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 black­mouth'd [Page 17] 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, o [...] 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 [Page 18] 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.

[Page 19]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, [Page 20] 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 [...]ssential and Substantial Word of God, The principal Dictator of the Mind of God. And [Page 21] that the Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The first he calls improper, the second proper: But how perti­nently the Reader may consider: If that which is Escential and Substantial to a thing be not proper to it, he may tell us with the next, what is more proper then the Essence or Substance of a thing is. Hence­forth according to him, we must call the Beams or Rayes coming from the Son, properly the Sun; But the Sun himself from whence they all come must be im­properly so called.

And now to shew, That this is a meer strife about words, I shall summ up this contraverfie thus, R: B: saith, Christ is the Word of GOD: Patroclus saith, Christ is the Essential and Substantial Word of GOD: R: B: saith, The Scriptures are a True and Faithful Declaration of the Mind and VVill of GOD, re­vealed by the VVord of GOD to his Servants: Patroclus saith, Christ is the Principal Decla­rer of the Mind of GOD. R: B: saith, The Scriptures are the VVords of GOD. Patroclus saith, The Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables.

Now let the Reader judge where the Contraversy lyes.

Page 4. About the end, He saith (after some [Page 22] some scurrilous Language) That the Quakers deny, The Title of Gospel to the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, And then falls to hard words again, saying The defence of this wicked and bold Con­tradiction of the Scriptures, William Peh undertakes in his Rejoinder to John Faldo page 117. Where observe first, That he asserteth it a Contradiction of Scripture; When he hath brought no Scripture seem­ing to contradict what is said. But Mark 1. 1, Which shall be considered in its place. Observe 2dly, That to oppose Truth; The Presbyterians and Independants can join issue. (like Herod and Pontius Pilate) Not­standing all the Clamonis we have heard in Aberdeen about the Text; Holiness becomes Thy House, O LORD,

To prove this assertion, William Penn produceth Scripture Reason, and the Au­thority of Ancient and Modern Writters. First, The Gospel is the Power of GOD to Salvation: To which he answereth, That the Scriptures may as well be called the P [...]wer of GOD to Salvation, as the Gospel. Here he hath granted the Scrip­tures to be one thing, and the Gospel a­nother, and must come to his Diversity [Page 23] of Acceptations properly and improperly, again for he hath done with it.

He sayes page 5th. It was the same Doc­trine which the Apostles preached and committed to Writting, Who denyes this, or what saith it for him, more then Luke 1. 1. A Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed amongst us: And this no Quaker ever denyed. But Secondly, He tells us, that by Power of GOD to Salvation can be understood no other thing but the mean Organ or Instru­ment whereby GOD exerteth or put, teth forth his Power to the saving of Sin­ners; And again in page 6. He saith the Power of GOD, That is GOD Himself; See the Mans confusion and self contradiction.

In the next place William Penn gives him another Scripture, Rev: 14. 6. Which is nothing to Patroolus, except it suite with his mind; For after a few Quibles, he saith the Doctrine contained in these Books is the same with, and there­fore no less everlasting then the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel: This William Penn granteth, That they are a Declarati­or Narrative of the Gospel, and, that the thing they declare of is the Gospel.

Page 5th About the end, He cites Wil­liam [Page 24] Penn saying, The Gospel is Glad [...] Tidings; But Matthew, Mark, &c: are but Narratives, &c. and not Glad tidings: Which last Words he hath added like his Brethen, Hicks and Faldo. And in page. 6th. He saith, They are divers Nar­ratives of the same Doctrine, and all which Books contain the Glad tidings, &c: Yet after all this, he falls a failing, Therefore I shall set down William Penn's Words, That the Reader may Judge how he is dealt with.

William Penns Rejoynder page 118 Which is further proven by the significa­tion of the Word GOSPEL, To wit, Glade, which are to be understood of the coming of Him that was the Saviour of the World; Of whose blessed Appearance and wonderful Transactions, the Scriptures are but Narratives: Besides one of their Authors (Luke) expresly calls them a De­claration consequently not the Gospel thereby declared of; Which Definition Peter Martyre that superintendant Refor­mer in England, chooseth of all others, part. 1. cap: 6. of his common places. Tertulian calls the Scriptures, Instrumenta Doctrinoe, That is Instruments of Doctrine; And the New Testament Writings, Fuan­gelicum [Page 25] Instrumenium: And Matthew he calls a Faithful Commentator of the Gospel: Chrysostome being required to swear upon the Gospel, both denyed those Histories to be the Gospel and to swear as all, &c. Now let the Witness of GOD in the Con­science of the Reader, compare this with the 6th. page of Patroclus and Judge whether his contempt, railing and reproach, hath been hereby deserved, I shall only say, The LORD forgive him.

To conclude this Matter, he brings one Scripture, Mark 1. 1. After he hath as­serted a great untruth; and then raised violently upon it, To wit, That William Penn denyeth that the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, contain Glade tidings; Whereas William Penn hath three times over called them Narratives, or Declara­tions of the Gospel, or Glade tidings This is great Impudence but common to Men of his Coat.

Then from the Scripture before cited, he bringeth forth a Dilemma, which is easily answered by a Dilemma, which is easily answered by a distinction betwixt the History and the Mystery of the Gos­pel, which he might have considered be­fore he had given us all this Trash▪ But to let him see what follows upon his Sense [Page 26] of these scriptures he abuseth, I will ad­venture (for once) to sylogize thus.

The Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the Gospel.

But the Gospel is the Power of God, &c. Ergo, The Books aforesaid, Are the Power of GOD, &c.

And again.

The Books before mentioned are the Power of GOD.

But the Power of GOD, is GOD, Him­self or

Ergo, The Books before mentioned are GOD Himself.

I have here inserted nothing but what he hath asserted in terminis, in his 4, 5, 6. pages, where marke that he calls it abo­minable Swo [...]k- [...]ieldianism to understand, Rom: [...]. [...]6, any other wayes then of the Books before mentioned.

Page 6th. About the end, he begins with a kind of Scolding Oratory, to defame the Quakers, Saying, They cloath the Scrip­tures with base Epithers and contemptible Aspersions, as the Heathens did cloath the Christians with Beasts skins, that the Lions and other wild Beasts might the more rea­dily [Page 27] destroy them: All this yet [...] Man not minding the Words of our Savi­our to his Predecessors the Pharisees (who were no less Exaleers of the Scriptures then he or his Brethren) Matth: 23. 29. For in cruelty ye are nothing inferiour to them.

[...] let us see what he hath for this matter, first, the Quakers call the Scriptures the letter.

Answer, so 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 [Page 28] 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 fa [...]r in the year 16 [...]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 dis­tu [...]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 [Page 29] these two contraversies, [...]t eris mihi Magnus Apollo.

After this in Page 7, he falls upon cita­tions, where he promiscuously, and at all adventures, cites Hicks and F [...]l [...], 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 ci [...]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 w [...]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, [Page 30] 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,

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▪ [Page 31] Viz. ‘As the many different perswas [...]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 N [...]w Testament in Greek. Answer, Can [Page 32] 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 [Page 33] 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 Pharase [...]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 they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue in these Writings, &c: And so runs on for a whole page in tragical Exclamations.

To all which I shall only return the words of Calvine, instit. cap. 1. Numb: 24. ‘Quare, si Conscientiis optime consultum vo­lumus, ne instabili dubitatione perpetuo va­cillent altius petenda, quam ab humanis, vel rationibus, vel judiciis, vel conjecturis scrip­ture Authoritas: Nempe ab Interiori spiritus sancti Testification: Etsi enim Reverentiam su [...] sibi ultro Majestate conciliat, tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit cum per Spiritum obsig­nata [Page 34] est cordibus nostris. And a little after, Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat talis denique sensus qui nisi ex caelesti Re­velatione nasci nequeat. Non aliud loqu [...] quam quod apud se experitur fidelium unus­quisque.’ Thus Calvine. In English thus,

Wherefore, if we would take the best course to provide for the peace or clearness of our own Con­sciences, that they may not perpetually fluctuat [...] with an unstable uncertaintie, the Authoritie of the Scripture is to be deduced higher, then either from Humane Reasons, Judgements, or Con­jectures: viz. From the Inward-witnes▪ bearing of the Holy Spirit: For albeit its own Native Majestie doth gain to it a peculiar Reve­rence, yet then doth it seriously affect us, when it is sealed upon our hearts. And a little after, Such then is that Perswasion which requires not Reasons, and such; that Perception which cannot be bred but of a Revelation from Heaven. I do not speak any other thing, then what every one of the Faithful finds experimentally true in himself.

And now let the Reader judge whe­ther R: B: hath said any more then Cal­vine hath said: That every one of the Faithful experienceth in himself; Yet what is sound Doctrine in Calvine must be Heathnism in R: B:

And whereas he saith, shall the writings [Page 35] of Livie, Virgil, and Cicere carry such evi­dences that they were theirs, so that a Humanist may distinguish, &c. Shall then GOD Himself be outstriped and o­vercome by these Writers!

Answer, Albeit we neither deny the Majesty of Stile, Harmony of parts, or any other Divine Characters in the scrip­tures, which may declare their Author: Yet we confidently affirm that the forelaid writings of Livie, Virgil, and Cicero, which are the things of a man can only be known by the spirit of a man, and not of a beast; So we say, the scriptures being the things of GOD, can only and alone be known by the Spirit of GOD, as saith the Apostle in so many words.

But he proceeds, and citeth the word, (as he alledgeth) of Benjamin Furley, and for his Author gives Hicks the Forger; And then he falls a glorying as if he had done his business fully, saying, by this time I have aboundantly justified my charge. Soft Patroclus, till thou put off thine Armour. An: I cannot but wonder with what confidence, or rather impudence this man and his brother Brown can cite these books of Faldo, Hicks, &c. Which have been so fully & manifestly convicted [Page 36] of falsehood, forgery, and perversion, that their Authors are become detasteable to all honest and unbyasled men, and whom our present adversary accounteth Hereticks: And what a case must the Qua­kers be in, if such Janizaries in Religion, who have been known to undertake the contraversy for hire, and have been found to be men of no integrity; I say, if such men their sworn Enemies shall be held sufficient witnesses against them? If I should produce the Papists Testimonies against Luther and Beza, what would Protestants say? And albeit R: B: chargeth Brown with it as a callumniator, yet our Author hath not brought the least proof to mend the matter, nor the Citation of any book but his beloved Baptist Mr. Hicks (as he calls him.) And whereas he saith they have Cited book and page for their other Cita­tions, so did Patroclus cite William Penns Rejoynder, when he accused him for say­ing the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not contain glade tidings, so the Proverb is veryfied in all of them. A Priest, a Liar, no news; And so till he prove these to have been the words of Benjamine Furley I have done with him.

And here I must tell Patroelus I have [Page 37] seen Browns book which was lent by an old and learned Minister, so called of the National Church, with the Caveat. ‘I would not, said he, lend you this Book, but that I know ye would get it from some other: For if all the coppies were in my hands, they should never be more seen. I acknowledge they are a scandle to our Profession, and the Anthor a stain to his function; But, (said he,) do not think we allow them. And the truth is, except Pol­wart and Montgomeries flyting, I never r [...]ad its fellow.’

But to return to what R: B: answereth in the matter of Benjamin Furley, he hath set it down at large, and spends a deal of labour upon it. He begins with R: B: his delemma, to which he answereth: Seeing R: B: insinuateth, that there are an sub­jective Revelations and, elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any, therefore his dilemma is impertinent, &c. Now let the Reader judge what cander we can ex­pect from this man who hath out done both Hieks and Faldo, they cired book and page, yet were found Forgers; He cites no­thing, yet would be trusted, let him mend this fault with the next before he produce his argumentum ad hominem, and [Page 38] his absurd and malicious consequence upon it: Which is, that according to the Qua­kers, men are not oblidged to abstain from Murther, without such an immediate objective Revelation as Moses and the Prophets had.

Answer, This is very dissingenuous, did ever any Quakers pretend to give a new Law to the World, and confirm it by mi­racles, as did Moses? Or did they ever teach, That the Foretelling of things to come (as did the Prophets) was necessary to Salvation? The Quakers pretend to no new Revelations of new things, but to a new Revelation of the good old things, as shall be seen more hereafter; And for such stuff it may take with Patroclus Hearers, but every Man of Sense will deteast such dealing.

His second Answer to this Dilemma, is yet no better; For saith he, Tho the Illuminati­on of the Spirit be of abjolute necessity, for such a knowledge of the Scriptures whereby we may know GOD revealed in them, and have true Love and Faith, and Fear, &c. Yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures, tho endued with sound reason only, can distinguish betwixt Commands given to a particular people for a certain time; and these that hind at all [Page 39] times; must have abandoned the exercise of Rea­son. This the Summ of what he saith.

Answer first, What he meaneth by the Word (Only) I see not, Except he think Reason can do something more, But what this is he hath not been so honest as to tell us: He hath said before, that the Illumination of the Spirit is absolutly neces­sary to such a knowledge of the Scriptures, as i [...] usefull to beget Faith, Love, and Fear of of GOD. &c. But he would teach us another Know­ledge which reason cannot produce. But if he will allow me the first, I shal allow him the last to get his Living by. Only I must tell the Reader, that in this he outdoes the Socinian who in his Catechism aforesaid. Cap 3. quest: 3. Laid the blame of the Differences about the sense of the Scriptures on their not imploting the Gift of the Holy Spirit which GOD hath promised to those that call u­pon Him. And lastly, I wonder to see a pretended Presbyterian cite the Examples of the third and fifth Commandemen [...]s, Of which two precepts they have been such notorious Transgressors.

His third Answer is as unhappy as the rest, For he laboureth to ca [...]se R. B. to contradict B. F. While he hath neither cleared his Brethren Hicks and Brown from being reputed Calumniators: Nor hath [Page 40] attempted any way to prove these to have been the Words of B. F. But thinks the World is bound to believe him, because he saith it, Where I leave him to rave till he bring better proof.

He tells us Fourthly, That it is imper­tinent to say that without the Operation of the spirit, men cannot obey the Good of their own Souls, And is saith he, falcem pro ligone dare. Answer, It seems the Man in­tends an Obedience which is not for the good of Mens own Souls; And what this can be, ex­cept it be either superstition or supererogation I am to learn. As for his Proverb; I fear if the Men of his Robe did not get the Sickle before the Spade, That is did not eat the Fruit before they planted a Vineyard, we should see many of them with Lean cheecks, and Lank sides. But as he hath told us before of two kinds of Knowledge, one from the Spirit, another from Reason. So he tells here of two kinds of Duties, one profitable for the Soul, but the other he hath not told us for what, and such are many of his Duties like to be.

In the fifth place he chargeth B. F. with Blasphemie, for saying that it is (as he alledgeth) the greatest Error in the World that ever was invented, and the ground of [Page 41] all errour to affirm, that the Seriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians: And then he tells us the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the poison; and hath rendred R. B. speechless.

Well Patroelus! And is this all the proof that yet we have against B. F. Now three times printed without proof; And R. B. might have justly rejected it at first, and here with falls what thou brings in the last place, which was a sufficient answer to I: B: and is yet to thee till thou clear him of these ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator (as thou calls them) which nei­ther thou nor he have ever yet attempted.

But I must ask thee a little, What thou intends here by blasphemy? For what­ever the old signification of the Word may have been; I am sure a Blasphemer is now taken for a Man, who by injurious word or thought hurteth the Divine Maje­sty; So that except the Scripture be Patroclus God, he cannot find Blasphemy in the foresaid Words.

Lastly, All the Proof we have is, If, says he, the words were falsified, he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them. Here we have a new Law; if any Man call Patroclus a Thief, he is bound to prove [Page 42] himself an honest Man; And hence it shall follow that no Lyar can be punished.

To conclude this particular, Not with­standing this Author accuseth the Quakers as Velifiers of the Scriptures. Yet GOD is our Witness, that it is far from our In­tention, but on the contrary we have a high and reverent esteem of them, And altho some years agoe this Language might have passed for good Coyn; Yet now (Blessed be the LORD) we are better known both by our Principles and practi­ces, not only to our Neighbours, but to ma­ny knowing Men all Brittan over, then we formerly were, So that a malicious Priest will not be so readily trusted, being a kind of men who cannot sleep unless they have wounded some, either in their persons or Reputations I shal here only desire the Reader to see Duplessis of the Trueness of Christian Religion, cap: 6. Where he shall see, That before the Canon of the Scriptures were filled up, yea before many of them were written, CHRIST is called the Word of GOD, not only by the Jews, but by the Heathen Philosophers and their Oracles; So that there was a Word of GOD before the Scriptures.

And secondly, If the Preaching of the Gos­pel be glad Tidings, Then the Preaching of Patroclus is not the Preaching of the Gospel, According to Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring [Page 43] you good Tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people; Whereas his Doctrine of Re­probation, is the most sad and lamentable Tydings that ever was preached to Man: kind. For first by their Confession of Faith, cap. 3. A certain number are elected from Eternity and the means foreordained to bring them to Glory, and all the rest of Mankind are ordained to dishonour and wrath, Now the means whereby this end is attained and fore ordained for that pur­pose, are (according to their Catechism) The Word Saoraments and Prayer. And so ac­cording to Patroclus, All Mankind who want these mens are reprobates, consider then Reader; into how narrow a Compass he brings all people: The World being divided into 30 parts, There be yet 19 of them Pagan, and six Mabumitan, and only five Christian; The half of this five is of the Romish Com­munion, & want the use of the Bible! The Lu­therans, he saieth, in his Epistle to the Read­er, deserve not the Name of Reformed, but are to be accounted Capital Adversaries; The Church of England is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianizm, and Episcopacy is an Antichris­tian Hierarchy; The French Protestants are for passive obedience, and Non Resistance; And even Geneva it self errs in two great points, [Page 44] Viz. In allowing Lawful Recreations on the Sabbath day, and denying Tithes to the Clergie: And our English Presbyterians are such enemies to the Scottish Covenant, that they have gone near to Anathematize it For R: Baxter in his hundreth propositions, wherein he sayeth, all Protestants are aggre­ed; Propos. 99 saith, If any will make their unnecessary forms of Synods, and other adjuncts to seem so necessary, as to enter Leagues and Co­venants, to make them the terms of the Church­es Unity; GOD will not owne such terms nor waves, nor will they be durable, &c. With much more to this purpose. And now let the Reader judge whither Patroelus Gospel be glad tidings to all people.

We are now come to the Rule of Faith, and Life, page 17, where having begun with a great lie, Viz. That in the judgement of the Quakers the Scriptures are 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 dissingenu [...]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 R [...] Bar­clays, his appologie Theses Tertia.

[Page 45]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 Lett [...]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; Fald [...]) sense rises no higher then so many articles laid down (suppose truely according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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, [Page 50] 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 h [...]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 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 school­terms, 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.

[Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 [Page 53] given us no Reason, why he believes such and such Books to be the Scripture [...], 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 Ey [...]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 [Page 54] 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 Bri [...]tish and Transmarine Divines on this head, but an intire Harmony. This is another Lie, I shall instance one Jo [...] 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.

[Page 55]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 [Page 56] 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 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 [Page 57] Horse, is like Sense, but in Truth very None­sense. 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 [Page 58] 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.

[Page 59]He concludes with a Greek fable of Ixion (Et quiquid Graecia mend [...]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 Ʋltimate 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:

[Page 60]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, [Page 61] 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.

[Page 62]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 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 [Page 63] 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 [Page 64] 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! [Page 65] 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 [Page 69] 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 [Page 67] 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 [Page 68] Writers, that the was 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.

[Page 69]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 Ʋrim 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 [Page 70] 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 Ʋrim.

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 [Page 71] 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: Ist, it is said Isa: 8 20. To the Law and to the Testimony, &c: Ans: [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] 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 is now a miracle among Presbyterian Priests.

To trace him in all his Raillings and Boastings, reflections against Ro: Barkelay and Geo: Keith, were very needless; The Reader may see them of no weight. I shall therefore here take notice of some of the Scriptures cited by him in page 34. To prove that by the Law and the Testi­monie is understood the Law of Moses [Page 74] on Exod: 32. 15. And Moses turned, and went down from the Mount, and the two Tahles of the Testimony were in his hand, &c. 34. [...]9. With the two Tables of Testimony in Moses hand, &c.

Now I beseech the Reader to consider what this Man can make from hence, or from any of the rest, to prove that Isaiah meant the two Tables of the Law to be a Primarie Rule either to Jews or Christians. Was never the Moral Law a Law to Man­kind, until it was written in Tables of Stone? Then certainly Cain had not sin­ned in killing of Abell; If there had been no Law against Murther; Or what more can he make of this Scripture (if he make the Law and Testimonie to be the Ten Com­mandements?) But this, That whoever speaketh or acteth contrary unto them; It is because he is dark, not knowing the Mind of the LORD; nor hearkning to the Voice of the Divine Light in him, which would have taught him to speak and act according to that Moral Law.

But I would willingly learn of him, whether he would have the whole Law of Moses, Moral, Judicial, and Levitical, or Ceremonial, to be the Primarie Rule to Chri­stians now a dayes: For the Moral is con­fessed [Page 75] by all parties to be binding upon all Mankind, and that it was Imprinted upon the Souls of all Men, even before it was written: But the Judicial Law as well as the Ceremonial Law hath been rejected by all Christians, except the Presbyterians, who composed Cargils Covenant. What then would the man be at? I can conjecture nothing but this; The Presbiterians have three beloved Doctrines, Viz: Swearing, Fighting, and Tithes, which no one Line of the New Testament seems to favour, and therefore they would have the Law rein­forced, least these their Darlings fall.

To conclude: The Law was added, (saith Paul) because of Transgression. Therefore there was a Law or Rule transgressed be­fore this Law was added: And that it was a Written Law, let Patroclus prove with the next.

I shall now come to his third Argu­ment, page [...]9. ‘Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them, for the final decision of the most grave and weighty Contraversies that ever arose in the World; And sent all people in­to them as a most sure and undeceiving Light, by the Guiding of which we may [Page 76] pass through this dark World, and be kept from Hell in the close: Ergo, the Scriptures are the Primary Rule, &c.’

To prove the Consequence of this Ar­gument, he sendeth us to the Definition of (a may be) Rule in his first Argument; which is proven to be lame, and a begging of the Question.

Next to prove his Antecedent, he citeth a Bundle of Scriptures, for merly adduced by his Brethren, and answered divers times: But he thinks all the rest but Bunglers, and therefore he will have at them again.

The First is, Mat. 22. 29, 31, 32. Te do err not knowng the Scriptures, nor the Power of GOD.

He begins with a parcel of Presbyterian Rbetorick, saying, Our Adversaries are like Baits, &c. Let the Reader judge, whe­ther I have occasion here for a Repartee, but Ple spare him.

There be Two Things in the Citation, for the Ignorance of which the Jews are blamed, to wit, Of the Scriptures and the Power of God. Now if this prove one of them to be a Rule, it cannot miss to prove the other to be a Rule also: And so the Contraversy remains in stain quo prius, that is, Whether the Scriptures, or Christ [Page 77] the power of God, and the Wisdom of God, Teaching and Revealing the Mind and Will of God to his People, is to be preferred. The Quakers never denied the Scriptures to be a Rule, but only that they were subordinat to the Teachings of Christ by His Spirit, Whom He promis­eth to send, and that he should Teach them all Things: And this I say is pre­ferrable, and he hath brought nothing to prove the contrary.

This cleareth George Keith from what he alledgeth, of his confounding the Rule with the Power: And as for his Simile of Eu­clid, it will nothing mend his Matter; for certainly Euclid had a Rule by which he wrote his Book, which was the Dictats of his Reason; and except his Propositions can be demonstrated to me by Reason, I am not bound to believe them. Therefore the Dictats of my Reason are a more No­ble and Excellent Rule to me than Euclid's Propositions, tho the Book be an excellent Help for me to attain to that Art.

And whereas he hath talked very dis­dainfully, though wrongfully, of con­sounding the Scriptures and the Power of God, he should have remembred that in Page 36. He hath said, That to seek to the [Page 78] Scriptures is all one with seeking unto GOD: Whether this vergeth upon Blasphemy, let the Reader Judge.

But to put our Stupidity or prejudice beyond doubt, he brings us another simile of a King.

Answer, Above all things he should have shunned dilcoursing upon this Topick; For it is impossible to keep a Presbyterion Priest within his Bounds: Here he hath described a King in Querpo, subordi­nate to the Laws and limited by them.

Whereas it is well known, That the King is the fountain of our Law, our Le­gislator: And by the same Authority whereby he makes Laws, can cashier annul and rescind them: And it is a known Maxim in Law, Rex non potest peccare; But this is the old Doctrine of Lex Rex, and Jus Populi: And that famous peece, The Hynd let loose.

Now if this his Simile prove any thing, it will be this, That as (according to their Dialect) The King can do nothing but what the Law of the Land allows: So GOD can do nothing but what the Scripture allows: And consequently CHRIST could not command the Man to take up his Bed and [Page 79] walk upon the Sabbath day, because no Scripture then written allowed it.

The next place is, John 5. 39. Here he challengeth R. B. as a Papist, for say­ing the Words ought to have been Tran­slated, Ye search the Seriptures: But Patroclus, If I shall cite Bellarinine against the pay­ment of Tiths (who say they, Are not due by any Law of GOD or Nature, since the com­ing of Christ) Will thou also call me a Papist? If thou do, thou att mistaken; And so art thou in him. And when thou can prove that there are no errors in the Tran­slation, thou may stick by this. The Scriptures thou brings prove nothing for this Translation, for they do not mention it; And we never denyed it, that the reading of the Scripture was both com­manded and commended; Yet thou art not ashamed to say, They are sufficient to con­vince these Men of palpable falshood and blas­phemy. This is Language for the Pulpit a­mong the Hood-winked hearers, but will trouble no unprejudiced Reader.

As to the great stress he layeth upon these words, And these are they that testifie of me; Therefore they are the Primary Rule. Did he not say, The Works which I do, They hear witness of Me? And if we may believe [Page 80] History, the Sybills testified of him: Doth this prove that they were the Primary Rule?

But the very foregoing Verse is to be considered, And ve have not his Word abiding in you, for whom be hath sent, him ve believe not. And verse 36. I have a greater Witness then that of John; For the works which the Fa­ther hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. Here let him consider, that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses, every thing is to be proven. Our Sa­viour bringeth here four Witnesses, The Testimony of John, The Works which he did, The Word of GOD abiding in Men, and the Scriptures. The contraversy is not whe­ther any of these or all of them were Wit­nesses, but which of them was the greatest and most Preferrable? And if the Works which He then did were a greater Wit­ness then the Testimony of John (who was in­feriour to none of the Prophets) Then the Works which He now doth in the Hearts and Souls of Believers by His Word abiding in them, in healling all their Infirmities, quickning and enlight­ning their dead Souls, and speaking peace [Page 81] to them; is a greater Witness then the Scrip­tures.

He falls next upon R. Bs. Dilemma, Which he saith, hath not the weight of a Walnut; It seems the hardness of the shell hath blunted his teeth, that he hath not reached the Kernal. For (saith he) If the words are to be taken in the Imperative mood, as we have even now demonstrated, then it is as clear as the Noon Sun, &c.

But how hath he demonstrated it? That the Word bears not the Indicative Signi­fication; as well as the Imperative, is obvi­ous to any that understands the Conjuga­tions. And the Scriptures brought to prove it. I shall touch some of them Deut: 17. 18, 19. And be shall read therein all the days of his Life: Ergo, The Words John 5: 39. Are to be taken in the Impera­tive Mood, If this be not as wild a conse­quence as to say William Jamison is verus Pa­troelus by a Metempychosis, Ergo, The whole Church of England are Hereticks, (which he hath boldly asserted in his A­dultory Epistle to his Patron) I leave it to the Reader to Judge.

The next he brings is, Deut: 29. 29. The Secret things belong to the LORD our GOD, but those Things which are revealed [Page 82] belong to us and to our Children for ever, that we may do all the Words of this Law. Ergo, The Words of John are to be taken in the Imperative mood; Who would follow such an Adversary at this Rate?

But seeing he is so good at Wall-nuts, I will give him another of the same kind to break,

Either the Words of John the Baptist, (who was as great a Prophet as Isaiah) were as much a Rule to the Jews when spoken by him, as they are now to us when recorded in a Book, or as the words of Isaiah formerly recorded in a Book; or they were not? If they were, Then the Works which Christ worketh now in the Souls of His Servants, must be a greater Witness then the words of John recorded in a Book; As well as the Works he then did were a greater Witness.

But if he say, they were not so much a Rule when spoken, as when written I ask him, how they came by that excellen­cy by being Written? Or was it the Council of I aodicea that gave it?

Page 43 He saith, He hath broken one of the Horns of his Dilemma, and made his Con­sequence a meer Nonsequitor. ‘And why? Be­cause he hath confessed (saith he) in a [Page 83] word, That the Words of Christ and his Apostles, as then spoken & now record­ed in Scripture, were of themselves no less binding upon the Jews, then these spoken by Moses and the Prophets.’

But this hath strengthned the Dilemma, for if they were as binding, and yet need­ed a Rule to try them by; Then the Writtings of Moses and the Prophets need­ed a Rule to try them by, and that Rule another Rule; Et sic infinitum.

That all Doctrines of Men may be tryed, and ought so to be by the Scriptures, was never denyed; And hath no way given away his Cause. But as for what follows, That it might be lawful to im­brace any impulse or suggestion, which he thought was the Spirit of GOD; With­out further Examination thereof, is a gross untruth, but ordinary to him and his Brethren; And therefore he hath wisely foreborn to tell us where R: Barkelay said so.

His third Scriptute is, Acts 17. 11. He saith, His Adversaries can find nothing to dark­en and deprive it, and therefore he waves it. Not being willing to meddle with what R: B: saith there: To wit, If the Bereans were oblidged to believe and receive Pauls [Page 84] Testimony, because he preached the Truth to them by Authority from GOD; Then their using them, or his commending of them for using the scriptures; Will not prove the scriptures to be the Primary Rule, Yea more a Rule than the Doctrine they tryed by it. For it the Doctrine preached by Paul to the Bereans, had been but re­corded in a Book, it had presently become a Primary Rule.

The fourth is, 2 Peter 1. 19. We have a more sure word of prophesie, &c. This place he will have to be meant of the scriptures. His first proofi is, Because (saith he) This presupposeth, that there cannot be immediat Re­velation where the senses go along: And so their spirit is contrary to sense.

But this is an old Cavil against Christia­nity, and brought on the stage by Julian the Apostat, in his Book against the Primi­tive Christians. This Doctrine (said he) sigbteth against common sense: See Chron: Cari­onis, page 278.

To this he addeth another, Why should this Glorious Vision of which the Apostles had Di­vine and infollible Evidence, &c: Be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit [...] Answer, Why should uld it be uncertain and suspected in respect of the scriptures? [Page 85] And why should it become the Primary Rule when recorded in a Book, and not the Rule when spoken immediatly on the Mount; If thou say, Because it is more obvious to sense, then it seems thy Reli­gion is more sensual than Spiritual.

His second Argument is, That this Re­velation (according to us) brings along with it its own self Evidence, and perswades the Soul to embrace and close with it as Divine: But this is both groundless, and therefore false (saith he) because we assert, that unless the Understanding be well disposed, Revelation tho immediate, is not evident.

Answer first, He here brings nothing to prove this, That it is groundless and false; except his ipse dixit; And therefore I may not take his word.

Secondly, What had all the Patriarchs before Moses Law, and even Moses himself to try their Revelations by? Yet they believed them upon their own self evi­dence: Yea, Balaam who had no well dis­posed Intellect, yet knew and believed his Revelations to be Divine. And Lastly, Doctor Barron in his Book against Turnbul, saith, That the most noble kind of Revelation is, that which is by intellectual speaking or illumi­nation, as Thomas and Swarez teach.

Thirdly, He saith, We insinuate, That [Page 86] the Apostle in this Comparison, gave out that one of the things compared was more certain than the other; Which (saith he) is most false; Seing considered in them­selves, both have all certainly possible. But in respect of us (saith he) The Scriptures are more sure, because less subject to be counterfeited or wrested either by the Devil or our own fancie; But here (it seems) he hath forgotten himself, for this same Apostle hath told us that the Scripture can be wrested. But who, saith that the teachings of the Spirit of truth can be so? None but Patroclus; And so the comparison holds, that which can be wrested is less sure then that which cannot be wrested. He adds, the Apostle hath his eye upon his Country men; And so have I upon mine, who pretend so much to the Scriptures, and yet wrest them grosly to their own damnation.

Page, 46. comes to prove, that by these words (more sure word of Prophesie) are meant the Scriptures; after he hath told us that albeit immediat Revelation were meant or understood by the more sure word of Prophesie, it would be no advan­tage to us, because it is recommended to us: As that whereby we may come to the [Page 87] genuine interpretation of the Scriptures, and so not the Principal rule, but a means to explain the Principal Rule, and for this he brings no proof, but we must take his word, and then he will make us Quid libet ex quo libet.

First, He saith, by these words a more sure word of Prophesie, is understood the Scrip­tures, because any phrase of the like im­port is alwayes taken for the Scriptures, as Luke 16, 29. Eph: 2. 20. Matt. 7. 12. And yet he confesseth in a Parenthesis, the words Logos Propheticos, are not to be sound in all the Scripture besides, but by the words Law and Prophets are meant the Scriptures; Ergo, by the more sure word of Prophesie are meant the Scriptures: This is a non seqitur, with a witness.

The rest of his arguments such as, if our Adversarys were not affronted, and impudently bold, such as would adven­ture upon any thing, &c. and the like; Are not worthy of any answer: But seeing he would explain one Scripture by another, I will help him to one more sit, John 1. 4, 5. Where it is said, In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men, and the Light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness com­prehended it not. How like this is to the more [Page 88] sure word of Prophesie, which shineth as a Light in a dark place; But the life of CHRIST, the light in men, is a seare Crow to Presbyterian Priests, they cannot abide it One reasonless reason he gives us, is, be­cause men are commended for searching the Scriptures; But I would be obliged to him if he would form a Syllogism upon the medium, and draw his conclusion from it.

In page 48 he tells us, that Luther, Calvin, &c. Understand it so. Is this fare dealing Patroclus? Dost thou agree with Luther, or even with Calvin in all things? If thou say yea, I'le prove that contrary, and yet their Testimony must oblige us; Then he computes us among Ancient Hereticks, but he would not be sa­tisfied if I should compute him and his brethren among Mahumitans for beliving a Stoical Fate. Lastly, He leaveth us to graple with William Penn's Rejoynder, page, 334, who, he sayeth, yieldeth to him what we deny.

To satisfie the Reader, I shall set down some of William Penns words; He sayeth, John Faldo acknowledgeth, That the writings of the Pro­phets are not more true in themselves than any o­ther Revelation of the mind of GOD, but more [Page 89] certain with respect to the Jews, who bad a greater esteem for, and testimony of the writings of the Prophets to be of GOD, and not a delusion, then of Peters Revelation; So that we here have (saith William Penn) from John Faldo himself; The scripture is not set above the Spirit as the more sure word, the thing promoted of old by our enemies, and which we only oppose: For I doubt not but the Scriptures were more lure to the Jews then CHRIST Himself, else they would never have thought to find Eternal life in them, whilst they ne­glected, yea persecuted him; Which, whether it was their perfection or imper­fection, so to do, I leave with the judge­ment of my serious Reader, which I likewayes do whether Patroclus be a fair adversary or any honest man.

He comes next to Luke 16. 31. If they [...]ear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be perswaded thô one rose from the dead.

First, Let the Reader observe that this is a Parable, and that the Presbyterians be­lieve that any such apparitions are but Devils assuming the body, or the shape of the dead: And therefore any thing may be more certain to them then such a Testi­mony, and we read of none such but that of Samuel to S [...]ul. [Page 90] Secondly, This Scripture brings no com­parison betwixt the Scripture and the Spi­rit, and whereas he saith, let the Quakers prove that every man hath such a spirit as the Quakers alledge, this shall come in its own place.

Next he proveth the Scriptures to be the Primary Rule, because otherwise Abra­ham might have said, the Spirit of GOD directeth every man immediatly; If they hear not him they will hear none else: If Abraham said so (it seems Patroclus would have been displeased; But a greater then Abraham said so, even the LORD JESUS John, 14. 26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my Name, he shall teach you all things, whose teaching are preferable to all the writings in the world, seeing he taught them what they wrote, and their being dictated by him, giveth them all their excellency.

He saith R: Barkclay saying, The Scriptures were a written Rule to the Jews only, is nothing to the purpose, but he should not have belyed him, for he saith, they were a more principal Rule to the Jews; But never that they were a principal Rule to the Jews. He passeth by what he said upon the Scripture, Viz. Page, 40. This Pa­rable was used by Christ to the Jews, to shew them their Hypocrisie; who albeit they [Page 91] deceitfully pretended to reverence and sol [...] low Moses and the Prophets; Yet they did not really hear them, else they would have acknowledged him, of what Moses & the Prophets did so clearly write, since he did as great and convincing Mitacles before them, as if they had 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 [Page 92] 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 [Page 93] 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?

[Page 94]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. [Page 95] 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.

[Page 96] 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, Our Adversaries themselves (saith he) at unawates grant. Very well Patroelus, it is a fine trick of a Souldier to [Page 97] 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] is founded upon Grace; And so do the Presby [...]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 en­ [...]ghined [...]solence the Judge, the Spirit of A­doption; or a [...]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 [...] 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 [Page 100] 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 [Page 101] 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: Bu [...] 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 [Page 102] 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 is to take upon him to be General of an Army, as R: B: tells his Adversary, page 45 of his Vin­dication. The Question is, how James and Peter Knew they should take upon them to Rule? But in case these systems faile to satisfie a Man at a strait (which I hope any experienced Souldier will con­fess [Page 103] and the daily new Inventions do ful­ly evince) What then is the Souldier to recurr to? Is it not to that by which the first Man wrote the System, That is, his Reason; And see if that can help him when his Book cannot: Yea, have there not been good Souldiers who could neither Read nor Write? Yes, General Lesly, who did more for the Presbyterian Interest then Patroelus and Achilles both can do. And will a Mathematician receive a Mathe­matical Proposition set down in a System hand over head, without satisfying his Reason? These are poor similes, and ra­ther hurtful then helpful to his Cause; If by these he minds to prove, That humane pru­dence can assure a man that he is a Child of God. I am apt to suspect by his Book that he hath never troden this narrow Path himself; Else he would have spoken other Language. Next he comes to answer for his Brethren the Remonstrants and Publick Resolutioners, comparing then (indeed) to Paul and Bar­nabas: But he hath forgot to tell us which of them was in the right, and to decide the Contraversie by plain Scripture to the stopping the mouths of the other Party, but I doubt this would have puzled his prudence. As for his Instance of Paul and [Page 104] Barnabas, their contention was not for matters of Faith or Doctrine as Beza testi­fieth, and the Scripture saith no where that they did not meet again; But our Assembly Men never reconciled to this day.

But knowing this will not do, he giv­eth a better Answer, Saying, The Corruptions of Men are only to be charged with this.

Ah! Lamentable, The whole General Assemblie of the Church of Scotland corrupt men: What guides then had such poor Laicks as I? Put all this saith nothing, ex­cept he decide the Contraversy by plain Scripture; Which when he hath done, I shall say, It's pity he was not present at the Assembly.

Next he falls upon some other Argu­ments, which he tells us are scraped out of Bellarmine, and therefore deserve no An­swer. Which Answer, whether true or false I know not, having never read Bel­larmines Works: But I find this is a fair shift to win off, and an Hebergeon proof against any Dart.

He spendeth his whole page 60. on Re­flections, First on James Naylor; he might have remembered Major Weir. But De [Page 105] mortuis nill, &c: I disdain to scrape in that Dung-hill.

Next he compares us to the Papists, say­ing, As the Papists to cover the rest of their Abominations, have invented a greater and more dangerous than them all, that is, Their Churches Infallibility: So this Spirit of the Quakers, knowing that upon tryal he will be found to be a Counterfeit, hath taken the Counsel given by Alcibiades to Pericles, that is, To study how he may se­cure himself with the hazard of a Tryal. And here he cites William Penn's Rejoinder, Part. 1. Chap. 5. about the Man of Philippi.

I beseech the Reader to peruse the place cited by him, that he may see him past all shame, or care of being reputed an ho­nest Man. For First he says, W. Penn useth it as an Argument to prove, The Scriptures cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life; whereas in the same Page, W. Penn hath owned them for a Rule of Faith and Life, tho not the Rule by way of Excellency, nor, as Patroclus saith, the Primary Rule.

Secondly, He makes no Argument of it, but an Instance, as he doth that of Ana­nias and Saphira, That the Scriptures could not be a Rule to Peter nor Paul in these cases; as he doth that also of flying or [Page 106] standing in the time of Persecution; and asketh what do Professors mean, when they advise People to seek the Lord in this o [...] the other Case? Why do they not go seek the Scriptures rather? and much more, which for brevity lomit.

To evite all which, he makes a Non­sensical Argument, and denies the Antece­dent when he had none. And then falls a Railing for a whole Page together, a part whereof I have set down above.

For Answer to which: First, The Qua­kers own no other Spirit but the Comforter, whom Christ promised to send to Reprove the World for Sin (for they never refused to subject the Spirits and Doctrines of Men to the Scriptures) and therefore if he have called the Spirit of Truth a Counterfier, the just God will Rebuke him for his Blasphe­my. And this poor Man, who can pre­tend to no more Infallibility than the Pharisees of old, (who had the Scriptures as well as he, and yet were found guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) may be affraid he be found in the same Case with them. But I wish he may find Re­pentance.

Secondly, The Presbyterians may be no less fitly compared with the Papists: For [Page 107] their Doctrines being tryed by the Scrip­tures, they being Interpreters themselves, it is a meer sham to speak of a Tryal: For whatever Interpretation doth not agree with the Analogie of Faith, is to be rejec­ted; Now the Analogie of Faith is of their own composing, so that Faith and Tryal and all is but Mans work, and in fine a very cheat.

But next he must give us the most dead­ly blow of all; Saying, We are beyond the reach of a Conviction; But the Reader may excuse him a little, being now among his Brethren, the Grecian Hero's, Alcibiades and Pericles. But who told him this, that the Quakers were beyond the reach of a Convic­tion? Sure not the Scriptures; For there is no such Sentence in them all; Nor the Spirit, for he cannot indure Divine Inspira­tion, the Capital Enemy of the Presbyteri­an Priesthood: Who then? Imagination: A thing the Presbyterians call Faith; The very counterfeit he hath been talking of just now.

Next he tells us, That Prophesies of future Events may well be brought to the Scripture Test: Then I beseech him tell me, what Scrip­ture Test could Noah his Prophefie of the Flood have been brought to; Or George [Page 108] Wisharts Prophesie of the Cardinals being Killed in such a place, and not in ano­ther.

In the close, he saith, Paul was Divinely inspired, and the Actions were conform to Scrip­ture, consonant, and warranted by the Promise of Christ, &C: But it seems he hath forgotten what he said in page 39. Christ and his A­postles proved their Doctrines by the Scriptures, who were Immediatly inspired as well as Paul; But any thing will serve after such a fatal blow as he hath lately given.

Page 61. He saith, The ground of their Arguments, with which they stand and fall is this, The Scriptures are not the Fountain it self, but a Declaration of the Foun­tain: Therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge, nor vet the adequat Primary Rule of Faith 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.

[Page 109]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 [Page 110] 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 Zigl [...]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 None­sense, 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.

In page 64. He comes to begg the Ques­tion in terminis, and tells us positively, The [Page 111] 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 [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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 [Page 114] 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 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, [Page 115] which was as followeth,

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 [Page 116] Light i [...] come into the World, but Men love dar [...] ­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 Ac [...]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 metaphisi [...]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 hi [...] Brother Mackquair, the Arch-scold, saying, The Quakers well knowing, That if GOD speak­ing [Page 117] in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them, or if the Holy scripture be not [...]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 [...]nic [...]ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth? Except it be to raise their Beloved Refo [...]me [...]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: [Page 118] So let the Reader Judge who it is that ten­ders the Scripture [...]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 Patro [...]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, whethe [...] it be GOD or Man that speaks here; [Page 119] 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, [Page 120] 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 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 [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] 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.

[Page 123] 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 [Page 124] 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, [Page 125] 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 [Page 126] 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 h [...]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 [Page 127] 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 [Page 128] not, neither knoweth Him; But ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in [...]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 [Page 129] 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 [Page 130] 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 [Page 131] teach them all things, and lead into all truth) were led by a Spirit of error: He doth but [...]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 Zede [...]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 [Page 132] 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 the Presbyterians in Scotland, who have fallen into palpable er­rours, and have felt heavy Judgements; Notwithstanding of all their pretences to the Scriptures for their Rule: For their work of Deformation (falsly by them called Reformation) began with the Sword, [Page 133] raged with the Pestilence, and sickned with the famine; And was at last utterly de­stroyed By [...] of their ovvn Brood. O: C:

But the Man will so farr exceed J: M: That he tells us; How easie had it been to have adduced whole Vollumns; whereas I be­lieve J: M: was much abler to deall with his Antagonist, then our Frothie Au. hoc with all his Grecian sophistry.

A little after he taketh all the Christian World upon his side. Yea, Christian, and Antichristian, Papists, Protestants and Greeks, (tho in his Epistle to the Reader, he calls the Lutherians their capital Enemies) cer­tainly Patroclus hath made a notable Mul­ter against the Quakers, if all were true, But (I pray him) whence come all these divisions, if ye be all of one mind? I wonder how a Man in his Wit [...]s could talk at this rate.

Next after a peece of Froathie Triumph, he sayes, I answer directly to the Jesuite and the Quaker his Patron; If we may Believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries; Such as Bellarmine, Contaren, Salmeron, the chief of the Doctrine which we hold in opposition to Popery, are most agreeable to the true sense of Scrip­ture.

[Page 134] Answer, If I had thought so, as he alledg­eth upon these Doctors; To wit, That the true sense of the [...] had been upon the Presbyterian side, in their Contraversie with us, I should never have opposed them; For sure I am, GOD cannot contradict Himself. And I would willingly learn from Patroelus, upon what ground they could burn Protestants, when they believed the true sense of the scriptures to be on their side: Neither can I believe the Papists are so gross, as to believe the first and prac­tise the second: For I suppose the greatest difference betwixt the Presbyterians and Papists, and all their other Opposers; is a­bout the true sense of the Scripture: And therefore he raveth, when he calleth R. B: the Jesuites patron; For I am certain that he neither believed you nor the Je­suites to have the true sense of the Scrip­tures; And so his direct Answer comes to a direct nothing to the purpose.

To R: B^• ▪ Third Answer, Viz: That George Wishart and John Huss had Immediat Revelation, &c: He replyeth, That R: B: granteth, They did not pretend to them as the ground of their Faith and Obedience in all Mat­ters of Faith, Worship, and Doctrine. But certainly they did it in some Matters, for [Page 135] none of them could pretend to an outward call to preach the Protestant Doctrine and Worship; And yet they both preached it, and I believe upon a better Ground than a Presbyterian Call. But however, our Au­thor does not deny that these Men had Im­mediat Revelation; And consequently his serious Truth absurdly affirmed by James Durbame; Viz: That Christ hath spoke his last words to his Church, is a fabulous un­truth.

Next, he falls again upon James Naylor; And because R: B: saith, He repented again, our Author draws a Noble Consequence from it, thus, Which Answer is an evi­dent Confirmation of what we plead for, To wit, That the Quakers spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them; For I believe J: N: acted but according to his Light, &c. This is just as much as to say, he that sinneth against the Law of GOD and repenteth, he evidently confirmeth that the Law of GOD hath given him the cheat and deceived him, Absit Blas­phemia.

And further, About the beginning of the Covenant, your Ministers had sworn Canonical Obedience to their Ordinaries; Then they swore the Extirpation of them [Page 131] & their Office. And about twenty years af­ter, swore again Canonical Obedience; In all which Three contrary Oaths, they pretended the Scripture for their Rule. Was it there­fore the Scripture which gave them the cheat and deceived them? No surely. So James Nayler sinned against his Light; and the Law of GOD in his heart, and Re­pented and confessed, he had sinned a­gainst his Light, and condemned himself under his hand, (tho this malicious man insinuates the contrary) which I doubt he can say of few of his Brethren, who perju­red themselves in taking the Covenant.

From what hath been said, he drawes three Consequences, first, his serious truth before mentioned, to wit, That CHRIST hath spoken his last words to his Church; And to help his Brother out of this Quagmire, he adds, That is put a close to these writtings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church; being ashamed to deny, that there were im­mediate Divine Revelations after the Writ­ting of the Revelation, being so much tes­tified to in Church History: And themselves having called Samuel Rutherfoord a great Seer, much upon his Masters secreets. But how will he deal with his Brother Jurieu, who in his account of the Shepherdess of [Page 137] Daphine, comes very near to assure us of an age at hand, Wherein we shall have Men di­vinely inspired, v [...]a, and able to work Miracles; And in his Book upon the Revelation, tells us, That the first Reformation begun by Luther; (which he calls the Harvest) was carried on by the Ministry of Men; But the second which is yet to come, he calls the Vintage, and saith, It will be by the Inspiration of GOD; And in his Characters of the Kingdom of CHRIST, he gives for one of them, That there shall be a plentifull pouring out of the Spirit, whereof (he saith) That which the Apostles received at Jerusalem was but a Type.

I could instance many others, some who have had it, and others who have foretold of it; But this being a Modern Writer, a Calvinist, and a Sufferer, well e­steemed of by all protestants, I thought might suffice to shew, that all the Calvinists be­lieve not this serious Truth, as he call it.

His two following Consequences dedu­ced from his Argument formerly answer­ed and Refuted, are of no force; For (blessed be the LORD) we can instance Thousands who neither have fallen into palpable Errors, nor open Blasphemy; Nor have marks of GOD's heavy Judgements, [Page 138] but have lived and died in Favour with GOD and Good Men, tho persecuted by the Presbyterians and Independents their Bre­thren; By whose unjust Judgement some of them have been put to cruel death.

His third Consequence being a meer windie bauble, deserves no answer.

‘His second Argument is, Moses and the Prophets, CHRIST and the Apostles, and all the Holy Men that were Inspired by GOD t [...] Compile a Rule of Faith and Life, &c Could by infallible Evidence and in­fallible Proofs, even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers, demonstrat that they were sent of GOD, But nothing of this kind Quakers can do; yea they are so far from it; that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentialls for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation, then the most wicked Enthusiasts: As for example John of Layden, and his Fol­lowers, &c.’

To this Argument he sers down R. B's. Answer, but slily omitteth what followeth, which is, And therefore most weak is his Reasoning in page 461, That such Revelations cannot be more sure then the Scriptures, which are the Objective Revela­tions [Page 139] of the Apostles written down, since the certainty of these Writtings depends upon the certainty of these Revelations by which they were written: And if any case that Maxim of the Schools hold, it must in this; Propter quod unum quodque est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale. And this may serve to answer his talk of a chief bind­ing power, and prerogative to be the Touch­stone of all Doctrines: For if they be so, it is because they were Divinely inspired; And therefore Divine Inspirations must be much more so. But let us consider his Argu­ment.

‘First, He saith, The Prophets and A­postles, (for Christ wrote no Scripture) could by infallible Evidence and proofs, even to the conviction and self condem­nation of the greatest Opposets demon­strate, that they were sent of GOD; but whence came it then that their greatest Opposers did not receive their Testimo­ny? Why did they persecur them even to death? As their Successors the Presb [...] ­terians and their Brethren the Independents have done to some of us? Was it not because they were not convinced that they were sent of GOD? Or was it be­cause they maliciouslie hardened their [Page 140] hearts, and would not believe it? The same is the case with our Author, and his Brethren at this day.’ But perhaps he expecteth miracles for Proofs and Evi­dences; And in this followeth the footstepts of his predecestors the Papists, who dealth so by the first Reformers: And the same An­swer the first Reformers gave to the Papists may serve him: For as they said, They needed not Miracles because they preached not a New Gospel: So we pretend not Revelations of New Things, But a New Revelation of the Good old things: And again what can he pretend to that we want? He hath produced nothing: Only in page 81, He saith on the other hand. It is beyond denyall, that we have the Scriptures: And is it not as true that we have them? But the Question is, Who hath the true sense of them? The Papists say, They are the only true Infallible Propond­ers: J: B: and our Author say, Christian prudence and Wisdom, comparing the Text with the Text; And we say, The Holy Spirit, who gave them forth, is the only Right Interpreter. Et ad buc sub judice lis est.

But he falls upon R: Barkclay, for say­ing, That others pretending to be led by the Scriptures as their Rule, as much as J: B: have [Page 141] been deceived. ‘To which he answers, If the Scriptures, through the corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the patrocinic of errours and corrupt practises; Then altho men clearly understand and firmly believe them, and square their Life exactly according to them: Yet they are no more able to be a Rule to them, then these Reve­lations can be which Jobn of Leyden held.’

‘This he saith is the first proposition in­to which R: B's. Argument resolveth; And the second is no better then this, Viz: He that will not admit of such Reve­lations which cannot be distinguish­ed from these that led their followers into the most blasphemous opinions and most wicked practises immaginable; He who will not admit of them for his Principal Rule, but preferreth unto them the Scriptures, &c: Provideth an Argument for Atheists and Scep­ticks.’

Answer, Could the Devil himself in his most cunning subtile transformings. have more deceitfully and dissingenuously re­presented this sober and discreet Answer of R: B: But it seems the man is past all [Page 141] shame: For first, He insinuats that R: B: saith, That men firmly believing and clearly un­derstanding the Scriptures, and squaring their practise exactly conform to them, may err as did John of Leyden. Secondly, That he ownes the Revelations which John of Leyden pretended to to be a Rule. And thirdly, That he denyeth the Scriptures to be a Rule. All which three are gross and notorious Lyes, unworthy of a man of any Candor or Honesty.

His second Proposition is drawn from these words of R: B: And indeed this is a fine Argument he hath produced for Scep­ticks and Atheists, for it renders all Faith, even that of the Patriarchs uncertain: For since their ground and warrand for writ­ing the Scripture was in his own account, Inward, Immediat, and extraordinary Revela­tion: And if such be, as he affirms, uncer­tain, then the Truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such, must necessar­ly be uncertain. Now the man certainly knew that R: B: was pleading for none o­ther Revelation, but Divine, Inward, and Immediat Revelations: But being straitned by this Answer, he betakes himself to the covers of Deceit, and the refuge of Lyes for his Reply instead of the Revelation of [Page 143] the Spirit of GOD (which he knew his Adversary meant) he puts in the Reve­lations of Jobn of Leyden; Which impu­dent treachery is obvious to Reader at first view.

Hence he might conclude, That be­cause Micajah wrought no Miracles to prove his prophesie more then the Priests of Achab did, therefore he was not to be believed: And because Jobn Huss, George Wishart, and Samuel Rutherfoord, wrought to Miracles; Therefore they were no more to be trusted then Jobn of Leyden; For Miracles only excepted, I know no proofs he can lay claim to, but we can do the same.

But the best is, That in page 80, he would father these Deductions upon his Adversary; Saying, And now Reader, speak thy mind in good earnest; Thinkest thou that this man was in his Witt, or to be numbred a­mong Rationals, when he made these Deducti­ons, &c. Truly he is very weak Read­er, That seeth not this mans affronted deceit; And seeing the Deductions are intirely his own and none of R: B's: He must (by his own Confession) be num­bred among Brutes: And whereas he saith, That J: B: never called the Revelations [Page 144] of the Prophets uncertain; He should have told what hath made Divine Reve­lation uncertain now, which he cannot; Or have proven that it is altogether ceas­sed, which he dare not undertake, tho it be an Article of his Faith. And thus by denying the certainty of Divine Revela­tions (for R: B: pleads for none else) let the Reader judge if lie have not laboured to confirm his Brothers Atgument for Atheists and Seepticks.

In page 81. He thinks to put an end to the contraversie by some positions, whereof the first is to this purpose; We cannot know whether they have any Revelation at all, They may be lyeing unto us: For any thing we know, we have only their naked words for it; whereas on the other hand, it is beyond denyal that we have the Scriptures.

This had been very suitable language for their predecestors, The Jews when they stoned the Proto-Martyr Stephen, Acts 7. 56. When he said, Behold I see the Hea­vens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the Right Hand of GOD; And for Joash the King, when he 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; [Page 145] 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 [Page 146] 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, [Page 147] 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? [Page 148] 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 [Page 149] 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 [Page 150] 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 right to the Scripture but Pres­byterian Priests.

Secondly, That for Fruits, he enumerats four gross and abominable Untruths, wherewith he chargeth us. To witt, That we deny the Holy Trinity, the Person of [Page 151] our Lord JESUS CHRIST, The Resurrection of the Body, and that we assert the Souls of Men, yea, and devils too, to be GOD Almigh­ty; Of all which he saith, he will prove the Quakers to be undenyably guilty, be­fore he end his Treatise.

This needs no Answer, But to say. The Lord rebuke this lying spirit which hath gone forth in the mouth of this lying false Accuser: For the LORD GOD whom we serve, knoweth our Innocency in this matter; and will in his due time vindicat his people from these malicious Callumniators.

But Thirdly, The Man might have con­sidered that these are points of Faith and not of Works, and that our Saviour spoke here of Works, and not Faith only. The most wicked Man in the Nati­on may believe all the Westminster Creed as well as Patroclus doth, and yet receive the Sentence in verse 23. of the same Chapter, Depart from me ye workers of ini­quity. And therefore, tho he should add another Forsooth to it, I will betake me to the Fruits mentioned in Scripture, and then let the World (which he sayes is not ignorant) judge between them and us. Galat: 5. 20. Where these are rec­koned for Fruits of the Flesh, Variance, E­mulations [Page 152] Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Envyings, Murthers. &c. Which whither they have been peculiar to that Tribe, let the Nation judge. On the other hand the Fruits of the Spirit are Love, Peace, Joy, Long-suffering, Gentleness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance, &c. And whether the people, in derision called Quakers, be found in the Exercise of such Fruits, let such as are ac­guainted with their conversations, bear Witness for or against them. And I may say without reflection, if to devour and destroy, be the fruits of Abbadon and A­pollyon, These are the only Spirits, the Pres­byterian Fruits can lay claim to; which to enumerat, were to writ a history, but the late Advocat George Maekenzie hath given an Epitome of them, to which I refer the Reader:

In page 84. He chargeth R. B. with three lies; Citing his Vindication; But how groundlessly, will be evident to any who will be at the pains to examine R. B's. words, to which for brevity I refer the Reader. Only this, the first is as re­ally John Browns, as his two Hypothetick propositions are his own, in page 79. To which R B. answers, what a horrible lie is this? The Second is no lie, For in chap: [Page 153] 3 Num: 2. Of the Westminerr Confession we have these words. Altho GOD knows what­soever may or can come to pass upon all supposed Conditions, yet he hath not decreed anything, because be foresaw it as future, or as, that it would come to pass upon such conditions.

And in the very next words, they add By the Decree of GOD for the Manifestation of His Glory, some men and Angels are predestinat­ed unto everlasting Life, and others fore ordain­ed unto everlasting death. Let him interpret this with the next, for if it bear not all that R. B. saith, it is no better then the Answers of the Delphick Oracle. So that which he calls a palpable and horrid Lie, will be found to be a manifest Truth to a­ny that can read the Confesfion above cited.

His third is that I. B. makes a preaching to the devil, to deny which, is impudence with a Witness: And as for railing in pulpit and print, it is too well known to the Nation to seek to cover it. Whereof Brown and Mackquare are two famons in­stances, neither is our Author a Novice in that ignoble art, wherein lest he should come short of his Brethren, he giveth us a short parralel between the old Libertine [Page 155] Anabaptists, and the new, who are known by the name of Quakers,

This is an old blast from a new horn, a work already done by George Meldrum, when he was Preacher at Aberdeen, and fully answered by George Keith without any re­ply, To which I might remit my Reader, but because it is not yet printed I shall touch at some of them, and it is to be suspected not without cause, that the hand of Joab is in all this.

His first is, That these men said, The Word of GOD was a certain heavenlie thing distinct from the Scriptures: Adding, the same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers.

Answer, What was their Doctrine I know not, for I see little ground to be­lieve their Adversaries did not belie them more then that our Adversaries do not belie us now: which they are not ashamed to do in the face of the Sun, but our Doctrine is well known to be, That Christ is the Word of GOD, according to the Scriptures and that the Scriptures, are the words of GOD.

His second is about immediat Revelation, But our Doctrine on this head is sufficient. ly cleared in the foregoing Treatise.

His third is, That the express words and [Page 154] phrases of the Scripture is to be adhered to without anie exposition, interpretation, or de­duction: That is a gross Callumny may be seen in page 67. of his own Book, where he accuseth George Keith of poperie for rejecting their interpretations without the Spirtt; And it is manifest we have always contended that the Spirit was the only true Interpreter of hard Scriptures, where they were heard to be under­stood, and that the express Words were to be adhered to, where plain.

His Fourth is, that we assert, that no­thing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us, but as it is ratified by CHRIST in the new, and hath precept or au­thority from it: For which he citeth R: B's: vindication, page 178. Num: 5. And to show the Reader his base ingenuity; I shall transcribe R: B's words, which are these: ‘He seeks maliciously to inferr that I deny all authority of the Old Te­stament, which is a horid callumny: But since there are many things therein, which himself will acknowledge, are not binding upon us now; What shall be the Rule whereby we shall judge what we are now tyed to, and what not: &c.’

[Page 156]If this be to deny the obligation of the Old Testament, or to say it is abrogat, let the Reader judge: But it seems our Au­thor thinketh the Ninth Commandement to be abrogated, else he would not so con­fidently bear false witness against his Neighbour.

His fifth inslance of Original sin, he referreth to his third Chapter, and so shall I.

His sixth is, That Christ made no satisfacti­on for sins, and compared them who taught the contrary to the Seribes and Pharisees to assert which of the people called Quak­ers is gross and detestable injustice, forge­rie and malice: But to cover this, he ad­deth another no less false as to us, that it is damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ, &c. Which he promiseth to prove in his fifth Chapter, but will never be able to prove any thing like these two calumnies against us, as I hope shall be seen in its place.

His Seventh is, that they asserted the pos­sibility of fulfilling the Law: If he had said that we assert a possibility of keeping the Com­mandments of GOD (not of our selves, but) through the Grace of GOD. We own this [Page 157] charge, and think it no error, but a sound and great Truth. As for the word Law we are not under the Law but under Grace; And here according to his custom, he in­serts a gross lie upon R. B: saying, for the denyal of which R: B: promised continually to rail upon all the Reformed. It seems the man hath dreamed this: For I am certain he can never tell where or to whom he pro­mised any such thing; What he under­takes in his fourth Chapter, we sh [...]ll see how he proves it.

His eight instance is, that they denyed the perseverance of the Saints.

In this, he also misrepresents us, for we have alwayes asserted, that there is a state of Confirmation in Grace, attainable by all, and attained by in any, which cannot be fallen from: And that some have made ship­wrack of Faith and a good conscience cannot be denyed.

His Ninth instance is, their denving of the Resurrection of the same body, and referts to the fifth Chapter of his book: But whatever the Apostle Paul saith in I Corinth: 15. We do willingly believe and acknowledge, and if this Man hath any thing more re­vealed unto him, concerning the Resur­rection, then what Paul tells us, he will do well to publish it.

[Page 158]His Tenth is, that they deny the Sacred Tri­nity, and the Divinity of Christ, which he also deceitfully chargeth upon us, refer­ring to his 4th Chapter, wherein I hope his deceit shall be detected. The Just GOD who searcheth our hearts, and knoweth the contrary will certainly reward this false accuser, according to his work, ex­cept he repent.

His Eleventh instance is, That they assert­ed. The Ministers of the Gospel ought not to be tyed to the explaining of the scriptures, that all in the Church ought to speak by turns, &c. And that the Ministers ought to have no certain Stepend.

This instance hath three accusations; To the first, we say, If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of GOD, and ac­cording to the Grace given him, so let him Mi­nister: Not that we are against the ex­plaining of scripture by a Minister, as he is led thereto by the Spirit of Christ, But that in his Preaching he should be tyed thereto only, we see no reason for it, for either this tye upon him is by Divine or Humane authority: If by Divine authority, let our author produce it, and it shall be no more disputed; And if by human au­thority (as indeed the whole Presbyterian [Page 159] Ministry is) Then this tye is not binding upon any true Gospel Minister; But he may teach, exhort, admonish as GOD giv­eth him utterance, not contrary, but ac­cording to the Scriptures, without taking a Text, and telling his own dark imagi­nations from it.

His Second accusation is, that all in the Church ought to speak by turns, This is ano­ther gross lie, for we never said that all in the Church ought to speak, but we are not ashamed with Paul to say, 1 Corinth: 14. 13. For yee may all Prophesie one by one, (yet not all in the Church) for as the same Apostle sayeth, No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

His Third accusation is, That the Ministers ought not to have certain Stipend: It is strange that this malicious adversary can represent in its true and genuin collours, but twines and twists like a crooked Serpent, to fast­en some reproach upon innocent men. Can there be a more certain Stepend then the free benevolence of true Christians to a true Christian Minister; Or do any of our Ministers complain of wanr, or come to begg of the Presbyterians? but he should have said we were against a forced man­tainance by Horning, poinding, Imprisonment, [Page 159] Adjudication of Lands, by which tools ye exact Temporals from such as will have none of these things ye call Spirituals: And herein we have many Martyrs, and good Protestants for us, as ye cannot but know; altho this degenerate and self seeking ge­neration have forsaken their paths, and have followed the way of Balaam, who lov­ed the wages of unrighteousness.

His twelfth Instance is, They denyed that a Christian ought to be a Magistrate or in any case make Warr, to take or administer Oaths; Or trouble any man, upon the account of his Re­ligion, Or to prohibite any kind of Reli­gion.

Here are five bold accusations again; whether they were doctrines of these Ana­baptists, I know not, nor am I concerned: I think it is very unlike that such fighters as they were said to be, would deny all Warrs to be Lawful.

But to the first I Answer, It is a horrid and shameless Lie; And for instance, some of us have been Magistrates partieularly Gavine Lawrie in the Province of East New-Jarsey in America, to the great satisfaction of [...] the Inhabitants: In this place a cer­tain Presbiterian Preacher came to him, and complained of his Hearers, That con­trary [Page 161] to their Contract made with him, they refused to pay him for Preaching: Whereupon both parties being heard, He decerned, that during the time contained in the Contract, they should pay him; Which was a great disa­pointment to the Brethren. As for the unlawfulness of Oaths and Warrs under the Gospel. We owne it, and have abun­dantly proven it in many Treatises, yet unanswered: And as for Libertie of Con­science, it wont to be the great cry of the Presbiterians, when they were under perse­cution themselves; But being now the Church triumphant in Scotland, they may per­haps change their tune: But for this he may Brother, the Author of Melius Inquirendum. And if it be the duty of the Magistrate any kind of Religion to pro­hibite, then sure Reformation of Religion does not belong to the Commonality, as John Knox saith; Yea, if this had been only the Office of the Magistrate, Presbytrie had never reigned in Britan. But to take these accusations in the Complex, and compare them with these of Julian the Apostat, against the Primitive Christians; And Reader will find a greater agreement then be­twixt us and the Anabaptists. Philip Melanchton, in his Chronicon Carionis page [Page 162] 278. ‘Scripsit & ipse libros contra Christianos, &c: Thus Englished, He also wrote Books against the Christians, or the doctrine of the Church; In which Books, He chiefly debateth the forbiding of Revenges: He saith, They take away Magistracie, Judicial Sentences, Punishments, Lawful Warrs, And infinitly confirm Robberies: And Lastly, That this Doc­trine fighteth with common sense, and taketh away the Nerves of humane So­ciety. Behold Reader the Doctrine of our Author.’

His thirteenth and last Instance is, con­cerning the Sacraments (so called) wherein I think the man hath not been well in his Witts, when he ranked us with Anahaptists: But because these things are to be handled elsewhere, I shall here wave them.

Now Reader, I desire thou may consi­der, That there is not one of the thirteen, wherein he hath not either grosly belyed or deceitfully misrepresented us; And in some things, these Anabaptists, as in his twelsth Instance (for which he hath cited no Book) he alledgeth they denyed the Lawfulness of all Warrs; Wheras Sleidans Commentaries lib: 5. Mieneer incited the Boors of Germanie to undertake the Holy [Page 163] Warr (as he called it) against the Princes; Telling them, That he was commanded of GOD to cut off all wicked persons and Princes. And how well this agrees with the Presby­terian practises and Doctrines, is but too nottour. Read the Hynd let loose, and Zi­ons Plea, Fol: 262. Strick the Basilick Veine. Nothing but this will cute the Pleurisee of our State.

And to say, That they were for Libertie of Cons [...]ience, is no less inconsistent with their Practises, for they laboured to pro­pagate their Religion by the Sword; And so did our Presbiterians: Yea, and put themselves under a necessity so to do by a solemn Oath? Only the difference be­twixt Muneer and the Presbiterians was this.

Ille crueem seeleris pre [...]ium tulit hi diadema. There was another Doctrine common to them, both Anabaptists and Presbiterians, Viz: all is Durs; Which Text they expounded thus; That all the wealth of the World belonged properlie to the Saints, and whatsoever other men possessed was but by usurpa­tion: Agreeable to this was the practise of our Presbiterians, who after they had got possession of the Kings Revenue, the Bi­shops Rents, the Papists Estates, and these they called Malignants, and were squeez­ing [Page 164] the Nation with insupportable Cesses and Excise: They at last devised a trick how the Israelite might robe the Aegyptian, by forcing every man, who was not as Zealous as the servency of the times requi­red, To lend them his money upon the publick Faith (commonly called the Blind Bonds) which Faith certainly will never justifie them, For the wicked borrweth and paveth not again. Yet in all this the Judgement of GOD was visible, for the most part of them who gote the spoil of their Native Country, lest their Heirs in a worse con­dition then they might have done, if they had never meddled.

By all this it is evident, That the Mans malice hath blindfolded him, and that all his Lies and Perversions cannot help his bad cause: But their enmity and hat­red to Truth drives them on, tho they might remember, that he who hates his Brother is a murtherer, and no murther­er hath Eternal Life abiding in him. Had it not been as easie for him to have said, The Lollards taught several Doctrines which the Quakers hold, and which we have neglected, tho we desire to be accounted their Successors. Such as,

• [Page 165]First, It is not lawful to Fight for the Faith.
• Secondlie, That Tiths ought not to be paid to Ecclesiastical Persons.
• Thirdlie, That every faithful Man and Wo­man is a Priest.
• Fourthly, That in no case it is lawful to Swear.
• Fifthly, That true Christians receive the Bo­dy of Christ every day &c. All these we should have acknowledged, tho this backsliding and degenerat Tribe have denied them.

Next, we come to his third Argument, against Divine immediat Revelation; viz, ‘If the Spirit or the Light within every Man, were the Supream and Principal Rule, then these who persecuted to Death the Apostles and Saints of God, did not Sin in so doing; but I am sure the lat­ter is false:’ Ergo the former: To prove the Consequence of the Major, he citeth Paul and John 16. 2. alledging, ‘That Paul walked according to his Light, and that his Light taught him, that accord­ing to all he had for Light, he ought to do many things against the Professors and Servants of Jesus Christ.’

Answer, Let the Reader observe, First, His constant disingenuity, whereof he hath [Page 166] been so often found guilty: For he should have said, If the Teachings of the Spirit of Christ and His Light, wherewith He hath enlightned every Man, be the prin­cipal Rule, &c. Which would have urged upon Blasphemy, if the rest of his Argu­ment had been added to it: Which not­withstanding is the true state of the Con­troversy. Secondly, Observe how blind the Man is, for he hath fallen in the Ditch he digged for us; Paul (saith he) accord­ing to all that he had for Light, Ought to do many things against the Servants of Jesus, &c. But Paul had the Scriptures (and was learned in the knowledge of them) for Light: Ergo, according to our Author, Paul according to the Light of the Scrip­tures ought to persecute the Saints.

Thirdly, By this Argument the Old World, yea all who lived before Moses wrote, had no Sin, because no Scripture, and the Light of Christ, and Teachings of the Spirit, was no sufficient Rule to them: All the Mahumitans and Pagans at this day have no Rule, therefore no Sin. These are the wild Consequences of this Argument.

Fourthly, His instancing Paul is very im­pertinent; For Paul had the Scriptures, [Page 167] and was one of them who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures, and no doubt he thought them a Rule for his persecuting the Saints: For he said he had lived blem­lesly according to the Low: And therefore it could be no other thing but the Light of Christ, and the teachings of his Spirit, which brought Paul to a better Understanding. And whereas he saith in his next Argu­ment, That Paul never counteracted, his Light, was always of the same Judgement, and there­fore never had a true Light till the day of his Conversion, This clearly contradicts the Scriptures, and the experience of all Ages: John 12 Chap. 36. While ye have Light be­lieve in the Light, that ye may be the children of the Light: Hence it is clear, Men have Light before Conversion, or becoming Chil­dren of Light. And again he said John 3. 19. The condemnation of the World was not for want of Light, but for Loving darkness more then Light: Every Servant received a Talent, and it was said From him that had not shall be taken away even that which he hath. All which intimats, that it is not want of Light, but not believing in nor taking heed to the Light that caus­eth Men to err. And Prov: 1. 23. Turn ye at my Reproof, behold I will pouer out my [Page 168] Spirit upon you, &c. 24. I have called and ye refused, and I have stretched out my hand; and no man regarded. verse 25. Ye have set at naught all my Counsells and would none of my reproofs, 30 They would none of my Counsel they despised all my reproofes; therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own waies.

Hence it is manifest, That CHRIST the Light the Wisdom of GOD, calls, reproves, stretcheth out his hand, oflers his Councils even to such as reject him, and do not regard him, and therefore are at last rejected by him.

And lastly, The Experiences of all A­ges sheweth that it is a Law engraven or im­printed on the Souls of all men not to do that to another, which we would not should be done to our selves. This the Heathens taught before Christ preached it; And therefore persecution cannot be but e­steemed a sin against Light, and tho Paul by the prejudice of his Education, and a blind Zeal for upholding of that Law or form of Worship which was to be abolish­ed did ignorantly and inconsideratly ruo on to persccute the Saints: Yet it can no more be said that he acted according to all he had for Light, then it can be said that the Presbyterians acted according to the Scripture in the that Murther of the Arch Bishop.

[Page 169]And tho this may serve to answer the two following Arguments. Yet what seems to have weight in them, I shall take notice of.

His Fourth Argument is, Divine Light is alwayes consonant to it self. But the Light within one Man is quite contradictory and opposite to that within another, as the many and great Contraversies in all ages do but too well make out.

This is easily answered, and no less ea­sily retorted; For who dare deny but the Scriptures is alwayes cousonant to it self; And yet how many and great are the Contraversiies among these who profess it to be their only Rule. Was the Com­mand of GOD to Saul Dubious, to destroy Amaleck? No, But Saul disobeyed it. The like is the example of Jonah. Is not the Counsel of GOD alwayes consonant to it self, yet men reject it. And for his Argument from the pertinacy of Heathens and Hereticks. I am ready to think no­thing of it, when I consider the madness of mine own Country men, who would rather choose to he hanged then pray for their Lavvful King, in obedience to a plaine Scriptute precept.

All the Conntraversies in the World, as [Page 170] well as all the Warrs are the product of mens lusts, and neither is the Scripture nor the Light culpable, but carnal cor­rupt minds of Men; Especially the Clergy: (See 1 Corinth: 3. and 3.

His Fifth Argument is a singular one, The substance whereof is, There are many in the World (whereof I am one sayes he) who by all the Light they have attained to, and after an impartial search, firmlie believe, with­out so much as one thought from the Light with; in to the contrarie, that Quakerism is the path­way to utter destruction: It must therefore be so, if the Doctrine that every man must follow his Light, be true.

This Argument is sufficiently Answer­ed before, only his Instance of himself is strange, I would therefore ask him wil, lingly, Had he never any check for all the Lies, Slanders, Perversions, and de­ceitful Insinuations published in his Book? If he say nay, I must say, Certainly the man is in a very desperate condition, and to be pittyed: But I doubt not the day shall come in which the Light, now by him so much despysed, will speak to him in a Language that shall not be very pleasing to him, and which all his deceit­ful Quibles cannot silence, I wish it may [Page 171] be in Merey. His Ipse dixi hath no force with me, He firmly believes, That all the other Professions of Christianity except his own, are the path way to utter destruction: It is therefore true? Because, dumb idol Shep berd hath said so, whose right Eye is ut­terly darkned, and whose right Hand is clean dryed up: If the light in him be darknes how great is that darkness?

His Sixth Argument is, If GOD suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testa­ment to walk in their own wayes, then all and every one bath not sufficient Grace and Light, whereby they may come to Salvation; But the former Is true. Ergo the latter for proof of his Minor, he citeth Acts 14. 16. And telleth us that the Evidence of the Conse­quence strangly straitneth Bellarmine.

But it doth not straiten ns, for we know that the Spirit of the LORD strove with the Old World, & he Called and they refused. He Gave his Counsel, but they rejected it; therefore he suffered them to walk in their own wayes, Rom: 1. 10. For the wrath of GOD is rovealed from Heaven against all un­godliness and unrighteousness of men, &c: 19. Because that which may be known of GOD is manifest in them, for GOD hath shewed it unte them. And verse 21. Because when they [Page 172] knew GOD they glorified him not as GOD, &c: So in verse 26 he saith, for this cause GOD gave them up to vile affections: So that GOD is just who requireth no more of man then he giveth him. And certninly some of these Gentiles, whom this Author and his brethren will have reprobats, and to have had, no Light nor Knowledge of GOD, seem to have had more true Re­ligion then many Presbyterians have at this day. For which, read Morney du Plesse (a Protestant Writter) his Book, called Of the trueness of the Christian Religion, and Augus­tine de Civitate Dei: I could cite many Au­tho [...]s, but William Penn and George Keith have done it abundantly already. Only Du Plesse clearly proveth from thir Books, That they believed on GOD, Father, Son, and Spirit; The Creation of all things by him, the fall of Man, the immortality of the Soul, and futur rewards and pu­nishments; Yea many things concerning the coming of Christ. Was not Balaam one of the Gentiles? Were Job and his friends Israelites, had they the Scriptures? I shall only cite two sayings of Seneca; The first in his 74 Epistle at the end, Nulla sine DEO, &c: Thus Englished▪ ‘There is no good Mind without GOD: There are Di­vine [Page 173] Seeds sown in the bodys of Men, which if a good Husbandman receiv­eth, then cometh forth Fruits like to their Original, and arise like unto those of which they were born; But if an evil husband-man, then like bar­ren and watrish ground, it kills the seed and maketh filth in stead of Corn. And Epistle 41. GOD is nigh unto thee, He is with thee, He is in thee, The Holy Ghost sitteth within us, an Observer and Keeper of all our Good and evil Actions, and as he is dealt with by us, so dealleth he with us.’

Who told Seneca these things if he had no light? But Epictetus, his Motto Bear and forbear is an Evangelick precept, which I never yet knew a Presbyterian who had learned it: Neither needed our Author­to have gone so farr back as the Old Testa­ment: For GOD hath now suffered the Presbyterians, for many years to walk in their own wayes; For tho there was a good beginning among them many years ago; How soon they betook themselves to the arm of flesh, GOD left them to their own wayes, as Samuel Rutherford saith, God turned his back upon them, and never since looked over his shoulder unto them.

[Page 174]This may serve to answer his seventh argument drawn from Ephes: 2. 12. Where the Gentiles are said to be or have been without Christ, Aliens from the com­mon-wealth of Israel, &c. Therefore they had not sufficient Grace and Light; This again impeacheth the justice of GOD, to condemn men for breaking a Law which they never had contrary to that Scripture, where there is no Law, there is no trans­gression: And if he bad but considered the 3, 4 and 5 Verse of the same Chapter, he would have found that Paul placeth him­self, and the Jews in the same condition with the Gentiles; And the only difference was, that the Jews had the outward Law, which was added because of transgreffion, and yet could not make the come [...]s thereunto perfect.

His Eight argument is from Amos 3. 2. You have I known of all the Families of the Earth And Psalm 149. 19. 20. He sheweth his word unto Jacob his Statutes, and Judgements unto Israel, &c.

From h [...]nce he inferts that they who have not the S [...]riptures, never had a Light sufficient to guide them to Salvation; But he is somewhat craftie in his expresion, saying These to whom GOD did not give his word, which [Page 175] I fully grant; But if hereby he understands the Scriptures, it is great impudence to assert it, for then it will follow, that Abel Enoch, Noa [...]h, Abraham, Job, &c. Had never a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation.

Then he raileth a little, and is very angry at such as say, The Light shined in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not. He may, if he please, rail at me next, for telling him that the world was never con­demned for want os Light, but for loving darkness more then Light. A little after he rants tho without reason, saying, Now I say, who but a Quaker will from this inferr, that all Nations in all ages had the knowledge of the word Statutes and Judgements of GOD, who but a Presbyterian will deny that GOD may be known without the Scriptures? And that the word of GOD is GOD, and was known before there was a Book in the World: As for the Statutes and Judge­ments given to Israel, they were peculiar to that Nation as his elder Brother R: Baxter hath confessed above, and GOD is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation be that feareth him, and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him. Acts 10. 34. And Doctor Barron against Turnbul, page 56. Saith, [Page 176] Potuit DEUS olim imo etiam bodis potest sine Scriptura, Ecclesiam suam Colligere & tueri. That is, GOD could of old, [...]ea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scriptur [...].

The next Scripture he mets with, is that of Jude Vers. 15. That some men have not the Spirit.

This R: Barkelay hath answered in Qua­kerism confirmed, citing the words of our Saviour; Viz. From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath; In­timating thereby that men may be said in one sense to have, and in an other not to have the Spirit. To this our Author re­plyeth, that altho these wicked servants had gifts and abused them, yet no such thing can be said here, because they are said to be twice dead, &c. And senswal; But if it be lawful to look to the context which in the end of this page he is ve­ry unwilling to allow unto us? he will find by the examples there adduced, that even they had something too; For in Vers. 5 and 6 he compares them to the children of Israel, who were brought out of Aeg [...]pt, and on their way to the Land of Rest, yet were destroyed for unbelief, and then the Angels (saith he) who keep [Page 187] not their first Estate. Where it is manifest they had a first Estate, To which they might have kept, that they were Twice dead, proves that they were once Living: And their being sensual, saith no more but that all such as reject the Counsel of the LORD, and dispise his reproofs, do (as in the 18 Verse) walk after their un­godly lusts, and become sensual more and more; Are not all men by nature sensu­al? And yet Christ hath enlightned every man coming into the World, is it not said, the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil Spirit from GOD came upon him; Yet at sometimes he was inforced to cry out, thou art more Righteous then 1, 0 my Son David.

But the Spirit of GOD hath given us special symptoms, whereby we may know and discern these men, viz. The malicious cruelty of Cain, the insatiable avarice of Ballaam, the sedicious practices of Korah, and the speaking evil of Dignities; The first three speak for themselves, and for the Fourth, take this instance of the Hind let loose, where the Author speaking of King Charles the Second, sayeth, Notwith­standing of all his numerous brood of Bastard brats, begotten in adulter [...] and I [...]st; Yet he died [Page 188] a Childs l [...]ss poultron, and had the unlamented burial of an Ass, and none to succed him but he who Murthered him. Horresco referens, &c.

Next he saith, The knowledge of some things are absolutely necessary to Salvation; But all men have not this knowledge; therefore all men have not sufficient light to guide them unto Eter­nal life.

This is a meer Non sequitur, such ano­ther as to say, some men shut their eyes and will not see: Ergo, the Sunshineth not. I have told him before that the World is not condemned for want of light, but for loving darkness, and I acknowledge where the Scriptures are to be had; The know­ledge of them is indispensibly necessary, but where that cannot be had, I say with Doctor Barron, GOD could of old, yea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripture: And I think our Author dar not say that the Spirit of Christ which taught the Apostles to write Scripture, cannot teach men now all things necessary to Salvation: Or if he say, that he hath limited himself, that he will not; I shall expect his proof of it by the next, for I believe no such thing as yet.

His Ninthly is no argument, but a new warr undertaken against the Light of Christ; He begins with his usual forth, saying, [Page 189] will overthrow another principil of the Quakers, upon which the whole fabrick of Quakerism is builded; He had said in his first argument, that the whole fabrick of Quakerism was overthrown: This then must be superfluous, but the man forgets himself sometimes and must be pardoned.

He begins according to his custom with three gross lies; Ist, that we aslert that man in his fallen estate cannot do any thing that is as to the substance of the action good, for an unregenerate man may, plow which is good as to the substance of the action, and yet the Plowing of the wicked is sin.

Secondly, He accuseth us as Socinians, whereas he himself is the Soeinian, in that he acknowledgeth that fallen man by nature can know that there is a GOD who is to be Loved, Feared, and Adored; page 99. And that we ought to do unto another as we would he should do unto us, page 110. This is to say, nature fallen and corrupted can teach us to love GOD, and and our Neighbour which is the summ of the Law, and the Pro­phets, against which Socinian Doctrine R: B: hath bestowed more then a whole page of his apologie

His Third lie is, that the whole World perceiveth clearly, that there is no light common [Page 190] to all mankind, except some small Relicts of that once bright shinning of GOD, like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantron; And herein lyes the stress of the contraversie. We on the other hand assert, that when man had by his fall brought himself and his posterity into a miserable condition, GOD had mercy on him, and entered into a new Covenant with him, in the seed of the Woman, CHRIST JESUS: Upon bet­ter terms then the former Covenant, and that Christ the Light did of New Enlighten him, or to use his own words; Light the Candle of that extinguished Lantron, whereby he might see and know the things of GGD, and be saved from out of that miserable estate whereinto he had brought himself his fall, and that this is most consonant to Scripture and sound reason, will appear by the Sequal.

First, The Covenant of works was made with Adam in his integrity, and the Cove­nant of Grace was made with man in his fallen estate, and confirmed to Abraham and David, and all the Law, and ratified by by the Death of Christ under the Gospel. Now the question here is, whether the Covenant of Grace left man­kind in the same condition it found him; [Page 191] That is to the dim sparkles of an extin­guished Lantron, which (our Author saith) are never able to shew the wandering tra­veler in the dark night his way home­ward, or whether Christ the Mediator of this Covenant the Light, which enlightneth every man coming into the World, did give unto man light and grace sufficient for fullfilling the Terms of this New Covenant? For to deny, this were to impeach the jus­tice of GOD: For the Adam had suffici­ent Light, Grace, and Power, to fulfill the First Covenant, I hope our Author will not deny; And to assert, that his Posterity had not Light nor Grace sufficient to fulfill the Terms of the Second Covenant, were no less then to say, that men were nothing bettered by the Covenant of Grace, but were left to seek their way with their extinguished Lanthron; And that the Old World was drowned, and they damned for want of Light, or Knowledge of the Will of GOD, which is absurd as well as contrary to the Scrip­tures: For the Spirit of GOD strove with them, and told Ca [...]in, that if he did well, he should be accepted, and if he did evil, sin lay at the door; Which saying pre­supposeth that Cain knew the God and the evil. Did not Christ preach to the Old [Page 192] World in the dayes of Noah, I Pet: 3. 19. And if this be true, that fallen man had no Law nor Light, but an extinguished Lan­thorn, by what Law could the men of So­dom and Gomorah be condemned? I know nothing he can say to this, but that direful Doctrine of Reprobation, which yet will not serve his turn.

Secondly That this Light wherewith Christ hath enlightned every man, is su­pernatural & sufficient, is so largely proved by Samuel Fisher, William Penn, George Keith, and Ro: Barkclay, and all the Objections answered, is nottour to any who hath been at pains to read their Writings, so that it might suffice to direct my Reader thereto; Yet shall I take notice of what seems to have any weight.

In the first he comes above board, and calls it Reason; ‘And then (for I wave his railing and reflections) Reason is Natural, and Man is Rational, That Man excrising his Reason and con­templating the Works of Creation and Providence, cannot but conclude that they are the Product of an Infinite and Omnipotent Creator, who is to be Loved, Feared, and adored, which thoughts as to the substance of the Action are [Page 193] certainly good.’ And what saith all thi to the purpose? Are not the prayers and plowing of the wicked as good as the substance of the Action, and yet sin?

But the Question is, Whether man had no other Principle in him, whereby he could discern these things, but his natural and corrupt Reason, which was the thing incumbent upon him to prove, and which he hath wholly omitted; Seeing the Apostle saith, The natural man cannot discern the Things of GOD.

His Second Argument is, Whatever is in man, and common to all Mankind is Natural, but some sparks of the Know­ledge of a Deitie, and some good Thoughts as the desire of self-preservation are in man, & common to all Mankind: Ergo, c&.

The Major is false, otherwayes it would follow, That the Grace of GOD which bring­eth to Salvation (which is in Man) and hath appeared to all Men, must be Natural, and the Life of Christ, the Light of Men must be Natural, both which are absurd.

His Third is much to the same purpose, That which is originally born with every Man, and up to more and more maturity. is undoubtedly natural, but some remainders of the Knowledge of God are originally, that is in [Page 194] the Principle or Inclination, born with Man, and grows up to more and more maturity, ac­cording to the growth of him in whom they are, Ergo, &c. They are Natural.

Certainly if this Argument hold, & Man that lives long and grows up to a great hight, must acquire a great Knowledge of God, which is ridiculous: And Seneea had more Knowledge than this Author, as before cited, who said, There were Di­vine Seeds sown in Man, which grew according to the entertainment they melt with: And whe­ther this of Seneea be more consonant to our Saviour's Parable of the Sower and the Seed, than our Author's Argument, let the Reader judge. The Seed was sown by Christ in all Grounds; the Seed gtew. Ergo (according to our Author) it was Natural; And the Talents were given to the profitable and unprofitable Servants, and they grew as they were improved; Ergo, they were Natural.

His Fourth Argument is, That which is common to Devils, is not supernatural; But to know and believe that there is a God, which is of it self a good thought, is common to Devils, Ergo, &c.

When our Author gives us a learned Treatise of Nature of Angels, of their [Page 195] Fall, and what they Lost, and what they Retained; And tells us whence he learned it, and then proves, that Men and the Devils in their nature, in their Fall and since their Fall, are in all things alike, he may have an Answer: For my part, I seek not to be wise above what is revealed; I know that Men and Angels Fell, and that Man was Redeemed by Christ, and not Devils; And that he purchased for Man Grace, whereby he might attain to Faith, Repentance, and New Ohedience; which are the Terms of the Second Covenant. I know also the Devils believe that there is a God, and that this their belief of His immuta­ble Justice, is no small patt of their pre­sent as well as future Torment; where by they know that they shall be eternally tormented in Hell. And if ever our Au­thor come there, (which God forbid) he will find this to be a part of his Nature, as he would insinuate in his next Argument, where he saith, That which will accompany the Wicked to Hell, cannot be called Grace, Di­vine, or any thing supernatural: He should have said, that which suffereth in Hell: For certainly all that is natural to Man must suffer in Hell, but that which causeth [Page 186] Man to suffer in Hell can be no part of his Nature: Hence Causin in his Holy Court Tom. 3. Pag. 433. ‘The Darkness of Hell is apprehended as most intollerable Ev­il, and that with just cause: Notwithstan­ding I affirm the grearest Torment of the Damned, and hight of their notable Calamities, is Light, I say, Light of Science and Knowledge, &c.’

His Sixth Argument is, ‘That Men have naturally some Relicks of the I­mage of God, and can do some things contained in the Law of God, we must firmly conclude from that express Text, Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles who have not the Law, do by Nature the things contained in the Law.’

First, He proceeds upon his former de­ceitful Insinuations, as if we denied that fallen Man, or Man in the Fall could do any Action good, as to the substance, (as he saith now) he can do some things con­tained in the Law of God; whereas the Devil could confess Christ before Men, as in Luke 4. 34. I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

This is a meer Quibble: For the Que­stion is, Whether Man by Nature as Fallen and corrupted, can do any thing that is [Page 197] acceptable to God? which he should have proven, or else been silent. And as to that Scripture he citeth, it maketh no­thing for, but against him: For clearing of which, I shall ask him this Question-Whether the Actions done by these Gen­tiles (who not having the Law, did by Nature the things contained in the Law, which shew the work of the Law written in their Hearts) were acceptable to God, or not? If he say, not: He contradicts the Apostle, Vers. 26. Therefore if Ʋncircum­cision keep the Righteousness of the Law, shall not his Ʋncircumsion he counted for Circumcision? And Vers. 27. And shall not Ʋncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee who by the Letter and Circumeision, dost transgress the Law? And Act. 10. 34, 35. Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation, he that fearth him, and worketh Righteousness, is accepted of him, If he say, these Actions done by the strength of fallen and corrupted Nature were acceptable to God; then it follows, that Man by Nature in the Fall, can please God, and so have no need of a S viour. I shall here add a Saying of J. Humfrey, with the Approbation foresaid of R. Baxter, in his Book of Election and Redemption, Pag. 29. [Page 198] 30. ‘It is agreeable to that Righteousness of God, which is revealed in the Go­spel, and to common Reason, that when Christ died to Redeem the World from the Law of Works, because through the weakness of the Flesh, it was impossible for us to perform the same; The new Terms which he hath procured for us in the remedying Law, should be so a­dopted to our fallen Estate, as to be made no less possible for us, or within our power now, than the Covenant of Na­ture was to Adam in the state of Inno­cency. There is no Interpretation of Scripture must be admitted against uni­versal Reason and the Goodness of God. Now to say, that the Just and Merciful GOD would require fallen Man to walk without Light, to act without Power, is contrary to the Goodness of GOD and universal Reason, and to the Tenor of the new and remedving Covenant.’

In page 104, He saith, Men by nature have the knowledge of Politicks and the prudent management of Worldly affairs; Therefore men may be said to have the Law writen in their Hearts without a New Govenant dispensation; Because the second table of the Law which is a Rule for Politicks, is the Law of GOD as well as the first.

[Page 199]This can import nothing less then this, That because he had natural and corrupt reason, he had nothing more; Or that he that hath his senses hath not Reason: For Nimrod had Politicks and so had Moses, but Nimrod had not such a foundation for his Politicks; And why? Because Moses Government was a Theoeracie; Nimrods an humane Monarchy; And therefore Moses needed the immediat Teachings of GOD for his Politicks; Nimrod only Reason; Tho he had more, if he had regarded it. And yet the second Table of the Law is more like Penal Statutes then Politick Laws. And whereas he saith, That Jo: Brown hath proven by many demonstrati­ons, that the writing of the Law in the Heart cannot at all be taken in this place, for any part of the New Covenant; He might have been so kind to his Reader, as to have given one of these many de­monstrations, before he had so railed at and gloryed over his Adversary: Especially, considering that John Browns Books are so rare to be seen, and seldom or never objected to us by any man of sense.

His next is in answer to R: B's: saying, If Romans 2. 14. Be understood of cor­rupt nature, It would contradict that of [Page 200] 1 Cor: 2. 14. Where it is said, The Natural Man cannot know the things of GOD.

To which he Replyes, That Mr. Brown, as he calls him, hath utterly denyed this contradiction to follow upon their exposi­tion of this place; But hath neither given us the Exposition, nor the Harmony of the places; This might pass in the Pulpit, but it is shameful in Print, he had better waved it as he hath done many more: But if the Reader will be at the pains to look Beza's Notes, he will find that he expresly saith on 1 Cor: 2. 14. The Natu­ral man is he that hath no further Light of Un­standing then that which he hath brought with him, even from his Mo [...]bers womb, As Jude defineth it, Verse 19. And upon the word, Spiritual Man, he hath noted, That is by Vertue of the Holy Ghost. Now let the Reader compare what our Author hath said in the foregoing page upon Rom: 2. 14. And what Beza saith upon 1 Cor: 2. 14. And see whether our Anthors answer be sufficient to take away the contradicti­on: Yet we must get Foam and Froath not a little, the usuall product of troubled waters: Nevertheless, it is manifest, this one note of Beza's, overturns all he hath said for his extinguished Lanthorn.

[Page 201]In page 105. After a citation of R: B's words concerning the fall of man, he saith, ‘It willl be counted a compleat Contra­diction to say, that fallen man hath no Relicts of the Image of GOD, and yet hath a Seed of Righteousness, seeing that Righteousness is one of the chief parts of the Image of GOD.’ But wherein lyeth the Contradiction here? In saying, he who hath the Seed, hath not the Fruit? Or in saying, that the Seed tho sown in all kinds of Grounds, needs an influence from Heaven before it can bring forth Fruit? And (to use his own si­militude) till the Candle of his extingui­shrd Lanthorn be of new lighted again, it can do us no 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 [Page 202] 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 [Page 203] out of Presbyterian Books; What a Hodge podge of None­sense 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 Ʋnion 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: [Page 204] 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 [Page 205] 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 [Page 206] 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 [Page 207] 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, 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, [Page 208] 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 [Page 209] 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 [Page 210] 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 [Page 211] 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 [Page 212] 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 [Page 213] 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 [Page 214] 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 [Page 215] 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 216] 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 [Page 217] 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; [Page 218] 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 [Page 219] 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, [Page 220] 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 [Page 221] 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 [Page 222] such a peece of Land his possess [...]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 P [...]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 i [...] 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 [Page 123] 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 [Page 124] 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 ofSee 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 Revelation, except Prophets and Apos­ [...]les, & therefore among them the seventy Disciples, and Luke who wrote two books of the New Testament, and many others mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; But Thirdly, The foundation of Faith, as well as the Rule of Faith hath still been the same in all ages of the Church, as he hath formerly confessed, and therefore if [Page 225] immedia [...] objective R [...]v [...]lation was so to the Prophers and Apostles (as he granteth) it must also be the same to the present professors of Christianity, and this shall suffice for his Membrum negatum.

In page 124. He falls upon the last ar­gument he deals with calling it the chief of his Apostolik Arguments (tho I find no such argument in all R: B's apologie, which he setteth down thus; Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and some others, had Immedi­ate objective Revelation, therefore the whole Church had it. He and his Brother John Brown deny the consequence, but hath he not hereby cut his own throat, by giv­ving way to Tradition, as the Rule of that Church saith, for sure they had no Scripture, and therefore had no other foundation for their Faith, nor Rule for their life but Tradition; And so having pleaded before, that what was their Rule must be ours, he must confess that in de­fault of Scripture and Revelation, there re­mains nothing for them but Tradition, which must continue to be our Rule also; For this the Papists owe him thanks.

A little after, he confesses there was more of GOD in these dark times of the Old World, then there is now, Viz. In respect of Immediate Revelation.

[Page 226]But I would know the Reason of this, Seeing the Promises are greater, even to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh; Is his hand shortned or his Ear heavie? Or is he dead, (as our Author insinuats) or hath he lest off to care for his Church? No, But our iniquities have separated him from us, and our unbelief.

But to do his Business fully, he adds, How will the prove that ever Abel had Immediat Objective Revelations? I Answer, GOD hath alwayes communicated as much of himself to the Righteous as to the wicked, but wicked Crin had Immediat Ob­jective Revelations, Ergo, Righteous Abell had them.

Then he tells us that the third, fourth, and fifth Proposision of the second These falls to the ground; But upon what ground he saith so, let the candid Reader Judge.

He concluds this Chapter with a peece of his first Dream of the Trojan Warr, and citing Virgil, he tells us, like the Irojan Warr, its couplings being cut, the whole Faorick of Quakerism tumbleth down a­bout the Ears of its Authors and Builders. It's a pitty the poor man should have read this Poets and others on the History of Irov; For the Reader may see how he extravages [Page 227] upon that Subject, it hath quite spoil­ed him. But he hath been a little mis­taken here, for Patroclus did not live to see the Trojan Tower fall; And if he will stretch the Allegory a little further, he may remember that the Posterity of the Trojans, brought the Posterity of the Greeks under their subjection, and made them Tributaries, which may happen to be the face of this Author and his Brethren. But sure I am, this Language is more like a Gallant bowling over his Cups in a Tavern. then a lober Christian writing for the satisfaction of a Dissenter.

Chapter III. Of Original Sin.

IN this Chapter he begins with his old clamour of Pelagianism; But now de­servedly, we shall see anone. ‘And first, I shall cite the Westminster Confession, Chap: 6. Numb: 2, By this sin, they fell from their Original Righteousness, and Communi­on with GOD, & so became dead in sin, & wholly defilled in all the faculties & parts of Soul and Body. And Numb: 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, & made opposite to all Good, & wholly inclin­ed to all evil, do proceed all actual Trans­gressions,’ To both these willingly assent, But how this agreeth with the dark Lantern doctrine of our Author (who for twenty eight pages together in the foregoing Chapter, hath laboured with all the force he hath, to prove that fallen man retain­ed such a pottion of the Image of GOD (which he calleth Righteousness) as there. [Page 229] by to know one Infinite, Omnipotent GOD, who is to be Loved, Feared, and Adored, and that men should Love their Neighbour as themselves, which is no more then to do to others as they would be done by) let the Reader Judge. And expect his Brethren will take notice of him not only for ca­lumniating us, but for giving the Lie to the Westminster Confession.

And here I must take notice of a word he hath inserted into some of his Argu­ments, maliciously insinuating, That we said, A wicked man could do no Action that was good upon the matter, or as to the substance of that Action: This is no word of ours, but foisted in by him to render us the more odious. For we know a wicked man may feed the hungry, or cloath the naked; And as I told him before, The devil confessed Christ before Men to be the Holy One of GOD; Which as to the substance of the Action, was better then some of our Presbvterian Solemnities; Whereof one was their solemn Fast and Humiliation for the Prevalency of EPISCOPACIE, appoint­ed for all the Ministers of the Nation im­mediatly after their late Re-Establishment; By which act they resolved to murther the Consciences of their Brethren of the [Page 230] EPISCOPAL Perswasion, who esteem E­PISCOPACIE a Right and Lawful Church Government; And after this, for some other pretence to have turned them out of their Livings, which is their Lives; Many of them being so poor, as they can­not subsist without them; Which they had certainly done, if their beloved Be­formers the Babble, had been as obedi­ent in the North as they were in the West.

Now we read of a desperat Millanoise, who having forced his Adversary for fear of his Life to blasphem and abjure GOD; immedi­atly killed him, calling it a noble revenge to mur­ther both Soul and Body at once. Let out Au­thor make the Application, and for bear his malicious Fastings, and black mouth'd Calumnies for the future.

Moreover the gross Doctrines of Pelagius were, First, That man had no loss by Adam, and so were as apt from their birth to serve GOD as Adam was before the Fall. Second­ly, That men have no absolute need of Grace, of Love, and the Gift of the Holy Spirit: Only it did facilitat, or make the work the easier, but Man by his nature could do good without Grace. Thirdly, He affirmed all the Grace was at best Objective, such as the Outward [Page 231] Preaching of the Gospel, &c. But he denyed any Subjective Grace, or any Grace that moved or enclined the Will immediatly unto GOD. All which we renounce, And therefore let out Author and his Brethren be for ever hereafter silent of that false and unjust Calumny of Pelagia­nism.

Having thus cleared the Truth of the false Accusation of Pelagianism, I find no­thing more of weight in this Chapter, but his indeavours to prove that Infants are condemned for Adams sin, upon which he acknowledgeth their Doctrine of Re­probation depends, I shall offer him the thoughts and arguments of some Protestants upon this subject, and then take notice of his argumentations.

And First, the learned Jeremy Taylour in his book called Unum necessarium, denyeth this Presbyterian Doctrine, and reason thus; Either Adam was condemned eternally, and is now suffering in hell for that transgression, or he was pardoned, and is now a Glorified Saint: the first he saith, no Christian will alledge Adam being a Tipe of Christ, and also that GOD entered into a new Covenant with him: So that he was not condemned for that sin; And if the second be true, that is, that he [Page 232] was pardoned, and is now a glorified Saint; How then can these men be so wickedly audacious as to charge the Infinitly Just and Merciful GOD with such cruelty and injustice as the wickedest of men would be ashamed of? To wit, to pardon the Ma­lefactor (yea put him in a better conditi­on then he was before) for his transgres­sion, and yet to punish his Posterity (in­nocent Infants) who had no being till five Thousand years after, who never had accession, nor so much as a consent to that sin, and yet upon this wrong and wicked notion of the Deity depends their doctrine of Reprobation.

Secondly, There is no remission without repen [...]ance (saith the former Author) and alledgeth he never yet met with the man, that could say he had Repented for Adams sin, and I doubt if our Author will say it either, for Repentance is either to be understood, Penitentiam agere, to do penance, or resipiscere, to grow wise again, or to do so no more. let our Author chuse which of the two he will, and tell us with the next whether he hath repented for Adams sin.

Thirdly, It is the Soul that sinneth or is guilty of sin which (according to them­selves) we have not from Adam but from [Page 233] GOD by new creation, who made never any thing impure, and therefore I will expect something next from this learned man concerning the Soul, Quid & unde, for I acknowledge they are little enough clear­ed yet by the Learned, tho I think our Country man Barron is inferior to none I have yet seen; But if our author be for preexistance, will more easily give us a reason for our inclinations to evil.

The next I shall cite is the sorenamed John Humphery with R: Baxters approba­tion, who asserts page 26 of Eelection & Re­demption, that ‘a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adams sin only is a fruit of Christs death immediate and Universal.’

Again in page 28, of the Covenant he asserts ‘that Infants being Baptised are sav­ed, And adds if they be not Baptised we are yet to look on them as such who have not broken this new Law, or never resul­ed and rejected their remedy and so long as by the Redemption of Christ they are de­livered over with all the World from the Covenant of works to the New Law to be judged,’ I will not be the man that shall condemn one Infant to Hell, or unto torments; And here I must tell our Author [Page 234] that its strange to see him contend so much for the Scripture to be his Rule, and yet be so dogmatical in a matter so lubri­cous, when he can produce no plain Scrip­ture for it, nor a consequence without ex­cessive straining, and whereas he objecteth some Protestants, and some Fathers, I had rather with one Athanasius believe the Divinity of Christ, and wonder that the whole world was become Arrian, then follow the multitude in such a gross error as that was and is.

In the next place I shall consider where the strength of his Arguments ly, rather then follow his rambling, for I perceive he makes the greatest noise and clamour when he hath least to say, and boasteth greatly when he hath done nothing.

The whole strength of this Chapter ly­eth in two Hypotheses, First, that If Adam had not sinned, he should have been Immortal. Secondly, that as the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to man for Justification; So Adams sin is imputed to man for Condemnation. And to prove these two Doctrines upon which much of the Presbyterian Religion depends, he should have proceeded candidly, and given us Scripture proofs obvious to eve­ry well disposed intelect, whereas he hath [Page 235] brought no Scripture which any plain man like me can think to relate to such a matter.

First, He calleth R: B: tidiculous, for enquiring if his Adversary would assert every thing that Augustine said. But he should have confessed, that Augustine erred in this very Matter, in saying, That all Infants dying without Baptism were demned, And then have told us, That he who erred in one thing might have erred in the other, But this (tho true) would have wronged his Cause.

His first Argument he draws from Gan. 2. 17. For in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die: Hence he arguds, Infants dies Ergo, they are guilty of Original sin. This Consequence is very gross, for if bodily death had been hereby threatned; Then Adam could not have lived one day after the commission of that sin, whereas he liv­ed some hundreds of years after it: And the Westminster Confession is wiser then to make it a part of Adams punishment in all the first five Paragraphs of it, till they joyn actuall sin with it, calling it only a death in sin, and a defilement or corrup­tion of our whole nature. But he pleads death is an evil, and no evil could have [Page 236] befallen t [...]an if he had not sinned; This he answereth himself confessing, That to the Scints, where the sting of death is taken away, it is no evil: Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, death had been no evil to him.

But I must ask him a Question, seeing it is consessed by all, that Eternal death is a punishment of sin, from which the Saints are freed? How comes it that the Saints are not freed from bodily death al­so? Seeing, according to our Author Bodily death is no less a punishment of sin then Eternal Death is. If he say, That all Man­kind were to die because of Adams sin, altho all Mankind were not to be con­demned for it (which yet is nothing but his own assertion) How came it that E­noch and Ellas dyed not, but were tran­slated? And that Paul saith, We shall, not all die, but we shall all be changed, &c. All which seems to bear that the Earth should not have been Etetnal, nor Adam have lived Eternally on it, altho he had not sin­ned: Which being the grand Pillar, upon which he builds his Doctrines of Original sin and Reprobation, he should have proven by plain Scripture or sound Reason, which he hath not done to the satisfaction of [Page 237] any Reader, yea he hath scarce attempt­ed it except by a Rapsody of railling words: But he had an easier way to have proven both, and more consonant to his own Principles, By telling us, That it was foreordained from Eternity, that Adam should sin, and that all Mankind should die, and that the far greater part of them should be reprobates, and be damned eternally: For the Westminster Catechism saith, GOD for his own Glory, hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass; But all these things comes to pass; Ergo, GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained them.

His next is Rom: 6. 23. The wages of sin is death. Where, saith he, Death without exception of any kind of death, is called the wages of sin.

If the Apostle had meant more kinds of Deaths then one, it is like he would have said, deaths in the plural number; But the Apostle intends here no other kind of death then the same kind of Life he men­tions in the same sentence, which is Eter­nal; The words are, For the wages of sin is death, But the Gift of GOD is Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ our LORD. Now to cause the first speak of bodily death, and the last of Eternall Life, is so strained an [Page 238] Interpretation, as might nauseat a Rea­der. He would mock R: B: for saying The whole Creation suffered a decay for Adams sin, But it seems he hath forgotten, that GOD cursed the Earth for mans sake, and yet the Earth was not guilty of Mans sin; But saith he, The body shall after the re­surrection live as well as the Soul, and therefore bodily death is a punishment of sin. This is pretty singular, for it is acknowledged by all, that the body is a meer Instrument to the Soul; And at this rate, our Anthors Pen is guilty of all the Lies and blasmphe­mies in his book, and Patroclus Swordguil­ty of the blood of all the Trojans he killed; But proves nothing that bodily death was here meant by the Apostle, yea he con­fesseth that bodily death is not a punish­ment to believers, [...]eing the sting thereof is removed by Christ.

Now are we come to his second Argn­ment I spoke of, To wit, That as we are justified by the Righteousness imputed to us, So infants are damned by the sin of Adam imputed to them. So that it the first be false in the Pres­b [...]terian sense the last is also false.

I shall first tell him what J: Humphrey saith of it, Treatise of Justification, page 21.

‘As for what they add usually (saith he) [Page 239] in the definition that Christ's Righte­ousness is imputed to us, and made ours by Faith as an Instrument; I must confess they are notions, which as they never came into the head of Saint Au­gustine, nor were received (I suppose) into the Church till within a Centurie or two of years since, so do I question, whether a Centurie or two more, may not wear them qui [...]e away again’. Again, page 25. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us (as if it were ours in its self) it must be the Righteous­ness of his active or passive Obedience or both; If his active Obedience be imput­ed to us, then we must be look upon in him as such who have committed no sin, nor omitted any Duty; And then what need will there be of Christs Death, How shall Christ die for our sins, if we be lookt upon in Christ as having none at all? If Christs passive Obedience be imputed, then must we be look [...] upon as such, who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the Law, and born the full curse of it; And then how shall there be [...]oom for any Par­don? The Man who payes his full debt by himself or Surity, can in no sense be forgiven by his Creditor. If Christs [Page 240] active and passive Obedience both are imputed, then must GOD he made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of works in the business of Justification, when nothing is more aparent in Scripture, then that by Grace we are Justified, and by Grace saved.

A little after he saith, There was no need to bring in this notion of Christs imputed Righ­teousness into the Church, But that our Pro­testants mistake themselves, and forget that we are justified and saved by the Co­venant of Grace, and not by the Law of Moses or Covenant of our Creation; And in the foregoing page, he saith, ‘I would fain know whether any of the Disciples, James, John, or Paul himself, whether Clemens, Roman, or Alexanderin, Justine Martyr, Cyprian, Ambross, Augustine or any of the Fathers, Whether Gounsels or School men, whether John Huss or Wickliff, or a­ny Father or Holy writer (without rest­ing on some bare incoherent scraps of sentences) did ever understand or re­ceive the full notion of Faiths instru­mentality, and the imputation of a passive Righteousness before Luther? And if not, whether it be possible it should be of any such moment as is [Page 241] made of it by most Prot [...]stants▪’ I have set down these that the Reader may see we are not alone in this matter, but that as good Protestants as the Presbyterians, yea and some of themselves (to wit, Baxte [...]) are of the same mind with us; And yet in page 134, he is so confident of this his new notion unknown (as this man saith [...]) to the Apostles, Fathers, Counsels, and first Protestants that he asser [...]eth either Adams sin to be such as by it all have sinned and by it death without exception is brought upon all mankind, or else that the Spirit of God speaketh nonsence in this Text. Certainly the Apostles were plain men, and had more plain simple and less intri­cat thoughts of the Christian Doctrines then our School-men have devised, and I believe few of them would have under­stood their terms of Art now in vogue, and if the Appostles, or rather the Spi­rit of GOD had intended any such Doc­trine as necessary to our Salvation; It would not have needed Hathenish Philosophie and Logick to have strained a consequence from the Text, which prehaps the writer never intended; and our School mens seeking to cause the Doctrine of Christ quadrate with Heathenish Philosophie hath [Page 242] beeh the ba [...]e of Christianity, tho is he now made no less then absolutely necessary to the being of a Minister; And yet for all, this man is so confident, let the Reader, but look to the 16 Verse of the Chapter, where the comparison is made, and he will see that condemnation Eternal death is meant, and not bodily Death. His other Argument, that Death Reigned from Adam to Moses, can prove nothing for bodily Death hath Reigned from A­dam to Patroclus; and what than? Ergo, Infants are condemned for Adams sin, for none can die but sinners, this is boldly to begg the question and no more.

His great Argument in page 135 is, That sin which is descrived to us by the Apostle, that he saith, brought Death upon all men, that men sinned by it, and were made sinners, even they who could not as yet actually sin, that they all became guilty of Death and Con­demnation, That sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam, and render­eth the whole nature obnoxious to death and con­demnation; But the first sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostle, &c. Ergo, that sin is the sin of nature.

Answer, The Major containeth many great lies in it, and the Minor is a gross un­truth [Page 243] which he and all the Presbyterians in the World can never proves from the words of the Apostles rightly understood, the indeed they have a saculty of causing the Scripture speak contraries, as we have seen and heard at Aberdeen, upon the Text, Holiness becomes thy house, O LORD, &c. I shall therefore insert one sentence more of J: H: ‘There are some apt to conceive only that Adam being the root of Mankind, Humane nature it self sinned in him, and so when we come to exist his guilt is derived upon our persons as virtually and seminally in him, no other­wise then Levi is said to have payed tythes to Melchisedeck in the Loins of Abraham. I should (saith he) incline to this explana­tion, but that I see not then why all the sins of Adam besides, & of all out Progenitors, should not be ours also upon the same ac­count,as much as that first transgression.’

He rails at R: B: for denying the Major of this argument, and telling, John Brown how he had abused the Scriptures, soist­ing in words of his own to deceive the simple Reader; I desire the Reader may be at the pains to see R: B's vi [...]dication and then judge betwixt him and his ad­versary.

[Page 244]In page 136 he reproacheth R: B: for saying, shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adams sins But it would have wronged the cause to tell why R: B: said so, which was because J: Brown had challenged him for adding an interpreta­tion, tho he told him it was so, and therfore he saith, I am content there be neither addition nor so much as consequences made use of, adding let him shew me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of A­dams sin? and now I intreat the Reader to compare the Books, and see what candor, integrity, or honesty is among such adversaries, or what Justice we can ex­pect from men of such foreheads, as can raise a calumny on such a foundation, which themselves gave first ground for. He talks aboundantly about the Salvati­on of Infants but to no purpose, forging Blasphemous consequences, and Father­ing them upon R: B: while they are his own if they be Blasphemies, For he never said, that Infants are not saved by Christ only, and hath sufficiently cleared himself in his Vindication from this, but repeated cal­lumny.

To R: B's saying, Infants are under no Law, he answereth in three instances, that Chil­dren [Page 245] are forefaulted and deprived of their Fa­thers Estate for their Fathers faults; 2, That the Children of Sodom, &c. And of [...]re▪ and of Achan, &c. Were punished for their Fathers sins; But its strange with what confidence he can repeat these tales which R: B: hath so fully answered, and it is manifest they suffered not for Adams sin (if they were at all punished for sin) it must needs be the sin of their immediat Parents: And in the very words of Austustine, cited by himself in page 141) he saith, shall they sin that are un­der no command, That is, under no Law. He would abuse R: B: as saying, Augustine did not think Infants guilty of original sins; Whereas he only citeth Augustine to prove they are under no Law, which the words plainly impott.

His Third is a very rare one, Thus, If in any point of Religion and Faith, the admir­able depth of the Judgement and secret Counsel of GOD be to be seen, certainly it is to be observ­ed here, &c. I would fain learn from this Author, what worse the Faith and Chri­stian Religion would have been, tho this contraversy of Infants being condemned for Adams sin (while Adam himself was pardoned) had never been started in the

[Page 246]Church by such capricious Clergiemen as our Author? Or does he believe that the belief of this Doctrine is absolutely neces­sary to Salvation? Certainly if it be so, the number will be few, and somewhat more few then Shepherd makes them in his Sincere Convert. But he saith, The depth of the secret Counsel of GOD is to be seen and observed here: If seen and observed here, then it is no secret, and if it be secret, it is no where seen nor observed: But the Presbyterians to know the secret Coun­sel of GOD, and yet deny the Revelation of his Spirit; This is unaccountable Doctrine, But he sends us to Paul's Sanctuary, Who [...]rt thou, &c: If he had added the rest of the Doctrine he asserts, To wit, Who dare deny, That GOD condemneth innocent Infants, for that sin he hath pardoned to the Transgressour, he had come off fairly.

But he answers Paul's Question, saying, we answer therefore, First, That Adam was a publict person, standing and falling in the room of his Posterity, in whose name and behalf the Covenant of works was made with him, as their Representative; So that his first sin was not personal, but the sin of the whole Nature.

I wonder whence our Author hath ga­thered [Page 247] all this Stuff, for in all the Scriptures is no such Doctrine to be found, And he denys any other Means of Knows ledge▪ And therefore upon good ground l [...]r [...]p [...]at it, as R: B: hath done. But he should have proved, that the Nature of the Covenant of works was on this wise; That altho Adam died by the breach of it, yet he should be pardoned, yea, and put in a better Condition then he was before the fall; But his innocent Posterity, even Infants, who never had accession to that sin, not had a being for some thousands of years after the same, should be con­demned Eternally to hell fire for that first sin: And till he prove this he saith no­thing to the Contraversy.

But he labours to prove, That Adam seased to be a publict person after the fall; Be­cause he died in the day he did eat, and so be­came dead in Law, What strained Conse­quences are these? Did not Adam live a­gain the same day? And was he not a publict person in the Second Covenant made with him the same day? Or was there any other Man then on the Earth to make a Co­venant with? Or was not the Remissiion of that sin through the promised seed Je­sus Christ, of as large an extent as the sin [Page 248] was? That as Adam the Transgresiour was not condemned eternally for that sin, So neither was any of his Posterity con­demned for that sin only: Which I have shewed before to be the mind of as good Protestants as our Author.

To prove that for Adams one sin only, all Mankind are condemned, he giveth us a Phi­losophiek Axiom, Bonum ex integrd eausa, mal­um ex quolibet defectu: And citeth Isaiah, 53. 31. But he should have told us in what verse of this Chapter it is said, That Christ suffered for Adams sin, For I find not such thing in it; But our sins, our Trans­gressions, out Iniquities: We all as sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all; And therefore he will do well with the next, to give us Scripture, for proving this lunscriptural Dogma, of the damnation of Infants for Adams sin; Or else acknowledge that the belief of it is not necessary to Salvati­on; And certainly if it necessary, the Scriptures will be sufficient to prove it; Tho our Author be pleased to call our saying so an Antiscriptural dottage: His words concerning Augustine I have told him before, were cited by R: B: to prove [Page 249] that Infants are under no Law; Which he [...]veth, and deceitfully insinuateth, that R: B: cited these words to make Augustine say, That Infants are not guilty of Adams sin; Which he never intended further then the words bear; To witt, That they are un­der no Law; Yet our Author defends Au­gustine in condemning Infants; And again cannot chuse but condemn Augustine for saying, That Infants dying without Baptism are condemned; So he owneth Augustine when he pleaseth him, and rejecteth him when he dilpleaseth him. In the end of page 141, He gloryeth a little upon his false Insinuation, which only manifests his deceit and folly, as is his ordinary Cus­tome.

In page 142, He returns to prove that Infants are under a Law, which he ac­knowledgeth cannot be found in Scripture in so many words, but may be gathered (by a Presbyterian Commentator) from the 13 and 14 verses of Romans 5. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no Law; Nevertheless Death reigned from Adam to Moses: even over them who had not sinned after the similitud [...] of Adams transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Now let the unbyassed [Page 250] Reader judge whether any word h [...] c [...] inferr that insants are under a L [...]w, or are condemned for Adams sin? To prove this, he saith, Infants die, and the death here mentioned is a bodily d [...]ath, and Death is a punishment of sin, and referrs [...] to his former Section already answered, But R: B: saith it may rather signifie that which Paul cals a body of Death, and is often called Death and Old Adam, and flesh, and the Law in the members, b [...] which co [...]ruption os mans nature; Man kind is made obnoxious to fall under the temptations of Satan, and is naturally in clined to evil, as R B: hath described a [...] large in his Vind: page 57, which he slie­ly, or rather deceitfully passeth by, and then crycth out, a Pelagion exposition, as if R: B: had said that men sinned only by imitation, then which he could hard­ly have devised a greater lie, and I intreat the Reader to see the page now cited, and consider what faith these men can deserve, And as to the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ in R: B: his Apologie, and a­gain in his Vind: page 58. he sayes they are not to be regared, because they are to be accounted among the grossest Sooinian [...] who make the the Death and suflerings [Page 251] of Christian occasion or example only, &c. But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation. This needs no other answer but this, Thou shalt not bear false witness a­gainst thy Brother, and I hope we should know our own Faith better then this li [...]ing Priest.

His next to prove Infants guilty of A­dams sin is, Ephes: 2, 3. The words a [...]e, Among whom we all also had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, sulfilling the d [...]fires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the Children of wrath as well as others.

Who is he that reads this verse and seeth not, that it mentions actual sins? And that by nature is understood that corrupted nature which hath brought forth these forenamed transgressions; But that any word here can intimate that Infants are condemned for Adams sin is a wild consequence; He saith, if the Apostle had meant otherwayes he would have excepted In­fants, But he might as well have said he meant no such thing as the damnation of Infants; because he hath no where afserted i [...]; But to prove that by nature is meant original sin, he citeth some Scriptures but so impertinently, as a man might think he [Page 252] dreamed, Gal: 2. 5, and 4. 8. 1 Cor. 15 44, 46, &c. Which the Reader may see and consider his citation of Calvin, he might have spared his pains, and if R: B pasled by them, it was because they were not worth his while, and so his conclusion resolves in Wind.

Next he gives us a whole page of Au­gustine and some others against the Pelagi­ans, and what then? Will he own all that these men have written, but he tells us of fourteen Bishops, and therefore I must ask him whether these fourteen Bishops were L [...]mbs of Anti-christ as our Bishops use to be called? Or if a Bishop can be a good Chris­tian?

His next is, Psalm 51. 5. I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my Mother Conceive me. Saith he R: B: denyeth the infe­rence which yet is clear from Nehemiah 9: But hath not been so honest as to tell the verse, and I can find no such thing there except in the 2 verse, whether it is said they Confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their Fathers, and so throughout the whole Chapter, but no mention of Adams trans­gression. What he saith of the Marriage duty is most impertinent, except he can say that Davids Parents had no sin, except [Page 253] it were the marriage duty, which I think no [...]resbyterian will assert: But he thinks he hath done a brave late in asking, when his adversary readeth of actual sin, because R: B: asketh him in what Scripture be readeth of Original sin, but he may find if he will, that he shall receive according to the deeds done in the Body, whether good or evil. And 1 John 3. 8. He that committeth sin is of the Devil, and John 8: 34. He that committeth sin is the servant of sin, and many more. Let him bring as plain Scripture that Infants are condemned for Adams sin, and he hath done this busmess.

In page 146, He oflers us several preg­nant arguments (as he words it) to de­monstrate his Doctrine, as first Infants are deprived of the Image of GOD, there­fore they are guilty of Adams sin, he proves his consequence, because to be de­prived of the Image of GOD is a punishment equal with, if not greater then the tor­ments of hell.

But our Author hath mistaken all his measures here; For if it be a punishment to be deprived of that which a man never had, then it is a punishment for Patroclus to want the Bishoprick of St. Andrews (so called) that it was a punishment to Adam [Page 254] who once had it, I deny not, but he can­not prove that Infants had it, and so can­not be deprived of it▪

His next is, None go to Heaven ex [...]ept those th [...] were guiltyp [...]rsons, therefore▪ Infants who ha [...]e▪ never committed actual sin are guilty before GOD▪ None are saved but sinners▪ which was Christs [...]r [...]and to the Earth, &c. And such like trash of John Browns, fully answered by R: B: page 60 and 61. He at last re­solves all into a Question, How infants if not guilty to come to Heaven without the death and meri [...]s of Christ? What he intends by this Qu [...]stion is hard to be understood, its much if he knows what he [...]ayes, for we never said nor believed that any person, Infants▪ or Old man came to Heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ; So that his Question if it have any sense at all, must be, what need have Infants of Christ if they he not sinners▪ nor guilty of Adams sin? This is [...]nswer [...]d by R: B: page 61, They have [...]e [...]d of Christ who died for them, as a Sa­viour to deliver them from the seed of sin▪ [...]nd corruption in them, which is called [...]a [...]th▪ and the Old man▪ that they may [...]u [...] off this▪ [...]d sing the song of the Re­ [...]eemed, as John Brown words it: But how [Page 255] by what means he doth this he hath o [...] toll [...]us, and I desire not to be [...] a­bove what is revealed. [...]s answe [...] [...] B's▪ Question, how elect infants come to be­saved, whom he accounts guil [...]y of [...] ▪ Is, by the imputed Righteousness of Christ▪ But then, what becomes of the [...] men­tality of Faith, without which they deny imputation, let him help this same [...]nswer with the next.

His next is, ‘These who in the sight of GOD are dogs, are guilty persons to be excluded from Heaven, and therefore to be cast into hell▪ but whole Nations without exception are [...]uen▪ therefore Infants being a part of these Nations, deserve to be excluded from Heaven and [...]ent unto hell.’ To [...]rove his Mi­nor he bringeth▪ Matt. [...], 26. It is [...] meet to take the Childrens bread and [...]ast it to dogs; but it seems he hat [...] forgoten to look unto the 28 Verse. O▪ Woman! Great is th [...] Faith, &c. And [...] they be dogs, who have Faith, yea and great faith; I must ask him who are Children? And i [...] such who have great Faith deserve to be exclud­ed from heaven, and sent to hell? He might have considered that many of the Gentiles who formerly wallowed in the [Page 156] lusts of the Flesh, and were dogs came af­terwards to be washed from their polutions, and that Publicans and sinners entered the Kingdom of Heaven when such professing S [...]rib [...]s and Pharisies as our Author were shut out▪ The other place he citeth 1 Cor▪ [...] ▪ 14. For the unbelieving husband is Sancti­fied b [...] the wife, and the unbelieving▪ wife is Sanctified by the Husband, else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. I [...] this be any thing to the purpose, it is against our Author, seeing it relates, to the uncleanness and holiness of the im­mediate Parents, and can never be thought to intend Adams sin, but any thing may serve to make a Muster.

His next is [...]en▪ 1 [...] ▪ 14. The man Child that is Ʋncircum [...]ised▪ shall be cut off. Hence he saith that Mr. Brown inferreth that Chil­dren may be in some sense apabl [...] of breach of Covenant, and therefore under a Law desiring his adversary to chaw his Cude upon it; First, I observe how timorously they propose this argument with a may [...]e, and in some sense; But it is strange how men pretending to sense could propone in it, for whose sin was it i [...] the Child was un-Circumcised? Could it Circumcise it self or could it desire another to do it? Or [Page 257] did ever the Just and Merciful GOD re­quire such an impossibility of an Infant of [...]ight dayes old? It was therefore the Fa­ther and not the Child who was oblidged by this Covenant, and who sinned in case of Non▪performance▪ So that R: B: needed not trouble himself with such nonsensical stuff.

His fourth pregnant Argument is, John 3. ‘None [...]an enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again: Upon this he ar­gueth, the New Birth is a Gift of GOD, which he may withhold from whom he will; And therefore without prejudice to his Justice, may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven; But none are excluded from it but guilty per­sons, which I believe none will deny. Therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons.’ I answer in short, when he tells us h [...]w his Elect Infants are born again, he may take the same wa [...] with the rest; For I have told him before▪ I pre­tend not to be wise above what is reveal­ed; But his Doctrine of Imputation will not serve his turn here.

Lastly, He comes to answer that of Ezek: 18. 20. For which he bringeth no an­swer; But tells us Mr. Brown hath cleared [Page 258] this Text; Why then did he meddle with it? But he sayes it contradicteth the second Commandment. Answer, No such matter, for the second Commandment saith, Visiting the sins of the Fathers upon the Children▪ &c: Which is generally expounded of Tem­porary punishments, and relates to the im­mediat Parents; But Ezekiel saith, The Soul that sinn [...]th it shall die, which is meaned of Eternal punishments.

And now to conclude, I must ask this great Pretender to a knowledge of the se­cret Counsel of GOD, and the state of In­fants after death; Whether they shall continue Infants, and be such every way at the Resurection and to all Eternity, as they are the time of their decease? And I shall expect his answer with the next.

Chapter IV. Of GOD.

HE begins this Chapter with three ma­licious and false Accusations, accor­ding to his custome, saying in this Chap­ter, I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things, each of which is enough to Un-Christian the Maintainer thereof; But I hope not the Denyer thereof.

His three things are,

First, That they deny the Holy Trinity with Arrius and Sahellius.

Secondly, That their Doctrine maketh GOD the author of sin.

Thirdly, That they bold the Soul of Man to be GOD.

All which three we positively deny our selves to be guilty of, and I hope all so­ber and unprejudiced Men will acknow­ledge, that we know what we believe better then this our deceitful and malicious Enemie doth: And therefore this whole Chapter needeth [Page 260] no other Answer, But the LORD rebuke this lying spirit that is gone forth into the mouths of these lying Prop [...]ets, Who take pleasure to defam [...] and bespatter innocent Men, thereby to lay them open to the fury of their bigotted Admires, and blind fold­ed followers: But the just GOD who searcheth our Hearts knoweth our Inno­cency, and will in due time rip off these covers of deceit, and take away this refuge of Lies, wherewith these Men cover them­selves, that they may hurt the Inno­cent.

To begin with the first, R: B: in his Apologie, George Keith in his Book of The Way cast up. have so fully vindicated us from the Arrians and Sabellian herefies, that I wonder with what face this Author can accuse us; And it is evident to all single hearted Men who read our Writings, that it is the Words only we oppose; To wit, words invented by the deformers of Christi­anity, the Clergie, who by their heathenish philosophie (by a new name called School Divinity) have invented and brought into the Church these heathenish and unscrip­tural terms which we reject. Neverthe­less, this perverse and malicious Author, like an Advocat pleading at a Barr, Bawls, [Page 261] Cryes, Rants, and Tears, and will perf [...] & nef [...]s have us guilty of Arria­nism.

And first he sets down that Arrian herefie to be, That the Son is separated from, or di­vided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of GOD the Father.

Now I charge him and all the Presby­terians in the World to produce on sen­tence in our Writings, bearing this Doc­tine, which I am sure they cannot. Moreover Philip Melanchton in Chron: Cari­onis. page 264. Saith, That Arrius deny­ed the Divinity of Christ, and That the Son was Co-Eternal with the Father that he was a Creature ex non existentibus, That is ex nibile▪ All which we detest and abhor.

But to stop his mouth for ever, I tell him we owne the Nicen Creed, which I shall here insert so farr as concerns this Contraversy.

‘I believe in one LORD JESUS CHRIST the only begotten Son of GOD, born of the Father before all Ages; GOD of God, Light of light, True GOD of true God, Begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us Men, and for our Salvation [Page 262] came down from Heaven, and was In­carnat of the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin Mary, and became Man, was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was buried and arose a­gain the third day, according to the Scriptures, he ascended to Heaven, sit­teth at the Right Hand of the Father, and is to come again with Glory to judge the Quick and the Dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.’

And now what can our most malicious Adversaties require more of us for I hope it is evident to all Men, that it is the words of Mans Wisdom invented, that we op­pose and not the Mystery it self.

And here by the way I must tell him, that this Counsel hath been no friend to Presbytry; For we read of no Presbyters there, but such as were Legats sent by Bishops, who for age or sickness could not come; As also that they appointed two Metrapolitan Bishops, one in Rome and ano­ther in Alexandria, See Chron: Carionts, page 205.

The rest of his Tatle is only about the Translation of Hebr: 1. 3. For which he citeth a number of Lexioons, I have none [Page 263] of them by me, but one Serevellius who in his Lexieon Graco Latinum translats it Per­sona, and in his Lexcon Latino Gr [...]cum tran­slats it Substantia: But Hi [...]rom, Erasmus and Melanchton translats it Substantia: And so if George Keith have said any thing which of­fends our Author, in this or any other point, he may deall with his Books when he hath a mind, and I do not Question his ability to answer for himself.

I cannot omit one notable proof he gives to prove his salsehoods; Thus, It is most evident from their perpetual bellish roillings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, calling it an abominable and stinking Doctrine, as they that heard them told me, &c.

Now Reader consider, what can be ex­pected from such an Adversary, whose malice blinds him that he cannot see his own folly? Perhaps as great a Liar as himself told him a Tale, and he will print and publish it to the World, to de­fame an Honest and Innocent Body of People; This is Hicks and Faldo down­right.

As for the Word Persona, it is not to be found in the Nicen Creed, and not only Augustine, but Jerom, and Laurentius Valla, find fault with it, as no fit word to ex­press [Page 264] the Mystery: But a late Writter who calls himself a Protestant Minister, poirc [...] e [...]gh: rationales de DEO, &c. disputeth at large against the word Persona, to whom I refert our Author.

That it is an unscriptural word, he con­fesseth, and then why may we not seek plain Scripture for it, as well as his Bro­ther Jo: Brown, in page 175, saith, It is considerable, that no where in Scripture we find it affirmed expresiv, that Christ died for all Men. why then is all this trouble made. But it seems Presbyterians may do many things, which are not allowable to others, seeing they would fain be accounted Dictators over all Consciences in Brittan. But I hope what is said will suffice to clear us of Ar­rianism to any prejudiced Reader: And therefore I shall proceed to his second Ca­lumny.

Which is, that according to the Quakers doctrine, GOD is Author of sin.

We have heard of some Witches, who after they were condemned, have im­peached many Innocent Persons: So our Author being unable to clear his Breth­ren of that guilt charged justly on them by R: B: and fully proven, would have the Quakers as guilty as they, Solatium est [Page 265] miseris multos habere pares, But two Blacks make not a White.

His Argument is, GOD is the Author of every Substance.

But according to the Quakers, sin is a substance, Ergo, &c.

He proves his Minor thus, Grace is a Sub­stance, therefore sin is a substance.

He saith R: B: denyeth the Conse­quence, which he thus proveth.

‘Sin can hear feel and perceive as well as Grace and Light, it may feel and perceive the things of Satan as well as Light. And Grace feels or perceives the Things of GOD, and may be in the Heart of a real Godly person, Therefore it is a Substance.’ Thus our Auther.

Answer, The Scripture is cleat, That the Life of the Son of GOD is the light of men, and that this is a substance I think he will not dare to deny, and he hath seemed to grant that there was a substantial life in Adam before the fall, which he saith was extinguished by the fall; Hence came the darkness, the Death, the Polution, the Corruption, the lust, the flesh, or Body of Death, and all sin as the West-minster Confession teacheth. Now to compare these [Page 266] together, and to say the light enlighten­eth, therefore the darkness enlighteneth, the life of Christ in man feeleth and per­ceiveth, therefore Death, Polution and Corruption doth feell and perceive, is a most wild consequence, and if he intend to make the seed of the Serpent every way equal to the seed of the Woman, its but the path way to Manichism, and indeed he hath manifested his favour to the Ser­pents seed very much, by contending so warmly for its Kingdom in his Chapter of perfection. But it will not do, for no Man can deny, that he hath had the Counsels, Prohibitions, Approbations and Reproofs of the Light and Grace of GOD, either before or after the doing of the Good or evil act, which speak forth a liv­ing and substantial Principle; Whereas the other is a meer defect, privation, weakness, corruption, and a want; And hath more of the nature of an accident (tho I dare not call it one) That is, which may be present or absent without destroy­ing its Subject; For Adam had no sin, and was better without it then with it; And so will our Author if ever he have the good Luck to be delivered from it (tho con­trary to his Faith) And Christ the best

[Page 267]Man that ever, was never had it, as he saith, The Prince of this World commeth and hath nothing in me; But his mightiest argu­ment is the last, which he builds upon his own weak judgement thus: ‘For I judge this to be the reason why the Quakers judge that this is the reason (it seems the man hath lost both lense and reason) that there being grace in the bearts of wick­ed men, while in their wickedness proveth it to be a substance; Viz. Be­cause it can be where its contrary is, and strive, and wrestle with it, which is as evident concerning sin in the heart of a Godlv man.’

Answer, If Patroclus had lived till Aris­totles time, surely he had learned his Lo­gicks better, but he had the ill hap to meet with Hector before Aristotle was born; And for as great enemies as we are to Logick in our Authors esteem and account. I must tell him this judgement and reason of his hath lost his cause: For Aristotle saith (with other Logicians) Substantiae contrarium est nihil, and Substantia Substantiae non contrari­atur; So that if the light be a substance, its contrary is nothing: And this may give a Specimen of this windie mans learning. as we have many of his honesty; All this is [Page 268] but George Meldrums Dicats to the Students at Aberdeen, put in a new dress, and fully answered in Quakerism Confirmed, Sect: 4.

He is very angry with George Keith for saying, The Devil may be called sin by a me­tonomie, but he might have remembered that Paul calls sin a body of Death, the Old man, the flesh, and Old Adam, all which are figurative speeches; Yet he calls George Keith a rediculous Babler, he is not the first babler who hath reproached him, and this is all the fair dealing we can ex­pect.

He also compleans that GergeKeith sayes, that to query a thing will not conclude, that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is queried, which the Author will find true in the query, I have proposed to him in the end of the last Chapter, where I neither deny nor affirm the thing queried. In conclusion, he will have George Keith, and the Querists, to say, that the Devil is Original sin, whether he will or not, I shall set down the Querie.

What is Original sin? Whether it be not the devil: For doth not Original sig­nifie the beginning?

Now he bath spent two whole pages of his book full of abusive language upon [Page 269] this query, still affirming that the Que­rists affirmed hereby the devil to be Originael sin, which he can never prove from the Query; For why may not an Unscriptur­al word (as Original sin is) be examin­ed, as to its meaning, without affirming or denying any thing concerning it? That the de­vil was & is the Original of all sin, I think our Author will not deny: But to say, that GOD made so, is his blasphemous insinu­ation, and none of ours, and therefore his conclusion is his own.

But how affrontedly impudent this poor man is, and how his malice hath blinded him, is evident here, where he spendeth two whole pages of his Book, asserting that to query a thing is to affirm it, and for denying this, he calls his Adversaries pi­tiful, purposeless; wranglers, and their dis­course nonsensical niceties, and calls George Keith a fool, a knave, and what not, while in page 208 of his book he betakes himself to the refuge for defence of his Brother J: B: saying, he only enquireth, and a little after faith, the contrary of which, for any thing I can learn he sup­poseth; So that according to this Author, a Quakers Query is an assertion, and a Pres­byterian Query is a flat denyal, at lest a [Page 270] supposing the contraty; But these Priests are Holy men, and Holy men like Holy write must be read backward, but he knows he is accountable to none but his Biethren in Prima instantia, for his Doctine, as was answered by them to King James the sixth, when he accused Blackie for preaching at Andrews, Chat all Bings were the devils bairns; Who are not like to censure him for traducing the Quakers.

His third Calumny is, That we hold the Soul of man to be GOD; To prove this, he citeth two Authors, Hubberthorn and George Fox; These books I never saw, only I find that William Penn hath been assaulted with the latter, by our Authors beloved Ana­baptist Hicks, and hath so fully answered it, that our Author might have taken no­tice of it if he had minded to be ingenuous, he may find it in Counterfit Christian, page 68, 69, 70, and 71. But admit all he al­ledgeth were true (as it is a most hateful lie) that these two men had believed and written so. Was there either honesty or fair dealing in our Author to charge this on a whole body of People, who had pub­lickly denyed any such Doctrine to be intended by the Writers, or owned [Page 271] by them as William Pen hath done in the place before cited, If upon the Presbyterian Eloquence should accuse the whole Body of the Presbyterians, of the Blaspemies and Absurdities there in charg­ed on particular persons, Who would be readier to blame me then this Author? who upon Hicks and Faldos Testimonies hath published (it's like) these Citations, Or should I cite here some Presbyterian Authors, Saying, ‘This Discipline is no small part of the Gospel, it is the sub­stance of it: And this Discipline is the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD: And this Discipline is the Eternal Counsel of GOD.’ The Authors I will not name, except he put me to it, because I am not of the mind that any soher Presby­terian will owne such Doctrines: But lex­pect no such fair Dealling from our Au­thor, who cannot but know himself to be a false accuser, if he but seriously read, and considered the Books he hath cited in his pamphlet.

Therefore to satisfie all men, who may have occasion to see this, I do hereby for my self, and in the name of my Friends declate, That we believe the Rational Soul of Man which joyned with the Body, constitutes [Page 272] him a Man, and distinguisheth him from beasts, to be a [...] Creature ereated by GOD, and that it is neither GOD, nor any part of GOD. And this I hope will satisfie all unproju­diced Readers, and demonstrate the ma­lice and deceit of this our surious Adver­sary. And with this one Declaration of our faith in this Article, all his Cant for eight pages together falls to the ground; Which being chiefly stuffed with Macquairs Rhetorick deserves no other answer but, to tell him, I am not so well skilled in the art of Scolding as he.

I shall here only intreat the Reader to take notice of what he saith concerning R: B: in the end of page 172, and the be­ginning of the next, and to compare this with R: B's Vindieation page 190 and 191; That he may see what cause he hath to boast of his Anaboptist Auxilary, and to call R: B: ridicusous. He is pleased to call William penn a Saducee, a Papist, and a Pa­gan, but leaves the probation of it till he write next. As for the words Spiraculum Vitarum, be tells us of three or four Lexieo graphers, upon whose skill of the Language his faith depends; But William Penn tells him of Rabbi N [...]bmunni, Hiskuni and P: Fagius; And as I told him before, R: [Page 273] Barkelay told him of Athanasius and Gallus Alexandrinus; whose Authority is as good as his Lexico-graphers, if not better; And therefore we must expect better proofs next.

His last Citation in page 176, is nothing to his purpose, except that any thing which he thinks can blaken the Quakers, is pertinent enough. But I must ask him here, doth he allow of Henry Forsides An­swer, To wit, Being asked, For what end Christ wept over Jerusalem? He An­swered; As he was humane he mourned, and his God-head deareed them to bell: If thou owest this answer, thou and he are the Blasphemers, in asserting a will in Christ as Man, contrary to the Will of GOD, for no Man mouths for what he desires, and delights in; But certainly Christ as Man, delighted in fulfiling the Decrees of GOD.

But the words he carps at are, The Eter­nal tendered over them. This he calls a sub­jecting that most pure and impassible Be­ing, to the weakest Frailties of Mankind; Poor Man! Doth not the Scripture say, That it repented the Lord that he had made Man, and is grieved him at his Heart, Gen: 6. 6. [Page 274] And Eph: 4. 30. Grieve not the Good Spirit of GOD.

Chapter V. Of CHRIST and His Benefits.

OUR Author begins this Chapter with his ordinary Ingenuity, as he ended the last, Saying, The Quakers in words ordinarly acknowledge, that Christ is GOD and Man. Yea Patroclus, and in Write too, if thou could learn to write the Truth; But saith he, They maintain a Spiri­tual and Heavenly Nature in Christ, which they call the Heavenly Man, which did exist be­fore the Incarnation of Christ, and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this Man, the Church in all ages did feed. Then he giveth us a bundle of Citations out of George Keiths Book. The way east up, But never one of the Scripture Arguments which he bringeth [Page 275] to prove these assertions: Which she weth evidently that they have been too hot for his Fingers: This is not like the Champion Patroclus; And he might have considered that George Keith was a Philoso­pher, and therefore might have allowed us one Casuist, and have discussed him before they had charged his Doctrines u­pon▪ us: But he tells us, it is a clear Conse­quence of this Doctrine, that Christ hath three Natures▪ and addeth, To this they Answer, Quak: Confession page 33. That it will no more follow from their Doctrine, that Christ hath three Natures, then it will follow from ours, who assert that Christ assumed into Ʋnion with the Divine Nature, a Body and a Soul.

But with no better Candour hath he cited this place, then his Brother Hicks and Faldo used to; I shall therefore set down the words. ‘But if they argue that at least Christ hath three Natures in himself; We say, their own Prin­ciple will conclude that as much as ours, For the God-head is one Nature; The Nature of the Soul is a second; And the Nature of the Body is the third. And our Adversaries themselves teach, That as GOD is three Persons [Page 276] in one Nature, So Christ is three Na­tures in one Person.’

Who seeth not here that our Author hath disingenuously skipt over the strength of the answer, to wit, the latter part of it, which is an argume nt, ad ho­minem, and that themselves are owners of that which they would make an absurdi­ty in others▪ But if he have leasure he may read the Cantabridgian Philosopher, H: More concerning the Astral bodies of men: For which I find him not censured by any, as making men to be Monsters, and so you may allow George Keith some latitude in such Metaphisical stuff, however he is of Age, and can answer for himself.

His next is in page 179, where he charg­eth us with quite anihilating and destroy­ing the Divinity of Christ, for which he citeth a book of one Christopher Aitkinson in the time of Oliver Cromwel; But I ask him, hath he this book? Or hath he taken it upon trust? Or found it folding up wares in some Grossers Shop? For my part I never saw this book, nor know I if there be such a book Extant in this World, but he hath had two sufficient answers, the first, that G: Aitkinson was not a Quaker, the Second, if he deny Christ to be a man [Page 277] we [...] him who do say, that Christ is both GOD and Man. And here let the Reader observe, that J: Brown thought this a good answer to R: B: as is to be seen, Vind: page 67: But our Author will hear no such thing, and affirmeth in page 181; That this confession serveth only to prove us guilty of the most wick­ed Hypocrisie, lieing and self-contradic­tion to put a cheat upon the World, and cover our abominations, to prove this heap of gross and unworthy calumnies, he betakes himself to George Keiths book again, and the places before cited, quite ommitting (as before) all the arguments used by George Keith, and never offering us one argument to prove his false accusa­tions of Hypocrisie, lieing and false accus­ation, but proceeds like a scolding Kail­wife, reeling and roaring like a drunken man, foaming out his own shame; But he saith, these Doctrines of George Keiths destroy all the arguments for proving the Divini­ty of Christ, of which he mentioneth one; By him all things were Created. But was the power of the Logos lessened by taking that Flesh of the Virgin? And was he not as able to have Created the World after his In­carnation and Assumption of that Body, [Page 278] as he was from Eternity? And then what did his being the Heavenly Man, the first born of every Creature hinder the Logos from Creating the World, and all things therein? As for his Ʋbiquity, George Keith hath aboundantly cleared himself in the Book before cited, to which I referr him, and shall now come to his Dilemma, which is this.

‘If all things were created by Christ as Man, Then either the Manhood of Christ is Created or not? If Created, then it is Created by it self, then which there is nothing more absurd, if Uncre­ated, then there is an uncreated Man, and a Man that is Coeternal with GOD.’

Answer, The fallacie of this Dilemm [...] lyeth in the first supposition, and is obvi­ous to a very mean understanding; To wit, If all things were Created as Man, This was never asserted by George Keith, as his own words cited by this impudent Author will easily prove, page 93; The Word made Flesh Created all things. Now except he will say, that he was weakened or disabled by assuming a Body, he can make nothing of his Delemma, for he was still and is, and will be for ever the same Eternal and [Page 279] Omnipotent GOD as well as Man. If he ask who made that Heavenly Body? I answer The same GOD Almighty who made the Body which he took of the Virgin, and so his Consequence of an Ʋnereated Man, Coe­ternal with GOD is a meer fancie, For George Keith calls the Heavenly Man, the First Born of every Creature, as the Apostle also doeth, and never asserted that he was Man from all Eternity.

I need not trouble further abont G: K: they having promised a full answer to the Book, and I think he will hardly refuse to enter the Lists with this Graecian Here; But I shall give a citation to chaw his Cude upon, (as he words it) and so leave this matter, Melan: (bron: Car: page 274, cit­eth Socrates Scholastious for three Cannons of the Counsel of Syrinum, The second of which is,

Si quis cum Jacob, non filium, tanquam hominem Colluctatum esse dixerit, sed no [...] goni­tum Deum, a [...]t Patrem Deum, Anathemasit.

After his Dilemma, and a little railing, Telling we are worse then Arrians or Soci­nians, and such like stuff, not worthy to be transcribed; He at last falls upon the Light, calling it a meer chymerical None-entity; Seeing there is nothing more contradic­tory [Page 280] then that either the Soul or the Body of a Man can he every where, or from Eternity.

That it was from Eternity, is his false Alledgiance, and none of our Assertions▪ And for its Ʋbiquity, he may see Quak eonfirmed, in the place before cited; That the Seed and Life is in Him in the fullness, as in the fountain or spring, but in us, as the streams; in Him as the Head, in us as the members; And as the Light is principal­ly in the Body of the Sun, yet diffuseth it self through the whole world; Even so the Light of Christ the Sun of Righteousness. As for his Relicts of the Image of GOD in Adam that quenched spunk of his Extin­guished Lantern, he might have left it alone for any Advantage he made by it last.

In the beginning of page 83. He takes a very singular fitt of Railling and Lying, He sayes, in favours of this Spiritual Anti­christ or Antichristlan Figment, which they ac­count for their Christ; They decry, vilif [...]e, and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be dear and precious to a Christian (for what will they not deny, seeing they deny the God­head of Christ) They therefore with open mouth [Page 281] blasphem and deny Jesus Christ as a Person without them, &c.

What will this Man stick to assert, who after so many accounts of our Faith in this matter, can with an hardned face, and (I may say) a seared Conscience as­sert such gross untruths; For which I wish the LORD may grant him Repentance. But as the Poet saith,—Nam quis innocens arit, quis tristiore liberabitur nota, si eriminare sufficit? I hope the World hath learned by a long Experience, that a Clergie Man is not alwayes to be trusted (I had almost said seldom) when he turns accuser of the Brethren.

But to a muse or rather abule his Read­er, he gives us a bundle of Citations, u­pon the Authority of his Friend Mr. Hieks, (as he calls him) so sully answered in the very places cired by him, and our Doc­trine sully cleared in this matter; That if the man had not been past all shame, he would not have dared to revive the Dottages of that defated Forger: Who durst not again attempt to answer for himself. But this Authors impudence must be more then ordinary, who hath throughout his whole Pamphlet been crying out against us, as one both with [Page 282] Anabaptists and Soceniaus, whom in page 89▪ he calls wicked and abominable; And yet in this place he takes them for his fellow Souldiers against the Quakers: This is certainly as bad, as to receive the Mallignants into the Army: Yet com­mon to the Chieff Priests, Seribes and Pha­risees in former times.

But what is the matter he intends by all these Citations, Namely, They deny (saith he) Jesus Christ as a Person without them, distinct from Christ in them. For cleating of this matter to all unbyassed persons, I shall state the matter thus;

That Christ is with and in his Saints is a Doctrine, so fully testi fied to in the Scriptures, that no Christi­an will deny it, Matth: 28. 20. And lo, I am with you alwayes, even to the end of the World. Which Beza saith is meant, of the manner of the presence of the Spirit, &c: But is absent from us in Body. In which Body, we acknowledge him, a Person without the Saints, & distinct from them; As William Penn hath told thee, tho thou had the Candour to conceal it, But that Christ the LORD from Hea­ven, the Quickning Spirit is one in the Saints, and another distinct Person without them, [Page 283] we deny; And such as affirm it make two Christs. See John 14. 20, 23. and 15. 4. 5. and 17. 23. Rom: 8. 10. 2 Cor: 13. 5. Gak 1. 16. Cok 1. 27. Revel: 3. 20.

But in the end of these Citations, He must have a second hit at H: Forside. Is this to tell us again, That Christ as man hath a will contrary to the will of his God-head? No, But for saying that the word Humane is no Scripture Language, but saith our Author, the thing imported is found in Scripture. He might have minded that the word Humanus may be derived from Humus the Earth, as well as from Homo: And that the Body of Christ now in Hea­ven is an Earthly Body, is a very gross Notion.

Again page 84. He returneth to Hicks and Faldo, but citeth us no page, running at random: And truly Patroclus, this is an easie way of writting Books, if to publish all the Lies and Forgeries devised, and maliciously vented against the Quakers be an honest Imployment, thou might have had another Book of that kind written be­fore we noticed this.

I shall only take notice of one of the grossest of them, he nameth Edward Bil­lings, [Page 284] but citeth neither book nor page, to which George Whitehead in the Appendix before cited by our Author, saith, it is gross and blasphemous to say, that the Mysterie of iniquity lyeth in the Blood of Christ.

Now Reader, consider this Mans ho­nesty, who but he that would be account­ed such himself, could adventure his re­putation upon such Authority as this? Or would spread such impudent calumnies and forgeries after they had been proven so fully to be such? certainly it must be a bad cause that need such Pillars to under­prop it; But I intreat thee Patroelus for the future, speak Truth and shame the Devil.

In page 185, he transcribes a deal of Faldo's stuff, alledging we render the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our LORD JESƲS at Jerusalem, altogether vain and idle actions, and that we call the Body that our LORD took off the Virgin only a Garment, and that it is no constituent part of CHRIST. A heap of gross and unparaleled lies. To prove all which he citeth William Pen his Rejoynder, part 2, Chap. 9. Saying thus, Whereas it is said that it was revealed to Si­mon, that he should not die till he should see the LORDS Christ, is to be understood of a Spirit­ual sight, or of seeing the Christ within.

[Page 285]Certainly, This must be a man of no Credit, nor one that values a good name, tho he begin his Book with it: For if he can produce in that Book or Chapter such an expression of William Penns, he shall surely cause Print a new Copie and insert it; for I assure my Reader, there is no such thing, so that henceforth our Author deserves better to be called Simon then Pa­troelus; Yea, he out does Faldo, for Faldo accuseth William Penn only for saying, that the Body of Jesus was not the whole intire Christ, Which Faldo labouring to prove, and sometimes deny, (that any man hav­ing the use of his Reason, might have been ashamed of) he fully bemires him­self, and yet our Authors citation is more odious.

He cometh now to another false charge, saying, as these men deny CHRIST Himself; So they deny consequently all the be­nefites purchased by him. The Father of lies could scaroely have been more audacious, tho perhaps more cunning then to have Printed himself a lier; The First is prov­en to be ae [...]lie already, let us hear what he saith for the Second. For this he returns to his trade of forging citations, and gives Wil­liam Penns Sandie Foundation shaken 26. [Page 286] ‘Thus, Unless we become doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy, but as our example to fulfil, we can ne­ver be justified before GOD; nor let a­ny fancy that Christ so fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their accept­ance, but only as their patern, &c.’

This Thread-bare citation hath been many a time cast in our teeth, and tos­sed over and over to no purpose: For Wil­liam Penn hath so fully cleared himself of it, that no honest man would have charg­ed him or us with it, as my Reader may see in Reason against Railing, page 78, and Counterfeit Christian detected from page 22 to page 78, which were too tedious to insert here, but hath brought an inde­lible brand of infamy upon Thomas Hicks, whereof (it seems) our Author covets a share.

In page 186, He contemns at the old rate of forgery and falsly accusing us, first of Socinianism, and then of Popery, saying, R: B: denyeth not that his Doctrine of Justi­fication is all one with that of the Council of [...]; He citeth for proof of his Calumny Apol: page p37, 139, and Vind: Sect: 8, N: 9. Where, faith he, He accuseth Luther, [Page 287] and the Body of the Primitive Protestants, as great Deprivers of the doctrine of Justification, and doers of as great hurt by this their Doctrine, as ever they did good, by what they pulleddown of Babylon.

A grosser lie, nor a greater forgerie was never Printed in this Age; What shall men do when they deal with such audacious slanderes? But Patroelus tell me seriously, didst thou think that any who Read thy book, would be at pains to com­pare it with the places cited? If they did, how could thou think to escape the black Character of an infamous forger? Doth not R: B: in both places cited, dispute largely against the Papists? And in his Vindication doth he not challenge J: Brown for Patronizing the Papists? But thy For­gerie is more then manifest in the latter part of thy charge; Wherein thou sayes, he accuseth the Protestants, as doers of as great hurt by this their Doctrine as ever they did good by what they pulled down of Babylon.

R: B's Words are these; ‘For in this, as in most other things He [Luther] is more to be commended for what he pulled down of Babylon, then for what he Built of his own.’

Let the Reader from this one citation Judge of our Authors Candor, and whe­ther [Page 288] this perversion be not wilful as well as malicious.

In the next place, he giveth us a whole page and some more of Hicks and Faldo's stuff so fully answered, and the Per­version thereof so fully detected; by Willi­am Penn, that the Authors themselves durst never attempt their Vindication; But it seems our Author thinks these of his own stamp will believe him implicit­ly, and the Books he hath forbidden; them to read, and so thinks him­self secure, but he being manifested to be a Forger as above; I hope the Read­er will be at the pains to read William Penns Book against Hicks and Faldo, where he will find all these Citations fully handled, which were superfluous to transcribe here.

In the end of page 187. He saith, with the like facility I could shew, That the Do­ctrine of the Quakers is in every point contrary to the Doctrine of Christ.

Truly it is easie for a man who loves to make Lies, and makes no Conscience of so doing, to vent and Print them: But what is now sweet in his mouth, may prove bitter in his belly. But he proceeds, saying, I shall content my self with one [Page 289] great Instance, Viz: The Resurrection of the Body, concerning which the Quakers are down­tight Saducees.

This is another like the rest, And to return a lie upon him, I shall first say, We believe, according to the Scriptures, a Re­surrection of the Dead, of the Just and unjust; So that this unjust Adversary here charg­eth us very falsly; For we can justly say, If in this Life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. Nor were we ever charged with denying the Resurrecti­on, but only of that same body Niomerical Concerning which we willingly assent to what the Apostle hath said, 1 Cor. 15 from verse 35. to the end. And 2. Cor. 5. 1. 2, 3. Which Beza [...]nterprets of the Resurrection: And if our Author will be wiser then the Spirit of GOD, I must leave him there, and remit him to culti­vate his Reason better, by conversing with some of the Modern Philosophers; As Henry More and others, and particular­ly Kenelm Digby, in his Observations upon Religio Medici, page 343. I shall offer him only two Sentences of his, First, ‘All sublunary Matter, being in a con­tinual Flux, and in bodies which have internal Principles of Heat and Motion, [Page 253] which continually transpireth out to make room for the fresh Supplies of new Aliement; So that in process of time all is so changed, that the body of the Young Man is not the same body of the Old Man, and so one body sinneth and another suffereth.’

Secondly; ‘That which giveth the nu­merical individuation to a body, is the sub­stantial Form, as long as that remain­eth the same, tho the matter be in a con­tinual flux and motion, yet the thing is still the same. It is evident that Same­nes, This-nes, and That-nes belongeth not to matter by it self, but only as it is di­stinguished and individuated by the Form.’

The rest of his Work to the end of this Chapter, being nothing but the foul Vomite of two malicious Forgeries alrea­dy answered, deserves no answer.

Chapter VI. Of Perfection.

HERE he beginneth with insolent and insulting Language, and then (with more then his usual Candor) sets down R: B's. eight These; But lest I should have mistaken him, he returns to his Priestine State and Old Principles; Saying, and afterwards he saith, That there 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 [Page 252] 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 s [...]m [...] 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 [Page 266] 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 [Page 294] 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 [...] B. bring this for a proof, that Men sin daily in thought, Word and deed, viz. That Christians are exborted [Page 295] 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 [Page 296] 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 [...]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 [Page 297] 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 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.

[Page 298]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 Life­time, 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 [Page 299] 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 [...]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 asset [...]s the Ordinan­ces of Christ Jesus to be such. As for his [...]llowing Question, it is Nonsense: F [...] 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 no [...]e that are rege­nera [...] 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 De­ [...] and the Wioked his Children And [...] prove, that Regeneration ad­teth [Page 300] 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 mee [...] 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 [Page 301] 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 sin­ [...]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 Ga [...] 5. [...]. 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 [Page 302] Know, If the thief on the Cross, and the J [...] ­ [...] were not him again? [...] from a Particular to an Universal [...] J [...]mes▪ and John, saw Christ Trans [...]gu [...] ­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 capa [...] thereunto; but modestly again Tin page 120 saith, dare no [...] 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 forg [...]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 Ʋnction abiding in them.

But the Seed before it come to perfecti­on or [...]obring forth froit, in requites a time, [Page 303] 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 may inform us by the next, what he intends by these words? Whether a Substonce or an accident, or only the dim spunks of his ex­tinguished Lantern?

His next work is is to prove us Pelagians, and remits his Reader to his second Chap­ter, which I also do. When R: B: tells J: B: that the Fathers he cites thought that men might be free from sin by Grace; Our Author calls it mancking and clipping, and saith ‘Is it not added in the very following words immediatly that none attained that measure of Holiness in this life, that he could live any long time with­out [Page 304] Sin, and that this perfection was not full and absolur, but which might increass, and was mixed with evil deeds, so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees,’ Here these Fathers say, any long time without sin, and therefore I must ask our Author of what extant this long time is? I am sure one day is a very short time, and no wayes deserves the word long to be added, and yet if they grant tis but one day; The West minister Divines have done with it for ever.

I hope our Author will not accuse Au­gustine of Pelagianism, and therefore I must let him see that Augnstine saith as much as R: B: Also John Humphry perfection, page 7, saith Augustine in his second Book, Chap: 15. De Peo: mer: & rem: and de Spiritu & Litera, hath the luck to treat industriously on this matter. Alia est Questio utrum esse pos­sit Homo in hae vita sine pectato; Alia utrum sit? It is one question whether a man can be in this life without sin, and another whether he be so? For the former Question he destin­guisheth of what is possible by Grace, and what is possible by our own strength, to hold that any man by his free will only without Grace is able to keep all GOD's Commandments and be without sin, is [Page 305] that Grand Pelagian Doctrine, against which he sets his face, and de [...]astes it▪ But that it is possible to attain this by Grace, or the special assistance of GOD's Spirit, he thinks it best it seems to grant; He thinks it not fit nor safe to say, any (nor all) of GOD's Commandements are impossible Besides, Where GOD Vouchsafs his Grace the work (he pleads) is to be ascribed unto him, to whom nothing is impossible, And I hope this (being all we plead for) will forever aquite us of Pelagianism, and come pesce all the slanderous tongues of our ig­norant and malicious Adversaries.

As for his Orosms; The first is a modest saying, like that of R: B: before mention­ed, but the second is a heedless expression; The man that can be without sin is Christ, from which it would follow, that Adam was Christ, who could have been without sin, and once was without it; And I hope there are are some now who are clansed from all their Polutions, washed and purged from all their sins, according to the Scriptures, yet are not Christs: But be­cause R: B: saith it is not his work to meddle with what is said against the Pela­gians, and Socinians, he will: herefore con­clude him a Pelagian, and Socinian. What [Page 306] triffling is▪ this? Beeause our. Author will not defend Mahumentism, and Judaism, therefore he is a Jew and a Mahumetan, Is this as good consequence? And yet in such doth our Author delight. But the best is, that he saith, Nothing that R: B. can say, can be of weight against us; And why so Pa­troclus? Are▪ Presbyterians Infallible, or in ac­countable? Or when (came they by this priviledge? I thought they had been sub­ject to mistakes as much as other men; And here he turns to the Fathers again▪ But the Fathers of the three first Centuries only are reputed. Orthodox by Presbyterian [...], And it is clear they fall in with Papists there, and have as much need of a Purga­tory as they.

His Next is to answer this Viz. That this Doctrine is against the Wisdom of GOD. Our Author answereth, Saying, he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of GOD, whereby they may be free from all sin, if they use them well, Adding that he mumbleth▪ as one in a confused haste, but our Authors hast is much greater▪ For R: B: hath write a whole page and more upon this Argument▪ and our Author does not take notice of six lines of it.

[Page 307] ‘But [...] insinuateth this, That the only wife GOD, A being to gather to Himself a peculiar People, Holy and Righteous; And for that Effect sent His Son into the World to save them from their sins, and hath given them his H [...]ly Spirit to sanctifie them throughout, and to cleanse them from all sin (as the Scripture testifie). Now to say that he cannot compass that end, is to derogate from the Wisdom of GOD.’ But he answers, This [...] with great facility denyed; for we say (saith our Author) that it is the Will of GOD, that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church triumphant only. Sat pro imperio, He might have left this to the Pope. Now for proof of this hold assertion, he saith, It is enough to challenge him, to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the World, except Je­sus Christ, who never had it but by Imputa­tion.

Thus the Man who tells us, Affirmenti incumbit probatio, but he confesseth Infants have no sin but by Imputation. And I would fain know when Enoch and Elijah were punged? Whether in the World before their Translation, or in the Em­pereal Heaven, into which they either [Page 308] entered with their sins, or were freed from sin in the World: And if so, he may tell us with the next, how long they were so freed before their Translation, for I can assure him they had no need of Purga­tory.

To R: B's▪ alledging from J: [...]'s▪ words, That he confessed there was some material service performed to the devil; He answereth, This objection militats as much against the Apostle, Saying, Rom: 7. That with his flesh he served the law of sin. For answer to which, I remitt him to the 17 and 20 verses of the same Chapter; Neither hath he yet proven that Paul speaks here of his present State, as the second verse of the next Chapter doth evince. That this Instance will overdo, he is mistaken▪ upon his begging the Question, that the best and most gracious Action of the Saints are tainted with sin, which we must take his word for.

His next is, That it is the Will of GOD, that his People be under a warefare so long as they are here. To which R: B: answers, But is it the Will GOD, that they he alwayes overcome: After this he adds his own words in stead of his Adversaries, according to his Jugling Custome: But [Page 309] let us heat his Answer, He saith, They are [...] alwayes overcome▪ What? Is not daily while they are in this Life alwayes? If to break the Commands of GOD daily, in thought, word and deed, as long as they live, be not alwayes, he may tell us the difference next. 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 [Page 310] of a Child of GOD in this Life [...] nothing, For [...]withstanding of them all, he will still have the Sacrifire of Christ to [...]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 [...] 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 311] page 123. But what doth h [...] intend by Repentance▪ The word must either be taken for p [...]nitentiam ag [...]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, Its 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.

[...]o R. B▪ argument, That their doctrine maketh the Ministry useless, he giveth three Answers of [...] ▪ B's sufficiently replyed to by R. B: But let us hear them, First▪ Ʋpon 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 [...]olly to attempt the keeping of them. For no man since the fall, by a­ny Grace received in this Life, [...] 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 Ʋltimat end of the Ministry mentioned Ephes. [...] 13. is attained here. This Answer con­firms R. B's Argument, For according to their own Opinion. [...] est [...] [Page 312] quod nunqu [...]m obtinere potest [...] That is, In vain is that mea [...] which can [...] allain its end. His third Of a perfe [...] ­on of Parts and Degrees, is frivolo [...] For R. B. never denyed a growth i [...] Holiness.

For his putting of a cleansing from sin til the other Life. He saith nothing for it, bu [...] 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 dissing [...]uous, He (R. B.) saith, it will not follow from [...]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 pith [...] as he words it) and how hard shift he makes to escape at any door, how unworthy soever: [Page 313] But that the two Texts stand firm against him is evident for if to encrease & abound [...] 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 [...]eed to be washed from dark desilements. He answereth, let him read the 12, and 13, of Z [...]ariach and there he may find that there two are consistent. But Patr [...] ­clut I can find no such thing there, I find mexi [...] 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 ma [...] in these two Chapters.

He ands this paragraph with a gross lie, [Page 314] saying, For we know the Quakers and Jesu­ites have an [...] ha [...] against all Pi [...] [...]a [...]ts, [...]et in a special manner their hate burneth against the Presbyterians; knowing that these are fa [...] thest off from the [...] of Rome. This Patroclus is indeed Am [...]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 conver­ [...]eth with few Men who dare avow their Sentiments of Presbytry, or loves best to heat Sy [...]phants; For in this Countrey there is little difference thought to be [...] a [...] and a Jesui [...]ed Presbyterian Priest, except a few Princip [...], Creeds, and Confessions; Both being acted in their prac­tices by the [...] p [...]oud, [...], im­perious, and perfecting Spirit. As for the [...] so called among the Presbyterians, we love them, and also the persons of the Clergit, [...]ut we [...] that the people should be so hood wi [...]ked and led [...] by this Covetous and Ambitious Ge­neration, who see [...] themselves, and [...] ther the Glory of God, not the [...] of the people: We ha [...]e no mal [...], knowing that [Page 315] he who hates his Brother is a Murtherer, and no Murtherer hath Eternal Life abiding in him.

To the Examples of Enoch and Noah be­ing called perfect; He saith, R: B: confesseth they once bad sin: Therefore, how came they at another time to be free of it alto­gether; The answer is easie, 1 John 1. 9. If we confess our sins, He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As for the word Perfecti­on its having diverse significations, It may be so: But I am sure it can never be truely predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily, in Thought, Word, and Deed.

He comes next to vindicate their Ar­guments, for the Devils Kingdom, or Sinning Term of Life: The first whereof is. 1 John 2. 3. (misunderstood by them) If we say we have no sin, &c: An­swer first, I say with Augustine upon the Galatians: Aliud est non peccare, aliud non ha­bere percatum. Secondly, The following words of the Apostle are, If we confess our sins, He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness; And he that is cleansed from sin, is the same that was before said to have sin; [Page 316] Now it is said in the 7th. verse, The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin; Here cleanseth is in the present Tense: Now to be defiled with sin, and cleansed from all sin at the same time, seems a contradiction, and therefore must be ad­mitted to be two several times; Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next.

To his Answer, That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin, then that the Apostle James was a Curser, when he said of the tongue, herewith curse we men; Our Author Replyes, There is no Parity; And why? Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time? No, But saith he, James speaketh of gross outbreakings, and John simply of the nature of sin.

Very good, I see our Author can dis­tinguish betwixt morial and venial sins; Of which, sure lying must be one (in his Judgement) or else he had been unsaint­ed long since. But knowing this would not do, he tells us, the Apostle John even in his best Frame, had sinful actions, and citeth Revel: 19. 10, 11. and 22. 8, 9. The first place is, That he falls down at his feet to worship him. And the second is, [Page 317] That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel. Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel, but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel. But admit they both meant so, our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins, if a sin at all; For it was but a mistaking the Angel, who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power, and the Earth was enlight­ned with his Glory; I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ: And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake, but stopped him; And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant. And so these two Texts he boasts of, can do hm no ser­vice.

To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer, but It's false; And again, we know, &c: without any Reason, but his imperious assertion, which deserves to be neglected.

Next he indeavours to prove from Ec­clesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily, &c. Which place he little urgeth, only tells us, He hath considered the Hebrew, and [Page 318] hath found it the Indicative Mood; So saith our Author, Ergo, verum; But he must ex­cuse me, to think Jerom and Junius, Tremel­lius as good Linguists as he, and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood, and may not sin.

His next is Rom: 7. 17. From which Texts he saith J: B. hath proved, That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time: But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it, least his Arguments should have been sound like these, he cites page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it, if he but read the next Chapter through­out; The second verse whereof cleareth this matter, where the Apostle saith, The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, had made him free from the law of sin and death; And many times after witnesseth a better Condition; As that he had sought the good fight, &c: Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD, &c: And Phil: 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengthen­eth me. His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered. That of Peter proves no more then that a Man may sin, which is not denyed. He comes at last to his great Argument.

[Page 319]If we find no Instances in Scripture of such persons as were so perfect, as that they did not sin, then to imagine such a Perfection is but a groundless fancie and dream: But the former is true. Ergo, &c.

For answer let the Reader observe, first that our Author finding his Brothers Ar­gument fully refuted by R: B: hath not attempted the Vindieation of it; But he saith, the Argument was proponed three different wayes, the first, of which he chooseth to answer unto.

Answer, Either this Argument which he answereth unto, was to the purpose or not? If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it; Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments, but one proponed three different wayes, any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose; If it was not to the purpose (as was the great­est part of his book) then he might have spared it; But because R: B: took not our Authors argument to task (which perhaps was not there) he saith, he must confess he skipt over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein.

This is a Rhodomontado expression, more like Don: Quixot then a sober man writ­ing [Page 320] about Religion, tho very ordinary with our Author; But let us see what cause there is for all this froath.

First then, I deny his Minor, for I can find him many recorded in Scripture, of whom there is no failing recorded; to wit, Enoh, Melchizedeck, Elias, John the Bap­tist, and many of the Prophets, and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin; For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians, saith, That many were born holy, and free from all sin, and particular­ly Elias, and John Baptist.

Secondly, I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation, which he seems here to insinuate, for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture, But that the sins of the Saints are recorded, that we may shun them, not that we should follow them; neither is there want of precep's and examples in a­bundance for us without them.

But before I leave this matter I shall give one argument yet, If there be any who need no Repentance, then certainly there be some who do not break GOD's Commands dayly in thought, word and deed, but the first is true, Ergo, &c. The Minor is proved by Luke 15. 7.

Chapter VII. Of Waiting in si­lence; And of the Sacraments.

OUR Author Denominates his seventh Chapter of silent Worship, which is a word of his own Coyning, and none of ours, and then falls to a vindica­tion of his brother J: B's Calumnies; The first whereof is. John Brown asserts, that R: B: would have them understand, that Christs Spiritual Resurrection was never till now.

R: B: answereth, I speak only with refe­rence [Page 322] to the time sin [...]e the Apostacie, and not to the primitive times before.

Our Author sayes, first, any may judge by his eleventh proposition, &c. Or by this Chapter annexed thereto.

I am truely willing that any be judge that▪ is not byassed, as most part of the Clergie are; And therefore I inteat the Reader to see R. B's Apologie, page 247, where he will find this calumny more clearly obviated. His second answer is, he is unhappy in removing this calumny, for the Apostacie was working in the A­postles time. But he is more unhappy in over turning one of the two chir [...] grounds of the Protestant Religion assigned to the Je­suite by J: M: To wit, the Father in the first three Centuries.

But shews ignorance here as well as malice, for if there was no true Spiritual worshp in the Church after the Apos­tasie began to work; Then according to our Author, there was no Spiritual Worship in the Church till the Reformation; The con­trary of which R: B: asserteth; Yea even in the darkest times of Popery he citeth Bernard, Bonaventur, Taulerus, and Thomas a K [...]mpis, and also commends the first Reformers for denying the Popish abomi­nable [Page 323] superstition and Idolatrie of the Mass, the Adoration of Saints and Angels, the Venera­tion of the Reliques, the Visitation of Sepul­chres.

Yet nevertheless, Our Author in his third and fourth answer compares us to Muncer, John of Lyden, Arrius, Pelagius, and what not; And it's much he hath not called us Papists too: But let the Reader judge whether he hath mended J: B's matter, and not rather added lie to lie, and calumny to calumny.

The second Calumny he defends is, That we acknowledge no motion, nor inward brea­thing of the Spirit, but what is extraordinary, and meerly Enthusiastick; As also, That we abstract from all means. Which Calumny our Author saith, he hath above evinced to be a Truth▪ in his first and second Chapters: How truely the Reader must Judge.

But he giveth us a second Instance, R: B: denyeth that Studied Sermons are means appointed of GOD, (for what he adds are his own words, and not R: B's) but behold the Argument; Studied Sermons are deny­ed, Ergo, all means are denyed; Be a­shamed.

His third is, That the Quakers spiritual [Page 324] life is nothing but Nature, Thus he saith, he proved, Chapter 2d. That all their Grace and Light, is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of GOD in Man. To which I also refer the Reader. And withall, I must desire the Reader to take notice of our Authors little Tricks, in his Parallel betwixt us and the Anabaptists, he referrs to what follows of his Book; And in the end of his Book he referrs to what is past, thinking (it's like) his own im­plicite Hearers will take it on trust; But I expect thou will trace him better, which if thou do, thou will soon find what he is for all his vaine boast.

The fourth Calumny he denyeth, and saith his Adversary only enquireth it. If this be a sufficient Answer, let him consult his own Book, page 167. 168. and 169. Where he will needs have a Query to im­port a full affirmation of the thing queried, and so proves himself signally dissingeni­ous, and also leaves his brother in the myre.

The fifth Calumny, he saith, depends u­pon the Contraversy about Perfection, and so shifts it.

The sixth Calumny, he insists on is, That [Page 325] there is no setting about Prayer, or other Duties, without a previous motion of the Spirit.

The Nicery is in the word Previous, and therefore I shall referr him to the fifth Sec­tion of Quakerism confirmed, where that mat­ter is fully handled, and all his Quibles Answered; Which Book I perceive the Man hath read, and so might either been silent, or brought us some new thing, which he hath not yet done.

The seventh Calumny is, That Gospel Worship putteth away all external actions; And upon this Calumny, his brother [...]: B: had charged a Contradiction upon R: B: Yet our Author bestows no more answer upon both. But, He needeth not grudge at this for their practise helpeth us to expone their Words; If this be fair dealing, let the Reader Judge.

He tells us next, That J: B: compareth us to the Old Pithonicks, And as if his bro­ther had not been slanderous enough, he adds, I alwayes compared them in such fitts to the Cumaena Sybilli, as she is descriv­ed by Virgil 6. Aenead: And John Brown (passim) That we are acted by the Devll, possest by him at his pleasure To all which I shall again with R: B: modestly reply, That of all men the Presbyterians might [Page 326] have for born this, had they but remembred the Stuartown sickness.

But our Author giveth us a mighty dif­ference thus, These at Stuartown after these outlettings of the Spirit upon them, cleaved to the Scriptures as the only Rule, and were endeared to the Ministers of Jesus Christ, and his Word and Sacraments; We mean, saith he, Wa­ter-baptism and the Communion of the Lord▪ Body in Bread and Wine, &c: Which sayes he, were commanded by Christ to be us­ed until his coming to Judgement: Which are contemned and vilified by the Quak­ers. And for all this, we must trust our Authors word; But how comes it then that our present Presbyterians, who are found in all these things now have no such Outlettings of the Spirit? Yea, why are they found the chief Opposers and blasphemers of such Out­lettings of the Spirit? If they were good then, I think they should be expected and wait­ed for now? But this would savour of En­thusiasm, and therefore cannot be endured.

But I must tell our Author the true Rea­son, why these Outlettings of the Spirit ceas­ed among them; To wit, Because they foresook that Power which reached them at first, and betook themselves to Men, who in stead of the Gospel of peace, preach­ed [Page 327] up Warrs, Seditions, Tumults, Scrife, and Contention; And in stead of Prayers, Tears, preached up Swords and Spears, in stead of Suffering, fighting, and contending with the Civil Magistrate; Which was ne­ver the way of CHRIST not Christians. As for Water-Baptism, and Bread, and Wine, it is no good Argument that they cleaved to them, which are called Meats and Drinks, and Divers Baptisms, and Carnal Ordi­nances, while they wanted that Righteous­ness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost, wherein the Kingdom of GOD standeth.

But our Author returns to his old trade of citations, and gives us an English Mini­ster and Paget for his Authors, which books I never saw, and may be as great liars as himself▪ Who may the next time be cit­ed as a famous Author, but admitt all these were truths (as they are not) What then? If our Author will but in­vite me with the next I will give him un­denyable Instances of Presbyterian Priests that have farr out done all these Instances of his, in abominable wickedness, not men­tioned in the Presbyterian Eloquence, but this is a pitiful way of Reasoning.

He cannot omit Virgil and Latinus, to shew us that he reads the Heathen Poets, it [Page 328] seems, as carefully as the Bible; Other­wise he had never inserted such a foolish tale, as the Heathen Lying upon Sheeps Skins; And malitiously adds, which if the Quakers do, or not, I am uncertain. This one Sentence in the end renders all the rest uncertain and rediculous: But it is Observable in our Adversaries, that when a Scottish Priest hath a lie to vent he goeth to England for it, and in England they fetch it from Scotland, Holland, or some forraignplace at a distance, to cover deceit and malice.

And now at last, we are come to silent waiting upon the LORD, or turning inward our minds to hear what the LORD will speak in us; As David saith, I will hear what the LORD will speak in me, &c.

This our Author saith, is impossible to a man, except he be sleeping or in an exta­cie; But giveth no proof, but ipse dixit; As for Extasies I know them not, but sleeping men have their minds sometimes very busse, and even our Author himself, I doubt, is not quite free from dreams.

And because he cites Virgil here, I think he who so much delights in Heathen Poets might have been at the pains to read some Christian Po­ets As Boetus de Consol: Phil: 3: lib: metrum: 1 [...]: where he will find this matter clearly held [Page 329] forth; And even Beza commendeth silence, tho not that turning in of the mind, which that other speaks of. But whereas he sayes, the Soul must act upon some object; He sheweth how ignorant he is of true self-de­nyal, as one of his Transmarine Divines, saith, purae negationes sui, &c. These pure acts of self-denyal are, that a man cease from his own works, his own willing and run­ning, and from his thoughts and imgina­tions, which are only evil continually, and are as clouds and obstacles, which hin­der of that Divine inward peace giving light in the bottom of the Soul; These Clouds therefore being removed, the light imme­diatly shineth upon the denyal of self, neither (saith he) can there be a vacuum here, but these are Heresies as well as Mysteries to our Presbyterian Clergie, who Preach, Pray, and Praise in their own willings, and by their own strength, without waiting for Divine assistance, or the influence of the Spirit of Christ, without which they affirm a man may be a sufficient Minister.

But saith he, R. B. saith, the Old Man, the Man of sin that is corrupted, must dye, and be crucified; And again, saith he, albeit in one sense they are said to die: Yet they more truely live, Gal: 2. 20.

Upon this our Author quibles, saying, [Page 330] that in stead of relinquishing all thoughts, he now only defendeth the living of [...]arnal thoughts, but this he calls a cheat: For saith he, there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving, &c. And what then? Must Patroclus Preach? Yea, altho Christ hath said, Without me ye can do nothing; Yea, Calvine saith on the Fourth Command­mant, The Sabbath is a resting from our own works, that GOD may Work in us. As for a time betwixt, which seems to be the only thing he quibles upon, I have told before, and now again, that how soon the Clouds are dissipat by a true self-denyal; The Sun of Righteousness immediatly ap­peareth, and there is no vacuum. As to what he talketh of the Apostle, I hope when he was dead, and Christ lived in him, our Author will not be so gross as to say, that he acted without Christ as to Spiritual things, tho the faculties of his Soul were as vived and active as our Authors now are.

What he saith in page 214 on this sub­ject, only sheweth his ignorance in these things, or want of experience, or that he thinks GOD to be at a distance, and to require a time to come to man to work upon him after he hath denyed self.

[Page 331]His next Quible is concerning appointed times, for meeting together to wait upon the LORD. Alledging that we should have a previous motion to every Meeting, other­wise (saith he They limit the Spirit. But might not our Author have allowed us the use of this Interpreter of Scripture in such Externall cases as appointing Meetings. to wit, His Christian Prudence and Wis­dom; For I hope our Author will not say, that Meeting together is an Act of Wor­ship, and therefore I refer him to Quaker­ism confirmed, for a full Answer to his Qui­bles, which if he had been just, he had taken notice of here.

In his Vindication of Calvine about Sabbath Day, he doth him very little kindness, telling the World he contradicteth him­self twenty seven years after he had wrote his Institutions: I wish he had done so with his doctrine of Reprobation also. But we have many famous Protestants for us in that matter, as well as Calvine, As Dr. Barnes, William Tindal, and almost all Christians.

He chargeth R. B. with a contradiction for saying, That Peter and Paul had a Natural Man, in which the devil might work, and a Spiritual Man which might resist. [Page 332] This he saith contradicts his dectrine of Perfection, or at lest his Exposition of Rom: 7.

For the strst, R. B. alwayes asserted a Natural and Spiritual Man, as may be seen in all his Writtings.

And for the Second, It is one thing to say, the Devil may work, and the Spirit resist, and another to say, the Devil doth work and overcome; The first may be said of Paul in his best state; The second is our Adversarys doctrine which we de­ny: And thus his alledged Contradiction is a meet false Insinuation.

In the next place, he accuseth R. B. of Railing; He should have said R. Maequair, and used his own phrase. Quis tulerit Graccbos, &c. But he calls them Priests, (saith he understand of Baal) Thus he hath helped R. B. For conscius ipse sibi de se putat omnia dici.

To defend his Brother, saying, That Watching is not a turning inward, but a looking outward. To which R. B. replyeth: Then a man shut up in a dungeon could not watch spiritually: He answers, That by looking outwardly, they understand minding GOD, and our distance from him, and the like: This is Nonsense, as [Page 333] if by looking outward a man could see GOD.

His bauble about Thaulerus is nothing but a malicious Insinuation of our being Papists, which none that knoweth us will believe: Thomas a Kempis was a Papist, yet his Book of the Imitation of Christ is more spiritual, than any Presbyterian Book I ever yet saw, And if he will call me a Papist for saying so, I cannot help it, but I am sure it is false; And if Popery should prevail in the Nation (which GOD for­bid) it would soon appear whether they or we were the truest Protestants.

To conclude this matter, It is evident, That our Author is against all Spirituall Worship, Mental prayer, Quietness of mind, &c. As opposite to that sordid Trade of Preaching for hire, and divin­ing for money: And if Michael Molmos (of whom all Protestants, that I have seen mention him, writ favourably) had ap­peared Glasgow Scotalnd, when he ap­peared at Rome, and Naples in Italy, It is manifest our Presbyterian Clergie would have accused him as fiercely here, as the Jesuites did there, Which among other things may shew that they are not mis­taken who call them Cousin-Germans.