7.13 compared with 10. These Scriptures and many others that might be Cited unanswerably prove that the Scriptures are and ought to be called the Word of God. Several of these Passages with many others calling the Scriptures or a part thereof the Word of God or of the Lord in the singular number are adduced by Mr Brown Chap. 4. N. 2. To all which Robert Barclay's reply Vind pag. 31 is a flat contradiction of these Scriptures saying That the thing which the Prophets spake was only the words which came from the Word of God. Judge therefore Reader if such replies as these can either help the Author or hurt his adversaries Notwithstanding these Men have something to say for themselves and so had they who denyed the fire to be hot or the snow white Their first Reason why the Scriptures are not the Word of God is Because Christ is called the Word of God but this reason sayeth nothing but upon supposition that one word or phrase cannot undergo divers acceptations which is most false yet Robert Barclay in the Vindication of his Apology Pag. 31. to strengthen this Reason sayeth that one epithete or attribute cannot be predicated or affirmed of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or by way of eminence without a grosse contradiction But in this he only bewrayes his own ignorance of the Laws of a Contradiction and his desire of contradicting the Scriptures with a shew of Reason For whether by the Word of God Christ or the Scriptures are to be understood this Elogie is still ascribed to either of them with a peculiar eminency But by the diversity of the acceptation the Contradiction is removed which diversity may be easily Perceived by any that read or hear the Scriptures or other Discourses in which mention is made of the Word of God As for Example who could read these two Texts of Scripture Mark. 7.13 and Rev. 19.13 but they would presently see that in the latter of the Texts by the Word of God Christ is to be understood and in the former the Scriptures except he were altogether stupid and so there is not the least appearance of a Contradiction Therefore in short where by the Word Christ is understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken improperly viz. For a Person the essential and substantial Word of God in so much as Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of God or upon other such accounts such improper Attributes being frequently ascribed to Christ as a Door a Vine and the like But on the other hand where by the Word of God we are to understand the Scriptures there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Word is taken in a more proper acceptation for a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The same Author hath yet another Reason and it is a rare one viz. That there are moe words in the Scriptures than one Therefore they cannot be called the Word of God. Behold Reader with what ridiculous Shifts these men endeavour to uphold their impiety and oppose themselves to God! Who but he that desired the Fools Coat would thus reason It is a lie to name an Epistle sent from one Person to another a Letter because in it there are moe Letters than one Not only the Jews who were Christs Enemies but even the Apostles themselves had done right in the judgment of this Quaker if when Christ Mark 7.13 called the Scriptures the Word of God they had flatly contradicted him and said this is a lye seing there are moe Words in the Scriptures than one Here is ridiculous folly and impious Blasphemy mixed together And yet worse if worse can be unavoidably followeth this their Doctrine even that the Son of God was not from Eternity For according to them when it is said Hos. 1.2 The Beginning of the Word of the Lord the meaning must be the beginning of Christ. With the like sacrilegious audacity they endeavour to bereave the Scriptures of that sweet and heart-melting Title of the Gospel saying Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are not the Gospel but the Letter The Defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures William Pen undertaketh in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo Pag. 117. His Reasons whereby he would prove it are 1. Because the Gospel is called the Power of God to Salvation so are not the Scriptures To which I answer That the Scriptures may as well be called the Power of God to Salvation as the Gospel seeing it was the same Doctrine which the Apostles both preached to the People and committed to Writing And the Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith by this Doctrine when it is committed to writing as well as when it was Preached by the Apostles 2. By the Power of God to Salvation no other thing can be understood but the Mean Organ or Instrument whereby God exerteth or putteth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners Which kind of Metonymie is frequent in Scripture The next Reason to prove that these Books ought not to be called the Gospel which the Mans copious invention brancheth into two is That the Gospel is everlasting and was Preached before the Scriptures were therefore they are not the Gospel Ans. 1. The Principles of Truth are everlasting and were before any Quakers Books were extant Therefore a Pamphlet which the Quakers have entituled The Principles of Truth carrieth as a token of what is within a lie in the Frontispiece thereof which I believe William Pen will hardly admit Ans. 2. The Doctrine contained in those Books is the same with and therefore no lesse everlasting than the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel Rev. 14.6 cited by Pen. His two last Reasons whereby he would prove those Books not to be the Gospel are that the Gospel is but one and that it is glad Tidings but the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn are four and but Narratives and not glad Tidings are of the like nature with the former For he knoweth well enough that Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn deliver not a contrair Doctrine one to another but only divers Narratives of the same Doctrine All which Books contain the glad Tidings of the Birth Life Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ the Saviour of the World And this I assert in opposition to this Quaker who here discovereth himself in his own Colours in that he denyeth that the Books of Matthew Mark Luke and Iohn contain glad Tidings what could the Devil himself utter more black and Hellish than this Behold Reader with what ridiculous Sophistry these men can cheat their own Souls which is so blunt that a school-boy would be ashamed to bring it forth and what black and Hellish Impieties they not only swallow down themselves but with open face avouch before the world Lastly if these Books as for example Mark ought not to be called the Gospel and by the Gospel ought alwayes to be understood the power of God or the essential Attribute of
shift which he useth is the same with Robert Barclays second shift viâ— That tho the Scriptures are in this place to be understood by Law and Testimony yet it will not follow that they are the principal Rule especially in Gospel times which shift is the same way removed that Robert Barclays was And here he essayeth to prove that people are sent to the Dictate Word or Light within from 2 Pet. 1.19 Deut. 30.14 Rom. 10.8 Ioh. 3.20 21. Iohn 12.36 Which places make not a whiâ— for his purpose yea diverse of them cut the Jugular Vein of Quakerism as shal be evinced in due time He hath moreover here a harangue by which he would prove as it seemeth that God and Christ dwell personally in Believers as God dwelleth in the humane Nature of Christ which is most abominable and false and tho it were true yet should make nothing for him for God and Christ can only be said to dwell in Believers whose Temples they only are But if he meaneth that God dwelleth in Believers only in respect of the habits of Grace implanted in their Souls whereby they are enlightned quickened and upstirred to believe and practise the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures then he sayeth nothing for this indwelling or God thus indwelling is not our principal Rule of Faith and Manners but the chief Leader and efficient Cause of Grace in the Soul. And thus this hodge-podge of most impertinent Words resolves at length into a direct begging of the Question Argument 3d. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrine from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final Decision of the most grave and weighty controversies that ever arose in the world and sent all people unto them as unto a sure and undeceiving Light by the guidance of which we may passe through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the â—lose Ergo the Scriptures are the primary Rule The Consequence is clear if we attend unto the Description of a primary Rule laid down above The Antecedent I prove from Math. 22.29 31 32. Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 and 13 from the 14. to 42. 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Luk. 16.31 Our Adversaries like bats hateing and striking at the Light assault most of these Scriptures And first they endeavour to deprave Matth. 22.29 by telling us that it will no more follow that the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners than the Power of God yea the Power of God say they is rather the Rule being that which quickneth the Soul and Body without which none can truly know the Scriptures thus talketh George Keith in Truth Defended Pag. 68. But this is only a roving at pleasure without consideration what be said providing that the name of the last speaker be obtained for here he confoundeth the Rule with the power whereby we walk according to the Rule Hence as I admonished above he fighteth not against our Doctrine but against the fiction of his confounding brain for whoever said that Euclide cannot be a Rule for Geometricians to walk by because it cannot instill a faculty of reason in an Idiot without which it cannot be understood surely he that should thus Reason would be accounted of all men most ridiculous And yet no lesse ridiculous is this silly sophister for he reasoneth the same way But that I may fully declare either the profound stupidity or willful prejudice of this Quaker I suppose that a man in discourse with another about the Kings Power ignorantly denyeth that the King can do something which by the Laws of the land he is allowed to do the other checks him thus you erre not knowing the Laws of the Land and the power of the King And then proveth from the said Laws that the King hath â—ower to effect that which the other denyed Now should not any man that concluded from this mans discourse that the power of the King is all one with the Laws of the Land or that the power of the King is our Rule in Câ—vils no less than the Laws of the Land are expose himself to the scorn of all knowing persons And yet he inference of thiâ— Quaker differeth not a whit from such a blockish Conclusion Hence we may see that these Mens design iâ— not to speak well but to speak last The next place is Ioh. 5 39. To which Robert Barclay Vind. Pag. 43. attempting to make answer to the end that he may put it beyond all doubt that he is a devout Servant to his Holinesse and a true Roman Catholick stifly asserteth that the Word is to be taken in the indicative mode superciliously rejecting not only all the reformed and Body of primitive Interpreters but also the very Iesuits themselves in whom there is any spark of Conscience or Candour who all understand it in the imperative moode and good Reason they have so to do seing the reading of the Scriptures is all along through the whole Scriptures both commanded Deut. 17 18 19. Deut. 29.29 Exod. 13.9 Ios. 22.5 Deut. 6.8 and 11.18 Isa. 8.20 1 Tim. 4.13 with many others and commended Deut. 33.10 Neh. 8.2 3. Act. 17.11 and 18.24 2 Tim. 3.15 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Rev. 1.3 Besides many more which are sufficient to convince these men of palpable falshood and blasphemy Moreover there is sufficient ground from the Context abundantly to make out our exposition for Christ appeals to the Scriptures as sufficient to decide the then present controversy betwixt him and the Iews saying These are they that testifie of me Where he willeth them to give heed to Moses writings in order to the decision of the Controversy v. 46. Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me But this subterfuge failing him he hath yet some others which we must also remove he asketh therefore in the next place whether the words that Christ spake to the Iews which are recorded in Scripture were less binding to them than the words spoken by Moses and the Prophets If they were lesse binding saith he then he overturneth his own tedious Reasonings by which he laboureth to prove that they are obligative and also he must show how they are binding now upon us and if he say they were binding to the Jews because spoken by Christ his proof falleth to the ground Ans. 1. Perhaps he pleased himself with this Argument having racked his wit to invent sophistry tho blunt as shal appear presently whereby the more to delude his already deluded admirers But I am sure to any rational man that is in earnest it will not have the weight of a Walnut Nor trouble him much even tho he were not in case to answer it seing if this word be to be taken in the imperative mood as we have even now demonstrat then it is as clear as the noon-sun that Christ sendeth the Jews to the Scriptures for the ultimate decision of the greatest Controversy in the World upon which their one thing depended Otherwise the Jews might still
he worship the Crocodile Ibis Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians yea a man may believe or do whatever cometh into his brain for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular as for Example Robert Anthonie or Christopher forbidden or commanded to do any thing According to this principle also they deny all Means and helps for expounding of the Scriptures all Commentaries and Expositions witness amongst others these words of Geo Fox in his Primmar to Europe Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity and that upon this ground because as he sayeth these Words are not found expresly in Scripture The same way Rob B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn 2.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the words at the first sound and without any explication or clearing of them argumenteth from them He that hath an Anointing abiding in him teaching him all things so that he needs no man to teach him hath an inward and immediat Teacher and hath some things inwardly and immediatly revealed unto him The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34 So that whatever they say or can say to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie but just Charge they shall only twist Contradictions the faster And suitable to this Doctrine iâ— the Practice of Quakers who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World that they are Illuminat as the Prophets and Apostles were yes if not more have never yet for any thing I can learn benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless and unworthy except by detorting of them to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat as they would bear us in hand there can be no reason Alledged whey they benefit not the World by illustrating the Scriptures with clear Commentaries and such Helps as may be most 〈◊〉 for understanding thereof if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good which I think they will not say Or else that all such Help are superfluous And indeed this they stick not to say publishing to the World in Print that all Catechetical Doctrine â—nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist learned from Papists yea the very Scriptures themselveâ— they call by way of Deâ—raction the Letter in by Divinity worse Add to all this their Doctrine of silent waiting their railing against studied Sermons and explications of Scripture And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures according to the Example of Christ Jesus but in stead thereof the Light within These and many other things which might be said sufficiently evince that this their Revelation or new Light is unto them in place of Commentaries Catechismâ— or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures yea and the Scriptures themselves So that this one Darling of theirs renders all others needless Moreover they deny with the old Manichees that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us and as for the N. T. William Pen saith that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost and sticketh not to say that without their Spirit we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends Add to all this that this Doctrine of the Quakers viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and manners or chief Judge of Controversies is downright Popish and as good reason they should be both their Arguments to prove it and their Answers to our Arguments against it altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists which might easily be illustrat in every particular Some Examples we have given already to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18 From which place we usually reason that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated to which place the Papists answer that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone and that it will no more follow from this place that Traditions ought not to be added to the Scriptures as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners then it will follow from Deut. 4.2 That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay as these may do with the like support of their cause both in his Apologie and Vindication and when Mr. Broun telleth him that this as all the rest is a Popish shift He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But how pitiful and shameful this shift is none see not for can he say that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches which they hold in opposition to papists either this he must say otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause and an Effronted Defender For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens and Iews yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet as they say will affirm that Protestants are Papists or Papists Protestants upon that account Hence it is clear that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point so this Quaker is conscious of it seeing he could not but know that if this shift did him any Service to distinguish him from a Papist It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself and prove him to be no Papist So we see that the very shifts that these men use under the covert of which they may Luâ—k contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine and gross Hypocrisie in refusing the Name when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something which they call the Spirit of God as we have heard and again in contradiction to this the Soul of Christ extended and dilated of which say they every man is a partaker But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the
the Spirit is the principal Rule to them therefore whatever is not done by this inward Command is not of Faith and consequently sin All which they plead for Therefore before this motion come a man may not excercise his mind concerning religious maâ—ters and thoughts â—o endeavour to love fear and walk with God now is this only to relinquish carnal thoughts or the thoughts of carnal things Or was the Apostles living or Christ in him by the life of Mortification and Faith a meer abstracting from all Exercise of the faculties of the Soul. This I think none will say exercising reason And yet this he must say if he speak according to his Principles otherwise they will be necessiâ—â—te to let their reasonings against all worship to which we are premoved by a sensible Enthusiasm or Inspiration of the Spirit fall to the ground which is the substance of Skeen's Queries of which he boasteth 2. We come to the Vindication of some Arguments which by him are called Nibling quibles The first is If there be times appointed by God then according to them the Spirit is limited To which he answereth that they limit times of worship so as not to exclude other times But this answer presupposeth that every duty doth not prerequire immediat Inspiration which is false according to them as George Keith endeavoureth to prove in his book of Immed Rev and to defend in his disput with Aberdeen Students 2. Either these times appointed by them which recur weekly are appointed by God or not If they be not then how dare they keep them as a thing inviolable Seing the Lord determineth the time as well as the nature of the worship to his people And Ieroboam 1 Kings 13. Is condemned for appointing an Anniversary day not appointed by God as well as for changing the Religion Ergo they limit the Spirit in appointing a day perpetually recurring or else they have a previous motion in order to the appointing of every meeting which he doth not assert or grant Here he sayeth he followeth Calvin in denying the Sabbaths morality from whom as also the generality of Protestants we differ in this matter But that he may see his misâ—ake herein and that we neither differ from Calvin in his more deliberat thoughts nor from the generality of Protestants He may ready learned Crawfords Apologetical Exercitation for the morality of the Sabbath day Cap. 2. And there beside both the Fathers generality of Protestants he may find that Calvin himself in his Commentary on the Gen written 27 years after the Institutions sayeth the same that we do Let him see also most Learned Torretin on this head who at large vindicateth Calvin from this Imputation Next he sayeth That none can be fitter for the Worship of God than such as make silence and in turning of the mind necessary to their entry to Worship And thus he thinketh he has answered his Adversaries Argument pag 413 against their Worship drawn from the Quakers want of preparation But if this in turning were an abstracting from worldly things only and looking unto God and considering our own sinful state and frame and the necessity of holiness in order to approaching unto God he would say well But seing in the same page and with the same breath he reasoneth against this also ridiculously saying that then there should be a progressus in infinitum he only confirmeth that which we have proved before viz. That the Quakers silent waiting is a meer Extasie or all one with sleeping And contradicteth what he said even now above Here he alledgeth that the Apostles if they had pleased might have written moe Books of Scripture than they wrot and seing they wrote them not I doubt not but the Apostles if this be true may be taxed of neglect of their Duty For I think he will not deny but these Books had beeâ— very useful and that the Apostles were obliged to lay out themselves for the Churches good 〈◊〉 much as they could The Scriptures brought iâ— his Apology for this silent waiting he forgettetâ— to presse therefore his Adversary answers to 〈◊〉 inference from them must stand till he find timâ— to reinstaâ—re his Arguments He referreth us to George Keith his way cast up insinuating that he is the man can prove this Silent waiting But he will just prove it as he has done as soon as any judgeth his Book worthy of an answer Otherwise might he not have borrowed some of his Brothers Arguments to refute his Adversaries Answers as well as throughout the whole of his Books be a debter to Pelagius Bellarmin Socinus Ostorodius Volkellius and the like rather than said stark nought Here he granteth that Peter and Paul had a natural man in which the Devil might work and a Spiritual man which can resist and so contradicteth his Doctâ—ine of Perfection or at least his explication of the 7 of the Rom. for if this be true there is no ground for explaining that place of another then the Apostle himself His following words are arhapsodie or railing in which he all along accuseth his adversarie calling him and his Brethren Priests subintellige of Baal for so the Quakers speak greedy Merchants of Babylon persecuters with more of such stuff Next he granteth that ceasing to do evil is not without all action of the Minde E. when the Quakers think not at all nor exercise the faculties of their soul and consequently have no action of the mind which is their silent waiting they never cease to do evil And it 's like there be too much truth in this Because his adversarie sayeth pag 424. That watching is not a turning inward but a looking outward also Then sayeth he men shut up in a Dungeon could not watch Spiritually the repeating of which is more than the refuting For well he knew that his adversary understood by looking outwardly minding of God and our distance from him and the like Whereas what the Quakers mean by watching and waiting we heard above Mr. Brown out of Doctor Stillingfleet of the Phanaticism of the Church of Rome and out of the Sermons of one Taulerus a Phantastick Monk applauded notwithstanding by Bellarmin and others of the chief Papists from pag 429 to the end of that Chapter evinceth that the Quakers in this point not only in substance but for the most part in expressions agree exactly with the wildest dottages of Popery To which he answereth that his adversary misseth his Aim For he cannot prove sayeth he that the chief preachers amongst the Quakers ever heard of Taulerus Ans. yea on the contrary he gaineth his design for thus it is evinced that there is a great sibness betwixt their genious's which he confirmeth the more while he granteth the truth of the bulk of what Taulerus sayeth Section II. Of Baptism The contempt the Quakers vent against the Sacraments is so well known that it will be superfluous to tell the Reader in the entrie that they deny them
Gods Power for thus they with abominable Suenchfeldius understand Rom. 1.16 then the meaning of Mark 1.1 must be the Beginning of the Power of God of Iesus Christ the Son of God which place if it have any Sense thus understood must have a black one viz. That the Power of God. i. e. God Himself was not before Mark wrote his Book or else that the first Verse is a lie let them chuse which of them they will admit 2. But with no less Earnestness and Industrie do these men labour to clothe the Scriptures with base Epithets and contemptible Aspersions than to bereave them of the honourable Titles and Divine Encomies of which God their Author hath thought them worthy not unlike the Heathens who the better to induce Lions and other Wild-beasts to devour the Christians sewed them in Skins of other Beasts hated by these to whose Fury they exposed them This Charge I make out by these following Expressions of the Quakers for they ordinarly call the Scriptures the Letter and by way of Disparagement Writings as the Queries given to Mr. Iohn Alexander witnesse such a Letter about the meaning of which not two are agreed Robert Barclay's Apolog. cap. 2. Ink and Paper Cited by Mr. Hicks in his Dialogues Pag 41 And that It is Idolatry to call the Scripture a Means George White-head in his D. P. pag. 13. and account them no better than an old Almanack witness Hollbrow cited by Hicks pag 20. And that it is dangerous for People to read them Fox and Huberthorn in Truths Defence pag. 101. And that Faith grounded on the Scriptures is but an empty and implicite Faith and bespeaks such Persons void of the knowledge of God Christ and to be yet in their sins And that such Men walk in their own Fancies and Imaginations Christ ascended pag. 11. and that that which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any to wit of the Quakers Is of as great Authority as the Scriptures yea greater George White-head in his Apolog. pag. 49 And he that perswades the People to let the Scriptures be a Rule of Faith and Practice would keep the People in darkness for whoever walketh by the Rule without them teach men so to do would make void the Covenant of Life and Peace Edward Burrows pag. 62. And that is no Command to me which is a Command to another Neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another Edward Burrows pag. 47. And again he says such as go to Duty in imitation of the Letter which was a Command to others their Sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord. And Pag. 105. That they that take up a Command from the Scriptures are in the Witchcraft And that if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ Sayes one Nicolas Lucas cited by Mr. Hicks Dialog 2. Pag. 5. and evinced by him against Pen Dialog 3. pag 86. Moreover William Pen in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo pag 70. Saith but we have good Reason to deny them to be the Rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversies which can neither give nor govern Faith nor judge of Controversies and again pag. 73. In short The Scriptures are not the Rule but a Declaration of Faith and Knowledge And Chap. 3. pag. 35. He endeavoureth what he can to render the Scriptures altogether uncertain Saying I cannot but observe after what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been both first Collected and then conveyed through the several succeeding Ages And again Are we sure that the Iudgment of those who Collected them was sufficient to determin what was Right and what not For that which gives Scripture its Canon is not plurality of Voices but that Word of God which gave it forth If that Divine Counsellour preceeded not what assurance have our Anti-revelation-adversaries of their Doctors Choice and granting that they have not rejected any Writing given forth by the Holy Ghost which is a great Question and that which they have given us was in the main Writ by his Inspiration which I believe Yet how we shall be assured that in above 300 years so many hundred Copies as were doubtless taken should be Pure and Vncorrupted Considering the private Dissensions the readiness of each Party to bend things to their own Belief with the growing and succeeding Faults of leaving out adding transposing c. which Transscribers might be guilty of perhaps more through Carelessness than Design is beyond Iohn Faldo's Skil upon his principles to inform us From hence we may observe the uncertainty of John Faldo's Word of God who by Authorities can never prove the Scriptures to be given forth by Inspiration nor that they are truly collected neither could these Persons who first made them Canonical be assured of the exactness of those copies they then found Extant Nor was the Collectors Iudgment infallible And to come nearer to our Times Learned Men tell us of little less than 3000 several Readings in the Scriptures of the New Testament in Greek Thus ye see he laboureth with all his Pith to overthrow the extrinsical Arguments whereby the Divinity of the Scriptures is proved And on the other wing of this Ethnick Army Robert Barclay Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures saying in his Apolog. Chap. 2. That they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue placed in these Writings and in his Vindication I had almost said Abridgment of his Apology he denyeth That there is any stamp of Divine Authority upon the Scriptures and impiously ascribeth the same to some other Spirit separate from and besides the Scriptures which cannot be the Spirit of God Seeing he himself asserteth elsewhere That this Spirit is in all men and the Scripture saith That some men have not the Spirit of God. But shall not the Scriptures which were dictate by the living God carry something of the Stile of the Author Shall the writings of Livy Virgil or Cicero carry such Evidences that they were theirs So that a Humanist may distinguish the True from the Counterfit although he had never heard these men immediatly relate Sing or Declaim Surely this will be denyed of none but a Quaker Shall then God himself be outstripped and overcome by these Writers The Scriptures then according to the Quakers have no Majesty of Stile no harmony of Parts no Scope of the whole c. Nor any such Notes whereby they may declare themselves to be the Dictates of the Living God. Hence we may see That these men are fitter Companions for Porphyrie and Celsus the two Heathnish Champions than for a Christian seeing they bend all their Wit and Skil to revive again Heathnisme under the name of Quakerisme I shall only add for confirmation of my Assertion the Words of Benjamin Furly a Quaker in Rotterdam cited by Mr. Hicks in his Quakers appeal answered pag. 16. There is nothing Sayes he
in the Scripture that is a Duty upon me or which I am obliged to Obey because there recorded Whatsoever is a Command to me I must not receive from any man or thing without me nay not the Scripture it self yea it is the greatest Error in the world that ever was invented and the ground of all Error to Affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians 3. By this time I have abundantly justified my Charge having set down already so much of this blasphemous Doctrine as I am confident hath filled my Reader with Horrour and Indignation if he retain but the least spark of Christianity or love to the Holy Scriptures And O that while we consider these Abominations we could mourn and tremble in Contemplation of our heavy Transgressions that have provocked the Holy God in his just Judgment to let loose and permit these satanical Spirits to rage abroad and pollute the very Air with their poysonous Breath and pestiferous Blasphemy This last passage I should not have set down were it not that Robert Barclay in his Vindication of his Apology of the many scores of passages quoted out of the Quakers own Books by Mr. Brown to prove the blasphemousness and absurdity of their Doctrine in the Defence of this only adventureth to say somewhat I shal therefore set down what he sayeth and refute the same His words are Vind. Pag. 37. But what he urgeth of this further Pag 57. and 59. from the saying of some Quakers affirming that it 's not a Command to them which is given to another albeit I might justly reject it as impertinent till he prove it for the Reasons above Declared upon this occasion yet because he mentions Benjamin Furley in Rotterdam having some Knowledge of that Matter I answer whether will he say All the Commands in Scripture to every Person therein mentioned are binding upon every individual now If he dare not say they are as I know he dare not how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me and what binds me not must it not be by the Spirit suppose it were only subjectively as he will confess enlightening the understanding to make the Distinction Then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their Duty and sure they cannot obey before they know But if he say that tho they should want that operation of the Spirit and did not know nor acknowledge them to be their Duty yet that they are binding upon them neither Benjamin Furley nor any Quaker will deny But even the Commands of Gods Spirit and the Precepts of the Scripture which now concern all are binding upon all so that they shal be justly condemned for not obeying albeit by the perversness of their hearts and Wills they either refuse to obey or will not acknowledge them so that his urging of that Pag. 60 and 61. And his pleading for it is unnecessary and needs no Answer yet who could say they could obey to any advantage of their souls without this operation of the Spirit since whatsoever is not of Faith is sin But as to these words said to be written by Benjamin Furley he is challenged to prove they are his without adding or diminishing and it is very well known the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the Sense and before he has answered this Challenge and freed himself from the just Censure of a Callumniator albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs and upon the Testimony of their Adversaries Thus he All the Reasons he gave above why he ought not to vindicate the blasphemous Passages cited out of several Quakers were because these Passages were cited by these that are adversaries to Quakers such as Hicks Stalham and the like who still cite Book and Page of the Quakers where they are to be found so truly that this Vindicator hath not one instance to give where they have dealt unfaithfully Hence this Reason according to him proveth his Vindication unworthy of an answer seing the citation of Passages is enough to Vindicate these Authors from an unjust charge Therefore let it be observed that the whole multitude of Passages which are fraughted with Blasphemies and Absurdities even to the begetting of an utter detestation at the Principles of this party in the hearts of all the Lovers of the Holy Scriptures which are cited by Mr. Brown remain without any Vindication or Mollification except that which rendereth the Author of this Vindication ridiculous and the Principles of his party more abominable But let us come to the Matter of Furley of which he sayes he has some Knowledge we may therefore expect a sufficient Resolution about it as for other passages of this Nature he insinuateth a profound ignorance concerning them wherefore he meriteth a sharp Censure from his Brethren for undertaking that of which he was altogether ignorant and they the note of folly for the permission of the publication of the same for in Reason we ought to suppose that they revised it In the first place The Dilemma wherewith he endeavoureth the Protection of his Brother is altogether impertinent and helpeth him not a whit for seing he insinuateth that there are no subjective Revelations and elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any this Dilemma if it can do any thing it will only be Argumentum ad hominem And so according to the Quakers men shal not be bound to obey any of the Commands of God As for Example to abstain from Murder except the Lord by an immediat objective Revelation such as he gave to Moses or the rest of the Prophets enjoined this unto them Behold Reader the dangerous Conclusion The abominablenesse of which maketh this Vindicator use many Shifts and Tergiversations to varnish the same notwithstanding of which it inevitably recurreth and sticketh fast unto him 2. Neither doth this Dilemma involve his Adversary or any of the Reformed in any thing like the absurd Doctrine of the Quakers for although the subjective illumination of the Spirit be very necessary for the true Understanding of the Scriptures yea and of absolute necessity for such a knowledge of them whereby we know God revealed in them so that we have true Love and Fear and Faith in him as the Effects and Concomitants of this knowledge yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures tho endued with sound Reason only can distinguish between Commands given to a particular People for a certain time such as to offer Sacrifice or to abstain from Swines-flesh and these who bind at all times as for example Not to prophane the Name of God or to honour Parents must have abandoned the exercise of Reason 3. While he alledgeth That neither Benjamin Furley or any other Quaker will deny that Scripture Precepts which concern all are binding upon all he openly contradicteth Furley who denyeth that he
rather in greater reverence as their writings plainly testify And indeed so it was foretold by Isaiah for when he sayeth my spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shal not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy seed for ever he doth not tie the people of the Iews to an outward Doctrine as if he taught them the first principles but rather that it will be the true and ful felicity of the Church in Christs Kingdom to be ruled no less by the voice than spirit of God. From whence we collect that what are inviolably conjoyned by the Prophet are most sacrilegiously separat by these Villans And again Sect. 2. If any spirit neglecting the Wisdom of God bring any other Doctrine he is justly to be suspected of vanity and of a lie What when satan transfigureth himself into an angel of light what Authority shall the spirit have with us except it be discerned by some sure Character and he is clearly demonstrat to us by the Voice of God except these miserable men desire willingly to run into their own Destruction when they rather seek the spirit from themselves than from the spirit of God. But they pretend that it is unworthy that the spirit of God to whom all things are to be subjected should be subjected to the scriptures as if it were ignominious to the Holy Ghost to be every where alike and conform to himself and never diverse indeed if it were tryed by a humane angelick or any other Rule he were to be corrected or chastised if ye will but while it is compared with it self while it is considered in it self who will then say that there is injury done to it and so it is brought to a Tryal I confesse but such a one as that thereby he would manifest to us his Majesty it ought to be sufficient to us as soon as the spirit manifesteth it self to us but lest the delusions of satan should creep in under the notion of the spirit of God he would have us know him in his image imprinted in the scripture he is the Author of the scriptures he cannot be unlike and diverse from himself whatever therefore he sheweth himself to be in the scriptures such he must be forever That is no conâ—umely to him except we judge it honour worthy to forsake and degenerat from it self Much more to this purpose hath the Reverend and Judicious Author with which he confoundeth these spiritual Antichristians as well these of our time as of his own and indeed if one should read this Chapter and not know the Author he would presently conclude that it had been written of direct purpose against the Quakers Judge therefore Reader if Robert Barclay had any ground to alledge him as the Patroniser of his Doctrine The fourth Difference betwixt us and the Quakers consists in this that we asâ—err if there be a God in Heaven the Books of the Old and New Testament may be evinced to have proceeded from him even to the silencing the most profligat though sharp witted Atheists if any such merit this epithet whereas on the other hand They deny any Characters of Divinity ingraffed in the Word as hath already and shal yet more appear and thus they expose the jugular Vein of Christianity to the Heathens and indeed the whole tendency of all their writings and discourse is to decry and vilify these sacred Oracles and though they deny this to the end they may the better cheat silly Souls I care not for out of their own mouths and Books they shal be judged and found guilty These abominations are not committed in a Corner It can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches which is certainly sufficient in the case But many other differences I could give but these may suffice for answer to the second Objection From all which I conclude that between the extreams of the Papists Church and the Quakers Spirit medius tutissimus ibit the midway by resolving our faith ultimately in the Scriptures or in God speaking in them is the safest way And as two extream Vices never agree more in the nature of Vice than when they reced most from Virtue lying in the middle and therefore seemingly or physically reced from one another so the greater odds that seem to be between Papists and Quakers they are the more nearly relyed in error for the Papists have gone too low resolving their faith ultimately in men the Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo hence they Ixion-like thinking to find the fair Iuno of divine Revelation but lighting upon a cloud of their own brain in stead thereof have procreat the strange Hippocentaurs of their monstrous Doctrines at which the World now admires and is amazed 5. Our Assertion that the Scriptures are the adequate compleat and primary or principal Rule of Faith and Manners we build on these following Arguments and first That which was dictate or given out by the â—â—fallible God and containeth the whole Counsel of God may well serve to be our compleat and principal Rule but the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the infallible God and contain the whole Counsel of God ergo they may well serve to be a compleat and principal Rule The Major is most evident for what further certainty either ought we need we or can we seek for what we believe or do then the words of the most veracious and unerring God and no other thing can be understood by a compleat Rule but that which containeth all things to be believed or done The Minor I prove by parts and first that the Scriptures were given out and dictat by God is clear from 2 Tim 3.16 All Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. 2 Pet. 1.21 Prophecy came not of old time by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost Moreover our Adversaries at least the more learned and cautious of them have not yet adventured to deny it but in words at least grant it The second part is no lesse evident from Act. 20.27 Where Paul sayeth that he had not shunned to declare to his hearers all the Counsel of God compared with Chap. 26.22 where the same Apostle sayeth that he taught no other things than those that were in Moses and the Prophets Hence it is clear that even a part of the Scriptures and by a good consequence all the Scriptures contain all that God hath willed us to believe or do The second Argument is That which was the principal Rule to the Jews is the principal Rule to us But the Scriptures were the principal Rule to them Therefore they must be the same to us The Major is Robert Barclay's for which he pleadeth at large Apol. Cap. 2. The Minor I prove thus That from which the Jews might not swerve to the right hand or to
the left and to the decision of which they were ultimately bound to stand in all Doubts and Controversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from Gods written Law they were commanded not to swerve or stray to the Right hand or left and were bound ultimately to stand to its Decision in all doubts and Controversies and that under highest paines Therefore to them it was the primary Rule the Major Proposition is incontrovertible The Minor is proved from two most pregnant places of Scripture Deut. 5.31 32. and 17 9 10 11. In both which places by the Law is to be understood that which God gave unto the Iews by Moses in writing as is evident to any that read the Texts Which Texts have been egregiously vindicat by our Divines writing against Bellarmin and the rest of the asserters of papal infallibility with whose shifts I am certain all that the Quakers can say will be found to co-incide 2. This Minor Proposition is clear from Is. 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to these it is because there is no light in them The first Shift that the Quakers use to elude the force of this Scripture with is that by Law Testimony is meaned the light within So sayeth Robert Barclay in both Apology and Vindication but for this exposition we must take their word for none of them giveth the least colour of Reason for it But that by this Law the Scriptures are to be understood these following Texts evince Exod. 32.15 and 34.29 Deut. 31.24 26. 2 King. 22.8 Nehem 8. v. 3 8. Psal. 78.5 Again God commanded that even the King himself and consequently the rest of the people Deut. 17.18 19. Should live according to this written Law to the end be might fear the Lord under which all the Duties of Religion are ordinarly comprehended Now shal any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose that the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discussing thereof or that tho the Kings doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law he was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him I say who in his wit will believe this yea to think so is to deny the immutability of God. Moreover this is by far the more frequent acceptation of the Word Law or Testimony Hence when the saving Work of Grace is understood by the Word Law there is something added whereby we may understand that the Word Law is to be taken in a more unusual acceptation as Rom. 7.23 and 8.2 But we need say no more for they sufficiently overthrow this their Exposition in that they give nothing for the proof thereof except it be their own most absurd Hypothesis But Robert Barclay hath yet another shift he granteth that this place may be understood of the Scriptures and asserteth that this is only spoken to the Jews and therefore that to them the Scriptures were a more principal Rule than to us and that as they were to try all things by the outward Law so we are to try all in the first place by the word within and accuseth his Antagonist of base disingenuity for leaving out these words in the first place And granteth only that the Scriptures were a more principal Rule to the Iews but denyeth that they were the primary Rule Ans. Whatever be understood by Law and Testimony in that place whether it be the Scriptures or Spirit it must be the primary Rule for to this Law they were ultimately bound for the Law and Testimony spoken of here was the ultimate and Principal Rule because whatever was spoken not according to these was to be rejected as the product of darkness 2. It is evident that this Law and Testimony here spoken of is the absolutely principal and ultimate Rule because to seek to it is all one with seeking unto God The Text is Let a people seek unto their God viz. speaking in the Law and Testimony which is put for one and the same thing Hence we see that this Law and Testimony here spoken of was the absolutely principal Rule to the Jews In the third place the Charge of disingenuity that he layeth to his Adversary is altogether groundlesse for certainly he or any man else of Sense and Reason was bound to understand those words In the first place in the one branch of the Parallel as well as in the other otherwise his Parallel will not only hault but prove wholly lame and without sense now seing as I think he will not deny that his Adversary ought to suppose he had to do with a Man of sensâ— and Reason who dealt but rationally in understanding both Branches of the Parallel to run alike He ought not thus to accuse him but seinâ— he will have himself to be thus understood to thâ— end that he may evite a self Contradiction let uâ— see if he have any advantage hereby Now the 〈◊〉 why he maketh his Parallel so manked is that 〈◊〉 may not be compelled to grant the Scriptures 〈◊〉 have been the primary Rule to the Jews and so this he earnestly pleadeth but if they were not a primary and principal Rule to them and so but a secondary Rule only and yet have not such a high and principal place under the New Testament as under the old then they shal not be so much as a secondary Rule to us and therefore but a tertiary only And if this be not beside a Contradiction to the Quakers own concessions who grant the Scriptures to be a secondary Rule a complex of most horrible impiety most wild and absurd nonsense that can readily be imagined I leave to the whole Christian World to judge from which many other wild dottages clearly flow such as The Spirit it self is but a secondary Rule even altho it be a Rule or else that although the Church have a tertiary yet it wants a secondary Rule with these and many other such horrid and most nonsensical Consequences is this Doctrine of the Quakers inseparably attended And whereas in the last place he requireth proof wherefore Mr. Brown rejecteth the version of the Septuagint we shal only referre him to solid Baillie in his Chronology and acute Voglesange in his Theological exerciâ—rations where he will find the Septuagint rejected with Reason enough Thus far Robert Barclay George Keith the other Champion of the Quakers in hiâ— Book against Mr. Iohn Alexander falsly called Truth Defended its true name being Truth depraved Pag 80 Shewetâ— his cause to be mortally wounded with the force of this Scripture Argument for he dare not expresly deny that by Law and Testimony the Scriptures are to be understood indeed he really granteth it in that he adventureth not to handle any of the places of Scripture brought by Mr. Alexander for the proof thereof and yet he detaineth the Truth captive and wiâ—l not confesse that which he dare not deny The
have with good Reason replyed that this would not do the turn seing the Scriptures themselves were but a secondary Rule to be subjected unto another without the Determination of which they could never acqâ—iesce in the Scriptures decision how clearly soever they speak for the one party and against â—he oâ—â—er I answer 2dly that the words of Christ spoken both before and at that time were binding on the Jews he having given sufficient proofs of his Deity Notwithstanding of which Christ referreth them to those Writings about the divinity of which they were beyond all doubting and had abundance of subjective as well as objective certainty To these I say he referreth them as the Principal Rule and Test whereby to determine the great Controversy then in agitation I say in a Word that the words Christ and his Apostles spake and now recorded in Scriptures were of themselves no lesse binding on the Iews than these spoken by Moses and the Prophets tho the Iews throw their wilfull ignorance and prejudice which was their own great fault the great Cause of which was the neglect of the Scriptures which testifie of Christ did not believe the Divinity of the one as they did that of the other hence one of the horns of this Dilemma is broken and his consequence a meer non sequitur He here grants that if Christs Doctrine ought to be tried by the Scriptures then much more private Enthusiasms But denyeth that it will hence follow that the Scriptures are the primary Rule which I prove for if the Doctrine of Christ be subject to the Scriptures trial then no man can deny that even these things which are divine immediat Revelations may be brought to the Scripture trial that we may know whether they be divine or not as well as the Jews ought to bring the Doctrine of Christ to the Scriptures that they might clearly see whether it was divine or not seing whatever can be said for exemption of these Revelations from trial with good ground might be said for exeeming of the Doctrine of Christ. Moreover by granting that privat Enthusiasms ought to be tryed by the Scripture he yieldeth all he was this whole time pleading for which was that it might be lawful to embrace any impulse or suggestion which he thought was the Spirit of God without further examination thereof The third Scripture viz. Act. 17.11 is so clear that our Adversaries can find nothing wherewith to darken and deprave it It is true that Robert Barclay Vind. pag. 44. sayeth It is the same way answered as Iohn 5.39 Therefore I say our meaning is the same way vinâ—icate Nâ—xt all his verbal shifâ—s are wholly excluded here seing such an high commendation given by the Spirit of God to these Bereans ought to have no lesse weight with us than a Command The next place assaulted by them is 2 Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of prophecy c. which place thâ—y will have to be understood of the Spirit not â—f the Scriptures of which assertion Robert Barclay pag. 26. giveth this Reason that the Description or Narration of a thing is not more sure than the hearing or seeing of the same and therefore the Scriptures which are but a Narration and Description of such and such things cannot be more sure than the sight or hearing of the same Hence he would infer that the discoverie the Apostles had made to them upon the mount were really surer than the Scriptures but not so sure as the Spirit George Keith Truth Defended pag. 63. hath a long discourse which resolves in this that the Apostle is making a Comparison between Gods outward Word to the Ear and inwâ—rd to the Heart which he sayeth is more sure to a man than Gods immediat speaking if it be heard with the outward ear But such reasoning as this is as easily everthrown as invented for it presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation where the Testimony of the senses goes along And so their spirit is an enemy to sense Otherwise why should this glorious vision made to the Apostles of the Truth of which they had divine and infallible evidence to whom God spake as immediatly as to Moses on the Mount be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit 2. To talk at this rate is to presuppose that wherever God revealeth himself unto any person some other way than by speaking into his ear that this Revelation bringeth along with it its own evidence and perswadeth the soul to embrace and close with it as divine which is both groundlesse and therefore false and contrary to their own principles who assert that unlesse the understanding be well disposed Revelation tho immediat is not evident 3. It insinuateth that the Apostle in this comparison gave out that one of the things compared was in it self really more uncertain than the other which is most false seing considered in themselves both real immediat Revelation and the Scriptures have all certainty possible therefore this is only to be understood in respect of us to whom the Scriptures are more sure in that they are lesse subject to be counterfeited or wrested by either the Devil or our own sancy than immediat Revelations are The Apostle hath also his eye upon his Countrey-men the Iews to whom he speaketh who tho they were now Christians gave in special manner credit to the old Testament as Act 17.11 and else where 4. Tho by this more sure word of Prophecy were understood immediat Revelations the advantage that the Quakers could reap thereby could not be great For this Word of Prophecy being studied and attended to is recommended to us by the Apostle as that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures Hence it will follow even according to the Quakers exposition that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of our Faith seing that if any of the two be it the Text to be explained much rather than the means or helps whereby it is to be explained ought to have this Denomination we have seen the invalidity of his Reason as also the small advantage tho it had been valid We shal in the next place shew why by this more sure word of Prophecy we understand the Scriptures And first because any phrase of the like import as for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prophetick Word or Word of Prophecy it is not in all the Scripture beside for any thing I know in so many syllables such as the Prophets Luk. 16.29 Apostles Prophets Eph. 2.20 The Law and the Prophets Math. 7.12 Are always taken for the Scriptures so that when any did utter such expressions but especially while they discoursed of a guide in Faith and Manners they were still understood as speaking of the Scriptures who I pray ever understood that phrase Luk. 16.31 Moses and the Prophets any other way than that Joh. 6.45 It is written in the Prophets And indeed if our Adversaries were not eâ—â—ronted and
impudently bold they would not adventure to cause a phrase of Scripture to speak that the contrare of which at the first view it proclaimeth 2. Who but one that would adventure upon any thing would make this phrase Word of Prophecy in the 19 v. to speak any other thing than the Prophecy of the Scriptures in the 20 verse or simple Prophecy in the 21 verse seing to do this destroyeth the whole Connexion of the Context 3. The same is evinced by the connexion of this with the following Words for the Apostle giveth his Reason in the 20 Verse why in the 19 he had admonished to study the Scriptures viz. that unlesse they diligently search and study them they would be ready to miss the genuine and fall into a private meaning of the Scriptures that is one which the Scriptures if well attended to would not yield 4. The same is evinced from the general commendation given by the Spirit of God to the searchers of or attenders to the Scriptures as Isa. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 With many other places which are sufficient Commentaries to this Text Whereas on the other hand these our Adversaries no lesse void of Reason then fraughted with audacity cannot bring one Text commanding us to search or take heed to the Light within Add to all this that these our Antagonists contradict the stream of Orthodox Writers upon this place who all give their joint suffrage unto our exposition as Luther Calvin Bullinger Christophorus Imlerus Beza the Dutch Divines who give the same glosse with us yea I dare averr with Confidence that if we except some old Montanists Cataphrygians or the like antient Enthusiasts or of later times the Munserians or such Libertines none hitherto expone this place as the Quakers do But we must yield to them for Hi soli sapiunt alii velut umbra vagantur Doubtless they are the Men and Wisdom shall die with them But I leave them to grapple with their Brother William Pen who in his Rejoynder before cited pag. 334. yieldeth unto us that which they so stifly deny viz. that by the More sure word of Prophesie the Scriptures are to be understood and I passe on to the vindication of Luk. 16.31 If they hear not Moses and the Prophets neither will they be perswaded though one rose from the dead Rob Barclay in opposition to Mr Broun Vind. pag. 39.40 reasoning from this place that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith sayeth first That it will not follow from the Scriptures being more sure than the Testimony of one risen from the dead that therefore they are more sure than the Testimony of the Spirit I Ans. Let him once prove that every Man hath such a Spirit as Quakers do alledge and then let the Spirit go hand in hand with the Scriptures but this he shall never be able to do 2. This will follow that Moses and the Prophets were a Rule to the Church at that time Yea even the primarie Rule otherways might not Abraham have said The Spirit of God directeth every man immediatly If they hear not him they will hear none else but this he said not Therefore Abraham or rather Christ in the Parable judged the Scriptures the principal Rule on Earth As for what he says concerning the Scriptures being a principal Rule to the Iews only is nothing to the purpose unless he prove that they are not so to us which if he hath done we have seen above 3. Certainly the voice of one of the glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the face of God is no less to be accounted immediat Revelation than the voice of the High-Priest unto the People when he came out from the Holy of Holies which in the Quakers account was immediate Revelation But the Quakers can make what they will to be Divine Revelation To the end that this may more fully appear we shall consider a passage in his Apologie pag. 4. where he maketh an Objection viz. That after the Dispensation of the Law Gods Method of Speaking was altered To which he answereth that Gods speaking was immediate alwayes to the Iews in that it was immediat alwayes to the High. Priest from between the Cherubims To which I Reply This Answer is strange In that he sayes The mind of God revealed by the High-priest unto the People was to them immediate Revelation for certainly a thing delivered from one person to another by the hand of a third cometh unto that person by the hand of another which other must either be a Mediu◠or Midss or else he must say that three make but two which is a ridiculous Contradiction 2. We say that even according to the Quakers principles Gods way of revealing himself to us now is as immediate as it was to the Jews because we have these that were inspired by God speaking unto us though dead hence they have no reason to go about to prove the Scriptures not to be the principal Rule of Faith on this account that they are not immediate Revelation for that which they contend to have been immediat Revelation was no more immediat than the Scriptures My fourth Argument I draw from 2 Tim. 3.15 And that from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise through Faith unto Salvation From which place I thus Reason That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the Man of God v 17. Wise through Faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule of Direction to guide us in our Christian Course But the Scriptures are able to make Timothy or the Man of God wise unto Salvation Therefore they are a sufficient Rule or Directory to guide u◠in our Christian Course And here it may be observed that R. B. Vind pag. 40 41. is so pressed with the force of this Argument that he can find no better off-come but to challenge his Adversary as guilty of perversion of Scriptures because he compared the 15 and 17 verse◠together saying that the Scriptures were abl◠to make the man of God perfect But to challenge a man for perversion upon such a ground as this is an evident token of too much perversness for if he had but looked unto the 15 verse he might have seen they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 able to make Timothy which was a Man of God wise through Faith unto Salvation where there is an ability or sufficiency in some kind of Cause ascribed to the Scriptures Now no other sort of ability or sufficiency can be imagined if it be not that of a Rule or causae Exemplaris seu directivae for Faith is added as the instrumental Cause or as the apprehender Hence I evidently infer that the Scriptures are the adequate and primary Rule for if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in the Scripture or if the Scriptures were subject to another Test or Rule to be examined thereby
that is to study how he may secure himself from the hazard of a Trial. Hence these men are in all probability beyond the reach of a Conviction but the many Instances not only of other Antiscriptâ—rians but even of themselves who have been most pitifully and palpably acted by the Devil whom they notwithstanding took for God might teach them at length to suspect their Spirit and try before they trust As for the Prophesies of future Events they may well be brought to the Scripture Test to the end we may know whether the thing Prophesied may be expected without contradicting the Scriptures as for Pauls reproof of the Spirit of Divination it is most irrationally Objected Seeing Paul was immediatly Inspired and a Writer of Scripture himself 2â—y This Action was most Consonant to Scripture being abundantly warranted by that promise of Christ Matth 10 to his Apostles that they should cast out Devils They use also many Arguments against the Scriptures being the principal Rule of which the Chief and Ground of almost all the rest with which they stand and fall and therefore meriteth particular Consideration is this the Scriptures are not the Fountain it self but a declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge nor the adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners thus reasoned Rob Barclay in his Appology This consequence is by his adversary judged a Demonstration of the Authors folly pag. 57. as being altogether ridiculous saying who ever dreamed that the Scriptures were God or the Spirit of God To which 〈◊〉 Barclay Vind. pag. 37. thus Replyeth he sayeth I come nearer to the Core of my design which is to set up Enthusiasms in affirming that the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain and yet the Man within three or four lines confesseth it himself ascribing it to my folly to dream any man thinks so thus â—e goeth backward and forward which he illustrateth by the Example of Laws But if it be so are not they to be blamed that account them the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge whither the other branch of my deduction followeth from this That they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and Manners will appear when the Arguments and Objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned and whereas he thinks this is absurd and not making for my Design because God Himself is the Fountain and yet not the Rule he mistakes the matter as urged by me For I argue that the Scriptures are not the Original Ground of Knowledge but God not simply considered but as manifesting himself in divine immediat Revelations in the hearts of his children which being the new Covenants Dispensation is the primary and adequate Rule of Christians For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered or the Spirit of God in abstracto not as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians and this may serve to answer all his Cavills upon this Theam Thus he Answer in his Apol. he thus reasoned the Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain therefore they are not the principal original of all Truth nor the adequate or primary Rule of Faith. Now this Argumentation which is all one with fallacia plurium interrogationum hath a consequent made up of two parts and therefore there are to be considered here two consequences of which the first or the consequence as to the first part of the inference his adversarie calleth a demonstration of the Authors folly as proving that which never man denyed viz. that the Scriptures are not God himself I add that this is also a demonstration of his Malice for in this his ridiculous argumentation he would perswade the world that the Reformed Churches for against them in that place he bendeth his weapons assert that the Scriptures are God himself Upon this account I say his Adversary accuseth him of folly now in stead of a better off-coming he giveth out that his adversary first denyed his Antecedent and then again presently confessed it whereas he never impugned the Antecedent but blameth him for his consequence of which as we have already said the first part is very ridiculous proving the thing that never one denyed and malicious belieing the whole Reformed Churches and the second part viz. Because the Scriptures are not the Fountain therefore they are not the adequat and primary Rule of Faith a Rope of sand The coherence of which will be made out ad Calendas Graecas He sayeth that the second Branch of his Deduction will appear when the Arguments and objections relating to that come particularly to be mentioned which is nothing to the purpose in hand for unless he prove that the Scriptures are not the primary and adequate Rule of Faith from this one Topick that they are not the Fountain but a Declaration thereof the argument is gone Hence all this wrangling is but a further proof of his Weakness and Malice In his following Words he confoundeth the Principal Rule and the Original Ground together which are things most distinct and therefore these words are altogether void of good sense or at best they are ridiculous in that they speak nothing to the purpose For he might well have known if he had pleased that by the Primary Rule is understood that which is now among the hands of Christians according to which they ought to examine ultimately all sort of Doctrines and opinions of men or yet suggestions from within concerning divine things and reject or receive as they disagree or agree with this Rule If in this sense he had understood the primary Rule he had not given such mysterious Niceties But the Question is not if God be greater than the Scriptures for as man is above the word of a man so is he above them But the Question is whether or not the Scriptures contain all things necessary in order to Faith and practise and whether or not we ought to see that every Doctrine we embrace be according to them and if swerving from them we ought to reject it tho an Angel from Heaven should teach it Thus we understand the primary Rule and while he doth not so he but mistaketh the Question 2. This Acyrology or improper speech to call a person a Rule is a grand inductive of Confusion for who ever called a teacher a Rule for only the dictats taught are the Rule Here we see that these new Teachers are contrary to all men in their acceptations of Words as well as in Doctrines But whereas he sayeth that he was never so absurd as to call the Spirit of God simply or in abstracto a Rule but as he imprints Truths in the hearts of Believers he doth not answer these things which he calls Cavills for these Rules imprinted
in the Soul are not God under what notion soever he be taken a Declaration of the Fountain is not the fountain it self Hence the Quakers grand principle that immediat objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their Faith falleth to the Ground and these imprinted Rules are but only secondary Ergo even according to what is here gained from the Quakers the Scriptures are equal even in their primariness to immediat Revelations for the one can no more be called the primary Rule than the other and that by the Quaker his own Concession Moreover seing these immediat Revelations imprinted on the Soul are not the primary but secondary Rule then certainly they ought to be examined according to the primary Rule Now to assert this is most impious Seing these Revelations must be supposed to be self evident and their Divinity already undoubtedly apparent For this is to maintain that we ought to doubt whether or not there is veracity in God and horresco referens Judge that the God of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us But once more how shal these imprinted secondary Rules be examined not by other words or dictats of whatsoever kind for to do this will cost the examiner a journey to in finitum to which he will not come in haste seing these other Dictats or Revelations are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Fountain more than the first and to assert that these Revelations may be examined according to God himself and not by the Word of God is to go some stages beyond the wildest of nonsense and again there is very good Reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primary than the Scriptures both being given by the same Spirit seing the primarinesse is not the immediatness but the chief binding power the prerogative to be the touch-stone of all Doctrines Now this notion of a primary Rule being had there is very good Reason to wonder why the Dictats of the Spirit should be preferred before the Scriptures seing God hath told whether mediatly or immediatly it 's all one the Quakers themselves dare not deny that God hath indeed said it that they are able to make the Man of God wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.16 17. And hath commanded and commended the perusal of them as the Book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest in the matters of greatest import Isai. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2 Pet. 1.19 20. With many other places But on the other hand in all the Scriptures there is not so much as the least intimation that all persons within the Church and faâ— less all men have divine immediat Objective Revelations by which they may examine and discern good from evil and here he is very angry with his adversary because he accused him of confounding in his Apology the principal Rule and the principal Leader and yet as though he had not confounded them compleatly enough in his Apology he here again in his Vindication in one and the same page viz. 38. both calleth the Spirit as imprinting Truths into the Soul the primary Rule as was even now cited and also the same Spirit the principal Leader as imprinting Rules into the Soul to walk by by which Rules must be understood the Truths he spake of just now above here the Reader may see that not only the same thing is both Principal Leader and principal Rule but also that there is not so much as a Metaphysical formality betwixt them for both of them is God under the notion of imprinting Rules or Truths into the soul yet the confidence I shal not say the impudence hath he to deny that he confounded them 8. But the Quakers well knowing that if God speaking in the Holy Scriptures be admitted Judge of the present Debates between us and them Or if the Holy Scriptures be not Esteemed False Ambiguous and Nonsensical then their cause is lost and their great Diana of Immediat Revelations and the rest of their Monstruous and Impious Doctrine falls to the ground they assert with the Papists that the Spirit of God Speaking in the Scriptures is not his own Interpreter and so bereave the Scriptures of that which is the Soul Sense and Marrow thereof denying all Scripture Interpretation though never so Genuine and Clear except they have Immediat Objective Revelation to tell them that such a Meaning is true Hence they say they may very well reject all our Interpretations and Consequences of Scripture seeing we do not pretend to the Spirit that gave forth the Scripture but declare our selves Enemies to it Thus replyeth George Keith to Mr. Iohn Alexander Truths Def. Chap. 8. Behold Reader the grossest of Popish Shiftâ—â— to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine for the Papists still say that we can know nothing Certainly because we reject their Doctrine of Infallibility just so do the Quakers maliciously belying the whole Reformed Churches Impiously crying out that they are Enemies to the Spirit of God and that because we examine all Doctrines and Practices by the written Word of God. Hence we find that the Spirit the Quakers pretend to is Diametrically opposite to the Scriptures and therefore the Spirit of Lies and Delusion at this they are enraged and cannot away with it Nam trepidant immisso lumine manes Hence William Pen thus speaketh Rej. Pag. 72. Let them shew me that Scripture that plainly and uninterpretatly tells me such a proposition is true and such a One is false that only consists of their additional Meanings such a new Nick-named People Right and such wrong and they do their busines If they cannot as it is impossible they should they must have recourse to some thing else to Rule and Determine and what can that be besides that Eternal Spirit Thou seest Judicious Reader that according to the Quakers God speaking in the Scriptures cannot tell us what is true or what is false who are Right or who are Wrong of the same Nature is that which the Quakers have in their Queries to Mr. Iohn Alexander in which they often require an Answer to be given in plain words of Scripture and in particular Querie 10. They have these Words We say they expect plain Scriptures from you for this without any Shuffling Meanings Consequences or else never pretend Scripture Rule more but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings Consequences which have been your Rule Hence according to this Doctrine our Saviour laboured but in vain when he proved the resurrection of the Dead from the Scriptures Matth. 22.31 32. for the Sadducees might have answered that such express words were not in the Pentateuch viz. That the dead should rise again and therefore they were not bound to believe it tho the inference were never so clear except they had a new immediate Revelation which they might have said we have not and who could have proved the contrary yea if this Doctrine be true a man doth not sin tho
Spirit which they make the chief and principal Rule of Faith and manners to which Spirit God himself speaking in the Holy Scripture must do obeisance Which Doctrine although we have already everted in the former chapter we shal notwithstanding here propose and vindicate a few Arguments for the further overthrow thereof and detection of the grosse abomination and horrid delusion attending their principles And first I will propose and vindicate an Argument proposed by Mr. Brown Quakerism the plain way to Paganism pag. 46. Which Argument Robert Barclay attempteth to solve Vind pag. 17. which is this If since the Apostles fell asleep and the Canon of the Scriptures was closed all that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of error then it is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo. c. To this he answers 1. that Mr. Brown begs the Question in his presupposing that there are no Apostles now and that the Canon of the Scriptures is closed against which exception I reassume the Argument thus If since the Apostles whose Names are mentioned in Scripture fell asleep and Iohn wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this kind of Revelation have been led by a Spirit of error then this is not the way of Christ But the former is true Ergo c. There can now no exception be made against the Mâ—jâ—r for none will deny that the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture are dead and that Iohn hath written the Revelation and well enough he knew that Mr. Brown understood no other thing than what we have now said and yet so covetous hath he been of shifting that he behoved to have one though he could not but know that it would serve no longer than it met with an impugner I now come to his answer to the Minor which Mr. Brown makes evident by an induction of many Sects and Hereticks pretending to immediate Revelation all which are known and not denyed by Quakers to have been led by a Spirit of error to which we may add many of the Quakers themselves such as Iâ— Nailor Susanna Parsons who as Pâ—get relateth being moved by this lying Spirit fruitlesly attempted to raise from the dead another of the Quakers one William Pool by name who had murdered himself and Gilpins of whose lying Spirit see at large in Clerks Examples also Iohn Toldervy of whom see a little Book called foot out of snare Robert Church-man and many others of whom you may read at large in Mr. Increase Maithers Book And he requireth an instance of the contrary which is the only way to answer an Induction In stead of which he sayeth that he is bound to prove that there was never one pretending to immediate Revelation but he was also led of the Spirit of error which he hath done untâ—l he give an instance to the contrary or else shew another way of answering an induction which will be new logick which perhaps he may do for he and his Brethren are very displeased with the old 2 ly That he may not be alone in this sore stresse he saith that Mr Menzies doth thus answer Dempster the Jesuite which is an impudent falshood for neither the Jesuits medium nor probation of his Minor is in the least like the Argument which we now vindicate for the Jesuits Argument was this That Religion cannot be true Religion which hath no peculiar ground or principle to prove that it is a Religion and conform to the true sense and letter of the Scripture or Word of God and he subsumes But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground c. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion Hence it is evident that these two Argumentations have nothing of consanguinity For if these two Argumentations had stricken alike at the two parties against which they were framed then the Jesuits Argument should have run thus Whosoever since the Apostles fell asleep have pretended to or pleaded for the Scriptures as their principal Rule have fallen into palpable errors and open blasphemy so that they became marks of Gods heavy judgment Now where should the Jesuite have found such a long Catalogue of these as Mr. Brown hath found of deluded Enthusiasts But which is the main thing and quite refutes the most falsly and impiously alledged coincidence of these Arguments how easy should it have been to have adduced not only one instance to the contrary but whole volums thereof yeâ— not only the whole primitive Church for diverse Centuries after Christ and all the Reformed Churches both these whom men are pleased to call Calvinists and Lutherans together with the Greek and Abassine Churches But likewise the most grave wise and learned of the Romanists themselves By this time I hope this arch-falshood of the Quaker whereby he would hide the shame of his desperat cause already appeareth again I answer directly to the Jesuit and the Quaker his patron that if we may believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries such as Bellarmin Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrines which we hold in opposition to popeâ—y are most agreeable to the true Sense of Scripture His third answer is that some of the primitive Protestants such as George Wishart and Iohn Huss had immediat Revelation But nequisquam Ajacem possit super are nisi Ajax that he might be sure no other should refute him he refuteth himself and rendereth his instance altogether unserviceable by granting they did not pretend to it as the ground of their Faith and obedience in all matters of doctrine and worship Lastly to the instance of Ia Naylor they answer that he repented again which answer is an evident confirmation of what we plead for viz· that the Quakers Spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them for I believe Ia Naylor acted but according to his light when he received Divine Worship From this argument we may observe these things first if it hold as cogent this is a serious Truth which he sayeth Vindic. page 25. is absurdly affirmed by Iames Durham as he speaks viz. that Christ spake his last words to the Church that is put a close to these writings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church for if all that pretend the like commission or such immediate Revelation of the rule of their Faith about which the question is were led by a Spirit of error then the Revelation was the last Scripture written and sure for any thing he knoweth ought to be written there is no reason to believe that there is any more to be written 2 ly Observe that this Argument is demonstrative for such are all inductions which have no instance to the contrary 3 ly It destroyes wholly the Quakers cause for this kind of Revelation being disproved the very proprium quarti modâ— of the Quakers is destroyed 2dly Moses and the Prophets Christ and the Apostles and all the holy men that were inspired by
swelling with wind can be said to be filled with water yea without all exception or restriction they are called sensual I think few that care what they say will affirm that such have the Spirit of God where doth the Apostle in all this Epistle ever compare these men to these that have money but do not occupy it as the Quakers groundlesly and therefore falsly give out and yet these are the men who cry out upon us for making any Paâ—aphrases upon or Consequences from Scripture though never so clearly deduced from the Text while they themselves by more than a poetick license obâ—rude upon the world flat contradictions of Scripture for the meaning thereof Add â—o these that some things are absolutly necessary to be known in order to Salvation the Knowledge of which can never be evinced that all men had or have therefore it is most groundlesse to assert that all men have a sufficient light to guide them to eternal life to which Robert Barclay replyeth that the knowledge of these things is only necessary necessitate praecepti that is because they are commanded us not necessitate medii i. e. in plain English That Faith in Iesus Christ the knowledge of the Distinction of Father Son and Holy Ghost or that Christ is God and Man c. is not needful in themselves to be known or believed in order to Salvation but how little soever respect he hath to the Scriptures he ought to have had some care and consideration of his own Doctrine for his first These is these words John 17.3 this is eternal life c. where it is plainly asserted without any distinction or limitation that the Knowledge of the Father and the Son as one sending and one that is sent and therefore distinct the one from the other is called eternal life it self i. e if any thing a mean so necessary to eternal life as that without this knowledge it cannot be obtained Moreover the very Notion of Faith without which none can be saved implyeth nothing lesse than a closing with God through Christ and therefore necessarily and of its own nature and not with a respect to a command only presupposeth the knowledge of the distinction of Father and Son and of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ held forth under the Old Testament as one to be incarnate in the fulness of time and in the New Testament as actually incarnate and really and in due Time come in the Flesh. 9ly Before I come to the Quakers Objections I will overthrow one other of the Quakers Principles upon which the whole Fabrick of Quakerism is builded which is That in fallen man there remain no reliques of the Image of God and that by the fall his understanding is so darkned that he cannot by all the Light of Conscience reason and common notions perceive or gather from all or any of the works of creation and providence that there is a Supâ—em being or a God that created him and all things bâ—side In a word they utterly deny that which is called the natural knowledge of God or natural Theology and deny moreover that man in his fallen state can think or do any thing that is in it self or as to the substance of the action â—ood This Doctrine which the Quakers have learned from their dear Friends the Socinians as they are constrained to defend so seeing they assert that every Son and Daughter of Adam have within them a light and guide sufficient for Salvation and the World clearly perceiveth that there is no Light common to all Mankind except some smal Relicts of that once bright shining Image of God like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lanthorn which are never able to shew the wandring Traveler in the dark night his way homeward They are necessitate to say that this Light is supernatural and a fruit of the purchase of Christ and consequently that man as to the things of God hath no more Natural Light than an Ox or Asse See Rob Barclay's fourth These and his Apology cap 4. and Vindication sect 5. 10ly The falshood of this Doctrine we evince by these following arguments and 1. It is not imaginable how one can be rational and yet not be in case to infer from all the works of Creation that there is a supream cause and beeing we say this is not imaginable except to a Socinian and Quaker who can imagin at least say they can imagin what they will. Now the Quakers Quakerism confirm pag 3. Grant that Conscience and Reason are distinguished from the saving Light of Christ in all men and the Revelation thereof as a natural and super-principle natural are distinguished Well then seing reason is natural and man is rational how can he if he but contemplat these admirable Works of Creation and Providence and exercise his reason in so doing not conclude that these are the Product of an Infinit and Omnipotent Creator who is to be Loved Feared and Adored which thoughts of themselves or as to the substance of the Action are certainly good and more Laudable than the Quakers silent waiting which differeth nothing from sleeping although they place a principal part of their worship therein 11ly Secondly whatever is in man and common to all Mankind is natural but some sparks of the knowledge of a Deity as also some thoughts and desires that are good in themselves as for example the desire of self-preservation are in man and common to all mankind Ergo some Relicts of the knowledge of God and thoughts that are of themselves really good are natural The Major is most evident for I defy all the Socinians and Quakers in the world to give one Instance to the contrary the Minor is no lesse undenyable seing there is no nation in the world tho never so barbarous and inhumane who hath not some notions of a Deity and desire to preserve themselves But I know the Quakers dare not deny it otherwayes they will overthrow all their universal Grace and Light by them pleaded for 12ly Thirdly that which is originally born with every one and groweth up to more and more maturity as he in whom it is groweth up is undoubtedly natural But some remainders of the knowledge of God are Originally i e. in the principle and inclination as they speak born with man and grow up to more and more maturity according to the growth of him in whom they are Ergo they are natural The Major is beyond controversie The Minor therefore they can only deny which yet is no lesse clear than the major for they grant that some things that respect natural Sciences and the prudent management of the affairs of the world are not supernatural See the fore-cited Vindication page 52. But certain it is that some sparkles of the knowledge of a Deity are as common and appear as early as these things which they deny not to be natural 13ly Fourthly That which is common to Devils is not supernatural but to know
although his Adversaries Exposition cannot stand but upon a supposition denyed by the Quaker it is little matter for we know the whole Gospel cannot stand but upon many suppositions denyed and cryed out against by that blasphemous party And here pag 51. he Alledgeth that he acknowledgeth the fall of man more fully than his adversary doth because according to his adversary fallen man retained some Relicts of the Image of God by vertue whereof he can do something really good whereas on the other hand according to the Quakers Doctrine man by the â—all was wholly degenerate retaining nothing of the Image of God in whom albeit there remained a Seed of righteousness yet no otherwayes than as a naked seed in barren ground by vertue of which he could do nothing until visited by a new Visitation which he received by vertue of Christ as Mediator Ans. In the judgement of all men who are not so effronted as to give such inconsistances for a sufficient Refutation of their Adversaries It will be counted a compleat contradiction to say that fallen man hath no Reliques of the Image of God and yet notwithstanding hath a Seed of Righteousness in him Seing that Righteousness is one of the chief parts of the Image of God. Eph. 4.24 But the truth is there is a Mystery latent under this doctrine which we must here discover The Mystery is this the Quakers have no other Christ than this that was left in Adam and remaineth in man in his fallen condition to which they give many great names as Light Lâ—fe Measure of God God himself and among others most frequently the Seed for the more full manifestation of which take these following passages 1. Naylor's love to the lost pag. 32. Christ is the Election and the Elect Seed and George Foxs Great myst pag. 24. the promise of God is to the seed that hath been loaded as a Cart with sheaves by the Sâ—nner which seed is the hope of Christians or that which was loaded as a Cart under sheaves George Keith in his way câ—st up pag 99 100 108. Exâ—oneth it to be Christ or the life of Christ and in his Immed Revel pag 44 45 46. Sayeth when God created Man he put his Image Christ the express Image of himself in man he breathed into him the breath of Life he lived in God and Christ the light of men was his life and lived in him then the Lamb was not slâ—in Christ the Lamb the life of man. But when man sinned So the Lamb came to be slain in him from the Foundation of the world that holy meek nature the Lambs nature was slain in him the bowels of the fathers Love stirred in compassion to the work of his own hands that of the Pure creation in man which though shut up in death yet it remained and perished not as to its being it did not become a nothing but remained a beeing and this is the lost which God sent his son into the world to seek and to save not to seek and save the old Adam that birth of the Serpents begetting but to destroy it for it is not capable of Gods Salvation but that which Christ came to save is that of God which proceeded from him the seed of God in man the seed of Abraham whereof Abrams old decayed body as good as dead and Sarahs barren womb was a Type Moreover by this Light of God for all is one they understand Christ or God himself as shall afterward be more fully made out by several express Assertions of the Quakers Hence we may see that the Doctrine of this man is most damnable who acknowledgeth no other Christ but the smal and dark Reliques of the Image of God in mans soul and that his Hypocrisie and dissimulation is unparalellably great and hateful in that even while he pretends to aggredge the fall of man most he then exalteth man even in his lapsed Condition beyond which it is hardly possible to elevat the nature of man for from what is here quoted and shal be more largely afterward alledged out of their writings it is evident that they beleive or at least would perswade others to beleive that Christ has a Personal union with every Son and Daughter of Adam To all this he addeth a most blasphemous and absurd Intimation that this Seed which to him is alone with Christ or God stands in need of a new Visitation of Christ to raise it up and make it active Also here because his Adversary saith from Rom. 7.14 and 1 Cor. 3.1 that the Apostle and all Beleivers are in a certain respect carnal he thinks he hath gotten him in a notable absurdity Saying his Divinity will run thus the Devil and all unregenerate men are in a certain respect spitual and the Apostle and all regenerate men are in a certain respect Carnal But if there be any absurdity in saying that the Apostle and all Beleivers are in a certain respect Carnal it will light upon the Scriptures according to which his Adversary spake and thus the Quakers covertly pursue their Design of wounding the Scriptures through the sides of their Adversaries and altho he shall answer that the Apostle Rom 7. did speak of another in the person of himself I care not seing to all the fifteen Arguments whereby Mr Broun proved the Apostle to be there speaking of himself and not of another the Quaker thinketh it enough to say He giveth us a Preachment upon this place without a syllable more for Solution of these arguments As for these words that the Devils are in a certain respect Spiritual they are none of his Adversaries However the devil may be called Spiritual in respect of his nature seing whatever is a Spirit may be called Spiritual as well as what is a Body may be called Corporeal Hence it is Evident that the Quaker's pretended Absurdities and Blasphemies which he would fix upon his Adversary resolve into meer fictitious Hoâ—goblines fit only to fright Children 16ly Seventhly If Fallen Man retain no knowledge of God no Principles of common Honesty and Morality then there is no difference between a Man and a Brute neither can it be told in what the wisdom of the Wise Gentiles of whom the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 2. who notwithstanding could not perceive the things of God until they were again revealed consisted but the latter is false in both its parts therefore the first Robert Barclay Vindic. pag. 52. answereth that the Wisdom of these Gentiles did consist in the wise and prudent Management of worldly Affairs for it is not yet proved sayeth he that it is necessarily united to a Knowledge of God and things Spiritual since it is said of some Beasts that they have something of this such as Bees and Ants. And that notwithstanding Man differeth from a Brute in many things as in the knowledge of numbers Mathematical and Mechanical Demonstrations Is the Knowledge of such natural Truths that two and three make five
well that unless underproped with such damnable hypotheses his Doctrine cannot stand but he buyeth bad Wares at a full dear price for with the same breath he overthroweth both his own Apology and Vindication with whatsoever beside he has written in the defence of his principles seeing these are not found in the Scriptures in so many Letters Syllables But I again return to his seventh number and in it next he alleadgeth Augustin as the Patron of his opinion in contradiction to his own Apology Chap. 4. Where he granted Augustin to be of the same Opinion with his Adversary acknowledging that according to the mind of Augustin Infants even before their birth are Guilty of Eternal Death and the pains of Hell. Thus he either speaketh self contradictions or would make Augustin to do it 2. The words of Augustin from which he would conclude this self contradiction are these Serm. 7. Ex verb. Apostoli what do ye think to say And whose eares can hear it Did they sin themselves Where I pray you did they sin When and how did they sin They know neither good nor evil Shall they sin that are under no Command Prove that Infants are sinners prove what is their Sin is it because they weep that they sin Do they Sin because they take pleasure or repell trouble by motion as dumb Animals If these motions be sin they become greater sinners in Baptism for they resist most vehemently But I say another thing You think they have sinned otherwise they had not dyed but what say ye of such as die in there Mothers womb Will you say they have sinned also You Lye or are deceived c. Thus Augustin in opposition to the Pelagians who to evite the force of the arguments of the Orthodox proving Original sin did assert that Children presently after their birth become actual Sinners And yet from this the Quaker will conclude that Augustin in these words contradicteth his own doctrine of Infants being guilty of Original Sin of which there is not the least appearance seing this will be admirable Logick to inferr from Augustin his proving of Infants not to be guilty of actual sin therefore he denyed them to be guilty of Original sin Now what wouâ—d not these Men adventure to say in the dark when they are so audacious as to publish to the world in print that Augustin denyed Infants to be guilty of Original sin when his own works do every where and the World proclaim the contrary yea and the Quaker himself also confessed it Here he alledgeth that the Apostle no where sayeth that Children are under any Law which is true if he understand it in so many words which yet notwithstanding may be gathered from the 13. and 14. verses of this Chapter where the Apostle having said That there is no Sin where there is no Law subjoyneth that nevertheless Death which I have in my former Section proved to be a punishment reigned even over these who had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam Which holdeth true of Children who never sinned actually as Adam did When he seeth that it cannot be denyed that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same meaning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the words to run thus In which or by occasion of which death all have sinned A Pelagian exposition makeing men sin by imitation only and the righteousness of Christ to be the occasion and patern only and not the price of our acceptation and Salvation And altho he say that this is resolved by a serious consideration of the comparison between Christ and Adam as stated by him in his Apology This is not to be regarded seing after an impartial search nothing of this resolution can be perceived He ought therefore to have shewed uâ— how in particular he had in his Apology preoccupied our argument whereby they are proved to be amongst the grossest of Socinians who make the death and sufferings of Christ an occasion or example only whereby to walk and so to be saved But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation but Vltra posse non datur esse But indeed this is a fine way of Vindicating ones Doctrine to say in opposition to their Adversaries argument how pressing soever in the general only you do not understand our doctrine aright or consider what we say And upon this answer only erect his Triumphal Arches and Cry Victoria 4. Our Doctrine is to the conviction of all except of the Old and New Pelagians evicted from Eph 2 3. and yet Rob Barclay following Bellarmin who played the like audacious pranks with Rom. 4. whereby we evince against the Papists Justification to be by Faith would turn our weapons against our selves and overthrow from this place our Doctrine of Original Sin alledging that Mens evil walking is the cause why they are counted the children of Wrath But if the Apostle had so meaned in all likelyhood he should not have spoken so generally as he did but had made some Intimation that Children were excepted which he neither here nor any where else doeth 2. This Phrase by Nature is still taken in Scripture for so soon as a thing hath a beeing or for its very rising or Original which these Scriptures confirm Rom. 2.27 and 11 24. Gal 2.5 and 4.8 1 Cor. 15.44 46. Hence we thus with Calvin in opposition to the Pelagians on the place reason What is naturally in every one is in them from their very Original and therefore if all be the Children of Wrath or 〈◊〉 to wrath by Nature they are so 〈◊〉 their very Original These Scriptures and this Argument of Calvin used by his Adversary Robert Barclay in his Vindâ— Is so far from attempting to answer that he maketh not the least mention thereof From which one Omission though there were no more any may easily see that his book deserveth nothing less than the name of a Vindicaâ—tion 3. We add as a good secondary Confirmation that the primitive Châ—rch used still this place to prove the same Doctrine which we hold of Original sin in opposition to the Pelagians denying it and in particular Augustin de Fide ad Petram diaconum Cap. 26. who sayeth firmissime tene hold most constantly and without so much aâ— once wavering that every one who is conceived by the conjunction of man and woman is born with Original sin under the power of ungodliness subject to death which he explaineth of eternal as well as bodily death Ibid and upon the same very account a Child of wrath concerning which the Apostle saith and we were by nature the Children of wrath And the like Doctrine did Fulgentius and fourteen bishops with him assert as also Theodoretus Primasius and Haimo on the place taking by nature c. to import all carnally born and partaking of the nature of Adam and so to be verified of all brought
See his 12. Proposition and his Apology thereto annexed Vindication pag 162 He cometh to urge one of his Apologetick arguments against these Sacraments in general viz. That the many controversies among Christians about them prove them to be a real pharisie To which when his adversary replyeth that if this argument hold it will overthrow all the parts of the Christian Religion He answereth that he should not have used this argument except he had other weighty ones And then he cryeth out upon his adversary as shewing a malicious genious Judge Reader if he had reason so to cry out and yet no better is the ground of his complaints through the whole of this Treatise But to the main purpose Iulian or Porphyry might as well have used this instance as he for they thought they had weighty Arguments against the Christian Religion And he doeth but meerly think that he hath weighty arguments against the Sacraments as in the Sequel shall appear However in the mean time we may observe that this argument as the most part of the rest is borrowed from the Pagans For this very Argument drawn from the division of Christians they improved what they could to overthrow Christianitie From them the Papists borrowed it wherewith to impugne the Protestants And lastly the Quakers from them and hath placed it where it was again at the first to be a battering piece against Christianitie in general So it hath gone from hand to hand in Circulo Next he cometh to vindiâ—at another argument borrowed from the Papists in their pleadings for traditions against the Scriptures viz. that the word Sacrament is not to be found in Scripture take heed to the consequence Reader E. The thing is not in them Is not this valid But this Argument in its very defence he is forced to let go while he sayeth he denyeth not the thing truly imported by the Trinity Very well then he can say no more of the Sacraments For the thing signified is in the Scriptures and the words Sign or Seal by which though he denyed we very ordinarily express that which we mean by Sacraments is very frequent in Scripture And yet before he want something to say he will cavil though he grant all we plead for before the close as here Pag 163 He cometh to vindicate his meaning of some places of Scripture brought in his Apology wherewith to overthrow Baptism And first Eph. 4.5 where he taketh notice that his Adversary Pag 469 sayeth that the Scripture no where sayeth there is but one only Baptism To which he replyeth that it will as well prove that there is but one only Baptism as there is one only God. Ans First true it is that this Phrase one only Baptism is not found in Scripture 2. The one cannot be so well proved as the other For these ones must be exponed according to the subject matter seing it is beyond debate that it cannot be proved from this place that there is but one only Faith or no kinds thereof but one The Phrase therefore One Baptism will no more prove that there are not diverse kinds thereof than the phrase one Faith can do it in respect of diverse kinds of Faith. If he think otherwise he ought to prove it seing he is the opponent Next he sayeth That his adversary understandeth the extraordinary gifts of Tongues and the like by Baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire And hence saith he concludeth that this Baptism is ceased Ans. This is most true which to prove let him compare Act. 1.5 with Chap. 2. For he cannot deny that the Apostles had the Spirit of God before this promise which is together with its fulfilling chap. 2. an explication of the like phrase in Matth 3.11 For the clearing of which I assert that Iohns Baptism was no figure of the New Testament Baptism in opposition to Papists and Quakers who say it was only a figure of the New Testament Baptism Otherwise if the sign which Iohn could only administrat be opposed to the thing signified we may understand the Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with the fire spoken of Matth. 3. of Sanctification and Mortification Next he sayeth It is a lie that the Quakers would have none to be baptized with the Spirit but such as have extraordinary Gifts But do they not still boast of their Revelations and inspirations comparing themselves to the Apostles calling themselves perfect and I think these are extraordinary things And as for others beside them they call them only carnal and say they are in darkness these are the most modest of their Expressions and yet enough to prove the thing denyed When his Antagonist telleth him in Opposition to his saying that if this Water-Baptism were to be accounted a true Baptism then there should be two Baptisms contrary to Eph. 4.5 I say when he telleth him that it might as wel be said that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament one in the heart another in the flesh he granteth the Consequence and challengeth his Adversary of Levity in using such an Argument Well then with as little absurdity we grant his Consequence viz. That in some sense there are two Baptisms in the Church though in another Sense there be but one viz. considered complexly of the Sign it is understood in the place in hand and indeed one might as well have reasoned to presse Unity among the Jews that there was but one Circumcision as the Apostle doth from the one Baptism And for any thing I know the Word Circumcision is not used in the plural Number in the Scriptures And if he say that it is spoken of as twofold Rom. 2.28 29 I answer so is Baptism spoken of 1 Pet. 3.21 Another Reason of his Antagonist against his meaning of this place is that he may as well conclude from this place that there is but one Faith as that there is but one Baptism And yet there are diverse kinds of Faith mentioned in Scripture as sometimes for the Doctrine of Faith Gal. 1.23 And for the outward Profession of Faith. 1 Tim. 1.19 The Faith of Miracles or the like To which he answereth that all these are included in the one Faith here spoken of And to say that Baptism with water is included in that one Baptism is a begging of the Question Ans. It is no more a begging of the Question than that all these kinds of Faith are included in this one Faith. If he think otherwise let him prove it But he thinketh it rather fit to shift and give naked assertions For what Reason is there why the Baptism with water is not included in this one Baptism more than that these other kinds of Faith are not included He may shew this if he please for this is that which is incumbent to him to prove That Baptism with Water is not included as well as these various Kinds of Faith. 2. How will he prove that the Faith of Miracles is included in this
a sweet Gospel Minister E. There is no reason to Judge that John was a Legal Minister or had Legal commands Next he cometh to vindicate what he deduced from 1 Cor. 1.17 Where he only seeketh to shift neglecting whollie what his adversary sayeth see Pag. 476. N. 12. The first of these shiftings are That because his Antagonist sayeth why did Paul baptise if he had not a Commission He answereth that this a quarrelling with the Apostle What strange disingenuitie is this To say he quarrelleth with the Apostle when he only quarrelled with the Quakers exposition And upon the supposed truth of this inferred this absurditie that the Apostle did that which he ought not to do which being false his exposition cannot be true Thus a Man might say still when one inferred an absurditie from his exposition of a place of Scripture that he were fixing absurdities upon the Spirit of God. For he knoweth that we expone Pauls words that he was not sent â—o baptise for the lesse principal part of his errand according to Hos 6.6 Matth 9. Ier 2.23 and many other places even though there be no explicative clause following as he alledgeth is in Hos. 6.6 providing that there be no absurditie following upon this gloss And beside this there are good reasons why we should so expone the phrase here For first the Apostle insinuateth clearly that all these Corinthians were Baptised without reproving them for it Whereas he still reproveth the Gentiles for using of and tenaciously sticking to Jewish Rites or any man that imposed them upon them either by example or doctrine as the body of the Epistle to the Gal. doth declare 2. he doth not say that his Fellow-Apostles were not sent to baptise but nameth himself alone 3. He still did administrat this Sacrament to the Gentiles upon their embracing of Christianity as his recorded practise doth declare which Mr. Brown hath shewed but the Quaker most disingenuously passeth over let him not therefore object that to expone the like phrase where the thing is said not to be for to be less principal would make wild work Seing we give sufficient reasons for our explication of this place and do not plead for the phrase to be still so exponed but only where the Nature of the subject matter will permit it 3. He cometh pag 166. to answer our argument from Matth 28 19. And first he denyeth that the Apostles while Christ was with them baptised with Christs warrand and sayeth he will wait his adversaries proof of it Ans He hath done it already from Iohn 3.26 and 4 3. Of which places the Quaker durst not adventure to take notice We shall therefore wait what he sayeth the next time against them 2. He sayeth the Apostle did eat the passover with Christs warrand yet it followeth not that we ought to do it Ans. There is no paritie between these two practises will he say that ever the eating of the passover was imposed upon the Gentiles as they did Baptism as a necessarie consequent of their embracing of Christianity as the whole Tenor of the Acts of the Apostles declareth 2. The Passover was a Legal Custom introduced many hundreds of Years before whereas Baptism was but in its verie rise and beginning 2. He sayeth that though it be joyned with Discipline as Circumcision was joyned with it among the Iews it will no more follow that Baptism is to be continued then that Circumcision is to be continued Ans that the Baptism here spoken of is to be continued I think himself will not deny We speak now of the institution of an ordinance given to the Christian Church Therefore this his consequence of Circumcision is vain and without the least appearance of Reason Lastly this Reason is wholly non-sense for none can perceive what it levelleth at 3. He denyeth that the Apostles constant practice can declare that Baptism with water is the meaning of the Command For sayeth he the practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declareth this to be false Ans 1. That this which he sayeth of the Apostle is false we have proved above 2. All things practised by the Apostle must be reduced to three sorts either commanded permitted or simply sinful This last I think they will not say their practice of Baptism was neither do they say it but only that it was an indifferent Jewish Riâ—e permitted for the time as Circumcision or the like But this is false For either such Rites were not at all imposed on the Gentiles Or if they were they were after abrogated As for example abstinence from blood and things strangled enjoyned Act 15. This I say was again abrogat 1 Cor 10. and in the Epistles to the Gal. and Tim. 2. That it is not an indifferent Jewish Rite clearly appeareth from this that the reason why they impose Jewish Rites upon any Christian whether Jew or Gentile was to bear with the Jews for a time and to condescend to their weakness But the condition of baptism was still their embracing of Christ and the ground of it their receiving of them into the Church In a word Condescension to the Jews weakness is in Scripture ever holden forth to be the ground of the imposition of Legal Rites upon Christians So that there is mention made of this ground for every particular Rite imposed but this condescension is never said to be the ground of imposing Baptism but a quite other ground given which we named already 3. If this had been a thing only permitted for a time and to be abrogat afterwards then either the Apostles unrepealed practice which they exercised toward all Christians indifferently and that as such were not sufficient to walk by Or else this was abrogat afterward but the last they cannot shew from Scripture Therefore it is false and the first absurd From all which it followeth that this was a Commanded practice And I desire any man of Reason to Judge whether all the Apostles perpetual unrepealed practice or these mens naked assertions be the best Commentarie on this place 4. He denyeth that the word Baptism as we expone it is taken in its proper signification and sayeth that it is not necessarie to take it as we do for Baptism with water in so many places as it must be taken for baptism with the spirit Ans. This a meer assertion In opposition to which I say that he shall not be able to give one place of Scripture where this word is undoubtedly taken in their sense but I shall give him two where the word is taken in the sense which here we plead for and that undoubtedly And so there is a double improprietie in the Quakers expâ—sition of the word fiâ—st against the Grammatical and 2. the Scriptural propriety We expect therefore according to his own Postulatum that he will give some more weighty reasons the next time of this explication Next I reason thus To Baptise with the Spirit is not in all the
Scripture applyed to Men Therefore it is not safe without verie solid reasons to expone it so here Again all that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism is sufficiently expressed in the context Er. There is no necessity to flee to this strange exposition Lastly This exposition is the product of the brain of Diabolick Socinus as its first Author which I think will make it be suspected and seing it wants all ground abhorred of all the Lovers of Christ Jesus seing this arch-enemy of his invented all the shifts and sophistry the Devil and he could to destroy both the God-head of Christ and all his Ordinances His following words are answered above Next as for what he sayeth in opposition to the 17. Numb of this chap. in his 168 pag. it is so miserable that I only desire the Reader to compare these two places together Whereas he insinuateth in this page that Peter Commanded expresly the Gentiles to be circumcised which he buildeth upon Gal. 2 12. is most false For the reason why Paul reproved him was his dissimulation mentioned in that chapter and no expresse Command if he will give us Leave to expone Scripture by Scripture He sayeth as if Mr. Brown had denyed it that Iosephus writ before the 200 Year of Christ. Whereas he sayeth that the first which wrot the Jewish Alcoran or Misanioth with a tendencie to destroy Christianitie was Rabi Iehuda Hakkadosh about the 200 year of Christ. As now the Quakers do SECTION II. Concerning the Lords Supper IT is most notour that as the Quakers deny Baptism so they deny the Lords Supper See his 13 proposition with his Apology annexed thereto where he maketh this only to be a Legal Institution It will be needless for me to take Notice of what he sayeth pag 170. viz. That his Adversary pag 489 maketh a Preaching to the Devil whereas he only inferreth from their Doctrine of Universal Salvation to every Creature that they may preach to the Devil according to their own Principles Hence we may learn how impudent these men are Just as if because Robert Barclay had challenged a man of murder he that is challenged should conclude that Robert Barclay called himself a Murderer As false though not so ridiculous is that of which he challengeth one Preaching near Lawther viz. that he prayed to the Devil But he dare not name the man who did it neither these who heard it Therefore let him bear the just censure of a Calumniator to say no more until he name the man and prove it When he cometh to the matter it self he is as weak as before he was wicked For in stead of pressing his Argument against the Lords Supper viz. That if there were a relation between the Body and Blood of Christ and the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament then it would either flow from the nature of the thing or the Command And while his Adversary denyeth that an institution and promise is all one with a Command All his probation is his meer assertion that they are in all respects one neglecting the reason that his Adversary gave for his denyal But why should I take notice of such a shameful Vindication wanting the very shew and appearance of reason To the rest of his 11 paragraph in which by many weighty Arguments this duty is proved from 1 Cor. 11. he sayeth only that he speaketh not to the purpose without so much as attempting to wipe off his reasons He cometh to answer his 12 number and first sayeth that the Blessing and Eating spoken of Mat 14 19. will as much prove a Sacrament as these places of the Gospel and the Epistle to the Corinthians ordinarily brought can do it But this Adversary never inferred any thing of this kind from simple blessing But from other things consiâ—ered with blessing such as This is my Body This is my Blood and the unrepealed Command and Inâ—titution 1 Cor. 11 and the like In Opposition to which he scarcely giveth so much as a shift and far less any solid reason But we must excuse him seing he doth as well as he can His next words are a meer Compend of what he said against our meaning of 1 Cor 11. in his Apology without so much as attempting to answer his Adversaries 14. Num to which I referr the Reader He sayeth indeed which is as good as nothing that the Institution of the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. was a Permission and therefore the practise thereof was not will-worship But upon the same account he may elude any Command in Scripture For that there was a Command for this practice he granteth and that the Apostle correcteth the abuse of this practice he granteth also without so much as mentioning its indifferency Neither can he shew in all the Scripture where this Command was abrogat or the practice prohibited as other things indifferent were What Titanian boldness must this then be to say this was by meer Permission In Opposition to his 16 Num where his Adversary sheweth the disparity between Christs teaching his Apostles Humility by his Example of washing their feet and his Command and Institution of this Ordinance he sayeth meer nothing but calleth him a Pope In Opposition to Num 17. he sayeth he should prove from Scripture how they are safe in practising the one part ridiculously calling the whole Duty one part and not the other meaning the occasional Circumstances of time and place and the number of twelve and the like which he as foolishly calleth another part of the Institution But his Adversary sheweth from many places of Scripture in the forecited Num such as Act 26 7. 1 Cor. 11 18. and 20. That these Circumstances are not to be observed but left indifferent But this man still intendeth to cheat his Reader by passing over the Marrow of what his Adversary sayeth What he sayeth in Opposition to N 18 Is a meer denyal that Act 2 42 is meaned of the Lords Supper without so much as the least attempt to answer his reasons or to Vindicat what he himself said in his Apology in opposition to our meaning of this place Neither is he more happy in answering his 19 Num where he proved that in Act. 20.7 Is understood publick and Sacramental Eating For he according to his Custom slighteth his reason as the Comparer may see what he sayeth in opposition to the follwing number is of the same Nature viz. meer Assertions false Suppositions such as that the Corinthians were superstitious in that they at all practised this Duty of the Lords Supper Yet one thing I will take notice of viz. how he vindicateth his Answer given to that argument drawn from 1 Cor. 11 26. Ye shew forth the Lords death till he come Which is That by Christs coming is understood his inward Spiritual coming Which answer his Adversary so happily impugneth that he on the matter sayeth nothing except ye will call this something viz. That Babes in Christ may have these
indulged unto them But his Answer still cutteth off Babes with the rest seing to them Christ is come in the Spirit already But it is needless at all to Impugn this distinction it s own groundlesness sufficiently doth it He cometh next to answer his 21 and 22 Num and there he asserteth That that which the Christians were enjoyned to Observe Act 15 29. was no part of the Ceremonial Law but an Apostolick Command and thinketh that whatever can plead for the abrogation of this Injunction will also plead for the abrogation of the Lords Supper But taketh no notice that his Antagonist shewed that there is no little Vanity and impiety in his adducing Rom. 14.17 Col. 2.16 To prove this and therefore he shamefully passeth over what he sayeth on these places and so giveth up this his Socinian Cause For he that is a Socinian in this point he doeth not deny he sayeth That this Command seing it was given after the out-pouring of the Spirit hath as much of a Gospel Institution as any thing commanded before by Christ can have Ans. Well then I see we will be no more troubled with quaking preachers seing this Command Act. 15. according to himself is repealed and yet hath as much of a Gospel Institution as preaching hath Matth. 10. and certainly it will as well follow from Col. 2.20 that preaching of the Gospel is abrogat and not allowed now by Christ as from v 16 and Rom. 14 17. that the Lords Supper is now abrogat and not allowed by Christ. Now let both old and new Socinians I mean the Quakers try to infringe this if they can And I shall still infer the one upon as good ground as they can do the other Which Consideration and Parity of places destroyeth this Socinian Conceit say what they will in its defence AN APPENDIX IN which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and in special of the Reverend assembly at Westminster in their Confession of Faith Chap. 3. deduced from the Ninth chap to the Romans defended and the Text Vindicated from the Corrupt Glosses and Depravations of William Parker and his pretended examination of the Westminster Confession which Robert Barclay hath made his own by referring us thereunto as sufficient solutions of all our arguments for our Doctrine of Election and Reprobation deduced from that place AMongst the many and damnable Errors which the Quakers have raised out of their Graves that of their denying Eternal Election or at best making it whollie conditionall uncertain and depending upon the will of the Creature so that notwithstanding the Decree of God to the contrary it might so have fallen out that none should have been saved is not the least In which they conspire with the grossest of Pelagians but the downright and most palpable contrariety of this their Doctrine of the holy Scriptures which they sometimes would fain seem to follow hath made the more knowing among them to conceal so far as they are able their thoughts anent the Doctrine of Election Thus dealt Robert Barclay who in all his Theses and Apology tho in his account an entire System of Religion never delivereth his minde thereanent And Vindic. Sect. 6. In defence of this non-such Omission he sayeth only that all do at times Confess that it is not safe nor proper too curiously to inquire into the Decrees of God which he prooflesly alledgeth his adversary to have done and that it is only needful to say God calleth every Man every where to Repent and be saved through Faith in Jesus Christ Neither doth he any where directly Impugn our Doctrine of Election And yet he feircely falleth upon our Doctrine of Reprobation and thus declareth to the World his self-repugnancy seing none can be ignorant that our Doctrine of Reciprobation is Reprocally and inseparably linked to that of Election Moreover he thus publisheth his Mind concerning Election altho he by all Means endeavours to conceal it for whoever denyeth Reprobation by an Infallible Consequence downright denyeth Election And thus Nill he will he we have his mind positively anent Election and also Confession intimated that his Judgement about Election cannot abide to be tryed by the Scripture Bench. And yet I think few will say That his Doctrine of positive and dounright denyal of Reprobation is much better founded seing he with a Pythagorical silence passeth over all his Adversaries arguments proving all our Doctrine there anent chap. 7. num 10.11 These Arguments I say about twenty in Number he doth nor so much as mention and far less attempt a Solution thereof altho he knew well enough that except these be untyed the whole frame of Quakerism is entirely dissolved But in stead of Resolution of his adversaries arguments as he doth all along he giveth the World a meer Contract of his Apologie under the cheating Title of a Vindication But when his adversarie saith That the Quaker can no more Impugn our Doctrine than he can Impugn what the Apostle saith Rom. 9 19. The Quaker Sect. 6. pag 67. answereth two things 1. That this is all one as if a Quaker should say confute all the Scripture which contain our Doctrine and therefore dispute no more untill Thou first do that But the Man is good where there is little to do But if he had not intended to play the shifter he had condescended upon some particular place as his adversarie did otherwise he no less declareth his own fear than Darius did when he objected to his pursuing Enemie That he could not be subdued because of the â—pacious Countries thorow which it behoved Him to follow him 2. He referreth his Antagonist to the Examination of the Westminster Confession chap 3. Where saith he he may have his misapprehensions corrected But How cometh it to pass that the Quaker hath taken no notice of many Authors as Twiss Rutherford Dickson to whom his Adversarie in this very point did refer him 2. But his care is not very great of Commutative Justice Notwithstanding of which Ex abundanti we will make a particular and impartial enquirie into all that he bringeth against the meaning of the Reformed Churches upon that place The Author is an Enthusiastical Arminian called William Parker who is the Man I believe the Quaker understandeth for beside him I know no other particular examinator of this Confession Now because our Quaker placeth so firm confidence in this Author that he thought a simple reference unto him sufficiently doth his bussiness I had a great desire to know what he could say against our meaning of this place Which place appeared to me to hold forth our Doctrine as clearly as the sun-light Having therefore made diligent search at length I found the book in which Chap 3. He undertaketh a particular discussion of all the Arguments brought from this place for our Doctrine concerning Election and Reprobation which how he hath done comes now to be weighed And 1. From Vers. 6. He frameth to himself an Objection
to speak with the Apostle Rom 11.5 of Grace is most certain but he takes again his Confession and soon repents that he hath spoken the Truth while he maketh Election to be of Works tho not wrought by the strength of Nature and maketh these to be Motives moving God to Elect some rather than others quite contrary to the Apostle Rom. 11.6 who makes a clear Opposition betwixt Grace and Works of whatsoever kind in the point of Election But 3ly He is yet more blasphemous and absurd in that while the Apostle telleth us that by these words but of him that calleth work in general or without limitation are excluded he will in spite of him force this very same Phrase to include Works But 4ly That the Apostle here excludeth all kind of Works from being the cause of Election is clear from the Connection of the Words with what goeth before and followeth for these words that the purpose of God c. cite the consequent of the Apostolick Enâ—hymem of which the words going before in this verse and the following is the Antecedent which two propositions the particle that coupleth obtaining the place of the Particle therefore But this Antecedent or the Apostle by it most carefully excludes all kind of Works from being the cause of Gods preferring Iacob to Esau Therefore no kind of Works can be the cause why God elected some while he rejected others Now it is to be observed that even giving and not granting Iacob and Esau to be considered here only as Types that this our conclusion will well follow seing without respect to their future Works it was determined That the younger should have the Inheritance Lordship and Dominion and the elder contrary to the custom of Humane Laws only for the good pleasure of God was to be excluded from them Now we say seing there must be an Analogy betwixt Type and Antitype of necessity some must be appointed to the heavenly Canaan and Spiritual Dominion without consideration of their doing good as the cause moving God to this Election And some must be excluded from this Spiritual Canaan Inheritance and Dominion without the consideration of their evil deeds as the cause moving thereunto If any should say tho the Children had done neither good nor evil yet the Lord foreseeing the good deeds of the one and the evil of the other did so and so decree concerning them they can say nothing more absurd and antiscriptural For 1. then there can be nothing made of these words neither having yet done good or evil neither can any reason be shewed why they were here cast in by the Apostle But 2. and more particularly these words of necessity exclude some kind of works from being the cause of Election or Rejection Ergo they exclude works of whatsoever kind seing they exclude without limitation the doing of good or evil and so render that distinction of Works done by the strength of Nature and by the help of Grace of which he here talketh altogether groundless yea according to this distinction of his one might say that such good works are here only excluded which tho good as to the substance of the Action yet are accompanied with no kind of sincerity and singlness but are intended directly for a sinful end But good works accompanied with any kind of sincerity and having no sinful end directly intended tho they be notwithstanding wrought only by the strength of Nature are not excluded I say according to his distinction this might be said For the Text affords a like ground for both which assertion he that denyeth is bound to give a ground for the one more than for the other from the Text. 3ly The Apostles conclusion drawn from this Text which is as hath been shewed his Antecedent excluding works without limitation from being the cause of Election convinceth all these of contradicting the Scriptures who will notwithstanding pertinaciously assert that only some kind of works is excluded And now from what is said this his distinction of special and general that is certain and uncertain Election falls to the ground For if the cause thereof be not works but the grace and good-pleasure of God then no part of Election can be uncertain except Obstupeo surgunt que comae vox faucibus haeret they make the good pleasure of God that is God himself changeable and then all Election shall be uncertain and so this distinction shall fall to the ground however Behold Reader the blasphemy and absurdity into which these universalists run themselves For Election which is the cause of good works they make to be the Effect of good works and so something which is eternal to be the Effect of that which is in time destroying all kind of order This Argument Augustin useth against their Doctrine Dâ— Predest Sanct. C. 16 and proclaim real changes in the Father of lights in whom is no variableness or shadow of turning But why should we tarry so long in refuting one in whom is not to be perceived the least shadow of reason for what he saith as the Reader may perceive As for the Scriptures brought by him here we have nothing to say but only deny that they make any thing for his vagrant Election seing he doth not essay to infer any thing in its behalf from them contented himself barely to act them which when we have diligently considered we cannot find the least appearance of their Doctrine to flow from them we shall therefore passe on to his ensuing Objection and answer Rom. 9.10 11 12. For the Children not being yet born it was said That the elder shall serve the younger where Jacob and Esau were disposed before they were born Ans. 1. It is granted that all men may be so yea are so both for their temporal estates here eternal condition hereafter but in a most wise and just way 2 We have shewed before that the Apostle relating to Gen. 25.23 doth not speak of the persons of Jacob and Esau but of their seeds The Nations of the Edomites and the people of Israel 3. It is not their eternal state that is there spoken of but their Rank and Place in this World. Now as it is lawful for the Lord to make some Governours and Superiours and others Inferiours or Subjects So it was not any injustice in him to make the Seed of Jacob the greater and superiour Kingdom For even the Edomites were appointed to a good and comfortable condition 4 The Apostle makes this disposal of them before hand to prove that Jacob or Israel 's preferment was of meer Grace and so the Argument was apt for this Discourse and in that book where he asserts Gods grace against our own Natural Works and Merits Lastly there is in this Subordination of Esau to Jacob a Spiritual Document shewing that the Natural or Earthly Man must be subject to the Spiritual and heavenly Man for Edom signifies Earthly Reply It is well that after â—o long struggling for
against our Confession Having inferred from these verses by way of an Objection to himself That it seems there are some to whom God will not shew mercy He answers That the Apostle pre-occupies an Objection which some might make out of the Continuance of Gods Mercy still to the Children of Israel but withdrawn from Edom as before What shall we say is there unrighteousness with God Next that Exod. 33 19. here cited by the Apostle speaks not of Gods first Grace which he gives to all alike but of the second which he continueth to these that walk humbly and answerably to the first as Moses had done To which I reply 1. That he makes his Objection pre-occupied by the Apostle to be no Objection For from the Lords continuance of his Mercy upon the Humble-walking under it and his withdrawing the same from Esau upon the abuse thereof none could infer with any colour of reason That there is unrighteousness with God seing the abuse of good things deserveth the Depravation thereof And so according to him the Apostle was triffling all the while Again any that runneth not into willful prejudice may see that the Apostles objection hath more apparent Strength in the judgement of Humane Reason by far than our Author maketh it to have for it is an inference drawn from what the Apostle had said in the former verse of the absolute rejection of some while others were Elected which Doctrine carnal reason as it doth yet knew too well how to wrest And from this Doctrine according to carnal Reason no little absurdity seemed to follow Wherefore the Apostle appeals from its Tribunal to that of the Scriptures yea even to such a Text as speaketh of the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature Yea the most absolute imaginable Now if the objection had been such an one as this Arminian professeth it there had been no necessity of the Apostles betaking himself to this place of Scripture 2. What he talketh here of his twofold grace stands and falls with what he said of his twofold Election which distinction we have already rejected for this Distinction of Grace in first and second it is groundless for it is not in the least insinuated in this Text viz. Exod 33 19. That Moses had gotten in the beginning from God some kind of Grace which had not the Divine power of God coming along therewith causing Moses irresistibly yet sweetly walk in Gods Statutes But leaving him to use well or abuse the grace gotten Now he must prove this from the Text if he would conclude any thing from it moreover If Moses speak only of a second grace here which a first must in Faith and humble walking necessarily preceed then this Text holds forth the Dominion of God to be no more absolute over his Creatures than that of a Magistrate towards his well or ill deserving subjects whom he ought to reward or punish according to their desert and not to whom he will only And so this Text shall destroy it self Lastly if the exposition of this universalist were sound then the Apostles Conclusion which he gathereth in the next verse should not follow but rather the quite contrary thereof For if God give a first grace to all and that so sufficient that it lyes only in Mans will to come or not to come unto God and that Man hath power either to will or nill at pleasure either to turn or not to turn to God and yet notwithstanding some come and some come not then all that makes the one to differ from the other is certainly of him that willeth The Answer of our Antagonist to this 16. verse is rare viz. Tho our Salvation be meer of Mercy yet Man can both will and run in some sort as this Scripture imports because he could have said nothing less to to the purpose For the Argument which may be framed from this verse and it is not of him that willeth Ergo Election or the purpose of God one of which words must of necessity be supplyed from verse 11. Otherwise the Apostles words would want a cohesion and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of necessity must be understood here shall want a Noun is not an effect of the will of Man or of his good works moving God thereunto Now this Argument is not touched by the answer as is of it self apparent He therefore here delivereth up the cause and endeavoureth to cheat his Reader 2. This place imports no more a power in all men to will or run in the way of Gods Commandments than these words in Ezek. 36.22 32. Not for your sake and leave in all Men a power to merit at the hand of God. He goeth on to comment upon the 17. and 18. verses And 1. He desires us To note that here the Lord doth not say for this purpose I have created thee but raised thee up or brought thee upon the Stage But this is the vainest of evasions for none but an Athiest can deny that God from all Eternitie did decree to raise up Pharaoh for that same end for which in time he raised him up and consequently that he decreed to create him for the same end otherwise God failed of his first end and was forced to betake himself to the next best Which to affirm is to make God a Man and so to profess atheism with open face yea this Doctrine bringeth the wisdom of God below that of a Man seing according to it the omniscient God did creat Pharaoh for an end which he knew he was never to obtain But 2. That Pharaoh was not only brought on the Stage but also created to the end that God might manifest His Power and Justice in His Destruction is clear from Pro 16.4 Where it is said that God made wrought formed or created for all these will the word Pagnal bear all things for Himself yea even the wicked the Spirit of God holding forth that this is a Paradox unto the day of evil 2. He sayes That Pharaoh was known unto the Lord to be a proud and obstinate Rebell as is evident Exod 8.2 But what he would hence inferr is not evident except that Pharaoh's ill disposed will was unconquerable by the grace and power of the omnipotent God To repeat which Conclusion is more than to refute it That which he sayes in the third place viz. That God shewed Pharaoh the danger of disobedience before he sent his Plagues upon Him As also his fourth observation viz. that he makes him of unwilling willing to let his People go is meer nothing For himself here on the matter grants That from Gods Exalting Pharaoh to the Throne of the Kingdom He was destinat to destruction and his day of grace gone otherwise his first note upon this Text is nonsense Therefore it follows That all the warnings antecedent to the Plagues are not Declarations of the mind of God to save Pharaoh And that his causing of him to let the people
them for their Iniquity than the clay of the same lump hath to complain of the Potters Unjustice because he did not destinat it for as honourable an use as another part of the same Mass. In short if the Objection could be so framed as that there could be an Answer thereto found out suiting the Genius of Humane Reason which is the Scope of our Author here and all the rest of his Brethren then there should be an indissolvable and more than Gordian knot cast to any that were perswaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures for considering the Apostles Answer in the following Verse they should have but too much Ground to suspect most vehemently that the Apostle was not assisted with the Divine Spirit who betook himself for Sanctuary to the absolute Power of God in the case wherein he or any man else might have sweetly satisfied Reason and not thus stopt its mouth by imposing as it were an imperious silence and left it far less quieted than they found it That which he commenteth upon v. 20 is not a whit lesâ— vain than the rest the Substance of which is that the Apostle in this v. stops the Mouth of these who complained that God created them with Liberty of will and so with power of falling to which saith he it is answered that this Faculty might be improved to the Salvation of the Creature as well as to the glory of Gods grace To which we Reply that no such Interpretation can be gathered from the Text for the Objection proposed in the former v doth not in the least intend from the Liberty of Mans Will to do Good or Evil to conclude that Man is not guilty but rather God. But from the Immutability and Irresistibility of Gods Will and Decree of passing by and rejecting some as he did with Esau the Objecter endeavoureth to free Man from Guilt and fix it upon God neither is he a whit happier in taking up of the Apostles Answer for the Apostle doth not flee to the Liberty of Mans will that he may draw his Answer hence but the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature and that 〈◊〉 an one as he hath who possesseth wood Iron Clay or such Materials and is wilfull to make various Kinds of Instruments which may serve either for honourable or dishonourable uses but these Materials that are appointed by the Owner and Artist thereof cannot be said to be wronged by him or to have any Ground of Complaint and that by Reason of the absolute Power that the Owner and Artist hath over them even as any of Mankind that from all Eternity are passed by and rejected of God and destinat to Destruction for Gods own Glory as it is said Prov. 16.4 have no Reason to complain Now in this Analogy lies the Strength of the Apostles answer which who ever denyes shal never be able to find the Sense of this Text. Hence it appears whether ignorantly or maliciously I know not that this Arminian hath come short of uptaking either Objection or Answer But most of all absurd is what he sayeth in his Commentary rather depravation of the 21 v. viz. That as the Potter makes no Vessels of set Purpose to be broken tho he makes some for dishonourable uses So the Lord makes none of the Sons of men of Purpose to be destroyed tho he makes some Superiours and Inferiours in the Church and Common-wealth I say this is most of all absurd for it is as clear as if written with a Sunbeam that the Apostle is here speaking nothing of high and low Degrees in Church or State but of these who perish and these who are saved Eternally according to this Explication every one that is in low Degree should be a Vessel of Wrath fitted for Destruction Seing none can deny that this is all one with a Vessel of Dishonour as also every one that is in high Degree in Church or State should be a Vessel of Mercy aforetime prepared unto Glory and one of Gods called Ones as the Apostle was whose calling I think was effectual and so certainly a Saint such a mark of Believers and Unbelievers was never heard before To Corroborat what he sayes on this Verse he gives us his notes on Jer. 18.3 4 5. among which one is that the Lord expostulates with Israel for not suffering him to mould them a new To which we answer that it will no more follow from this place that the Heart of corrupt man is stronger in resisting than the Power of God and that God cannot make men of unwilling to become willing which is the meaning of our Adversaries Words than real ignorance of what was to come may be concluded to be in God from Isa. 5.4 and 59.16 Other notes he has upon this place such as That the Lord forms men a new by Force or Violence but works with them as free Agents serving for nothing except to declare this Authors maliciousnesse for he here insmuates that the Reformed Churches judge that God deals with a sinner in his Conversion as if he were a Stone or a Bruit the contrair of which appeareth from their Confessions and in special in the Confession which he here impugneth Ch. 10.1 He goeth on to comment upon the 22 verse where he says That it is not so much as implyed that these Vessels of wrath spoken of in this verse by the Apostle were fitted by the Lord to Destruction Yea saith he the contrary is imported where the Apostle sayes That 〈◊〉 endureth them with much long suffering For if God created them or designed them of purpose to Destruction things had succeeded according to his hearts desire In Reply to these Cavils we find no difficulty for God may be as well said to fit men to Destruction as he is said to harden some verse 18. For I think none will deny but hardening is a fitting to Destruction 2. I think none dare deny that even while God was hardening Pharaohs heart he was exercising his long suffering patience in permitting him to fulfill his course of sin Augustin de Civit. Dei Lib. 16. sayes God of the same Mass condemned through Original sin did as a Potter make one to honour and another to dishonour Our Author sayeth moreover That it is not said they were created but fitted for Destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reply Altho our Adversary loves alwayes to pass over the Connection of the verses of this Chapter as indeed he hath good reason to do he notwithstanding may permit us to consider it In which we shall find that men may be said to be fitted to wrath even as some part of the lump of clay is fitted by the Potter for Vessels of Dishonour But it is appointed for this dishonourable use as soon as it is appointed to be vessels But so it is That the Lord so ordereth of men as the Potter of his Clay as the Apostle here shewes It is clear therefore That by this word Fitted must be understood among other things Appointed or Decreed He goeth on to Comment on the 23 verse where among some other things which he hath not to the Purpose that he intendeth he asserts That this preparing of the Vessels of Glory is not attributed to Gods Eternal Decree And in this he is but like himself who as we have heard above denyeth on the matter that there is any Decree of God concerning the Salvation or Damnation of men in particular before death Altho at another time as we have also heard he sticketh not to contradict this But that this preparation is Attributed to the Decree of God is clear not only from the Scope of the Apostle and the Energie of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also from no few other Scriptures such as Eph. 1. 4 5 6 7. A length to shut up this Discourse Let the Reader Observe with me 1. That tho men bring full Wain-loads of Arguments in appearance like Goliâ—h's Sword from the Armorie of corrupt Reason whereby to overthrow the genuine meaning of this place they are not to be regarded neither on this account are we to be moved or shaken as touching the behalf of this place For in so far as we are shaken from it through the force of these Reasons We yield to these great Adversaries of Christ Jesus the Socinians that grand Principle of all Orthodox Christians viz. that Reason as well as the rest of the Scriptures Rivals ought to strike fail and yeild preheminency thereto as being the entire and ultimat Rule of the Faith and Mannerâ— of a Christian. This I have good reason to note here For there be many that though they cannot but perceive this Text to be without the highest violenting and detorting thereof utterly incapable of any other sense than what the Reformed and in especial our Reverend Westminister Assembly give upon it still notwithstanding alledge that on the account of their most powerful Reasons to the contrary This our meaning is not to be received seek another where we will. 2. That if there be a Doctrine in all the Holy Scriptures out of the râ—â—ch of and far above the Line of Humane Reason contrary to Corrupt Reason and in its Estimat repugnant to all Reason as certainly there is then no man will deny but that this Doctrine of Eternal Election and Reprobation is one of the chief oâ— such Doctrines as having for its Object that which iâ— no less Impervestigable than Eternity no less unfathomable than Immensity no less Incomprehensible than he whose very name is Wonderful and so wonderful that none can know it even God himself according to his Eternal actings and workings 3ly That this place of Scripture is one of the chief Seats of the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation Hence we most rationally infer that in agitation of this great Controversy If any Scriptures be brought which seemingly for none do it really speak contrary to this Text Light is to be brought from this place for expounding and clearing up the meaning of these seemingly repugnant Scriptures 〈◊〉 rather that ê contra these should be made 〈◊〉 Standard and Guide in exposition of this FINIS