gentile was to bear with the Jews for a time and to condescend to their weakness But the condition of baptism was still their embracing of Christ and the ground of it their receiving of them into the Church In a word Condescension to the Jews weakness is in Scripture ever holden forth to be the ground of the imposition of Legal Rites upon Christians So that there is mention made of this ground for every particular Rite imposed but this condescension is never said to be the ground of imposing Baptism but a quite other ground given which we named already 3. If this had been a thing only permitted for a time and to be abrogat afterwards then either the Apostles unrepealed practice which they exercised toward all Christians indifferently and that as such were not sufficient to walk by Or else this was abrogat afterward but the last they cannot shew from Scripture Therefore it is false and the first absurd From all which it followeth that this was a Commanded practice And I desire any man of Reason to Judge whether all the Apostles perpetual unrepealed practice or these mens naked assertions be the best Commentarie on this place 4. He denyeth that the word Baptism as we expone it is taken in its proper signification and sayeth that it is not necessarie to take it as we do for Baptism with water in so many places as it must be taken for baptism with the spirit Ans. This a meer assertion In opposition to which I say that he shall not be able to give one place of Scripture where this word is undoubtedly taken in their sense but I shall give him two where the word is taken in the sense which here we plead for and that undoubtedly And so there is a double improprietie in the Quakers expâ—sition of the word fiâ—st against the Grammatical and 2. the Scriptural propriety We expect therefore according to his own Postulatum that he will give some more weighty reasons the next time of this explication Next I reason thus To Baptise with the Spirit is not in all the
indulged unto them But his Answer still cutteth off Babes with the rest seing to them Christ is come in the Spirit already But it is needless at all to Impugn this distinction it s own groundlesness sufficiently doth it He cometh next to answer his 21 and 22 Num and there he asserteth That that which the Christians were enjoyned to Observe Act 15 29. was no part of the Ceremonial Law but an Apostolick Command and thinketh that whatever can plead for the abrogation of this Injunction will also plead for the abrogation of the Lords Supper But taketh no notice that his Antagonist shewed that there is no little Vanity and impiety in his adducing Rom. 14.17 Col. 2.16 To prove this and therefore he shamefully passeth over what he sayeth on these places and so giveth up this his Socinian Cause For he that is a Socinian in this point he doeth not deny he sayeth That this Command seing it was given after the out-pouring of the Spirit hath as much of a Gospel Institution as any thing commanded before by Christ can have Ans. Well then I see we will be no more troubled with quaking preachers seing this Command Act. 15. according to himself is repealed and yet hath as much of a Gospel Institution as preaching hath Matth. 10. and certainly it will as well follow from Col. 2.20 that preaching of the Gospel is abrogat and not allowed now by Christ as from v 16 and Rom. 14 17. that the Lords Supper is now abrogat and not allowed by Christ. Now let both old and new Socinians I mean the Quakers try to infringe this if they can And I shall still infer the one upon as good ground as they can do the other Which Consideration and Parity of places destroyeth this Socinian Conceit say what they will in its defence AN APPENDIX IN which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and in special of the Reverend assembly at Westminster in their Confession of Faith Chap. 3. deduced from the Ninth chap to the Romans defended and the Text Vindicated from the Corrupt Glosses and Depravations of William Parker and his pretended examination of the Westminster Confession which Robert Barclay hath made his own by referring us thereunto as sufficient solutions of all our arguments for our Doctrine of Election and Reprobation deduced from that place AMongst the many and damnable Errors which the Quakers have raised out of their Graves that of their denying Eternal Election or at best making it whollie conditionall uncertain and depending upon the will of the Creature so that notwithstanding the Decree of God to the contrary it might so have fallen out that none should have been saved is not the least In which they conspire with the grossest of Pelagians but the downright and most palpable contrariety of this their Doctrine of the holy Scriptures which they sometimes would fain seem to follow hath made the more knowing among them to conceal so far as they are able their thoughts anent the Doctrine of Election Thus dealt Robert Barclay who in all his Theses and Apology tho in his account an entire System of Religion never delivereth his minde thereanent And Vindic. Sect. 6. In defence of this non-such Omission he sayeth only that all do at times Confess that it is not safe nor proper too curiously to inquire into the Decrees of God which he prooflesly alledgeth his adversary to have done and that it is only needful to say God calleth every Man every where to Repent and be saved through Faith in Jesus Christ Neither doth he any where directly Impugn our Doctrine of Election And yet he feircely falleth upon our Doctrine of Reprobation and thus declareth to the World his self-repugnancy seing none can be ignorant that our Doctrine of Reciprobation is Reprocally and inseparably linked to that of Election Moreover he thus publisheth his Mind concerning Election altho he by all Means endeavours to conceal it for whoever denyeth Reprobation by an Infallible Consequence downright denyeth Election And thus Nill he will he we have his mind positively anent Election and also Confession intimated that his Judgement about Election cannot abide to be tryed by the Scripture Bench. And yet I think few will say That his Doctrine of positive and dounright denyal of Reprobation is much better founded seing he with a Pythagorical silence passeth over all his Adversaries arguments proving all our Doctrine there anent chap. 7. num 10.11 These Arguments I say about twenty in Number he doth nor so much as mention and far less attempt a Solution thereof altho he knew well enough that except these be untyed the whole frame of Quakerism is entirely dissolved But in stead of Resolution of his adversaries arguments as he doth all along he giveth the World a meer Contract of his Apologie under the cheating Title of a Vindication But when his adversarie saith That the Quaker can no more Impugn our Doctrine than he can Impugn what the Apostle saith Rom. 9 19. The Quaker Sect. 6. pag 67. answereth two things 1. That this is all one as if a Quaker should say confute all the Scripture which contain our Doctrine and therefore dispute no more untill Thou first do that But the Man is good where there is little to do But if he had not intended to play the shifter he had condescended upon some particular place as his adversarie did otherwise he no less declareth his own fear than Darius did when he objected to his pursuing Enemie That he could not be subdued because of the â—pacious Countries thorow which it behoved Him to follow him 2. He referreth his Antagonist to the Examination of the Westminster Confession chap 3. Where saith he he may have his misapprehensions corrected But How cometh it to pass that the Quaker hath taken no notice of many Authors as Twiss Rutherford Dickson to whom his Adversarie in this very point did refer him 2. But his care is not very great of Commutative Justice Notwithstanding of which Ex abundanti we will make a particular and impartial enquirie into all that he bringeth against the meaning of the Reformed Churches upon that place The Author is an Enthusiastical Arminian called William Parker who is the Man I believe the Quaker understandeth for beside him I know no other particular examinator of this Confession Now because our Quaker placeth so firm confidence in this Author that he thought a simple reference unto him sufficiently doth his bussiness I had a great desire to know what he could say against our meaning of this place Which place appeared to me to hold forth our Doctrine as clearly as the sun-light Having therefore made diligent search at length I found the book in which Chap 3. He undertaketh a particular discussion of all the Arguments brought from this place for our Doctrine concerning Election and Reprobation which how he hath done comes now to be weighed And 1. From Vers. 6. He frameth to himself an Objection
that because it is said that they are not all Israel that are of Israel therefore it seems that all are not elected To which he answers that the Apostle intimatâ— that the Carnal Israel or all that are come of Jacob surnamed Israel are not the Israel to whom the promises of Salvation are absolutly and finally made tho in general the conditional promises belong to all Israel as the Apostle shews vers 4. That we may not be misunderstood know that among others there are seven promises made to the overcomers Rev. 2 3 Chap. and such as persevere in the Christian Race unto the end or to the death and burial of sin Now these and the like promises belong unto the Elect that are chosen out of the furnace of affliction Isa. 48.10 Which with Paul have fought the good fight of Faith. 2 Tim 4 7 8 And so may fullie expect the reward because God is faithful that hath promised it Heb 6 12 and 10 36. James 1.12 I Reply this commentarie I shall not say a comment is founded upon some Scriptures violentlie detorted for none of them doth in the least insinuat that these of whom they speak were chosen to grace only not to glory which groundless distinction was invented of old by the Pelagians and condemned and refuted by the Orthodox as is evident in the Epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatensis and tendeth to the overthrow of the Covenant of Redemption and the promises of God the Father to Christ viz. that he should see his seed and the travel of his soul. Isa. 53.10 11. and many such like for if this Doctrine were true it might so fall out that none should come to Glory for according to it the gift of perseverance is bestowed upon none and so the Apostle's perswasion that None could separate him from the Love of God Rom 8.35 Should have been vain and groundless And the promise to cause the Israel of God to keep his Statutes and his Judgments to do them Ext 36 27. Should be meer words of deceit these and six hundred beside of such absurd blasphemies are unseparably linked to this Doctrine As for the Scriptures cited by him they hold forth a Character of such aâ— shall be saved viz. That they do through grace overcome love the Lord Jesus exercise Patience Faith and the like graces but they do not at all hold forth that these graces and perseverance therein are in Mans own power so that he may reject or refuse them according to the inclinations of his own will and that God doth not make Men irresistibly yet sweetly of unwilling to become willing All which this Neo Pelagian through the Violence of torture makes these Scriptures to speak but the verse it self doth sufficiently refute this exposition for according to it the word or promises of God might be without any effect seing it might fall out that tho all were elected none might be saved Now seing this Exposition cannot Stand the other which this Arminian would fain reject of its own accord follows viz. That not all and every one is from all Eternitie elected and chosen to Salvation as the whole Scope and series of this Chapter doth demonstrate as we shall evince while we reply in particular to the Answers he makes to the objections which he frames from this place 2. He goeth on thus Rom 9.7 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called Where the Apostle alludeth to Gen 17.18 19 20 21. It may seem then that only Isaac and not Ismael was chosen Ans. Isaac was chosen alone to be the representative seed of God being a Type first of Christ in whom God hath made his Covenant 2. He being a seed born by Sarah represents Faith out of the promises rather then by the Strength of Nature So is a Figure of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham which are begotten or born by vertue of the promises For so the Apostle explains himself v. 8. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh of whom Ismael carried the Type These are not the Children of God but the Children of promise are counted for the Seed As for Ismael who was begotten by the Strength of Nature and according to the Flesh of Hagar which represents the the Law Gal. 4.21 31 He figured forth these which should be saved not by the grace of the promises but by the works of the Law a people with whom God has not erected His Covenant that they should be saved in that way but tho Ismael carried the Figure of such it was without any prejudice to his Eternal Election or Salvation For Abraham praying thus for him Gen 17.18 O that Ismael might live before Thee or in thy presence v 20 As for Ismael I have heard thee His being such a Type was no more prejudicial to Him then that Moses and Aaron were debarred entrance into Canaan They therein being a Figure of those that should be shut out of Gods Kingdom for unbelief without any hazard to their own Salvation as hath been said before In order to our Reply to this and the following Objections we premit 1. That this and the following Verses of this Chapter are brought in by the Apostle as Arguments to prove his Proposition laid down v. 6. viz. That all are not Israel that are of Israel therefore whatever floweth from these Verses as their immediate Consequents is the meaning of the sixth Verse 2. That the convincing clearness of this place hath forced all to acknowledge that the Apostle is here speaking of Predestination of men in order to their eternal estate and not as to the things of this Life only as Bellarmin de Grat et Lib. Arb. L. 2. C. 15. Stapleton Ant pag. 526. And among the modern Lutherans Hunnius upon the place in hand who confesseth that the Apostle digresseth into the large field of Predestination Yea Arminius himself in his Analysis of this Chapter dareth not deny it tho he fain would Having premised these things we come to his Answer The Substance of which is That Ismael was not himself rejected of God but only a Type of these that are not the Children of God which we shal refute by evincing these two Things 1. That tho Ismael be considered here as a Type only this place gives good ground for the Doctrine of our Confession of Faith against which he here fighteth 2. That Ismael himself was not elected As for the first of these Propositions it is evident For otherwise there should be no Correspondence betwixt the Type and the Antitype and so a Type should not be a Type I prove it If Ismael was excluded from being counted the Seed of Abraham only by the meer good pleasure and absolute Dispensation of God and not conditionally so that Ismael himself could have caused it to come to pass that he should have been counted the Legittimate Heir and Lawful begotten Son of
a desperate Cause he conceds all at length For if God hath disposed of the Eternal Estate of every one universal Election is a bottomless Fiction except his Patrons affirm That either all obtain Eternal Life or else that matters fall out otherwise than God hath disposed and determined concerning them 2ly Whatever he hath said relating to Gen. 25.23 For his Opinion before we refuted it before except he mean some other place beside this which he handleth this present Text. viz. Rom. 9. 3ly That their Eternal Estates are there spoken of is clear seing the Apostle without the least shadow of ambiguity speaks of the Children themselves and that the Election of the one and the Rejection of the other was antecedent to their doing good or evil And that this is spoken of the Children themselves in some respect he himself here asserteth Then I say If this be true their Eternal State must be here spoken of seing the Lord loved the Person of Iacob and hated the Person of Esau before they were born or had done either good or evil And that this Assertion may the more evidently appear viz. That God loved the Person of Jacob and hated the Person of Esau even before they were born I shall more particularly vindicat Mal. 1.2.3 from his depravations which follow in his next Objection and Answer thereto The first of which is That this place Mal. 1.2 3. cited here by the Apostle v. 13. to confirm that which he had said concerning Jacob and Esau in the former verses is not to be understood of their Persons but of their Seeds For then this place of Malachi should be adduced by the Apostle to no purpose seing he is here speaking of the Person of Iacob and Esau which to say is both blasphemous and absurd Moreover the Prophet Malachi clearly intimats That he is speaking of the Persons of Iacob and Esau at least rhat he is not speaking of their Seeds so as to exclude their Persons Was not Esau Jacob's brother which Phrase must be understood in the first place of Iacob Esau themselves and secondly of their Seeds Neither is the reason of this Arminian of any weight drawn fâ—om the words of the 3 verse And hath laid his Mountain waste to prove his point yea the very contrary follows from the words Thus I have hated Esau Therefore I have laid his Mountain waste for the Vastation of the Idumean Mountains is mentioned as the effect of divine hatred against the Person of Esau extending it self in a secondary manner to his Posterity Even as the love of God to Iacob did extend it self to his Posterity as is clear from Deut. 10.15 with many other places of Scripture Where it is evident that the love of God did principally and chiefly terminat upon the person of Iacob and secondarly on his Seed and off-spring Furthermore our exposition is clear from the very words of the Text it self For the good Condition or Freedom from Devastatâ—on in which then the Jews were is holden forth by the Prophet to be an Effect of the Love of God to Iacob extending it self to his posterity even as the Destruction of the Edomites was an Effect of his hatred of God to Esau. In a word the good Condition of the Israelites hath the same kind of Relation to the love of God towards Iacob which the Devastation of Edom hath to the hatred of God towards Esau But that the good Condition of the Children of Israel was the Effect of the free love of God to Jacob the Prophet there clearly intimateth and as we said before many other places assert Therefore the Devastation of Edom was the Effect of the hatred of God to Esau extending it selt to his wicked Posterity He sayeth moreover That the cause why God hated Esau's Posterity at that time is declared in the 4 v. In these words We are impoverished but will return c. In which words saith he Their Incorrigible wickedness is declared Reply That Edom was an incorrigible wicked people is true but nothing to his purpose For in this their Resolution considered in it self of which Resolution alone the Prophet speaketh and in reposing themselves in their own Lands there can no wickedness be shewed Hence we conclude with Junius that noble Interpreter of Scripture on the words That in this 4 v. is contained a Decument that God is about to confirm Israel now brought back from Captivity to defend the Land and to magnifie himself in all things but on the other hand that he was about to deprive the Idumeans whom he had Reprobâ—t of all power to return or rebuild their Common wealth tho they had endeavoured to do it Add to all this the body of Orthodox writers both Ancient and Modern approving our meaning of this place we shall name two But as Gylippus was to the Lacaedemonians they me accounted in stare omnium The one is Hierom among the Ancients upon the place who saith He doth not only say I loved Jacob before he was born but also I hated Esau before he was brought forth But I also have reserved my love and hatred for their Posterity The other is Luther De servo Arbitrio Cap 161 who sayes It is not therefore the temerity of the Idumeans which is reproved but the ingratitude of the Children of Israel who see not what God bestoweth upon them and of what he depriveth their Brethren the Idumites for no other cause but because he loved the one and hated the other In which place Luther largely demonstrats that the Prophet here speaks of these things which he did to Israel and Edom as the Effect of his eternal love and hatred in opposition to Erasmus who by special Command of the Pope did undertake the defence of the Pelagian Doctrine in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio Add to all these the History of Jacob and Esau as a good Commentarie on both places now in hand which declareth that Esau was a profane Person Heb 12.16 and elsewhere and that Jacob got grace and so was saved which is more than a demonstration that the Lord determined from all Eternity to save the one and passe by the other which is the thing we plead for That which he sayes in the fourth place is true but nothing to his purpose Seing the Question is whether or not the Apostle in this place handleth the matter of Eternal Election and Reprobation In the fifth place he taketh the place of the old Libertins who denyed that any godly man ought to be subject to any Magistrat tho never so just if he want true Grace by reason of which Doctrines huge Confusions were raised in Germany as also by Venner who with his Complices began to raise great Tumults in England while he minded to make this Doctrine of our Author practicable He goeth on to deprave the 14. and 15. verses The substance of what he saith we shall faithfully deliver in so far as he militats
against our Confession Having inferred from these verses by way of an Objection to himself That it seems there are some to whom God will not shew mercy He answers That the Apostle pre-occupies an Objection which some might make out of the Continuance of Gods Mercy still to the Children of Israel but withdrawn from Edom as before What shall we say is there unrighteousness with God Next that Exod. 33 19. here cited by the Apostle speaks not of Gods first Grace which he gives to all alike but of the second which he continueth to these that walk humbly and answerably to the first as Moses had done To which I reply 1. That he makes his Objection pre-occupied by the Apostle to be no Objection For from the Lords continuance of his Mercy upon the Humble-walking under it and his withdrawing the same from Esau upon the abuse thereof none could infer with any colour of reason That there is unrighteousness with God seing the abuse of good things deserveth the Depravation thereof And so according to him the Apostle was triffling all the while Again any that runneth not into willful prejudice may see that the Apostles objection hath more apparent Strength in the judgement of Humane Reason by far than our Author maketh it to have for it is an inference drawn from what the Apostle had said in the former verse of the absolute rejection of some while others were Elected which Doctrine carnal reason as it doth yet knew too well how to wrest And from this Doctrine according to carnal Reason no little absurdity seemed to follow Wherefore the Apostle appeals from its Tribunal to that of the Scriptures yea even to such a Text as speaketh of the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature Yea the most absolute imaginable Now if the objection had been such an one as this Arminian professeth it there had been no necessity of the Apostles betaking himself to this place of Scripture 2. What he talketh here of his twofold grace stands and falls with what he said of his twofold Election which distinction we have already rejected for this Distinction of Grace in first and second it is groundless for it is not in the least insinuated in this Text viz. Exod 33 19. That Moses had gotten in the beginning from God some kind of Grace which had not the Divine power of God coming along therewith causing Moses irresistibly yet sweetly walk in Gods Statutes But leaving him to use well or abuse the grace gotten Now he must prove this from the Text if he would conclude any thing from it moreover If Moses speak only of a second grace here which a first must in Faith and humble walking necessarily preceed then this Text holds forth the Dominion of God to be no more absolute over his Creatures than that of a Magistrate towards his well or ill deserving subjects whom he ought to reward or punish according to their desert and not to whom he will only And so this Text shall destroy it self Lastly if the exposition of this universalist were sound then the Apostles Conclusion which he gathereth in the next verse should not follow but rather the quite contrary thereof For if God give a first grace to all and that so sufficient that it lyes only in Mans will to come or not to come unto God and that Man hath power either to will or nill at pleasure either to turn or not to turn to God and yet notwithstanding some come and some come not then all that makes the one to differ from the other is certainly of him that willeth The Answer of our Antagonist to this 16. verse is rare viz. Tho our Salvation be meer of Mercy yet Man can both will and run in some sort as this Scripture imports because he could have said nothing less to to the purpose For the Argument which may be framed from this verse and it is not of him that willeth Ergo Election or the purpose of God one of which words must of necessity be supplyed from verse 11. Otherwise the Apostles words would want a cohesion and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of necessity must be understood here shall want a Noun is not an effect of the will of Man or of his good works moving God thereunto Now this Argument is not touched by the answer as is of it self apparent He therefore here delivereth up the cause and endeavoureth to cheat his Reader 2. This place imports no more a power in all men to will or run in the way of Gods Commandments than these words in Ezek. 36.22 32. Not for your sake and leave in all Men a power to merit at the hand of God. He goeth on to comment upon the 17. and 18. verses And 1. He desires us To note that here the Lord doth not say for this purpose I have created thee but raised thee up or brought thee upon the Stage But this is the vainest of evasions for none but an Athiest can deny that God from all Eternitie did decree to raise up Pharaoh for that same end for which in time he raised him up and consequently that he decreed to create him for the same end otherwise God failed of his first end and was forced to betake himself to the next best Which to affirm is to make God a Man and so to profess atheism with open face yea this Doctrine bringeth the wisdom of God below that of a Man seing according to it the omniscient God did creat Pharaoh for an end which he knew he was never to obtain But 2. That Pharaoh was not only brought on the Stage but also created to the end that God might manifest His Power and Justice in His Destruction is clear from Pro 16.4 Where it is said that God made wrought formed or created for all these will the word Pagnal bear all things for Himself yea even the wicked the Spirit of God holding forth that this is a Paradox unto the day of evil 2. He sayes That Pharaoh was known unto the Lord to be a proud and obstinate Rebell as is evident Exod 8.2 But what he would hence inferr is not evident except that Pharaoh's ill disposed will was unconquerable by the grace and power of the omnipotent God To repeat which Conclusion is more than to refute it That which he sayes in the third place viz. That God shewed Pharaoh the danger of disobedience before he sent his Plagues upon Him As also his fourth observation viz. that he makes him of unwilling willing to let his People go is meer nothing For himself here on the matter grants That from Gods Exalting Pharaoh to the Throne of the Kingdom He was destinat to destruction and his day of grace gone otherwise his first note upon this Text is nonsense Therefore it follows That all the warnings antecedent to the Plagues are not Declarations of the mind of God to save Pharaoh And that his causing of him to let the people