in no sense to be accounted a Rule He citeth VVilliam Penn to prove it Rejoynder page 76. I beseech thee Reader here to take notice of this mans double dealing and dissingenuâ—ity For first VVilliam Penn in page 69 and 70 confesseth the Scriptures to be a Rule but not the Rule by way of excellency as the Reader may see there and in Râ— Barclays his appologie Theses Tertia And because he Citeth VVilliam Penn to prove his false assertion let the Reader know they are no words of VVilliam Penn but of one Thomas Colliar a great Professor whose words VVilliam Penn Citeth against Faldo some whereof I shall transcribe General Epistle page 249. And truely my Brethren it is my earnest desite to see souls to live more in the Spirit and less in the Letter then they will see that we judge of the Litter by the Spirit and not of the Spirit by the Lettâ—er Which occasions so much ignorance amongst us and these who profess themselves to be our Teachers are chief in this Trespass The Spirit of GOD who is GOD is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian and in page 48 he saith That some seting the Scriptures in the Room of the spirit they make them an Idol His next Citation of VVilliam Penn in page 18 is his Rejoynder page 71 where he Citeth these words the scriptures are the verbal and Historical Rule of Faith which is the devels faith William Penns words are these For Faith in his I Faldâ— sense rises no higher then so many articles laid down suppose truely according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can belive as well as he This Faith I call meerly verbal and Historical c. And this is the candour of our insulting adversary Let the Reader judge whose reputation can be safe who deals with such an impudent Calumniator In the same page and in contradiction to himself he mentions a distinction of primary and Secondary Well Patroelus it seems the Quakers own the scriptures in some sense to be a Rule therefore Patroclus consesseth himself to have belyed them in the foregoing page His third is Huberthorn The words are except by a Miraculous Revelation from Heaven These words sound harshly and so fit to defame the Quakers But if yet thou hast retained any shamesacedness or the least grain of honesty I charge thee tell me Have not George Keith in his Books on that subject and Robert Barelay in his Appollogie sufficiently cleared the Quakers in that point So far that if thou wilt rightly state the contraversie thou must lay aside all these expressions of miraculous extraordinary and the like But who can expect fare dealing from a man of thy manners And therefore to stop the mouth of this Callumniator I shall tell the Reader what George Kieth sayes to obviat such accusations immediate Revel page 2. First we do not understand the foretelling things to come c. Secondly page 3 We do not bereby understand the Revelation of an other Gospel c. Thirdly in page 7. Not an outward audible voice c. Fourthly Nor any outward audible voice Fifthly Nor dreams and visions c. Sixthly Nor any outward Miracles c. And now let the Reader judge with what candour this man hath represented us Page 18 and 19. He saith in order to the Production of true saving Faith two principles are required First the declaration of the object or thing to be believed c. Now the thing he would have me believe is that the scripture is the Rule of Faith and Life and in order to this he presents me the Bible Is I ask him how shall I believe this book to be the Rule of Faith and Life He answereth me the book saith so tho there be no such word in it And this is objective Revelation and needs no more but an application of this Revelation already made And the second he calls subjective revelation but he must excuse me to tell him that before he can perswaed me to believe that proposition laid down in the Westminster Confession or Catecbism Quest 2 that the scripture is the only rule He will need to produce me better arguments for the Holy Ghost according to the Westminster Confession Chap 7 Act 3 must be given to make men willing and able to believe and this is more then an application He tells us that this revelation was either mediate or immediate Who denyes this But I hope when it was mediate it needed the immediate operation of the spirit to make them able and willing to believe and so the operation of the Spirit was the Rule of this Faith whereby they choosed or rejected these mediate Revelations That the illumination of the spirit is necessary for understanding of the soriptures no man denyeth But it is to be regarated that he and his Brethren take upon them to expond scripture to others while they have it not and mock and persecute Others who bear witness for it To prove subjective Revelation he bringeth several Scriptures Among others Luke 24. 46. The Words are these And said unto them Tbus it is Written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Now the Question will be whether this was an objective or a subjective Revelation I affirm it to be Objective and that CHRIST did here reveal to them things they never knew before nor had occasion to know albeit they might have been darkly shadowed forth in the Scriptures So that Christ speaking to them and at the same time opening their Understandings both Patroclus principles concurred immediatly to the production of their Faith with out the Bible Neither is he limited to Scripture words tho he may and often does make use of them And these words He spoke are not to be found in all the Old Testament And the Quakers do not pretend to revelation of New Things but a new Revelation of the Good Old Things Secondly Consider that he calls his first Principle a Declaration of the Object or Thing to be believed Now the Scriptures are the Object or Thing to be believed And therefore according to himself the Declaration is necessary And I must ask Patroclus what this Declaration is Sure he can intend nothing here but the Glosses Commentaries Paraphrases which he and his Brethren make upon the Scriptures whereby they get their Living But if Men were but once convinced that Christs sheep hear his Voice and that his Spirit teacheth them and bringeth all things to their remembrance whatsoever they have heard of or from him Then that sordid Trade of Preaching for hâ—re and Divining for money would soon come to an end And Men would say with Thomas a Kempis Let not Moses and the Prophets speake to me but thou O LORD my GOD. And with the Psalmist I will bear what the LORD GOD will speake in me Whereas now pretend what they will they are as positive in their dogmatising and no less
believed or done which they deny This is another Lie For the Quakers believe the Scriptures to be a Rule subordinat to the Spirit containing a full and sufficient Declaration of all Christian Doctrine Thirdly Saith he We believe the Scriptures to be the principal and ultimat Rule into which our Faith is lastly to be refolved For answer to this I shall only set down the words of one of his Brethren Viz The Author of that Book called Melius Inquirendum page 303. I would sain be informed sayes he what an ultimat Rule signifies with him that pretends to speak plain English to then that understand nothing else I have heard of a subordinate and ultimat End And I have heard also of a near and a remote Rule but an ultimate Rule like that Monster which was like a Horse and yet not a Horse is like Sense but in Truth very None-sense Thus he and yet as great a Calvinist as Patroclus After some Repetitions he comes to his Citations and begins with Luther in these Words 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 I know no Quaker but will say as much Yea I know no Protestant but will say as much Yet the contraversies are no whit leslened by all this because they reject the Spirit by which alone the Scriptures can be understood and without which they are a sealed book as well to the learned Patroclus as to the unlearned Plowgh man And here let the Reader observe what is become the fate of the Fathers as well as of the Scriptures To be cited By all parties Papist against Papists and Protestant against Protestants and Calvine is made to speak for all ends and all purposes But he hath told us that such a perswasion concerning the authority of seripture is needfull as cannot be brought forth but by Divine Revelation Inst Chap Numb 24. All these his citations for three pages serve for nothing else but to make one party of his pretended Transmarine Divines contradict another If he had done any thing he should have proven R B's citations to have been either spurious or impertinent else if they contradict his citations Patroclus errs in his affirming an Harmony among them In page 31 he saith after some of his Brethtens Rhetorick it can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches But hath taken no notice of what R B hath cited out of their Confessions but we must take his word In the end of page 31 and the beginning of page 32 he summeth up what he hath said and hath done the Quakers a favour that whereas some of his blind brethren have called them Papists he hath set them and the Papists at such a distance as he hath left room for himself to hang betwixt them as Erasmus is said to have hung betwixt Heaven and hell For saith he page 32 The Papists have gone too low resolving their faith ultimatly in men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high that is to resolve their Faith in GOD Patroclus resolves his faith in a Book and neither in GOD nor man Let the Reader judge which of the three is the best Foundation He concludes with a Greek fable of Ixion Et quiquid Graecia mendâ—x audet in Historia most profainly compares a desire after Divine Revelation which Pauls commands to pray for to the adulterous desire of Ixion after Juno and then talks of the production of Hipocentaurs that is in broad Scots Troopers or if he will Apostolical Dragoons Like those of France And now let the Kingdom of Seotland judge from fourty years experience whether the Quakers or the Presbyterian Clergie have been most fruitful in producing such Hipocentaurs In page 32 he layeth down his Thesis thus The scriptures are the adequat compleat and primary or prineipal Rule of faith and manners Observe first the word primary signifies first and he hath before called them the Vltimate Rule This is the first and the last he hath called them The word of GOD he hath called them the Gospel and now the first and the last which are Epithets belonging only to Christ Tertul ltb 2 Carm Adversurs Mar Atque ideo non verbe Librised Missus in orbem Ipse Christus Evangelium est Si cernere vultis Thus Englished Not the words of the book but Christ who is Into the World sent the Gospell is Observe Secondly That he hath here given away the Cause for the Catechism saith The Scriptures are the only Rule Whereas his asserting a Primary implyes a Secondary And now we are come to his Arguments whereof the first is That which was dictat or given out by the Infallible God and containeth the whole Counsell of GOD may well serve to be a compleat and principal Rule But the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the Infallible GOD and contain the whole Counsell of GOD. Therefore They may well serve for to be a compleat and principal Rule Answer first Observe That all his boasting is come to no more then a May be saying It may serve to be a Primary Rule And I must tell him That a Cart-load of May-bees are not worth One-is Secondly I must tell him That his definition of the Rule of Faith and Manners is New and I cannot accept of it And before I proceed to take notice of his Arguments I shall give my Reader an account of the Scope of this Mans Labours First He cannot deny that the Quakers owne the Scriptures for a Rule and his Work proves no less tho in contradiction to himself in page 17. And I can assure my Reader That it is the constant care of every true Quaker to square his Life according to the Scriptures Secondly His offering to prove them to be a Primary Rule implyes as I have said a Secondary And this must be the Teachings of the Spirit for he hath not told us of another Hence the Reader may see what the Tendancy of his Argumentations is To wit To exalt the Letter above the Spirit The Creature above the Creator a Book above GOD In which I cannot agree with him Yet GOD knows I reverence the Scriptures as much as any Presbyterian in the World And if the Quakers slighted them as this false Accuser slandereth them I would have no fellowship with them And certainly it is not so much the Scriptures as their own Glosses and Interpretations they plead for For if Patroclus would speak what he thinks I doubt not but he would say That the Westminster Confession and Directory Especially having the Covenant joyned to it might serve for a Rule of Faith and Life His Argument set down before erreth in the very form according to the Rules of Logick Which are when both Propositions are particular nothing follows And again particular nothing follows And again the Major being particular in the first figure cannot
and Manners For Answer Let the Reader observe That this is but a These And that our Adversaries themselves grant the first part of it Reason therein adduced But the Argument to prove the second part he hath never mentioned as being too hot for his fingers Which is this following Apol page 44. That which is not the Rule of my faith in believing the Scriptures themselves is not the Adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners But the Scriptures are not nor can be the Rule of that Paith by which I believe them c Therefore c This he hath taken no nottice of But gives us a long Citation out of R B his Vindication page 37. And then tells us the Coherence will be made out Ad Calendas Graecas As if it were the Custom when Men publish Theses to set down in the Body of them all the Arguments to prove them But seeing he will have a Coherence let him take it thus The Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Founta in and when the streams fail men use to recurr to the Fountain Therefore when the Scriptures cannot resolve the doubts which ordinarly arise among Christians They ought to recurr to the Fountain That this hath been the practise of the Saints in all ages is manifest from the Scripture I shall instance one or two with divers before cited That Divid was a Man of GOD and Knew the Scriptures I hope mine Adversary will not deny and that he had Abiathar the Priest with him to help him to the right sence of them if need were when he was at Keilab Yet he was necessitate to recurr to the Fountain enquire of the Lord Will Saul come down And will the Man of Keilab ver me up unto him 1 Sam 23 9 10 11 12 And again at Ziglâ—g when the people were like to stone him Did he not then enquire of the LORD 1 Sam 30. 8 And I would willingly know what the Presbyterians means by seeking the LORD in theit straits except it be to ask his Counsel when all other means fail them Hence all his boast evanisheth Next he challengeth his Adversary as confounding the principal Rule and Original Ground together calling it None-sense ridiculous and nothing to the purpose But he should have remembred that in page 46. He hath cited Ephes 2. 20. To prove the Scripture to be the Foundation and all along calls them the Principal Rule If this be sense so the other Sanum Reprênsor debet habere Caput In page 64. He comes to begg the Question in terminis and tells us positively The Scriptures are the Primary Rule And Concludes Thus we understand the Primarie Rule and while he doth not so ho but mistaketh the Question This indeed is imperious Logick and more becoming a Grecian Hero then a Presbyterion Priest But he must Know that the word Primary is out of doors As it signifies First And before he give it another signification he will need to alter all the Lexicons I have yet seen For there was a Rule of Faith before there was a Book in the World And therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Primary Rule Next he comes to his Acyrologie to let us know he hath studied Rhetorick Saying to call a Person of Rule is a great Inductive of Confusion But to call GOD and Christ the habits of Grace as the doth in page 38 is a far more improper speech Then he cites R. B's words in answer to J Brown but not fully and draweth his consequences from them the words are these For I was never so absurd as to call GOD simply considered or the Spirit of GOD in obstracto but as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians From hence he deduceth two Conclusions First that the Quakers Grand principle that Immediate objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their faith falleth to the ground And that these Imprinted truths are but secondary But who seeth not deceit and malice in this consequence Certainly he must fear his cause when he takes such weak Pillars to underprop it For any man of candor may see that R B intendeth only to prove that truths Imprinted and not the Imprinter to be the Rule And he consesseth it to be one Acylogie or improper speech And to conclude the Ruine of his Adversaries cause from one improper speech is either great folly or great malice so that his Antecedent being tightly understood according to the Authors sense his consequence together will all he hath deduced from it is a meer Non-sequitur His other Consequence depending upon the first falleth with it Only he hath been assert that these Revelations are self evident and that to assert otherwayes were impious And a little after to judge that the GOD of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us Well then Patroclus it seemes there are yet such Revelations by thine own consession as are self evident which we may take notice of in due time He proceeds saying There is very good reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primarie then the Scriptures both being given by the same spirit seeing the primariness is not the immediateness but the thief binding power and the prerogative to be the Touch-stone of all doctrines But who denyeth this prerogative to the Scriptures of being a Rule to try all Doctrines of Men how holy so ever Have not his Adversaries granted all this times And what then I hope to believe this proposition is an Act of Faith no where mentioned in Scripture neither is it self evident and therefore needeth a Rule Yea more the scriptures of the New Testament make mention of a Rule only three times to wit 2 Cor. 10. 15 16. Gal. 6. 16. and Phil. 3. 16. And if Patroclus with all his prudence and wisdom comparing Scripture with Scripture can twist and twine a sense out of these Scriptures to prove his matter he may boast of it Next he cites 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. in these words they are able to make the man of GOD wise unto salvation But whether there be such words there let the Reader judge Then he plainly sheweth us what he intends and it is the book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest c. If this be true then certainly the Tennor of the New Covenant is made void and they who lived under the Law had a rea dier access unto GOD and to know His Mind then they who live under the Gospel And yet the difference is evident for as the Law was an outward Rule written by Moses the outward Leader of outward Israel so CHRIST the SpiritualLeader of Spiritual Israel writteth His Spiritual Law in the heart I shall add one argument thus That which was a Rule to the Faith-makers at Westminster in composing their form of Faith and imposing it upon the Nations may
his Followers c. To this Argument he sers down R. B's Answer but slily omitteth what followeth which is And therefore most weak is his Reasoning in page 461 That such Revelations cannot be more sure then the Scriptures which are the Objective Revelations of the Apostles written down since the certainty of these Writtings depends upon the certainty of these Revelations by which they were written And if any case that Maxim of the Schools hold it must in this Propter quod unum quodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale And this may serve to answer his talk of a chief binding power and prerogative to be the Touchstone of all Doctrines For if they be so it is because they were Divinely inspired And therefore Divine Inspirations must be much more so But let us consider his Argument First He saith The Prophets and Apostles for Christ wrote no Scripture could by infallible Evidence and proofs even to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposets demonstrate that they were sent of GOD but whence came it then that their greatest Opposers did not receive their Testimony Why did they persecur them even to death As their Successors the Presbâ—terians and their Brethren the Independents have done to some of us Was it not because they were not convinced that they were sent of GOD Or was it because they maliciouslie hardened their hearts and would not believe it The same is the case with our Author and his Brethren at this day But perhaps he expecteth miracles for Proofs and Evidences And in this followeth the footstepts of his predecestors the Papists who dealth so by the first Reformers And the same Answer the first Reformers gave to the Papists may serve him For as they said They needed not Miracles because they preached not a New Gospel So we pretend not Revelations of New Things But a New Revelation of the Good old things And again what can he pretend to that we want He hath produced nothing Only in page 81 He saith on the other hand It is beyond denyall that we have the Scriptures And is it not as true that we have them But the Question is Who hath the true sense of them The Papists say They are the only true Infallible Proponders J B and our Author say Christian prudence and Wisdom comparing the Text with the Text And we say The Holy Spirit who gave them forth is the only Right Interpreter Et ad buc sub judice lis est But he falls upon R Barkclay for saying That others pretending to be led by the Scriptures as their Rule as much as J B have been deceived To which he answers If the Scriptures through the corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the patrocinic of errours and corrupt practises Then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Life exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule to them then these Revelations can be which Jobn of Leyden held This he saith is the first proposition into which R B's Argument resolveth And the second is no better then this Viz He that will not admit of such Revelations which cannot be distinguished from these that led their followers into the most blasphemous opinions and most wicked practises immaginable He who will not admit of them for his Principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures c Provideth an Argument for Atheists and Scepticks Answer Could the Devil himself in his most cunning subtile transformings have more deceitfully and dissingenuously represented this sober and discreet Answer of R B But it seems the man is past all shame For first He insinuats that R B saith That men firmly believing and clearly understanding the Scriptures and squaring their practise exactly conform to them may err as did John of Leyden Secondly That he ownes the Revelations which John of Leyden pretended to to be a Rule And thirdly That he denyeth the Scriptures to be a Rule All which three are gross and notorious Lyes unworthy of a man of any Candor or Honesty His second Proposition is drawn from these words of R B And indeed this is a fine Argument he hath produced for Scepticks and Atheists for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrand for writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and extraordinary Revelation And if such be as he affirms uncertain then the Truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarly be uncertain Now the man certainly knew that R B was pleading for none other Revelation but Divine Inward and Immediat Revelations But being straitned by this Answer he betakes himself to the covers of Deceit and the refuge of Lyes for his Reply instead of the Revelation of the Spirit of GOD which he knew his Adversary meant he puts in the Revelations of Jobn of Leyden Which impudent treachery is obvious to Reader at first view Hence he might conclude That because Micajah wrought no Miracles to prove his prophesie more then the Priests of Achab did therefore he was not to be believed And because Jobn Huss George Wishart and Samuel Rutherfoord wrought to Miracles Therefore they were no more to be trusted then Jobn of Leyden For Miracles only excepted I know no proofs he can lay claim to but we can do the same But the best is That in page 80 he would father these Deductions upon his Adversary Saying And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his Witt or to be numbred among Rationals when he made these Deductions c. Truly he is very weak Reader That seeth not this man 's affronted deceit And seeing the Deductions are intirely his own and none of R B's He must by his own Confession be numbred among Brutes And whereas he saith That J B never called the Revelations of the Prophets uncertain He should have told what hath made Divine Revelation uncertain now which he cannot Or have proven that it is altogether ceassed which he dare not undertake tho it be an Article of his Faith And thus by denying the certainty of Divine Revelations for R B pleads for none else let the Reader judge if lie have not laboured to confirm his Brothers Atgument for Atheists and Seepticks In page 81. He thinks to put an end to the contraversie by some positions whereof the first is to this purpose We cannot know whether they have any Revelation at all They may be lyeing unto us For any thing we know we have only their naked words for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures This had been very suitable language for their predecestors The Jews when they stoned the Proto-Martyr Stephen Acts 7. 56. When he said Behold I see the Heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on the Right Hand of GOD And for Joash the King when he
of the Quakers with the Scriptures Oh! That he or any else could awaken them to that diligence and that they would put on that Nobility commended in the Bereans and come to an impartial search not as Patroclus Faldo and Hicks represent them but as they are indeed But Reader he intends nothing less For after all thy pains except thou will implicitly allow his Character of the Quakers and take his sense of the Quakers he will be sure to Stigmatise thee for a Heretick All their clamouring the Scriptures the Scriptures is but a meer Jugle it s their own Gloss they intend Interpres loquitur Litera Sacra silet A little after he tells us ignoti nulld cupido very true for if the principles of the dispysed Quakers were but well known Patroclus Book would be hissed out of Doors And therefore in the end of this Epistle he saith touch not taste not handle not the unclean thing strange Doctrine try and try not I have told you what they are stop your ears and run upon them The rest of his Epistle being all Satyr composed of Railing Lies Forgeries and false insinuations I omit he bringing me no better proof for them then his own confident assertion or rather impudent calumny in these words in a word I say That as the Doctrine of the Quakers is a heap of none such Blasphemies â—o their defences are meer subterfuges Very well Patroclus this is borrowed Armour indeed and that from the 〈◊〉 in Cathedra I say ergo verum est Take his word Reader and his book is superfluous This is no humble confidence as he elsewhere words it But if 〈◊〉 was puzelled to distinguish 〈◊〉 a Pope and Presbyters in Hell he would not have been cleared of his doubts by reading this passage And now to his Book CHAPTER FIRST Of the Holy SCRIPTURES HE begins with a citation of Scripture A good Name is better then precious Oyntment the more shame for Patroclus who hath laboured to rob the Quakers of it by all the black-mouth'd detractions he could invent to defame them His first charge is That the quakers deny that the Seriptures are or ought to be called the Word of GOD. Answer This appears to me but a meer Logomathia in Patroclus For that the word Logos is diversly translated in Scripture we confess As Preaching 1 Cor 1. 18. Utterance 1 Cor 1. 5. Speech Cor 4. 6. And divers otherwayes Now that the Scriptures in such senses may be called Logos That is the speech discourse oâ— words of the Logos or Word of GOD which he spoke to the Pattiarchs Prophets and Apostles and by them recorded for the benefite of the Church we willingly grant But the Word of GOD being a Name so peculiatly atoributed to CHRIST JESUS who being a Jealous GOD will not give his Glory to another Out of meer tenderness of Conscience we can singly from the bottom of our hearts say and not in the least from any difesteem of disparagement of the Scriptures which are our delight to meditate in and peruse often do we scruple to give them that Escential Tittle or Name of Christ it being so solemnly and frequently by the Scriptures themselves attributed to the Son of God As in that remarkable place John 1. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word was mads Flesh which can no wayes be said of the Scriptures And there be Three that bear Record in Heaven The Father The Word and the Spirit And his Name is called the Word of God Now len any sober unbyassed Christian People judge whether we deserve all these black Epithets this Author loads us with meerly for being tender of Attributing the Sacred Name of the Creator to a Creature But he bringeth a bundle of Citations to as little purpose as the Westminster Confession uses to do in such case As R. B. hath remarked in the end of his Confession of Faith The Impertinency of which Citations may be clearly apparent by inserting the Word Soripture in place of the Word of the Lord. As Numbers 3. 16. And Moses numbredthem according to the Word of the Lord Patroclus sense is and Moses numbred them according to the Scriptures whereas yet there was none extant Second is Duter 5. and 5. I stood between the Lord and you at that time to shew you the Word of the Lord Now how impertinent would it beto say That Moses had the Bible in his hand to shew the Israelites Among all the test of his Citations he lays most hold on Hosea 1 and 2. The Beginning of the Word of the LORD by Hosea This sayeth he is a Denying of the Eternity of the Son of God But how grosly he erreth here may be seen above by divers Accoptations we grant of the Word As in Psalm 19 2 The same Word signifieth Speech Now to take this Word for the Scripture would be a gross lye For it was not the Beginning of the Scripture much having been written before And therefore the true meaning of this place to all single heatted ones 〈◊〉 clearly the time when Christ the Word of the Lord began to speak to Hosea Or as the Latin hath it Prinoipiam loquendi Domini in Hosea There are no more of his citations that seem to have any weight but that of Mark 7. 18. compared with verse 10. I shall begin at the 9 And he said unto them full well ye reject the Commandment of GOD that ye may keep your own Traditions Verse 10. For Moses said Honour thy Father and thy Mother c. Verse 13. Making the Word of GOD of none effect Now that this Word mentioned by the Evangelist was one of the Ten Words spoken on Mount Sinai we do not deny And that every Commandement Precept Promise or Threatning in the Scripture is a Word of God we fully acknowledge And so all he can make of this is That the fifth Commandment here meaned is one of the 〈◊〉 Words that came from Christ the Word the Eternal Son of God And whereas he quibles upon the word Per eminentiam or by way of Eminency This fifth Commandment before mentioned shall furnish us an Example The King of Scotland is an Epichet predicated of the chief Magistrat Now I ask him if this Epithet can be predicated per emmentiam of any other Man Book or thing in the Nation without Treason And see if his Properly and Improperly will serve him here The very Committee of Estates altho it exercised the Regal Power in the Late Rebellion did not usurp the Title of King tho they were a little too familiar with his Authority and Person But I hope hereafter Patroclus will be a little more tender of the Titles of the King of Kings Having granted the Contraversy in Terminis For in page 3 He granteth that Christ is the â—ssential and Substantial Word of God The principal Dictator of the Mind of God And that the
Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The first he calls improper the second proper But how pertinently the Reader may consider If that which is Escential and Substantial to a thing be not proper to it he may tell us with the next what is more proper then the Essence or Substance of a thing is Henceforth according to him we must call the Beams or Rayes coming from the Son properly the Sun But the Sun himself from whence they all come must be improperly so called And now to shew That this is a meer strife about words I shall summ up this contraverfie thus R B saith Christ is the Word of GOD Patroclus saith Christ is the Essential and Substantial Word of GOD R B saith The Scriptures are a True and Faithful Declaration of the Mind and VVill of GOD revealed by the VVord of GOD to his Servants Patroclus saith Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of GOD. R B saith The Scriptures are the VVords of GOD. Patroclus saith The Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables Now let the Reader judge where the Contraversy lyes Page 4. About the end He saith after some some scurrilous Language That the Quakers deny The Title of Gospel to the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John And then falls to hard words again saying The defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures William Peh undertakes in his Rejoinder to John Faldo page 117. Where observe first That he asserteth it a Contradiction of Scripture When he hath brought no Scripture seeming to contradict what is said But Mark 1. 1 Which shall be considered in its place Observe 2dly That to oppose Truth The Presbyterians and Independants can join issue like Herod and Pontius Pilate Notstanding all the Clamonis we have heard in Aberdeen about the Text Holiness becomes Thy House O LORD To prove this assertion William Penn produceth Scripture Reason and the Authority of Ancient and Modern Writters First The Gospel is the Power of GOD to Salvation To which he answereth That the Scriptures may as well be called the Pâ—wer of GOD to Salvation as the Gospel Here he hath granted the Scriptures to be one thing and the Gospel another and must come to his Diversity of Acceptations properly and improperly again for he hath done with it He sayes page 5th It was the same Doctrine which the Apostles preached and committed to Writting Who denyes this or what saith it for him more then Luke 1. 1. A Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed amongst us And this no Quaker ever denyed But Secondly He tells us that by Power of GOD to Salvation can be understood no other thing but the mean Organ or Instrument whereby GOD exerteth or put teth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners And again in page 6. He saith the Power of GOD That is GOD Himself See the Mans confusion and self contradiction In the next place William Penn gives him another Scripture Rev 14. 6. Which is nothing to Patroolus except it suite with his mind For after a few Quibles he saith the Doctrine contained in these Books is the same with and therefore no less everlasting then the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel This William Penn granteth That they are a Declaratior Narrative of the Gospel and that the thing they declare of is the Gospel Page 5th About the end He cites William Penn saying The Gospel is Gladâ— Tidings But Matthew Mark c are but Narratives c. and not Glad tidings Which last Words he hath added like his Brethen Hicks and Faldo And in page 6th He saith They are divers Narratives of the same Doctrine and all which Books contain the Glad tidings c Yet after all this he falls a failing Therefore I shall set down William Penn's Words That the Reader may Judge how he is dealt with William Penns Rejoynder page 118 Which is further proven by the signification of the Word GOSPEL To wit Glade which are to be understood of the coming of Him that was the Saviour of the World Of whose blessed Appearance and wonderful Transactions the Scriptures are but Narratives Besides one of their Authors Luke expresly calls them a Declaration consequently not the Gospel thereby declared of Which Definition Peter Martyre that superintendant Reformer in England chooseth of all others part 1. cap 6. of his common places Tertulian calls the Scriptures Instrumenta Doctrinoe That is Instruments of Doctrine And the New Testament Writings Fuangelicum Instrumenium And Matthew he calls a Faithful Commentator of the Gospel Chrysostome being required to swear upon the Gospel both denyed those Histories to be the Gospel and to swear as all c. Now let the Witness of GOD in the Conscience of the Reader compare this with the 6th page of Patroclus and Judge whether his contempt railing and reproach hath been hereby deserved I shall only say The LORD forgive him To conclude this Matter he brings one Scripture Mark 1. 1. After he hath asserted a great untruth and then raised violently upon it To wit That William Penn denyeth that the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John contain Glade tidings Whereas William Penn hath three times over called them Narratives or Declarations of the Gospel or Glade tidings This is great Impudence but common to Men of his Coat Then from the Scripture before cited he bringeth forth a Dilemma which is easily answered by a Dilemma which is easily answered by a distinction betwixt the History and the Mystery of the Gospel which he might have considered before he had given us all this Trash But to let him see what follows upon his Sense of these scriptures he abuseth I will adventure for once to sylogize thus The Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John are the Gospel But the Gospel is the Power of God c. Ergo The Books aforesaid Are the Power of GOD c. And again The Books before mentioned are the Power of GOD. But the Power of GOD is GOD Himself or Ergo The Books before mentioned are GOD Himself I have here inserted nothing but what he hath asserted in terminis in his 4 5 6. pages where marke that he calls it abominable Swoâ—k-â—â—ieldianism to understand Rom â— â—6 any other wayes then of the Books before mentioned Page 6th About the end he begins with a kind of Scolding Oratory to defame the Quakers Saying They cloath the Scriptures with base Epithers and contemptible Aspersions as the Heathens did cloath the Christians with Beasts skins that the Lions and other wild Beasts might the more readily destroy them All this yet 〈◊〉 Man not minding the Words of our Saviour to his Predecessors the Pharisees who were no less Exaleers of the Scriptures then he or his Brethren Matth 23. 29. For in cruelty ye are nothing inferiour to them 〈◊〉 let us see what he hath for this matter first the Quakers call the Scriptures the letter Answer so
doth the Scriptures themselves in distinction from the Spirit As 2 〈◊〉 3. 6. Except Patroclus intend to turn Socinian who understood this place on Scriptures to be meant of the Gospel or Scriptures of the New Testament as may be seen in the Cracovian Catechism Page 162 163. Asserting the Holy Spirit to be the Ipsum Evangelium and at best to be but a certain hope of Eternal life promised to us Secondly they call the Scriptures Writings Is not this plain Soots for Scriptura Or what difference is there betwixt Scriptures and Writings It seems the fault is that the word is not a little Latinized But every Quaker is not so good a Linguist as Patroclus His third charge is that the Quakers call them them a letter about the meaning whereof nor two are agreed Now Patroclus I pray thee for once deal ingenuously with me and ommiting many other instances answer only these two First if the Scriptures be so plain and obvious to every well disposed intelect as your party word it how came the whole Ministry of Scotland to differ so faâ—r in the year 16â—0 about so easle a case as whether it was Lawful for the Mallignats to fight for their Native Country against a Forraign Enemie And secondly It is well known that about the year 1661 after divers Presbyterian Ministers were suspended from the exercise of their Ministry who notwithstanding did not submit but continued preaching and gathered to themselves congregations in the desart to the great distuâ—bance of the Nation On the other hand in the year 1689 several hundreds of the Episcopal Ministers have been suspended and their Flocks left destitute Yet all of them have submitted and are silent Now seeing both parries acknowledge the same Scripture Tellme I pray thee whether they be agreed about the meaning and bring me plain Scripture to decide these two contraversies â—t eris mihi Magnus Apollo After this in Page 7 he falls upon citations where he promiscuously and at all adventures cites Hicks and Fâ—lâ—â— upon whose Bankrupt Faith he layes no small stress I alwayes doubted Patroclus to be no sound Presbyterian For sure they who could not allow Malignants to fight for their Native Country would never allowes Sectaries to contend for the Faith which certainly is more Precious then all outward things But especially they being men who by their open forgeries and falsehoods have forefeited their Credit with all Honest Men I shall be at the pains with one or two of them tho they desorve no notice In Page 8 he ciâ—es one N L Cited by Hicks and saith he evinced by him against Pen That if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ these words Hicks saith were spoken by N L To one he knows very wâ—ll upon publishing this in his Book N L gives forth a Testimony under his hand dated London 29th 3d. Moneth 1673 denying he ever spoke such words or any thing like them calling it an abominable lie wicked slander and appeals to GOD to clear his ◠〈◊〉 But after some search Nicholas is sent to one Henry Stout to prove the matter who at last gave his Testimony in write under his hand thus I Henry Stout of Hartford never in all my dayes heard Nicholas Lucas speak the words nor any of the like importance or tendencie as charged on him be Tho Hicks nor before any man else that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my conscience that he hath most grosly wronged N L To which I subscribe H Stout So now let the Reader judge what seared Consciences and Brazen faces these men have or our Patroclus to cite such a base and false calumny The second Citation is that of William Penns Rejoynder Page 70 73. We have good reason to deny them to be the rule of Faith and Judge of contraversy which can neither give nor govern Faith nor Judge of Contraversies If he added the rest I should have left it to the Reader to Judge without more And therefore I shall only add these following words as they ly Viz. As the many different perswasâ—ons in the World fully prove For then all that have the Scriptures would be of one perswasion as it is most certain those are who have walk by the one Spirit Let the Word be joyned and then Judge The other part of his Citation is Page 73 thus in short the Scriptures are not the Rule but a declaration of Faith and knowledge Here he stops But I intreat the Reader before he trust these men to be at the pains to read the Book Cited by him There he shall see wither William Penn and his friends deserves to be called disparragers of the Scriptures and that it looks more like malice and interest that acts these men than the love of Truth The rest of his Citations at least many of them I never saw nor read but in such books as his Page 9. About the end he falls upon a long Citation of William Penns rejoynder concerning the Canon The Authority of those who gathered it the Transcribers and their dissentions the exactness of the coppies And lastly that some learned men of our times tell us of little less then 3000 several readings in the Scriptures of the Nâ—w Testament in Greek Answer Can he say William Penn hath lied in what he hath Written If he do I will produce him Protestant Authors who confess no less But if he had added the rest of William Penns words he had done more honestly but not so much to his purpose and therefore I will do him the kindness to set down a few of them Farr be it from me saith William Penn to Write this in any the least undervalue of that Holy Record It 's only to shew the weak foundation my Adversaries foundation stands upon I believe great and Good Things of them and that from no less evidence then the Eternal VVord that gave them forth Which hath often times given my Soul a deep Savour of these blessed Truths it declares of c And after many such expressions he concludes We accept them as the Words of GOD Himself And by the assistance of his Spirit they are read with great Instruction and Comfort I esteem them the best of Writings and desire nothing more frequently then that I may lead the Life they exhort to Thus William Penn Whereby the Reader may perceive the malice and disingenuity of Patroclus in concealling the Words which would have vindicated him from that soul charge of vilifying the Scriptures And I desire the Reader will only compare Patroclus and his Party with the Pharaseâ—s who while they extolled the Scriptures were found the murderers and persecuters of CHRIST and his Apostles Having thus dissingenuously dealt with William Penn he fails upon R. B. in these words On the other hand of this Ethnick Army R. B. Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures Citing his Apologie Chap 2. That
they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue in these Writings c And so runs on for a whole page in tragical Exclamations To all which I shall only return the words of Calvine instit cap. 1. Numb 24. Quare si Conscientiis optime consultum volumus ne instabili dubitatione perpetuo vacillent altius petenda quam ab humanis vel rationibus vel judiciis vel conjecturis scripture Authoritas Nempe ab Interiori spiritus sancti Testification Etsi enim Reverentiam suâ— sibi ultro Majestate conciliat tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit cum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostris And a little after Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat talis denique sensus qui nisi ex caelesti Revelatione nasci nequeat Non aliud loquâ— quam quod apud se experitur fidelium unusquisque Thus Calvine In English thus Wherefore if we would take the best course to provide for the peace or clearness of our own Consciences that they may not perpetually fluctuatâ— with an unstable uncertaintie the Authoritie of the Scripture is to be deduced higher then either from Humane Reasons Judgements or Conjectures viz. From the Inward-witnes bearing of the Holy Spirit For albeit its own Native Majestie doth gain to it a peculiar Reverence yet then doth it seriously affect us when it is sealed upon our hearts And a little after Such then is that Perswasion which requires not Reasons and such that Perception which cannot be bred but of a Revelation from Heaven I do not speak any other thing then what every one of the Faithful finds experimentally true in himself And now let the Reader judge whether R B hath said any more then Calvine hath said That every one of the Faithful experienceth in himself Yet what is sound Doctrine in Calvine must be Heathnism in R B And whereas he saith shall the writings of Livie Virgil and Cicere carry such evidences that they were theirs so that a Humanist may distinguish c. Shall then GOD Himself be outstriped and overcome by these Writers Answer Albeit we neither deny the Majesty of Stile Harmony of parts or any other Divine Characters in the scriptures which may declare their Author Yet we confidently affirm that the forelaid writings of Livie Virgil and Cicero which are the things of a man can only be known by the spirit of a man and not of a beast So we say the scriptures being the things of GOD can only and alone be known by the Spirit of GOD as saith the Apostle in so many words But he proceeds and citeth the word as he alledgeth of Benjamin Furley and for his Author gives Hicks the Forger And then he falls a glorying as if he had done his business fully saying by this time I have aboundantly justified my charge Soft Patroclus till thou put off thine Armour An I cannot but wonder with what confidence or rather impudence this man and his brother Brown can cite these books of Faldo Hicks c. Which have been so fully manifestly convicted of falsehood forgery and perversion that their Authors are become detasteable to all honest and unbyasled men and whom our present adversary accounteth Hereticks And what a case must the Quakers be in if such Janizaries in Religion who have been known to undertake the contraversy for hire and have been found to be men of no integrity I say if such men their sworn Enemies shall be held sufficient witnesses against them If I should produce the Papists Testimonies against Luther and Beza what would Protestants say And albeit R B chargeth Brown with it as a callumniator yet our Author hath not brought the least proof to mend the matter nor the Citation of any book but his beloved Baptist Mr. Hicks as he calls him And whereas he saith they have Cited book and page for their other Citations so did Patroclus cite William Penns Rejoynder when he accused him for saying the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and John did not contain glade tidings so the Proverb is veryfied in all of them A Priest a Liar no news And so till he prove these to have been the words of Benjamine Furley I have done with him And here I must tell Patroelus I have seen Browns book which was lent by an old and learned Minister so called of the National Church with the Caveat I would not said he lend you this Book but that I know ye would get it from some other For if all the coppies were in my hands they should never be more seen I acknowledge they are a scandle to our Profession and the Anthor a stain to his function But said he do not think we allow them And the truth is except Polwart and Montgomeries flyting I never râ—ad its fellow But to return to what R B answereth in the matter of Benjamin Furley he hath set it down at large and spends a deal of labour upon it He begins with R B his delemma to which he answereth Seeing R B insinuateth that there are an subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any therefore his dilemma is impertinent c. Now let the Reader judge what cander we can expect from this man who hath out done both Hieks and Faldo they cired book and page yet were found Forgers He cites nothing yet would be trusted let him mend this fault with the next before he produce his argumentum ad hominem and his absurd and malicious consequence upon it Which is that according to the Quakers men are not oblidged to abstain from Murther without such an immediate objective Revelation as Moses and the Prophets had Answer This is very dissingenuous did ever any Quakers pretend to give a new Law to the World and confirm it by miracles as did Moses Or did they ever teach That the Foretelling of things to come as did the Prophets was necessary to Salvation The Quakers pretend to no new Revelations of new things but to a new Revelation of the good old things as shall be seen more hereafter And for such stuff it may take with Patroclus Hearers but every Man of Sense will deteast such dealing His second Answer to this Dilemma is yet no better For saith he Tho the Illumination of the Spirit be of abjolute necessity for such a knowledge of the Scriptures whereby we may know GOD revealed in them and have true Love and Faith and Fear c. Yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound reason only can distinguish betwixt Commands given to a particular people for a certain time and these that hind at all times must have abandoned the exercise of Reason This the Summ of what he saith Answer first What he meaneth by the Word Only I see not Except he think Reason can do something more But what this is he hath not been so
rightly conclude Now that this Major is particular will be evident if he explain himself what he means by the word That By which he cannot understand Man nor beast nor Angel nor any other thing if he speake sense but that Book And so his Argument will run thus That particular Book which was dictate c But the Book called the BIBLE or the Scripture was dictate c Therefore c If he thinks I have wronged him let him explain himself next and make his Major universal Secondly This is a direct begging of the Question for it is denyed that a Book can be the Primary Rule of Faith for there was Faith before there was a Book in the World and the World was two thousand years without Scriptures and if they had no Rule nor Law to walk by then they had no sin For where there is no Law there is no transgression If they had a Rule it was certainly Prior to the Scriptures and consequently the Primary Rule except that Patroclus would say That GOD had changed his Rule His Minor is a very uncontravetted Truth in the first part of it But he must excuse me to distinguish the second And contains the whole Counsel of GOD Which I think Robert Barkelay hath done to very good Purpose That the Scriptures containe a full account of all the Essentials and fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion But that many things occurr dayly of which the Scriptures do not clearly determine our Experience clearly proveth And first as to Faith I desire he may give me plain Scripture for Persons in the God head Sacraments in the Church and keeping Holy Sunday This was required by K CHARLES the Martyr from Alexander Henderson But how it was Answered the Papers which past betwixt them will evince Secondly As to Life I ask whether it was lawfull for me in my Youth to take the League and Covenant Being first contrary to the Command of Christ Swear not at all And then contrary to the command of the Supreem Magistrate Yea in opposition to Him whome the Scripture commands me to obey This was a Case of Conscience to me and yet by the Presbyterian Church I was commanded his non obstantibus to take it And by George Gillespie in his Casses of Conscience the refusing of the Covenant is called sinful in it self a great dishonour to GOD and a great scandal to the Church no less punishable then the killing of the Apostles Nevertheless I must say I can find no Scripture which allows me to take it And again there is a great doubt at present seeming to arise in the minds of many Protestants and Well-wishers to the Government Which is whether the Popish Monarchical tyrranie in Church Government or Presbyterian Democratical tyrranie be more eligible for it is now become a common Litanie from Popery and Presbytrie libera nos c. As for that great and incureable Schism which destroyed Presbytrie in the Assembly at Dundee Whether a Malignant having in the Nation an Estate Wife and Children might lawfully fight in defence of his Native Country In Case of a forraign Invasion These and such like doubts saith he page 56 Are to be resolved by the Scriptures applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdome This is strange That there was neither Christian prudence nor Spiritual Wisdome in all the whole General Assembly That they split upon such a trivial Question and never reconciled again to this day But the cause was They lacked Wisdome and did not ask of GOD who giveth liberally and upbraideth not For had they been taught of GOD and received the Word of Wisdome from his Mouth they would have seen this contraversie to be as impertinent as that about Easter in the Primitive Church Next in page 39 he saith The corruptions of men are to be charged with all these defects This is very true for the corruptions of men and chiefly of the Clergie have separated them from knowing or seeking to know the mind and Counsel of GOD by the teachings of his Spirit and to lean to their own corrupt Wisdom their natural and acquired parts hence some of them have not stuck to affirm that a wicked Reprobate a man void of grace and of the spirit of Christ may be a sufficient Minister Before I leave his first argument with his spurious definition of a Rule I will give him another which I think he will like the better because it comes from his brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum Who sayes The mind and will of GOD however notified to us is the Rule of our obedience Now if Patroclus will prove that the mind and will of GOD was never notified or made known to mankind before Moses wrote the Pentateuch I shall grant to him that the Scriptures are the primary or principal Rule for the words signifie no more but first or belonging to first for the two words Primary or Principal being Latine words signifie no more but first or belonging to first if we believe our Lexicons To prove that the Scriptures contain the whole Counsel of GOD he citeth Acts. 20 27. Whert Paul sayeth to the Elders of Ephesus That he had not shuned to declare unto them all the Counsel of GOD. Here observe that this was before he had written his Epistle to the Ephesians and therefore I intreat Patroclus to inform us where we may find Pauls Preachings recorded that he mentioneth here wherein we may find all the Counsel of GOD For it seems the Fathers at the Counsel of Laodicea have forgotten to add them to the Cannon His second Argument is thus 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 Answer To begin with his Major he saith it is Robert Barkclay's This is the hight of deceit dissingenuity and Impudence For in the second Chapter of his apologie cited by our Author there is no such word to be found In this Chapter he chiefly treateth of the formal object of faith and but little of the Rule he proveth that indeed that Divine immediat Revelation was the formal object of the Faith of the Ancients and citeth Noah and Abraham for examples whom I believe to have had Faith and also a Rule for their Faith before there was either Scripture or a Jew in the World So that granting the Major he gains nothing by it unless he can prove that the Scripture was the Primary Rule of Noah and Abrahams Faith or else that GOD hath changed his Rule His Minor I deny for the same reason Secondly I acknowledge that Moses Law which is a part of the Scripture was more a Rule to the Jews and more binding upon them then upon any of the Nations or any living either then or since And this is all that his after reasonings can prove But what if I should say with other Protestant Writers that the was
is now a miracle among Presbyterian Priests To trace him in all his Raillings and Boastings reflections against Ro Barkelay and Geo Keith were very needless The Reader may see them of no weight I shall therefore here take notice of some of the Scriptures cited by him in page 34. To prove that by the Law and the Testimonie is understood the Law of Moses on Exod 32. 15. And Moses turned and went down from the Mount and the two Tahles of the Testimony were in his hand c. 34. â—9 With the two Tables of Testimony in Moses hand c. Now I beseech the Reader to consider what this Man can make from hence or from any of the rest to prove that Isaiah meant the two Tables of the Law to be a Primarie Rule either to Jews or Christians Was never the Moral Law a Law to Mankind until it was written in Tables of Stone Then certainly Cain had not sinned in killing of Abell If there had been no Law against Murther Or what more can he make of this Scripture if he make the Law and Testimonie to be the Ten Commandements But this That whoever speaketh or acteth contrary unto them It is because he is dark not knowing the Mind of the LORD nor hearkning to the Voice of the Divine Light in him which would have taught him to speak and act according to that Moral Law But I would willingly learn of him whether he would have the whole Law of Moses Moral Judicial and Levitical or Ceremonial to be the Primarie Rule to Christians now a dayes For the Moral is confessed by all parties to be binding upon all Mankind and that it was Imprinted upon the Souls of all Men even before it was written But the Judicial Law as well as the Ceremonial Law hath been rejected by all Christians except the Presbyterians who composed Cargils Covenant What then would the man be at I can conjecture nothing but this The Presbiterians have three beloved Doctrines Viz Swearing Fighting and Tithes which no one Line of the New Testament seems to favour and therefore they would have the Law reinforced least these their Darlings fall To conclude The Law was added saith Paul because of Transgression Therefore there was a Law or Rule transgressed before this Law was added And that it was a Written Law let Patroclus prove with the next I shall now come to his third Argument page â—9 Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final decision of the most grave and weighty Contraversies that ever arose in the World And sent all people into them as a most sure and undeceiving Light by the Guiding of which we may pass through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the close Ergo the Scriptures are the Primary Rule c. To prove the Consequence of this Argument he sendeth us to the Definition of a may be Rule in his first Argument which is proven to be lame and a begging of the Question Next to prove his Antecedent he citeth a Bundle of Scriptures for merly adduced by his Brethren and answered divers times But he thinks all the rest but Bunglers and therefore he will have at them again The First is Mat. 22. 29 31 32. Te do err not knowng the Scriptures nor the Power of GOD. He begins with a parcel of Presbyterian Rbetorick saying Our Adversaries are like Baits c. Let the Reader judge whether I have occasion here for a Repartee but I le spare him There be Two Things in the Citation for the Ignorance of which the Jews are blamed to wit Of the Scriptures and the Power of God Now if this prove one of them to be a Rule it cannot miss to prove the other to be a Rule also And so the Contraversy remains in stain quo prius that is Whether the Scriptures or Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God Teaching and Revealing the Mind and Will of God to his People is to be preferred The Quakers never denied the Scriptures to be a Rule but only that they were subordinat to the Teachings of Christ by His Spirit Whom He promiseth to send and that he should Teach them all Things And this I say is preferrable and he hath brought nothing to prove the contrary This cleareth George Keith from what he alledgeth of his confounding the Rule with the Power And as for his Simile of Euclid it will nothing mend his Matter for certainly Euclid had a Rule by which he wrote his Book which was the Dictats of his Reason and except his Propositions can be demonstrated to me by Reason I am not bound to believe them Therefore the Dictats of my Reason are a more Noble and Excellent Rule to me than Euclid's Propositions tho the Book be an excellent Help for me to attain to that Art And whereas he hath talked very disdainfully though wrongfully of consounding the Scriptures and the Power of God he should have remembred that in Page 36. He hath said That to seek to the Scriptures is all one with seeking unto GOD Whether this vergeth upon Blasphemy let the Reader Judge But to put our Stupidity or prejudice beyond doubt he brings us another simile of a King Answer Above all things he should have shunned dilcoursing upon this Topick For it is impossible to keep a Presbyterion Priest within his Bounds Here he hath described a King in Querpo subordinate to the Laws and limited by them Whereas it is well known That the King is the fountain of our Law our Legislator And by the same Authority whereby he makes Laws can cashier annul and rescind them And it is a known Maxim in Law Rex non potest peccare But this is the old Doctrine of Lex Rex and Jus Populi And that famous peece The Hynd let loose Now if this his Simile prove any thing it will be this That as according to their Dialect The King can do nothing but what the Law of the Land allows So GOD can do nothing but what the Scripture allows And consequently CHRIST could not command the Man to take up his Bed and walk upon the Sabbath day because no Scripture then written allowed it The next place is John 5. 39. Here he challengeth R. B. as a Papist for saying the Words ought to have been Translated Ye search the Seriptures But Patroclus If I shall cite Bellarinine against the payment of Tiths who say they Are not due by any Law of GOD or Nature since the coming of Christ Will thou also call me a Papist If thou do thou att mistaken And so art thou in him And when thou can prove that there are no errors in the Translation thou may stick by this The Scriptures thou brings prove nothing for this Translation for they do not mention it And we never denyed it that the reading of the Scripture was both commanded and commended Yet thou art not ashamed to say They
are sufficient to convince these Men of palpable falshood and blasphemy This is Language for the Pulpit among the Hood-winked hearers but will trouble no unprejudiced Reader As to the great stress he layeth upon these words And these are they that testifie of me Therefore they are the Primary Rule Did he not say The Works which I do They hear witness of Me And if we may believe History the Sybills testified of him Doth this prove that they were the Primary Rule But the very foregoing Verse is to be considered And ve have not his Word abiding in you for whom be hath sent him ve believe not And verse 36. I have a greater Witness then that of John For the works which the Father hath given me to finish the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me Here let him consider that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every thing is to be proven Our Saviour bringeth here four Witnesses The Testimony of John The Works which he did The Word of GOD abiding in Men and the Scriptures The contraversy is not whether any of these or all of them were Witnesses but which of them was the greatest and most Preferrable And if the Works which He then did were a greater Witness then the Testimony of John who was inferiour to none of the Prophets Then the Works which He now doth in the Hearts and Souls of Believers by His Word abiding in them in healling all their Infirmities quickning and enlightning their dead Souls and speaking peace to them is a greater Witness then the Scriptures He falls next upon R. Bs. Dilemma Which he saith hath not the weight of a Walnut It seems the hardness of the shell hath blunted his teeth that he hath not reached the Kernal For saith he If the words are to be taken in the Imperative mood as we have even now demonstrated then it is as clear as the Noon Sun c. But how hath he demonstrated it That the Word bears not the Indicative Signification as well as the Imperative is obvious to any that understands the Conjugations And the Scriptures brought to prove it I shall touch some of them Deut 17. 18 19. And be shall read therein all the days of his Life Ergo The Words John 5 39. Are to be taken in the Imperative Mood If this be not as wild a consequence as to say William Jamison is verus Patroelus by a Metempychosis Ergo The whole Church of England are Hereticks which he hath boldly asserted in his Adultory Epistle to his Patron I leave it to the Reader to Judge The next he brings is Deut 29. 29. The Secret things belong to the LORD our GOD but those Things which are revealed belong to us and to our Children for ever that we may do all the Words of this Law Ergo The Words of John are to be taken in the Imperative mood Who would follow such an Adversary at this Rate But seeing he is so good at Wall-nuts I will give him another of the same kind to break Either the Words of John the Baptist who was as great a Prophet as Isaiah were as much a Rule to the Jews when spoken by him as they are now to us when recorded in a Book or as the words of Isaiah formerly recorded in a Book or they were not If they were Then the Works which Christ worketh now in the Souls of His Servants must be a greater Witness then the words of John recorded in a Book As well as the Works he then did were a greater Witness But if he say they were not so much a Rule when spoken as when written I ask him how they came by that excellency by being Written Or was it the Council of I aodicea that gave it Page 43 He saith He hath broken one of the Horns of his Dilemma and made his Consequence a meer Nonsequitor And why Because he hath confessed saith he in a word That the Words of Christ and his Apostles as then spoken now recorded in Scripture were of themselves no less binding upon the Jews then these spoken by Moses and the Prophets But this hath strengthned the Dilemma for if they were as binding and yet needed a Rule to try them by Then the Writtings of Moses and the Prophets needed a Rule to try them by and that Rule another Rule Et sic infinitum That all Doctrines of Men may be tryed and ought so to be by the Scriptures was never denyed And hath no way given away his Cause But as for what follows That it might be lawful to imbrace any impulse or suggestion which he thought was the Spirit of GOD Without further Examination thereof is a gross untruth but ordinary to him and his Brethren And therefore he hath wisely foreborn to tell us where R Barkelay said so His third Scriptute is Acts 17. 11. He saith His Adversaries can find nothing to darken and deprive it and therefore he waves it Not being willing to meddle with what R B saith there To wit If the Bereans were oblidged to believe and receive Pauls Testimony because he preached the Truth to them by Authority from GOD Then their using them or his commending of them for using the scriptures Will not prove the scriptures to be the Primary Rule Yea more a Rule than the Doctrine they tryed by it For it the Doctrine preached by Paul to the Bereans had been but recorded in a Book it had presently become a Primary Rule The fourth is 2 Peter 1. 19. We have a more sure word of prophesie c. This place he will have to be meant of the scriptures His first proofi is Because saith he This presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation where the senses go along And so their spirit is contrary to sense But this is an old Cavil against Christianity and brought on the stage by Julian the Apostat in his Book against the Primitive Christians This Doctrine said he sigbteth against common sense See Chron Carionis page 278. To this he addeth another Why should this Glorious Vision of which the Apostles had Divine and infollible Evidence c Be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit â— Answer Why should uld it be uncertain and suspected in respect of the scriptures And why should it become the Primary Rule when recorded in a Book and not the Rule when spoken immediatly on the Mount If thou say Because it is more obvious to sense then it seems thy Religion is more sensual than Spiritual His second Argument is That this Revelation according to us brings along with it its own self Evidence and perswades the Soul to embrace and close with it as Divine But this is both groundless and therefore false saith he because we assert that unless the Understanding be well disposed Revelation tho immediate is not evident Answer first He here brings nothing to prove this That it is groundless and
the Testimony of one Risen from the Dead In like manner the Presbyterians now albeit they pretend so much to reverence the writings of the Apostles yet they will not really hear them else they would not fight swear nor exact a forced mantainance even from these who are not of the communion of their Church His Third argument is Certainly saith he the voice of one of the Glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the Face of GOD is no less to be accounted immediate Revelation then the voice of the high Priest unto the people c. But he should have proved that GOD took his method to reveal his mind unto his people which he never did But the High Priest was a Tipe of Christ and a Mediator betwixt GOD and the Jews So that to deny this to be immediate because it was first spoken to the High Priest is to deny the words of Christ to be immediate to his people because he saith he had heard and received them of the Father or that the light of the Sun is not immediate because it is conveyed to us through the Air. Only let him tell me whether the supream Magistrate who is at present troubled with the clamours of the two kinds of Clergy-men in Scotland can go and inquire of the LORD and have as certain an answer which of the two Church Government are Jure Divino as the Jews many times had and then he sayes something For the Jews had the Scriptures Moses and the Prophets as well as we and yet were many times necessitat to go and enquire of the LORD which evidently proves they had a higher rule then Moses Law In page 50 he giveth an argument like the rest Viz. Gods way of Revealing himself to us is as immediat as it was to the Jews because we have those that were inspired by GOD speaking to us tho Dead Hence he concludes that the Scriptures are as immediat to us as the voice of Moses or the High Priest or the Prophets was to the Jews This Argument is singular for deceit solly for First where did any Quaker deny the Scriptutes to be the Primary Rule upon the account of their not being immediatly revealed we acknowledege that they were immediatly revealed to the Prophets and Apostles recorded by them but this doth not let them above the Spirit which did reveal them and so his gross lie and his argument are both answered and yet he might have considered that the promise of Christ is more full to his people then it was to the Jews As he may read Matt 10 19 20. It shall be given you the same hour what ye shall speak for it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you His fourth argument from 2 Then 3. 15. Is That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the man of GOD wise through faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule c. But the Scriptures are able to do so c. Therefore they are a sufficient Rule Answer This argument militates nothing against us for the Question is not whether the Scriptures be a Rule but whether they be the Primary Rule which this Argument toucheth not and Faith is added here as a principal ingredient which themselves acknowledge to be a work of the Spirit this Faith hath a rule as also that faith whereby a man believes the Divine Authority of the Scriptures let him tell me with the next what is the Rule of this Faith He tells next The scriptures are Causa exemplaris and therefore the Primary Rule they call them causa formalis Causa materialis causa exemplaris And the word make would seem to make them causa efficiens so that according to them they are To Pan and the Spirit Vers Nihil From the Scriptures being Causa exemplaris he saith I evidently inferr that they are the adequat Primary Rule because if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in Scripture Or if they were subject to another Test c. They could not in truth be called able to make the man of GOD wise unto Salvation This I have answered before if he understand the Essentials and fundamentals of the Christian Religion It is confessed they do contain them but there are many things occur in our Christian course as he words it which the Scriptures do not determine Such as whether it was Christian or Antichristian course for the Presbyterians to come up to Bothwel-Bridge to fight against the King And Secondly Whether the late assembly ought to have united with their Brethren of the Episcopal perswasion till they had undergone Pennance for their Apostasie upon the Stool of Repentance The First brought much trouble upon the Nation and the Second is feared to be of no better consequence except our Author bring us clear Scripture to determine the case to the satisfaction of all parties He saith little Justice Truth or fare dealing is to be expected from us But far less from him so long as he trusts more to Aristotles Elenobis in frameing deceitful Sophisms then to the Testimony of the Spirit of Christ the reason he gives for this great calumny is because R. B. accuseth his brother John Brown for perverting the Scriptute 2 Tim 3. 16. Now it is evident that the 16 Ver hath no such word in it and that the 17 Vers saith only That the man of GOD may be perfect So the difference here is very obvious which R. B. hath largely handled in the same 41 page and our Author takes no notice of it but most deceitfully insinuates that he makes the scriptures Tautologies because he cannot evite the distinction there made by R. B. To which place never touched by our Author I refer my Reader Lastly saith he For we love rather to plead by weight of Arguments then by multitude of Arguments Answer If this had been true thou had spared a dale of Paper and pains We evine saith he That the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and Primary Rule of Faith and Manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves Answer If this be true it is manifest that allhe hath said on that Subject is superfluous Against whom did the Man write Omerciless Adversarie This is like the Papists in Q Marys time Tho you recant and be received into the Church yet you must burn But let us hear what he faith His Proofs are these First R Barkclay's Vindication page 36. The chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in Scripture And we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith in tho Scriptures And George Keith saith That the Scriptures are a full enough declaration of all Doctrines and Principles c. Both these I have cleared before granting all that they said And yet have proven that many things may and do occurr which the Scriptures do not clearly determine The other Branch that they are the Primary Rule
power As for his saying We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD because they try all Doctrines and Practises by the Scriptures This contains two Lyes First That we condemn all the Resormed Churches For R B hath cited severals of them who are of his Judgement and more may be cited in its place And Secondly The Reasou is a gross Lye For we alwayes owned That all Doctrines and Practises of Men were to be tryed by the Scriptures Next he saith Hence we find That the spirit of the Quakers is Diametrically opposite is the scriptures and therefore the spirit of lyes and delusion Whence I pray thee Patroelus Because we reject private Presbyterion Interpretations Which are but Mans wit and work This Consequence will be made out as thou sayest ad Kalendas Graecas When in a vapouring humour he giveth a Latine phrase and maketh us Ghosts and Hobgoblins But he hath not yet fallen upon the right spell to conjureus except it be his cutting our Juglar Veins which he yet wants power tho not will to do His next os any weight is That from our denying their Interpretations It follows That our Saviovr laboured invain when he proved the Resurrection of the Dead from the scriptures But he might have considered that he was GOD as well as Man who spoke there and that his Word was sufficient Secondly That this Scripture was an Argument ad bominem to the Sadducees who believed Moses Law better then Christ Thirdly The Consequence will be very gross That because Christ who had the Spirit above measure proved an Article of Faith by Scripture Therefore every Presbyterian Priest pedant may by his own natural and acquired parts without the Spirit interpret Scripture But there is at present too great contraversie which seems to bring a firie brand in the tail of it like to destroy all that is profitable or beautysul in the Nation as it hath once already done and to hazard the lives and estates of many well meaning men and good Patriots That is whether there be any difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Church Now if our Author can decide this contraversie by Scripture to the silence of the Malignants as our Saviour did the Saddusees he will do better service to his Native Country then by all his weak and deceitful wranglings against the poor Quakers who are not compeating with him for the Chair But his next consequence is very odd Yea saith he if this Doctrine be true A man doth not sin if he worship the Grocodale lbis Dog or Cat with the old Aegyptians Yea a man may believe or do whatsoever cometh in his Brain c. First ' This Doctrine that the Spirit of GOD is the only true interpreter of Scripture can bring no such consequence along with it For GOD never taught a man to commit Idolatry and to say that a general prohibation is not binding upon a man because his name is not in it is rediculous and no man that I know ever thought it But Secondly If his consequence be true then no Idolater sinned before Moses Law was written Yea according to our Author the Aegyptians he speaks of did not sin For if they had no inward Law sure they had no outward Law And borresco referens the old World sinned not to deserve the Flood because they had no written Law nor any Presbyterian Priest to interperate scripture Next he sayes we deny all Commentaries and expofitions of scripture He should have added which are meerly mans work without the Spirit of Christ if he will not be accounted a liar Then he chargeth R B for laying that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct Person of the Trinity I shall set down R B's own words that the Reader may see how fairly he deals with R B Thus I desire to know of him in what Scripture he finds these words that the Spirit is a diltinct Person of the Trinity For I freely acknowledge according to the Scripture that the Spirit of GOD proceed eth from the Father and the Son and is GOD And then asketh him whether any hath reason to think he truely makes the Scripture the Rule of his Faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or cannot find words in it to express the chief Articles of his Creed And now whether R B hath not fully confessed the the Mystrie and only denyed words of mans invention let the Reader judge Next he challengeth him for taking the words 1 John 2. 27. At the first sound and without any explication but he hath no leasure to give us any explication nor to disprove what he said from the words But concludes thus So that what ever they say or can say to liberate their doctrine from this most weighty but just charge they shall only twist contradictions the faster This is a great blow from a Graecian Gallant but hath not the weight of a Fear ther For we own the scripture for a Rule and the best outward Rule in the World and yet disown the Presbyterian expositions and Commentaries on them so long as they deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the work And whereas he challengeth us for not writing Commentaries The World is so overloaded with Commentaries of Mans making each almost contradicting another upon the same text that we think it best to let Patroclus abound in his own sense till GOD reveal that also unto him Phil. 3. 15. After this for about a page he doth nothing but rail and rove at randum as if Patroelus like he had the Trojans in chase and were upon execution And to sum up his Victory he concludes us Bapists because forsooth we deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and 〈◊〉 and the chief Judge of contraversies Answer First He hath need here of some of his Metaphisical formalities to distinguish betwixt the Rule or Law and the Judge But this we may expect next The Reason he giveth is because our Arguments as he alleageth conclude with theirs and instanceth that of Revel 22 18 compared with Deut 4 2 but hath brought nothing to disprove the inference Only telling us to this purpose may Bellarmine answer and the rest of the Jesuites But the difference lyeth here the Papists would thereby set up the Roman Church and unwritten Traditions to be the primary rule But we the Teachings of the Spirit of CHRIST so that according to patroclus own words in page 32 we differ as far as Heaven and Earth And he hath chosen a middle place for himself and his Brethren in which of the Limbos he may tell us next And let this suffice to answer all his Rovings to the end of the Chapter Chapter II. of Immediate Revelation HE begins this Chapter with an hâ—dgpodg of railing lyes nonsense and contradictions such as a man pretending to sense and Learning may be ashamed of if his desperate malice had
not blinded him Whereby he seeks to bespatter and blaken the Quakers so as so render them the object of the Magistrates severity Or expose them to the rage of his beloved Reformers the Rabble For First he saies they have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of GOD adding his wonted phrase speaking in the Scriptures But if I shall ask him Doth GOD now-a-dayes speak at all to his Church He would readily answer me No And within four pages he labours to prove that GOD hath spoke his last words to his Church Which is also clear from their Confession of Faith chap 1 so that as is said before this phrase is a meer cheat Secondly he saith We have most impiously and self-deceiving lie given up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which they call the Spirit of GOD as we have heard Here he falslie insinuates That we give up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which is not the Spirit of GOD which is a gross untruth For GOD knoweth and our Consciences bear us witness that we own no other Spirit but the same which Christ promised to His followers John 14. 16. I shall pray the Father and be shall give you another Comforter that be may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the World cannot receive because it seeth Him not neither knoweth Him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you and shall be in â—on And Vers 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost Whom the Father will send in my Name He shall teach you all things And 15 Ch 26. 8. and 16. 17 18. The Comforter who will reprove the World of sin c. This is that Spirit of Truth To whose Guidance we have given and do give up our selves And if he mean any other thing he is a wicked Slanderer and Callumniator Next he adds And again in contradiction to this the Soul of CHRIST Extended and Dilated This is a part of George Keiths Book called The way cast up To which book he promiseth an Answer But the Man is able and can answer for himself against all the Presbyterian Priests in Scotland Then he sayes But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the Spirit And it not this Scripture Language GOD who commanded Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts And was not this the Apostles Message that GOD is Light And how frequently is the Holy Ghost in scripture called simply the Spirit without any addition But he adds to which Spirit GOD himself speaking in the Scriptures must 〈◊〉 obey the same This blasphemous Gibberish being the invention of his own brain deserves no answer But may well be added to the Presbyterian Eloquence at the next impression But I pass by the rest of his railing and come to his defence of his Brother John Browns Argument which is this If since the Apostles fell a sleep and the Cannon of the Scripture was closed All that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a Primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of errour then it is not the way of CHRIST But the former is true c. Ergo c. To which R B hath answered and our Author accepts his answer and changeth the argument thus If since the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture fell a sleep and John wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this Kynd of Revelation have been led by a spirit of error Then this is not the wayof Christ But the former is true Ergo c. And now he thinketh there can be no exception against his argument but that it will certainly do his business yet is he like to be mistaken For first his argument seems to insinuate that before the Apostles fell a sleep immediate Revelation was the Primary Rule and if it was so it continues to be so yet by his own former Concessions For GOD hath not changed his Rule so that if he makes his argument to speak to the purpose he must say thus all who pretended to this kind of Revelation as well before as since the Apostles fell a sleep were led by a Spirit of error which I think he would be loath to affirm Secondly He will gain very little tho I grant his argument in terminis for I have as little kindness for pretenders as he hath or can have and do readily grant that all who pretend to this kynd of Revelations and have them not are led by a Spirit of error as well as that all Presbyterians who pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule and do not frame their Faith and manners according to them are Hipocrites and are led by a spirit of error So that except his Argument say all who have been led really and truely by the Spirit of Truth of whom Christ promised that he should teach them all things and lead into all truth were led by a Spirit of error He doth but â—eat the air and fight with his own shaddow For we have had pretenders amongstus whom we have denyed and rejected And what he brings concerning the corruptions of men we deny not For as men of Corrupt minds may pretend to the Scriptures so they may pretend to the Spirit but the LORD hath alwayes hitherto given his Church a spirit of discerning whereby such pretenders have been detected rejected and denyed And did not Zedeâ—iah the Son of Chenaanah pretend to the Spirit with as much confidence as Mieajah 1 King 22. 24. When he smote Micajah and said Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee Will it follow from hence That Micajah was led by a spirit of errour because Zedekiah pretended to the same spirit Or that the Presbyterians are led by a spirit of errour Because the Lutherians Anabaptists Independants and Arminians pretend to the same Rule with them So as the Scriptures may be wrested to the condemnation of the Wresters Our Author must confess that he needs a Guide to tell him when he goeth astray And whereas he citeth some called Quakers who have erred whether truely or falsly I know not I will bring him ten for one among the Presbyterians Yea and the greatest part of the Presbyterian Ministry of Scotland about the year 1661 foully deserted the good old cause and yet no less pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule then they had formerly done He falls next to prove that there is no Consanguinity betwixt the Jesuits argument to Jo Menzies and this of J B But let the Reader consider whether both Arguments terminate in the same thing For the Jesuites presseth J M to produce his Grounds and Principles And our Author in page 78 saith his Argument is demonstrative except his Adversary can produce any Instance to the contrary And if this be no Consanguinity let the Reader judge And whereas he turneth over the Jesuites Argument he might well have expected that the Jesuite would and might have said so of
the Presbyterians in Scotland who have fallen into palpable errours and have felt heavy Judgements Notwithstanding of all their pretences to the Scriptures for their Rule For their work of Deformation falsly by them called Reformation began with the Sword raged with the Pestilence and sickned with the famine And was at last utterly destroyed By 〈…〉 of their ovvn Brood O C But the Man will so farr exceed J M That he tells us How easie had it been to have adduced whole Vollumns whereas I believe J M was much abler to deall with his Antagonist then our Frothie Au. hoc with all his Grecian sophistry A little after he taketh all the Christian World upon his side Yea Christian and Antichristian Papists Protestants and Greeks tho in his Epistle to the Reader he calls the Lutherians their capital Enemies certainly Patroclus hath made a notable Multer against the Quakers if all were true But I pray him whence come all these divisions if ye be all of one mind I wonder how a Man in his Witâ—s could talk at this rate Next after a peece of Froathie Triumph he sayes I answer directly to the Jesuite and the Quaker his Patron If we may Believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries Such as Bellarmine Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrine which we hold in opposition to Popery are most agreeable to the true sense of Scripture Answer If I had thought so as he alledgeth upon these Doctors To wit That the true sense of the 〈◊〉 had been upon the Presbyterian side in their Contraversie with us I should never have opposed them For sure I am GOD cannot contradict Himself And I would willingly learn from Patroelus upon what ground they could burn Protestants when they believed the true sense of the scriptures to be on their side Neither can I believe the Papists are so gross as to believe the first and practise the second For I suppose the greatest difference betwixt the Presbyterians and Papists and all their other Opposers is about the true sense of the Scripture And therefore he raveth when he calleth R. B the Jesuites patron For I am certain that he neither believed you nor the Jesuites to have the true sense of the Scriptures And so his direct Answer comes to a direct nothing to the purpose To R B â— Third Answer Viz That George Wishart and John Huss had Immediat Revelation c He replyeth That R B granteth They did not pretend to them as the ground of their Faith and Obedience in all Matters of Faith Worship and Doctrine But certainly they did it in some Matters for none of them could pretend to an outward call to preach the Protestant Doctrine and Worship And yet they both preached it and I believe upon a better Ground than a Presbyterian Call But however our Author does not deny that these Men had Immediat Revelation And consequently his serious Truth absurdly affirmed by James Durbame Viz That Christ hath spoke his last words to his Church is a fabulous untruth Next he falls again upon James Naylor And because R B saith He repented again our Author draws a Noble Consequence from it thus Which Answer is an evident Confirmation of what we plead for To wit That the Quakers spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them For I believe J N acted but according to his Light c. This is just as much as to say he that sinneth against the Law of GOD and repenteth he evidently confirmeth that the Law of GOD hath given him the cheat and deceived him Absit Blasphemia And further About the beginning of the Covenant your Ministers had sworn Canonical Obedience to their Ordinaries Then they swore the Extirpation of them their Office And about twenty years after swore again Canonical Obedience In all which Three contrary Oaths they pretended the Scripture for their Rule Was it therefore the Scripture which gave them the cheat and deceived them No surely So James Nayler sinned against his Light and the Law of GOD in his heart and Repented and confessed he had sinned against his Light and condemned himself under his hand tho this malicious man insinuates the contrary which I doubt he can say of few of his Brethren who perjured themselves in taking the Covenant From what hath been said he drawes three Consequences first his serious truth before mentioned to wit That CHRIST hath spoken his last words to his Church And to help his Brother out of this Quagmire he adds That is put a close to these writtings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church being ashamed to deny that there were immediate Divine Revelations after the Writting of the Revelation being so much testified to in Church History And themselves having called Samuel Rutherfoord a great Seer much upon his Masters secreets But how will he deal with his Brother Jurieu who in his account of the Shepherdess of Daphine comes very near to assure us of an age at hand Wherein we shall have Men divinely inspired vâ—a and able to work Miracles And in his Book upon the Revelation tells us That the first Reformation begun by Luther which he calls the Harvest was carried on by the Ministry of Men But the second which is yet to come he calls the Vintage and saith It will be by the Inspiration of GOD And in his Characters of the Kingdom of CHRIST he gives for one of them That there shall be a plentifull pouring out of the Spirit whereof he saith That which the Apostles received at Jerusalem was but a Type I could instance many others some who have had it and others who have foretold of it But this being a Modern Writer a Calvinist and a Sufferer well esteemed of by all protestants I thought might suffice to shew that all the Calvinists believe not this serious Truth as he call it His two following Consequences deduced from his Argument formerly answered and Refuted are of no force For blessed be the LORD we can instance Thousands who neither have fallen into palpable Errors nor open Blasphemy Nor have marks of GOD's heavy Judgements but have lived and died in Favour with GOD and Good Men tho persecuted by the Presbyterians and Independents their Brethren By whose unjust Judgement some of them have been put to cruel death His third Consequence being a meer windie bauble deserves no answer His second Argument is Moses and the Prophets CHRIST and the Apostles and all the Holy Men that were Inspired by GOD tâ— Compile a Rule of Faith and Life c Could by infallible Evidence and infallible Proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of GOD But nothing of this kind Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentialls for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation then the most wicked Enthusiasts As for example John of Layden and
and Reason for the very words before it are The Lightsined in the darkness That is according to our Author Man in his Natural Estate who could comprehend natural things but could not comprehend the Light Therefore according to our Author his own Confession The Light must be Supernatural or else the darkness would have comprehended it After a little vapour he saith Altho the Light Christ be supernatural yet the little Beams and Sparks of Reason and Conscience are Natural But who ever denyed this The thing he was to proove as well as assert Was That the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men and the Light which Men are commanded to believe in is Natural Which he may either do or be silent for ever Next he rails a while and concluds with an abominable Lie Viz That we assert That the dim and dark Light of Nature is GOD himself This he hath learned from the Father of Lies the Prince of Darkness and to him it will return and he with it except he repent The next Argument he deals with is R B's page 19. 20. of his Vindication I shall intreat the Reader to look the place and compare it with our Authors bungling upon it R B proveth by Rom 8. 9. 14. 1 John 2. 27. John 6. 45. John 14. 16. 17. That the Promises of the Spirit to teach lead and guide were common to all Believers and not particular to the Apostles To which our Author replys he should have given some other thing for proof then bare Assertions For so he calls all the Scripture proofs he hath brought but meddles not with one word of them But our Adversary will not serve us so he will give us Questions for all and ask us Why may not Immediat Objective Revelation be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not to all Believers Answer Because GOD had promised before to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh And Paul tells us after If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his As for the Scriptures he cites they nothing touch us for we never denyed the use of Means in the leadings of the same Spirit as R B hath shewn at large in the place last cited But in stead of a solid Answer to R B's Argument he boldly beggs the Question Saying Whatever the Qnakers say we cannot help it Certain it is that no man of sound Judgement will deny that when one reads the Scriptures and hath his mind Illuminated by the Spirit he hath that promise fulfilled to him of which we now speak Very well Patroclus This is more like a a Pope then a Prevbyter But the man hath told us he cannot help it The next Argument he assaults R B's Apologie page 38. That which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind are forced ultimatly to recurr unto when pressed to the last That for because of which all other foundations are recommended and accounted worthy to be believed and without which they are granted to be of no weight at all must needs be the only most true certain and unmoveable foundation of all Christian Faith But Inward Immedist Objective Revelation by the Spirit is That c Ergo c. To this he offers two Answers The first by a Simile thus A man just now possessing a peece of Land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors by vertue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago spake mouth to mouth with that Prince dead ages out of mind Thus that into which the present Possessor of such peece of Land when pressed to the last recurreth unto and for which other Grounds or Charters are comended or valide Must of necessity be the most immoveable ground of and warrand for such a peece of Land his possessâ—ion of it But the Grant or Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago First By word of mouth tho again committed to writtings Is that which the present Possesser being pressed to the last recurreth to Ergo The present Possessor had discourse immediate mouth to mouth with a Prince in many ages back e're the present Pâ—ssessor was born This he And then as if he had done some notable feat he falls a roaring insulting and mocking his adversary saying These must be admirable fellows c. Their strongest argument serve only to prove the Authors to be in a Paroxism of folly moving langhter in a very Heraclitus But it seems our Author hath been in a Paroxism of madness and blasphemy for his Simile can conclude nothing less then this Viz. That Christ is dead the Spirit of Christ iâ— dead ages out of mind that no man heareth his voice now nor can recur to him to be satisfied of his doubts that he hath broken all his promises to his Church of being with them to the end of the World of sending the Comforter to teach them and lead them into all truth and that great promise he that is with you shall be in you Many more are the promisses in the Old Testament as in Jeremiah Joel and that in Isaiah 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the LORD Testified unto as fulfilled in 1 John 2. 20 27. If the Preaching and Printing such gross blasphemy as these which naturally and unavoidably flow from this simile be fit to move laughter and not rather terror and astonishment in the Author let the Reader judge I shall here add two Arguments fit for this place First Christs Sheep hear his voice But the Presbyterian Clergy hear not his voice Ergo They are not of his Sheep Secondly Where there is no Vision there the people perish But among the Presbyterian Clergie there is no vision Ergo Their people perish But blessed be the LORD we know and believe according to the Scriptures That Christ our Prince is dead ages out of mind but liveth and Reigneth for ever and that he is Faithful and True and that he is alwayes present with his Church that he standeth at the door of their heart and knocketh if any open to him he entereth and that he dwelleth in them and walketh in them and is to them a GOD and they to him a people and that if any be otherwayes minded he will even reveal this also unto them Phil 3. 15. So let our Author glory in his Chartor which we have as well as he but be warr to blasphem the Spirit of Christ lest the end thereof be no laughter but weeping and gnashing of teeth His Second answer is By distinguishing immediate objective Revelation granting it was Immediate and ohjective in respect of the Apostles and Prophets but not in respect of the present prosessors of Christianity Answer First he here maketh the ground and foundation of See his page 33. the Faith of the prophets and Apostles one thing and that of the present professors of Christianity another thing which is absurd Secondly be excludes all Christians from Immediat Objective
is the sin of nature Answer The Major containeth many great lies in it and the Minor is a gross untruth which he and all the Presbyterians in the World can never proves from the words of the Apostles rightly understood the indeed they have a saculty of causing the Scripture speak contraries as we have seen and heard at Aberdeen upon the Text Holiness becomes thy house O LORD c. I shall therefore insert one sentence more of J H There are some apt to conceive only that Adam being the root of Mankind Humane nature it self sinned in him and so when we come to exist his guilt is derived upon our persons as virtually and seminally in him no otherwise then Levi is said to have payed tythes to Melchisedeck in the Loins of Abraham I should saith he incline to this explanation but that I see not then why all the sins of Adam besides of all out Progenitors should not be ours also upon the same account as much as that first transgression He rails at R B for denying the Major of this argument and telling John Brown how he had abused the Scriptures soisting in words of his own to deceive the simple Reader I desire the Reader may be at the pains to see R B's viâ—dication and then judge betwixt him and his adversary In page 136 he reproacheth R B for saying shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adams sins But it would have wronged the cause to tell why R B said so which was because J Brown had challenged him for adding an interpretation tho he told him it was so and therfore he saith I am content there be neither addition nor so much as consequences made use of adding let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adams sin and now I intreat the Reader to compare the Books and see what candor integrity or honesty is among such adversaries or what Justice we can expect from men of such foreheads as can raise a calumny on such a foundation which themselves gave first ground for He talks aboundantly about the Salvation of Infants but to no purpose forging Blasphemous consequences and Fathering them upon R B while they are his own if they be Blasphemies For he never said that Infants are not saved by Christ only and hath sufficiently cleared himself in his Vindication from this but repeated callumny To R B's saying Infants are under no Law he answereth in three instances that Children are forefaulted and deprived of their Fathers Estate for their Fathers faults 2 That the Children of Sodom c. And of â—â—re and of Achan c. Were punished for their Fathers sins But its strange with what confidence he can repeat these tales which R B hath so fully answered and it is manifest they suffered not for Adams sin if they were at all punished for sin it must needs be the sin of their immediat Parents And in the very words of Austustine cited by himself in page 141 he saith shall they sin that are under no command That is under no Law He would abuse R B as saying Augustine did not think Infants guilty of original sins Whereas he only citeth Augustine to prove they are under no Law which the words plainly impott His Third is a very rare one Thus If in any point of Religion and Faith the admirable depth of the Judgement and secret Counsel of GOD be to be seen certainly it is to be observed here c. I would fain learn from this Author what worse the Faith and Christian Religion would have been tho this contraversy of Infants being condemned for Adams sin while Adam himself was pardoned had never been started in the Church by such capricious Clergiemen as our Author Or does he believe that the belief of this Doctrine is absolutely necessary to Salvation Certainly if it be so the number will be few and somewhat more few then Shepherd makes them in his Sincere Convert But he saith The depth of the secret Counsel of GOD is to be seen and observed here If seen and observed here then it is no secret and if it be secret it is no where seen nor observed But the Presbyterians to know the secret Counsel of GOD and yet deny the Revelation of his Spirit This is unaccountable Doctrine But he sends us to Paul's Sanctuary Who â—rt thou c If he had added the rest of the Doctrine he asserts To wit Who dare deny That GOD condemneth innocent Infants for that sin he hath pardoned to the Transgressour he had come off fairly But he answers Paul's Question saying we answer therefore First That Adam was a publict 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 I wonder whence our Author hath gathered all this Stuff for in all the Scriptures is no such Doctrine to be found And he denys any other Means of Knows ledge And therefore upon good ground lâ—râ—pâ—at it as R B hath done But he should have proved that the Nature of the Covenant of works was on this wise That altho Adam died by the breach of it yet he should be pardoned yea and put in a better Condition then he was before the fall But his innocent Posterity even Infants who never had accession to that sin not had a being for some thousands of years after the same should be condemned Eternally to hell fire for that first sin And till he prove this he saith nothing to the Contraversy But he labours to prove That Adam seased to be a publict person after the fall Because he died in the day he did eat and so became dead in Law What strained Consequences are these Did not Adam live again the same day And was he not a publict person in the Second Covenant made with him the same day Or was there any other Man then on the Earth to make a Covenant with Or was not the Remissiion of that sin through the promised seed Jesus Christ of as large an extent as the sin was That as Adam the Transgresiour was not condemned eternally for that sin So neither was any of his Posterity condemned for that sin only Which I have shewed before to be the mind of as good Protestants as our Author To prove that for Adams one sin only all Mankind are condemned he giveth us a Philosophiek Axiom Bonum ex integrd eausa malum ex quolibet defectu And citeth Isaiah 53. 31. But he should have told us in what verse of this Chapter it is said That Christ suffered for Adams sin For I find not such thing in it But our sins our Transgressions out Iniquities We all as sheep have gone astray We have turned every one to his own way and the LORD hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all And
that knoweth us will believe Thomas a Kempis was a Papist yet his Book of the Imitation of Christ is more spiritual than any Presbyterian Book I ever yet saw And if he will call me a Papist for saying so I cannot help it but I am sure it is false And if Popery should prevail in the Nation which GOD forbid it would soon appear whether they or we were the truest Protestants To conclude this matter It is evident That our Author is against all Spirituall Worship Mental prayer Quietness of mind c. As opposite to that sordid Trade of Preaching for hire and divining for money And if Michael Molmos of whom all Protestants that I have seen mention him writ favourably had appeared Glasgow Scotalnd when he appeared at Rome and Naples in Italy It is manifest our Presbyterian Clergie would have accused him as fiercely here as the Jesuites did there Which among other things may shew that they are not mistaken who call them Cousin-Germans Section Second Of BAPTISM HERE our Author very wisely passeth by a great part of the Contraversie To wit whether Sprinkling of Infants the only Baptism now in being in the Presbyterian Church be either the Baptism of John or of CHRIST Both which we deny And this our Author should first have proved before he had accused For admit another man be wrong in his Religion he can never be oblieged to change untill his Adversary prove his to be right Neither is it just to desire him to come from his own tho wrong to yours except you can prove yours to be right But for this he must consult his good Friend Hicks the Anabaptist whose weapons he hath often borrowed in this conflict Secondly The Westminster Confession chap. 27. num 4. saith Neither of the Sacraments may be dispensed by any but by a Minister of the Word lawfully ordained Now we deny that any of the Presbyterian Priest-hood are such and therefore tho these sings were to continue they may not dispense them These our Authour knewwell enough but skips over them But it is observable That the Scriptures cited in the Confession to prove this Article do all of them point to an inward Call one is Hebrews 5. 4 and no man taketh this honour to himself but he that is called of GOD as was Aaron I hope this was not to derive his Call from an Apostate Idolatrous Church as that of Rome from which our Presbyterian Priests are not ashamed to derive theirs Thirdly The Presbyterians acknowledge that these signs are not absolutely necessary to Salvation and in the time of their last Reign limited Baptism to Preaching dayes and refused to the Children of Ignorant or Scandalous Parents by which means many Infants dyed without it Tho they say that the contempt of it is damnable And since the late Revolution I read of one of them who said It was but the Relicts of Popish Superstition to be curious for Baptising of Children And that he knew a good and godly Minister who lived to a great Age and was never Baptized What then needs all this clamour against us The first thing he takes notice of is the many divisions and disputes among Christians about these Signs which he fasly calls one of R. Bs. Apologetical Arguments whereas it is nothing but a part of his Introduction as any that reads his Apology may see And in his Vindication he tells his Adversary page 162. he hath not used it as an Argument at all And in his Apologie tells them how much it would contribute to Peace that they would lay aside such Heathnish and Barbarous words as these Nevertheless our Authour will have him a Heathen for this advice to procure unity but it is too manifest that tho Salamanders we have to do with are Peace-haters Next he falls upon the word Sacrament which he must confess is not a Scripture expression and from this draweth a foolish consequence to wit Ergo the thing is not in them he should have said Ergo it s a Humane invention introduced by the Apostacy and therefore to be laid aside by the Reformation but he is not so ingenuous but he saith the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture but the thing imported by the word is Why may not then the Scripture words be used and both these words laid aside Except our Clergie think they can word better than the Spirit of GOD. But our Authour who is so well acquaint with the Latine Poets cannot be so ignorant of their Historians as not to know the true and most common signification of Sacrament to be a Military Oath And therefore I think there is no presbyterian ceremony that I know which so well deserves the name of a Sacrament as the Solemn League and Covenant His next business is to deal with Ephes 4. 5. from Which R. B. proves there is but one Baptism to which J. Brown answereth the Scripture no where saith that there is but one only Baptism To which R. B. replyeth it will as well prove that there is one onely Baptism as that there is One only GOD But our Author very candidly quites the matter and betakes himself to Faith And because there are saith he more kinds of Faiths than one the Text must be so expounded concerning Baptism But let me have the one Faith and the one Baptism mentioned here and our Author may take all the rest to himself for there is a false Faith which I covet not But in page 219 he asserteth That the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased And in page 224 he boldly asserts That Johns Baptism is Christs whole true Baptism but sayes nothing to prove it From which Doctrine it followeth That whosoever is Baptized with water is Baptized with the Holy Ghost Secondly That as many as are baptized with water have put on CHRIST And Thirdly That the Apostle Paul erred grievously in Acts 19 when he said unto what then were ye baptized seeing they had received Johns Baptism before But the man is so confused all through this Section that he knows not what he asserts for in the same page 219 he again asserts That Johns Baptism was no Figure of the New Testament Baptism this he asserts without any proof yet fearing it may not pass he adds Otherwise if the Sign be opposed to the thing signified we may understand the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and Fire spoken of Matth 3 of Sanctification and Mortification What a hodg-podg is this Schition like to fight and flee or to change shapes like a Proteus And first tells us Dogmatically it is no Figure And then if it be as a sign opposed to thing signified c. That Sanctification as well Mortification is a part of the one Baptism is not denyed To R Bs. saying it is alye That he would have none to be Baptized in the Spirit but such as are endued with these Extraordinary Gifts To this I say he answers But do they not still
and so were continuing to Baptise And we must expect an account of the warrand he pleads for from CHRIST as a Gospel Ordinance But R. B. saith What if it were all granted Did not the Apostles prepare and eat the Passover with CHRISTS Warrand and Authority is it therefore to continue He answers There is no parity first Because the eating of the Passover was not imposed upon the Gentiles as accessory consequent of their imbracing Christianity Which he saith Baptism was This he had no leasure to prove because he could not For I hope he will confess that Constantine the Great had Imbraced Christianity when he sat as a Member of the Council of Nice and yet was not baptized for diverse years after Neither can he be ignorant of many Gentiles who were not Baptized for many years after their imbracing the Christian Faith and that even after Superstition began to creep in Secondly He saith The Passover was an old Legal custom whereas Baptism was in its very use Well then according to our Authour it was the nearer its fall who tells us in page 225. There could be no use of Legal rites then but such as were within a little to be abolished Page 228. he cites R. B. saying That tho it be joined with Discipline as Circumcision was with it among the Jews it will no more follow that Baptism is to be continued then Circumcision He answereth that the Baptism spoken of to wit Matth. 28. 19. is to continue he thinks Robert Barkclay will not deny But the Question is whither this be water-Baptism to prove the continuance whereof he brings this Scripture which seeing it is not to be continued cannot be here intended Next where they object the constant practice of the Apostles This R. B. saith The practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declares to be false this saith he we have proved above to be false but the Reader must be judge to whom I leave it Next he proves that abstinance from blood and things strangled were abrogate by 1 Cor 10. Where I will be oblidged to him to show me one word of either the two Next he gives us two whole Epistles Galat and Timothy without citing either Chapter or Verse because he could not But that these two continued in the Church even in Tertullians time I have told him above So that his Abrogation hath not been intelligible to the Primitive Christians His second Argument is but a Repetition of what he hath said before That Baptism was alwayes upon condition of their embracing CHRIST which is false as I have shewed before He saith There is another ground given for Water Baptism then Condiscention to the Jews But he should have told by whom For except himself I yet know no other Thirdly He saith Either the Apostles unrepealed Practice was not sufficient to walk by or else this was abrogate afterwards But saith he The last is false and the first is absurd Answer The first I have already shown from Scripture and the last is no absurdity Except it be so to the Presbyterian Priests who pretend to be the Apostles Successours and yet are not found in their unrepealled Practises Viz To heal the Sick to teach all Nations and to Preach the Gospel freely Which last our Adversaries are so farr from doing that some of them have not been ashamed to Print and publish to the World Nos non gratis accepimus ergo neque gratis dare tenemur Next he promiseth us two Scriptures for one where the Word Baptism is taken for Baptism with the Holy Ghost We shall expect his Catalogue with the next And yet he may give us ten for Circumcision in the Flesh for one of Circumcision in the Heart Tho the first be abrogate and the latter continueth Page 230. He gives us an Argument thus To baptise with the Spirit is not in all the Scripture applyed to Men Therefore it is not safe without very solide Reasons to expone it so here This I Confess is modest and therefore I shall modestly answer him I never look'd upon Men as more then Instruments neither in this nor in Teaching under the New Covenant Christ is the principal Teacher as well as the principal Baptiser of His People without whom they can do nothing And therefore I justly reject all such Ministers as profess that they can teach or baptise without the Immediate Assistance of our Lord Jesus Christ His next is an Old Quible renewed thus All that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism is sufficiently expressed in the Context This hath been often proposed and as often denyed and the contrary proved And therefore deserves no answer upon his bare Assertion See Truths Defence Page 129. where this is fully discussed For the greatest part of his work hath been to bring up old Stuff in a new Dress knowing it will pass with such as have pinned their Faith on the Sleeves of such Teachers especially having secured them in his Epistle to the Reader with a Touch not Taste not Handle not lest ye be informed and find out the cheat His next Paragraph being against the Socinians I am not concerned with it His last hath nothing to the purpose but one Perversion Where he R B insinuateth That Peter commanded expresly the Gentiles to be Circumcised which saith he he buildeth upon Galat 2. 12. Now R Barkclay saith only he constrained the Gentiles And citeth verse 14. Where it is said Why compellest thou the Gentiles c After this Perversion he concludes with a Lie where I leave him and proceed Adding only this one Argument That Rite or Ceremony which was institute in the time of the Law and also practised That is before our LORD JESUS CHRIST began to preach the Gospel Must needs be a Legal Rite But Baptism with Water or Johns Baptism was such Ergo It was a Legal Rite Section Third Of the SUPPER c. HE begins with a Lie great Saying We deny the LORDS Supper Whereas we affirm That except a Man eat his Flesh and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him After he hath past by a whole page of R. B's Vindication He comes at last to J. B's Preaching to the Devil and denyes it to be his but only an Inference from our Doctrine But the Truth is That upon R. B's saying The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature under Heaven which is Scripture Language Isay If upon this Text John Brown make a preaching to the Devil who is to blame Whence it is a apparent that his Simile about Murther is Nonesense Next he comes to the Priest near Lawder who prayed to the devil This R. B. doth not assert for a truth but only tells he heard it and so is no Calumniator But if I should say I have heard and read many as gross things of some of you I should neither Lie nor Calumniat See the Presbyterian Eloquence In the next Paragraph he hath nothing but accuseth R. B. for
honest as to tell us He hath said before that the Illumination of the Spirit is absolutly necessary to such a knowledge of the Scriptures as iâ— usefull to beget Faith Love and Fear of of GOD. c. But he would teach us another Knowledge which reason cannot produce But if he will allow me the first I shal allow him the last to get his Living by Only I must tell the Reader that in this he outdoes the Socinian who in his Catechism aforesaid Cap 3. quest 3. Laid the blame of the Differences about the sense of the Scriptures on their not imploting the Gift of the Holy Spirit which GOD hath promised to those that call upon Him And lastly I wonder to see a pretended Presbyterian cite the Examples of the third and fifth Commandemenâ—s Of which two precepts they have been such notorious Transgressors His third Answer is as unhappy as the rest For he laboureth to caâ—se R. B. to contradict B. F. While he hath neither cleared his Brethren Hicks and Brown from being reputed Calumniators Nor hath attempted any way to prove these to have been the Words of B. F. But thinks the World is bound to believe him because he saith it Where I leave him to rave till he bring better proof He tells us Fourthly That it is impertinent to say that without the Operation of the spirit men cannot obey the Good of their own Souls And is saith he falcem pro ligone dare Answer It seems the Man intends an Obedience which is not for the good of Mens own Souls And what this can be except it be either superstition or supererogation I am to learn As for his Proverb I fear if the Men of his Robe did not get the Sickle before the Spade That is did not eat the Fruit before they planted a Vineyard we should see many of them with Lean cheecks and Lank sides But as he hath told us before of two kinds of Knowledge one from the Spirit another from Reason So he tells here of two kinds of Duties one profitable for the Soul but the other he hath not told us for what and such are many of his Duties like to be In the fifth place he chargeth B. F. with Blasphemie for saying that it is as he alledgeth the greatest Error in the World that ever was invented and the ground of all errour to affirm that the Seriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians And then he tells us the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the poison and hath rendred R. B. speechless Well Patroelus And is this all the proof that yet we have against B. F. Now three times printed without proof And R. B. might have justly rejected it at first and here with falls what thou brings in the last place which was a sufficient answer to I B and is yet to thee till thou clear him of these ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator as thou calls them which neither thou nor he have ever yet attempted But I must ask thee a little What thou intends here by blasphemy For whatever the old signification of the Word may have been I am sure a Blasphemer is now taken for a Man who by injurious word or thought hurteth the Divine Majesty So that except the Scripture be Patroclus God he cannot find Blasphemy in the foresaid Words Lastly All the Proof we have is If says he the words were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them Here we have a new Law if any Man call Patroclus a Thief he is bound to prove himself an honest Man And hence it shall follow that no Lyar can be punished To conclude this particular Not withstanding this Author accuseth the Quakers as Velifiers of the Scriptures Yet GOD is our Witness that it is far from our Intention but on the contrary we have a high and reverent esteem of them And altho some years agoe this Language might have passed for good Coyn Yet now Blessed be the LORD we are better known both by our Principles and practices not only to our Neighbours but to many knowing Men all Brittan over then we formerly were So that a malicious Priest will not be so readily trusted being a kind of men who cannot sleep unless they have wounded some either in their persons or Reputations I shal here only desire the Reader to see Duplessis of the Trueness of Christian Religion cap 6. Where he shall see That before the Canon of the Scriptures were filled up yea before many of them were written CHRIST is called the Word of GOD not only by the Jews but by the Heathen Philosophers and their Oracles So that there was a Word of GOD before the Scriptures And secondly If the Preaching of the Gospel be glad Tidings Then the Preaching of Patroclus is not the Preaching of the Gospel According to Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you good Tidings of great joy which shall be to all people Whereas his Doctrine of Reprobation is the most sad and lamentable Tydings that ever was preached to Man kind For first by their Confession of Faith cap. 3. A certain number are elected from Eternity and the means foreordained to bring them to Glory and all the rest of Mankind are ordained to dishonour and wrath Now the means whereby this end is attained and fore ordained for that purpose are according to their Catechism The Word Saoraments and Prayer And so according to Patroclus All Mankind who want these mens are reprobates consider then Reader into how narrow a Compass he brings all people The World being divided into 30 parts There be yet 19 of them Pagan and six Mabumitan and only five Christian The half of this five is of the Romish Communion want the use of the Bible The Lutherans he saieth in his Epistle to the Reader deserve not the Name of Reformed but are to be accounted Capital Adversaries The Church of England is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianizm and Episcopacy is an Antichristian Hierarchy The French Protestants are for passive obedience and Non Resistance And even Geneva it self errs in two great points Viz. In allowing Lawful Recreations on the Sabbath day and denying Tithes to the Clergie And our English Presbyterians are such enemies to the Scottish Covenant that they have gone near to Anathematize it For R Baxter in his hundreth propositions wherein he sayeth all Protestants are aggreed Propos 99 saith If any will make their unnecessary forms of Synods and other adjuncts to seem so necessary as to enter Leagues and Covenants to make them the terms of the Churches Unity GOD will not owne such terms nor waves nor will they be durable c. With much more to this purpose And now let the Reader judge whither Patroelus Gospel be glad tidings to all people We are now come to the Rule of Faith and Life page 17 where having begun with a great lie Viz. That in the judgement of the Quakers the Scriptures are
angry to be contradicted then their Ancestors the Papists Hence it is evident that it is their Interpretations sense and Preachments upon the Scriptures which they would have to be the Rule of Faith and the Declaration of the Object In page 20 He makes a digression wherein he tels us the same things overagain therefore I shal only touch suchthings as chiefly concern the matter in hand if yet lawful for a Plowman to touch his school-terms by which that Trib have darkned Counsell with words without Knowledge And if Patroclus be a Parochus or Parish Priest I am sure the tenth man of his Hearers cannot understand his Terms First He confounds the Matterial with the formal Object saying as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own ltradiant and illustrious Beams And this in contradiction both to Calvine and him self To Calvine in the place before cited Where he saith That to settle the Conscience such a Perswasion is necesseary as needeth no Reasons And such a sense as cannot be attained but by Divine Revelation To himself in page 23. Where he saith We being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD We answer by the Testimony and operation of the Spirit And herein he may reconcile himself to himself and his friends when he hath Leasure Secondly In page 22 speaking of subjective Revelation he calls the spirit an Instrument in the hand of GOD This Language sounds not sweetly to me for I believe the Spirit is GOD and therefore cannot like these Words GOD an Instrument in the Hand of GOD. 3ly He tells us in page 23 That subjective revelation is more properly called an Application then Revelation it self And yet in the same page he calls it the Testimony and Opcration of the Spirit Now a Testimony is a Witness bearing And we know a dumb Man cannot be a Witness But he hath told us That the Spirit speaks neither to the Ear nor the Mind and so cannot bear a Testimony This is palpable confusion Fourthly page 24. He saith so that we can Reason because surch spirit v g He that confesleth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is said by the Scriptures to be of GOD Therefore I know and believe that is true Doctrine and that this spirit is of GOD. If this Scripture be taken Literally by Patroclus and that he intends as he Writes I must confels I expected not so much Charity at his hands For at this rate he accepteth Papists Lutherians yea and the Palagian Chureb of England who all believe that Christ is come in the flesh But I will expect a Commentary upon the Words with the next Fifthly In the same page he saith We do not with the Fanatical Enthusists reason thus The Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures Therefore I believe them to be so But he hath given us no Reason why he believes such and such Books to be the Scriptureâ— For which we must wait his Leasure Sixibly His lame example of the Sun and Ey-salve is no better He saith by means of the Salve he seeth and knoweth the Sun And again by the Sun Light he may perceive what is Eyâ—salve and what is not But he might have considered That tho he see that Sun and Ey-salve both he needeth his Natural Understanding to know the Sun and to discern what is Ey-salve and what is not And as in Naturals so in Spirituals No man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in him so the things of GOD no man knoweth but by the spirit of God Seventhly In page 26. He chargeth R. B. for calling the Westminster Divines dark c. Because they not separate the Word from the Spirit But said that the Testimony of the Spirit was in ant with the Word And then reflects upon R. B's Vindication page 33. But takes no notice of what he saith page 33. and 34. Because they were too hot for his fingers He citeth Isaiah 59. 21. My spirit which is in thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth c Observe First That the Tenot of this Covenant is Spiritual My Spirit which is in thee Secondly That they are distinct tho not contrary else they needed not the copulative Conjunction And Tbirdly They are called Words and not Word So then Patroclus confesseth That GOD putteth Words in his mouth to preach to his People I shall allow him to be concerned in this Covenant And I hope he will not here after be angry with the Quakers calling the Scriptures the Words of GOD. Eightly He saith there was never the least contraversy betwixt the Briâ—tish and Transmarine Divines on this head but an intire Harmony This is another Lie I shall instance one Joâ— VV Bajer Profeslor os Divinity at Jena in Germany writting on that Subject against the Quakers page 33. and 34. Saith the in ward Illuminations and Operations of the Spirit are altogether necessary to beget true and saving Faith in Men and that these inward Illuminations are objective or by way of Object Which is not very Harmonious with Patroclus Doctrine of Application And this is all the discovery he hath made of R B's Non such weakness and extream disingeunity which he hath left undiscovered till his next Printing And now in page 26. He saith he comes directly to the Objection Saying First The Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we speak properly an Application of the things revealed in Scripture then a Revelation of Testimony strictly so taken Observe First That this being granted all these words of Protestant VVriters such as the Testimony Illumination Inspiration Perswasion of the Spirit are but meer cheats and impostures put upon Mankind And that Calvine when he speaketh of Divine Revelation as necessary to beget True Faith meant no such thing nor any of these Authors he citeth are to be understood according to their own words but according to Patroclus sense and thus he and his Brethren deal by the Scriptures Headds Whereas the Revelations to which the Quakers pretend are altogether objective like that of the Prophers This is another Lie for the Quakers own both Subjective and Objective Revelations as hath been showen above I shall here and Luk. 24. 32. Did not our Hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the way and while he opened to us the Scriptures Now let the Reader judge whether this was an Objective Revelation as well as Subjective Their bearts burnt and he opened to them the Scriptures Now Opening presupposeth a Shulting and the Lamb only is found worthy to open the Seals of the Book That is Poreveal the Object In page 27. He saith we assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be
givenparticularly for that Nation and was binding upon no other Nation in the World as J Humphry in his book called Medioeria to which Richard Baxter a Famous Presbyterian assents and subscrives I am of the same mind R Baxter of the Covenants page 14. The Old Covenant is that which GOD made with the Jews when Moses led them in the Wilderness the new is that which we have under the Gospel the Old Covenant then is not the Covenant of works for that was made with all in Adam and as written in our hearts must be Eternally obligatory but the Old Covenant was made with the Jews in opposition to other Nations and as peculiar to them is vanished binds not And for the same reason he sayeth it is not the Covenant of Grace which is called the New Covenant But saith he the new is not the old The argument he bringeth to prove his Minor is that from which the Jews might not swerve to the right nor left hand and to the decision of which they were ultimatly bound to stand in all doubts and contraversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from GOD's Writtin Law c. Therefore to them it was the Primary Rule Answer First This argument proveth no more then this is already granted Viz. That Moses Law was a more Principal Law to the Jews then to any other Nation But untill he prove the Children of Israel to have had no Law no Rule of Faith nor Life before Moses wrote that Law his argument can conclude nothing Secondly Mine Adversary may tell me whether they were to stand to the decision of the Law in a matter which the Law did not decide for we find that after the Law was given In many things the Law giver Moses could not decide without immediate Revelation as in the matter of the Daughters of Zelophehad But when the case was proposed to him he went and enquired of the Lord And again when the Law was finished and Joshua to succeed him What saith the LORD Numb 29. 21. And he to wit Joshua shall stand before Eleazer the Priest who shall ask Counsel for him after the judgement of Vrim before the LORD If this be ultimatly to recurr to the Scriptures of Moses Law the Reader may judge To prove his Minor he citeth one place which I cannot omit Dut 17 9 10 11 And thou shall come unto the Priests the Levits and unto the Judge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the Sentence of Judgement and thou shall do according to the sentence which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee and thou shall observe to do according to all that they inform thee Now Reader could the Pope of Rome have sought out a Scripture more fitt to have established his universal Dictatorship over Christendome then this Is there one word of Scripture Law or Testimony here No but the Priests the Levites and the Judge That is in Broad Scots The General Assembly and Committee of Estates who were as absolute in their Determinations as ever the Pope and his Conclave But Patroclus must know that he and his Brethren are not Levites altho they take the Tithes nor am I to take their Counsel till they assure me that they have the Judgement of Vrim His second Proof for his Minor is Isaiah 8. 20. To the Law and to the Testimony if they speake not according to these it is because there is no light in them This Scripture hath been so much tossed by the Adversaries of Truth and so often answered That Patroclus who promiseth greater Matters then his Brethren had brought might have let it alone He denyes that this Law and Testimony can be inward And sayes For this Exposition we must take their word c But he hath forgotten it seems that William Penn in his Rejoynder hath given him other Mens words for it and perhaps better Mens then himself And because the Book is not so common among Presbyterians I shall here insert some of the Testimonys cited by William Peen First Dell Tryal of Spirits page 16. Wherefore they who are true believers saith he and have received Christs Spirit their Judgement is to be preferred in the Tryal of spirits before a whole council of Clergie Men And they onlie who can try Spirits by the Spirit of GOD and Doctrines by the Word of GOD written in their hearts by the Spirit can in measure discern all Spirits in the World And the Spirit of Christ which dwelleth in all true Christians cannot deceive nor be deceived in the tryal of spirits Collier General Epistle page 249. and page 258. Obj I st it is said Isa 8 20. To the Law and to the Testimony c Ans Truth There is the Law and the Testimony in the Spirit as well as in the Letter The Law of GOD is in the Heart There it is written and there it testifies the Truth of GOD And if any Man speake not according to this Rule it is because there is no Light nor Morning arisen in them the Spiritual Man judgeth all things yet be himself is judged of no man These were the words of two Famous Professors who were no Quakers Next he citeth some Scriptures to prove that Moses Law is understood by the Law and Testimony As if GOD had made voide his Promise To write his Law in the Heart and put it in the inward parts But of this a little after In page 35. He begins with a Question drawn from Deut 17. 18 19. Now sayes he Shall any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose That the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discusing thereof Or tho the King's doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law He was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him I say who in his Witts will believe this Very well Patroclus I am one so stupid as to believe that when a doubt arose which Moses Law could not clearly determine that the King was bound to enquire of the LORD Of which the Scriptures gives us many examples As 1 Samuel 23. 2. 4. and 30. 8. 2 Sam 2. 1. and 5. 19. 1 Kings 22. 7. And 2 Kings 22. Where the King the High Priest the Scribe and some others had the Book of the Law and knew not what to do with it but sent to enquire of the Lord and that by the mouth of a Woman But he hath been so warrie in his second Querie as to add Tho the Kings doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law Yet hath not the Candour to tell us what the King was to do in case his doubt was not clearly discussed by the Law As for the word Miraculous Revelation c It is his own a fine bugbear to fright his silly Disciples from asking Counsel of GOD For I am apt to believe that Divine Revelation
false except his ipse dixit And therefore I may not take his word Secondly What had all the Patriarchs before Moses Law and even Moses himself to try their Revelations by Yet they believed them upon their own self evidence Yea Balaam who had no well disposed Intellect yet knew and believed his Revelations to be Divine And Lastly Doctor Barron in his Book against Turnbul saith That the most noble kind of Revelation is that which is by intellectual speaking or illumination as Thomas and Swarez teach Thirdly He saith We insinuate That the Apostle in this Comparison gave out that one of the things compared was more certain than the other Which saith he is most false Seing considered in themselves both have all certainly possible But in respect of us saith he The Scriptures are more sure because less subject to be counterfeited or wrested either by the Devil or our own fancie But here it seems he hath forgotten himself for this same Apostle hath told us that the Scripture can be wrested But who saith that the teachings of the Spirit of truth can be so None but Patroclus And so the comparison holds that which can be wrested is less sure then that which cannot be wrested He adds the Apostle hath his eye upon his Country men And so have I upon mine who pretend so much to the Scriptures and yet wrest them grosly to their own damnation Page 46. comes to prove that by these words more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures after he hath told us that albeit immediat Revelation were meant or understood by the more sure word of Prophesie it would be no advantage to us because it is recommended to us As that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures and so not the Principal rule but a means to explain the Principal Rule and for this he brings no proof but we must take his word and then he will make us Quid libet ex quo libet First He saith by these words a more sure word of Prophesie is understood the Scriptures because any phrase of the like import is alwayes taken for the Scriptures as Luke 16 29. Eph 2. 20. Matt. 7. 12. And yet he confesseth in a Parenthesis the words Logos Propheticos are not to be sound in all the Scripture besides but by the words Law and Prophets are meant the Scriptures Ergo by the more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures This is a non seqitur with a witness The rest of his arguments such as if our Adversarys were not affronted and impudently bold such as would adventure upon any thing c. and the like Are not worthy of any answer But seeing he would explain one Scripture by another I will help him to one more sit John 1. 4 5. Where it is said In Him was Life and the Life was the Light of men and the Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehended it not How like this is to the more sure word of Prophesie which shineth as a Light in a dark place But the life of CHRIST the light in men is a seare Crow to Presbyterian Priests they cannot abide it One reasonless reason he gives us is because men are commended for searching the Scriptures But I would be obliged to him if he would form a Syllogism upon the medium and draw his conclusion from it In page 48 he tells us that Luther Calvin c. Understand it so Is this fare dealing Patroclus Dost thou agree with Luther or even with Calvin in all things If thou say yea I 'le prove that contrary and yet their Testimony must oblige us Then he computes us among Ancient Hereticks but he would not be satisfied if I should compute him and his brethren among Mahumitans for beliving a Stoical Fate Lastly He leaveth us to graple with William Penn's Rejoynder page 334 who he sayeth yieldeth to him what we deny To satisfie the Reader I shall set down some of William Penns words He sayeth John Faldo acknowledgeth That the writings of the Prophets are not more true in themselves than any other Revelation of the mind of GOD but more certain with respect to the Jews who bad a greater esteem for and testimony of the writings of the Prophets to be of GOD and not a delusion then of Peters Revelation So that we here have saith William Penn from John Faldo himself The scripture is not set above the Spirit as the more sure word the thing promoted of old by our enemies and which we only oppose For I doubt not but the Scriptures were more lure to the Jews then CHRIST Himself else they would never have thought to find Eternal life in them whilst they neglected yea persecuted him Which whether it was their perfection or imperfection so to do I leave with the judgement of my serious Reader which I likewayes do whether Patroclus be a fair adversary or any honest man He comes next to Luke 16. 31. If they â—ear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded thô one rose from the dead First Let the Reader observe that this is a Parable and that the Presbyterians believe that any such apparitions are but Devils assuming the body or the shape of the dead And therefore any thing may be more certain to them then such a Testimony and we read of none such but that of Samuel to Sâ—ul Secondly This Scripture brings no comparison betwixt the Scripture and the Spirit and whereas he saith let the Quakers prove that every man hath such a spirit as the Quakers alledge this shall come in its own place Next he proveth the Scriptures to be the Primary Rule because otherwise Abraham might have said the Spirit of GOD directeth every man immediatly If they hear not him they will hear none else If Abraham said so it seems Patroclus would have been displeased But a greater then Abraham said so even the LORD JESUS John 14. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost whom the Father will send in my Name he shall teach you all things whose teaching are preferable to all the writings in the world seeing he taught them what they wrote and their being dictated by him giveth them all their excellency He saith R Barkclay saying The Scriptures were a written Rule to the Jews only is nothing to the purpose but he should not have belyed him for he saith they were a more principal Rule to the Jews But never that they were a principal Rule to the Jews He passeth by what he said upon the Scripture Viz. Page 40. This Parable was used by Christ to the Jews to shew them their Hypocrisie who albeit they deceitfully pretended to reverence and solâ— low Moses and the Prophets Yet they did not really hear them else they would have acknowledged him of what Moses the Prophets did so clearly write since he did as great and convincing Mitacles before them as if they had
Our Adversaries themselves saith he at unawates grant Very well Patroelus it is a fine trick of a Souldier to take his Enemies napping and vanquish by stratagem but it seems there is some difficulty in it He citeth R Barkclays 2d Theses saying That the Spirit is not to be subjected to the Scriptures as a more noble Rule Therefore saith he The Spirit is to be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as a more noble Rule Answer first He should have said These Divine Revelations for they are the words of the These But we have often acknowledged that all Doctrines of Men how holy soever or how much soever they pretend to the Spirit are to be tryed by the Scriptures and if they be contrary to them are to be rejected But this proves nothing of their being the Primary Rule to us more then to Enoch who was a Man of GOD and had true Faith and walked with GOD before there was a line of Scripture in the World Again he saith Our Adversaries grant that the Scriptures proceeded from GOD and therefore are infalible and more sure than infalible is impossible This is a strange Argument The Scriptures are infallible because they proceeded from GOD or were inspired by the Spirit of GOD And shall the Inspiration of the Spirit be fallible or a more uncertain Rule then that which it dictated These words sound harshly But I expect when Patreclus comes to be serious in cold Blood he will grant That if there be more or less in the Case of Infallibility he will grant the more to the Spirit which dictated the Scriptures and from which they derive all their Infallibility Certainty and Excellency Here I desire the Reader may observe that his Arguments and the Scriptures cited by him tend only to set up Moses Law to be the Primary Rule of Faith and Life And not one word of the Scriptures of the New Testament so that he contends for Judaism rather then Christianity For Christ said It hath been said of Old an Eye for an Eye c But I say unto you resist not evil c So that the Jewish Law is not in all things to be a Rule for Christians Otherwayes Patroclus may ofter Sacrifice as well as take Tithes In page 54. 55 and 56. He ranteth and roareth against R B as a Jesuite because he alledgeth he hath taken an Argument of Bellarmines to prove the Scriptures not to be an Adequate Rule but what a silly kind of Reasoning this is tho true may easily appear Bellarmine sayes there is one GOD so do I therefore I am a Jesuite The Jesuites say That Dominion is founded upon Grace And so do the Presbyâ—erians Therefore the Preshyterians are Jesuites Then he comes to vindicate John Brown's simile of killing a Man And at last giveth us the Law the Judge and the Witnesses The Scriptures are saith he the Rule whereby to make the Examen the enâ—â—ghined â—â—solence the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a â—ilial Disposition c Together the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself the Witnesses But first I must ask him whether it be the Man himself or the Judge that needs this Spiritual Wisdome and Christian prudence to apply the Rule Secondly Whether the Judge be a Person distinct form the person judged for to use his own Simile If the Man â—â— yet be his own Judge he is not like to suffer Thirdly What he meaneth by the Ex Position he gives us of the Spirit of Adoption As if he thinketh it nothing else but a Filial Disposition inclining the believer to come to GOD as his Words imply Behold Reader what a Judgement is here to be expected Where the Man himself dislected into so many Parts is the Applyer of the Rule the Judge and the Witnesses And yet in page 57 He confesseth That for the infallible Assurance of the Person himself the thing standeth in need of or requireth an inward Judge and inward Witnesses Which I hope must be things distinct from the Person himself to whom they are to give infallible certainty As for his pretending That it belongeth not properly to a Rule of Faith to tell a Man whether he hath true Faith or not is not to the purpose For an adequate Rule of Faith must put me beyond doubting what I am to believe and what not Otherwayes it is no adéquate Rule And to conclude I would advise him to be sparing in calling Men Anti-Christian For I know no people except the Papists to whom the definition of Antichrist given by the Apostles is more agreeable then to the Presbyterians That is He exalteth himself above all that is called God or the civil Magistrates who are called Gods in Scripture Goodman saith they may kill wicked Princes as monsters and oruel beasts Knox History Fol 78. If neither the Magistrate nor the people do their office in deposing or killing the King then the Minister must Ex-communicat such a King Goodman page 110. Any privat Man may do it against the greatest Prince A privat Man having some special motion may kill a Tyrant If these Doctrines be not more like Anti-Christ than the Doctrine he accuserh let the Reader judge In Page 57 he cometh to another Argument of R. B's There are many things that the Scripture cannot determine To which I B Answers That General Rules are enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdome If this be not flatly to contradict the Scriptures concerning the chief Instances cited by R B Let the Reader judge after he hath read and considered the following Scriptures Rom. 8 16. The Spirit it self beareth Witness with our spirits that we are the Children of GOD. 1 John 4. 13. Hereby do we know that we dwell in Him and He in us because He hath given us of his Spirit And Vers 5. 6. And it is the Spirit that beareth Witness because the Spirit is Truth To these Scriptures cited by R B He hath not answered one Word Buâ— all his Answers are Quibles As first If we need Revelation for Spiritual Actions we need them also for Natural Actions Poor Man Are we contending for a Rule for Eating and Drinking as he talks If he be sick let him consult the Physician what and when he shall Eat But if he mean the Fasts appointed by the Presbyterian Clergie his Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Perswasion have need to consult an higher Oracle And when he is hungry and thirsty his stomach can teach him Nevertholess Whether we eat or drink we are to do it to the Glorie of GOD. His second Answer is ridiculous alledging that a system of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a sufficient Rule tho the Books comprehended not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever shall exist But the Question is Whether a system of these Arts can put a Man beyond doubting in every Emergent that may occurr in these Arts when practised And not whether their Names be there or not As whether he
is to take upon him to be General of an Army as R B tells his Adversary page 45 of his Vindication The Question is how James and Peter Knew they should take upon them to Rule But in case these systems faile to satisfie a Man at a strait which I hope any experienced Souldier will confess and the daily new Inventions do fully evince What then is the Souldier to recurr to Is it not to that by which the first Man wrote the System That is his Reason And see if that can help him when his Book cannot Yea have there not been good Souldiers who could neither Read nor Write Yes General Lesly who did more for the Presbyterian Interest then Patroelus and Achilles both can do And will a Mathematician receive a Mathematical Proposition set down in a System hand over head without satisfying his Reason These are poor similes and rather hurtful then helpful to his Cause If by these he minds to prove That humane prudence can assure a man that he is a Child of God I am apt to suspect by his Book that he hath never troden this narrow Path himself Else he would have spoken other Language Next he comes to answer for his Brethren the Remonstrants and Publick Resolutioners comparing then indeed to Paul and Barnabas But he hath forgot to tell us which of them was in the right and to decide the Contraversie by plain Scripture to the stopping the mouths of the other Party but I doubt this would have puzled his prudence As for his Instance of Paul and Barnabas their contention was not for matters of Faith or Doctrine as Beza testifieth and the Scripture saith no where that they did not meet again But our Assembly Men never reconciled to this day But knowing this will not do he giveth a better Answer Saying The Corruptions of Men are only to be charged with this Ah! Lamentable The whole General Assemblie of the Church of Scotland corrupt men What guides then had such poor Laicks as I Put all this saith nothing except he decide the Contraversy by plain Scripture Which when he hath done I shall say It 's pity he was not present at the Assembly Next he falls upon some other Arguments which he tells us are scraped out of Bellarmine and therefore deserve no Answer Which Answer whether true or false I know not having never read Bellarmines Works But I find this is a fair shift to win off and an Hebergeon proof against any Dart. He spendeth his whole page 60. on Reflections First on James Naylor he might have remembered Major Weir But De mortuis nill c I disdain to scrape in that Dung-hill Next he compares us to the Papists saying As the Papists to cover the rest of their Abominations have invented a 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 to be a Counterfeit hath taken the Counsel given by Alcibiades to Pericles that is To study how he may secure himself with the hazard of a Tryal And here he cites William Penn's Rejoinder Part. 1. Chap. 5. about the Man of Philippi I beseech the Reader to peruse the place cited by him that he may see him past all shame or care of being reputed an honest Man For First he says W. Penn useth it as an Argument to prove The Scriptures cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life whereas in the same Page W. Penn hath owned them for a Rule of Faith and Life tho not the Rule by way of Excellency nor as Patroclus saith the Primary Rule Secondly He makes no Argument of it but an Instance as he doth that of Ananias and Saphira That the Scriptures could not be a Rule to Peter nor Paul in these cases as he doth that also of flying or standing in the time of Persecution and asketh what do Professors mean when they advise People to seek the Lord in this oâ— the other Case Why do they not go seek the Scriptures rather and much more which for brevity lomit To evite all which he makes a Nonsensical Argument and denies the Antecedent when he had none And then falls a Railing for a whole Page together a part whereof I have set down above For Answer to which First The Quakers own no other Spirit but the Comforter whom Christ promised to send to Reprove the World for Sin for they never refused to subject the Spirits and Doctrines of Men to the Scriptures and therefore if he have called the Spirit of Truth a Counterfier the just God will Rebuke him for his Blasphemy And this poor Man who can pretend to no more Infallibility than the Pharisees of old who had the Scriptures as well as he and yet were found guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost may be affraid he be found in the same Case with them But I wish he may find Repentance Secondly The Presbyterians may be no less fitly compared with the Papists For their Doctrines being tryed by the Scriptures they being Interpreters themselves it is a meer sham to speak of a Tryal For whatever Interpretation doth not agree with the Analogie of Faith is to be rejected Now the Analogie of Faith is of their own composing so that Faith and Tryal and all is but Mans work and in fine a very cheat But next he must give us the most deadly blow of all Saying We are beyond the reach of a Conviction But the Reader may excuse him a little being now among his Brethren the Grecian Hero's Alcibiades and Pericles But who told him this that the Quakers were beyond the reach of a Conviction Sure not the Scriptures For there is no such Sentence in them all Nor the Spirit for he cannot indure Divine Inspiration the Capital Enemy of the Presbyterian Priesthood Who then Imagination A thing the Presbyterians call Faith The very counterfeit he hath been talking of just now Next he tells us That Prophesies of future Events may well be brought to the Scripture Test Then I beseech him tell me what Scripture Test could Noah his Prophefie of the Flood have been brought to Or George Wisharts Prophesie of the Cardinals being Killed in such a place and not in another In the close he saith Paul was Divinely inspired and the Actions were conform to Scripture consonant and warranted by the Promise of Christ C But it seems he hath forgotten what he said in page 39. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines by the Scriptures who were Immediatly inspired as well as Paul But any thing will serve after such a fatal blow as he hath lately given Page 61. He saith The ground of their Arguments with which they stand and fall 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 vet the adequat Primary Rule of Faith
serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth was their Rule Ergo c. The Major I hope they will not deny and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance which was as followeth Die Jovis 6 of July 1643. I A B do seriouslie and solemnlie protest in the presence of Almightie GOD That in this Assemblie whereof I am a Member I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be Truth Or in point of Discipline but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glorie of GOD and to the Good and Peace of the Church Hence it is evident That their Conscience was their Rule But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Errour whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom let Patroclus choose And to help him in his Election he may consult his Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum who a little after he hath told him that his ultimate Rule is a monster Tells him also That nothing can possiblie interpose between the Authoritie of GOD and the conscience and that its dictates are uncontrollable Next he tells us That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil But the Scripture saith not that men are condemned for want of Light But because Light iâ— come into the World but Men love darâ—ness rather than light And also that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men He closeth up this Number accusing R B for confounding the principal Rule and the principal Leader but these are his Acâ—rologian mistakes and not his Adversaries confusion For any man not maliciously byassed may see that he intends no more but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39 saying that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit is more primarie and principallie the Rule than the Scriptures some things written and received only from another This he hath maliciously passed by together with the Question following which he could not answer so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisiâ—al formalities return upon his own head In page 67 He comes to the interpreter of Scripture where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetorick like that of hiâ— Brother Mackquair the Arch-scold saying The Quakers well knowing That if GOD speaking in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them or if the Holy scripture be not â—steemed false ambiguous and nonsenfical then their cause is lost What more malicious and wicked falshood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People who from their Hearts abhore any such thought concerning the Scriptures as to esteem them false ambiguous and nonsensical Or what end could this â—nicâ—ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth Except it be to raise their Beloved Refoâ—meâ—s the Rabble to stone us as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow had almost been stoned to Death by them But he saith The Quakers well knowing c. If this were true we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster Who in chap 23 numb 4 of their Confession say Infidelitie or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authoritie nor free the People from their due Obedience to him While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King a Pious as well as Protestant Prince Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture â—alse ambiguous or nonesensical Wherefore he should have said If the Spirit of GOD which dictated the Scriptures be the only true Interpreter of Scripture then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost As for his phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures and a little after The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort is confessed But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood and in effect a meer sham to amuse his Reader As for example When Patroâ—lus stepeth up into his Pulpit and readeth a sentence of Scripture which may be somewhat obscure As this my Body He begines to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors then of the Lutherian and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text. Now I would willingly know whetheâ— it be GOD or Man that speaks here The First he would be affraid of as Enthusiastiok And if the Second What becomes of his Phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures So the Reader may see That it is a meer humane device to keep up a sordid Trade for by this Trade they have their Living as the Silver Smiths had of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake But let the Reader know That we fully owne the Spirit of GOD which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means such as Reading Meditation Prayer and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures as many of our Friends have published to the World So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following falls to the ground being built upon no one solid Argument But I shal take notice of some of them And First He citeth George Keith Saying We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth but declare themselves Enemies to it To this he Answereth Behold Reader The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine Answer If this be true then Patroclus is a great Liar For in page 32. he saith The Papists have gone too low resolving their Faith ultimatly in Men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo And in that foregoing page placeth themselves in the middle So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists then we And in good earnest any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practises will find the Difference nothing but Pretence For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters then the Papists Only Blessed be the LORD they have not such
caused Zachariah to be stoned to Death and for Achab to Mieajab and many other of the Prophets who wrought no Miracles to prove their Mission But Christs sheep bear his voice and know it from the voice of a stranger whom they will not follow Tho ravenous Wolves in Sheeps cloathing neither can not will believe it to be his voice And whereas he saith it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures Is it not beyond denyal that we have them also Or do any who profess Christianity want them Or what Advantage have they by them which others have not Except it be to make a sordid Tarde of selling their Interpretations of them So that we dare attempt the Retortion very easily thus the Lutherians Independants Baptists Socinians and Arminians c had the Scriptures as well as the Presbyterians have them So that the Controversy is only Who have the true sense of them each party pretending to it And now I ask him what infallible Signs Evidences and Proofs can he give to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposers as he words it to demonstrate that the Presbyterians and none else have the true sense of the Scriptures Which till he do the retortion stands good But to take his words as they lye I can compare them to nothing better then to the words of the Pharisees Joh 9. 29. We know that GOD spake by Moses as for this fellow we know not from whence be is His second is It being given that they have Revelations of some kind From whence are they From Heaven Their own fancy or from hell Answer We plead for no Revelations but such as are Divine And therefore as his Question is blasphemous so it is no less impertinent then to say It being given that Patroelus is a Man from whence is he Whether the son of a Man or a horse or of a mad Dogg But he proves they are not from Heaven because they are common to all men Yet Bonum quo communius co melius Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World and GOD is just He never punished a man for breach of a Law which he never made known to him Thirdly he saith If they have Divine Revelations we know not for what end they are given Whether to be a principal Rule or not whether by their own corruptions they do not wrest and misunderstand them Or if they walk according to them Nothing of which can be said of the Scriptures Answer first For what end they are given Job 14. 26. To teach you all things And 16. 13. He will guide you into all Truth And that they are the principal Rule is sufficiently proved before The second part is an impudent self contradiction where he saith That wresting or misunderstanding through corruption cannot be said of the Scriptures Whereas he hath frequently covered himself before with saying in the very foregoing page next save one That the Scriptures through mans corruption are subject to abuse never man denyed Thus goeth he backward and foreward And Thirdly He saith They know not if we walk according to them But we well know that they walk not according to the Scriptures And it 's strange with what impudency the man can obtrude such sayings upon the World He would insinuate in page 79. That they squared their practice exactly according to the Scriptures and here he would have us walk according to Divine Revelation Whereas they have told the World in their Larger Catechism That no man is able to keep GOD's Commands by any Grace received in this Life Then he giveth us the reason of his Ignorance thus For we can hear nothing nor see nothing c Who can help his spiritual deasness and blindness None but the Spiritual Physitian of Souls whom he is rejecting In page 82. He cometh to the Judge of contraversy where he laboureth to prove two things Viz That the Spirit of God cannot be a Judge of Contraversy And that the Scriptures are apt to be a Judge of Contraversy Which he dares not to say absolutely but for removal of differences about things contained in them The Reason he gives is Because two different parties may both of them adduce Revelations to prove contradictory assertions And that the one of them cannot evince his Revelations to be from GOD more then the other This is the substance of what he saith against the Spirit and for the Scriptures he saith thus Now this Argument can in no wayes be retorted on the Scriptures For tho there hath been through the corruption of men wresting of Scripture in any Contraversy And that even among these who assert the Scripture to be the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners Yet who can say That this is through default of the Scriptures seing our Adversarys cannot deny but that they speak both sense and Truth c And a little after so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties c. First Let the Reader observe his self contradiction Saying The Scriptures may be wrested by the corruption of men And yet in page 81. He saith Nothing of this can be said of the Scriptures Secondly That be confesseth because he cannot deny it that there have been and yet are wresting of Scriptures and many Contraversies even among such as assert the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners And therefore it is evident that his conclusion falls Viz so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties For this agreement hath neither followed nor is like to follow by all his endeavours And Thirdly The Scriptures can never give a sentence being but a Law And every Law needs a Judge to determine But the matter is in plain terms we must admit the General Assembly to be Judge which will determine and convince neither by the Spirit nor by Scripture nor by Reason But by Force and Furie Ares halters Fire and Sword Fourthly If this had been true all the difference among Protestants would have come to a mutual agreement before now or else he must say They are all corrupt men except the Presbyterians As for what he faith of the Ranters who learned from you to make GOD Author of all their wicked actions their fruits make them manifest as your fruits do you notwithstanding of both your Pretences In page 83. He saith We have heard their Retortions Let us now hear their direct Answer That their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of GOD For which forsooth they bring Scripture Proof from Matthew 7. 15. 16. Where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false prophet Thus he And then falls a railing with great bitterness lies and false accusations which is always his last Refuge when he is straitned But let the Reader observe First That he mocks at Scripture proof tho he dare not deny it adding a Forsooth to it as if none had
right to the Scripture but Presbyterian Priests Secondly That for Fruits he enumerats four gross and abominable Untruths wherewith he chargeth us To witt That we deny the Holy Trinity the Person of our Lord JESUS CHRIST The Resurrection of the Body and that we assert the Souls of Men yea and devils too to be GOD Almighty Of all which he saith he will prove the Quakers to be undenyably guilty before he end his Treatise This needs no Answer But to say The Lord rebuke this lying spirit which hath gone forth in the mouth of this lying false Accuser For the LORD GOD whom we serve knoweth our Innocency in this matter and will in his due time vindicat his people from these malicious Callumniators But Thirdly The Man might have considered that these are points of Faith and not of Works and that our Saviour spoke here of Works and not Faith only The most wicked Man in the Nation may believe all the Westminster Creed as well as Patroclus doth and yet receive the Sentence in verse 23. of the same Chapter Depart from me ye workers of iniquity And therefore tho he should add another Forsooth to it I will betake me to the Fruits mentioned in Scripture and then let the World which he sayes is not ignorant judge between them and us Galat 5. 20. Where these are reckoned for Fruits of the Flesh Variance Emulations Wrath Strife Seditions Envyings Murthers c. Which whither they have been peculiar to that Tribe let the Nation judge On the other hand the Fruits of the Spirit are Love Peace Joy Long-suffering Gentleness Faith Meekness Temperance c. And whether the people in derision called Quakers be found in the Exercise of such Fruits let such as are acguainted with their conversations bear Witness for or against them And I may say without reflection if to devour and destroy be the fruits of Abbadon and Apollyon These are the only Spirits the Presbyterian Fruits can lay claim to which to enumerat were to writ a history but the late Advocat George Maekenzie hath given an Epitome of them to which I refer the Reader In page 84. He chargeth R. B. with three lies Citing his Vindication But how groundlessly will be evident to any who will be at the pains to examine R. B's words to which for brevity I refer the Reader Only this the first is as really John Browns as his two Hypothetick propositions are his own in page 79. To which R B. answers what a horrible lie is this The Second is no lie For in chap 3 Num 2. Of the Westminerr Confession we have these words Altho GOD knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed Conditions yet he hath not decreed anything because be foresaw it as future or as that it would come to pass upon such conditions And in the very next words they add By the Decree of GOD for the Manifestation of His Glory some men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting Life and others fore ordained unto everlasting death Let him interpret this with the next for if it bear not all that R. B. saith it is no better then the Answers of the Delphick Oracle So that which he calls a palpable and horrid Lie will be found to be a manifest Truth to any that can read the Confesfion above cited His third is that I. B. makes a preaching to the devil to deny which is impudence with a Witness And as for railing in pulpit and print it is too well known to the Nation to seek to cover it Whereof Brown and Mackquare are two famons instances neither is our Author a Novice in that ignoble art wherein lest he should come short of his Brethren he giveth us a short parralel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers This is an old blast from a new horn a work already done by George Meldrum when he was Preacher at Aberdeen and fully answered by George Keith without any reply To which I might remit my Reader but because it is not yet printed I shall touch at some of them and it is to be suspected not without cause that the hand of Joab is in all this His first is That these men said The Word of GOD was a certain heavenlie thing distinct from the Scriptures Adding the same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers Answer What was their Doctrine I know not for I see little ground to believe their Adversaries did not belie them more then that our Adversaries do not belie us now which they are not ashamed to do in the face of the Sun but our Doctrine is well known to be That Christ is the Word of GOD according to the Scriptures and that the Scriptures are the words of GOD. His second is about immediat Revelation But our Doctrine on this head is sufficient ly cleared in the foregoing Treatise His third is That the express words and phrases of the Scripture is to be adhered to without anie exposition interpretation or deduction That is a gross Callumny may be seen in page 67. of his own Book where he accuseth George Keith of poperie for rejecting their interpretations without the Spirtt And it is manifest we have always contended that the Spirit was the only true Interpreter of hard Scriptures where they were heard to be understood and that the express Words were to be adhered to where plain His Fourth is that we assert 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 For which he citeth R B's vindication page 178. Num 5. And to show the Reader his base ingenuity I shall transcribe R B's words which are these He seeks maliciously to inferr that I deny all authority of the Old Testament which is a horid callumny But since there are many things therein which himself will acknowledge are not binding upon us now What shall be the Rule whereby we shall judge what we are now tyed to and what not c. If this be to deny the obligation of the Old Testament or to say it is abrogat let the Reader judge But it seems our Author thinketh the Ninth Commandement to be abrogated else he would not so confidently bear false witness against his Neighbour His fifth inslance of Original sin he referreth to his third Chapter and so shall I. His sixth is That Christ made no satisfaction for sins and compared them who taught the contrary to the Seribes and Pharisees to assert which of the people called Quakers is gross and detestable injustice forgerie and malice But to cover this he addeth another no less false as to us that it is damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ c. Which he promiseth to prove in his fifth Chapter but will never be able to prove any thing like
This the Heathens taught before Christ preached it And therefore persecution cannot be but esteemed a sin against Light and tho Paul by the prejudice of his Education and a blind Zeal for upholding of that Law or form of Worship which was to be abolished did ignorantly and inconsideratly ruo on to persccute the Saints Yet it can no more be said that he acted according to all he had for Light then it can be said that the Presbyterians acted according to the Scripture in the that Murther of the Arch Bishop And tho this may serve to answer the two following Arguments Yet what seems to have weight in them I shall take notice of His Fourth Argument is Divine Light is alwayes consonant to it self But the Light within one Man is quite contradictory and opposite to that within another as the many and great Contraversies in all ages do but too well make out This is easily answered and no less easily retorted For who dare deny but the Scriptures is alwayes cousonant to it self And yet how many and great are the Contraversiies among these who profess it to be their only Rule Was the Command of GOD to Saul Dubious to destroy Amaleck No But Saul disobeyed it The like is the example of Jonah Is not the Counsel of GOD alwayes consonant to it self yet men reject it And for his Argument from the pertinacy of Heathens and Hereticks I am ready to think nothing of it when I consider the madness of mine own Country men who would rather choose to he hanged then pray for their Lavvful King in obedience to a plaine Scriptute precept All the Conntraversies in the World as well as all the Warrs are the product of mens lusts and neither is the Scripture nor the Light culpable but carnal corrupt minds of Men Especially the Clergy See 1 Corinth 3. and 3. His Fifth Argument is a singular one The substance whereof is There are many in the World whereof I am one sayes he who by all the Light they have attained to and after an impartial search firmlie believe without so much as one thought from the Light with in to the contrarie that Quakerism is the path-way to utter destruction It must therefore be so if the Doctrine that every man must follow his Light be true This Argument is sufficiently Answered before only his Instance of himself is strange I would therefore ask him wil lingly Had he never any check for all the Lies Slanders Perversions and deceitful Insinuations published in his Book If he say nay I must say Certainly the man is in a very desperate condition and to be pittyed But I doubt not the day shall come in which the Light now by him so much despysed will speak to him in a Language that shall not be very pleasing to him and which all his deceitful Quibles cannot silence I wish it may be in Merey His Ipse dixi hath no force with me He firmly believes That all the other Professions of Christianity except his own are the path way to utter destruction It is therefore true Because dumb idol Shep berd hath said so whose right Eye is utterly darkned and whose right Hand is clean dryed up If the light in him be darknes how great is that darkness His Sixth Argument is If GOD suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testament to walk in their own wayes then all and every one bath not sufficient Grace and Light whereby they may come to Salvation But the former Is true Ergo the latter for proof of his Minor he citeth Acts 14. 16. And telleth us that the Evidence of the Consequence strangly straitneth Bellarmine But it doth not straiten ns for we know that the Spirit of the LORD strove with the Old World he Called and they refused He Gave his Counsel but they rejected it therefore he suffered them to walk in their own wayes Rom 1. 10. For the wrath of GOD is rovealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men c 19. Because that which may be known of GOD is manifest in them for GOD hath shewed it unte them And verse 21. Because when they knew GOD they glorified him not as GOD c So in verse 26 he saith for this cause GOD gave them up to vile affections So that GOD is just who requireth no more of man then he giveth him And certninly some of these Gentiles whom this Author and his brethren will have reprobats and to have had no Light nor Knowledge of GOD seem to have had more true Religion then many Presbyterians have at this day For which read Morney du Plesse a Protestant Writter his Book called Of the trueness of the Christian Religion and Augustine de Civitate Dei I could cite many Authoâ—s but William Penn and George Keith have done it abundantly already Only Du Plesse clearly proveth from thir Books That they believed on GOD Father Son and Spirit The Creation of all things by him the fall of Man the immortality of the Soul and futur rewards and punishments Yea many things concerning the coming of Christ Was not Balaam one of the Gentiles Were Job and his friends Israelites had they the Scriptures I shall only cite two sayings of Seneca The first in his 74 Epistle at the end Nulla sine DEO c Thus Englished There is no good Mind without GOD There are Divine Seeds sown in the bodys of Men which if a good Husbandman receiveth then cometh forth Fruits like to their Original and arise like unto those of which they were born But if an evil husband-man then like barren and watrish ground it kills the seed and maketh filth in stead of Corn. And Epistle 41. GOD is nigh unto thee He is with thee He is in thee The Holy Ghost sitteth within us an Observer and Keeper of all our Good and evil Actions and as he is dealt with by us so dealleth he with us Who told Seneca these things if he had no light But Epictetus his Motto Bear and forbear is an Evangelick precept which I never yet knew a Presbyterian who had learned it Neither needed our Authorto have gone so farr back as the Old Testament For GOD hath now suffered the Presbyterians for many years to walk in their own wayes For tho there was a good beginning among them many years ago How soon they betook themselves to the arm of flesh GOD left them to their own wayes as Samuel Rutherford saith God turned his back upon them and never since looked over his shoulder unto them This may serve to answer his seventh argument drawn from Ephes 2. 12. Where the Gentiles are said to be or have been without Christ Aliens from the common-wealth of Israel c. Therefore they had not sufficient Grace and Light This again impeacheth the justice of GOD to condemn men for breaking a Law which they never had contrary to that Scripture where there is no
Law there is no transgression And if he bad but considered the 3 4 and 5 Verse of the same Chapter he would have found that Paul placeth himself and the Jews in the same condition with the Gentiles And the only difference was that the Jews had the outward Law which was added because of transgreffion and yet could not make the comeâ—s thereunto perfect His Eight argument is from Amos 3. 2. You have I known of all the Families of the Earth And Psalm 149. 19. 20. He sheweth his word unto Jacob his Statutes and Judgements unto Israel c. From hâ—nce he inferts that they who have not the Sâ—riptures never had a Light sufficient to guide them to Salvation But he is somewhat craftie in his expresion saying These to whom GOD did not give his word which I fully grant But if hereby he understands the Scriptures it is great impudence to assert it for then it will follow that Abel Enoch Noaâ—h Abraham Job c. Had never a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation Then he raileth a little and is very angry at such as say The Light shined in the darkness but the darkness comprehended it not He may if he please rail at me next for telling him that the world was never condemned for want os Light but for loving darkness more then Light A little after he rants tho without reason saying Now I say who but a Quaker will from this inferr that all Nations in all ages had the knowledge of the word Statutes and Judgements of GOD who but a Presbyterian will deny that GOD may be known without the Scriptures And that the word of GOD is GOD and was known before there was a Book in the World As for the Statutes and Judgements given to Israel they were peculiar to that Nation as his elder Brother R Baxter hath confessed above and GOD is no respecter of persons but in every Nation be that feareth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him Acts 10. 34. And Doctor Barron against Turnbul page 56. Saith Potuit DEUS olim imo etiam bodis potest sine Scriptura Ecclesiam suam Colligere tueri That is GOD could of old â—ea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripturâ— The next Scripture he mets with is that of Jude Vers 15. That some men have not the Spirit This R Barkelay hath answered in Quakerism confirmed citing the words of our Saviour Viz. From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath Intimating thereby that men may be said in one sense to have and in an other not to have the Spirit To this our Author replyeth that altho these wicked servants had gifts and abused them yet no such thing can be said here because they are said to be twice dead c. And senswal But if it be lawful to look to the context which in the end of this page he is very unwilling to allow unto us he will find by the examples there adduced that even they had something too For in Vers 5 and 6 he compares them to the children of Israel who were brought out of Aegâ—pt and on their way to the Land of Rest yet were destroyed for unbelief and then the Angels saith he who keep not their first Estate Where it is manifest they had a first Estate To which they might have kept that they were Twice dead proves that they were once Living And their being sensual saith no more but that all such as reject the Counsel of the LORD and dispise his reproofs do as in the 18 Verse walk after their ungodly lusts and become sensual more and more Are not all men by nature sensual And yet Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World is it not said the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul and an evil Spirit from GOD came upon him Yet at sometimes he was inforced to cry out thou art more Righteous then 1 0 my Son David But the Spirit of GOD hath given us special symptoms whereby we may know and discern these men viz. The malicious cruelty of Cain the insatiable avarice of Ballaam the sedicious practices of Korah and the speaking evil of Dignities The first three speak for themselves and for the Fourth take this instance of the Hind let loose where the Author speaking of King Charles the Second sayeth Notwithstanding of all his numerous brood of Bastard brats begotten in adulterâ— and Iâ—â—â—st Yet he died a Child 's lâ—ss poultron and had the unlamented burial of an Ass and none to succed him but he who Murthered him Horresco referens c. Next he saith The knowledge of some things are absolutely necessary to Salvation But all men have not this knowledge therefore all men have not sufficient light to guide them unto Eternal life This is a meer Non sequitur such another as to say some men shut their eyes and will not see Ergo the Sunshineth not I have told him before that the World is not condemned for want of light but for loving darkness and I acknowledge where the Scriptures are to be had The knowledge of them is indispensibly necessary but where that cannot be had I say with Doctor Barron GOD could of old yea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripture And I think our Author dar not say that the Spirit of Christ which taught the Apostles to write Scripture cannot teach men now all things necessary to Salvation Or if he say that he hath limited himself that he will not I shall expect his proof of it by the next for I believe no such thing as yet His Ninthly is no argument but a new warr undertaken against the Light of Christ He begins with his usual forth saying will overthrow another principil of the Quakers upon which the whole fabrick of Quakerism is builded He had said in his first argument that the whole fabrick of Quakerism was overthrown This then must be superfluous but the man forgets himself sometimes and must be pardoned He begins according to his custom with three gross lies Ist that we aslert that man in his fallen estate cannot do any thing that is as to the substance of the action good for an unregenerate man may plow which is good as to the substance of the action and yet the Plowing of the wicked is sin Secondly He accuseth us as Socinians whereas he himself is the Soeinian in that he acknowledgeth that fallen man by nature can know that there is a GOD who is to be Loved Feared and Adored page 99. And that we ought to do unto another as we would he should do unto us page 110. This is to say nature fallen and corrupted can teach us to love GOD and and our Neighbour which is the summ of the Law and the Prophets against which Socinian Doctrine R B hath bestowed more then a whole page of his apologie His Third lie is that the whole
weight in this Chapter but his indeavours to prove that Infants are condemned for Adams sin upon which he acknowledgeth their Doctrine of Reprobation depends I shall offer him the thoughts and arguments of some Protestants upon this subject and then take notice of his argumentations And First the learned Jeremy Taylour in his book called Unum necessarium denyeth this Presbyterian Doctrine and reason thus Either Adam was condemned eternally and is now suffering in hell for that transgression or he was pardoned and is now a Glorified Saint the first he saith no Christian will alledge Adam being a Tipe of Christ and also that GOD entered into a new Covenant with him So that he was not condemned for that sin And if the second be true that is that he was pardoned and is now a glorified Saint How then can these men be so wickedly audacious as to charge the Infinitly Just and Merciful GOD with such cruelty and injustice as the wickedest of men would be ashamed of To wit to pardon the Malefactor yea put him in a better condition then he was before for his transgression and yet to punish his Posterity innocent Infants who had no being till five Thousand years after who never had accession nor so much as a consent to that sin and yet upon this wrong and wicked notion of the Deity depends their doctrine of Reprobation Secondly There is no remission without repenâ—ance saith the former Author and alledgeth he never yet met with the man that could say he had Repented for Adams sin and I doubt if our Author will say it either for Repentance is either to be understood Penitentiam agere to do penance or resipiscere to grow wise again or to do so no more let our Author chuse which of the two he will and tell us with the next whether he hath repented for Adams sin Thirdly It is the Soul that sinneth or is guilty of sin which according to themselves we have not from Adam but from GOD by new creation who made never any thing impure and therefore I will expect something next from this learned man concerning the Soul Quid unde for I acknowledge they are little enough cleared yet by the Learned tho I think our Country man Barron is inferior to none I have yet seen But if our author be for preexistance will more easily give us a reason for our inclinations to evil The next I shall cite is the sorenamed John Humphery with R Baxters approbation who asserts page 26 of Eelection Redemption that a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adams sin only is a fruit of Christs death immediate and Universal Again in page 28 of the Covenant he asserts that Infants being Baptised are saved And adds if they be not Baptised we are yet to look on them as such who have not broken this new Law or never resuled and rejected their remedy and so long as by the Redemption of Christ they are delivered over with all the World from the Covenant of works to the New Law to be judged I will not be the man that shall condemn one Infant to Hell or unto torments And here I must tell our Author that its strange to see him contend so much for the Scripture to be his Rule and yet be so dogmatical in a matter so lubricous when he can produce no plain Scripture for it nor a consequence without excessive straining and whereas he objecteth some Protestants and some Fathers I had rather with one Athanasius believe the Divinity of Christ and wonder that the whole world was become Arrian then follow the multitude in such a gross error as that was and is In the next place I shall consider where the strength of his Arguments ly rather then follow his rambling for I perceive he makes the greatest noise and clamour when he hath least to say and boasteth greatly when he hath done nothing The whole strength of this Chapter lyeth in two Hypotheses First that If Adam had not sinned he should have been Immortal Secondly that as the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to man for Justification So Adams sin is imputed to man for Condemnation And to prove these two Doctrines upon which much of the Presbyterian Religion depends he should have proceeded candidly and given us Scripture proofs obvious to every well disposed intelect whereas he hath brought no Scripture which any plain man like me can think to relate to such a matter First He calleth R B tidiculous for enquiring if his Adversary would assert every thing that Augustine said But he should have confessed that Augustine erred in this very Matter in saying That all Infants dying without Baptism were demned And then have told us That he who erred in one thing might have erred in the other But this tho true would have wronged his Cause His first Argument he draws from Gan. 2. 17. For in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die Hence he arguds Infants dies Ergo they are guilty of Original sin This Consequence is very gross for if bodily death had been hereby threatned Then Adam could not have lived one day after the commission of that sin whereas he lived some hundreds of years after it And the Westminster Confession is wiser then to make it a part of Adams punishment in all the first five Paragraphs of it till they joyn actuall sin with it calling it only a death in sin and a defilement or corruption of our whole nature But he pleads death is an evil and no evil could have befallen tâ—an if he had not sinned This he answereth himself confessing That to the Scints where the sting of death is taken away it is no evil Therefore if Adam had not sinned death had been no evil to him But I must ask him a Question seeing it is consessed by all that Eternal death is a punishment of sin from which the Saints are freed How comes it that the Saints are not freed from bodily death also Seeing according to our Author Bodily death is no less a punishment of sin then Eternal Death is If he say That all Mankind were to die because of Adams sin altho all Mankind were not to be condemned for it which yet is nothing but his own assertion How came it that Enoch and Ellas dyed not but were translated And that Paul saith We shall not all die but we shall all be changed c. All which seems to bear that the Earth should not have been Etetnal nor Adam have lived Eternally on it altho he had not sinned Which being the grand Pillar upon which he builds his Doctrines of Original sin and Reprobation he should have proven by plain Scripture or sound Reason which he hath not done to the satisfaction of any Reader yea he hath scarce attempted it except by a Rapsody of railling words But he had an easier way to have proven both and more consonant to his own Principles By telling us That it was
therefore he will do well with the next to give us Scripture for proving this lunscriptural Dogma of the damnation of Infants for Adams sin Or else acknowledge that the belief of it is not necessary to Salvation And certainly if it necessary the Scriptures will be sufficient to prove it Tho our Author be pleased to call our saying so an Antiscriptural dottage His words concerning Augustine I have told him before were cited by R B to prove that Infants are under no Law Which he â—â—veth and deceitfully insinuateth that R B cited these words to make Augustine say That Infants are not guilty of Adams sin Which he never intended further then the words bear To witt That they are under no Law Yet our Author defends Augustine in condemning Infants And again cannot chuse but condemn Augustine for saying That Infants dying without Baptism are condemned So he owneth Augustine when he pleaseth him and rejecteth him when he dilpleaseth him In the end of page 141 He gloryeth a little upon his false Insinuation which only manifests his deceit and folly as is his ordinary Custome In page 142 He returns to prove that Infants are under a Law which he acknowledgeth cannot be found in Scripture in so many words but may be gathered by a Presbyterian Commentator from the 13 and 14 verses of Romans 5. For until the Law sin was in the world but sin is not imputed where there is no Law Nevertheless Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over them who had not sinned after the similitudâ— of Adams transgression who is the figure of him that was to come Now let the unbyassed Reader judge whether any word hâ—â—â— câ—â— inferr that insants are under a Lâ—w or are condemned for Adams sin To prove this he saith Infants die and the death here mentioned is a bodily dâ—ath and Death is a punishment of sin and referrs â—â— to his former Section already answered But R B saith it may rather signifie that which Paul cals a body of Death and is often called Death and Old Adam and flesh and the Law in the members bâ— which coâ—ruption os mans nature Man kind is made obnoxious to fall under the temptations of Satan and is naturally in clined to evil as R B hath described aâ— large in his Vind page 57 which he sliely or rather deceitfully passeth by and then crycth out a Pelagion exposition as if R B had said that men sinned only by imitation then which he could hardly have devised a greater lie and I intreat the Reader to see the page now cited and consider what faith these men can deserve And as to the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ in R B his Apologie and again in his Vind page 58. he sayes they are not to be regared because they are to be accounted among the grossest Sooinianâ— who make the the Death and suflerings of Christian occasion or example only c. But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation This needs no other answer but this Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Brother and I hope we should know our own Faith better then this liâ—ing Priest His next to prove Infants guilty of Adams sin is Ephes 2 3. The words aâ—e Among whom we all also had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh sulfilling the dâ—fires of the flesh and of the mind and were by nature the Children of wrath as well as others Who is he that reads this verse and seeth not that it mentions actual sins And that by nature is understood that corrupted nature which hath brought forth these forenamed transgressions But that any word here can intimate that Infants are condemned for Adams sin is a wild consequence He saith if the Apostle had meant otherwayes he would have excepted Infants But he might as well have said he meant no such thing as the damnation of Infants because he hath no where afserted iâ— But to prove that by nature is meant original sin he citeth some Scriptures but so impertinently as a man might think he dreamed Gal 2. 5 and 4. 8. 1 Cor. 15 44 46 c. Which the Reader may see and consider his citation of Calvin he might have spared his pains and if R B pasled by them it was because they were not worth his while and so his conclusion resolves in Wind. Next he gives us a whole page of Augustine and some others against the Pelagians and what then Will he own all that these men have written but he tells us of fourteen Bishops and therefore I must ask him whether these fourteen Bishops were Lâ—mbs of Anti-christ as our Bishops use to be called Or if a Bishop can be a good Christian His next is Psalm 51. 5. I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my Mother Conceive me Saith he R B denyeth the inference which yet is clear from Nehemiah 9 But hath not been so honest as to tell the verse and I can find no such thing there except in the 2 verse whether it is said they Confessed their sins and the iniquities of their Fathers and so throughout the whole Chapter but no mention of Adams transgression What he saith of the Marriage duty is most impertinent except he can say that Davids Parents had no sin except it were the marriage duty which I think no â—resbyterian will assert But he thinks he hath done a brave late in asking when his adversary readeth of actual sin because R B asketh him in what Scripture be readeth of Original sin but he may find if he will that he shall receive according to the deeds done in the Body whether good or evil And 1 John 3. 8. He that committeth sin is of the Devil and John 8 34. He that committeth sin is the servant of sin and many more Let him bring as plain Scripture that Infants are condemned for Adams sin and he hath done this busmess In page 146 He oflers us several pregnant arguments as he words it to demonstrate his Doctrine as first Infants are deprived of the Image of GOD therefore they are guilty of Adams sin he proves his consequence because to be deprived of the Image of GOD is a punishment equal with if not greater then the torments of hell But our Author hath mistaken all his measures here For if it be a punishment to be deprived of that which a man never had then it is a punishment for Patroclus to want the Bishoprick of St. Andrews so called that it was a punishment to Adam who once had it I deny not but he cannot prove that Infants had it and so cannot be deprived of it His next is None go to Heaven exâ—ept those thâ—â— were guiltypâ—rsons therefore Infants who haâ—e never committed actual sin are guilty before GOD None are saved but sinners which was Christs â—râ—and to the Earth c. And such like trash of John Browns fully answered by R B page 60 and 61. He at last resolves all
malicious Author like an Advocat pleading at a Barr Bawls Cryes Rants and Tears and will perfâ—â— nefâ—s have us guilty of Arrianism And first he sets down that Arrian herefie to be That the Son is separated from or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of GOD the Father Now I charge him and all the Presbyterians in the World to produce on sentence in our Writings bearing this Doctine which I am sure they cannot Moreover Philip Melanchton in Chron Carionis page 264. Saith That Arrius denyed the Divinity of Christ and That the Son was Co-Eternal with the Father that he was a Creature ex non existentibus That is ex nibile All which we detest and abhor But to stop his mouth for ever I tell him we owne the Nicen Creed which I shall here insert so farr as concerns this Contraversy I believe in one LORD JESUS CHRIST the only begotten Son of GOD born of the Father before all Ages GOD of God Light of light True GOD of true God Begotten not made Consubstantial with the Father by whom all things were made who for us Men and for our Salvation came down from Heaven and was Incarnat of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and became Man was also crucified for us suffered under Pontius Pilate was buried and arose again the third day according to the Scriptures he ascended to Heaven sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father and is to come again with Glory to judge the Quick and the Dead of whose Kingdom there shall be no end And now what can our most malicious Adversaties require more of us for I hope it is evident to all Men that it is the words of Mans Wisdom invented that we oppose and not the Mystery it self And here by the way I must tell him that this Counsel hath been no friend to Presbytry For we read of no Presbyters there but such as were Legats sent by Bishops who for age or sickness could not come As also that they appointed two Metrapolitan Bishops one in Rome and another in Alexandria See Chron Carionts page 205. The rest of his Tatle is only about the Translation of Hebr 1. 3. For which he citeth a number of Lexioons I have none of them by me but one Serevellius who in his Lexieon Graco Latinum translats it Persona and in his Lexcon Latino Grâ—cum translats it Substantia But Hiâ—rom Erasmus and Melanchton translats it Substantia And so if George Keith have said any thing which offends our Author in this or any other point he may deall with his Books when he hath a mind and I do not Question his ability to answer for himself I cannot omit one notable proof he gives to prove his salsehoods Thus It is most evident from their perpetual bellish roillings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity calling it an abominable and stinking Doctrine as they that heard them told me c. Now Reader consider what can be expected from such an Adversary whose malice blinds him that he cannot see his own folly Perhaps as great a Liar as himself told him a Tale and he will print and publish it to the World to defame an Honest and Innocent Body of People This is Hicks and Faldo downright As for the Word Persona it is not to be found in the Nicen Creed and not only Augustine but Jerom and Laurentius Valla find fault with it as no fit word to express the Mystery But a late Writter who calls himself a Protestant Minister poircâ— eâ—gh rationales de DEO c. disputeth at large against the word Persona to whom I refert our Author That it is an unscriptural word he confesseth and then why may we not seek plain Scripture for it as well as his Brother Jo Brown in page 175 saith It is considerable that no where in Scripture we find it affirmed expresiv that Christ died for all Men. why then is all this trouble made But it seems Presbyterians may do many things which are not allowable to others seeing they would fain be accounted Dictators over all Consciences in Brittan But I hope what is said will suffice to clear us of Arrianism to any prejudiced Reader And therefore I shall proceed to his second Calumny Which is that according to the Quakers doctrine GOD is Author of sin We have heard of some Witches who after they were condemned have impeached many Innocent Persons So our Author being unable to clear his Brethren of that guilt charged justly on them by R B and fully proven would have the Quakers as guilty as they Solatium est miseris multos habere pares But two Blacks make not a White His Argument is GOD is the Author of every Substance But according to the Quakers sin is a substance Ergo c. He proves his Minor thus Grace is a Substance therefore sin is a substance He saith R B denyeth the Consequence which he thus proveth Sin can hear feel and perceive as well as Grace and Light it may feel and perceive the things of Satan as well as Light And Grace feels or perceives the Things of GOD and may be in the Heart of a real Godly person Therefore it is a Substance Thus our Auther Answer The Scripture is cleat That the Life of the Son of GOD is the light of men and that this is a substance I think he will not dare to deny and he hath seemed to grant that there was a substantial life in Adam before the fall which he saith was extinguished by the fall Hence came the darkness the Death the Polution the Corruption the lust the flesh or Body of Death and all sin as the West-minster Confession teacheth Now to compare these together and to say the light enlighteneth therefore the darkness enlighteneth the life of Christ in man feeleth and perceiveth therefore Death Polution and Corruption doth feell and perceive is a most wild consequence and if he intend to make the seed of the Serpent every way equal to the seed of the Woman it s but the path way to Manichism and indeed he hath manifested his favour to the Serpents seed very much by contending so warmly for its Kingdom in his Chapter of perfection But it will not do for no Man can deny that he hath had the Counsels Prohibitions Approbations and Reproofs of the Light and Grace of GOD either before or after the doing of the Good or evil act which speak forth a living and substantial Principle Whereas the other is a meer defect privation weakness corruption and a want And hath more of the nature of an accident tho I dare not call it one That is which may be present or absent without destroying its Subject For Adam had no sin and was better without it then with it And so will our Author if ever he have the good Luck to be delivered from it tho contrary to his Faith And Christ the best Man that ever was never had it as he
Man Coeternal with GOD is a meer fancie For George Keith calls the Heavenly Man the First Born of every Creature as the Apostle also doeth and never asserted that he was Man from all Eternity I need not trouble further abont G K they having promised a full answer to the Book and I think he will hardly refuse to enter the Lists with this Graecian Here But I shall give a citation to chaw his Cude upon as he words it and so leave this matter Melan bron Car page 274 citeth Socrates Scholastious for three Cannons of the Counsel of Syrinum The second of which is Si quis cum Jacob non filium tanquam hominem Colluctatum esse dixerit sed noâ— gonitum Deum aâ—t Patrem Deum Anathemasit After his Dilemma and a little railing Telling we are worse then Arrians or Socinians and such like stuff not worthy to be transcribed He at last falls upon the Light calling it a meer chymerical None-entity Seeing there is nothing more contradictory then that either the Soul or the Body of a Man can he every where or from Eternity That it was from Eternity is his false Alledgiance and none of our Assertions And for its Vbiquity he may see Quak eonfirmed in the place before cited That the Seed and Life is in Him in the fullness as in the fountain or spring but in us as the streams in Him as the Head in us as the members And as the Light is principally in the Body of the Sun yet diffuseth it self through the whole world Even so the Light of Christ the Sun of Righteousness As for his Relicts of the Image of GOD in Adam that quenched spunk of his Extinguished Lantern he might have left it alone for any Advantage he made by it last In the beginning of page 83. He takes a very singular fitt of Railling and Lying He sayes in favours of this Spiritual Antichrist or Antichristlan Figment which they account for their Christ They decry vilifâ—e and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be dear and precious to a Christian for what will they not deny seeing they deny the Godhead of Christ They therefore with open mouth blasphem and deny Jesus Christ as a Person without them c. What will this Man stick to assert who after so many accounts of our Faith in this matter can with an hardned face and I may say a seared Conscience assert such gross untruths For which I wish the LORD may grant him Repentance But as the Poet saith Nam quis innocens arit quis tristiore liberabitur nota si eriminare sufficit I hope the World hath learned by a long Experience that a Clergie Man is not alwayes to be trusted I had almost said seldom when he turns accuser of the Brethren But to a muse or rather abule his Reader he gives us a bundle of Citations upon the Authority of his Friend Mr. Hieks as he calls him so sully answered in the very places cired by him and our Doctrine sully cleared in this matter That if the man had not been past all shame he would not have dared to revive the Dottages of that defated Forger Who durst not again attempt to answer for himself But this Authors impudence must be more then ordinary who hath throughout his whole Pamphlet been crying out against us as one both with Anabaptists and Soceniaus whom in page 89 he calls wicked and abominable And yet in this place he takes them for his fellow Souldiers against the Quakers This is certainly as bad as to receive the Mallignants into the Army Yet common to the Chieff Priests Seribes and Pharisees in former times But what is the matter he intends by all these Citations Namely They deny saith he Jesus Christ as a Person without them distinct from Christ in them For cleating of this matter to all unbyassed persons I shall state the matter thus That Christ is with and in his Saints is a Doctrine so fully testi fied to in the Scriptures that no Christian will deny it Matth 28. 20. And lo I am with you alwayes even to the end of the World Which Beza saith is meant of the manner of the presence of the Spirit c But is absent from us in Body In which Body we acknowledge him a Person without the Saints distinct from them As William Penn hath told thee tho thou had the Candour to conceal it But that Christ the LORD from Heaven the Quickning Spirit is one in the Saints and another distinct Person without them we deny And such as affirm it make two Christs See John 14. 20 23. and 15. 4. 5. and 17. 23. Rom 8. 10. 2 Cor 13. 5. Gak 1. 16. Cok 1. 27. Revel 3. 20. But in the end of these Citations He must have a second hit at H Forside Is this to tell us again That Christ as man hath a will contrary to the will of his God-head No But for saying that the word Humane is no Scripture Language but saith our Author the thing imported is found in Scripture He might have minded that the word Humanus may be derived from Humus the Earth as well as from Homo And that the Body of Christ now in Heaven is an Earthly Body is a very gross Notion Again page 84. He returneth to Hicks and Faldo but citeth us no page running at random And truly Patroclus this is an easie way of writting Books if to publish all the Lies and Forgeries devised and maliciously vented against the Quakers be an honest Imployment thou might have had another Book of that kind written before we noticed this I shall only take notice of one of the grossest of them he nameth Edward Billings but citeth neither book nor page to which George Whitehead in the Appendix before cited by our Author saith it is gross and blasphemous to say that the Mysterie of iniquity lyeth in the Blood of Christ Now Reader consider this Mans honesty who but he that would be accounted such himself could adventure his reputation upon such Authority as this Or would spread such impudent calumnies and forgeries after they had been proven so fully to be such certainly it must be a bad cause that need such Pillars to underprop it But I intreat thee Patroelus for the future speak Truth and shame the Devil In page 185 he transcribes a deal of Faldo's stuff alledging we render the Passion Death and Resurrection of our LORD JESVS at Jerusalem altogether vain and idle actions and that we call the Body that our LORD took off the Virgin only a Garment and that it is no constituent part of CHRIST A heap of gross and unparaleled lies To prove all which he citeth William Pen his Rejoynder part 2 Chap. 9. Saying thus Whereas it is said that it was revealed to Simon that he should not die till he should see the LORDS Christ is to be understood of a Spiritual sight or of seeing the Christ within Certainly
and humble For answer he sends to Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what Law of Works Nay But by the Law of Faith But prithee Patroclus what saith this for thee Are we boasting in our own strength or in the strength of the Grace of God Or do we depend upon the Law of Works No But on the Law of Faith which purifieth the heart and worketh by Love If to exalt the Grace of God as sufficient be to boast in thy Sense thou hast Liberty to abound in thy own sense wherein no good Christian will own thee But he giveth us another citation of R B's in these words That according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do less make useless God commands then others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for forgiveness of God Will thou never deal honestly Did R. B. once mention a perfection of degrees But to I. B's argument That the keeping the Commands of God takes away the exercise of Repentance Prayer c. He returns thus If this his Argument hold true to prove that Men must sin all their Life-time and break the Commands every day in thought word and deed then the greatest sinners and most prefligate Villains do less make useless Gods Commands then others because they affoord more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for Forgiveness of sins For answer he sendeth to Rom 3. 8. Let us do evil that good way come Which saying tho it was falsly and slanderously said of the Apostle Yet is truly said of him and and his Brother I. Brown who have thus asserted it in terminis By saying That the Keeping of Gods Commands renders the Ordinances of Christ useless His very next Words are a gross Lie saying And here he promiseth always to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus 〈…〉 Words are these As for such Ordinances â—s must be made useful by dayily breaking God's Commands in shought Word and Deed I resolve never to cry but always to cry down And here let the Reader take notice of his Blasphemy who assetâ—s the Ordinances of Christ Jesus to be such As for his â—â—llowing Question it is Nonsense Fâ—â— he R. B. never said that any Ordinance taught it but that he and his Brother have taught here That this is the use of their Ordinances but not of the Ordinances of Christ is obvious to every Reader 〈◊〉 the next place we have another of J. B's Proofs That then noâ—e that are regeneraâ— could Sic at all but would be beyond the possibility of it For which the citeth John 3. 9. and Expounds it of a trade and custom of finning from Malice like the Deâ—â—â— and the Wioked his Children And 〈…〉 prove that Regeneration adteth of no Degrees but is one instan taneous Act. To the First to wit J. Brown's Argument I say it is a wild Conscequence to conclude from a posse non peccare to a non posse peccare And yet Calvin in his Instit cireth Augustine saying Ade fuisse libertatem posse non peccare nostram vero multo majorem non posse peccare And still our Author takes R. B's modest Expression I dare not deny for a full Assertion As for his Exposition of 1 Joh. 3. 9. of a Trade and Custom of Malice like the Devil It is a meeâ— Dream there being no shadow for it in the Context His Doctrine of being Regenerat in an instant contradicts his Brother John Brown Numb 18. who says It may be begin where some Members may yet the to be mortified But according to J. B. elsewhere the Man is wholly sanctified in Mind Heart Spirit Affections Conscience Memory and Body Behold Reader how these our Adversaries reel and stagger like drunken Men I shall therefore here give him the Sense of Augustine set down by J. Brown and approven by R. Baxter in his Paper of Perfection pag. 13. He tells us that Augustine in his Book layes some two or three of these Texts together To wit Solomon Paul James John and offers us this Solution That which is born of GOD sinâ—eth not which is as much as to say there is that which is born of GOD in the true Christian and that which is not born of him Where is then the full and compleat Regeneration at one Instant The two Scriptures Phil 1. 8. and Gaâ— 5. â— He makes very short work with Telling us the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus when this Epistle was written Ergo they were wholly sanctisied in Mind Heart Spirit c As J Brown saith the Regenerate Man is And yet breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed To the other place he saith It sayes as little for him from it he would infer the Saints falling away which is false sayes he but I hope he will not deny that Paul was in part regenerate when he said Lest when I have preached the Gospel to others I my self should be a east away He spends page 195 proving Regeneration to be accomplished at one instant not by Scripture for that fails him here Only he instanceth two Saying I would sain Know If the thief on the Cross and the Jâ—â—â—â— were not him again 〈…〉 from a Particular to an Universal 〈◊〉 Jâ—mes and John saw Christ Transâ—â—guâ—ed therefore all men did so Rnoch 〈◊〉 were translated Therefore all the Saints are so What he speaks of Children in Christ R. B. grants that they are under a possibility of sinning and a capaâ—â—â— thereunto but modestly again Tin page 120 saith dare noâ— affirm But that there man be some 〈…〉 sin 〈◊〉 He proceeds alledging from 1 John 2. 12. That thee to whom the Apostle wrote were perfectly 〈◊〉 of GOD but that Scripture saith no such thing only that their sins were forgâ—â—â—n which according to himself is the first Act of Justification and proceedath Sanctification of the whole man as 〈◊〉 words it in mind heare c. And so not perfect Regeneration But doth this prove that these Children did break dayly the Commands of GOD in thought word and deed That they were perfectly born of GOD the proveth because saith he They had the seed of GOD or Vnction abiding in them But the Seed before it come to perfection or â—obring forth froit in requites a time and I hope our Author will not deny that the young man mentioned here by the Apostle who had overcome the Evil one were more perfectly and fully Regenerated then the Children tho the Children were perfect as to their measure So that it follows not that any of them did break the commands of GOD dayly in thought word and deed which only is the matter in debate no more then it follows that how soon the seed is in the Womb it is as perfectly a man as when it comes to the use of reason But seeing he here talks of the Seed of GOD and of the Unction I desire he
ther the Glory of God not the 〈…〉 of the people We haâ—e no malâ— knowing that he who hates his Brother is a Murtherer and no Murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him To the Examples of Enoch and Noah being called perfect He saith R B confesseth they once bad sin Therefore how came they at another time to be free of it altogether The answer is easie 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness As for the word Perfection its having diverse significations It may be so But I am sure it can never be truely predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed. He comes next to vindicate their Arguments for the Devils Kingdom or Sinning Term of Life The first whereof is 1 John 2. 3. misunderstood by them If we say we have no sin c Answer first I say with Augustine upon the Galatians Aliud est non peccare aliud non habere percatum Secondly The following words of the Apostle are If we confess our sins He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness And he that is cleansed from sin is the same that was before said to have sin Now it is said in the 7th verse The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin Here cleanseth is in the present Tense Now to be defiled with sin and cleansed from all sin at the same time seems a contradiction and therefore must be admitted to be two several times Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next To his Answer That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin then that the Apostle James was a Curser when he said of the tongue herewith curse we men Our Author Replyes There is no Parity And why Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time No But saith he James speaketh of gross outbreakings and John simply of the nature of sin Very good I see our Author can distinguish betwixt morial and venial sins Of which sure lying must be one in his Judgement or else he had been unsainted long since But knowing this would not do he tells us the Apostle John even in his best Frame had sinful actions and citeth Revel 19. 10 11. and 22. 8 9. The first place is That he falls down at his feet to worship him And the second is That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel But admit they both meant so our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins if a sin at all For it was but a mistaking the Angel who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power and the Earth was enlightned with his Glory I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake but stopped him And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant And so these two Texts he boasts of can do hm no service To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer but It 's false And again we know c without any Reason but his imperious assertion which deserves to be neglected Next he indeavours to prove from Ecclesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily c. Which place he little urgeth only tells us He hath considered the Hebrew and hath found it the Indicative Mood So saith our Author Ergo verum But he must excuse me to think Jerom and Junius Tremellius as good Linguists as he and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood and may not sin His next is Rom 7. 17. From which Texts he saith J B. hath proved That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it least his Arguments should have been sound like these he cites page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it if he but read the next Chapter throughout The second verse whereof cleareth this matter where the Apostle saith The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the law of sin and death And many times after witnesseth a better Condition As that he had sought the good fight c Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD c And Phil 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered That of Peter proves no more then that a Man may sin which is not denyed He comes at last to his great Argument 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 fancie and dream But the former is true Ergo c. For answer let the Reader observe first that our Author finding his Brothers Argument fully refuted by R B hath not attempted the Vindieation of it But he saith the Argument was proponed three different wayes the first of which he chooseth to answer unto Answer Either this Argument which he answereth unto was to the purpose or not If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments but one proponed three different wayes any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose If it was not to the purpose as was the greatest part of his book then he might have spared it But because R B took not our Authors argument to task which perhaps was not there he saith he must confess he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein This is a Rhodomontado expression more like Don Quixot then a sober man writing about Religion tho very ordinary with our Author But let us see what cause there is for all this froath First then I deny his Minor for I can find him many recorded in Scripture of whom there is no failing recorded to wit Enoh Melchizedeck Elias John the Baptist and many of the Prophets and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians saith That many were born holy and free from all sin and particularly Elias and John Baptist Secondly I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation which he seems here to insinuate for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture But that the sins of the Saints are recorded that we may shun them not that we should follow them neither is there
want of precep's and examples in abundance for us without them But before I leave this matter I shall give one argument yet If there be any who need no Repentance then certainly there be some who do not break GOD's Commands dayly in thought word and deed but the first is true Ergo c. The Minor is proved by Luke 15. 7. Chapter VII Of Waiting in silence And of the Sacraments OUR Author Denominates his seventh Chapter of silent Worship which is a word of his own Coyning and none of ours and then falls to a vindication of his brother J B's Calumnies The first whereof is John Brown asserts that R B would have them understand that Christs Spiritual Resurrection was never till now R B answereth I speak only with reference to the time sinâ—e the Apostacie and not to the primitive times before Our Author sayes first any may judge by his eleventh proposition c. Or by this Chapter annexed thereto I am truely willing that any be judge that is not byassed as most part of the Clergie are And therefore I inteat the Reader to see R. B's Apologie page 247 where he will find this calumny more clearly obviated His second answer is he is unhappy in removing this calumny for the Apostacie was working in the Apostles time But he is more unhappy in over turning one of the two chirâ— grounds of the Protestant Religion assigned to the Jesuite by J M To wit the Father in the first three Centuries But shews ignorance here as well as malice for if there was no true Spiritual worshp in the Church after the Apostasie began to work Then according to our Author there was no Spiritual Worship in the Church till the Reformation The contrary of which R B asserteth Yea even in the darkest times of Popery he citeth Bernard Bonaventur Taulerus and Thomas a Kâ—mpis and also commends the first Reformers for denying the Popish abominable superstition and Idolatrie of the Mass the Adoration of Saints and Angels the Veneration of the Reliques the Visitation of Sepulchres Yet nevertheless Our Author in his third and fourth answer compares us to Muncer John of Lyden Arrius Pelagius and what not And it 's much he hath not called us Papists too But let the Reader judge whether he hath mended J B's matter and not rather added lie to lie and calumny to calumny The second Calumny he defends is That we acknowledge no motion nor inward breathing of the Spirit but what is extraordinary and meerly Enthusiastick As also That we abstract from all means Which Calumny our Author saith he hath above evinced to be a Truth in his first and second Chapters How truely the Reader must Judge But he giveth us a second Instance R B denyeth that Studied Sermons are means appointed of GOD for what he adds are his own words and not R B's but behold the Argument Studied Sermons are denyed Ergo all means are denyed Be ashamed His third is That the Quakers spiritual life is nothing but Nature Thus he saith he proved Chapter 2d That all their Grace and Light is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of GOD in Man To which I also refer the Reader And withall I must desire the Reader to take notice of our Authors little Tricks in his Parallel betwixt us and the Anabaptists he referrs to what follows of his Book And in the end of his Book he referrs to what is past thinking it's like his own implicite Hearers will take it on trust But I expect thou will trace him better which if thou do thou will soon find what he is for all his vaine boast The fourth Calumny he denyeth and saith his Adversary only enquireth it If this be a sufficient Answer let him consult his own Book page 167. 168. and 169. Where he will needs have a Query to import a full affirmation of the thing queried and so proves himself signally dissingenious and also leaves his brother in the myre The fifth Calumny he saith depends upon the Contraversy about Perfection and so shifts it The sixth Calumny he insists on is That there is no setting about Prayer or other Duties without a previous motion of the Spirit The Nicery is in the word Previous and therefore I shall referr him to the fifth Section of Quakerism confirmed where that matter is fully handled and all his Quibles Answered Which Book I perceive the Man hath read and so might either been silent or brought us some new thing which he hath not yet done The seventh Calumny is That Gospel Worship putteth away all external actions And upon this Calumny his brother â— B had charged a Contradiction upon R B Yet our Author bestows no more answer upon both But He needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their Words If this be fair dealing let the Reader Judge He tells us next That J B compareth us to the Old Pithonicks And as if his brother had not been slanderous enough he adds I alwayes compared them in such fitts to the Cumaena Sybilli as she is descrived by Virgil 6. Aenead And John Brown passim That we are acted by the Devll possest by him at his pleasure To all which I shall again with R B modestly reply That of all men the Presbyterians might have for born this had they but remembred the Stuartown sickness But our Author giveth us a mighty difference thus These at Stuartown after these outlettings of the Spirit upon them cleaved to the Scriptures as the only Rule and were endeared to the Ministers of Jesus Christ and his Word and Sacraments We mean saith he Water-baptism and the Communion of the Lord Body in Bread and Wine c Which sayes he were commanded by Christ to be used until his coming to Judgement Which are contemned and vilified by the Quakers And for all this we must trust our Authors word But how comes it then that our present Presbyterians who are found in all these things now have no such Outlettings of the Spirit Yea why are they found the chief Opposers and blasphemers of such Out-lettings of the Spirit If they were good then I think they should be expected and waited for now But this would savour of Enthusiasm and therefore cannot be endured But I must tell our Author the true Reason why these Outlettings of the Spirit ceased among them To wit Because they foresook that Power which reached them at first and betook themselves to Men who in stead of the Gospel of peace preached up Warrs Seditions Tumults Scrife and Contention And in stead of Prayers Tears preached up Swords and Spears in stead of Suffering fighting and contending with the Civil Magistrate Which was never the way of CHRIST not Christians As for Water-Baptism and Bread and Wine it is no good Argument that they cleaved to them which are called Meats and Drinks and Divers Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances while they wanted that Righteousness
boast of their Revelations and Inspirations comparing themselves to the Apostles calling themselves perfect c. A heap of gross untruths And yet this is the best return we meet with to mend one lie by making two or three more In page 220 contrary to that of Ephes 4 5 from which R B infers if Water Baptism be to continue there should be two Baptisms J B answers it might be as well said that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament c. Upon which our Authour saith he grants his consequence and challengeth his Adversary of Levity for such an Argument Here he begins with a lie for R B saith if he can answer no better then by smyling at it we must pity the Levity of his Spirit Now let the Reader judge if the Argument was the ground of the challenge or his laughing at that which he could not answer But R B answereth What then As long as the outward continued there were two to wit the outward and inward that of the Flesh and that of the heart and let him stretch the simile as far as he can it will help him nothing for the Apostle saith Rom. 2. 28. That it is not Circumcision which is outward in the flesh because it was a Figure and all Figures were to cease even so of the other That is not CHRISTS Baptism which is outward to the putting away the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good Conscience I Pet. 3. 21. But he comes again to Faith saying he may as well conclude from this place that there is but one Faith as that there is but one Baptism And yet faith our Author there are diverse kinds of Faith mentioned in the Scripture as the Doctrine of Faith Galat. 1. 23. The profession of Faith 1 Tim. 1. 19. The Faith of Miracles or the like This is if learned at all so learned that I freely acknowledge I cannot understand it to wit that the profession of Faith is one Faith the Doctrine of Faith another The Faith of Miracles a third Faith And the One Faith a fourth Faith in which none of the other Three are concerned This will require four several and different definitions which when our Author giveth us we may judge of the truth of his assertion till then he must excuse me to think he deserves a smyle no less then R. B. did from his Brother J. B. and will find he hath begged the Question as well as his Brother did For I perceive he builds upon his own mistake That no man who hath this one Faith can miscarry But I tell him some have made shipwrack of Faith and of a good Conscience And this is the Scripture testimony So albeit some might work Miracles and thereafter become wicked yet this faith nothing against their having true Faith at that time And if he faith every one who hath true faith doth not work miracles The answer is easie such a great measure of Faith is not required for Salvation yet difference in the measure makes no difference in the kind Neither doth it follow that Baptism with Water is included in this one Baptism For the Apostle Peter plainly contra-distinguisheth them 1 Pet. 3. 21. So Robert Barclays Argument which Patroclus minding his old Friend Achilles mocks at stands in full force Which because he hath so minchingly set down I will set down at large and expect a more solid answer next the Argument is this seing such as were baptized with water were not therefore baptized with the Baptism of CHRIST therefore water Baptism cannot be the Baptism of CHRIST But he comes to his old trade again accusing R. B. of Socinianism and a little after must be at Circumcision again alleadging that what ever can be said against Water Baptism from I Pet. 3. 21. Will militate as much against Circumcision under the Law But it is manifest that the Law was a Figurative Typical and Shadowy-Dispension which stood in mears and drinks and diverse Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances imposed on them untill the time of Reformation But that the Gospel was such a dispensation I think our Author will not dare assert And therefore the difference is very evident that altho Circumcision was to continue among the rest Carnal Ordinances until the time of Reformation Yet the Gospel being a spiritual dispensation in which Carnal Ordinances Types Shadows were to cease after the Substance was come see Col. 2. from 16. to the end so Johns Baptism was to cease among the rest of the shadows seeing John was sent only to the Jews to prepare the way of the LORD His next assault is nothing but wind and froth wherein he challengeth R. B. for denying John Browns Expositions of Gal. 3. 27. and Col. 2. 12. Which J. B. saith may be understood of putting on CHRIST by profession tho not in Truth and Reality For which Eposition saith R. B. I shall expect his proof next time if he hath any And now let the Reader judge if our Author have any ground for his boasting And whether he who hath undertaken the defence of John Brown was concerned to have proven this spurious interpretation of his Brother to be the meaning of the Apostle For Robert Barkclay was no further concerned then to deny it as I think any sincere Christian will do And therefore it is manifest that the seared Consciences are his own his Brothers who dare adventure to cheat the World by putting a senso upon the Apostles words which was never intended by him In the next place he referrs us to J. Brown which is a fair Go-by but subjoyns more like a Pope than a Presbyter if they be distinguishable very imperiously Next I say faith he that Johns Baptism as being instituted by CHRIST and comprehending the thing signified is not only Baptism with Water but CHRISTS whole true Baptism and so this quibling is groundless And why Because our Authour sayeth so But lest he should quarrel let us consider what he hath said First then faith he Johns Baptism as being instituted by CHRIST c. Answer That all the Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances of the Law were instituted by CHRIST is not denyed But that Johns Baptism was instituted by Christ after he took Flesh of the Virgin Mary is denyed and the Scriptures proves the contrary Acts 19. 4. Next he faith and comprehending the thing signified Very well I hope our Author will no more quarrel with the Papists about opus operatum For if Water Baptism Johns baptism comprehend the thing signified then it is the Laver of Regeneration consers Grace and is absolutely necessary to Salvation But the Papists will hardly accept of him for conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipsi He hath said in page 219. that John could only administer the sign And in his other page he asserts That Johns Baptism comprehends the thing signified this language will need a gloss He comes now to the words of John He must