of the Quakers with the Scriptures Oh! That he or any else could awaken them to that diligence and that they would put on that Nobility commended in the Bereans and come to an impartial search not as Patroclus Faldo and Hicks represent them but as they are indeed But Reader he intends nothing less For after all thy pains except thou will implicitly allow his Character of the Quakers and take his sense of the Quakers he will be sure to Stigmatise thee for a Heretick All their clamouring the Scriptures the Scriptures is but a meer Jugle it s their own Gloss they intend Interpres loquitur Litera Sacra silet A little after he tells us ignoti nulld cupido very true for if the principles of the dispysed Quakers were but well known Patroclus Book would be hissed out of Doors And therefore in the end of this Epistle he saith touch not taste not handle not the unclean thing strange Doctrine try and try not I have told you what they are stop your ears and run upon them The rest of his Epistle being all Satyr composed of Railing Lies Forgeries and false insinuations I omit he bringing me no better proof for them then his own confident assertion or rather impudent calumny in these words in a word I say That as the Doctrine of the Quakers is a heap of none such Blasphemies â—o their defences are meer subterfuges Very well Patroclus this is borrowed Armour indeed and that from the 〈◊〉 in Cathedra I say ergo verum est Take his word Reader and his book is superfluous This is no humble confidence as he elsewhere words it But if 〈◊〉 was puzelled to distinguish 〈◊〉 a Pope and Presbyters in Hell he would not have been cleared of his doubts by reading this passage And now to his Book CHAPTER FIRST Of the Holy SCRIPTURES HE begins with a citation of Scripture A good Name is better then precious Oyntment the more shame for Patroclus who hath laboured to rob the Quakers of it by all the black-mouth'd detractions he could invent to defame them His first charge is That the quakers deny that the Seriptures are or ought to be called the Word of GOD. Answer This appears to me but a meer Logomathia in Patroclus For that the word Logos is diversly translated in Scripture we confess As Preaching 1 Cor 1. 18. Utterance 1 Cor 1. 5. Speech Cor 4. 6. And divers otherwayes Now that the Scriptures in such senses may be called Logos That is the speech discourse oâ— words of the Logos or Word of GOD which he spoke to the Pattiarchs Prophets and Apostles and by them recorded for the benefite of the Church we willingly grant But the Word of GOD being a Name so peculiatly atoributed to CHRIST JESUS who being a Jealous GOD will not give his Glory to another Out of meer tenderness of Conscience we can singly from the bottom of our hearts say and not in the least from any difesteem of disparagement of the Scriptures which are our delight to meditate in and peruse often do we scruple to give them that Escential Tittle or Name of Christ it being so solemnly and frequently by the Scriptures themselves attributed to the Son of God As in that remarkable place John 1. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and the Word was mads Flesh which can no wayes be said of the Scriptures And there be Three that bear Record in Heaven The Father The Word and the Spirit And his Name is called the Word of God Now len any sober unbyassed Christian People judge whether we deserve all these black Epithets this Author loads us with meerly for being tender of Attributing the Sacred Name of the Creator to a Creature But he bringeth a bundle of Citations to as little purpose as the Westminster Confession uses to do in such case As R. B. hath remarked in the end of his Confession of Faith The Impertinency of which Citations may be clearly apparent by inserting the Word Soripture in place of the Word of the Lord. As Numbers 3. 16. And Moses numbredthem according to the Word of the Lord Patroclus sense is and Moses numbred them according to the Scriptures whereas yet there was none extant Second is Duter 5. and 5. I stood between the Lord and you at that time to shew you the Word of the Lord Now how impertinent would it beto say That Moses had the Bible in his hand to shew the Israelites Among all the test of his Citations he lays most hold on Hosea 1 and 2. The Beginning of the Word of the LORD by Hosea This sayeth he is a Denying of the Eternity of the Son of God But how grosly he erreth here may be seen above by divers Accoptations we grant of the Word As in Psalm 19 2 The same Word signifieth Speech Now to take this Word for the Scripture would be a gross lye For it was not the Beginning of the Scripture much having been written before And therefore the true meaning of this place to all single heatted ones 〈◊〉 clearly the time when Christ the Word of the Lord began to speak to Hosea Or as the Latin hath it Prinoipiam loquendi Domini in Hosea There are no more of his citations that seem to have any weight but that of Mark 7. 18. compared with verse 10. I shall begin at the 9 And he said unto them full well ye reject the Commandment of GOD that ye may keep your own Traditions Verse 10. For Moses said Honour thy Father and thy Mother c. Verse 13. Making the Word of GOD of none effect Now that this Word mentioned by the Evangelist was one of the Ten Words spoken on Mount Sinai we do not deny And that every Commandement Precept Promise or Threatning in the Scripture is a Word of God we fully acknowledge And so all he can make of this is That the fifth Commandment here meaned is one of the 〈◊〉 Words that came from Christ the Word the Eternal Son of God And whereas he quibles upon the word Per eminentiam or by way of Eminency This fifth Commandment before mentioned shall furnish us an Example The King of Scotland is an Epichet predicated of the chief Magistrat Now I ask him if this Epithet can be predicated per emmentiam of any other Man Book or thing in the Nation without Treason And see if his Properly and Improperly will serve him here The very Committee of Estates altho it exercised the Regal Power in the Late Rebellion did not usurp the Title of King tho they were a little too familiar with his Authority and Person But I hope hereafter Patroclus will be a little more tender of the Titles of the King of Kings Having granted the Contraversy in Terminis For in page 3 He granteth that Christ is the â—ssential and Substantial Word of God The principal Dictator of the Mind of God And that the
angry to be contradicted then their Ancestors the Papists Hence it is evident that it is their Interpretations sense and Preachments upon the Scriptures which they would have to be the Rule of Faith and the Declaration of the Object In page 20 He makes a digression wherein he tels us the same things overagain therefore I shal only touch suchthings as chiefly concern the matter in hand if yet lawful for a Plowman to touch his school-terms by which that Trib have darkned Counsell with words without Knowledge And if Patroclus be a Parochus or Parish Priest I am sure the tenth man of his Hearers cannot understand his Terms First He confounds the Matterial with the formal Object saying as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own ltradiant and illustrious Beams And this in contradiction both to Calvine and him self To Calvine in the place before cited Where he saith That to settle the Conscience such a Perswasion is necesseary as needeth no Reasons And such a sense as cannot be attained but by Divine Revelation To himself in page 23. Where he saith We being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD We answer by the Testimony and operation of the Spirit And herein he may reconcile himself to himself and his friends when he hath Leasure Secondly In page 22 speaking of subjective Revelation he calls the spirit an Instrument in the hand of GOD This Language sounds not sweetly to me for I believe the Spirit is GOD and therefore cannot like these Words GOD an Instrument in the Hand of GOD. 3ly He tells us in page 23 That subjective revelation is more properly called an Application then Revelation it self And yet in the same page he calls it the Testimony and Opcration of the Spirit Now a Testimony is a Witness bearing And we know a dumb Man cannot be a Witness But he hath told us That the Spirit speaks neither to the Ear nor the Mind and so cannot bear a Testimony This is palpable confusion Fourthly page 24. He saith so that we can Reason because surch spirit v g He that confesleth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is said by the Scriptures to be of GOD Therefore I know and believe that is true Doctrine and that this spirit is of GOD. If this Scripture be taken Literally by Patroclus and that he intends as he Writes I must confels I expected not so much Charity at his hands For at this rate he accepteth Papists Lutherians yea and the Palagian Chureb of England who all believe that Christ is come in the flesh But I will expect a Commentary upon the Words with the next Fifthly In the same page he saith We do not with the Fanatical Enthusists reason thus The Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures Therefore I believe them to be so But he hath given us no Reason why he believes such and such Books to be the Scriptureâ— For which we must wait his Leasure Sixibly His lame example of the Sun and Ey-salve is no better He saith by means of the Salve he seeth and knoweth the Sun And again by the Sun Light he may perceive what is Eyâ—salve and what is not But he might have considered That tho he see that Sun and Ey-salve both he needeth his Natural Understanding to know the Sun and to discern what is Ey-salve and what is not And as in Naturals so in Spirituals No man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in him so the things of GOD no man knoweth but by the spirit of God Seventhly In page 26. He chargeth R. B. for calling the Westminster Divines dark c. Because they not separate the Word from the Spirit But said that the Testimony of the Spirit was in ant with the Word And then reflects upon R. B's Vindication page 33. But takes no notice of what he saith page 33. and 34. Because they were too hot for his fingers He citeth Isaiah 59. 21. My spirit which is in thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth c Observe First That the Tenot of this Covenant is Spiritual My Spirit which is in thee Secondly That they are distinct tho not contrary else they needed not the copulative Conjunction And Tbirdly They are called Words and not Word So then Patroclus confesseth That GOD putteth Words in his mouth to preach to his People I shall allow him to be concerned in this Covenant And I hope he will not here after be angry with the Quakers calling the Scriptures the Words of GOD. Eightly He saith there was never the least contraversy betwixt the Briâ—tish and Transmarine Divines on this head but an intire Harmony This is another Lie I shall instance one Joâ— VV Bajer Profeslor os Divinity at Jena in Germany writting on that Subject against the Quakers page 33. and 34. Saith the in ward Illuminations and Operations of the Spirit are altogether necessary to beget true and saving Faith in Men and that these inward Illuminations are objective or by way of Object Which is not very Harmonious with Patroclus Doctrine of Application And this is all the discovery he hath made of R B's Non such weakness and extream disingeunity which he hath left undiscovered till his next Printing And now in page 26. He saith he comes directly to the Objection Saying First The Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we speak properly an Application of the things revealed in Scripture then a Revelation of Testimony strictly so taken Observe First That this being granted all these words of Protestant VVriters such as the Testimony Illumination Inspiration Perswasion of the Spirit are but meer cheats and impostures put upon Mankind And that Calvine when he speaketh of Divine Revelation as necessary to beget True Faith meant no such thing nor any of these Authors he citeth are to be understood according to their own words but according to Patroclus sense and thus he and his Brethren deal by the Scriptures Headds Whereas the Revelations to which the Quakers pretend are altogether objective like that of the Prophers This is another Lie for the Quakers own both Subjective and Objective Revelations as hath been showen above I shall here and Luk. 24. 32. Did not our Hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the way and while he opened to us the Scriptures Now let the Reader judge whether this was an Objective Revelation as well as Subjective Their bearts burnt and he opened to them the Scriptures Now Opening presupposeth a Shulting and the Lamb only is found worthy to open the Seals of the Book That is Poreveal the Object In page 27. He saith we assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be
and Manners For Answer Let the Reader observe That this is but a These And that our Adversaries themselves grant the first part of it Reason therein adduced But the Argument to prove the second part he hath never mentioned as being too hot for his fingers Which is this following Apol page 44. That which is not the Rule of my faith in believing the Scriptures themselves is not the Adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners But the Scriptures are not nor can be the Rule of that Paith by which I believe them c Therefore c This he hath taken no nottice of But gives us a long Citation out of R B his Vindication page 37. And then tells us the Coherence will be made out Ad Calendas Graecas As if it were the Custom when Men publish Theses to set down in the Body of them all the Arguments to prove them But seeing he will have a Coherence let him take it thus The Scriptures are not the Fountain but a Declaration of the Founta in and when the streams fail men use to recurr to the Fountain Therefore when the Scriptures cannot resolve the doubts which ordinarly arise among Christians They ought to recurr to the Fountain That this hath been the practise of the Saints in all ages is manifest from the Scripture I shall instance one or two with divers before cited That Divid was a Man of GOD and Knew the Scriptures I hope mine Adversary will not deny and that he had Abiathar the Priest with him to help him to the right sence of them if need were when he was at Keilab Yet he was necessitate to recurr to the Fountain enquire of the Lord Will Saul come down And will the Man of Keilab ver me up unto him 1 Sam 23 9 10 11 12 And again at Ziglâ—g when the people were like to stone him Did he not then enquire of the LORD 1 Sam 30. 8 And I would willingly know what the Presbyterians means by seeking the LORD in theit straits except it be to ask his Counsel when all other means fail them Hence all his boast evanisheth Next he challengeth his Adversary as confounding the principal Rule and Original Ground together calling it None-sense ridiculous and nothing to the purpose But he should have remembred that in page 46. He hath cited Ephes 2. 20. To prove the Scripture to be the Foundation and all along calls them the Principal Rule If this be sense so the other Sanum Reprênsor debet habere Caput In page 64. He comes to begg the Question in terminis and tells us positively The Scriptures are the Primary Rule And Concludes Thus we understand the Primarie Rule and while he doth not so ho but mistaketh the Question This indeed is imperious Logick and more becoming a Grecian Hero then a Presbyterion Priest But he must Know that the word Primary is out of doors As it signifies First And before he give it another signification he will need to alter all the Lexicons I have yet seen For there was a Rule of Faith before there was a Book in the World And therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Primary Rule Next he comes to his Acyrologie to let us know he hath studied Rhetorick Saying to call a Person of Rule is a great Inductive of Confusion But to call GOD and Christ the habits of Grace as the doth in page 38 is a far more improper speech Then he cites R. B's words in answer to J Brown but not fully and draweth his consequences from them the words are these For I was never so absurd as to call GOD simply considered or the Spirit of GOD in obstracto but as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians From hence he deduceth two Conclusions First that the Quakers Grand principle that Immediate objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their faith falleth to the ground And that these Imprinted truths are but secondary But who seeth not deceit and malice in this consequence Certainly he must fear his cause when he takes such weak Pillars to underprop it For any man of candor may see that R B intendeth only to prove that truths Imprinted and not the Imprinter to be the Rule And he consesseth it to be one Acylogie or improper speech And to conclude the Ruine of his Adversaries cause from one improper speech is either great folly or great malice so that his Antecedent being tightly understood according to the Authors sense his consequence together will all he hath deduced from it is a meer Non-sequitur His other Consequence depending upon the first falleth with it Only he hath been assert that these Revelations are self evident and that to assert otherwayes were impious And a little after to judge that the GOD of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us Well then Patroclus it seemes there are yet such Revelations by thine own consession as are self evident which we may take notice of in due time He proceeds saying There is very good reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primarie then the Scriptures both being given by the same spirit seeing the primariness is not the immediateness but the thief binding power and the prerogative to be the Touch-stone of all doctrines But who denyeth this prerogative to the Scriptures of being a Rule to try all Doctrines of Men how holy so ever Have not his Adversaries granted all this times And what then I hope to believe this proposition is an Act of Faith no where mentioned in Scripture neither is it self evident and therefore needeth a Rule Yea more the scriptures of the New Testament make mention of a Rule only three times to wit 2 Cor. 10. 15 16. Gal. 6. 16. and Phil. 3. 16. And if Patroclus with all his prudence and wisdom comparing Scripture with Scripture can twist and twine a sense out of these Scriptures to prove his matter he may boast of it Next he cites 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. in these words they are able to make the man of GOD wise unto salvation But whether there be such words there let the Reader judge Then he plainly sheweth us what he intends and it is the book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest c. If this be true then certainly the Tennor of the New Covenant is made void and they who lived under the Law had a rea dier access unto GOD and to know His Mind then they who live under the Gospel And yet the difference is evident for as the Law was an outward Rule written by Moses the outward Leader of outward Israel so CHRIST the SpiritualLeader of Spiritual Israel writteth His Spiritual Law in the heart I shall add one argument thus That which was a Rule to the Faith-makers at Westminster in composing their form of Faith and imposing it upon the Nations may
caused Zachariah to be stoned to Death and for Achab to Mieajab and many other of the Prophets who wrought no Miracles to prove their Mission But Christs sheep bear his voice and know it from the voice of a stranger whom they will not follow Tho ravenous Wolves in Sheeps cloathing neither can not will believe it to be his voice And whereas he saith it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures Is it not beyond denyal that we have them also Or do any who profess Christianity want them Or what Advantage have they by them which others have not Except it be to make a sordid Tarde of selling their Interpretations of them So that we dare attempt the Retortion very easily thus the Lutherians Independants Baptists Socinians and Arminians c had the Scriptures as well as the Presbyterians have them So that the Controversy is only Who have the true sense of them each party pretending to it And now I ask him what infallible Signs Evidences and Proofs can he give to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposers as he words it to demonstrate that the Presbyterians and none else have the true sense of the Scriptures Which till he do the retortion stands good But to take his words as they lye I can compare them to nothing better then to the words of the Pharisees Joh 9. 29. We know that GOD spake by Moses as for this fellow we know not from whence be is His second is It being given that they have Revelations of some kind From whence are they From Heaven Their own fancy or from hell Answer We plead for no Revelations but such as are Divine And therefore as his Question is blasphemous so it is no less impertinent then to say It being given that Patroelus is a Man from whence is he Whether the son of a Man or a horse or of a mad Dogg But he proves they are not from Heaven because they are common to all men Yet Bonum quo communius co melius Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World and GOD is just He never punished a man for breach of a Law which he never made known to him Thirdly he saith If they have Divine Revelations we know not for what end they are given Whether to be a principal Rule or not whether by their own corruptions they do not wrest and misunderstand them Or if they walk according to them Nothing of which can be said of the Scriptures Answer first For what end they are given Job 14. 26. To teach you all things And 16. 13. He will guide you into all Truth And that they are the principal Rule is sufficiently proved before The second part is an impudent self contradiction where he saith That wresting or misunderstanding through corruption cannot be said of the Scriptures Whereas he hath frequently covered himself before with saying in the very foregoing page next save one That the Scriptures through mans corruption are subject to abuse never man denyed Thus goeth he backward and foreward And Thirdly He saith They know not if we walk according to them But we well know that they walk not according to the Scriptures And it 's strange with what impudency the man can obtrude such sayings upon the World He would insinuate in page 79. That they squared their practice exactly according to the Scriptures and here he would have us walk according to Divine Revelation Whereas they have told the World in their Larger Catechism That no man is able to keep GOD's Commands by any Grace received in this Life Then he giveth us the reason of his Ignorance thus For we can hear nothing nor see nothing c Who can help his spiritual deasness and blindness None but the Spiritual Physitian of Souls whom he is rejecting In page 82. He cometh to the Judge of contraversy where he laboureth to prove two things Viz That the Spirit of God cannot be a Judge of Contraversy And that the Scriptures are apt to be a Judge of Contraversy Which he dares not to say absolutely but for removal of differences about things contained in them The Reason he gives is Because two different parties may both of them adduce Revelations to prove contradictory assertions And that the one of them cannot evince his Revelations to be from GOD more then the other This is the substance of what he saith against the Spirit and for the Scriptures he saith thus Now this Argument can in no wayes be retorted on the Scriptures For tho there hath been through the corruption of men wresting of Scripture in any Contraversy And that even among these who assert the Scripture to be the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners Yet who can say That this is through default of the Scriptures seing our Adversarys cannot deny but that they speak both sense and Truth c And a little after so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties c. First Let the Reader observe his self contradiction Saying The Scriptures may be wrested by the corruption of men And yet in page 81. He saith Nothing of this can be said of the Scriptures Secondly That be confesseth because he cannot deny it that there have been and yet are wresting of Scriptures and many Contraversies even among such as assert the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners And therefore it is evident that his conclusion falls Viz so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties For this agreement hath neither followed nor is like to follow by all his endeavours And Thirdly The Scriptures can never give a sentence being but a Law And every Law needs a Judge to determine But the matter is in plain terms we must admit the General Assembly to be Judge which will determine and convince neither by the Spirit nor by Scripture nor by Reason But by Force and Furie Ares halters Fire and Sword Fourthly If this had been true all the difference among Protestants would have come to a mutual agreement before now or else he must say They are all corrupt men except the Presbyterians As for what he faith of the Ranters who learned from you to make GOD Author of all their wicked actions their fruits make them manifest as your fruits do you notwithstanding of both your Pretences In page 83. He saith We have heard their Retortions Let us now hear their direct Answer That their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of GOD For which forsooth they bring Scripture Proof from Matthew 7. 15. 16. Where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false prophet Thus he And then falls a railing with great bitterness lies and false accusations which is always his last Refuge when he is straitned But let the Reader observe First That he mocks at Scripture proof tho he dare not deny it adding a Forsooth to it as if none had
and humble For answer he sends to Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what Law of Works Nay But by the Law of Faith But prithee Patroclus what saith this for thee Are we boasting in our own strength or in the strength of the Grace of God Or do we depend upon the Law of Works No But on the Law of Faith which purifieth the heart and worketh by Love If to exalt the Grace of God as sufficient be to boast in thy Sense thou hast Liberty to abound in thy own sense wherein no good Christian will own thee But he giveth us another citation of R B's in these words That according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life the wicked Villains do less make useless God commands then others because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for forgiveness of God Will thou never deal honestly Did R. B. once mention a perfection of degrees But to I. B's argument That the keeping the Commands of God takes away the exercise of Repentance Prayer c. He returns thus If this his Argument hold true to prove that Men must sin all their Life-time and break the Commands every day in thought word and deed then the greatest sinners and most prefligate Villains do less make useless Gods Commands then others because they affoord more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for Forgiveness of sins For answer he sendeth to Rom 3. 8. Let us do evil that good way come Which saying tho it was falsly and slanderously said of the Apostle Yet is truly said of him and and his Brother I. Brown who have thus asserted it in terminis By saying That the Keeping of Gods Commands renders the Ordinances of Christ useless His very next Words are a gross Lie saying And here he promiseth always to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus 〈…〉 Words are these As for such Ordinances â—s must be made useful by dayily breaking God's Commands in shought Word and Deed I resolve never to cry but always to cry down And here let the Reader take notice of his Blasphemy who assetâ—s the Ordinances of Christ Jesus to be such As for his â—â—llowing Question it is Nonsense Fâ—â— he R. B. never said that any Ordinance taught it but that he and his Brother have taught here That this is the use of their Ordinances but not of the Ordinances of Christ is obvious to every Reader 〈◊〉 the next place we have another of J. B's Proofs That then noâ—e that are regeneraâ— could Sic at all but would be beyond the possibility of it For which the citeth John 3. 9. and Expounds it of a trade and custom of finning from Malice like the Deâ—â—â— and the Wioked his Children And 〈…〉 prove that Regeneration adteth of no Degrees but is one instan taneous Act. To the First to wit J. Brown's Argument I say it is a wild Conscequence to conclude from a posse non peccare to a non posse peccare And yet Calvin in his Instit cireth Augustine saying Ade fuisse libertatem posse non peccare nostram vero multo majorem non posse peccare And still our Author takes R. B's modest Expression I dare not deny for a full Assertion As for his Exposition of 1 Joh. 3. 9. of a Trade and Custom of Malice like the Devil It is a meeâ— Dream there being no shadow for it in the Context His Doctrine of being Regenerat in an instant contradicts his Brother John Brown Numb 18. who says It may be begin where some Members may yet the to be mortified But according to J. B. elsewhere the Man is wholly sanctified in Mind Heart Spirit Affections Conscience Memory and Body Behold Reader how these our Adversaries reel and stagger like drunken Men I shall therefore here give him the Sense of Augustine set down by J. Brown and approven by R. Baxter in his Paper of Perfection pag. 13. He tells us that Augustine in his Book layes some two or three of these Texts together To wit Solomon Paul James John and offers us this Solution That which is born of GOD sinâ—eth not which is as much as to say there is that which is born of GOD in the true Christian and that which is not born of him Where is then the full and compleat Regeneration at one Instant The two Scriptures Phil 1. 8. and Gaâ— 5. â— He makes very short work with Telling us the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus when this Epistle was written Ergo they were wholly sanctisied in Mind Heart Spirit c As J Brown saith the Regenerate Man is And yet breaks the Commands of GOD daily in Thought Word and Deed To the other place he saith It sayes as little for him from it he would infer the Saints falling away which is false sayes he but I hope he will not deny that Paul was in part regenerate when he said Lest when I have preached the Gospel to others I my self should be a east away He spends page 195 proving Regeneration to be accomplished at one instant not by Scripture for that fails him here Only he instanceth two Saying I would sain Know If the thief on the Cross and the Jâ—â—â—â— were not him again 〈…〉 from a Particular to an Universal 〈◊〉 Jâ—mes and John saw Christ Transâ—â—guâ—ed therefore all men did so Rnoch 〈◊〉 were translated Therefore all the Saints are so What he speaks of Children in Christ R. B. grants that they are under a possibility of sinning and a capaâ—â—â— thereunto but modestly again Tin page 120 saith dare noâ— affirm But that there man be some 〈…〉 sin 〈◊〉 He proceeds alledging from 1 John 2. 12. That thee to whom the Apostle wrote were perfectly 〈◊〉 of GOD but that Scripture saith no such thing only that their sins were forgâ—â—â—n which according to himself is the first Act of Justification and proceedath Sanctification of the whole man as 〈◊〉 words it in mind heare c. And so not perfect Regeneration But doth this prove that these Children did break dayly the Commands of GOD in thought word and deed That they were perfectly born of GOD the proveth because saith he They had the seed of GOD or Vnction abiding in them But the Seed before it come to perfection or â—obring forth froit in requites a time and I hope our Author will not deny that the young man mentioned here by the Apostle who had overcome the Evil one were more perfectly and fully Regenerated then the Children tho the Children were perfect as to their measure So that it follows not that any of them did break the commands of GOD dayly in thought word and deed which only is the matter in debate no more then it follows that how soon the seed is in the Womb it is as perfectly a man as when it comes to the use of reason But seeing he here talks of the Seed of GOD and of the Unction I desire he
But saith he They alwayes overcome at the end of the Warrs I must expect a Paraphrase upon this Text when this Warr endeth and whether it be in Time or Eternity Or if he will allow the Saints one day to live after their Victory For Paul seems to intimate that he had fought the Good Fight and had finished before his dissolution To R B's affirming that this Doctrine is injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ After his brothers Evasion he giveth us his Answer in two parts First If saith he he were a mind to make a difference betwixt HEAVEN and Earth he had not made a Question about full Victory in this Life Then it seems he thinks the Victory must only be after this Life and in Purgatory For no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom Let his brethren judge of this Doctrine For as the Tree falleth so it lyeth His second Answer is How profane a heart must he have that accounts all the attainments of a Child of GOD in this Life 〈…〉 nothing For â—â—â—withstanding of them all he will still have the Sacrifire of Christ to â—e useless except a Man in this Life become as sinless as an Angel Thus he But what a profane heart must he have who will not part with his sins and pollutions one day in all his Lifetime altho Christ came to save him from them and not in them And that the Sacrifice of Christ was sufficient to purge him from the stain as well as the guilt I think he will not deny And that Christ requireth not impossibilities but giveth strenghth to obey these Precepts Be â—â— Holy Be ye Perfect I think every Christian will acknowledge and so the fault lyeth still in his profane heart which chuseth his pollutions and will not part with them How R. B. hath answered his Brothers eight Chapter He refers to his Reader and so do I. In the next place he most dissingenuously representeth R. B. as saying That there is no difference betwixt him that sinneth through malice and him that sinneth through infirmity And asketh is there no difference that the one repenteth and the other not All this stuff is largely answerd by R. B. page 123. But what doth hâ— intend by Repentance The word must either be taken for pâ—â—nitentiam agâ—re to do pennance according to the Papists Or for 〈…〉 That is to grow wise again Or to do no more so In the first sense I think out Author will not take it And in the second sense It s quite another thing then to break the Commands of GOD daily in thought word and deed For he who truly repenteth becomes a hater of sin and a doer of Righteousness â—o R. B argument That their doctrine maketh the Ministry useless he giveth three Answers of â— B's sufficiently replyed to by R. B But let us hear them First Vpon this very head the necessity of a Ministry appeareth Upon what heed To tell us that GOD's Commands are impossible and that it is â—olly to attempt the keeping of them For no man since the fall by any Grace received in this Life â—â— able to keep them But doth daily Break them in thought word and deed His second Answer is That it cannot be proved that this Vltimat end of the Ministry mentioned Ephes â— 13. is attained here This Answer confirms R. B's Argument For according to their own Opinion 〈◊〉 est 〈…〉 quod nunquâ—m obtinere potest 〈…〉 That is In vain is that meaâ— which can 〈◊〉 allain its end His third Of a perfeâ—â—on of Parts and Degrees is frivoloâ—â— For R. B. never denyed a growth iâ— Holiness For his putting of a cleansing from sin til the other Life He saith nothing for it buâ— his own bare assertion And it is obvious to any Reader that the Apostle to the Ephesians 4. and 5. Chapters is speaking of the Conversations of the Saints in this Life Which I desire my Reader to consider where he will find this Subtersuge of our Author sully manifested to be nought In his next he is no less dissingâ—â—uous He R. B. saith it will not follow from â—oll 4. 12 13. and 1 Thes 3. 12. That it is impossible that Men should he 〈◊〉 from Sin here by the Great of GOD. Whereas he hath first rebuked I. B. for commenting upon these Texts which he tells him are in themselves as plain as can be And yet tho I. B's Commentary were admitted His Doctrine would not follow Hence the Reader may see this Mans pithâ— as he words it and how hard shift he makes to escape at any door how unworthy soever But that the two Texts stand firm against him is evident for if to encrease abound â—â— Love to abound in Holiness and to stand perfect and compleat in all the Will of GOD can consist with the breaking the Commands of GOD daily in thought word and deed I confess I know nothing of such Commentaries not shall ever desire to learn such Contradictions To R. B's Question How these can be said to have renouneed the works of darkness who have â—eed to be washed from dark desilements He answereth let him read the 12 and 13 of Zâ—â—ariach and there he may find that there two are consistent But Patrâ—clut I can find no such thing there I find mexiâ—â— of a Fountain opened for sin and uneleaness but there is no word of daily here I find also a refining as silver is refined and trying as gold is try'd but not every day for after that he saith They shall call on my Name and I will heat them But GOD heareth not finners I will say it is my people and they shall say The LORD is my GOD And if this be to be sinning daily and Washing daily let the Reader judge And yet this is all that concerns his maâ—â—â—â— in these two Chapters He ands this paragraph with a gross lie saying For we know the Quakers and Jesuites have an 〈…〉 haâ—â— against all Piâ—â—â—â—â—aâ—ts â—et in a special manner their hate burneth against the Presbyterians knowing that these are faâ—â— thest off from the 〈◊〉 of Rome This Patroclus is indeed Amâ—â—â—m Testimonium And I assure thee few Protestants here away believe it Thousands of Protestants know that we love and honour them and will trust more to our plain honest Simplicity then to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Presbyterian priest It seems our Author converâ—eth with few Men who dare avow their Sentiments of Presbytry or loves best to heat Syâ—â—phants For in this Countrey there is little difference thought to be 〈◊〉 a 〈…〉 and a Jesuiâ—ed Presbyterian Priest except a few Principâ—â— Creeds and Confessions Both being acted in their practices by the 〈◊〉 pâ—oud 〈◊〉 imperious and perfecting Spirit As for the 〈◊〉 so called among the Presbyterians we love them and also the persons of the Clergit â—ut we 〈◊〉 that the people should be so hood wiâ—ked and led 〈◊〉 by this Covetous and Ambitious Generation who seeâ— themselves and 〈◊〉
in no sense to be accounted a Rule He citeth VVilliam Penn to prove it Rejoynder page 76. I beseech thee Reader here to take notice of this mans double dealing and dissingenuâ—ity For first VVilliam Penn in page 69 and 70 confesseth the Scriptures to be a Rule but not the Rule by way of excellency as the Reader may see there and in Râ— Barclays his appologie Theses Tertia And because he Citeth VVilliam Penn to prove his false assertion let the Reader know they are no words of VVilliam Penn but of one Thomas Colliar a great Professor whose words VVilliam Penn Citeth against Faldo some whereof I shall transcribe General Epistle page 249. And truely my Brethren it is my earnest desite to see souls to live more in the Spirit and less in the Letter then they will see that we judge of the Litter by the Spirit and not of the Spirit by the Lettâ—er Which occasions so much ignorance amongst us and these who profess themselves to be our Teachers are chief in this Trespass The Spirit of GOD who is GOD is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian and in page 48 he saith That some seting the Scriptures in the Room of the spirit they make them an Idol His next Citation of VVilliam Penn in page 18 is his Rejoynder page 71 where he Citeth these words the scriptures are the verbal and Historical Rule of Faith which is the devels faith William Penns words are these For Faith in his I Faldâ— sense rises no higher then so many articles laid down suppose truely according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can belive as well as he This Faith I call meerly verbal and Historical c. And this is the candour of our insulting adversary Let the Reader judge whose reputation can be safe who deals with such an impudent Calumniator In the same page and in contradiction to himself he mentions a distinction of primary and Secondary Well Patroelus it seems the Quakers own the scriptures in some sense to be a Rule therefore Patroclus consesseth himself to have belyed them in the foregoing page His third is Huberthorn The words are except by a Miraculous Revelation from Heaven These words sound harshly and so fit to defame the Quakers But if yet thou hast retained any shamesacedness or the least grain of honesty I charge thee tell me Have not George Keith in his Books on that subject and Robert Barelay in his Appollogie sufficiently cleared the Quakers in that point So far that if thou wilt rightly state the contraversie thou must lay aside all these expressions of miraculous extraordinary and the like But who can expect fare dealing from a man of thy manners And therefore to stop the mouth of this Callumniator I shall tell the Reader what George Kieth sayes to obviat such accusations immediate Revel page 2. First we do not understand the foretelling things to come c. Secondly page 3 We do not bereby understand the Revelation of an other Gospel c. Thirdly in page 7. Not an outward audible voice c. Fourthly Nor any outward audible voice Fifthly Nor dreams and visions c. Sixthly Nor any outward Miracles c. And now let the Reader judge with what candour this man hath represented us Page 18 and 19. He saith in order to the Production of true saving Faith two principles are required First the declaration of the object or thing to be believed c. Now the thing he would have me believe is that the scripture is the Rule of Faith and Life and in order to this he presents me the Bible Is I ask him how shall I believe this book to be the Rule of Faith and Life He answereth me the book saith so tho there be no such word in it And this is objective Revelation and needs no more but an application of this Revelation already made And the second he calls subjective revelation but he must excuse me to tell him that before he can perswaed me to believe that proposition laid down in the Westminster Confession or Catecbism Quest 2 that the scripture is the only rule He will need to produce me better arguments for the Holy Ghost according to the Westminster Confession Chap 7 Act 3 must be given to make men willing and able to believe and this is more then an application He tells us that this revelation was either mediate or immediate Who denyes this But I hope when it was mediate it needed the immediate operation of the spirit to make them able and willing to believe and so the operation of the Spirit was the Rule of this Faith whereby they choosed or rejected these mediate Revelations That the illumination of the spirit is necessary for understanding of the soriptures no man denyeth But it is to be regarated that he and his Brethren take upon them to expond scripture to others while they have it not and mock and persecute Others who bear witness for it To prove subjective Revelation he bringeth several Scriptures Among others Luke 24. 46. The Words are these And said unto them Tbus it is Written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Now the Question will be whether this was an objective or a subjective Revelation I affirm it to be Objective and that CHRIST did here reveal to them things they never knew before nor had occasion to know albeit they might have been darkly shadowed forth in the Scriptures So that Christ speaking to them and at the same time opening their Understandings both Patroclus principles concurred immediatly to the production of their Faith with out the Bible Neither is he limited to Scripture words tho he may and often does make use of them And these words He spoke are not to be found in all the Old Testament And the Quakers do not pretend to revelation of New Things but a new Revelation of the Good Old Things Secondly Consider that he calls his first Principle a Declaration of the Object or Thing to be believed Now the Scriptures are the Object or Thing to be believed And therefore according to himself the Declaration is necessary And I must ask Patroclus what this Declaration is Sure he can intend nothing here but the Glosses Commentaries Paraphrases which he and his Brethren make upon the Scriptures whereby they get their Living But if Men were but once convinced that Christs sheep hear his Voice and that his Spirit teacheth them and bringeth all things to their remembrance whatsoever they have heard of or from him Then that sordid Trade of Preaching for hâ—re and Divining for money would soon come to an end And Men would say with Thomas a Kempis Let not Moses and the Prophets speake to me but thou O LORD my GOD. And with the Psalmist I will bear what the LORD GOD will speake in me Whereas now pretend what they will they are as positive in their dogmatising and no less
believed or done which they deny This is another Lie For the Quakers believe the Scriptures to be a Rule subordinat to the Spirit containing a full and sufficient Declaration of all Christian Doctrine Thirdly Saith he We believe the Scriptures to be the principal and ultimat Rule into which our Faith is lastly to be refolved For answer to this I shall only set down the words of one of his Brethren Viz The Author of that Book called Melius Inquirendum page 303. I would sain be informed sayes he what an ultimat Rule signifies with him that pretends to speak plain English to then that understand nothing else I have heard of a subordinate and ultimat End And I have heard also of a near and a remote Rule but an ultimate Rule like that Monster which was like a Horse and yet not a Horse is like Sense but in Truth very none-None-sense Thus he and yet as great a Calvinist as Patroclus After some Repetitions he comes to his Citations and begins with Luther in these Words If any thing should deliver any Doctrine which it could not prove by Scripture he would spit in its face knowing certainly that it were the Devil I know no Quaker but will say as much Yea I know no Protestant but will say as much Yet the contraversies are no whit leslened by all this because they reject the Spirit by which alone the Scriptures can be understood and without which they are a sealed book as well to the learned Patroclus as to the unlearned Plowgh man And here let the Reader observe what is become the fate of the Fathers as well as of the Scriptures To be cited By all parties Papist against Papists and Protestant against Protestants and Calvine is made to speak for all ends and all purposes But he hath told us that such a perswasion concerning the authority of seripture is needfull as cannot be brought forth but by Divine Revelation Inst Chap Numb 24. All these his citations for three pages serve for nothing else but to make one party of his pretended Transmarine Divines contradict another If he had done any thing he should have proven R B's citations to have been either spurious or impertinent else if they contradict his citations Patroclus errs in his affirming an Harmony among them In page 31 he saith after some of his Brethtens Rhetorick it can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches But hath taken no notice of what R B hath cited out of their Confessions but we must take his word In the end of page 31 and the beginning of page 32 he summeth up what he hath said and hath done the Quakers a favour that whereas some of his blind brethren have called them Papists he hath set them and the Papists at such a distance as he hath left room for himself to hang betwixt them as Erasmus is said to have hung betwixt Heaven and hell For saith he page 32 The Papists have gone too low resolving their faith ultimatly in men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high that is to resolve their Faith in GOD Patroclus resolves his faith in a Book and neither in GOD nor man Let the Reader judge which of the three is the best Foundation He concludes with a Greek fable of Ixion Et quiquid Graecia mendâ—x audet in Historia most profainly compares a desire after Divine Revelation which Pauls commands to pray for to the adulterous desire of Ixion after Juno and then talks of the production of Hipocentaurs that is in broad Scots Troopers or if he will Apostolical Dragoons Like those of France And now let the Kingdom of Seotland judge from fourty years experience whether the Quakers or the Presbyterian Clergie have been most fruitful in producing such Hipocentaurs In page 32 he layeth down his Thesis thus The scriptures are the adequat compleat and primary or prineipal Rule of faith and manners Observe first the word primary signifies first and he hath before called them the Vltimate Rule This is the first and the last he hath called them The word of GOD he hath called them the Gospel and now the first and the last which are Epithets belonging only to Christ Tertul ltb 2 Carm Adversurs Mar Atque ideo non verbe Librised Missus in orbem Ipse Christus Evangelium est Si cernere vultis Thus Englished Not the words of the book but Christ who is Into the World sent the Gospell is Observe Secondly That he hath here given away the Cause for the Catechism saith The Scriptures are the only Rule Whereas his asserting a Primary implyes a Secondary And now we are come to his Arguments whereof the first is That which was dictat or given out by the Infallible God and containeth the whole Counsell of GOD may well serve to be a compleat and principal Rule But the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the Infallible GOD and contain the whole Counsell of GOD. Therefore They may well serve for to be a compleat and principal Rule Answer first Observe That all his boasting is come to no more then a May be saying It may serve to be a Primary Rule And I must tell him That a Cart-load of May-bees are not worth One-is Secondly I must tell him That his definition of the Rule of Faith and Manners is New and I cannot accept of it And before I proceed to take notice of his Arguments I shall give my Reader an account of the Scope of this Mans Labours First He cannot deny that the Quakers owne the Scriptures for a Rule and his Work proves no less tho in contradiction to himself in page 17. And I can assure my Reader That it is the constant care of every true Quaker to square his Life according to the Scriptures Secondly His offering to prove them to be a Primary Rule implyes as I have said a Secondary And this must be the Teachings of the Spirit for he hath not told us of another Hence the Reader may see what the Tendancy of his Argumentations is To wit To exalt the Letter above the Spirit The Creature above the Creator a Book above GOD In which I cannot agree with him Yet GOD knows I reverence the Scriptures as much as any Presbyterian in the World And if the Quakers slighted them as this false Accuser slandereth them I would have no fellowship with them And certainly it is not so much the Scriptures as their own Glosses and Interpretations they plead for For if Patroclus would speak what he thinks I doubt not but he would say That the Westminster Confession and Directory Especially having the Covenant joyned to it might serve for a Rule of Faith and Life His Argument set down before erreth in the very form according to the Rules of Logick Which are when both Propositions are particular nothing follows And again particular nothing follows And again the Major being particular in the first figure cannot
next let him hear Plato whom he also nameth Phaed The Light and Spirit of GOD saith he are as Wings to the Soul or as that which raiseth up the Soul into a sensible Communion with GOD above the World which the mind of man is ready to be mire it self with It could add many more but these may suffice to shew that the wise Gentiles derived their Knowledge of GOD from an higher principle then our Authors dark Lantern I shall only add one to wit Philo the Jew Leg Alleg Lib 1. How should the Soul of man know GOD if he did not inspire her and take hold of her by his Divine Power In page 110 he saith the defect of the Wisdom of the Heathens was in this that they could not perceive Christ but he should have remembred the last words of Plato whom he nameth related by Marcilius Ficinus who wrote his life being asked by some that visited him how long men should attend to his writings He answered till that more Holy and Divine Person should appear to visit the World whom all men ought to follow And that Elogue of Virgil which seems to have at first crackt him is a plain intimation of their knowledge of the comming of Christ and that they did not receive him when he came is not to be attributed to their want of Light any more then the Phariseer who had the Law and the Prophets For we see that many of the Gentiles were more ready to receive the Gospel then these learned Rabbies who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures As for the difference between a Man and a bruit it is reason which GOD gave for the Government and preservation of the outward man for which see Poiret In page 111. He tells us a Hen hath skill in Arithmetick If this be true certainly the Presbyterian hens must be wiser then ours for our women who look after the poultry assure me that our Hens have no such skill but that a cunning man like out Author may steall half her Eggs from her and never be quarrelled If he read Le Grands Natural History he may get better Instances But this is rediculous His eight Argument is from Rom 1. 19. 20. Because that which may be known of GOD is manifest in them for GOD hath shewed it unto them From hence he concludes that there is some Reliques of the Divine Image or Natural Knowledge left in Man And to say that the true Knowledge of GOD and Divine Things is not Natural Man but the Fruits of Christs purchase to Mankind after the Fall in and by the Covenant of Grace This he calls pure Paganism And to prove all this he only cryes Who would dare to say or affirm that what was common to the Heathens Yea and Devils also was as really saving and the Fruit of Christs purchase as that which is proper to the Godly Answer I verily believe the Devils have more knowledge then he how they came by it I am not concerned he may ask them when he hath occasion But I know none ever asserted it to be saving except it be his Brother John Brown when he printed his Preaching to them But Mankind was not left in the same condition For Christ was preached to them immediatly after the fall And to deny that they received Grace were to contradict the Scriptures For that the Seed sown in the stoney ground and in the Good Ground was the same none but a Presbyterian will deny And that the Tallent given to the unfaithful servant was as true Money as the rest I think all will confess Or else how could he have been condemned for not improving it So that if he condemn us here he must condemn the Scriptures with us Which also saith That GOD wills all men to be saved But here they tells us That GOD hath a revealed Will to save them and yet a secret will to damn them O impudent and pervetle Generation Who dare accuse the Righteous GOD of Truth with bypocrisie The wise Gentiles whom they reject would have abhored such doctrine Moteover it is very absurd to say from this Scripture Rom. 1. 19. That man had the Knowledge of GOD by Nature For First The Apostle saith It was manifest in them not in the Creatures without them tho that was also an Adminacle to help their Knowledge but their Knowledge was inward and all that might be known therefore not any imperfect Knowledge And Secondly GOD hath shewed it unto them That is GOD hath manifested or revealed to man in himself that which may be known of GOD For the words Shewed and Manifested are the same in the Greek and very consonant to that other saying of the same Apostle The things of GOD can no man know but by the Spirit of GOD. In the rest of page 112. and 113. He takes the Liberty to scold raile and lie at random All which I pass by except this And yet saith he this Natural Light is to the Quakers their God their Christ their Grace and whatsoever else is necessary to Sal vation To prove this he giveth us an heap of Citations which it seems he hath gathered from his Brethren Hicks and Faldo the known Forgers I shall shew his disingenuity in the first of these of Citations by setting down William Penn's words whereby the Reader may know whose footsteeps our Author hath followed Christian Quaker page 116 If then the Life of the Word be the Light of Men unless the Life of the Word he Natural the Light of it must be supernatural Divine and Infinite as becomes the Life of the Word to be And this checks the dull ignorance or base deceit of Thomas Hicks who either could not or would not understand George Whitehead when he said the Light must be Divine because the Life from whence it comes is so and the Effect is alwayes of the same nature with the cause in any other sense then this That because saith T Hicks GOD is the cause of Beasts and Trees therefore they are God Which strange Construction of George Whitehead's words bewtays either great stupidity or disingenuity I would ask the very angry man Is there no effect of Power beside that of Nature Did the Father of T H beget a Beast or a Man when he begat him Surely unless he has abandoned all understanding me thinks he that makes in his Book so notable a distinction betwixt Reason and Railing by using so little of the one and so much of the other should put put one betwixt a Natural and Potential Effect I mean such an Effect as proceeds from Nature and one that comes from meer Power The Divine Life can naturally produce nothing that is not as Divine as it self But its Power had made all that is not of its self as well inanimate as animate Beeings I have set down William Penn's words at length That the Reader may see how little Conscience these men make of traducing honest Men And
that our Author cares not to joyn with Anabaptists Independents whom he accounts Hereticks Yea to take Hell rather then to want some Lie to alledge against the Quakers wherefore I shall trouble you no more with his Citations being fully Answered by others but shall proceed to see what more he hath to say In the end of page 115 he falls a railing and clamouring dispetatly Telling us that by this dim light Men have enough adoe to perceive that there is a Supream Beeing what then is become of his late great assertions That this dim light of Nature Reason Conscience extinguished Lantern c. Could teach men that there was one GOD that he was Infinite Omnipotent to be Loved Feared and Adored and to do others as they would be done by which is the substance of the Law and the Prophets This is confusion and contradiction with a Witness yet he glories in the end and heaps togeher lies in Hypocrsie which deserve no answer In page 116 He would insinuat that we depress the light as much as formerly we had exalted it because when some pretending to it have erred we say their Doctrines are to be subjected to the Judgement of the Church This he calls Popery and at last worse Viz. A subjecting of Christ and GOD to another as capable of deceiving and being deceived Bur I would know from this windie man whether if he or any Presbyterian should teach any Doctrine contrary to the Covenant and Confession of Faith and pretend Scripture for it I say whether he would be lyable to the Judgement of the General Assembly and whether it were the mans pretences or the Scriptures which the Assembly takes upon thē to judge even so we neither take upon us to judge Christ nor his Light which can neither deceive nor be deceived But the deceit and follv of such pretenders as our Author and his Brethren who pretend to the Scriptures and neither understand them not walk according to them In the next place after a little of his accustomed froath be saith he will propose and enervat those of their Arguments which seem to be most strong c. And begins with George Keith citing Truth defended page 87 but is page 85. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediate dictate but there is a Divine Law in all men ergo c. To this he answereth by denying the Minor which I cannot but admire seeing George Keith hath so abundantly proven it in the same page yet never noticed by our Author But he thinks he hath guarded himself sufficiently in his Preface to the Reader by forbidding them to touch or handle such unclean things as George Keiths books But all this deceit will not cover him for George Keith tells him First that he hath proven this by many arguments in his book of Immediat Revelation Secondly the Americans whom his Adversary names transgress the Divine Law therefore they have a Divine Law For where there is no Law there is no transgression And thirdly he cited Bishop Sanderson saying the Law in the hearts of all men is as really the word of GOD as that Printed in our Bibles But Patroclus reads not this and therefore makes short work with it and glories as if he had Vanquished Euforbis by whose Dart Patroclus fell The next he attempts is R B's Vindication page 39 But this is no Argument as he would falsly insinuate but written to stop the Mouth of a windy man J Brown charging him with Blasphemy But he proceeds page 118. 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 Answer First he hath neither told us where not by whom this Argument is used and may be his own for any thing I know But Secondly he seems to confess that they sin who do not obey the Light And Thirdly his answer is very nonsensical to wit it is sin to disobey the Lawful commands of Parents which commands are not sufficient to Salvation But what made that disobedience to Parents to be sin If the Law of GOD had not commanded obedience to them Every sin is a transgression of the Law of GOD and therefore every sin presupposeth a Divine Law and here I must tell him that his brother the author of Melius Inquirendum tells him page 303. All that conscience dictats as a Counlelour all that Conscience determines as a judge is in the name of the Supream and Soveraion JEHOVAH adding there is one Lawgiyer who is able to Save and to destroy and a little after Conscience hath in its Commission to dictate before the fact as well as to reflect upon the fact it teaches what we ought to do as well as examine whether we have done well or not By these it appears this man was of the mind that that there was a Divine Law in all men call it by what name he will Next he comes to John 1. 9. That was the true light which enlighteneth every man coming into the World where he giveth two glosses of it J Browns First that Light may be taken for the Light of reason This is nonsence as if man could be a man without reason It is every man not every bruit he enlightneth and till we understand more we believe it is reason makes the difference so the gloss must run thus he enlighteneth every reasonable creature with the light of Reason The Second gloss is that by every man is not to be understood every individual but only every one which savingly enlightened Upon this R B saith he is puzled with this Scripture for he knoweth not what way to take it Whereupon our airy Author insults saying He inferrs penurie from abundance But sayes he I remembred they were Enemies to Logick But less stoath might have sufficed For I am sure if he had not been puzled he would never have given two such contrary Exposicions The first making the Light meerly natural yet Universal The second Gloss making it saving and supernatural but special and not Universal Which evidently shews that Jo Brown and our Author who would defend him are both in Babel And therefore it being a matter of Consequence to know whether the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men the Light where with every Man is inlightned be Natural or Supernatural Universal or Special Saving or Damning It concerns our Advetlary to consult the General Assembly which of the two Glosses may be best to hold by seing both cannot stand In the rest of this page he doth nothing but undervalue his Adversary whether Justly let the Reader Judge His next Combat is with John 1. 5. The darkness comprehended it He saith That by darkness is meant mon in his natural Estate in which Estate he can comprehend what is Natural Whence he inferis that man in this estate is void of all Spiritual and Supernatural Light Which Inference is void of all Sense
and Reason for the very words before it are The Lightsined in the darkness That is according to our Author Man in his Natural Estate who could comprehend natural things but could not comprehend the Light Therefore according to our Author his own Confession The Light must be Supernatural or else the darkness would have comprehended it After a little vapour he saith Altho the Light Christ be supernatural yet the little Beams and Sparks of Reason and Conscience are Natural But who ever denyed this The thing he was to proove as well as assert Was That the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men and the Light which Men are commanded to believe in is Natural Which he may either do or be silent for ever Next he rails a while and concluds with an abominable Lie Viz That we assert That the dim and dark Light of Nature is GOD himself This he hath learned from the Father of Lies the Prince of Darkness and to him it will return and he with it except he repent The next Argument he deals with is R B's page 19. 20. of his Vindication I shall intreat the Reader to look the place and compare it with our Authors bungling upon it R B proveth by Rom 8. 9. 14. 1 John 2. 27. John 6. 45. John 14. 16. 17. That the Promises of the Spirit to teach lead and guide were common to all Believers and not particular to the Apostles To which our Author replys he should have given some other thing for proof then bare Assertions For so he calls all the Scripture proofs he hath brought but meddles not with one word of them But our Adversary will not serve us so he will give us Questions for all and ask us Why may not Immediat Objective Revelation be promised to the Apostles in these places and yet not to all Believers Answer Because GOD had promised before to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh And Paul tells us after If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his As for the Scriptures he cites they nothing touch us for we never denyed the use of Means in the leadings of the same Spirit as R B hath shewn at large in the place last cited But in stead of a solid Answer to R B's Argument he boldly beggs the Question Saying Whatever the Qnakers say we cannot help it Certain it is that no man of sound Judgement will deny that when one reads the Scriptures and hath his mind Illuminated by the Spirit he hath that promise fulfilled to him of which we now speak Very well Patroclus This is more like a a Pope then a Prevbyter But the man hath told us he cannot help it The next Argument he assaults R B's Apologie page 38. That which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind are forced ultimatly to recurr unto when pressed to the last That for because of which all other foundations are recommended and accounted worthy to be believed and without which they are granted to be of no weight at all must needs be the only most true certain and unmoveable foundation of all Christian Faith But Inward Immedist Objective Revelation by the Spirit is That c Ergo c. To this he offers two Answers The first by a Simile thus A man just now possessing a peece of Land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors by vertue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago spake mouth to mouth with that Prince dead ages out of mind Thus that into which the present Possessor of such peece of Land when pressed to the last recurreth unto and for which other Grounds or Charters are comended or valide Must of necessity be the most immoveable ground of and warrand for such a peece of Land his possessâ—ion of it But the Grant or Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago First By word of mouth tho again committed to writtings Is that which the present Possesser being pressed to the last recurreth to Ergo The present Possessor had discourse immediate mouth to mouth with a Prince in many ages back e're the present Pâ—ssessor was born This he And then as if he had done some notable feat he falls a roaring insulting and mocking his adversary saying These must be admirable fellows c. Their strongest argument serve only to prove the Authors to be in a Paroxism of folly moving langhter in a very Heraclitus But it seems our Author hath been in a Paroxism of madness and blasphemy for his Simile can conclude nothing less then this Viz. That Christ is dead the Spirit of Christ iâ— dead ages out of mind that no man heareth his voice now nor can recur to him to be satisfied of his doubts that he hath broken all his promises to his Church of being with them to the end of the World of sending the Comforter to teach them and lead them into all truth and that great promise he that is with you shall be in you Many more are the promisses in the Old Testament as in Jeremiah Joel and that in Isaiah 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the LORD Testified unto as fulfilled in 1 John 2. 20 27. If the Preaching and Printing such gross blasphemy as these which naturally and unavoidably flow from this simile be fit to move laughter and not rather terror and astonishment in the Author let the Reader judge I shall here add two Arguments fit for this place First Christs Sheep hear his voice But the Presbyterian Clergy hear not his voice Ergo They are not of his Sheep Secondly Where there is no Vision there the people perish But among the Presbyterian Clergie there is no vision Ergo Their people perish But blessed be the LORD we know and believe according to the Scriptures That Christ our Prince is dead ages out of mind but liveth and Reigneth for ever and that he is Faithful and True and that he is alwayes present with his Church that he standeth at the door of their heart and knocketh if any open to him he entereth and that he dwelleth in them and walketh in them and is to them a GOD and they to him a people and that if any be otherwayes minded he will even reveal this also unto them Phil 3. 15. So let our Author glory in his Chartor which we have as well as he but be warr to blasphem the Spirit of Christ lest the end thereof be no laughter but weeping and gnashing of teeth His Second answer is By distinguishing immediate objective Revelation granting it was Immediate and ohjective in respect of the Apostles and Prophets but not in respect of the present prosessors of Christianity Answer First he here maketh the ground and foundation of See his page 33. the Faith of the prophets and Apostles one thing and that of the present professors of Christianity another thing which is absurd Secondly be excludes all Christians from Immediat Objective