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
Interest in opposition to Popery and whatsoever hath attendancy thereunto By this tendency he certainly intends not so much the Quakers as the Episcopal Church which may be seen in the 15th page of his Dedication But he must give me leave to tell him that the Episcopal Church of England hath done and suffered more for the Protestant Interest than all the Presbyterians in the World And the three hundreth Lives laid down in the dayes of Queen Mary were of more service to the Protestant interest than an hundred Thousand â—ost by the Solemn League and Covenant And yet both Prelatick and Presbyterian Churches departed from the Protestant Principles in that they have first set up to themselves an absolute Authority in matter of Faith and Worship 2ly That they have not contented themselves with Excommunication but have persecuted such as could not comply And 3ly By this persecution thy have rendred themselves guilty of all the Apostacle Hypocrisie and Dissimulation of such have as complyed out of meer fear which three things as none of the least causes of seperation have been charged upon the Church of Rome And frequently casts in her teeth by all Protestants Yet hath the Ruling Clergie of every Protestant Church followed her footsteps how soon they got Power For this see a paper caled the third part of Naked truth Printed 1681. I need not here mention the many troubles Wars Devastations and Miseries brought upon Europe by the Romish Clergie these 1000 years bypast But to come nearer home and in our own Age Have we not seen the execrable Murther of One King the banishment of Another the loss of an Hundred Thousand Lives and infinite Treasure the ruine of our Native Country not yet recovered And all this to satisfie Ambition and avance of a contentious Clergle Yea and such contention as amounted to no more than whither the Precess of their Assembly should be constant or moveable And whither he should be called Moderator or Bishop which King Charles the first calls the Skirts or Suburbs of Religion And yet alace Men have so mancipated their Judgements to the dictats of the Clergie they own that there is great cause to fear a Relapse I shall earnestly desire my Country-men to consider what brought us to the present condition we are in but the artifices of the Clergie The Popish Clergie having got a King of their own Religion have incessantly cryed on him that the Churches Colledges Rents Revenues Tythes and Benefices were of right theîrs And that it was Sacriledge to keep them out of Possession The Episcopal Clergie had the Reformation to plead the sad sufferings of their predecessors and the Law of the Nation their own piety and Moderation as they pretended But the Presbyterians think they have been but lately put from it by the Prelates they had gained it by the Sword and that Major Vis is a good Right and they have been still attempting it since the year 1666 And clamouring that the Nation is under a Solemn Oath by the Covenant to extirpate all others and establish them So that we are brought into this present confusion only to satisfie the ambition and avarice of the Clergie The Honour and the wealth is the Bone of contention settled Revenues Tythes and forced Mantainance and while the Civil Magistrates patronizeth any one of the three in Possession of those We need expect no quiet but take away the Bone and the Dogs will cease Having done with his Dedication I must tell thee then shall expect none from â—he Being Nullius addictus Jurare in 〈◊〉 Magistri But I must look back to his Frontispeece where he begins will Verus Patroclus What he intends by this We must consider Either he intends the Quakers his own Book or himself If he intends is the Quakers he is greatly mistaken For if we may believe Tradition Patrocius was a souldier at the siege of Troy and borrowed Achilles Atmour to fight against Hector by whom he was killed Now the Quakers are so far from borrowing Carnal Weapons That they have beat their own swords into plow shears c. and resolve to learn War no more If he intend his own Book he hath yet erred lot we read that Patroclus was à very man like one of us and had tongue and teeth as well as our Author But if he intends himself I wonder how he calls himself the True patroclus But it seems that by reading Virgils ath Eclugue he hath dâ—â—â—med that Plato's great year was come Atque lterum ad Trojan Magnus mittetur Achilies And that he is the very patrochus so being assured of his Fate he attacks the whole Christian World with great confidence If therefore I some times call him patroolus some times our Author and some times mine Adversary I hope my Reader will understand me He begins his preface to the Reader with a jealousie about the acceptance of his Book not without cause He had told us before in his Dedication that it could not be judged altogether superstuous Because of the Hemlock of pelagianism wherewith the Bulk of the Prelatick Clargie is infected Yet fears after all this it may be called an Iliad after Homer c. And therefore that his Babie may not be neglected he tells the causes of its production over again and tho he told us it was designed for his Patron as a Testimony of his gratitude for his education Yet here it comes to be a Publict concern and he gives us three Fathers who have beget this Monstrous Birth upon one Mother his Brain Viz. The danger of this deadly disease The prximoity of it and the readiness of its possions to broach Books It seems he means Truth to be this dangerous disease but it is so to none but such pedantick Chaplines as he who gets their Bread by lies Not is it dangerous to any but the Clergie because its followers decry their Tyths their Belly their God As for its proximity I know no sober man but likes their Neighbourhood even the moderate among the Episcopal Teachers And as to their Broaching of Books This is great impudence who was troubling him Hath he seen any controversie written by the Quakers since the Year 1679. And now when the LORD had moved the hearts of the Civil Magistrats to give them a little respite from their sad sufferings Beholld this Gladiator attacks them and by all the lies Forgeries and false Accusations that he can invent to defame provokes them again to enter the Lists in the defence of that Blessed Testimony which will for ever stand over him all such forgers And how unwilling we have been to broach Books may appear by our long delay to answer this Bable Yea had not some of their Preachers at Aberdeen and in the West vainly boasted that it was unanswerable We had not yet thought it worthy to be noticed The next thing that occurs is that he accuses the Nation of negligence for not comparing the Doctrine
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
givenparticularly for that Nation and was binding upon no other Nation in the World as J Humphry in his book called Medioeria to which Richard Baxter a Famous Presbyterian assents and subscrives I am of the same mind R Baxter of the Covenants page 14. The Old Covenant is that which GOD made with the Jews when Moses led them in the Wilderness the new is that which we have under the Gospel the Old Covenant then is not the Covenant of works for that was made with all in Adam and as written in our hearts must be Eternally obligatory but the Old Covenant was made with the Jews in opposition to other Nations and as peculiar to them is vanished binds not And for the same reason he sayeth it is not the Covenant of Grace which is called the New Covenant But saith he the new is not the old The argument he bringeth to prove his Minor is that from which the Jews might not swerve to the right nor left hand and to the decision of which they were ultimatly bound to stand in all doubts and contraversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from GOD's Writtin Law c. Therefore to them it was the Primary Rule Answer First This argument proveth no more then this is already granted Viz. That Moses Law was a more Principal Law to the Jews then to any other Nation But untill he prove the Children of Israel to have had no Law no Rule of Faith nor Life before Moses wrote that Law his argument can conclude nothing Secondly Mine Adversary may tell me whether they were to stand to the decision of the Law in a matter which the Law did not decide for we find that after the Law was given In many things the Law giver Moses could not decide without immediate Revelation as in the matter of the Daughters of Zelophehad But when the case was proposed to him he went and enquired of the Lord And again when the Law was finished and Joshua to succeed him What saith the LORD Numb 29. 21. And he to wit Joshua shall stand before Eleazer the Priest who shall ask Counsel for him after the judgement of Vrim before the LORD If this be ultimatly to recurr to the Scriptures of Moses Law the Reader may judge To prove his Minor he citeth one place which I cannot omit Dut 17 9 10 11 And thou shall come unto the Priests the Levits and unto the Judge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the Sentence of Judgement and thou shall do according to the sentence which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee and thou shall observe to do according to all that they inform thee Now Reader could the Pope of Rome have sought out a Scripture more fitt to have established his universal Dictatorship over Christendome then this Is there one word of Scripture Law or Testimony here No but the Priests the Levites and the Judge That is in Broad Scots The General Assembly and Committee of Estates who were as absolute in their Determinations as ever the Pope and his Conclave But Patroclus must know that he and his Brethren are not Levites altho they take the Tithes nor am I to take their Counsel till they assure me that they have the Judgement of Vrim His second Proof for his Minor is Isaiah 8. 20. To the Law and to the Testimony if they speake not according to these it is because there is no light in them This Scripture hath been so much tossed by the Adversaries of Truth and so often answered That Patroclus who promiseth greater Matters then his Brethren had brought might have let it alone He denyes that this Law and Testimony can be inward And sayes For this Exposition we must take their word c But he hath forgotten it seems that William Penn in his Rejoynder hath given him other Mens words for it and perhaps better Mens then himself And because the Book is not so common among Presbyterians I shall here insert some of the Testimonys cited by William Peen First Dell Tryal of Spirits page 16. Wherefore they who are true believers saith he and have received Christs Spirit their Judgement is to be preferred in the Tryal of spirits before a whole council of Clergie Men And they onlie who can try Spirits by the Spirit of GOD and Doctrines by the Word of GOD written in their hearts by the Spirit can in measure discern all Spirits in the World And the Spirit of Christ which dwelleth in all true Christians cannot deceive nor be deceived in the tryal of spirits Collier General Epistle page 249. and page 258. Obj I st it is said Isa 8 20. To the Law and to the Testimony c Ans Truth There is the Law and the Testimony in the Spirit as well as in the Letter The Law of GOD is in the Heart There it is written and there it testifies the Truth of GOD And if any Man speake not according to this Rule it is because there is no Light nor Morning arisen in them the Spiritual Man judgeth all things yet be himself is judged of no man These were the words of two Famous Professors who were no Quakers Next he citeth some Scriptures to prove that Moses Law is understood by the Law and Testimony As if GOD had made voide his Promise To write his Law in the Heart and put it in the inward parts But of this a little after In page 35. He begins with a Question drawn from Deut 17. 18 19. Now sayes he Shall any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose That the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discusing thereof Or tho the King's doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law He was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him I say who in his Witts will believe this Very well Patroclus I am one so stupid as to believe that when a doubt arose which Moses Law could not clearly determine that the King was bound to enquire of the LORD Of which the Scriptures gives us many examples As 1 Samuel 23. 2. 4. and 30. 8. 2 Sam 2. 1. and 5. 19. 1 Kings 22. 7. And 2 Kings 22. Where the King the High Priest the Scribe and some others had the Book of the Law and knew not what to do with it but sent to enquire of the Lord and that by the mouth of a Woman But he hath been so warrie in his second Querie as to add Tho the Kings doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law Yet hath not the Candour to tell us what the King was to do in case his doubt was not clearly discussed by the Law As for the word Miraculous Revelation c It is his own a fine bugbear to fright his silly Disciples from asking Counsel of GOD For I am apt to believe that Divine Revelation
the Testimony of one Risen from the Dead In like manner the Presbyterians now albeit they pretend so much to reverence the writings of the Apostles yet they will not really hear them else they would not fight swear nor exact a forced mantainance even from these who are not of the communion of their Church His Third argument is Certainly saith he the voice of one of the Glorified Spirits coming from Heaven where they behold the Face of GOD is no less to be accounted immediate Revelation then the voice of the high Priest unto the people c. But he should have proved that GOD took his method to reveal his mind unto his people which he never did But the High Priest was a Tipe of Christ and a Mediator betwixt GOD and the Jews So that to deny this to be immediate because it was first spoken to the High Priest is to deny the words of Christ to be immediate to his people because he saith he had heard and received them of the Father or that the light of the Sun is not immediate because it is conveyed to us through the Air. Only let him tell me whether the supream Magistrate who is at present troubled with the clamours of the two kinds of Clergy-men in Scotland can go and inquire of the LORD and have as certain an answer which of the two Church Government are Jure Divino as the Jews many times had and then he sayes something For the Jews had the Scriptures Moses and the Prophets as well as we and yet were many times necessitat to go and enquire of the LORD which evidently proves they had a higher rule then Moses Law In page 50 he giveth an argument like the rest Viz. Gods way of Revealing himself to us is as immediat as it was to the Jews because we have those that were inspired by GOD speaking to us tho Dead Hence he concludes that the Scriptures are as immediat to us as the voice of Moses or the High Priest or the Prophets was to the Jews This Argument is singular for deceit solly for First where did any Quaker deny the Scriptutes to be the Primary Rule upon the account of their not being immediatly revealed we acknowledege that they were immediatly revealed to the Prophets and Apostles recorded by them but this doth not let them above the Spirit which did reveal them and so his gross lie and his argument are both answered and yet he might have considered that the promise of Christ is more full to his people then it was to the Jews As he may read Matt 10 19 20. It shall be given you the same hour what ye shall speak for it is not ye that speak but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you His fourth argument from 2 Then 3. 15. Is That which is able to make such an one as Timothy called the man of GOD wise through faith unto Salvation must be a sufficient Rule c. But the Scriptures are able to do so c. Therefore they are a sufficient Rule Answer This argument militates nothing against us for the Question is not whether the Scriptures be a Rule but whether they be the Primary Rule which this Argument toucheth not and Faith is added here as a principal ingredient which themselves acknowledge to be a work of the Spirit this Faith hath a rule as also that faith whereby a man believes the Divine Authority of the Scriptures let him tell me with the next what is the Rule of this Faith He tells next The scriptures are Causa exemplaris and therefore the Primary Rule they call them causa formalis Causa materialis causa exemplaris And the word make would seem to make them causa efficiens so that according to them they are To Pan and the Spirit Vers Nihil From the Scriptures being Causa exemplaris he saith I evidently inferr that they are the adequat Primary Rule because if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in Scripture Or if they were subject to another Test c. They could not in truth be called able to make the man of GOD wise unto Salvation This I have answered before if he understand the Essentials and fundamentals of the Christian Religion It is confessed they do contain them but there are many things occur in our Christian course as he words it which the Scriptures do not determine Such as whether it was Christian or Antichristian course for the Presbyterians to come up to Bothwel-Bridge to fight against the King And Secondly Whether the late assembly ought to have united with their Brethren of the Episcopal perswasion till they had undergone Pennance for their Apostasie upon the Stool of Repentance The First brought much trouble upon the Nation and the Second is feared to be of no better consequence except our Author bring us clear Scripture to determine the case to the satisfaction of all parties He saith little Justice Truth or fare dealing is to be expected from us But far less from him so long as he trusts more to Aristotles Elenobis in frameing deceitful Sophisms then to the Testimony of the Spirit of Christ the reason he gives for this great calumny is because R. B. accuseth his brother John Brown for perverting the Scriptute 2 Tim 3. 16. Now it is evident that the 16 Ver hath no such word in it and that the 17 Vers saith only That the man of GOD may be perfect So the difference here is very obvious which R. B. hath largely handled in the same 41 page and our Author takes no notice of it but most deceitfully insinuates that he makes the scriptures Tautologies because he cannot evite the distinction there made by R. B. To which place never touched by our Author I refer my Reader Lastly saith he For we love rather to plead by weight of Arguments then by multitude of Arguments Answer If this had been true thou had spared a dale of Paper and pains We evine saith he That the Scriptures are a compleat adequate and Primary Rule of Faith and Manners by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves Answer If this be true it is manifest that allhe hath said on that Subject is superfluous Against whom did the Man write Omerciless Adversarie This is like the Papists in Q Marys time Tho you recant and be received into the Church yet you must burn But let us hear what he faith His Proofs are these First R Barkclay's Vindication page 36. The chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in Scripture And we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith in tho Scriptures And George Keith saith That the Scriptures are a full enough declaration of all Doctrines and Principles c. Both these I have cleared before granting all that they said And yet have proven that many things may and do occurr which the Scriptures do not clearly determine The other Branch that they are the Primary Rule
serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth was their Rule Ergo c. The Major I hope they will not deny and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance which was as followeth Die Jovis 6 of July 1643. I A B do seriouslie and solemnlie protest in the presence of Almightie GOD That in this Assemblie whereof I am a Member I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be Truth Or in point of Discipline but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glorie of GOD and to the Good and Peace of the Church Hence it is evident That their Conscience was their Rule But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Errour whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom let Patroclus choose And to help him in his Election he may consult his Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum who a little after he hath told him that his ultimate Rule is a monster Tells him also That nothing can possiblie interpose between the Authoritie of GOD and the conscience and that its dictates are uncontrollable Next he tells us That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil But the Scripture saith not that men are condemned for want of Light But because Light iâ— come into the World but Men love darâ—ness rather than light And also that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men He closeth up this Number accusing R B for confounding the principal Rule and the principal Leader but these are his Acâ—rologian mistakes and not his Adversaries confusion For any man not maliciously byassed may see that he intends no more but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39 saying that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit is more primarie and principallie the Rule than the Scriptures some things written and received only from another This he hath maliciously passed by together with the Question following which he could not answer so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisiâ—al formalities return upon his own head In page 67 He comes to the interpreter of Scripture where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetorick like that of hiâ— Brother Mackquair the Arch-scold saying The Quakers well knowing That if GOD speaking in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them or if the Holy scripture be not â—steemed false ambiguous and nonsenfical then their cause is lost What more malicious and wicked falshood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People who from their Hearts abhore any such thought concerning the Scriptures as to esteem them false ambiguous and nonsensical Or what end could this â—nicâ—ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth Except it be to raise their Beloved Refoâ—meâ—s the Rabble to stone us as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow had almost been stoned to Death by them But he saith The Quakers well knowing c. If this were true we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster Who in chap 23 numb 4 of their Confession say Infidelitie or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authoritie nor free the People from their due Obedience to him While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King a Pious as well as Protestant Prince Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture â—alse ambiguous or nonesensical Wherefore he should have said If the Spirit of GOD which dictated the Scriptures be the only true Interpreter of Scripture then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost As for his phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures and a little after The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort is confessed But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood and in effect a meer sham to amuse his Reader As for example When Patroâ—lus stepeth up into his Pulpit and readeth a sentence of Scripture which may be somewhat obscure As this my Body He begines to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors then of the Lutherian and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text. Now I would willingly know whetheâ— it be GOD or Man that speaks here The First he would be affraid of as Enthusiastiok And if the Second What becomes of his Phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures So the Reader may see That it is a meer humane device to keep up a sordid Trade for by this Trade they have their Living as the Silver Smiths had of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake But let the Reader know That we fully owne the Spirit of GOD which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means such as Reading Meditation Prayer and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures as many of our Friends have published to the World So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following falls to the ground being built upon no one solid Argument But I shal take notice of some of them And First He citeth George Keith Saying We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth but declare themselves Enemies to it To this he Answereth Behold Reader The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine Answer If this be true then Patroclus is a great Liar For in page 32. he saith The Papists have gone too low resolving their Faith ultimatly in Men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo And in that foregoing page placeth themselves in the middle So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists then we And in good earnest any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practises will find the Difference nothing but Pretence For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters then the Papists Only Blessed be the LORD they have not such
good nor affoord us any Light but smoak and stink But the absurdities are his own in contradicting the Westminster Catechism Which to the Question What is original sin Answereth It is the want of Original Righteousness and the corruption of our whole nature c. Now let the Reader compare this Answer with our Authors Doctrine Who saith That fallen man hath so much Original Righteousness as to Know Love Fear and Adore the Infinite and Omnipotent GOD and to do to others as he would be done by which our Saviour sayes are the two great commandements And then consider how consonant he is to his Principles But all these absurdities and many more they are forced to run into for defence of that Abyss of abominations their darling Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation After this being conscious to himself he hath said nothing to purpose he flyoth to the covers of deceit and refuge of Lies Saying There is a Mystery latent under this Doctrine which we must here discover The Quakers have no other Christ then this that was left in Adam and remaineth in man in his fallen condition to which they give many great Names as Light Life measure of GOD GOD Himself and most frequently the Seed Then he citeth some broken Passages out of Books which whether true or false I am indifferent For they are chiefly out of two Books of George Keiths yet unanswered And if our Author please to enter the lists with him I shall be willing to be a Spectator Till then it is currish manners to snarle at his heels while he dare not set his face to it But I pray thee Patroclus should I set my self to pick out sentences out of Presbyterian Books What a Hodge podge of None-sense and Blasphemy could I make up together Thinkest thou they did well who have presently published that Pamphlet of the Presbyterian Eloquence But that Consequence thou drawest from these thy assertions is such a horrid and detestable Lie as needs no other Answer But the LORD rebuke that lying spirit that is gone forth and entered the mouths of the Presbyterian Clergie He who searcheth our Hearts knoweth that we are falsly accused And that we owne no other Christ but Jesus the Son of the living GOD and the Virgin Mary And I hope all Men of Candor and Ingenuity will acknowledge that we should know what we believe better then this malicious Railer doth So I hope they will hereafter give no credit to him nor his Brethren thus misrepresenting us as about the end of page 107 He saith We believe or at least would perswade others to believe that Christ hath a Personal Vnion with every son and daughter of Adam O! impudent Slanderer the poyson of Asps is under his tongue Next he calls it Blasphemy to say That the seed needs a new Visitation to raise it up But hath not told us where the Blasphemy lyeth In page 108 To clear his Brother John Brown of the absurdity of asletting that the Devils and all unregenerate men are in a certain respect Spiritual and the Apostle and all Regenerate men are in a certain respect carnal He giveth us a very ready solution of it thus Whatever is a Spirit may be called Spiritual and whatever is a body may be called Corporal and so the Devil is a spirit and unregenerate men have souls Therefore they are spiritual and the Apostle had flesh therefore he was Carnal To prove this futher he saith John Brown hath given 15 arguments Whereof our Author could not bestow one upon us but if they be no better then the last we got he hath done well to be frugall of his paper and think it enough to vaper a little and tell us all these are but fictions hobgoblins fit only to fright children His seventh argument is If fallen man retain no knowledge of GOD no principles of common honesty morality then there is no difference betwixt a Man and a bruit neither can it be told in what the Wisdom of the wise Gentiles consisted of whom the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 2. Who notwithstanding could not perceive the things of GOD until they were again revealed but the latter is falle in both its parts therefore the First Answer this argument serveth only to make a muster the substance whereof hath been handled before for it is grounded upon the false supposition that Mankind received no benefite by the second Covenant but was left in that miserable condition brought upon him by the fall which is contrary to the scope of the whole Scripture and our Author hath been so wary as to contradict it himself in his very arguments Saying who not withstanding could not perceive the things of GOD until they were again revealed whereas he hath said before That man by nature could know and understand the first and second Table of the Law Yea know GOD to be Infinite Omnipotent and that he should be loved feared and Adored and that we should love our Neighbour as our self which is nothing more then to do to others as we would be done by What need then of a new Revelation seeing this is the Law and the Prophets He citeth 1 Cor 2. In all which Chapter I can find nothing but what contradicts him to his Teeth and Beza's note at the end of it is We are indued with the Spirit of Christ who openeth unto us these secrets which by all other means are unsearchable Mark and also all truth whatsoever Now if all Truth whatsoever be unsearchable without the Spirit of Christ as Beza saith they are what is become of our Authors dark Lantern whereby as by the light of corrupt nature he will have men to know that great truth the foundation of all Truth Viz. That there is an Infinite and Omnipotent GOD who is to be Loved Feared and Adored Add to this That no man knoweth the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son shall Reveal him And then let the Reader consider whether Beza and the Scriptures are better to be believed then our Author his dark Lantern As to the Wisdom of the Wise Gentiles there is a Wisdom whereby GOD is known and a Wisdom whereby GOD is not known So saith the Scripture The World through Wisdom knew not GOD and that some men were bruitish in their knowledge and as Jude saith what they knew naturally as bruit in these things they corrupt themselves This is Mans natural Wisdom But Job who was one of the wise Gentiles tells us that the Inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding Aristotle also Another of the wise Gentiles tells us in his Ethicks Lib 10 Chap 4. 7. They that did these things did them not as men but as having something Divine or of GOD in them And Dindvmus said to Alexander the Great If thou wilt hearken to my words thou shalt possess of my goods who have GOD to my friend and whose inspiration I injoy within me I have instanced Aristotle to him already