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
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
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
Rusticus ad Clericum OR THE PLOW-MAN REBUKING THE PRIEST In ANSWER to Verus Patroclus Wherein the False-hoods Forgeries Lies Perversions and Self-contradictions of WILLIAM 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 By JOHN ROBERTSON Vtque dâ—vâ—â—â—â—â— verum Nebulas Manes 〈…〉 aucupunt Pariuntque Monstraâ— qâ—â—is nec est pes nec caput â—eu vacua Magnos aâ—â—â—innitus cient Prov 4. 16. For they sleep not except they have done mischief and their sleep is taken away except they cause some to fall 17. For they eat the Bread of Wickedness and drink the Wine of Violence Printed in the Year 1694. Rusticus ad Clericus OR THE PLOW-MAN REBUKING THE PRIEST In Answer to VERVS PATROCLVS c. FRIEND AS Our Neighbours and Countrey-Men who are acquainted with our Principles and Practises know us to be Lovers of all Mankind such as seek the Good of All and the prejudice of none So we have no such Enemies as the Clergie now Regnant and some of their bigotted Disciples whom they have bewitched with fair words and smooth speeches to believe all they say without examining whether it be true or false This Tribe of Lying Levites have now for many years made use of all the unworthy Methods their Wiâ— and Malicé could invent to Blacken Desame Slander and Misrepresent Us This is no New thing It is but the Doctrine of Demetrius the Silver Smith For they wâ—ll know that if people were taught to believe according to the Scriptures that GOD would reach his people himself And that be who knoweth not Christ in him to teach him is a Reprobate That they who know him not thus let in to the Conscience to parge it from deadworks and to Reign as King Lord and Lawgiver are at best but nominal Christians Than certainly their 〈◊〉 Trade of Preaching for hyre would be at an end for upholding whereof all his bustle is made in the World All their clamours concerning the Scriptures Christ Trinity so called original sin c. Are but meer pretences For let an Angel from Heaven teach any thing contrary to the Westminster Consession and Catechisms though never so consonant to the Holy Scriptures he must expect â—â— better acceptance from these Men then to be branded with the odious name of Heretick as if they alone had becti commissionate to sect bounds to the Faith of all Mankind My Reader must not expect from me a long and Rhetorical Introduction who have been more accustâ—med to use Pâ—ough then the Pen for nigh Thirty Years together I was 〈…〉 and but 〈◊〉 in the City And therefore if I treat mâ—â—â— Adâ—erâ—ary with any lets decorâ—â—â— then he may suppose to be due to a man of his Robe I hope my Rustick Education will excuse me and the rather because I have little or no knowledge of him but what I gather from his Book which at first view gave me no good Character of him by his falsing soul upon the Bishop of Andrews Certainly no generous man will strick a fallen Foe And although he would 〈◊〉 that he did not complain for stopping his book yet is evident that he exposeth the Bishop and his Brethren to the Fate of his Predecestor if the Rabble would but take the Allarum The next thing I learn of him is that he is a Presbyterian Preacher 〈…〉 his seeking a License from the 〈◊〉 of Andrews be no great sign â—â— his Zeal and seems to intimate that if the Prelate should get a new Throw for the Chair our Author might be brought to cry peccavi Pater c. If information hold and if such then consequently a sworn Enemy to all Mankind except those of his own Fraternity by the Solemn League and Covenant Yea his being a Clergie man is dangerous For as Machiavel tells us they have been now for more than a thousand years forming and setting up an interest distinct and separate from all the rest of Mankind And when the Popish Clergie were justly extruded because of their Cruelty and Insolency Lo here we have their Successours no less insolent ctnel and covetous if they had but power And this was foretold by the same Machiavel in his Letter to Zenob page 28. who faith thus But this I will prophesie before I conclude That if Princes shall perform this business by halves and leave any root of this Clergie or Priest craft as it is now in the ground Or if that Famous Reformer fled some years since out of Piccardie to Geneva who is of so great Renown for Learning and Parts and who promises us so perfect a Reformation shall not in his model wholly extirpare this sort of Men Then I say I must foretell That as well the Magistrate as this Workman will find themselves deceived in their Expectations And that the least Fibra of this plant will overrun again the whole Vineyard of the LORD and turn to a diffusive Papacie in everie Diocie perhaps in every Parish c. Whether we have seen this prophesie fulfilled by the Disciples of the same Reformer Calvine let the unbyassed Reader judge The next thing in his praeludium all his work being like a Stage play is That albeit this Knight Errant with his Achillean Armour and Titanian Boldness words borrowed from himself from the Blind Poet hath bid Defvance to all that profess christianity And hath concluded them all except his own way Hereticks Yet in opposition to the Quakers he calleth in for Auxihary Forces a Prelatick Preacher and an Independent and chiefly an Anabaptist whom in his book he calls wicked and abominable as the Pharises joyned with the Sudducees Herodians and Romans to crucifie CHRIST As for the Prelatick Clergie he saith it is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianism And in his Frontispecce he hath told you their Fate that is They are to be rejected But what more Is then no Civil Sanction follows upon Presbyterian Excommunication If it 〈◊〉 the Sâ—ing it will be nothing regarded â—â—t of old it was not so For the first step 〈…〉 â—urse thâ—◠〈…〉 prâ—scribe And â—â— brought in alive thâ—â— there was in stoâ—e prison◠〈◊〉 Bâ—â—â—shments Axes and Halters for Heretiques And our 〈◊〉 is so 〈◊〉 delighted in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it seems he covets the offiâ—e but Blessed be the LORD the Civil Magistrats are now become â—â—eâ— than to be the Clergies 〈◊〉 And their â—oâ—g experience of the HONEST and PEAâ—EABLE PRINCIPLES of the QVAKERS hath confirmed the Magistrate in a â—etter Opinion of Them As â—â— the 〈◊〉 of his Adulatory Epistle to his Patron I shall only say that he hath rather 〈◊〉 theâ— oblidged his Patron by â—â—pousing him to such a Cast-Mâ—â—â—ress as is the Controversie against the Quakers which never Man yet underâ—ook but caâ—e off with Disgrace After he hath sufficiently and a little more then become a Protestant rated the Episcopal Party he faâ—â—â— to the 〈◊〉 of his Dedication About the end whereof he hath these words Go on therefore my Lord espouâ—â—ng the Cause of the true Protestant
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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