power As for his saying We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD because they try all Doctrines and Practises by the Scriptures This contains two Lyes First That we condemn all the Resormed Churches For R B hath cited severals of them who are of his Judgement and more may be cited in its place And Secondly The Reasou is a gross Lye For we alwayes owned That all Doctrines and Practises of Men were to be tryed by the Scriptures Next he saith Hence we find That the spirit of the Quakers is Diametrically opposite is the scriptures and therefore the spirit of lyes and delusion Whence I pray thee Patroelus Because we reject private Presbyterion Interpretations Which are but Mans wit and work This Consequence will be made out as thou sayest ad Kalendas Graecas When in a vapouring humour he giveth a Latine phrase and maketh us Ghosts and Hobgoblins But he hath not yet fallen upon the right spell to conjureus except it be his cutting our Juglar Veins which he yet wants power tho not will to do His next os any weight is That from our denying their Interpretations It follows That our Saviovr laboured invain when he proved the Resurrection of the Dead from the scriptures But he might have considered that he was GOD as well as Man who spoke there and that his Word was sufficient Secondly That this Scripture was an Argument ad bominem to the Sadducees who believed Moses Law better then Christ Thirdly The Consequence will be very gross That because Christ who had the Spirit above measure proved an Article of Faith by Scripture Therefore every Presbyterian Priest pedant may by his own natural and acquired parts without the Spirit interpret Scripture But there is at present too great contraversie which seems to bring a firie brand in the tail of it like to destroy all that is profitable or beautysul in the Nation as it hath once already done and to hazard the lives and estates of many well meaning men and good Patriots That is whether there be any difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Church Now if our Author can decide this contraversie by Scripture to the silence of the Malignants as our Saviour did the Saddusees he will do better service to his Native Country then by all his weak and deceitful wranglings against the poor Quakers who are not compeating with him for the Chair But his next consequence is very odd Yea saith he if this Doctrine be true A man doth not sin if he worship the Grocodale lbis Dog or Cat with the old Aegyptians Yea a man may believe or do whatsoever cometh in his Brain c. First ' This Doctrine that the Spirit of GOD is the only true interpreter of Scripture can bring no such consequence along with it For GOD never taught a man to commit Idolatry and to say that a general prohibation is not binding upon a man because his name is not in it is rediculous and no man that I know ever thought it But Secondly If his consequence be true then no Idolater sinned before Moses Law was written Yea according to our Author the Aegyptians he speaks of did not sin For if they had no inward Law sure they had no outward Law And borresco referens the old World sinned not to deserve the Flood because they had no written Law nor any Presbyterian Priest to interperate scripture Next he sayes we deny all Commentaries and expofitions of scripture He should have added which are meerly mans work without the Spirit of Christ if he will not be accounted a liar Then he chargeth R B for laying that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct Person of the Trinity I shall set down R B's own words that the Reader may see how fairly he deals with R B Thus I desire to know of him in what Scripture he finds these words that the Spirit is a diltinct Person of the Trinity For I freely acknowledge according to the Scripture that the Spirit of GOD proceed eth from the Father and the Son and is GOD And then asketh him whether any hath reason to think he truely makes the Scripture the Rule of his Faith notwithstanding his pretence when he either will not or cannot find words in it to express the chief Articles of his Creed And now whether R B hath not fully confessed the the Mystrie and only denyed words of mans invention let the Reader judge Next he challengeth him for taking the words 1 John 2. 27. At the first sound and without any explication but he hath no leasure to give us any explication nor to disprove what he said from the words But concludes thus So that what ever they say or can say to liberate their doctrine from this most weighty but just charge they shall only twist contradictions the faster This is a great blow from a Graecian Gallant but hath not the weight of a Fear ther For we own the scripture for a Rule and the best outward Rule in the World and yet disown the Presbyterian expositions and Commentaries on them so long as they deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the work And whereas he challengeth us for not writing Commentaries The World is so overloaded with Commentaries of Mans making each almost contradicting another upon the same text that we think it best to let Patroclus abound in his own sense till GOD reveal that also unto him Phil. 3. 15. After this for about a page he doth nothing but rail and rove at randum as if Patroelus like he had the Trojans in chase and were upon execution And to sum up his Victory he concludes us Bapists because forsooth we deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and 〈◊〉 and the chief Judge of contraversies Answer First He hath need here of some of his Metaphisical formalities to distinguish betwixt the Rule or Law and the Judge But this we may expect next The Reason he giveth is because our Arguments as he alleageth conclude with theirs and instanceth that of Revel 22 18 compared with Deut 4 2 but hath brought nothing to disprove the inference Only telling us to this purpose may Bellarmine answer and the rest of the Jesuites But the difference lyeth here the Papists would thereby set up the Roman Church and unwritten Traditions to be the primary rule But we the Teachings of the Spirit of CHRIST so that according to patroclus own words in page 32 we differ as far as Heaven and Earth And he hath chosen a middle place for himself and his Brethren in which of the Limbos he may tell us next And let this suffice to answer all his Rovings to the end of the Chapter Chapter II. of Immediate Revelation HE begins this Chapter with an hâ—dgpodg of railing lyes nonsense and contradictions such as a man pretending to sense and Learning may be ashamed of if his desperate malice had
not blinded him Whereby he seeks to bespatter and blaken the Quakers so as so render them the object of the Magistrates severity Or expose them to the rage of his beloved Reformers the Rabble For First he saies they have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of GOD adding his wonted phrase speaking in the Scriptures But if I shall ask him Doth GOD now-a-dayes speak at all to his Church He would readily answer me No And within four pages he labours to prove that GOD hath spoke his last words to his Church Which is also clear from their Confession of Faith chap 1 so that as is said before this phrase is a meer cheat Secondly he saith We have most impiously and self-deceiving lie given up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which they call the Spirit of GOD as we have heard Here he falslie insinuates That we give up our selves to the guidance of some Thing which is not the Spirit of GOD which is a gross untruth For GOD knoweth and our Consciences bear us witness that we own no other Spirit but the same which Christ promised to His followers John 14. 16. I shall pray the Father and be shall give you another Comforter that be may abide with you for ever even the Spirit of Truth whom the World cannot receive because it seeth Him not neither knoweth Him But ye know him for he dwelleth with you and shall be in â—on And Vers 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost Whom the Father will send in my Name He shall teach you all things And 15 Ch 26. 8. and 16. 17 18. The Comforter who will reprove the World of sin c. This is that Spirit of Truth To whose Guidance we have given and do give up our selves And if he mean any other thing he is a wicked Slanderer and Callumniator Next he adds And again in contradiction to this the Soul of CHRIST Extended and Dilated This is a part of George Keiths Book called The way cast up To which book he promiseth an Answer But the Man is able and can answer for himself against all the Presbyterian Priests in Scotland Then he sayes But most frequently they call it the Light within or simply the Spirit And it not this Scripture Language GOD who commanded Light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts And was not this the Apostles Message that GOD is Light And how frequently is the Holy Ghost in scripture called simply the Spirit without any addition But he adds to which Spirit GOD himself speaking in the Scriptures must 〈◊〉 obey the same This blasphemous Gibberish being the invention of his own brain deserves no answer But may well be added to the Presbyterian Eloquence at the next impression But I pass by the rest of his railing and come to his defence of his Brother John Browns Argument which is this If since the Apostles fell a sleep and the Cannon of the Scripture was closed All that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a Primary Rule have been led by a Spirit of errour then it is not the way of CHRIST But the former is true c. Ergo c. To which R B hath answered and our Author accepts his answer and changeth the argument thus If since the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture fell a sleep and John wrote the Revelation all that pretended to this Kynd of Revelation have been led by a spirit of error Then this is not the wayof Christ But the former is true Ergo c. And now he thinketh there can be no exception against his argument but that it will certainly do his business yet is he like to be mistaken For first his argument seems to insinuate that before the Apostles fell a sleep immediate Revelation was the Primary Rule and if it was so it continues to be so yet by his own former Concessions For GOD hath not changed his Rule so that if he makes his argument to speak to the purpose he must say thus all who pretended to this kind of Revelation as well before as since the Apostles fell a sleep were led by a Spirit of error which I think he would be loath to affirm Secondly He will gain very little tho I grant his argument in terminis for I have as little kindness for pretenders as he hath or can have and do readily grant that all who pretend to this kynd of Revelations and have them not are led by a Spirit of error as well as that all Presbyterians who pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule and do not frame their Faith and manners according to them are Hipocrites and are led by a spirit of error So that except his Argument say all who have been led really and truely by the Spirit of Truth of whom Christ promised that he should teach them all things and lead into all truth were led by a Spirit of error He doth but â—eat the air and fight with his own shaddow For we have had pretenders amongstus whom we have denyed and rejected And what he brings concerning the corruptions of men we deny not For as men of Corrupt minds may pretend to the Scriptures so they may pretend to the Spirit but the LORD hath alwayes hitherto given his Church a spirit of discerning whereby such pretenders have been detected rejected and denyed And did not Zedeâ—iah the Son of Chenaanah pretend to the Spirit with as much confidence as Mieajah 1 King 22. 24. When he smote Micajah and said Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee Will it follow from hence That Micajah was led by a spirit of errour because Zedekiah pretended to the same spirit Or that the Presbyterians are led by a spirit of errour Because the Lutherians Anabaptists Independants and Arminians pretend to the same Rule with them So as the Scriptures may be wrested to the condemnation of the Wresters Our Author must confess that he needs a Guide to tell him when he goeth astray And whereas he citeth some called Quakers who have erred whether truely or falsly I know not I will bring him ten for one among the Presbyterians Yea and the greatest part of the Presbyterian Ministry of Scotland about the year 1661 foully deserted the good old cause and yet no less pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule then they had formerly done He falls next to prove that there is no Consanguinity betwixt the Jesuits argument to Jo Menzies and this of J B But let the Reader consider whether both Arguments terminate in the same thing For the Jesuites presseth J M to produce his Grounds and Principles And our Author in page 78 saith his Argument is demonstrative except his Adversary can produce any Instance to the contrary And if this be no Consanguinity let the Reader judge And whereas he turneth over the Jesuites Argument he might well have expected that the Jesuite would and might have said so of
and so were continuing to Baptise And we must expect an account of the warrand he pleads for from CHRIST as a Gospel Ordinance But R. B. saith What if it were all granted Did not the Apostles prepare and eat the Passover with CHRISTS Warrand and Authority is it therefore to continue He answers There is no parity first Because the eating of the Passover was not imposed upon the Gentiles as accessory consequent of their imbracing Christianity Which he saith Baptism was This he had no leasure to prove because he could not For I hope he will confess that Constantine the Great had Imbraced Christianity when he sat as a Member of the Council of Nice and yet was not baptized for diverse years after Neither can he be ignorant of many Gentiles who were not Baptized for many years after their imbracing the Christian Faith and that even after Superstition began to creep in Secondly He saith The Passover was an old Legal custom whereas Baptism was in its very use Well then according to our Authour it was the nearer its fall who tells us in page 225. There could be no use of Legal rites then but such as were within a little to be abolished Page 228. he cites R. B. saying That tho it be joined with Discipline as Circumcision was with it among the Jews it will no more follow that Baptism is to be continued then Circumcision He answereth that the Baptism spoken of to wit Matth. 28. 19. is to continue he thinks Robert Barkclay will not deny But the Question is whither this be water-Baptism to prove the continuance whereof he brings this Scripture which seeing it is not to be continued cannot be here intended Next where they object the constant practice of the Apostles This R. B. saith The practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declares to be false this saith he we have proved above to be false but the Reader must be judge to whom I leave it Next he proves that abstinance from blood and things strangled were abrogate by 1 Cor 10. Where I will be oblidged to him to show me one word of either the two Next he gives us two whole Epistles Galat and Timothy without citing either Chapter or Verse because he could not But that these two continued in the Church even in Tertullians time I have told him above So that his Abrogation hath not been intelligible to the Primitive Christians His second Argument is but a Repetition of what he hath said before That Baptism was alwayes upon condition of their embracing CHRIST which is false as I have shewed before He saith There is another ground given for Water Baptism then Condiscention to the Jews But he should have told by whom For except himself I yet know no other Thirdly He saith Either the Apostles unrepealed Practice was not sufficient to walk by or else this was abrogate afterwards But saith he The last is false and the first is absurd Answer The first I have already shown from Scripture and the last is no absurdity Except it be so to the Presbyterian Priests who pretend to be the Apostles Successours and yet are not found in their unrepealled Practises Viz To heal the Sick to teach all Nations and to Preach the Gospel freely Which last our Adversaries are so farr from doing that some of them have not been ashamed to Print and publish to the World Nos non gratis accepimus ergo neque gratis dare tenemur Next he promiseth us two Scriptures for one where the Word Baptism is taken for Baptism with the Holy Ghost We shall expect his Catalogue with the next And yet he may give us ten for Circumcision in the Flesh for one of Circumcision in the Heart Tho the first be abrogate and the latter continueth Page 230. He gives us an Argument thus To baptise with the Spirit is not in all the Scripture applyed to Men Therefore it is not safe without very solide Reasons to expone it so here This I Confess is modest and therefore I shall modestly answer him I never look'd upon Men as more then Instruments neither in this nor in Teaching under the New Covenant Christ is the principal Teacher as well as the principal Baptiser of His People without whom they can do nothing And therefore I justly reject all such Ministers as profess that they can teach or baptise without the Immediate Assistance of our Lord Jesus Christ His next is an Old Quible renewed thus All that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism is sufficiently expressed in the Context This hath been often proposed and as often denyed and the contrary proved And therefore deserves no answer upon his bare Assertion See Truths Defence Page 129. where this is fully discussed For the greatest part of his work hath been to bring up old Stuff in a new Dress knowing it will pass with such as have pinned their Faith on the Sleeves of such Teachers especially having secured them in his Epistle to the Reader with a Touch not Taste not Handle not lest ye be informed and find out the cheat His next Paragraph being against the Socinians I am not concerned with it His last hath nothing to the purpose but one Perversion Where he R B insinuateth That Peter commanded expresly the Gentiles to be Circumcised which saith he he buildeth upon Galat 2. 12. Now R Barkclay saith only he constrained the Gentiles And citeth verse 14. Where it is said Why compellest thou the Gentiles c After this Perversion he concludes with a Lie where I leave him and proceed Adding only this one Argument That Rite or Ceremony which was institute in the time of the Law and also practised That is before our LORD JESUS CHRIST began to preach the Gospel Must needs be a Legal Rite But Baptism with Water or Johns Baptism was such Ergo It was a Legal Rite Section Third Of the SUPPER c. HE begins with a Lie great Saying We deny the LORDS Supper Whereas we affirm That except a Man eat his Flesh and drink his Blood he hath no Life in him After he hath past by a whole page of R. B's Vindication He comes at last to J. B's Preaching to the Devil and denyes it to be his but only an Inference from our Doctrine But the Truth is That upon R. B's saying The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature under Heaven which is Scripture Language Isay If upon this Text John Brown make a preaching to the Devil who is to blame Whence it is a apparent that his Simile about Murther is Nonesense Next he comes to the Priest near Lawder who prayed to the devil This R. B. doth not assert for a truth but only tells he heard it and so is no Calumniator But if I should say I have heard and read many as gross things of some of you I should neither Lie nor Calumniat See the Presbyterian Eloquence In the next Paragraph he hath nothing but accuseth R. B. for
doth the Scriptures themselves in distinction from the Spirit As 2 〈◊〉 3. 6. Except Patroclus intend to turn Socinian who understood this place on Scriptures to be meant of the Gospel or Scriptures of the New Testament as may be seen in the Cracovian Catechism Page 162 163. Asserting the Holy Spirit to be the Ipsum Evangelium and at best to be but a certain hope of Eternal life promised to us Secondly they call the Scriptures Writings Is not this plain Soots for Scriptura Or what difference is there betwixt Scriptures and Writings It seems the fault is that the word is not a little Latinized But every Quaker is not so good a Linguist as Patroclus His third charge is that the Quakers call them them a letter about the meaning whereof nor two are agreed Now Patroclus I pray thee for once deal ingenuously with me and ommiting many other instances answer only these two First if the Scriptures be so plain and obvious to every well disposed intelect as your party word it how came the whole Ministry of Scotland to differ so faâ—r in the year 16â—0 about so easle a case as whether it was Lawful for the Mallignats to fight for their Native Country against a Forraign Enemie And secondly It is well known that about the year 1661 after divers Presbyterian Ministers were suspended from the exercise of their Ministry who notwithstanding did not submit but continued preaching and gathered to themselves congregations in the desart to the great distuâ—bance of the Nation On the other hand in the year 1689 several hundreds of the Episcopal Ministers have been suspended and their Flocks left destitute Yet all of them have submitted and are silent Now seeing both parries acknowledge the same Scripture Tellme I pray thee whether they be agreed about the meaning and bring me plain Scripture to decide these two contraversies â—t eris mihi Magnus Apollo After this in Page 7 he falls upon citations where he promiscuously and at all adventures cites Hicks and Fâ—lâ—â— upon whose Bankrupt Faith he layes no small stress I alwayes doubted Patroclus to be no sound Presbyterian For sure they who could not allow Malignants to fight for their Native Country would never allowes Sectaries to contend for the Faith which certainly is more Precious then all outward things But especially they being men who by their open forgeries and falsehoods have forefeited their Credit with all Honest Men I shall be at the pains with one or two of them tho they desorve no notice In Page 8 he ciâ—es one N L Cited by Hicks and saith he evinced by him against Pen That if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ these words Hicks saith were spoken by N L To one he knows very wâ—ll upon publishing this in his Book N L gives forth a Testimony under his hand dated London 29th 3d. Moneth 1673 denying he ever spoke such words or any thing like them calling it an abominable lie wicked slander and appeals to GOD to clear his ◠〈◊〉 But after some search Nicholas is sent to one Henry Stout to prove the matter who at last gave his Testimony in write under his hand thus I Henry Stout of Hartford never in all my dayes heard Nicholas Lucas speak the words nor any of the like importance or tendencie as charged on him be Tho Hicks nor before any man else that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my conscience that he hath most grosly wronged N L To which I subscribe H Stout So now let the Reader judge what seared Consciences and Brazen faces these men have or our Patroclus to cite such a base and false calumny The second Citation is that of William Penns Rejoynder Page 70 73. We have good reason to deny them to be the rule of Faith and Judge of contraversy which can neither give nor govern Faith nor Judge of Contraversies If he added the rest I should have left it to the Reader to Judge without more And therefore I shall only add these following words as they ly Viz. As the many different perswasâ—ons in the World fully prove For then all that have the Scriptures would be of one perswasion as it is most certain those are who have walk by the one Spirit Let the Word be joyned and then Judge The other part of his Citation is Page 73 thus in short the Scriptures are not the Rule but a declaration of Faith and knowledge Here he stops But I intreat the Reader before he trust these men to be at the pains to read the Book Cited by him There he shall see wither William Penn and his friends deserves to be called disparragers of the Scriptures and that it looks more like malice and interest that acts these men than the love of Truth The rest of his Citations at least many of them I never saw nor read but in such books as his Page 9. About the end he falls upon a long Citation of William Penns rejoynder concerning the Canon The Authority of those who gathered it the Transcribers and their dissentions the exactness of the coppies And lastly that some learned men of our times tell us of little less then 3000 several readings in the Scriptures of the Nâ—w Testament in Greek Answer Can he say William Penn hath lied in what he hath Written If he do I will produce him Protestant Authors who confess no less But if he had added the rest of William Penns words he had done more honestly but not so much to his purpose and therefore I will do him the kindness to set down a few of them Farr be it from me saith William Penn to Write this in any the least undervalue of that Holy Record It 's only to shew the weak foundation my Adversaries foundation stands upon I believe great and Good Things of them and that from no less evidence then the Eternal VVord that gave them forth Which hath often times given my Soul a deep Savour of these blessed Truths it declares of c And after many such expressions he concludes We accept them as the Words of GOD Himself And by the assistance of his Spirit they are read with great Instruction and Comfort I esteem them the best of Writings and desire nothing more frequently then that I may lead the Life they exhort to Thus William Penn Whereby the Reader may perceive the malice and disingenuity of Patroclus in concealling the Words which would have vindicated him from that soul charge of vilifying the Scriptures And I desire the Reader will only compare Patroclus and his Party with the Pharaseâ—s who while they extolled the Scriptures were found the murderers and persecuters of CHRIST and his Apostles Having thus dissingenuously dealt with William Penn he fails upon R. B. in these words On the other hand of this Ethnick Army R. B. Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures Citing his Apologie Chap 2. That
rightly conclude Now that this Major is particular will be evident if he explain himself what he means by the word That By which he cannot understand Man nor beast nor Angel nor any other thing if he speake sense but that Book And so his Argument will run thus That particular Book which was dictate c But the Book called the BIBLE or the Scripture was dictate c Therefore c If he thinks I have wronged him let him explain himself next and make his Major universal Secondly This is a direct begging of the Question for it is denyed that a Book can be the Primary Rule of Faith for there was Faith before there was a Book in the World and the World was two thousand years without Scriptures and if they had no Rule nor Law to walk by then they had no sin For where there is no Law there is no transgression If they had a Rule it was certainly Prior to the Scriptures and consequently the Primary Rule except that Patroclus would say That GOD had changed his Rule His Minor is a very uncontravetted Truth in the first part of it But he must excuse me to distinguish the second And contains the whole Counsel of GOD Which I think Robert Barkelay hath done to very good Purpose That the Scriptures containe a full account of all the Essentials and fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion But that many things occurr dayly of which the Scriptures do not clearly determine our Experience clearly proveth And first as to Faith I desire he may give me plain Scripture for Persons in the God head Sacraments in the Church and keeping Holy Sunday This was required by K CHARLES the Martyr from Alexander Henderson But how it was Answered the Papers which past betwixt them will evince Secondly As to Life I ask whether it was lawfull for me in my Youth to take the League and Covenant Being first contrary to the Command of Christ Swear not at all And then contrary to the command of the Supreem Magistrate Yea in opposition to Him whome the Scripture commands me to obey This was a Case of Conscience to me and yet by the Presbyterian Church I was commanded his non obstantibus to take it And by George Gillespie in his Casses of Conscience the refusing of the Covenant is called sinful in it self a great dishonour to GOD and a great scandal to the Church no less punishable then the killing of the Apostles Nevertheless I must say I can find no Scripture which allows me to take it And again there is a great doubt at present seeming to arise in the minds of many Protestants and Well-wishers to the Government Which is whether the Popish Monarchical tyrranie in Church Government or Presbyterian Democratical tyrranie be more eligible for it is now become a common Litanie from Popery and Presbytrie libera nos c. As for that great and incureable Schism which destroyed Presbytrie in the Assembly at Dundee Whether a Malignant having in the Nation an Estate Wife and Children might lawfully fight in defence of his Native Country In Case of a forraign Invasion These and such like doubts saith he page 56 Are to be resolved by the Scriptures applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdome This is strange That there was neither Christian prudence nor Spiritual Wisdome in all the whole General Assembly That they split upon such a trivial Question and never reconciled again to this day But the cause was They lacked Wisdome and did not ask of GOD who giveth liberally and upbraideth not For had they been taught of GOD and received the Word of Wisdome from his Mouth they would have seen this contraversie to be as impertinent as that about Easter in the Primitive Church Next in page 39 he saith The corruptions of men are to be charged with all these defects This is very true for the corruptions of men and chiefly of the Clergie have separated them from knowing or seeking to know the mind and Counsel of GOD by the teachings of his Spirit and to lean to their own corrupt Wisdom their natural and acquired parts hence some of them have not stuck to affirm that a wicked Reprobate a man void of grace and of the spirit of Christ may be a sufficient Minister Before I leave his first argument with his spurious definition of a Rule I will give him another which I think he will like the better because it comes from his brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum Who sayes The mind and will of GOD however notified to us is the Rule of our obedience Now if Patroclus will prove that the mind and will of GOD was never notified or made known to mankind before Moses wrote the Pentateuch I shall grant to him that the Scriptures are the primary or principal Rule for the words signifie no more but first or belonging to first for the two words Primary or Principal being Latine words signifie no more but first or belonging to first if we believe our Lexicons To prove that the Scriptures contain the whole Counsel of GOD he citeth Acts. 20 27. Whert Paul sayeth to the Elders of Ephesus That he had not shuned to declare unto them all the Counsel of GOD. Here observe that this was before he had written his Epistle to the Ephesians and therefore I intreat Patroclus to inform us where we may find Pauls Preachings recorded that he mentioneth here wherein we may find all the Counsel of GOD For it seems the Fathers at the Counsel of Laodicea have forgotten to add them to the Cannon His second Argument is thus That which was the Principal rule to the Jews is the Principal Rule to us But the Scriptures were the Principal Rule to them therefore they must be the same to us Answer To begin with his Major he saith it is Robert Barkclay's This is the hight of deceit dissingenuity and Impudence For in the second Chapter of his apologie cited by our Author there is no such word to be found In this Chapter he chiefly treateth of the formal object of faith and but little of the Rule he proveth that indeed that Divine immediat Revelation was the formal object of the Faith of the Ancients and citeth Noah and Abraham for examples whom I believe to have had Faith and also a Rule for their Faith before there was either Scripture or a Jew in the World So that granting the Major he gains nothing by it unless he can prove that the Scripture was the Primary Rule of Noah and Abrahams Faith or else that GOD hath changed his Rule His Minor I deny for the same reason Secondly I acknowledge that Moses Law which is a part of the Scripture was more a Rule to the Jews and more binding upon them then upon any of the Nations or any living either then or since And this is all that his after reasonings can prove But what if I should say with other Protestant Writers that the was
Our Adversaries themselves saith he at unawates grant Very well Patroelus it is a fine trick of a Souldier to take his Enemies napping and vanquish by stratagem but it seems there is some difficulty in it He citeth R Barkclays 2d Theses saying That the Spirit is not to be subjected to the Scriptures as a more noble Rule Therefore saith he The Spirit is to be subjected to the Scriptures tho not as a more noble Rule Answer first He should have said These Divine Revelations for they are the words of the These But we have often acknowledged that all Doctrines of Men how holy soever or how much soever they pretend to the Spirit are to be tryed by the Scriptures and if they be contrary to them are to be rejected But this proves nothing of their being the Primary Rule to us more then to Enoch who was a Man of GOD and had true Faith and walked with GOD before there was a line of Scripture in the World Again he saith Our Adversaries grant that the Scriptures proceeded from GOD and therefore are infalible and more sure than infalible is impossible This is a strange Argument The Scriptures are infallible because they proceeded from GOD or were inspired by the Spirit of GOD And shall the Inspiration of the Spirit be fallible or a more uncertain Rule then that which it dictated These words sound harshly But I expect when Patreclus comes to be serious in cold Blood he will grant That if there be more or less in the Case of Infallibility he will grant the more to the Spirit which dictated the Scriptures and from which they derive all their Infallibility Certainty and Excellency Here I desire the Reader may observe that his Arguments and the Scriptures cited by him tend only to set up Moses Law to be the Primary Rule of Faith and Life And not one word of the Scriptures of the New Testament so that he contends for Judaism rather then Christianity For Christ said It hath been said of Old an Eye for an Eye c But I say unto you resist not evil c So that the Jewish Law is not in all things to be a Rule for Christians Otherwayes Patroclus may ofter Sacrifice as well as take Tithes In page 54. 55 and 56. He ranteth and roareth against R B as a Jesuite because he alledgeth he hath taken an Argument of Bellarmines to prove the Scriptures not to be an Adequate Rule but what a silly kind of Reasoning this is tho true may easily appear Bellarmine sayes there is one GOD so do I therefore I am a Jesuite The Jesuites say That Dominion is founded upon Grace And so do the Presbyâ—erians Therefore the Preshyterians are Jesuites Then he comes to vindicate John Brown's simile of killing a Man And at last giveth us the Law the Judge and the Witnesses The Scriptures are saith he the Rule whereby to make the Examen the enâ—â—ghined â—â—solence the Judge the Spirit of Adoption or a â—ilial Disposition c Together the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself the Witnesses But first I must ask him whether it be the Man himself or the Judge that needs this Spiritual Wisdome and Christian prudence to apply the Rule Secondly Whether the Judge be a Person distinct form the person judged for to use his own Simile If the Man â—â— yet be his own Judge he is not like to suffer Thirdly What he meaneth by the Ex Position he gives us of the Spirit of Adoption As if he thinketh it nothing else but a Filial Disposition inclining the believer to come to GOD as his Words imply Behold Reader what a Judgement is here to be expected Where the Man himself dislected into so many Parts is the Applyer of the Rule the Judge and the Witnesses And yet in page 57 He confesseth That for the infallible Assurance of the Person himself the thing standeth in need of or requireth an inward Judge and inward Witnesses Which I hope must be things distinct from the Person himself to whom they are to give infallible certainty As for his pretending That it belongeth not properly to a Rule of Faith to tell a Man whether he hath true Faith or not is not to the purpose For an adequate Rule of Faith must put me beyond doubting what I am to believe and what not Otherwayes it is no adéquate Rule And to conclude I would advise him to be sparing in calling Men Anti-Christian For I know no people except the Papists to whom the definition of Antichrist given by the Apostles is more agreeable then to the Presbyterians That is He exalteth himself above all that is called God or the civil Magistrates who are called Gods in Scripture Goodman saith they may kill wicked Princes as monsters and oruel beasts Knox History Fol 78. If neither the Magistrate nor the people do their office in deposing or killing the King then the Minister must Ex-communicat such a King Goodman page 110. Any privat Man may do it against the greatest Prince A privat Man having some special motion may kill a Tyrant If these Doctrines be not more like Anti-Christ than the Doctrine he accuserh let the Reader judge In Page 57 he cometh to another Argument of R. B's There are many things that the Scripture cannot determine To which I B Answers That General Rules are enough leaving the rest to Christian prudence and Wisdome If this be not flatly to contradict the Scriptures concerning the chief Instances cited by R B Let the Reader judge after he hath read and considered the following Scriptures Rom. 8 16. The Spirit it self beareth Witness with our spirits that we are the Children of GOD. 1 John 4. 13. Hereby do we know that we dwell in Him and He in us because He hath given us of his Spirit And Vers 5. 6. And it is the Spirit that beareth Witness because the Spirit is Truth To these Scriptures cited by R B He hath not answered one Word Buâ— all his Answers are Quibles As first If we need Revelation for Spiritual Actions we need them also for Natural Actions Poor Man Are we contending for a Rule for Eating and Drinking as he talks If he be sick let him consult the Physician what and when he shall Eat But if he mean the Fasts appointed by the Presbyterian Clergie his Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Perswasion have need to consult an higher Oracle And when he is hungry and thirsty his stomach can teach him Nevertholess Whether we eat or drink we are to do it to the Glorie of GOD. His second Answer is ridiculous alledging that a system of Mathematicks or Military Discipline is a sufficient Rule tho the Books comprehended not the Names of all Mathematicians and Souldiers that ever shall exist But the Question is Whether a system of these Arts can put a Man beyond doubting in every Emergent that may occurr in these Arts when practised And not whether their Names be there or not As whether he
may be a State in this Life in which a Man cannot sin it is so natural to him to do Righteousness Tho I be wearied with such Perversions and Paultry stuff I am inforced to transcribe R B's Words to evince yet once more his dissigenuity Apol page 170. Lastly tho I affirm that after a Man hath arrived to such a condition in which a man may not sin he yet may sin I will nevertheless not deny but there may be a State attainable in this Life in which to do Righteousness may become so natural to the regenerate Soul that in the stability of this Condition they cannot sin Others may perhaps speak more certainly of this State as having arrived to it For me I shall speak modestly as acknowledging my self not to have arrived at it Yet observe dare not deny it for that it sâ—mâ— to be so positively asserted by the Apostle 1 John 3. 9. He that is born of GOD sineth not neither can he because the Seed of GOD remaineth in him Now let the Reader Judge whether to assert be one thing and not dare to deny be another thing And the Reason our Author gives is It is so natural to him to do Righteousness Whereas R B's Reason why he dare not deny it is because the Apostle seems so positively to assert it But this is not the first we have met with The next we get is another peece of Hicks one of his wicked abominable Anabaptists as he words it which I intend no more to concern with But he tells us R B hath given away the Cause Vind Sect. 9. Saying That he pleadeth for no more then Mr. Brown saith Numb 6. To wit That by Penfection in this Life is understood a change in the whole Man So that he yeildeth Impartial Obedience to all the Commands of GOD tho in a small degree Thus our Author Certainly it 's strange what the man could promise to himself by such base and unworthy dissimulations For R B citeth John Browns words page 328. 329. In regeneration the whole man is changed so that he is now born a new Creature sanctified wholly in Mind Heart Spirit Affection Conscience Memory and Body tho but in a small measure or degree yielding Impartial Obedience through the Grace of GOD unto all GODS Precepts waving none These are the Words cited by R. B. and miserably mancked by our Author who hath skipped over the most matterial parts of his Brothers words that he may have the more room but this is a very mean subterfuge and will not long cover him For saith he R. B. enquireth how this Doctrine is reconciled with that of daily breaking the Commands in thought Word and deed In answer to which question saith he It is enough to enquire How he evineeth them to be contradictory Observe Reader That according to this Man for I will not think that his brethren will own him to be changed in the whole Man to be born a new Creature to be wholly sanctified in the mind heart Spirit Affections Conscience Memory and Body c. And to break the Commands daily in thought word and Deed are no wayes contrary and need no Reconciliation Behold this Mans Sanctification And let him tell me with the next what difference there is betwixt his Holiness or Sanctification and other Mens wickedness where malice is wanting As for that he adds That the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as as parts He might have known that we are to be judged by the Gospel and not by the Law Next he saith And whereas he enquireth If to break Gods Commands daily in Thought Word and Deed be the way to grow in Grace To put off the Old Man and put on the New This he calls a malicious calumny But who gave the occasion for it Did not â— B. bring this for a proof that Men sin daily in thought Word and deed viz. That Christians are exborted to grow in Grace To put off the Old Man which is corrupt to put on the nor Man to mortifie their Members And now I leave it to the Reader to judge whether R. B's question were pertinent and neither malicious nor calumnious Yet our Candid Author must add something that he may still be like himself Asking Where did any of the Reformed teach that to endeavour to break Gods Commands to grow in Grace as this Man insinuates they do First he hath added the Word Indeavour and then he hath fathered the import of l. B's argument upon R. B's question Is this honesty To tell his Adversary His Light teacheth him a faoulty of Lying while himself is both the Lyet and the Forger He goeth no to give us I. B's second Proof thus This perfection renders Gospel Commands useless R. B. Answers by a Simile Asking Are the Laws useless if Men obey them He answers He that is above the Breach of the Law hath no more use of the Law or need of it to learn any thing from it in order to his Obedience thereof Is not this a poor Subterfuge How shall a Man obey the Law if he know it not Or how obey it if he take not heed to order his Conversation according to it And is then the Law useless him But he might have remembred that R. B. asserted a possibility of sinning and only modestly said he durst not deny a further State because the Apostle seemed positively to assert it But the Apostle saith Against such there is no Law he may tell us next who these are But to summ up this Paragraph he will not only fasten a contradiction upon R. B. but also Blasphemy saying But that he â—hay further contradict himself and his Brethren He saith in his Apologie that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness For saith our Author If some be equal with God above the breach of the Commands want a body of death the most that they have to do is to give Thanks and not to pray or repent Is not this a profound as well as fair Disputant Did his Adversary ever say That any were equal with GOD No And therefore the Blasphemy is his own for which he hath need to repent And so had the best Saints for that all have sinned and whosoever hath sinned need to repent and pray for Forgiveness And if he will consult the Scriptures he may see that after the Intimation of Pardon the Saints have mourned and prayed for Forgiveness See 2 Sam. 12. 13. Compated with Psalm 51. 14. But his Malice blinds him in this and many more things He comes now to John Browns next proof Viz This doctrine tends to foment pride and Securitie and taketh away diligent Watchfulness Holy fear Humility c. To which R. B. answers But where Freedom from Sin is where can pride and Securitie have place or Diligence and Humility be wanting But with him to sin is the way not to be proud and secure but to be watchfull