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
wicked Spirits if he think othewayes let him essay the proof of it 3ly For the sufficiency of their universal Light they thus argue That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation but in not obeying the Light within we sin therefore it is sufficient to Salvation But this Sophism is too palpable and gross to take with any that is not altogether willing to be deceived for the Major proposition thereof is most false otherwise the lawful commands of every Parent Heathen as well as Christian should be a sufficient guide to Salvation for disobedience to these is as really a sin as disobedience to our own Light. 4ly To prove that there is a Divine Light purchased by Christ in every man they adduce Iohn 1.9 That was the true Light which enlightneth every man that cometh into the world for Vindication of which place it shall suffice to overthrow what Rob Barclay hath said in the Vindication of his Apology pag 91. For the confirmation of the Quakers gloss on this text of which Mr Broun Quaker path way to Pagan pag 151 152 153 154. had given diverse expositions as 1. that Light may be here taken for the Light of reason 2ly That by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which is savingly enlightned these expositions with others he at large evinceth and illustrateth from Scripture and reason and sheweth that the Quakers joyn with the Socinians in their exposition Now whereas if the Quaker had done any thing to the purpose he ought to have refuted these exposiâ—ions but in stead thereof he sayeth his adversary must be much puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it But this I confess is a strange inference for the Quaker from abundance inferreth penury and because his adversary gave diverse expositions any of which will serve the turn Ergo sayes he he knows not what to answer I was wondering at this Consequence but I presently remembred that the Quakers were Enemies to Logick He himself diverse times hath given several meanings of one place as for Example Isa. 8.20 much therefore he hath been puzled to answer our arguments proving the Scriptures to be our principal Rule which I do really believe tho upon another account Now it is observable that this Quaker almost every where endeavoureth to turn Defendent when he should be impugnant for the Scriptures from which he drew his arguments in his Apology faâ—ling him so that he can prove nothing from them his Adversary having removed the vernishing of his Sophistry he bendeth his whole wit in his Vindication to find out Evasions and Distinctions to defend his own glosse and this artifice he useth here which think of it what he will will serve for nothing except to discover hiâ— Weakness and Conviction of a bad cause and whereas he flouteth at his Adversary inferring from v. 5. of this chapter the darkness comprehended it not that by darkness is meant man in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is natural we say whereas he flouteth at him inferring from this that man while in that Estate is void of all Spiritual and supernatural light saying is not this a learned Refutation Reader He â—heweth only good will as they use to say to have the Doctrine of the Reformed become a mocking stock and shame rubbed upon it if he could for all the expositions given by the Reformed Churches on this place quite contradict that of the Quakers except he will call Socinus and the like Reformed Protestants But the thing incumbent to the Quaker was the urging and vindicating of his Reason viz. that if man in his natural estate cannot comprehend this Light who notwithstanding can comprehend the things of Nature Ergo by this enlightning with which every man is said to be enlightned that cometh into the world is not understood the Light of Nature and Reason which consequence he shal never be able to prove for altho the Light it self viz. Christ be supernatural and the incomprehensible God of Nature yet these little Beams or Sparks of Reason and Conscience which are the Effect and Gift of this great Ligh Christ the Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity no lesse than of the Father and Holy Ghost are altogether natural and comprehensible Many places of Scripture beside this they detort and deprave to the end that by the Scriptures themselves they may destroy the Scriptures and prove that the light within which they being pitifully deluded take for the Spirit of God is the Supream Rule of Faith and Manners all which glosses fall to the ground tho upon this one Account that they have couched in them this most dangerous and blasphemous falshood viz. that the dim and dark Light of nature is not only sufficient to guide us to Salvation but which ought to be heard with horror is God himself One of which Scriptures is John 14.26 27. and 16.13 whence they would infer that all Believers are led by immediat objective Revelation as the Apostles were because say they the way that the Apostles were taught which is by immediat Revelation is there holden forth as common to aâ—l Believers and the words to lead and to teach in their proper and native signification denote always an immediat objective leading or teaching Thus Reasoneth Ro. Barclay Vind. pag. 19.20 to which I answer that these being two of the main places that he brought for proving the Spirit to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners he ought to have given some other thing than bare assertions if he had in good earnest intended to overthrow what his Adversary chap. 3. n. 27. said against his meaning of these places which he hath not in the least done for why may not immediat objective Râ—velatâ—on be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not unto all Believers but subjective only whereby they may understand and apply these Truths that were taught immediatly to the Apostles and Prophets upon whose Doctrine the Faith of all Believers is founded as its principal Rule and Foundation Ephes. 2 20. Even as the like Phâ—ases hold forth an immediate objective Teaching to some and yet that only which is meerly mediate as to others as Neh. 9.20 comp with v. 30. 1 Kings 8. 36. Psal. 132.12 Deu. 32.12 Moreover that the words to lead and teach hold forth a mediate objective Teaching or a subjective Illumination far oftner in Scripture than immediate objective Revelation is manifest to any that are acquainted with the Scriptures which if the Quakers deny seing they are the opponents they ought to condescend to a collation of places and shew the contrary Lastly whatever the Quakers say we cannot help it certain it is that no man of sound Judgment will deny that when one readeth the Scriptureâ— and hath his mind illuminated by the Spirit of God that he may understand the wondrous things in Gods Law but such an
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
ought to receive any Command from any man or thing without him yea or from the Scriptures themselves And further denyeth without any limitation that the Scriptures ought to be called a Rule And all this tho most blasphemously and absurdly yet most consonantly to the Quakers Principles Our Vindicator in stead of doing Service to his Party notably prevaricateth their Cause not sticking to give away their great Principles while other shifts for defence thereof fail him 4. What he addeth without the operation of the Spirit men cannot obey to the good of their own Souls is altogether impertinent as if one should in answer to a Man enquiring what Duties he ought to perform to such a Superiour tell him what for the time he was in case to perform so as to reap any Advantage thereby which would be as the Proverb goes falcem pro ligone dare 5. He quietly slideth over without so much as naming these words of Furley viz. yea it is the greatest error of the World that ever was invented and the Ground of all error to affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians which Doctrine as it rendereth any Lover of God and his Word secure from being tainted with Quakerisme so that the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the Poison in like manner it hath rendered our Vindicator speechless denuding him of his Shifts of Primary and Secondary Rule under the Protection of which distinction the Quakers would fain shroud themselves For in these words of Furley there is no mention of a Primary or Secondary Rule which without doubt Furley had made if he had believed the Scripture to be a secondary Rule seing certainly he was not ignorant that the Quakers were branded with the name of being Enemies to Scripture 6. In the last place our Vindicator declareth that all he hath hitherto said in Dâ—fence of Furley was but the patrociny of a very bad and indefendible Cause in that he would fasten upon his Adversary the Falsification of Furleys Words For if they were falsified why attempted he to defend them as they were while the sense was quite altered and perverted as he insinuateth Moreover if those words of Furley were falsified he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them as they were written by Furley which doubtlesse he was in case to do if there had been any such thing seing he professeth that he hath Knowledge of the Matter which he doth not professe concerning any Quaker mentioned in his Adversaries Book Hence it is evident that his Adversary is not at all guilty of the ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator but whether or not they light upon the Author I leave it unto men of Judgment to consider 4. From what is said it is most evident that the Scriptures according to the Judgment of Quakers are in no sense to be counted a Rule and lay no obligation upon any to believe and walk according to them Hence William Pen sayeth that the Spirit of God who is God is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian viz. of Faith and Life for of that he is handling Rejoin Pag. 76. And this the most of their Arguments if they prove any thing intend As for Example that common Topick of the Quakers viz. That which was the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith before the Scriptures were written is the Rule of ours now But I subsume that the Scriptures of the old and New Testament were in no respect the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith. Ergo according to the Quakers the Scriptures in no respect can be called the Rule of Faith and Manners but finding that the grossnesse of this Doctrine bewrayeth it self and too palpably unmasketh its abettors they have invented several distinctions under the Covert of which they might shroud themselves and elude all the Arguments whereby the Scriptures are proved to be the Rule of Faith and Manners As that the Scriptures are the Verbal and Histicorical Rule of Faith which is the Devils Faith but not of saving Faith. Thus speaketh William Pen Rejoin Pag. 71. But that wherein they place their Sacred Anchor or main strength is that of Adequate and Primary inadequate or secondary Rule asserting that the Scriptures are not the adequate or compleat and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners but only an inadequate in-compleat and secondary Rule That is that the Scriptures contain not all that we are bound to believe or do and that we ought to believe or practise nothing tho never so clearly holden forth or commanded in the Scriptures as for example that God sent his Son into the World or that we ought to love God or our Neighbour except by a miraculous Revelation from Heaven as Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock speaketh we be told the same thing over again By which Revelation we ought say they to examine the Scriptures And because we deny this Doctrine and abhorre it as the Flood-gate of all errors They cry out that we are carnal Enemies to the Spirit void of Light upon this ground also the Ministers that make the Scriptures the Rule of their Doctrine they call by the Names of Baals Priests Thieves Devils Enemies of God with a thousand of the like denominations wherefore that the State of the Controversy may appear and our Adversaries be deprived of their lurking places I premit this assertion in order to the production of true and saving Faith two Principles are required First The Declaration of the Object or thing to be believed or practised which is commonly called in the Schools Objective Revelation This may be either immediate as it was of old to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles To whom God himself immediatly did speak and dictate his will without the Intervention of any thing as a medium or mids Declaring that Revelation to the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles or it may be mediat as it was in respect of those to whom the Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles delivered it and as it is in respect of us for whose sake the Prophets and Apostles wrote it Rom. 15.4 The other thing necessary for the Production of Saving Faith is the operation or influence of the Spirit of God whereby the vail of natural blindnesse is removed and the eyes of the soul or the understanding are opened to know and believe the wonderful things contained in Gods written Law and to see these divine Characters that are imprinted upon the Scriptures and to understand the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves so that the Person thus savingly illuminated attendeth to and heartily closeth with what is delivered in the Scriptures And this is ordinarly called Subjective Revelation or more properly Illumination or an application of the Revelation made already hactenus factae as Dr. Baron speaketh This Doctrine is clear and most intelligible to all that will not close their eyes The Truth of which is proven by the following Scriptures Psal. 119. 18. Luk. 24 46. 2 Cor. 3.15 16. Rev.
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
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
forth by the conjunction of man and woman To this argument drawn from Orthodox antiquity Rob. 〈◊〉 Vind. Sect. 2. N 5. replyeth what then â—oth that render our doctrine null Answer Not indeed to a Pelagian which every where and in special here by his open Patrociny of this Hereâ—y he fully demonstrateth himself to be notwâ—thstanding that at other times he would fain deny himself to be one studying to evite the name tho he hug their â—lasphemy Their answer to our Argument drawn from Psal. 51.5 I was shapen in iniquity c. Which by all the Orthodox both primitive writers as Augustin passim and the Reformers as Luther in his Confession is understood of Original sin is most strange viz That David speaketh of the sin of his Mother and not of his own To which it is replyed that thus the marriage duty shall de condemned To this Rob. Barclay Vind Sect 5 N 7. returneth a denyal of the inference which yet is clear seing wherever in all the Scriptures any did bewail the sins of their progenitors they still specified and pointed at the sin in particular as Neh. 9. with many other places but here if any particular fact be specified it must needs be that of the Marriage duty therefore the inference holdeth good here I cannot but take notice of one of his pungent answers or rather questions if ye will Which he proposeth ubi modo in these words And I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scripture he reads of Original sin and whether if the Scripture be the only Rule he cannot find words fit enough to express his Faith or must he shift for them else where Thus he but in Lieu of these I return him another question and desire to be informed of him whether or not he readeth of Actual sin or findeth this in so many words Behold then Reader the desperate tendency of Quakerism which is to make men beleive that there is no sin at aâ— mâ—ntioned in the Scriptures and therefore not at all prohibited For seing on the account that the phrase Original sin is not found in Scriptures he denyeth our Doctrine how clear so ever it be proved by Scriptural deductions he giveth good ground to another for inferring ad hominem that there is not such a thing as Actual sin seing the phrase Actual sin is no where in Scripture to be â—ound more than that phrase Original sin Tâ—e same Truth may be yet further demonstrated by several other pregnant arguments As first Infants for the sin of Adam are deprived of the Image of God therefore there is no reason to deny that they can be accounted guilty of his sin The Antecedent is denyed by none of our present Adversaries The Consequence is also firm for its a punishment yea the greatest of punishments equal with if not greater than the torments of hell to be deprived of the Image of God and therefore of his comfortable presence Communion Love and Favour 2. The Scripture is ignorant of any persons that go to Heaven except these that were guilty persons these whose sin Christ did bear Er Children who have never committed Actual sin are guilty before God. The Consequence is beyond all â—xceptions Thâ— Antecedent also remaineth firm until our Adâ—ersaries adduce some place of Scripture shewing that some persons who never were guilty go to Heaven or are saved without the merits of Christ. Moreover it is clear from the whole tenor of the Scriptures that none are saved but sinners which was Christs errand to the Earth 〈◊〉 the Scripture no where maketh any distinction betwixt guilty persons and sinners and no where sayeth that any are saved but these whose sins Châ—ist did bear and one would in reason think that this can least of all men be denyed by our Adversaries who assert that Christ died for all men without exception Therefore if Infants be not guilty there is no reason to say that Christ â—ied for them or did bear their sins therefore we with all reason enquire which our Adversaries according to their principles can never be able to answer how Infants if not guilty come to heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ They are altogether void of reason while they with Rob Barcl for want of a better answer enquire How these whom we account Elect Infants come to Heaven Seing our reply is at hand viz that they are acquited before God by the imputed righteousness of Christ. 3. Certain it is from the whole tenor of the Scriptures and in special Rev 22.15 That these who in the sight of God are dogâ— are guilty persons and to be excluded from Heaven and therefore to be thrust into Hell but whole Nations without any exception are such Matth. 15.26 Therefore Infants being a part of these Nations deserve to be excluded from Heaven and sent to Hell. Add to this that some Children are said by the Apostle 1 Cor. 7.14 To be altogether destitut of Holiness which persons Heb. 12.14 So long as they are so cannot see God. Some of the Fathers in order to prove the Guilt of Infants flowing from Adams transgression made use of Gen. 17.14 The man-child that is uncircumcised shall be cut off This Deduction of some of the Ancients Mr Broun mentioneth pag 132. But expresly telling that he will not urge it but inferreth notwithstanding from this place that Children may be in some sense capable of breach of Covenant and therefore under a Law desiring his Adversary to chew his cud upon this inference which if true overthroweth all this Socinian Doctrine anent Original sin which still presupposeth that Children are under no Law. For reply to which Rob Barcl Vind pag 62. introduceth Mr. Broun as if he had willed him to chew his â—ud on this first deduction viz. that of some of the Fathers passing by the second viz Mr. Broun's own inference without so much as mentioning thereof whereby he declareth that it hath broken his Jaws or at best is not yet digested 4 None can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again Ioh. 3.7 But surely this new-birth or to be born again is the gift of God and a priviledge which he may withhold from whom he will and therefore without prejudice to his justice may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven but none are excluded from it but guilty persons which I believe none will deny therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons 6. The main Objection and that for any thing I know upon which the bulk of all their Objections dependeth against our Doctrine of Original sin the Socinians and Quakers draw from Ezek 18.20 The Son shall not bear the Fathers iniquity c. Hence they infer That no sin can be imputed To which it is answered that this will not follow seing the Lord is there stopping the mouth of the wicked but yet queâ—â—lous Iews as tho they had been altogether guiltless themselves and punished for
of every Substance Which is yet more clear from the twelfth Query sent to Mr Iohn Alexander viz. What is Original Sin Whether it be not the Devil yea or nay For doth not the Original signifie the Beginning What did Christ come to destroy Was it not the Devil and his Works What is more clear than that in those Queries of the Quakers God is made the Author of Sin seing that unlesse they professe and avow Manicheism God created the Devil and this is yet more clear if clearer can be by George Keiths Defence of this Querie Truth defend pag. 177. Where he can find no better Defence of this blasphemy than to call it in effect a purposeless heap of words without all scope saying that the Devil may be called sin in a certain sense by a Metonymy as Christ is called Righteousness or sin called the old Man. And thus George Keith acteth like himself that is playeth the ridiculous babler for pag. 59. in Defence of that Query viz. If every Title in the Bible be the word of God he sayeth that to query a thing will not conclude that the questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is queried The same way he dealeth here with his Antagonist For if the Quakers understood no other thing then the Devil may get the Name of sin as any cause may get the name of its effect Then both they and he in their Defence prove themselves to be pitiful purposeless wranglers making a stur in the World about nothing And of set purpose involving their Discourseâ— in such nonâ—ensical Niceâ—ies that none shal know the meaning thereof Hence we may see that it is but vain Labour to give any Answer to the Quakers For whatever they have said you cannot fix upon them be as clear as it will they will in their next Essay explain it to you in a sense as opposite to that which in the Judgment of all rational men their words carry as Black is opposite to White or Light to Darkness For what is more clear from the Words of the Query than that the Devil is sin it self seing I think no Man except George Keith will desire us to believe that all these Questions are given out for needless amusements of the World importing only these things about which there is not the least shadow of a question or doubt for who ever doubted that the Devil was the cause of Sin Neither is his abuse of Scripture more toâ—lerable seing the Apostle useth a figurative Speech which in a matter known and about which there is no debate as the Matter was about which the Apostle speaketh may contribute much to the illustration and clearing of the purpose but far otherwise was it wheresoever Christ or the Apostles enâ—red intâ— any direct Dâ—sputation or reasoning where they always so spake as these with whom they Reasoned might have easily understood what these Questions and Reasonings tended to In a word he that of set purpose involveth and rendereth unintelligible his Discourse about Matters of such moment in the Judgment of all Rationals proveth himself either a Fool or a Knave Therefore whether George Keith will or not we must do these Questionists right and believe that they thought as they spake that is that the Devil is sin it self And therefore God is the Author of sin 3. I come now to the third thing of which I promised to prove the Quakers guilty viz. That the Soul is God or as they with the like blasphemy speak a part of God. And first to clear the way for the Souls Divinity they deny its Humanity For Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlok pag. 29. sayeth there is no Scripture which speaketh of a Humane Soul. And again pag. 31. to Mr. Sherlok saying that God is not a Spirit as Angels and the Souls of men are he replyeth saying this is confusion For Christ sayeth God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and Truth And there thou art raced without the Doctrine of Christ. And pag. 30. in opposition to Mr. Sherlock who had accused the Quakers of professing and blasphemously boasting of their Equality with God he thus replyeth Thy boasting is excluded without in thy Generation And thou art excluded from the life and mind of the Apostle who said Let the same Mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus who being in the Form of God thought it no Robbery to be equal with God. Phil. 2.5 6. And this thou calleth blasphemy and so thou hast shewed what Spirit thou art of contrary to the Apostle here we have Blasphemy in its highest Degree and an Equality with God proâ—essed and boasted of For the Effectation of which being prompted thereunto by the grand Enemy of Mankind Our first Parents fell from their Excellency and most happy Condition And except Christ had interposed had forever lien together with all their Posterity into that whirle pool and gulf of Incomprehensible Misery only for the desire of aspiring unto â—his of which these Heaven darâ—ing blasphemer boast themselves so that what the Poets feigned of the Gyants contending with the gods for an Equal Right to Heaven with them the Quakers act in Reality But the following discourse will evince that an Equality with God will not please them except they have also an Identity For George Fox the great Prophet and King of the Quakers in his great Myst. pag. 90. In answer to one that said there is a kind of infinitness in the Soul yet it cannot be infinitness in it self speaketh thus Is not the Soul without beginning coming from God returning to God again who hath it in his hand and Christ the Power of God the Bishop of the Soul which bringeth it up to God which came out from him hath this a beginning or ending and is not this infinite in it self again George Fox telleth us in the forecited book pag. 29. that Magnus Byne sayeth that the Soul is not infinite in it self but a Creature and R. Baxter sayeth it is a Spiritual Substance wherâ—unto George Fox Replyeth Consider what a Condition these called Ministers are in they say that which is a spiritual Substance is not infinit in it self but a Creature that which came out of the Creator and is in the Hand of the Creator which bringeth it up unto the Creator again that is infinite in it self Again Great Myst. p. 100. The Quakers are accused for saying there is no Scripture that speaketh of a Humane Soul And for affirming that the Soul is taken up unto God Hereunto George Fox thus answereth God breathed into Man the Breath of Life and he became a Living Soul. And is not this that which cometh out from God is in Gods hand part of God from God and to God again from these passages it is most evident that both the Soul of man yea and the Devils themselves which I tremble to think must be God over all Seing according to these
Verus Patroclus OR The Weapons of Quakerism The Weakness of Quakerism BEING A Discourse wherein the choicest Arguments for their chief Tenets are Enervat and their best Defences Annihilat several Abominations not heretofore so directly Discovered Unmasked WITH A Digression Explicative of the Doctrine anent the necessity of the Spirits Operation AND An Appendix Vindicating Rom. 9. From the Depravations of an Arminian By William Iamison Tit. 3.10 A man that is an Heretick after the first and second Admonition reject Edinburgh Printed in the Year 1689. TO THE Right Honourable The EARL of DUNDONNALD Lord Cochran c. AS my Lord amongst the innumerable precious Benefits and Blessings which God hath graciously vouchsafed to Mankind or to any part thereof His Word Statutes and sacred Oracles infinitly surpass excel and so to speak obscure all the rest by far more than the Sun doth eclipse the lesser Luminaries so according to that common saying Corruptio optimi pessima Nothing by many degrees is so mischievous noxious and deadly as the Corruption and Depravation of these lively Oracles For thus tho by a cursed accident The Wine of our Fathers Kingdom is turned into Wormwood and that Heavenly and unpressed Honey into Gall whereby the greater part of the visible Church hath perished For the Poison hath this most unhappy advantage above all others that it is of an hydropick nature making the infected the more they have drunk so much the more desirous to drink Hence that sagacious Spirit the grand Enemy of Mankind judged this the choicest expedient and mean for restauration of his falling Kingdom For to speak nothing oâ— the first 4000 years of the World he hath ever since the very infancy of Christianity to his outmost put this in practice always raising up such as were most famous or rather infamous through their corrupting abusing and detorting the Word of Life and Charters of our Salvation Of which kind in the early days of Christianity were Cerinthus Montanus the Cataphrygians Samosatenus Arrius and a multitude beside But these first Essays by reason of their palpable and direct overturning of the undoubted Fundamentals of Christianity which rendred all their sophistry tho never so subtile most suspected proved inefficacious to do the Business tho in some respect infectious enough Therefore the Lord having by many Means and in special by the first four Councils blown away these pestiferous Mists and cleared up to mens minds these grand Truths of the Holy Trinity the Godhead of Christ the Unity of his Person the Distinction of his Natures and the like The Method was altered and the following opposers of Truth acted by the same Spirit that the former were went more subtilly to work not only forbearing to oppose these Fundamentals but in shew at leâ—st endeavouring to defend and assert them By which it came to pass that they were more easily believed in all they said by the too simple people In the mean while they secretly and slily sowed their Tares under the specious pretext of Unity Order Decency Ornament and antient Tradition Under the covert of these the like was the whole Mass of Paganism introduced guilded only with the varnishing Title of Catholick Doctrine For thus in stead of the humility of a Gospel-Ministry was brought in a Prelatick Hierarchy in imitation of the Pagan Protoflamines which at length procreated to the World the Man of Sin to head this degenerating Church in their Wickedness And so they had Unity which was worse than Division and an Order that became the cause of the most horrid Confusion the World hath hitherto seen Thus also the simplicity of the Gospel was turned into Heathnish Pageantry and the glory of the Church of God did degenerat into a meer worldly pomp and grandour But at length how sad and miserable became the case of the Church wheâ— through the power of humane inventions delivered under the name of Tradition the Dictats of the Romish-depute of the old Dragon such poisonous dregs became the best part of the essentials of their Religion Justification before God ascribed to the belief and practice thereof and Justification by Faith in the Son of God decried and maligned Thus were the same fundamental Truths which had been more openly assaulted by the former Hereticks now no less powerfully but more subtilly almost overthrown But so soon as the Lord as it were by the dawning of a second-Christian-day had discovered Romes Abominations and rendered her hateful to all good Men the old Artist his associats changed their method tho not their design impugning again more openly these fundamental Truths they had assaulted in the early days of Christianity But that the Weapon already blunted might yet cut behold a new Artifice For these attempts were not made for the most part by these who persisted in the company of the now deservedly hated Church of Rome but by these who were in appearance the Deserters and Opposers thereof Under the covert of which they far more securely infected many who were in communion with the reformed Church impudently asserting that the chiefest points of Christianity weâ—e Popery on this account that the Papists had not expresly denied them These were known by many names as Servetians Anti-trinitarians Socinians and the like But more general was that of Anabaptists comprising in it self all these and many other such Vipers The true progeny of these Anabaptists are these now known by the Name of Quakers the men with whom Ideal who for design and method are all onâ— with the bulk of both antient and modern Hereticks Two Artifices were alternatively used by the antient Hereticks and by a continued succession derived unto our present Adversaries the one of which was to abuse the Scriptures as if one should mould a Bushel of Jewels into the shape of a Dog Toad or the like hateful Creature The other when in spite of all these shifts they were Convicted out of the Scriptures to turn upon the Scriptures themselves as being not free of their own Errors nor of Divine Authority How exactly the Quakers write after their Copy none acquainted with their Doctrines seeth not I hope therefore it shal not be unprofitable if the following Discourse shall unfold more particularly these practices of our Adversaries which I with a humble confidence can averr and moreover I make some Discoveries in particular of this more spiritual Mystery of Iniquity by none I know hitherto directly undertaken Moreover this my Treatise can be judged by none altogether superfluous who considereth that the whole Land is ready to be overspread with the Hemlock oâ— Pelagianism now known by the name of Arminianism with which the bulk of the Prelatick Clergy is already infected for with this Heresie I have several Rancounters But I will not trouble your Lordship with a further account of this my small Undertaking Yet this I crave leave to say that whatever I intended of this kind it was designed for your Lordship not
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
3.18 Act. 16.14 15. Ezek. 36.26 27. This Distinction is very requisite for clearing of our purpose and liberateth our Doctrine from the Circle which is falsly objected unto us by both Papists and Quakers A DIGRESSION In which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches anent the necessity of the Spirits Operation in order to firm and saving Knowledge and belief of the Holy Scriptures is Explained and Vindicated from the Exceptions of Papists and Quakers FIrst all the Reformed Churches do with 〈◊〉 Consent assert that in order to a firm and saving knowledge and Divine Faith or believing of the Scriptures the illumiâ—nation and operation of the Spirit of God illumiâ—nating and preparing the Soul is absolutly necessâ—â—ry this all the Confessions witnesse and our Dâ—â—vines such as Calvin in his Institution Polanâ— in his Syntagma demonstratively evince Thâ— Doctrine is impugned on the one hand by the Pâ—pists who object first that we commit a Ciâ—â—cle 2. That we are guilty of Enthusiastick dottages of which we justly accuse the Anabaptists and Quakers and the like Enthusiasts with these the Socinians and other Enemies of the grace of God joyn forces accusing us of the same Crimes On the other hand the Quakers perceiving themselves unextricably in the briers and unwilling to be alone affirm confidently that we cannot separat our selves from them as to this matter 3. In order to the silencing of both these parties who like Samsons Foxes when they appear most opposite one to another even then conspire most firmly the ruine of the Church of God I premit that in order to the production of true Faith in God's ordinary way and method two things are necessary as the principles thereof the Word and the Spirit The Word they call principium objectivum an objective principle or an objective revelation because the Scriptures concur objectively declaring truths to be believed even as the Sun objectively demonstrateth and sheweth things that may be seen though no eyes were open to see them so the Scriptures hold forth clearly all that we ought to believe and do even though the understanding of none were opened to behold the wonders contained in Gods written Law. And again as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own irradiant and illustrious Beams of Light. And as the Sun must be supposed to be an objective light declaring himself and other things The same we say of the Scriptures that in themselves they contain and hold forth these heavenly Rays and glorious Beams and Characters of Divinity prior to the Spirits opening of the understanding and enclining the will for peâ—ception and embracing thereof Now noâ—withstanding of alâ— this poor mankind blind by naâ—ure should be in perpetual darknesse if his eyes were not opened Hence another Principle is necessary viz. The Spirits gracious operations enlightening and â—weetly enclining fiâ—ting and disposing the Soul which is the subject or recipient of this light to understand and believe the things contained in these heavenly Oracles And all these the Spirit doth not by dictating or telling into the ear or mind that such and such excellent things are contained in these Writings as a man making an oration to commend such or such a thing but as we said already by removing the natural mist and darkness modo efficientis aut Dâ—vini instrumenti by way of Efficient or dâ—vine â—nstrument in the Hand of God For the Divinâ— Bâ—auty and Celestial Glory of the Scriptures is so transcendent that the removal of the natural blindnesâ— and pravity of the will is enough for ravishing of the hearts into ardent Love obsequious Obedience and in a word a most enâ—ire and total captivity unto them This working of the Spirit upon the soul is commonly called Subjective Revelation because it terminateth upâ—n the soul which is the subject or recipient of the light contained in the Word and may be more properly called an application of Divine Revelation than Revelation it self This subjective working of the Spirit both the Scriptures themselves and all sound Divines illustrat according to them by the opening of the eyes Ps. 119.18 Eye-salve Rev 3.18 Which Examples both illustrate and prove the purpose yea it is observable that in all the Scriptures the Holy Ghost mentioneth no other kind of Revelation as necessary to Salvation but only objective which indeed was sometimes immediat but not necessarily so but other some times mediat and this subjective Revelation or illumination of the Spirit In a word for any thing we can find is all one whether the objective Revelation be mediat or immediat providing it be Divine see among other Scriptures Ps. 119.18 Luk. 24 46 Act. 16 14 31 32 33 34. 2. Cor. 3 15 16. Rev. 3.18 4. Having premised and illustrated this distinction I come in the next place directly to remove the Objections And first that of the Circle in which the Papists endeavour to entangle us For they object that we being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God we answer by the Testimony and Opertaion of the Spirit And again being demanded how we know the Spirit of Truth and discern it from the Spirit of Error We answer by the Scriptures Hence they conclude that we run the round and answer the same by the same and so make a compleat Circle To which I answer that there is here no Circle for a Circle is progressus ab eodem ad idem eodem modo cognitum A Progress from the same to the sâ—me thing by the same kind of Argumentation But so it is not here For there is not the same way of Argumentation For the Word concurreth objectivâ—ly declaring and holding forth what are the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Characters of the Spirit of God argumentaâ—ively so that we can reason because such a Spirit v. g. He that confesseth Jesus Christ hath come in the Flâ—sh is said by the Scripture to be of God therefore I know and believe that this is true Doctrine and that this Spirit is of God. But on the other hand we make no such use of the Spirits inward Testimony or Operations We do not with the phanatical Enthusiasts reason thus the Spirit or a strong impulse which they call the Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures therefore I believe them to be so We say no such thing We only say that the Spirits operations are necessary for disposing the Soul to perceive and understand the things contained in the Scriptures themselves and apply the same so that either for his own satisfaction or redarguing of others he still rationally deduceth all his Arguments from the Scriptures making them or which is all one God speaking in them the formal Object and ultimat ground wherein to resolve his Faith. Two Examples I will give to illustrat my answer and then I have
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
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
without which other Tests or Rules we might be deceived and misled then the Scriptures could not in truth be called able to make the Man of God wise through Faith unto Salvation But we need not insist for how clear soever the matter be little Justice Truth or fair dealing is to be expected at the hands of those who call Scriptures compared Scriptures perverted and deny that as false the Truth of which themselves cannot but see for I query what difference can be imagined between these two phrases able to make Timothy which was a man of God wise unto Salvation and able to make the Man of God perfect To abuse the Scriptures at this rate I think is gross and impious enough and yet no better all along doth this Author treat them Of which a pregnant Example followeth for Vind. pag. 41. in opposition to Mr. Brown proving the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures from Ioh. 20.31 2 Cor. 3 14. Psal. 119.70 He saith that from this Doctrine it would follow that all Boâ—ks written after such a time were superfluous If this answer be sufficient many a superfluity there shal be in Scripture for if the writing of a Book after there are so many written as contain all things necessary for Faith and practise if we say the writing of another Book which may be either explicative of the Books before written or contain many things for the bene esse of a Christian be superfluous how much more then shall the repetition of the same things in the same words and the same method be superfluous but according to him the former is true well then the Quakers Conclusions are that the scriptures are Battologies Lastly for we love rather to plead by the weight than by the multitude of Arguments we evince that the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and primary Rule of Faith and manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves And first that they are an adequat and compleat Rule is granted by R. B. who Vind. pag. 36. speaketh thus next he carps at my saying the chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in the Scriptures asking where we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith I answer freely In the Scripture And again R. B and George Keith with joint suffrages grant that the Scriptures are a full enough Declaration of all Doctrines and principles both essential and integral of the Christian Religion Quak. confirm or rather self confuted pag. 38. Behold Reader thou hast our Adversaries granting to their own Contradiction all we plead for The other Branch viz. that they are the Primary Rule our Adversaries themselves also at unawares grant for Rob Barclay in his second These sayeth that the Spirit is not to be subiected to the outward Testimony of the Scriptures as a more noble Rule where it is clear that according to him the Spirit may be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as to a more noble and certain Rule Now this being granted the Cause is yielded for it is certain that a primary rule is in no case to be subjected unto its secondary or the Rule which is ruled by it For I think the Acts of Parliament are not at all to be subjected to these of an inferiour Court. Now if the Quakers would hold by this and grant that a man swerveth not from his duty tho he subject all suggestions and motions to the Scriptures as a sure Tryal and Test thereof let them call it a more noble Rule or what they will they might the more easily be born with But it is evident by their pleading for the Spirit as their primarie Rule that they will in no Case subject their impulses and Motions to the Scriptures Our Adversaries grant also That the Scriptures have proceeded from God and therefore infallible Now I hope that which is infallible needs not be subjected unto and tryed by a more sure Rule for more sure than infallible is impossible I know nothing they can say except that which G. K. said on the stage at Aberdeen That we may beguile our selves with them viz. by interpretation thereof To which I answer That the effective illumination of the Spirit of God is sufficient to secure us from this hazard which is no more objective Revelation than the Eye-salve is the Sun. 6. But our Adversaries soon repenting of their Liberality endeavour to overthrow all their own Concessions and to prove that the Scriptures are neither an Adequate nor Primarie Rule some of their Objections we shall name that the Reader may Judge of the rest And first they Object out of Bellarmine de Certitudine Iust. That the Scriptures cannot shew unto a man that he hath true Faith for say they as the Jesuite did before them Such a mans Name is not in all the Word of God For altho the Scriptures contain the true marks of Faith who shall perswade me that I have these Marks that I believe that I obey Thus R. B. reasoned in his Apologie To which his Antagonist answereth ' That it is no less absurd to say that this is the work of a Rule than for R. B. Supposing that he had killed a man to deny that the Law could put him to death because no Law saith that R. B. hath killed a man or to deny that he is a Quaker because the Law sayeth no such thing of him in particular To which he replyeth Vind. pag. 45.46 That such examples are poor Arguments and miserably halt for R. B. saith he his Confessing himself to be a Quaker acknowledging every one of their Doctrines is enough to prove him one in the sense of the Law of the Land and the Judge is to condemn him as a Murderer if convict by witnesses that he really did the dead and both these relate to outward things which can be proven by outward Testimonies for without the certainty of the evidence the Judge cannot pronounce his Sentence But is a mans own confessing or affirming that he hath the true Maâ—ks of Faith enough to prove he has them and what are the Witnesses to apply the examples of committing of Murder by which a man shall know he has these Marks and who shall examine the witnesses and judge of the certainty and clearness of their Evidence must it be the man that is accused who useth that method Ans. 1. Both Doctrine and proof he hath learned from his old friend Bellarmin who de Cert Iust. calleth the same Sophism a Theological demonstration contradicting not only the Scriptures but divers of the Papists themselves as Amesius sheweth Bellarmin also accounteth this Inspiration of the Quakers the only way whereby a man can be firmlie assured of his having Faith or that he shall have Salvation And therefore appropriateth it to St. Francis and St. Galla and the like which dottage is sufficiently refuted exploded and derided by Ames and others who have undertaken the Refutation of Bellarmin Hence we may see that if there be a
Iesuit more opposite to the Reformed than another with him he joyneth hands He is therefore to be accounted amongst the grossest of Iesuits and these his Romish Cavills are to be neglected being an hundred times sufficiently enervate by our Divines in their Writings against Papists especially in their answers to Bellarmin out of whose Quiver he hath stollen this long ago blunted weapon 2. The task incumbent to him was to evince that it belongeth properly to the Rule of Faith to tell a Man. v. c. Iohn or Iames in particular that he hath true faith whatever therefore he sayeth besides this is besides the purpose But 3. ex abundanti The bare and simple Profession of Quakerism will no more prove one to be a Quaker in earnest than the simple Profession that one hath Faith will prove him to have it indeed Seeing a man may profess himself to be a Quaker and yet be a Iesuit providing there be any difference between them there is therefore more required viz that for any thing Men can know such a man liveth according to the principle of the partie and no more is necessary for the begetting a Judgment of Charity than that a man profess the principles of Christianity Seriously for any thing Men can know practise accordingly but no infallible Evidences that another hath true Faith are any wayes necessarie but only Moral Rational Grounds of certainty those may be had As for the other viz. infallible Evidences those are only necessar to ones self and these they may hâ—ve by the Scripture applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdom the Scriptures themselves being the Rule whereby to make the Examen or Search Is. 8.20 Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 2. Tim. 3.15 16 17.2 Pet. 1.19 20. And the enlightned Conscience the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a filial Disposition inclining the Believer to come to God as a Child unto a Father with both great Confidence and Reverence together with the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself Rom. 8.15 16 the witnesses Hence his antâ—-christian Cavills fall to the ground and the similies no more halt the other Examples brought for the illustration of any Matter for all similes halt in some respect otherwayes they should not be similies but the same and to think the similies here used cannot hold because both Judge witnesses are inward in the matter illustrated by these Similies is not only without but against Reason For even as the one thing being outward and to be proved to others not to the Murderer himself who knoweth it well enough requireth an outward Judge and outward witnesses So the other thing being inward the infallible Testimony of which the Person himself standeth only in need of requireth inward Judge and inward Witnesses 7. The same Author hath another Objection prosecuted at large in his Apologie and abbreviated in his Abridgement falsly called his Vindication Pag. 44.45 which is that there are many things that the Scriptures cannot determine as particular individual Actions to which Mr Broun had answered that general Rules were enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdom and also that there should be need of a particular Revâ—lalation for every particular Action as Eating Drinking c. Yea every particular Word This Consequence he denyeth saying that from Spiritual to Natural Actions the necessity of this Revelation will not follow I answer first The Consequence which he denyed he proveth himself for the Reason why Spiritual Actions need particular inspirations is because of their being either Sin or Duty that they may know how to give Spiritual Worship and leave Carnal Worship but this Reason he grants to stretch it self to natural Actions saying if he say those natural Acts under some Circumstances may be sin or duty I confess then the Revelation of the Spirit is needful Therefore if particular Immediate Revelations be necessary for the performances of Spiritual Actions they are also necessary for the performance of Civil or Natural Actions seeing there is nothing more sure than that every individual Action is so Circumstantiat as to become either Sin or Duty 2. Who was ever so absurd and ridiculous as to deny that any System as for example of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a perfect Rule to guide any Mathematician or Souldier upon this account that those Books comprehend not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever should exist with all their particular Actions and the Circumstances thereof I am sure that such a one should be esteemed by all Men to have lost his Wits and yet no better than such are the Quakers Achillean Arguments Next he pleaseth himself in reckoning up some differences amongst Ministers As for example those called Remonstrants and publick Resolutioners and hence would infer the Insufficiency of the Scriptures for decision of Controversies and this he thinketh so strong that he requireth a particular answer to it least Sayeth he he viz. Mr. Brown be said to leap where he cannot step Ans. If this do any thing it will overdo seeing he dare not deny that both Paul Barnabas had immediat Objective Revelations who notwithstanding grew so hot in their Contention Act. 15. that they parted one from another of whose meeting again we hear not in all the Scriptures But he labours so to fix that upon the Scriptures with which the Corruption of men is only to be Charged that he woundeth himself while he thrusteth at his Adversary seing if this Reason be Valid Objective Revelation is no more a sufficient Rule than the Scriptures as this Instance of the division of Paul Barnabas evinceth Beside these the Quakers have a heap of Topicks to prove the Scriptures not a perfect Rule such as they cannot be a Rule to deaf persons therefore they cannot be a rule to those that hear and most men know not the Original Tongues Ergo say they the Scriptures cannot be a compleat Rule They object also the variety of Readings Interpretations and the like which they have scraped out of Bellarmin and his brethren and therefore deserve no more answer than what hath been given to them William Pen in his Rejoynder Part 1. Chap. 5. hath this Objection the Scriptures cannot try and examine particular Motions and Prophesies saying that Paul Act. 16. reproved not the Spirit of Divination which possessed that 〈…〉 Philippi from the Scriptures therefore they cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life But I deny the Antecedent for had Iames Nailor but brought that particular Motion whereby he was prompted to receive Divine Worship to Scripture trial he might have found his Spirit to have been the father of 〈◊〉 and Arch-deceiver of Mankind but as the Papists to cover the rest of their abominations have invented one greater and more dangerous than them all that is their Churches infallibility So this Spirit of the Quakers knowing that upon Tryal he will be found a Counterfeit hath taken the Councel given by Alcibiades to Pericles
he worship the Crocodile Ibis Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians yea a man may believe or do whatever cometh into his brain for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular as for Example Robert Anthonie or Christopher forbidden or commanded to do any thing According to this principle also they deny all Means and helps for expounding of the Scriptures all Commentaries and Expositions witness amongst others these words of Geo Fox in his Primmar to Europe Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity and that upon this ground because as he sayeth these Words are not found expresly in Scripture The same way Rob B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn 2.27 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as the words at the first sound and without any explication or clearing of them argumenteth from them He that hath an Anointing abiding in him teaching him all things so that he needs no man to teach him hath an inward and immediat Teacher and hath some things inwardly and immediatly revealed unto him The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34 So that whatever they say or can say to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie but just Charge they shall only twist Contradictions the faster And suitable to this Doctrine iâ— the Practice of Quakers who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World that they are Illuminat as the Prophets and Apostles were yes if not more have never yet for any thing I can learn benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless and unworthy except by detorting of them to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat as they would bear us in hand there can be no reason Alledged whey they benefit not the World by illustrating the Scriptures with clear Commentaries and such Helps as may be most 〈◊〉 for understanding thereof if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good which I think they will not say Or else that all such Help are superfluous And indeed this they stick not to say publishing to the World in Print that all Catechetical Doctrine â—nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist learned from Papists yea the very Scriptures themselveâ— they call by way of Deâ—raction the Letter in by Divinity worse Add to all this their Doctrine of silent waiting their railing against studied Sermons and explications of Scripture And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures according to the Example of Christ Jesus but in stead thereof the Light within These and many other things which might be said sufficiently evince that this their Revelation or new Light is unto them in place of Commentaries Catechismâ— or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures yea and the Scriptures themselves So that this one Darling of theirs renders all others needless Moreover they deny with the old Manichees that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us and as for the N. T. William Pen saith that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost and sticketh not to say that without their Spirit we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends Add to all this that this Doctrine of the Quakers viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and manners or chief Judge of Controversies is downright Popish and as good reason they should be both their Arguments to prove it and their Answers to our Arguments against it altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists which might easily be illustrat in every particular Some Examples we have given already to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18 From which place we usually reason that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated to which place the Papists answer that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone and that it will no more follow from this place that Traditions ought not to be added to the Scriptures as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners then it will follow from Deut. 4.2 That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay as these may do with the like support of their cause both in his Apologie and Vindication and when Mr. Broun telleth him that this as all the rest is a Popish shift He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words what then I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him which the Papists also use against us will he say it follows they are invalid But how pitiful and shameful this shift is none see not for can he say that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches which they hold in opposition to papists either this he must say otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause and an Effronted Defender For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens and Iews yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet as they say will affirm that Protestants are Papists or Papists Protestants upon that account Hence it is clear that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point so this Quaker is conscious of it seeing he could not but know that if this shift did him any Service to distinguish him from a Papist It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself and prove him to be no Papist So we see that the very shifts that these men use under the covert of which they may Luâ—k contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine and gross Hypocrisie in refusing the Name when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God speaking in the Holy Scriptures which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something which they call the Spirit of God as we have heard and again in contradiction to this the Soul of Christ extended and dilated of which say they every man is a partaker But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the
assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners yet whâ— can say that this is through default of the Scriptures seeing our Adversaries cannot deny but that they speak both Sense and Truth and that when there is a real Contradiction between two disputing cocerning any Doctrine or Sense and meaning of any text of Scripture this Text speaks for the one and against the other tho the one of the parties either through Ignorance cannot or through prejudice will nor see it and that the sense thereof may be brought forth to the light so that there shall follow a mutual Agreement between the two dissenting parties and consequently that the Scriptures of their own Nature are apt for the removal of differences about things contained in them We have heard their retortion let us now hear their direct answer which is that their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of God Thus it s answered in their Quakerism confirmed to the Students of Aberdeen For which forsooth they bring Scripture proof from Matth. 7.15 16. where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false Prophet But what fruits these thorny prickling Plants have brought and do daily bring forth the world is not ignorant If to deny the Holy Trinitie the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ the resurrection of the Body and to assert the Souls of men yea and devils to to be God Almighty of which abominations we shall ere we end this Treatise undeniably prove the Quakers to be guilty and in a word to vomit out their Malice so as to endeavour the overthrow of whatsoever God in his Sacred Word hath commanded us either to believe or do If these I say be the fruits of the Spirit then indeed the Quakers have them and abound in them and other Fruits we know none except which are of little worth some Stoicisms and ridiculous whimsies in which also some of the Mâ—humetan and other Monks have gone far beyond them yea with these men Envy Pride Contempt of all others are so predominanâ— that tho by this Character oâ—ly it is easiâ—y judged by what Spirit they are acted Add to all this their constant custome of horrible lying Perverting and Railing of which take one or â—wo Instances in the practise of one oâ— their chief leaders Rob Barcl for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth that his Adversaâ—ie inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christs dying for all that Infants come to heaven without Christ But how grosse an unâ—ruth is 〈◊〉 will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun Cap 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence from their deâ—ying of Original Sin and again pag 64.65 he saith that the Westminster Confession saith that God did predestinat to everlasting damnation the most part of men without any respect had to their sin But a more palpable and horrid lie hath scarce been hatched for 〈◊〉 that Confession chap 3. § 7. It is expresly said that God 〈◊〉 â—rdain them to Wrath for their sins Of the like nature is that which he saith pag. 170 That his Adversâ—ry chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil and that a Minister at Ligeâ—wood made a Prayer to the Devil whereas he only â—nferâ—eth from the Quakers Doctrine that they may make a Preaching to the Devil And as for Railing their whole writings are Stuffed with it See for example Hubberthorn against Sherlock whose whole Pamphlet is nothing but an heâ—p of furious Railing his best Language being Thief rude Fellow Enemy to God c. See also Edward Burrougâ—s in answer to Philip Bennet whose best language is Serpent the lake is prepared for thee and such language as this is the marrow of the Quakers refutation of their adversaries Books For in these two now Named Discoursâ—s there is hardly the shadow of so mâ—ch as an Essay to answer But this is the way how they gain the day and obtain the last word How fair an occasion is here offered to shew to the world by a particular Enumeration of their horrid monstruouâ— practices that their fruiâ—s are the Grapes of Sodom and the wine of Gomorrah But they are but too too well known already we forbear therefore to rake into this Dung-hill Certain it iâ— that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit will as soon prove himself â—o be an angel of Light as the Fruits of these High-pretenders will prove them to be acted by the Spirit of God. But more fully to confirm or rather illustrate this argument I shal shew the Identity of their Spirit with that of the old Anabaptists in several particulars A short parallel between the old Libertine Anabaptists and the new who are known by the name of Quakers 1. Muncer and the Anabaptists with him denyed that the Scriptures or external word for thus they spake that they might the better viliâ—y the Scriptures were the Word of God but only a Testimony thereof and said that the Word of God was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas lib. 1. cap. 1. The same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers only there is this difference that the Quakers expresse themselves in this matter with more rage and fury than for ought I can find the Anabaptists did as the Reader may may see cap. 1. § 1. of this Treatise 2dly Muncer with his disciples preferred that which they called immediate Revelation and inspirations busked with the specious Title of Fathers will as the Quakers Revelations are now with that of the Spirit to Gods written Word Bullinger Ibid and cap. 2. passim alibi Sleidan comm Calvin Instit lib 1 cap. 9. In this point also the Quakers are their successors or rather the same the name being changed seing they with Robert Barclay propos 2 3. assert that not the Scriptures but the Spirit is the principal Rule of Faith and Manners 3dly The old Anabaptists asserted that the express Words and Phrases of the Scriptures are to be adhered to without any exposition interpretation or deduction Bulling lib. 1. cap. 8. alibi In this also their genuine children the Quakâ—rs follow them with both feet as is evident in this Treatise cap. 1. 4ly The Anabaptists of old asserted that the whole Old Testament is now abrogate and pertaineth not to a Christian nor hath any obligation or force upon him in which wicked Doctrine as they followed the Manichaeans so at this day the no lesse wicked Quakers follow them asserting that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us but as it is ratified by Christ in the new and hath precept or Authority from it as is affirmed by Robert Barclay Vindic P. 178. num 5. Hence it is evident that according to them no part of the Old Testament is more obligatory or binding upon uâ— than the words of Aratus or such heathen Poets are and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these
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
and the whole is greater than the part and all that is deduced therefrom the Knowledge of the things of God but these Evasions are as easily everted as invented for who can deny that by the same species or kind of Knowledge and reason whereby man can deduce excellent politick and Oeconomick Conclusions and order a Common-wealth or Family he can also conclude from the beautiful Fabrick and comely order of Heaven and Earth and the admirable Providence of God apparent therein that there is a first and supreme Power from which these things did proceed and by which they are guided into their proper ends And indeed in this did consist the wisdom of the wise Heathens as is evident to any that have but the least acquaintance with the writings of Plato Aristotle and such other heathnish Philosophers to whom the invisible things of God even his eternal Power and God-head were made manifest by the things that are made being by them ponderated and contemplated Rom. 1.20 Certain it is that it is as easy by the same kind of Knowledge and Reason to know that every effect hath a cause as to know that the whole is greater than a part But the Quaker granteth that by natural light only a man may know this latter Axiom with whatsoever can be deduced from it Ergo he may as easily know the former with whatsoever may be deduced from it but from this former Axiom the natural Philosophers firmly conclude that there is a Supreme Cause Ergo a man having natural Light only may conclude from this Axiom which is imprinted on the hearts of all men that there is a supreme Cause or Author of all things which is God. Moreover it is certain that the defect of the Wisdom of the Heathens is every where by Scripture placed in this that by it they could not perceive Christ and the Mysteries of the Gospel which as they were to the Iews a stumbling Block so they were to the wise Greeks foolishness and no where in this that they could not so much as know that there is an Omnipotent and Just God which ought to be reverenced and served though with what kind of Worship they knew not and that we ought to do unto another as we would he should do to us Again that a Brute hath more knowledge in Politicques or Oeconomicks than it hath in Mechanicks or Arithmetick is false and ridiculous for indeed they have alike in both for if the Bee can imitate the Politician or the Governour of a Family she can also be the ape of the Mechanick and prettily imitate him in making Cells to contain honey the hen also when she hatcheth or hath brought forth can perceive if any be wanting of her Eggs or Birds Hence I may conclude that the Hen is as skilful in Arithmetick as the Bee is in policie the hungry dog also will be very loath to part with any piece of the Morsel he hath gotten into his clutches Hence I may as well conclude that a dog understandeth that Axiom viz. that the whole is greater than the part as the Bee or Ant understand the Fundamentals of policie and Oeconomie But it is needlesse to dwell any longer in the refuâ—ation of these things which are no lesse unreasonable than impious 17â—y Our eight Argument we draw from Rom. 1.19 20. Because that which may be known of God is c. from which place our Divines have alwayes concluded against the Socinians see Pareus on chap. 1. to the Romans dub 16. and why may not we with as good Reason against the Quakers infer That there are some reliques of the Divine Image or Natural Knowledge of God left in man against which inference Robert Barclay pag. 52. saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is to be known of God is not understood any thing which man retained in the fall but a new visitation of Light and Grace And 2 dly that tho this Knowledge of God be common to all men yet they receive it only by this new visitation of Grace and Light But to answer at this rate is only loudly confidently to proclaim that his Doctrine is pure Paganism for who that ever thought there was any Necessity of the Christian Religion in order to Salvation wouâ—d dare to affirm that what was common to the Heathens yea devils also was as really saving the fruit of Christs purchase as that which is proper to the godly For surely this kind of Knowledge of God of which the Apostle here speaketh and sayeth that it is learned by the contemplation of the Creatures is common not only to all the Heathens but even to the Devils themselves I hope we have by this time sufficiently demonstrated that there are some reliques of the knowledge of God and something of the principles of Morality remaining in man even considered in his lapsed Condition We have also vindicated so many of Mr. Browns Arguments as the Quaker thinks fit to take notice of many others he hath left untouched see for Examples sake chap. 5. num 28 29 30. But indeed the Quaker here as he doth all along playeth like the Dog in Nile making a mint and then to his heels again for he either leaves the Arguments and Proofs of his Adversary as also his answers given to his Arguments altogether untouched or else opposeth such pitiful Trifles as being examined and pressed instantly resolve in the apples of Sodom and yet certainly here if ever the Quaker was concerned to have played the man and given sufficient ground for this Doctrine For with this light all the Quakers Religion standeth and falleth which indeed is nothing but the meer Remainders and small spunks of that sometimes bright Image that shined in our first Parents which altho they can never be quenched yet are never alike or sufficient to reveal these Mysteries The knowledge of which is absolutly necessar to Salvation or to lead man through the dark and dangerous Wilderness of this World into the more excellent Canaan of eternal rest And therefore there is no Light common to mankind sufficient for Salvation seing all men have no other Light common to them but this which we have evinced to be altogether natural and yet this natural Light is to the Quakers their God their Christ their Grace their Scriptures and whatsoever else is necessary to Salvation That it is to them their Rule or in stead of the Scriptures we have seen already and that this Light also is to them in stead of God and Christ or that in their account this Light of reason and Conscience for no other is common to all men is God himself these following passages evince In him was Life and the Life was the Light of men If the Life be the Divine Essence the Light must be so also for such as the Cause is such the Effect must be Thus George Whitehead in a Manuscript cited by Hicks Quaker Appeal answered pag 4. and Will
cited after several serpentine windings and turnings to the end he may tho he retain the thing yet evite the Name wholly rejecteth Augustin and therefore giveâ—h up the Cause ridiculously enquiring at his Adversary if he will assert every thing that Augustin said ridiculously I say seing the question is if Augustin did not hold our Doctrine anent Original Sin as the Antithesis to that of the Pelagians in this point which Pelagians have had many successors tho known by other Names as Socinus and his School and holy and pure Anabaptists as they called themselves and were by contrariety of speech called by others the Fry of a deluded Enthusiast Thomas Muncer The horrid abominations of which Sect and this their Doctrine of Original Sin among the rest that famous reformer Bullinger hath by Scriptures and Reason so hammered that one in reason should have thought that it should never have had a Resurrection as may be seen Lib 1. cap 11. adversus Anabaptistas where he also to purpose vindicateth Zuinglius from the calumny of the denyal of Original Sin wherewith first the Council of Trent although contrary to their own Light as judicious Soave observeth and of late Rob Barclay both in his Apology and Vindication hath traduced him Secondly Altho this Doctrine hath by many Ages been assaulted most fiercely by corrupt men both of subtile wit and earnestness of Intention yet the providence of God hath sufficiently pre-occupied what they have said or can say and fortified all who truly believe what God hath said in His Word where there is good Store both of Sword and Buckler for managing of this War and of these many I shall here excerpt and vindicate a few And First Gen. 2.17 For in the Day thou Eatest thou shall surely Die or Dying thou shalt Die where is a clear proof of our Doctrine whence we reason as well against Pelagians Anabaptists Socinians and Quakers as against the Papists who deny Original sin in Infants after Baptism Thus Infants Die Ergo they are guilty of Original Sin seeing according to this present Text Death is the punishment due to the breach of the Command To this the Pelagians as Augustin in several places and particularlie Quest. 3. C. 899-tom 4. colum 666. And the Socinians as Pareus on the place sheweth with other Enemies of the Christian Religion and at this day the Quakers answer that Bodily death is not included in this Threatning But besides that the Pelagians were anathematized for this doctrine by one Council of Carthage consisting of 224 Bishops Photius Biblioth Colum. 42. This answer is evidently false seeing that by this word Death frequently in Scripture Bodily as well as Spiritual is understood and by the Phrase to die the Death the separation of Soul and Body is frequently holden forth Moreover none can deny that Bodily Death of it self is an evil and no evil could have befallen Mankind persevering in the State of Innocency But Chap. 3.19 Will aabundantly dissolve all doubts about the meaning of the text to any unbyassed Men Where God himself describing the punishment of Adams transgression denounceâ—h and foretelleth his return to the dust as not the least part thereof But we need not multiply reasons for the vindication of this text seeing none except Socinians and Pelagians oppose our meaning thereof and the reason adduced by our present adversaries common to them with the Socinians and in particular Crellius for it s overthrown in strength excelleth not a cobweb although they pitched upon it as the only weapon which had any Teeth or keenness therein The reason is Adam died not that day that he did eat therefore say they Bodily death is not Comprehended in the threatning Neither hath this reason any stronger nerves than the rest used by Pelagians Socinians which yet for ought any thing I can find the Quakers do not use judging them as it seems unfit to serve their turn Therefore Robert Barclay tho he had Apolog chap 4. Fought with this Reason as the only prop of his cause his adversary chap. 5. num 8. Having hewed it in pieces in his Vindication essayeth not the reinforcement thereof only Sect. 5. num 3. In stead of a Vindication hath its repetition adding that death as it is now circumstantiated with Sickness and the like miseries is a consequence but not a punishment of Sin which distinction is most Blasphemouâ— as here it is made use of seing it insinuateth that God Transgresseth his own Law by inflicting more miserie on fallen man than was denounced in the Threatning Either this he must say or else that Sickness and Death as they are now circumstantiated are not inflicted by God which I am sure is little better than the former But to shut up all he sayeth that his Adversarie hath not said enough to proselyte him to his Opinion notwithstanding that he had so dâ—shed his reason upon which it was builded that the Quaker attempteth not the Restauration thereof He addeth further as a reason why his Adversary had not said enough to proselyte him that death to Adam in the state of Innocency should have been a pleasure not a pain which reason is altogether reasonlesse seeing the reason why death is pleasant to any is its being the port to free Men from all evil especially from Sin without which Adam should have wholly remained if he had persevered in his integrity but it is too evident that the Quaker is of Bellarmins mind who de Statu primi Hominis alledgeth that man during his Integrity was not free of concupiscence and evil inclinations which doctrine maketh God the Author of sin But I leave this matter only I cannot but here observe which I might do in most places and weightiest points of Robert Barclay's Vindication that per fas aut nefas as they say the Quakers must have the last words for who will think it requisite to write after one who can tell his Adversary that he hath not said enough to proselyte him and yet never so much as essay to vindicate his own or remove his adversaries reasons as Robert Barclay doth here and yet publishes his book to the world as a sufficient answer or refutation of what his adversarie had said living in the mean time without so much as an attempted vindication these points with which the whole frame of Quakerism standeth and falleth for if Bodily death was included in the threatning then our doctrine of Original sin is proved which doctrine once being evinced all the pretended absurdities and blasphemies which Socinians Quakers and others infer from our Doctrine of Original sin and Reprobation fall to the Ground and they are if they be Christians obliged to remove these themselves Further its clear from Rom. 6.23 The wages of sin is Death where death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages not the consequence only of sin as the Quaker both in his Apology and Vindication Sect. 5. num 8.
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
Behold now reader the identity of the doctrine of Quakers with that of Arrians from whom they have learned it But some perhaps may object saying that this identity is only in words to whom I answer Either the things imporâ—ed by these words and phrases and given by Christians Generally as the meaning thereof and contained in Scripture or not now if the first be true then to stir up strife about these words proves only the raisers thereof ridiculous But 2. Supposing that the thingâ— themselves which Christians understand by these words or phrases are holden forth in Scripture then to deny that we may use them is founded on this Hypothesis viz. that in Explication of Scriptures or disputs about the meaning theâ—eof it is impious and unlawful to use any words or phrases except they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the same Letters and syllables in Scripture tho we be never so sure that as to the sense and meaning thereof they be found in the Scripâ—ures but this Hypothesis if true overthroweth all Scripture consequences interpretation of Scripture blasts the hope of ever getting Hereticks refuted which none will deny except â—n Arrian or the like Hereticks and while these deny it they only oppose their own practice to their own opinion seeing they themselves as other dâ—sputantâ— endeavour to draw Consequenâ—es from Scripture and paraphrase upon it to make it peak for themselves Now that this absurd and blasphemous consequence sticks fast to this their Hypothesis appears from no few places of Scripture and among others Math. 22.31 32. For if our Saviour had stuck to the meer Letters and Syllablâ—s of Exod. 3.6 I am the God of Abraham c. without deduction of a consequence from them and so an exposition of them he should never from these words have evinced against the Saâ—ducees the Resurrection of the dead But I need not stay longer to evince this for certain it is and already proved not only from the Quakers obstinate denyall of a free and positive Conâ—ession of their Faith anent this matter but also from their useing of the same weapons with which the Arrians attempted the subversion of this trulie Catholick Doctrine as also sufficiently by the express words of Fox and these of the Principles of the Priests but this Arrian Self Contradicting shift they are forced â—o usâ— being conscious to themselves as the Arrians before â—hem that their Doctrine cannot be proof against the firm and demonstrative deductions which the Orthodox bring from Scripture with which as so many Battering-Rams they with ease overthrow this Antirripitarian Impietie Therefore the other Branch of the Dilemma viz. That the sense of these words i. e. That which all Christians understand as the Meâ—ning thereof according to the Quakers is not in Scripture And indeed this is the Truth And so the Quakers are Arrians the evicting of which is the intent of this present discourse But yet farther that this is Truth viz. That the Quakers are Arrians if not worse and deny that fundamental Doctrine of the persons of the â—oly Trinity and that the Son of God and the Holy Ghost also are of the same substance with the Father and distinct persons from him is most evident from their perpetual hellish raisings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinitie calling it an Abominable and stinking Doctrine as these that heard them told me and when they were reproved their reply was thou knowest not the Truth Again they demonstrate to the world that they are the Frye of Arrius while they reject the Common Translation and Exposition of Heb. 1. â— Admitted by all except the Arrians and their Brethren For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be rendred Person or Subsistence as all the Lexicographers and in particular Scapula Pasor Scrivelius upon the word and all the Interpreters both ancient as Pareus in locum sheweth and modern Dutch Divines and English Translation render it but Substance for certainly thus it must be rendred â—f the word Person or Subsistence be rejected then it shall irresistiâ—ly follow that the Father and the Son are divided in substance which was the Doctrine of Arrius both in Maâ—ter and Termâ— hence it is clearâ—r than day-light that these men are his Disciples yea it is to be observed that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place ought to be rendered Subsistentia or Persona then if a man believe the Scriptures and that words are the true Symbols of things it is not possible that he be in Judgment an Arrian Aâ— contrariwise if a Man believe that the word ought to â—e rendered Substance presupposing the Truth of the Scriptures and that words are the true Idea's of things he cannot but be an Arrian Hence that for named Arrian Antithesi 4 ta apud Zanchium pag 854 of his forecited book sayes Heâ— 1. Christ is the splendor of the Glorie of God and figure of His Substance Christ is the invisible God Himself says the Church of Rome For this Arrian still calleth all the opposeâ—s of Arrianism members of the Church of Rome as the Quakers do now But it may be here objected that several very Orthodox Writers have in this place translated â—he Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Substantia to which I answer that all the Orthodox both Ancient and Modern while they thus spake did take the word Substantia in the sense that both they and we do the word Persona or Subsistentia This our Assâ—rtion may be most evident to any though but a little acquainted with the ancient and Modern Orthodox i. e. the opposers of Arrians and Socinians writers For Augustin who in several places and in particular lib. 5. and 7. De Trinitate ascribeth to God three Substances or three Subsistences indifferently yet notwithstanding elswhere carefully distinguisheth them and in particular de fide ad Petrum Diaconum â—ap 1. where he sayeth for if as the substance of the Father and the Son is one so also they were 〈◊〉 one person then there should be nothing aâ— all which truly could be called a Trinitie Hence we seâ— that this word Substantia did beaâ— a twofold Signification in the first of which it may be well put into the reâ—t as Equivalent with or the Synonymum of the word Persona without the least shadow of prejudice to our Doctrine it were easie to shew the like ouâ— oâ— Hilarius and others of the Antients I shall content my self to set down the words of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca Col. 299. Giving his Judgment concerning a book of Pierius an ancient Pastor saying as touching the Father and the Son he believeth piously except that he sayeth that they are two Substances and as many Natures howbeit not so as he adhereth to Arrius for as may be gathered from what goes before and followeth he useth the word Substantia for or in the same signification with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
He is angry because his Adversary saith that it is the will of God that his people be under a warfare so long as they are here saying But 〈◊〉 it the will of God that they alwayes be overcomeâ— Seing if their Actions still be stained with sin 〈◊〉 that they may be called service to Satan they cannot but be said to be overcome Ans. They are not alwayes overcome Because sometimes the man as Spiritual prevaileth against himself as carnal And alwayes overcometh at length and at the end of the War though oftentimes foiled in particular Battels The none consideration of which distinction is the ground of this Cavil his following words stand and fall with this Doctrine of Original sin and universal Grace according to his own confession we shall therefore passe them Pag. 123 He repeateth his Argument which is that our Doctrine is injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ. But he forgetteth to shew how Only he sayeth in opposition to his Adversary saying that the Guilt of sin by by this Sacrifice is taken away And also he taketh away the stain thereof piece and piece till in end he give full Victory They refer that to another Life The Question is concerning this Ans. If he were minded to make a Difference betwixt Heaven and Earth he had not made a Question about full Victory in this life 2. How profane a Heart must he have that counteth all the attainments of a Child of God in this Life as good as nothing For notwithstanding of them all he will still have the Sacrifice of Christ to be useless except a man in this Life become as sinless as an Angel. He was concerned to have proved this otherwise not belied the World by giving out that he had fully answered his Adversary But especially he lieth here in that he sayeth he hath fully answered his eight Chapter In which of all places he most failed Of which I shal give the Reader a touch in my Appendix And may be more fully seen by these who compare the Books themselves He will not be content that his Adversary sayeth that the godly and the wicked differ In that the one sinneth with full Purpose of Heart and the other viz. the godly mourneth over and repenteth of his sin and shortcomings but sayeth seing he supposeth the godly to remain in sin all their lifetime the similitude remaineth Ans. And is it so that there is no difference in sinning between him that sinneth through Malice and him that sinneth through Infirmity let him prove this For until he do it we account it an abominable Assertion For the Scripture maketh a clear difference between the shortcomings of the godly and wicked departing from God. And is it no difference that the one repenteth and the other not Next he mentioneth another of his Apologetick Arguments viz. that our Doctrine in this Point maketh the Ministry uselesse But in stead of urging what his Adversary answered which was that upon this very head the Necessity of a Ministry appeareth 2. That it cannot be proved that this ultimat end of the Ministry mentioned Eph. 4 13. is attained here and 3. That there is a Perfection of Parts and another of Degrees I say in stead of urging of all this he only sayeth but the Question is whether or not that perfection is attainable here Ans. He ought to urge his Argument And not propone Questions seing he knoweth well enough that his Adversary as alwayes so here denyeth that a sinless perfection is attainable in this life Now let him prove this from the place and he may be considered But in stead of this for as short as his Book is he must make a Digression to tell us that though Christ was sinlesse yet he admitted of grouth which is nothing to the purpose seing Christ is not said to grow in the Love of God and such moral Perfections about which the Question is but only in that kind of Knowledge the pura nescientia or want of which is no sin or culpable Ignorance Next he sayeth it will not follow from Col. 4.12 and 1 Thes. 3 12. that it is impossible that men should be free of sin here by the Grace of God. These were the Places from which he deduced an Argument for sinless perfection in his Apology And now being answered he thinks it enough for urging of them to bid us prove the contrary from the same places Judge Reader if this man be not pithy And yet he hath all the pith that Socinus and Crellius had from whom he learned the Argument His following Quibles are already answered Only I must take notice that in this pag. 129. he enquireth How these can be said to have renounced the Works of darkness who have need to be washed from their dayly Defilements Ans. Let him read the 12 and 13. of Zechariah and there he may find that these two are consistent And as for his how 's seing he will not see from the Scripture they ought to have no other Answer And whereas he venteth his Malice here in special against the Presbyterians we expect no oâ—her thing at his hand For we know though Qâ—â—kers and Jesuits have an inveterat Hatred against all Protestants Yet in a special Manner theiâ— hate burneth against Presbyterians knowing that these are furthest off from the Church of Rome Some othâ—rs of his Apologetick Arguments he mentioneth in the following page but doth not so much as attempt to urge them Next the Examples of Enoch and Noah he also â—entioneth and again taketh his old Shift viz. the Defendents part â—aying how can we prove thaâ— they were never without sin whileas affirmanti incumbit probatio He doth not deny but they had once sin Now seing he asserteth that at another time they were free of it altogether he ought to prove it And that by another Argument than saying If they had not been altogether free of sin they would not have been called perfect Seing that perfection is variously taken in Scripture and not only for being free of sin as himself confessed above seing he did not contradict what his Adversary said about the Diversity of the Signification of the Word He cometh in the next place to remove our Arguments The first of them is drawn from 1 Joh. 2.8 If we say we have no sin c. and here he sayeth first that this will no more prove that the Apostle Iohn himself sinned dayly than what is said Iames 3.9.10 can be affirmed of the Apostle Iames himself Ans. There is no parity For James speaketh of grosse outbreakings from which the Lâ—rds People are ordinarly kept But here the Apostle speaketh simply of the Nature of sin 2. Certain it is that the Apostle John even in his best frame had sinful Actions and his own Errors Which none will deny that readeth Rev. 19.10 11 and 22 8 9. and I think no Quaker will deny that John was perfectly born again if any ever was Now let them
dependeth upon the controversie of perfection to which he referreth his Reader and I do the like to my survey of his Vindication His next nominal Calumny is that his Adversary supposeth it to be their Doctrine that there is no setting about prayers or other duties without a previous motion of the Spirit Now of all things I wonder most that he calls this a Calumny seing this very thing is asserted by himself in his eleventh proposition How he will reconcile himself with himself I know not well Yet sure his following words are so far from mending the matter that they make it worse which are That they speak not of a previous motion in order of time but in order of nature Neither his proposition nor any part of his Doctrine for any thing can be learned insinuateâ—h any such thing 2. This motion must so far preceed the setting about duty as that the persons perception of the motion must be interjacent according to them For they teach that before duty we must not only be acted by the Spirit but know that we are acted Ergo the motion must be previous in order of time And yet the man is so fraughted with a desire of altercation that he must say some what though he have not much advantage by it otherwise he had not challenged his Adversary as a Calumniator while by the same very expression taxed by himself he is forced to a distinction unheard of heretofore as I think in this matter and in reality a real contradiction of his own Principles And again he alledgeth he is wronged because his Antagonist inferreth from his words in his eleventh Proposition That according to him Gospel-worship putteth away all external Actions But he needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their words Some other things he hath which he calleth Calumnies One thing he taketh very ill and that is that his Antagonist pag 418. compareth the Quakers to the old Pythonicks because of the strange and unusual motions among them Antick fits and strange Pranks I alwayes compared them in such fits to the Cumean Cybil as she is described by Virgil in his 6 Eneid To this he retorts the extraordinary working of the Spirit of God mentioned in the fulfilling of the Scripture called the Stwarton sickness challenging us to assign a difference between this and the strange influence of the Quakers spirit upon them which we can with great facility do for beside that these out-lettings of the Spirit of God made them to cleave more closly to the Scriptures as the only Rule and Star to guide them through the sea of this world to the safe port of their eternal rest And endeared more and more unto the Ministers of Christ Jesus his word and Sacraments we mean that which the Quakers call Water-Baptism the Communion of the Lords Body in Bread and Wine as sure pledges of the Love of Christ commanded by him to be used until his coming to Judgment which are openly contemned and vilified by the Quakers We say beside this these outlettâ—ngs were far from leading them into such strange and unheard of fits as the Quakers are put into of which I could instance a Legion of sure Examples see a late piece written by a new English Minister Mr. Increase Meather See also Paget's Heresiography where he bringeth among other strange Pranks of theirs to which they were moved by the Spirit One Susanna Parsons a zealous Quaker attempting to raise one of their number who had murdered himself from the dead but in vain And this iâ— attested by all the Magistrats of a considerable City in England viz. Worster Anno 1659. See also a little piece called Foot out of snare of the strange and antick influences of this their Spirit on one Iohn Toldervei What shall we say of Iames Naylor who following the Light of this Spirit did arrogat to himself divine honour at Bristol Now though they say he recanted this again it is all one matter For this Antiscriptural Spirit which is their principal Rule can no doubt change it self as it seeth occasion And having too much bewrayed it self with the grossness of its Delusion can easily turn it self to a more subtile way of imposture So that we may in a word say that the difference between the workings of the Spirit of God on his people mentioned in Scripture and these of the faâ—her of lies and deceits on the Pythonicks or Cybills was no more palpable than the difference between the working upon these mentioned by him and that upon the Quakers He sayeth moreover that the story of Gilpin who as Paget sheweth us was mad through Quakerism is refuted long ago But forgetteth to tell by whom or where Next he cometh to wipe off the absurdity of their silent waiting that this their abstracting of their mind from all thoughts so that the soul doth not at all act upon any kind of Object Which posture they say prepareth them for the Spirits motion And this is the result of their asserting that a man ought to do nothing of the Service or Worship of God except they know that they are moved thereto by the Spirit Now such an inturning for he counteth it a great wrong in his Adversary to call it introversion is not possible unto a man except he be sleeping as the experience of the generality of men witnesseth who still perceive their Souls acting upon some Object either good or evil except they be sleeping or in an extasie And so this is a direct following of the Heathens who went and sleeped at the Temples or Groves of their gods that they might have conference with them in dreams But they used to take sheep-skins and ly upon as Virg. in his 7 Book speaking of Latinus which if the Quakers do or not I am uncertain Now in his defence of this pag 147 being challenged as guilty of this absurdity by his Antagonist among other words he hath these viz. If he would understand it of the old man the man of sin that is corrupted we wil say with the Apostle that it ought to be crucified and die And again he sayeth that albeit in one sense they are said to die yet they more truely live and exist citing Gal. 2 20. And this is the substance of what he sayeth on this point To which I answer it is well that at length they forsake their prime Opinion or Characteristical note Hitherto he with his brethren were defending the relinquishing of all thoughts whatsoever in order to the Spirits Motion and our setting about of duty now he only defendeth the leaving of Carnal thoughts But he doth not consider that this Cheat will easily be perceived For there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving For I hope he moveth when and where he listeth Now I say at this time as man cannot Act yea or think warrantably of the things of God according to them Because
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
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
one Faith I do believe this will trouble him And when he has done these two then he may bring up his Achillean Argument viz. that such as were baptized with water were not baptised Therefore baptism with water is not the baptism of Christ. Which Sophism might have been as well made against Circumcision as Baptism as we have but even now shown He is angry at his Antagonist for telling him that he hath stollen his Arguments from Socinians saying he never read three lines of him Answer neither did ever I hear one line in Socinus his own Book yet I have heard an hundred of Socinus his Arguments He miserably bewrayeth his genious For if he without reading of their Writings still fall upon the Socinian Arguments then how near of kin must he and they be But this he still doth as the whole Series of his Adversaries Book declareth still citing the Book and page of the Socinian Writings where his Arguments are to be found Which he dare not deny whereas he should vindicat pag. 164. his Doctrine built upon 1 Pet. 3.21 he sayeth meer nothing But only that his Adversary giveth meer Assertions But he doth not attempt to impugn them And is this urging and Vindication of his Arguments How desperat must his Cause be When he leaveth the very place upon which they found the Abrogation of Baptism without attempting to prove his own meaning of it Next I say that whatever I can build upon this place against Baptism with Water the same Argument might have still holden against Circumcision in the flesh seing still it was true that he is not a Jew that is one outwardly and that that is not Circumcision which is outward in the flesh but that he is a Jew that is one inwardly and that is Circumcision that is of the Heart and Spirit and not of the Letter c. Rom. 2.28 29. In a word whatever they shal say against Baptism with Water from this place of Peter there is still as much to be said against Circumcision with hands even during the Law flowing from the perpetual Truth of this place of Paul to the Rom But I think themselves will not say it militates any thing against Circumcision made with hands during the Law. Ergo they ought to conclude nothing from this place of Peter against Baptism with Water Here he sayeth that his Adversaries answer to this Argument from this place of Peter and Gal. 3 27. Col. 2 12 is built upon the Supposition that Water-Baptism goeth to the making up of Christs Baptism And then sayeth he will expect his proof of his exposition of these places is not that fair arguing Reader to frame an Argument from a place of Scripture and when the Defendent denyeth such a thing followeth from this Scripture to tell him he has lost the Cause unless that he prove that it will not follow But seing he is the impugner in this place if he had not intended to expose himself and his party to scorn he had certainly at least attempted to prove his own Expositions of these places and urged his two Arguments which in his Apology were in modo figura But this heat of dispute was soon allayed For so hath his Antagonist combated with him that he essayeth not to reinforce them See pag. 473.479 How seared must these Mens Consciences be when they endeavour to put a cheat upon the World in so weighty a business 2. It 's most groundless to say that there is any petitio principij here as the Quaker insinuateth Next he cometh to reply to his adversaries 9. Num Where he had evinced that Iohns Baptism was not a figure of Christs And passing the marrow of what he had said he only compendizeth his Apologie saying that Iohns Baptism was a washing with Water that the Apostle ascribeth the putting on Christ to the Baptism of Christ as washing with water Typifieth or signifieth the washing of regeneration so doth Iohns Baptism that of Christ. But all this was obviat before while his adversary answered his Argument wherewith he intended to prove his third proposition denying that the Baptism of Christ is only the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and with fire asserting also and that upon good grounds that the Baptism with water is Christs Baptism instituted by Him see the Forecited Numb Next I say that Iohns Baptism as being institute by Christ and comprehending the thing signified is not only Baptism with water but Christs whole true Baptism and so this quibling is groundless Neither is that which followeth any solider where he sayeth because his adversary denyeth he must encrease but I must decrease to be meaned of the abolition of Iohns Baptism that then if this be meaned of their persons Iohn grew more decrepit and Christ more tall Spectatum admissi risum teneatis Was there not another member of the disjunction I answer therefore to this miserable cavil that the meaning of the place is that the person of Christ was to grow more and more in honour and glory so that within a little the fame and repute of Iohn was to be eclipsed through the brightness and splendour of Christ. Next he sayeth that though Iohn had a command for baptism it will not follow that it was no legal rite Ans. It will well follow for all the legal Rites such as held forth Christ and his benefits by way of Type to the whole Church which each Member was to practise were either institute by Moses or before him The design of which was that the people might see Christ though darklie as in a Glass untill the time of his coming therefore this could not be a legal Rite which was commanded directly at the coming of the Messias and at his verie appearance preaching to the world when there could be no use of legal Rites but these which were within a little to be abolished 2. All the Legal Rites are abrogat in the New Testament but no where is the command given to John recalled and his Baptism abrogat Otherwise let him show me the place of Scripture But not 1 Pet. 3.21 which they ordinarilie use Either immediatly given by God or the Apostles contrary approved practise equivalent to a Command 3. That the Baptism of John was a Gospel Ordinance is clear from Mat. 11.12 13. Where it is said that the Law and the Prophets prophesied until Ioh. To which place I know they ordinarily answer that untill doth not exclude John But this is refuted abundantly by the former vers For in the time of the Law the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be said to suffer violence and yet it suffered Violence in the dayes of John. And certain it is that this particle if it be not taken exclusively here can be so taken no where else in Scripture as the collation of this with other places will evince 4. No legal thing person or Rite was prophesied of in the Old Testament but John was clearly prophesied of as
indulged unto them But his Answer still cutteth off Babes with the rest seing to them Christ is come in the Spirit already But it is needless at all to Impugn this distinction it s own groundlesness sufficiently doth it He cometh next to answer his 21 and 22 Num and there he asserteth That that which the Christians were enjoyned to Observe Act 15 29. was no part of the Ceremonial Law but an Apostolick Command and thinketh that whatever can plead for the abrogation of this Injunction will also plead for the abrogation of the Lords Supper But taketh no notice that his Antagonist shewed that there is no little Vanity and impiety in his adducing Rom. 14.17 Col. 2.16 To prove this and therefore he shamefully passeth over what he sayeth on these places and so giveth up this his Socinian Cause For he that is a Socinian in this point he doeth not deny he sayeth That this Command seing it was given after the out-pouring of the Spirit hath as much of a Gospel Institution as any thing commanded before by Christ can have Ans. Well then I see we will be no more troubled with quaking preachers seing this Command Act. 15. according to himself is repealed and yet hath as much of a Gospel Institution as preaching hath Matth. 10. and certainly it will as well follow from Col. 2.20 that preaching of the Gospel is abrogat and not allowed now by Christ as from v 16 and Rom. 14 17. that the Lords Supper is now abrogat and not allowed by Christ. Now let both old and new Socinians I mean the Quakers try to infringe this if they can And I shall still infer the one upon as good ground as they can do the other Which Consideration and Parity of places destroyeth this Socinian Conceit say what they will in its defence AN APPENDIX IN which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches and in special of the Reverend assembly at Westminster in their Confession of Faith Chap. 3. deduced from the Ninth chap to the Romans defended and the Text Vindicated from the Corrupt Glosses and Depravations of William Parker and his pretended examination of the Westminster Confession which Robert Barclay hath made his own by referring us thereunto as sufficient solutions of all our arguments for our Doctrine of Election and Reprobation deduced from that place AMongst the many and damnable Errors which the Quakers have raised out of their Graves that of their denying Eternal Election or at best making it whollie conditionall uncertain and depending upon the will of the Creature so that notwithstanding the Decree of God to the contrary it might so have fallen out that none should have been saved is not the least In which they conspire with the grossest of Pelagians but the downright and most palpable contrariety of this their Doctrine of the holy Scriptures which they sometimes would fain seem to follow hath made the more knowing among them to conceal so far as they are able their thoughts anent the Doctrine of Election Thus dealt Robert Barclay who in all his Theses and Apology tho in his account an entire System of Religion never delivereth his minde thereanent And Vindic. Sect. 6. In defence of this non-such Omission he sayeth only that all do at times Confess that it is not safe nor proper too curiously to inquire into the Decrees of God which he prooflesly alledgeth his adversary to have done and that it is only needful to say God calleth every Man every where to Repent and be saved through Faith in Jesus Christ Neither doth he any where directly Impugn our Doctrine of Election And yet he feircely falleth upon our Doctrine of Reprobation and thus declareth to the World his self-repugnancy seing none can be ignorant that our Doctrine of Reciprobation is Reprocally and inseparably linked to that of Election Moreover he thus publisheth his Mind concerning Election altho he by all Means endeavours to conceal it for whoever denyeth Reprobation by an Infallible Consequence downright denyeth Election And thus Nill he will he we have his mind positively anent Election and also Confession intimated that his Judgement about Election cannot abide to be tryed by the Scripture Bench. And yet I think few will say That his Doctrine of positive and dounright denyal of Reprobation is much better founded seing he with a Pythagorical silence passeth over all his Adversaries arguments proving all our Doctrine there anent chap. 7. num 10.11 These Arguments I say about twenty in Number he doth nor so much as mention and far less attempt a Solution thereof altho he knew well enough that except these be untyed the whole frame of Quakerism is entirely dissolved But in stead of Resolution of his adversaries arguments as he doth all along he giveth the World a meer Contract of his Apologie under the cheating Title of a Vindication But when his adversarie saith That the Quaker can no more Impugn our Doctrine than he can Impugn what the Apostle saith Rom. 9 19. The Quaker Sect. 6. pag 67. answereth two things 1. That this is all one as if a Quaker should say confute all the Scripture which contain our Doctrine and therefore dispute no more untill Thou first do that But the Man is good where there is little to do But if he had not intended to play the shifter he had condescended upon some particular place as his adversarie did otherwise he no less declareth his own fear than Darius did when he objected to his pursuing Enemie That he could not be subdued because of the â—pacious Countries thorow which it behoved Him to follow him 2. He referreth his Antagonist to the Examination of the Westminster Confession chap 3. Where saith he he may have his misapprehensions corrected But How cometh it to pass that the Quaker hath taken no notice of many Authors as Twiss Rutherford Dickson to whom his Adversarie in this very point did refer him 2. But his care is not very great of Commutative Justice Notwithstanding of which Ex abundanti we will make a particular and impartial enquirie into all that he bringeth against the meaning of the Reformed Churches upon that place The Author is an Enthusiastical Arminian called William Parker who is the Man I believe the Quaker understandeth for beside him I know no other particular examinator of this Confession Now because our Quaker placeth so firm confidence in this Author that he thought a simple reference unto him sufficiently doth his bussiness I had a great desire to know what he could say against our meaning of this place Which place appeared to me to hold forth our Doctrine as clearly as the sun-light Having therefore made diligent search at length I found the book in which Chap 3. He undertaketh a particular discussion of all the Arguments brought from this place for our Doctrine concerning Election and Reprobation which how he hath done comes now to be weighed And 1. From Vers. 6. He frameth to himself an Objection
that because it is said that they are not all Israel that are of Israel therefore it seems that all are not elected To which he answers that the Apostle intimatâ— that the Carnal Israel or all that are come of Jacob surnamed Israel are not the Israel to whom the promises of Salvation are absolutly and finally made tho in general the conditional promises belong to all Israel as the Apostle shews vers 4. That we may not be misunderstood know that among others there are seven promises made to the overcomers Rev. 2 3 Chap. and such as persevere in the Christian Race unto the end or to the death and burial of sin Now these and the like promises belong unto the Elect that are chosen out of the furnace of affliction Isa. 48.10 Which with Paul have fought the good fight of Faith. 2 Tim 4 7 8 And so may fullie expect the reward because God is faithful that hath promised it Heb 6 12 and 10 36. James 1.12 I Reply this commentarie I shall not say a comment is founded upon some Scriptures violentlie detorted for none of them doth in the least insinuat that these of whom they speak were chosen to grace only not to glory which groundless distinction was invented of old by the Pelagians and condemned and refuted by the Orthodox as is evident in the Epistles of Prosper and Hilarius Arelatensis and tendeth to the overthrow of the Covenant of Redemption and the promises of God the Father to Christ viz. that he should see his seed and the travel of his soul. Isa. 53.10 11. and many such like for if this Doctrine were true it might so fall out that none should come to Glory for according to it the gift of perseverance is bestowed upon none and so the Apostle's perswasion that None could separate him from the Love of God Rom 8.35 Should have been vain and groundless And the promise to cause the Israel of God to keep his Statutes and his Judgments to do them Ext 36 27. Should be meer words of deceit these and six hundred beside of such absurd blasphemies are unseparably linked to this Doctrine As for the Scriptures cited by him they hold forth a Character of such aâ— shall be saved viz. That they do through grace overcome love the Lord Jesus exercise Patience Faith and the like graces but they do not at all hold forth that these graces and perseverance therein are in Mans own power so that he may reject or refuse them according to the inclinations of his own will and that God doth not make Men irresistibly yet sweetly of unwilling to become willing All which this Neo Pelagian through the Violence of torture makes these Scriptures to speak but the verse it self doth sufficiently refute this exposition for according to it the word or promises of God might be without any effect seing it might fall out that tho all were elected none might be saved Now seing this Exposition cannot Stand the other which this Arminian would fain reject of its own accord follows viz. That not all and every one is from all Eternitie elected and chosen to Salvation as the whole Scope and series of this Chapter doth demonstrate as we shall evince while we reply in particular to the Answers he makes to the objections which he frames from this place 2. He goeth on thus Rom 9.7 Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy seed be called Where the Apostle alludeth to Gen 17.18 19 20 21. It may seem then that only Isaac and not Ismael was chosen Ans. Isaac was chosen alone to be the representative seed of God being a Type first of Christ in whom God hath made his Covenant 2. He being a seed born by Sarah represents Faith out of the promises rather then by the Strength of Nature So is a Figure of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham which are begotten or born by vertue of the promises For so the Apostle explains himself v. 8. That is they which are the Children of the Flesh of whom Ismael carried the Type These are not the Children of God but the Children of promise are counted for the Seed As for Ismael who was begotten by the Strength of Nature and according to the Flesh of Hagar which represents the the Law Gal. 4.21 31 He figured forth these which should be saved not by the grace of the promises but by the works of the Law a people with whom God has not erected His Covenant that they should be saved in that way but tho Ismael carried the Figure of such it was without any prejudice to his Eternal Election or Salvation For Abraham praying thus for him Gen 17.18 O that Ismael might live before Thee or in thy presence v 20 As for Ismael I have heard thee His being such a Type was no more prejudicial to Him then that Moses and Aaron were debarred entrance into Canaan They therein being a Figure of those that should be shut out of Gods Kingdom for unbelief without any hazard to their own Salvation as hath been said before In order to our Reply to this and the following Objections we premit 1. That this and the following Verses of this Chapter are brought in by the Apostle as Arguments to prove his Proposition laid down v. 6. viz. That all are not Israel that are of Israel therefore whatever floweth from these Verses as their immediate Consequents is the meaning of the sixth Verse 2. That the convincing clearness of this place hath forced all to acknowledge that the Apostle is here speaking of Predestination of men in order to their eternal estate and not as to the things of this Life only as Bellarmin de Grat et Lib. Arb. L. 2. C. 15. Stapleton Ant pag. 526. And among the modern Lutherans Hunnius upon the place in hand who confesseth that the Apostle digresseth into the large field of Predestination Yea Arminius himself in his Analysis of this Chapter dareth not deny it tho he fain would Having premised these things we come to his Answer The Substance of which is That Ismael was not himself rejected of God but only a Type of these that are not the Children of God which we shal refute by evincing these two Things 1. That tho Ismael be considered here as a Type only this place gives good ground for the Doctrine of our Confession of Faith against which he here fighteth 2. That Ismael himself was not elected As for the first of these Propositions it is evident For otherwise there should be no Correspondence betwixt the Type and the Antitype and so a Type should not be a Type I prove it If Ismael was excluded from being counted the Seed of Abraham only by the meer good pleasure and absolute Dispensation of God and not conditionally so that Ismael himself could have caused it to come to pass that he should have been counted the Legittimate Heir and Lawful begotten Son of
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
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
God to compile a rule of Faith and Life could by Infallible Evidence and infallible proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of God but nothing of this kind the Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentials for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation than the most wicked Enthusiasts as for Example Iohn of Leyden and his followers whom the Quakers themselves dare not deny to have him Acted by a most wicked Spirit of Delusion seeing therefore they will not subject their Revelations to the infallible test of the holy Scriptures but contrarywise will Impiously make the Scriptures stoup to their Revelations they can be no more certain that they are not acted by the Devil or at least by their own giddy-brain and erroneous fancie when they bear us in hand that they are inspired by the Spirit of God than they of Manster were To this Argument they decline so far as they can a direct answer Therefore Robert Barclay Replyeth to Mr. Broun Vind. pag. 21. How cometh it that others pretending to be led by the Scripture as their Rule as much as John Broun have been deceived since the Scripture declares nothing but Truth But how silly this is I have shown above and more largely in my Apology in these paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted And indeed this is a fine Argument he has provided for Atheists and Scepticks for it renders all Faith even that of the Patriarchs uncertain For since their ground and warrant of Writing the Scripture was in his own account Inward Immediat and Extraordinary Revelations and if such be as he affirms uncertain then the truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such must necessarily be uncertain since the Stream cannot be more pure than the Fountain Thus he This Reply resolveth into two Hypothetick Propositions as for the Paragraphs of which he here boasteth as unanswered which take up six pages in his Apology filled with Railing and Gall against all the reformed Churches they prove only that the Scriptures through men corruption are subject to abuse which never man denyed The first is if the Scriptures through the Corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the Patrociny of Errors and corrupt Practices then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them and square their Practice exactly according to them Yet they are no more able to be a Rule unto them than these Revelations can be which Iohn of Leyden held The second is He that will not admit of such Revelations as cannot be distinguished from these which led their followers into the most Blasphemous Opinions and most wicked Practices imaginable He I say that will not admit of these for his principal Rule but preferreth unto them the Scriptures which can both be invincibly demonstrated to have proceeded from God and also call themselves sufficient to make one wise unto Salvation provideth an Argument for Atheists and Sceptiâ—ks But thus doth Mr. Broun reason against the Quakers and except this the like other grounds the Quakers have none for this heavy Charge For that his Adversary called the Revelations of the Apostles Prophets uncertain Is a most palpable Untruth the least shadow of which cannot be found in all his Writings except they deduce it by such unreasonable Inferences as these And now Reader speak thy mind in good earnest Thinkest thou that this man was in his wit or to be numbred amongst Rationals when he made these Deductions by which their palpable Impieties are indeed antidots against seduction But these men have an ordinary Trick of comparing their own Revelations of the Divinity of which they can give no Signs to these of the Apostles and Prophets that were to the conviction of all Opposers proved to be Divine and thus give away and betray the Christian Cause in labouring to defend their own Dottages In the next place therefore let us take a short view of the Quakers principal Rule compared with ours that it may more fully appear which of the parties provide an argument for Atheists Scepticks And 1. We cannot know whether they haâ—â— any Revelations at all they may be lying unto us for any thing we know we have only their naked Word for it whereas on the other hand it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures 2ly It being given that they have Revelations of some kind from whence are they from Heaven their own fancy or from Hell This we cannot know they neither do nor can give any mark to distinguish them from these Revelations which all the world are perswaded to have been from Hell or at least from a Vertiginous Fancy Go to then let them speak their mind and attempt the retortion of the argument if they dare upon the Scriptures They yet more fully prove that their Revelations are not from Heaven while they affirm that they are common to all men which if the experience of the World yea of the word of God may be judge is most â—alie 3ly Making a Supposition which will never come to a solid Position that they have divine Revelations we yet cannot know for what end they are given whether to be a principal Rule or not or whether or not through their own corruption they do not wrest and misunderstand or tho they do understand them if they walk according to them nothing of which can be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures we can hear nothing nor 〈◊〉 nothing but some men still amusing the World Crying a new Light without giving any Evidence or proof thereof but only their own Word so are always their oun witnesses in their own cause and therefore by all rational men ought not a little to be suspected 4ly This Spirit inward Light or Revelations of the Quakers for I take all for one can never be able to determine Controversies Seeing two different parties may both of them adduce these Revelations to prove contradictory Assertions Now Seeing neither of the parties is in case to Evince that his Revelations are from God more than the other the Controversie must remain for ever undetermined Seeing they have no common principle in which they can concenter and meet And thus standeth for Examples sake the case betwixt Quakers and Ranters agreeing in this principle of immediat Revelations and yet if their books be to be believed bitter Enemies to one another in several points for which both of them alledge Revelations as their grand Principle and neither of them can evince their Revelations to have proceeded from God more than the other Hence we most rationally conclude that the Controversies betwixt these two parties are indeterminable so long as they stick to this Principle Now this Argument in no ways 〈◊〉 be retorted on the Scriptures for though there have been through the corruption of men wresting the Scriptures many Controversies and that even amongst these who