The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism, Chapter 1

The Weapons of Quakerism the Weakness of Quakerism · Chapter 1

p. 1CHAP. I. Of the Holy Scriptures.

A GOOD Name is better than precious ointment, saith the Preacher, Eccl. 7.1. Whosoever therefore intend to bring either Persons, or Things under Disesteem and Contempt, labour in the first place to Spoil them of any Good Name, or due Titles belonging unto them, to the end, They may the more easily Effectuate their Purpose; This Method the Quakers have thought very fit and apposit, whereby to discredit, and finally to overthrow the Holy Scriptures. For in the first place, they endeavour to rob them of the chiefest Titles, and most famous Elogies, with which the Holy Ghost hath adorned them: among which, that of being called the Word of God, is not the least. An Instance of this may be Iames Nailor, who in his Answer to the Iews, pag▪ … Saith, It's the Devil that contends for the …ptures to be the Word of God. Others of Them say▪ They are not the Word of God, but the Words of Men that spake them freely: Yea generally, All the Quakers unanimously deny, that the Scriptures are, or ought to be called the Word of God: But in so p. 2doing, they flately contradict God speaking in the Scriptures; For there they are most frequently called the Word of God, As Num. 3.16. Deut. 5.5. 1. King. 12.24. Ier. 1.2. and 6.10. and 20. 8. Hos. 1.2. Amos. 8.12, Zeph. 2.5. Luke. 22.61. 1. Sam. 9.27. Mark. 7.13. compared with 10. These Scriptures, and many others that might be Cited, unanswerably prove that the Scriptures are, and ought to be called the Word of God. Several of these Passages with many others calling the Scriptures, or a part thereof the Word of God or of the Lord in the singular number, are adduced by Mr Brown Chap. 4. N. 2. To all which Robert Barclay's reply Vind: pag. 31, is a flat contradiction of these Scriptures, saying, That the thing which the Prophets spake, was only the words which came from the Word of God. Judge therefore, Reader, if such replies as these can either help the Author, or hurt his adversaries.

Notwithstanding these Men have something to say for themselves, and so had they who denyed the fire to be hot, or the snow white.

Their first Reason, why the Scriptures are not the Word of God, is, Because Christ is called the Word of God: but this reason sayeth nothing, but upon supposition that one word, or phrase cannot undergo divers acceptations, which is most false, yet Robert Barclay in the Vindication of his Apology Pag. 31. to strengthen this Reason, sayeth, that one epithete (or attribute) cannot be predicated, (or affirmed) of two things foreign (or by way of eminence) without a grosse contradiction: p. 3But in this he only bewrayes his own ignorance of the Laws of a Contradiction, and his desire of contradicting the Scriptures with a shew of Reason: For whether by the Word of God ▪ Christ or the Scriptures are to be understood this Elogie is still ascribed to either of them, with a peculiar eminency; But by the diversity of the acceptation the Contradiction is removed, which diversity may be easily Perceived by any that read or hear the Scriptures, or other Discourses, in which mention is made of the Word of God: As for Example, who could read these two Texts of Scripture, Mark. 7.13. and Rev. 19.13. but they would presently see, that in the latter of the Texts, by the Word of God, Christ is to be understood, and in the former, the Scriptures? except he were altogether stupid, and so there is not the least appearance of a Contradiction. Therefore in short, where by the Word, Christ is understood, foreign Word is taken improperly, viz. For a Person, the essential and substantial Word of God, in so much as Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of God, or upon other such accounts, such improper Attributes being frequently ascribed to Christ, as a Door, a Vine, and the like. But on the other hand, where by the Word of God, we are to understand the Scriptures, there foreign Word is taken in a more proper acceptation, for a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables.

The same Author hath yet another Reason, and it is a rare one, viz. That there are moe words in the Scriptures than one, Therefore they cannot be p. 4called the Word of God. Behold, Reader, with what ridiculous Shifts, these men endeavour to uphold their impiety, and oppose themselves to God! Who but he that desired the Fools Coat, would thus reason? It is a lie to name an Epistle sent from one Person to another, a Letter, because in it there are moe Letters than one. Not only the Jews who were Christs Enemies, but even the Apostles themselves, had done right in the judgment of this Quaker, if when Christ▪ Mark 7.13, called the Scriptures the Word of God, they had flatly contradicted him, and said, this is a lye, seing there are moe Words in the Scriptures than one. Here is ridiculous folly and impious Blasphemy mixed together. And yet worse, (if worse can be) unavoidably followeth this their Doctrine, even that the Son of God was not from Eternity, For according to them, when it is said, Hos. 1.2. The Beginning of the Word of the Lord, the meaning must be, the beginning of Christ.

With the like sacrilegious audacity they endeavour to bereave the Scriptures of that sweet and heart-melting Title of the Gospel, saying, Matthew, Mark Luke and Iohn, are not the Gospel, but the Letter. The Defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures, William Pen undertaketh in his Rejoinder to Iohn Faldo, Pag. 117. His Reasons, whereby he would prove it, are, 1. Because the Gospel is called the Power of God to Salvation, so are not the Scriptures. To which I answer, That the Scriptures may as well be called the Power of God to Salvation, as the Gospel, p. 5seeing it was the same Doctrine which the Apostles both preached to the People, and committed to Writing: And the Righteousness of God is revealed from Faith to Faith by this Doctrine, when it is committed to writing, as well as when it was Preached by the Apostles. 2. By the Power of God to Salvation, no other thing can be understood but the Mean, Organ, or Instrument, whereby God exerteth, or putteth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners: Which kind of Metonymie is frequent in Scripture.

The next Reason to prove that these Books ought not to be called the Gospel, which the Mans copious invention brancheth into two, is, That the Gospel is everlasting, and was Preached before the Scriptures were, therefore they are not the Gospel. Ans. 1. The Principles of Truth are everlasting, and were before any Quakers Books were extant, Therefore a Pamphlet, which the Quakers have entituled, The Principles of Truth carrieth as a token of what is within, a lie in the Frontispiece thereof, which I believe William Pen will hardly admit. Ans. 2. The Doctrine contained in those Books is the same with, and therefore no lesse everlasting than the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel, Rev. 14.6. cited by Pen.

His two last Reasons whereby he would prove those Books not to be the Gospel, are that the Gospel is but one; and that it is glad Tidings, but the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Iohn are four, and but Narratives, and not glad Tidings, are of the like nature with the former: For he knoweth well enough that Matthew, Mark, Luke p. 6and Iohn deliver not a contrair Doctrine one to another, but only divers Narratives of the same Doctrine; All which Books contain the glad Tidings of the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World: And this I assert in opposition to this Quaker, who here discovereth himself in his own Colours, in that he denyeth that the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and Iohn contain glad Tidings; what could the Devil himself utter more black and Hellish than this? Behold, Reader, with what ridiculous Sophistry these men can cheat their own Souls, which is so blunt, that a school-boy would be ashamed to bring it forth, and what black, and Hellish Impieties they not only swallow down themselves, but with open face avouch before the world. Lastly, if these Books, as for example, Mark ought not to be called the Gospel, and by the Gospel ought alwayes to be understood the power of God, or the essential Attribute of Gods Power (for thus they with abominable Suenchfeldius understand Rom. 1.16.) then the meaning of Mark▪ 1.1. must be the Beginning of the Power of God, of Iesus Christ the Son of God; which place, if it have any Sense thus understood, must have a black one, viz. That the Power of God. i. e. God Himself was not before Mark wrote his Book, or else, that the first Verse is a lie; let them chuse which of them they will admit.

2. But with no less Earnestness, and Industrie do these men labour to clothe the Scriptures with base Epithets, and contemptible Aspersions, than p. 7to bereave them of the honourable Titles, and Divine Encomies, of which God their Author hath thought them worthy; not unlike the Heathens, who the better to induce Lions and other Wild-beasts to devour the Christians, sewed them in Skins of other Beasts, hated by these to whose Fury they exposed them; This Charge I make out by these following Expressions of the Quakers; for they ordinarly call the Scriptures the Letter, and by way of Disparagement, Writings, as the Queries given to Mr. Iohn Alexander witnesse, such a Letter, about the meaning of which not two are agreed; Robert Barclay's Apolog. cap. 2. Ink and Paper, Cited by Mr. Hicks in his Dialogues, Pag, 41: And that, It is Idolatry to call the Scripture, a Means; George White-head, in his D. P. pag. 13. and account them no better than an old Almanack, witness Hollbrow, cited by Hicks, pag, 20. And that it is dangerous for People to read them, Fox, and Huberthorn, in Truths Defence, pag. 101. And that Faith grounded on the Scriptures, is but an empty and implicite Faith, and bespeaks such Persons void of the knowledge of God, Christ, and to be yet in their sins, And that such Men walk in their own Fancies and Imaginations, Christ ascended, pag. 11. and that that which is spoken from the Spirit of Truth, in any (to wit) of the Quakers: Is of as great Authority as the Scriptures, yea greater, George White-head, in his Apolog. pag. 49, And he that perswades the People, to let the Scriptures be a Rule of Faith, and Practice would keep the People p. 8in darkness, for whoever walketh by the Rule without them & teach men so to do, would make void the Covenant of Life and Peace; Edward Burrows, pag. 62. And that is no Command to me, which is a Command to another. Neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another. Edward Burrows, pag. 47. And again he says, such as go to Duty in imitation of the Letter, which was a Command to others, their Sacrifice is an abomination to the Lord. And Pag. 105. That they that take up a Command from the Scriptures, are in the Witchcraft. And that if the Bible were burnt, as good an one might be writ, Sayes one Nicolas Lucas, cited by Mr. Hicks, Dialog. 2. Pag. 5. and evinced by him against Pen, Dialog. 3. pag, 86. Moreover, William Pen in his Rejoinder, to Iohn Faldo, pag, 70. Saith, but we have good Reason to deny them to be the Rule of Faith, and Iudge of Controversies, which can neither give nor govern Faith, nor judge of Controversies, and again pag. 73. In short, The Scriptures are not the Rule, but a Declaration of Faith and Knowledge. And Chap. 3. pag. 35. He endeavoureth what he can to render the Scriptures altogether uncertain, Saying, I cannot but observe after what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been both first Collected, and then conveyed through the several succeeding Ages. And again, Are we sure that the Iudgment of those who Collected them, was sufficient to determin what was Right, and what not? For that which gives Scripture its Canon, is not plurality of Voices, but that Word of God, which gave it forth; p. 9If that Divine Counsellour preceeded not, what assurance have our Anti-revelation-adversaries of their Doctors Choice, and granting, that they have not rejected any Writing given forth by the Holy Ghost (which is a great Question) and that which they have given us, was in the main Writ by his Inspiration (which I believe) Yet how we shall be assured that in above 300 years, so many hundred Copies as were doubtless taken, should be Pure, and Vncorrupted, Considering the private Dissensions, the readiness of each Party to bend things to their own Belief, with the growing and succeeding Faults of leaving out, adding, transposing, &c. which Transscribers might be guilty of, perhaps more through Carelessness than Design, is beyond Iohn Faldo's Skil upon his principles to inform us. From hence we may observe the uncertainty of John Faldo's Word of God, who by Authorities can never prove the Scriptures to be given forth by Inspiration, nor that they are truly collected, neither could these Persons, who first made them Canonical, be assured of the exactness of those copies, they then found Extant; Nor was the Collectors Iudgment infallible, And to come nearer to our Times, Learned Men tell us of little less than 3000 several Readings in the Scriptures of the New Testament in Greek. Thus ye see he laboureth with all his Pith, to overthrow the extrinsical Arguments, whereby the Divinity of the Scriptures is proved: And on the other wing of this Ethnick Army, Robert Barclay Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments, and Divine Characters, imprinted on the Scriptures; saying in p. 10his Apolog. Chap. 2. That they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures, doth depend on any Efficacy, or Virtue placed in these Writings. and in his Vindication (I had almost said Abridgment of his Apology) he denyeth, That there is any stamp of Divine Authority upon the Scriptures; and impiously ascribeth the same to some other Spirit, separate from, and besides the Scriptures, which cannot be the Spirit of God, Seeing he himself asserteth elsewhere, That this Spirit is in all men, and the Scripture saith, That some men have not the Spirit of God. But shall not the Scriptures, which were dictate by the living God carry something of the Stile of the Author? Shall the writings of Livy, Virgil, or Cicero, carry such Evidences that they were theirs? So that a Humanist may distinguish the True from the Counterfit, although he had never heard these men immediatly relate, Sing, or Declaim; Surely this will be denyed of none but a Quaker: Shall then God himself be outstripped and overcome by these Writers? The Scriptures then according to the Quakers have no Majesty of Stile, no harmony of Parts, no Scope of the whole &c. Nor any such Notes, whereby they may declare themselves to be the Dictates of the Living God. Hence we may see, That these men are fitter Companions for Porphyrie and Celsus, the two Heathnish Champions, than for a Christian, seeing they bend all their Wit and Skil to revive again Heathnisme under the name of Quakerisme. I shall only add for confirmation of my Assertion the Words of Benjamin Furly a Quaker p. 11in Rotterdam, cited by Mr. Hicks, in his Quakers appeal answered, pag. 16. There is nothing (Sayes he) in the Scripture that is a Duty upon me, or which I am obliged to Obey, because there recorded; Whatsoever is a Command to me, I must not receive from any man, or thing without me, nay, not the Scripture it self; yea it is the greatest Error, in the world that ever was invented, and the ground of all Error, to Affirm that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians.

3. By this time I have abundantly justified my Charge, having set down already so much of this blasphemous Doctrine, as I am confident, hath filled my Reader with Horrour and Indignation, if he retain but the least spark of Christianity, or love to the Holy Scriptures. And O that while we consider these Abominations, we could mourn and tremble in Contemplation of our heavy Transgressions, that have provocked the Holy God in his just Judgment, to let loose and permit these satanical Spirits to rage abroad, and pollute the very Air with their poysonous Breath, and pestiferous Blasphemy! This last passage I should not have set down, were it not that Robert Barclay, in his Vindication of his Apology, of the many scores of passages, quoted out of the Quakers own Books by Mr. Brown, to prove the blasphemousness, and absurdity of their Doctrine, in the Defence of this only, adventureth to say somewhat, I shal therefore set down what he sayeth, and refute the same: His words are. Vind. Pag. 37. But what he urgeth of this further. Pag 57. and 59. p. 12from the saying of some Quakers, affirming that it's not a Command to them which is given to another, albeit I might justly reject it, as impertinent till he prove it, for the Reasons above Declared upon this occasion; yet because he mentions Benjamin Furley in Rotterdam, having some Knowledge of that Matter, I answer, whether will he say, All the Commands in Scripture to every Person therein mentioned, are binding upon every individual now. If he dare not, say they are, as I know he dare not, how must I then distinguish betwixt what binds me, and what binds me not? must it not be by the Spirit, (suppose it were only subjectively, as he will confess) enlightening the understanding to make the Distinction: Then it seems it is the operation of the Spirit that makes them know their Duty, and sure they cannot obey before they know. But if he say, that tho they should want that operation of the Spirit, and did not know nor acknowledge them to be their Duty, yet that they are binding upon them, neither Benjamin Furley, nor any Quaker will deny. But even the Commands of Gods Spirit, and the Precepts of the Scripture, which now concern all, are binding upon all, so that they shal be justly condemned for not obeying, albeit by the perversness of their hearts and Wills, they either refuse to obey, or will not acknowledge them; so that his urging of that Pag. 60, and 61. And his pleading for it, is unnecessary, and needs no Answer; yet who could say, they could obey to any advantage of their souls, without this operation of the Spirit, since whatsoever is not of p. 13Faith is sin? But as to these words said to be written by Benjamin Furley, he is challenged to prove they are his without adding, or diminishing (and it is very well known, the adding or diminishing of two or three words in a few lines will quite alter the Sense) and before he has answered this Challenge, and freed himself from the just Censure of a Callumniator, albeit he take the help of his Author Hicks, he will find his folly in accusing men at second hand proofs, and upon the Testimony of their Adversaries. Thus he. All the Reasons he gave above, why he ought not to vindicate the blasphemous Passages cited out of several Quakers were, because these Passages were cited by these that are adversaries to Quakers, such as Hicks, Stalham, and the like, who still cite Book and Page of the Quakers, where they are to be found, so truly, that this Vindicator hath not one instance to give where they have dealt unfaithfully; Hence this Reason according to him proveth his Vindication unworthy of an answer, seing the citation of Passages is enough to Vindicate these Authors from an unjust charge. Therefore let it be observed, that the whole multitude of Passages which are fraughted with Blasphemies and Absurdities, even to the begetting of an utter detestation at the Principles of this party, in the hearts of all the Lovers of the Holy Scriptures, which are cited by Mr. Brown, remain without any Vindication, or Mollification, except that which rendereth the Author of this Vindication ridiculous, and the Principles of his party more abominable. But p. 14let us come to the Matter of Furley, of which he sayes, he has some Knowledge, we may therefore expect a sufficient Resolution about it (as for other passages of this Nature, he insinuateth a profound ignorance concerning them) wherefore he meriteth a sharp Censure from his Brethren, for undertaking that of which he was altogether ignorant, and they the note of folly, for the permission of the publication of the same, for in Reason we ought to suppose that they revised it. In the first place, The Dilemma wherewith he endeavoureth the Protection of his Brother, is altogether impertinent, and helpeth him not a whit, for seing he insinuateth, that there are no subjective Revelations, and elsewhere clearly denyeth, that there are any, this Dilemma if it can do any thing, it will only be Argumentum ad hominem: And so according to the Quakers, men shal not be bound to obey any of the Commands of God: As for Example, to abstain from Murder except the Lord by an immediat objective Revelation, such as he gave to Moses or the rest of the Prophets, enjoined this unto them. Behold, Reader, the dangerous Conclusion! The abominablenesse of which maketh this Vindicator use many Shifts, and Tergiversations to varnish the same, notwithstanding of which it inevitably recurreth, and sticketh fast unto him. 2. Neither doth this Dilemma involve his Adversary, or any of the Reformed in any thing like the absurd Doctrine of the Quakers, for although the subjective illumination of the Spirit be very necessary for the true Understanding of the Scriptures, p. 15yea and of absolute necessity for such a knowledge of them, whereby we know God revealed in them, so that we have true Love and Fear, and Faith in him as the Effects, and Concomitants of this knowledge; yet he that shall deny, that any Reader of the Scriptures, tho endued with sound Reason, only can distinguish between Commands given to a particular People, for a certain time, such as to offer Sacrifice, or to abstain from Swines-flesh, and these who bind at all times, as for example, Not to prophane the Name of God, or to honour Parents, must have abandoned the exercise of Reason. 3. While he alledgeth, That neither Benjamin Furley, or any other Quaker will deny, that Scripture Precepts, which concern all are binding upon all, he openly contradicteth Furley, who denyeth, that he ought to receive any Command, from any man, or thing without him, yea or from the Scriptures themselves; And further denyeth without any limitation, that the Scriptures ought to be called a Rule. And all this, tho most blasphemously and absurdly, yet most consonantly to the Quakers Principles: Our Vindicator, in stead of doing Service to his Party, notably prevaricateth their Cause, not sticking to give away their great Principles, while other shifts for defence thereof fail him. 4. What he addeth, without the operation of the Spirit men cannot obey to the good of their own Souls, is altogether impertinent, as if one should in answer to a Man enquiring, what Duties he ought to perform to such a Superiour, tell him, what for the p. 16time he was in case to perform, so as to reap any Advantage thereby, which would be, as the Proverb goes, falcem pro ligone dare. 5. He quietly slideth over, without so much as naming these words of Furley▪ (viz.) yea it is the greatest error of the World, that ever was invented, and the Ground of all error, to affirm, that the Scriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians: which Doctrine, as it rendereth any Lover of God, and his Word secure from being tainted with Quakerisme, so that the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the Poison; in like manner, it hath rendered our Vindicator speechless, denuding him of his Shifts of Primary and Secondary Rule, under the Protection of which distinction the Quakers would fain shroud themselves: For in these words of Furley there is no mention of a Primary, or Secondary Rule, which without doubt Furley had made, if he had believed the Scripture to be a secondary Rule, seing certainly he was not ignorant that the Quakers were branded, with the name of being Enemies to Scripture. 6. In the last place our Vindicator declareth, that all he hath hitherto said, in D…fence of Furley, was, but the patrociny of a very bad and indefendible Cause, in that he would fasten upon his Adversary, the Falsification of Furleys Words: For if they were falsified, why attempted he to defend them as they were, while the sense was quite altered and perverted, as he insinuateth; Moreover, if those words of Furley were falsified, he was bound to have vindicated, and delivered them, as they were written by Furley, p. 17which doubtlesse he was in case to do, if there had been any such thing, seing he professeth that he hath Knowledge of the Matter, which he doth not professe concerning any Quaker, mentioned in his Adversaries Book: Hence it is evident that his Adversary is not at all guilty of the ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator, but whether or not they light upon the Author, I leave it unto men of Judgment to consider.

4. From what is said, it is most evident, that the Scriptures according to the Judgment of Quakers are in no sense, to be counted a Rule, and lay no obligation upon any to believe, and walk according to them. Hence William Pen sayeth, that the Spirit of God, who is God, is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian; (viz.) of Faith and Life; for of that he is handling Rejoin. Pag. 76. And this the most of their Arguments, if they prove any thing, intend. As for Example, that common Topick of the Quakers (viz.) That which was the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith, before the Scriptures were written, is the Rule of ours now: But I subsume that the Scriptures of the old, and New Testament were in no respect the Rule of the Patriarchs Faith. Ergo according to the Quakers, the Scriptures in no respect can be called the Rule of Faith and Manners: but finding that the grossnesse of this Doctrine bewrayeth it self, and too palpably unmasketh its abettors, they have invented several distinctions, under the Covert of which they might shroud themselves, and elude all the Arguments whereby the Scriptures are p. 18proved to be the Rule of Faith and Manners: As that the Scriptures are the Verbal and Histicorical Rule of Faith, which is the Devils Faith, but not of saving Faith. Thus speaketh William Pen Rejoin. Pag. 71. But that wherein they place their Sacred Anchor, or main strength is that of Adequate and Primary, inadequate or secondary Rule, asserting that the Scriptures are not the adequate or compleat, and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners, but only an inadequate, in-compleat and secondary Rule, That is, that the Scriptures contain not all that we are bound to believe, or do, and that we ought to believe or practise nothing, tho never so clearly holden forth, or commanded in the Scriptures, as for example, that God sent his Son into the World, or that we ought to love God or our Neighbour, except by a miraculous Revelation from Heaven, (as Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock speaketh) we be told the same thing over again: By which Revelation we ought, say they, to examine the Scriptures: And because we deny this Doctrine, and abhorre it as the Floodgate of all errors, They cry out, that we are carnal, Enemies to the Spirit, void of Light; upon this ground also, the Ministers that make the Scriptures the Rule of their Doctrine they call by the Names of Baals Priests, Thieves, Devils, Enemies of God, with a thousand of the like denominations, wherefore that the State of the Controversy may appear, and our Adversaries be deprived of their lurking places, I premit this assertion, in order to the production of true and p. 19saving Faith two Principles are required, First, The Declaration of the Object, or thing to be believed or practised, which is commonly called in the Schools Objective Revelation. This may be either immediate, as it was of old to the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles: To whom God himself immediatly did speak, and dictate his will without the Intervention of any thing; as a medium, or mids, Declaring that Revelation to the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles, or it may be mediat, as it was in respect of those, to whom the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles delivered it, and as it is in respect of us, for whose sake the Prophets and Apostles wrote it. Rom. 15.4. The other thing necessary for the Production of Saving Faith, is the operation or influence of the Spirit of God, whereby the vail of natural blindnesse is removed, and the eyes of the soul, or the understanding are opened to know, and believe the wonderful things contained in Gods written Law, and to see these divine Characters that are imprinted upon the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves: so that the Person thus savingly illuminated, attendeth to, and heartily closeth with what is delivered in the Scriptures: And this is ordinarly called Subjective Revelation, or more properly, Illumination, or an application of the Revelation made already, hactenus factae, as Dr. Baron. speaketh. This Doctrine is clear and most intelligible to all that will not close their eyes: The Truth of which is proven by the following Scriptures. Psal. 119. p. 2018. Luk. 24: 46. 2 Cor. 3.15, 16. Rev. 3.18. Act. 16.14, 15. Ezek. 36.26, 27. This Distinction is very requisite for clearing of our purpose, and liberateth our Doctrine from the Circle, which is falsly objected unto us by both Papists, and Quakers.

A DIGRESSION, In which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, anent the necessity of the Spirits Operation, in order to firm, and saving Knowledge, and belief of the Holy Scriptures is Explained, and Vindicated from the Exceptions of Papists and Quakers.

FIrst, all the Reformed Churches do with … Consent assert, that in order to a firm and saving knowledge, and Divine Faith or believing of the Scriptures the illumi…nation, and operation of the Spirit of God, illumi…nating, and preparing the Soul is absolutly necess…ry, this all the Confessions witnesse, and our D…vines, such as Calvin in his Institution, Polan… in his Syntagma, demonstratively evince. Th… Doctrine is impugned on the one hand by the P… pists, who object first, that we commit a Ci…cle. p. 212. That we are guilty of Enthusiastick dottages, of which we justly accuse the Anabaptists, and Quakers, and the like Enthusiasts; with these the Socinians, and other Enemies of the grace of God, joyn forces accusing us of the same Crimes. On the other hand, the Quakers perceiving themselves unextricably in the briers, and unwilling to be alone, affirm confidently that we cannot separat our selves from them; as to this matter.

3. In order to the silencing of both these parties, who like Samsons Foxes, when they appear most opposite one to another, even then conspire most firmly the ruine of the Church of God: I premit; that in order to the production of true Faith, in God's ordinary way, and method, two things are necessary as the principles thereof, the Word and the Spirit. The Word they call principium objectivum, an objective principle, or an objective revelation, because the Scriptures concur objectively declaring truths to be believed, even, as the Sun objectively demonstrateth, and sheweth things that may be seen, though no eyes were open to see them: so the Scriptures hold forth clearly all that we ought to believe and do, even though the understanding of none were opened to behold the wonders contained in Gods written Law. And again as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths, so they evidently declare, and manifest the Characters of their Divinity; Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun, by his own irradiant, and illustrious Beams of Light. And as the Sun must be supposed to be an objective light declaring himself, p. 22and other things: The same we say of the Scriptures, that in themselves they contain, and hold forth these heavenly Rays, and glorious Beams, and Characters of Divinity, prior to the Spirits opening of the understanding, and enclining the will for pe…ception, and embracing thereof. Now no…withstanding of al… this, poor mankind blind by na…ure, should be in perpetual darknesse, if his eyes were not opened. Hence another Principle is necessary viz. The Spirits gracious operations enlightening, and …weetly enclining, fi…ting, and disposing the Soul; which is the subject, or recipient of this light, to understand, and believe the things contained in these heavenly Oracles. And all these the Spirit doth; not by dictating or telling into the ear, or mind that such and such excellent things are contained in these Writings; as a man making an oration, to commend such or such a thing, but (as we said already) by removing the natural mist, and darkness, modo efficientis, aut D…vini instrumenti; by way of Efficient or d…vine …nstrument in the Hand of God: For the Divin… B…auty, and Celestial Glory of the Scriptures is so transcendent, that the removal of the natural blindnes…, and pravity of the will, is enough for ravishing of the hearts into ardent Love, obsequious Obedience, and (in a word) a most en…ire, and total captivity unto them. This working of the Spirit upon the soul, is commonly called Subjective Revelation, because it terminateth up…n the soul, which is the subject, or recipient of the light contained in the p. 23Word, and may be more properly called an application of Divine Revelation, than Revelation it self. This subjective working of the Spirit, both the Scriptures themselves, and all sound Divines illustrat, according to them, by the opening of the eyes, Ps. 119.18. Eye-salve, Rev, 3.18. Which Examples both illustrate, and prove the purpose, yea it is observable, that in all the Scriptures the Holy Ghost mentioneth no other kind of Revelation as necessary to Salvation; but only objective, which indeed was sometimes immediat, but not necessarily so, but other some times mediat, and this subjective Revelation, or illumination of the Spirit: In a word for any thing we can find is all one, whether the objective Revelation be mediat, or immediat, providing it be Divine, see among other Scriptures Ps. 119.18. Luk. 24, 46, Act. 16, 14, 31, 32, 33, 34. 2. Cor. 3, 15, 16. Rev. 3.18.

4. Having premised, and illustrated this distinction, I come in the next place directly to remove the Objections. And first that of the Circle, in which the Papists endeavour to entangle us. For they object; that we being demanded, how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of God? we answer, by the Testimony and Opertaion of the Spirit: And again being demanded, how we know the Spirit of Truth, and discern it from the Spirit of Error? We answer by the Scriptures. Hence they conclude that we run the round, and answer the same by the same, and so make a compleat Circle. To which I answer that there is here no Circle, for p. 24a Circle is progressus ab eodem ad idem eodem modo cognitum. A Progress from the same, to the s…me thing, by the same kind of Argumentation. But so it is not here. For there is not the same way of Argumentation. For the Word concurreth objectiv…ly, declaring, and holding forth what are the true foreign or Characters of the Spirit of God argumenta…ively: so that we can reason, because such a Spirit, v. g. He that confesseth Jesus Christ hath come in the Fl…sh, is said by the Scripture to be of God; therefore I know, and believe that this is true Doctrine, and that this Spirit is of God. But on the other hand we make no such use of the Spirits inward Testimony, or Operations. We do not with the phanatical Enthusiasts reason thus, the Spirit, or a strong impulse, which they call the Spirit, bids me believe that such and such Books, are the Scriptures, therefore I believe them to be so. We say, no such thing. We only say, that the Spirits operations, are necessary for disposing the Soul, to perceive, and understand the things contained in the Scriptures themselves, and apply the same, so that either for his own satisfaction, or redarguing of others, he still rationally deduceth all his Arguments from the Scriptures, making them, or (which is all one) God speaking in them, the formal Object, and ultimat ground wherein to resolve his Faith. Two Examples I will give to illustrat my answer, and then I have done. The first is that known Example of the Eye-salve, and the Sun: For one by the Eye-salve, or some efficacious Medicament of p. 25this nature removing the Tunicle, may come to the sight and knowledge of the Sun: So that he may say, by means of the Salve, or its opening of the Eyes he seeth, and knowe…h the Sun, and again by the Suns light he may perceive what is Eye-salve, and what not. This egregiously illustrateth the purpose, and yet is many stages from a Circle. The second Example is of a Log…cian, his Reason, and his Systeme of Logick, which containeth Rules, to discern sound reason from fallacy and sophistry. For the Logician knoweth by his own reason, that such a Book is sound, containing true Reason, and not fallacies. This he can demonstrat by his own Reason, as the mean, and yet doth not thus argument, my own reason teacheth me so, therefore it is so, but from reason in actu exercito, and the nature of the things contained in the Book, which by means of his own reason he seeth to be clear Truths. And again by the Book he knoweth what is sound reason, and what not. By this time, I hope we are fully freed of the Circle; in which the Romanists would fain have us entangled; being covetous of company: for I could requit them with two unextricable Circles, if time did permit.

5. I come to the Removal of the second Objection, viz that we cannot distinguish our selves in this point from Quakers, and the like Enthusiasts. This Objection not only the Papists, but also the Quakers urge what they can, to the end, that they may make the Reformed Churches symbolize p. 26with themselves. To this purpose Robert Barclay in his Apology attempted to make Calvin, the French, and Dutch Confessions, and the Westminster Divines Patronisers of their Doctrine; because they said, that we cannot firmly know, and savingly believe the Divinity of the Scriptures, without the inward Testimony, or Operation of the Spirit of God. But he calleth the Divines of Westminster dark, dishonest, and confused, because they did not separat the Word from the Spirit: but said, that this Testimony, or Operation of the Spirit was in and with the Word, but neglecteth the consideration of, Isai. 59.21, the Scripture upon which they build this their saying. And again Vind. pag. 33. Where he abridging his Apology bringeth up again these things, ut respondeant ultimae primis, he neglecteth the special, and chief Reasons, whereby his adversary pag. 61. shewed that there was no discord between Calvin, French, and Dutch Confessions, and our Divines. Add hereto that it is well known that there was never the least controversy between the Brittish, and Transmarine Protestants on this head, but contrariwise a most entire harmony. Having therefore discovered this none-such weakness, and extream disingenuity, I come directly to the objection, and answer both Papists, and Quakers together, we distinguish our selves from these Enthusiasts; for, first the Work of the Spirit, the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective, being rather, if we will speak properly, an application of the things revealed in Scripture, than a Revelation, or Testimony p. 27strickly so taken; whereas the Revelation to which the Quakers pretend, is altogether objective, like that of the Prophets. 2. We assert, the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule, containing all things necessary to be believed, or done: Which they deny. 3. We assert the Scriptures to be the principal, and ultimate rule into which our Faith is lastly to be resolved. Hence we examine all Doctrines of men, all internal Suggestions by the Scriptures ▪ as the infallible Test, or Touchstone; hence we maintain that the Spirit's Testimonie is still in, and with the Word, so that it may be known, what is the true, and what is the false Spirit by the Word, so that the work of the Spirit is; to enlighten the understanding, and dispose the soul to perceive the Characters of Divinity, naturally ingraffed in the Scriptures. All which the Quakers deny, and assert the quite contrary. Now this our Doctrine is by a full, and most harmonious consent delivered, and asserted by the reformed Churches, and most eminent, and shining lights therein. Luthers words are, that 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. Sinopsis Pur. Theol, Disp. 2 Pag. 20. But the Holy Ghost by these Divine Characters of the Scripture, begetteth Divine, and saving Faith in our hearts. Maccov. Loc…. Com: pag. 28. The Testimony of the Spirit is a light, so enlightening our understanding, that it followeth it sweetly, and sheweth the arguments in the things themselves, impressed in the p. 28things which are to be believed, but before unknown. Woleb. Comp. Theol: pag. 4. The Spirit of God perswadeth the hearts of Believers internally of the Divinity of the Scriptures, in so much as he openeth the eyes, and illuminateth the heart of him, who after previous invocation of the Spirit of God readeth the Scriptures, so that by this illumination the man shal behold the wonderful things of God, and acknowledge Gods Voice speaking in the Scriptures. The like Doctrine hath Wallet, in his Sinopsis Papi…migener. Contr. in many places, where he asserreth in terminis, that this Testimony of the Spirit is …, and with the Scriptures. The Words of godly, and learned Whitaker are clear as they are cited by Mr. Crawford in a short but learned trac…at de Princ. fi…. obj. et effect: Whereas ye say that we reject the Testimony of the Church, and judge our selves taught by the alone internal perswasion of the Spirit, we hold the Ministry of the Church in honour: internal perswasions without the external word we shun, as sanatical impostures; we judge out of the scriptures, we believe with the scriptures, or because of their Testimony, and therefore Hereticks, i. e. Enthusiasts we neither are, nor can be. But of all men must clearly Calv. Inst. L. 1, C. 9. asserteth our Doctrine, and strongly refuteth these Enthusiasts, for Sect 1. he thus speaketh, furthermore these who having rejected the scriptures, imagine to themselves a way, I know not what of approaching to God, are to be judged not so much poss…ssed with error, as acted with madness, there p. 29have arisen of late some giddy heady persons, who disdainfully pretending the rule of the spirit cast off all reading, and deride the simplicity of these who follow the dead, and killing Letter (as they term it) But I would know of them what spirit that is, by whose breathing they are so lifted up, as to be bold to despise the Doctrine of the scriptures as abject, and childish; if they answer, it is the spirit of Christ, that security must be very ridiculous, for I believe they will grant the Apostles of Christ, and others faithful in the primitive Church to have been illuminat by no other Spirit; but none of these learned from it to contemn the word of God, but every one of them had them rather in greater reverence; as their writings plainly testify. And indeed so it was foretold by Isaiah, for when he sayeth, my spirit which is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shal not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed for ever; he doth not tie the people of the Iews to an outward Doctrine, as if he taught them the first principles, but rather, that it will be the true, and ful felicity of the Church in Christs Kingdom, to be ruled no less by the voice, than spirit of God. From whence we collect, that what are inviolably conjoyned by the Prophet, are most sacrilegiously separat by these Villans. And again Sect. 2. If any spirit neglecting the Wisdom of God, bring any other Doctrine he is justly to be suspected of vanity and of a lie. What when satan transfigureth himself into an angel of light, what Authority shall the spirit have with us except it be discerned by some sure Character? and he is clearly demonstrat p. 30to us by the Voice of God, except these miserable men desire willingly to run into their own Destruction, when they rather seek the spirit from themselves, than from the spirit of God. But they pretend that it is unworthy that the spirit of God, to whom all things are to be subjected, should be subjected to the scriptures, as if it were ignominious to the Holy Ghost to be every where alike, and conform to himself, and never diverse, indeed if it were tryed by a humane, angelick or any other Rule, he were to be corrected, or chastised (if ye will) but while it is compared with it self, while it is considered in it self, who will then say that there is injury done to it, and so it is brought to a Tryal I confesse, but such a one, as that thereby he would manifest to us his Majesty, it ought to be sufficient to us, as soon as the spirit manifesteth it self to us, but lest the delusions of satan should creep in under the notion of the spirit of God, he would have us know him in his image imprinted in the scripture, he is the Author of the scriptures, he cannot be unlike, and diverse from himself, whatever therefore he sheweth himself to be in the scriptures, such he must be forever. That is no con…umely to him, except we judge it honour worthy to forsake, and degenerat from it self. Much more to this purpose hath the Reverend and Judicious Author, with which he confoundeth these spiritual Antichristians, as well these of our time, as of his own, and indeed if one should read this Chapter, and not know the Author, he would presently conclude that it had been written of direct purpose against the Quakers. p. 31Judge therefore, Reader, if Robert Barclay had any ground to alledge him as the Patroniser of his Doctrine. The fourth Difference betwixt us and the Quakers consists in this that we as…err, if there be a God in Heaven, the Books of the Old and New Testament may be evinced to have proceeded from him even to the silencing the most profligat, though sharp witted Atheists; if any such merit this epithet, whereas on the other hand They deny any Characters of Divinity ingraffed in the Word, as hath already and shal yet more appear, and thus they expose the jugular Vein of Christianity to the Heathens, and indeed the whole tendency of all their writings, and discourse, is to decry, and vilify these sacred Oracles, and though they deny this, to the end they may the better cheat silly Souls, I care not, for out of their own mouths and Books they shal be judged, and found guilty. These abominations are not committed in a Corner. It can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches, which is certainly sufficient in the case. But many other differences I could give, but these may suffice for answer to the second Objection. From all which I conclude, that between the extreams of the Papists Church, and the Quakers Spirit, medius tutissimus ibit, the midway by resolving our faith ultimately in the Scriptures, or in God speaking in them, is the safest way: And as two extream Vices never agree more in the nature of Vice, than when they reced most from Virtue lying in the middle, and therefore seemingly or physically reced from one p. 32another; so the greater odds that seem to be between Papists and Quakers they are the more nearly relyed in error: for the Papists have gone too low, resolving their faith ultimately in men; the Quakers on the other hand, attempting to go too high, have contracted a Vertigo, hence they Ixion-like thinking to find the fair Iuno of divine Revelation, but lighting upon a cloud of their own brain, in stead thereof have procreat the strange Hippocentaurs of their monstrous Doctrines; at which the World now admires, and is amazed.

5. Our Assertion, that the Scriptures are the adequate, compleat, and primary, or principal Rule of Faith, and Manners, we build on these following Arguments and first,

That which was dictate, or given out by the …fallible God, and containeth the whole Counsel of God, may well serve to be our compleat, and principal Rule; but the Scriptures were given out, and dictate by the infallible God, and contain the whole Counsel of God, ergo, they may well serve to be a compleat, and principal Rule. The Major is most evident, for what further certainty either ought we, need we, or can we seek, for what we believe or do, then the words of the most veracious, and unerring God? and no other thing can be understood by a compleat Rule, but that which containeth all things to be believed, or done. The Minor I prove by parts, and first, that the Scriptures were given out, and dictat by God, is clear p. 33from 2 Tim, 3.16. All Scriptures are given by inspiration of God. 2 Pet. 1.21. Prophecy came not of old time, by the will of man, but holy men of God spake, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Moreover our Adversaries, at least the more learned, and cautious of them have not yet adventured to deny it, but in words at least grant it. The second part is no lesse evident from Act. 20.27. Where Paul sayeth, that he had not shunned to declare to his hearers all the Counsel of God, compared with Chap. 26.22. where the same Apostle sayeth, that he taught no other things than those that were in Moses, and the Prophets: Hence it is clear, that even a part of the Scriptures, and by a good consequence, all the Scriptures contain all that God hath willed us to believe, or do. The second Argument is,

That which was the principal Rule to the Jews, is the principal Rule to us.

But the Scriptures were the principal Rule to them.

Therefore, they must be the same to us.

The Major is Robert Barclay's; for which he pleadeth at large Apol. Cap. 2. The Minor I prove thus, That from which the Jews might not swerve, to the right hand, or to the left, and to the decision of which they were ultimately bound to stand, in all Doubts and Controversies, and that upon highest pains, was the principal Rule. But from Gods written Law, they were commanded not to swerve, or stray to the Right hand, or left, and were bound ultimately to stand to its p. 34Decision in all doubts, and Controversies, and that under highest paines: Therefore to them it was the primary Rule; the Major Proposition is incontrovertible, The Minor is proved from two most pregnant places of Scripture, Deut. 5.31, 32. and 17, 9, 10, 11. In both which places by the Law is to be understood, that which God gave unto the Iews by Moses in writing, as is evident to any, that read the Texts. Which Texts have been egregiously vindicat by our Divines writing against Bellarmin, and the rest of the asserters of papal infallibility: with whose shifts I am certain all that the Quakers can say will be found to co-incide. 2. This Minor Proposition is clear from Is. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony: If they speak not according to these, it is because there is no light in them. The first Shift that the Quakers use to elude the force of this Scripture with, is, that by Law & Testimony, is meaned the light within. So sayeth Robert Barclay in both Apology, and Vindication: but for this exposition we must take their word, for none of them giveth the least colour of Reason for it: But that by this Law the Scriptures are to be understood these following Texts evince, Exod. 32.15. and 34.29. Deut. 31.24, 26. 2 King. 22.8. Nehem, 8. v. 3, 8. Psal. 78.5. Again God commanded, that even the King himself (and consequently the rest of the people) Deut. 17.18, 19. Should live according to this written Law, to the end, be might fear the Lord; under which all the Duties of Religion are ordinarly comprehended. p. 35Now shal 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 discussing thereof? or that, tho the Kings 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 wit will believe this? yea, to think so, is to deny the immutability of God. Moreover this is by far the more frequent acceptation of the Word, Law or Testimony. Hence when the saving Work of Grace is understood by the Word Law, there is something added, whereby we may understand that the Word Law is to be taken in a more unusual acceptation, as Rom. 7.23. and 8.2. But we need say no more, for they sufficiently overthrow this their Exposition, in that they give nothing for the proof thereof, except it be their own most absurd Hypothesis. But Robert Barclay hath yet another shift: he granteth that this place may be understood of the Scriptures, and asserteth that this is only spoken to the Jews, and therefore that to them the Scriptures were a more principal Rule, than to us; and that as they were to try all things by the outward Law, so we are to try all in the first place by the word within, and accuseth his Antagonist of base disingenuity, for leaving out these words in the first place: And granteth only that the Scriptures were a more principal Rule to the Iews, but denyeth that they were the primary Rule. Ans. Whatever be understood by Law and Testimony in that place, whether it be the Scriptures, p. 36or Spirit it must be the primary Rule, for to this Law they were ultimately bound: for the Law and Testimony spoken of here, was the ultimate, and Principal Rule, because whatever was spoken not according to these was to be rejected, as the product of darkness. 2. It is evident that this Law and Testimony, here spoken of is the absolutely principal, and ultimate Rule, because to seek to it, is all one with seeking unto God: The Text is, Let a people seek unto their God, viz. speaking in the Law and Testimony, which is put for one and the same thing. Hence we see that this Law and Testimony, here spoken of, was the absolutely principal Rule to the Jews. In the third place, the Charge of disingenuity, that he layeth to his Adversary, is altogether groundlesse: for certainly he, or any man else of Sense, and Reason, was bound to understand those words, In the first place, in the one branch of the Parallel, as well as in the other, otherwise his Parallel will not only hault, but prove wholly lame, and without sense; now seing as I think, he will not deny that his Adversary ought to suppose, he had to do with a Man of sens… and Reason, who dealt but rationally in understanding both Branches of the Parallel to run alike He ought not thus to accuse him, but sein… he will have himself to be thus understood, to th… end that he may evite a self Contradiction, let u… see if he have any advantage hereby: Now the … why he maketh his Parallel so manked, is that … may not be compelled to grant the Scriptures, … have been the primary Rule to the Jews; and so p. 37this he earnestly pleadeth: but if they were not a primary and principal Rule to them, and so but a secondary Rule only, and yet have not such a high, and principal place under the New Testament, as under the old, then they shal not be so much as a secondary Rule to us, and therefore but a tertiary only. And if this be not beside a Contradiction to the Quakers own concessions, who grant the Scriptures to be a secondary Rule, a complex of most horrible impiety, most wild and absurd nonsense that can readily be imagined, I leave to the whole Christian World to judge: from which many other wild dottages clearly flow, such as, The Spirit it self is but a secondary Rule, even altho it be a Rule; or else, that although the Church have a tertiary, yet it wants a secondary Rule: with these and many other such horrid, and most nonsensical Consequences is this Doctrine of the Quakers inseparably attended. And whereas in the last place he requireth proof, wherefore Mr. Brown rejecteth the version of the Septuagint, we shal only referre him to solid Baillie in his Chronology, and acute Voglesange in his Theological exerci…rations, where he will find the Septuagint rejected with Reason enough. Thus far Robert Barclay.

George Keith, the other Champion of the Quakers, in hi… Book against Mr. Iohn Alexander (falsly called Truth Defended, its true name being Truth depraved) Pag, 80, Shewet… his cause to be mortally wounded, with the force of this Scripture Argument, for he dare not expresly deny, p. 38that by Law and Testimony the Scriptures are to be understood, & indeed he really granteth it, in that he adventureth not to handle any of the places of Scripture brought by Mr. Alexander. for the proof thereof, and yet he detaineth the Truth captive, and wi…l not confesse, that which he dare not deny. The shift which he useth is the same with Robert Barclays second shift, vi…. That tho the Scriptures are in this place to be understood by Law and Testimony, yet it will not follow that they are the principal Rule, especially in Gospel times: which shift is the same way removed, that Robert Barclays was. And here he essayeth to prove, that people are sent to the Dictate, Word, or Light within, from 2 Pet. 1.19▪ Deut. 30.14. Rom. 10.8. Ioh. 3.20, 21. Iohn. 12.36. Which places make not a whi… for his purpose, yea diverse of them cut the Jugular Vein of Quakerism, as shal be evinced in due time, He hath moreover here a harangue, by which he would prove, as it seemeth, that God and Christ dwell personally in Believers, as God dwelleth in the humane Nature of Christ, which is most abominable and false, and tho it were true, yet should make nothing for him; for God and Christ, can only be said to dwell in Believers, whose Temples they only are. But if he meaneth that God dwelleth in Believers, only in respect of the habits of Grace, implanted in their Souls, whereby they are enlightned, quickened, and upstirred to believe, and practise the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures, then he sayeth nothing▪ for this indwelling, or God p. 39thus indwelling is not our principal Rule of Faith, and Manners, but the chief Leader and efficient Cause of Grace in the Soul. And thus this hodge-podge of most impertinent Words, resolves at length into a direct begging of the Question.

Argument, 3d. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrine from the Scriptures, referred their hearers unto them; for the final Decision of the most grave, and weighty controversies, that ever arose in the world, and sent all people unto them, as unto a sure and undeceiving Light, by the guidance of which, we may passe through this dark World, and be kept from Hell in the …lose; Ergo the Scriptures are the primary Rule. The Consequence is clear, if we attend unto the Description of a primary Rule laid down above. The Antecedent I prove from Math. 22.29, 31, 32. Ioh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. and 13▪ from the 14. to 42. 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. Luk. 16.31. Our Adversaries like bats, hateing, and striking at the Light, assault most of these Scriptures. And first they endeavour to deprave, Matth. 22.29. by telling us, that it will no more follow, that the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith, and Manners than the Power of God: yea the Power of God, say they, is rather the Rule, being that which quickneth the Soul and Body; without which none can truly know the Scriptures, thus talketh George Keith, in Truth Defended Pag. 68. But this is only a roving at pleasure without consideration, what be said, providing that the name of the last speaker be obtained; for here he confoundeth p. 40the Rule with the power, whereby we walk according to the Rule: Hence, as I admonished above, he fighteth not against our Doctrine, but against the fiction of his confounding brain; for whoever said, that Euclide cannot be a Rule, for Geometricians to walk by, because it cannot instill a faculty of reason in an Idiot▪ without which it cannot be understood? surely, he that should thus Reason, would be accounted of all men most ridiculous. And yet no lesse ridiculous is this silly sophister; for he reasoneth the same way. But that I may fully declare either the profound stupidity or willful prejudice of this Quaker. I suppose that a man in discourse with another about the Kings Power, ignorantly denyeth that the King can do something, which by the Laws of the land he is allowed to do; the other checks him thus, you erre, not knowing the Laws of the Land, and the power of the King; And then proveth from the said Laws, that the King hath …ower to effect that which the other denyed. Now should not any man, that concluded from this mans discourse, that the power of the King is all one with the Laws of the Land, or that the power of the King is our Rule in C…vils, no less than the Laws of the Land are, expose himself to the scorn of all knowing persons: And yet he inference of thi… Quaker differeth not a whit from such a blockish Conclusion. Hence we may see, that these Mens design i… not to speak well, but to speak last. The next place is, Ioh. 5 39. To which Robert Barclay Vind. Pag. 43. attempting to make answer, to the end that he may put it beyond all doubt, that he is a devout p. 41Servant to his Holinesse, and a true Roman Catholick, stifly asserteth, that the Word is to be taken in the indicative mode, superciliously rejecting not only all the reformed, and Body of primitive Interpreters, but also the very Iesuits themselves, in whom there is any spark of Conscience, or Candour, who all understand it in the imperative moode, and good Reason they have so to do, seing the reading of the Scriptures is all along through the whole Scriptures both commanded. Deut. 17, 18, 19. Deut. 29.29. Exod. 13.9: Ios. 22.5. Deut. 6.8. and 11.18. Isa. 8.20. 1 Tim. 4.13. with many others, and commended Deut. 33.10. Neh. 8.2, 3. Act. 17.11. and 18.24. 2 Tim. 3.15. 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. Rev. 1.3. Besides many more, which are sufficient to convince these men of palpable falshood, and blasphemy. Moreover there is sufficient ground from the Context, abundantly to make out our exposition; for Christ appeals to the Scriptures, as sufficient to decide the then present controversy betwixt him and the Iews, saying, These are they that testifie of me. Where he willeth them to give heed to Moses writings in order to the decision of the Controversy. v. 46. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me. But this subterfuge failing him, he hath yet some others, which we must also remove: he asketh therefore in the next place, whether the words that Christ spake to the Iews, which are recorded in Scripture, were less binding to them than the words spoken by Moses and the Prophets? If they were lesse p. 42binding, (saith he) then he overturneth his own tedious Reasonings, by which he laboureth to prove that they are obligative, and also he must show how they are binding now upon us; and if he say, they were binding to the Jews, because spoken by Christ, his proof falleth to the ground. Ans. 1. Perhaps he pleased himself with this Argument, having racked his wit to invent sophistry, tho blunt (as shal appear presently) whereby the more to delude his already deluded admirers; But I am sure, to any rational man that is in earnest, it will not have the weight of a Walnut: Nor trouble him much, even tho he were not in case to answer it, seing if this word be to be taken in the imperative mood, as we have even now demonstrat, then it is as clear as the noon-sun, that Christ sendeth the Jews to the Scriptures, for the ultimate decision of the greatest Controversy in the World, upon which their one thing depended: Otherwise the Jews might still have with good Reason replyed, that this would not do the turn, seing the Scriptures themselves were but a secondary Rule, to be subjected unto another, without the Determination of which, they could never acq…iesce in the Scriptures decision, how clearly soever they speak for the one party, and against …he o…er. I answer 2dly, that the words of Christ spoken both before and at that time, were binding on the Jews, he having given sufficient proofs of his Deity; Notwithstanding of which Christ referreth them to those Writings about the divinity of which they were beyond all doubting▪ p. 43and had abundance of subjective, as well as objective certainty: To these, I say, he referreth them as the Principal Rule, and Test, whereby to determine the great Controversy then in agitation: I say, in a Word that the words, Christ and his Apostles spake, and now recorded in Scriptures, were of themselves no lesse binding on the Iews, than these spoken by Moses and the Prophets, tho the Iews, throw their wilfull ignorance, and prejudice, which was their own great fault [the great Cause of which, was the neglect of the Scriptures, which testifie of Christ] did not believe the Divinity of the one, as they did that of the other; hence one of the horns of this Dilemma is broken, and his consequence a meer non sequitur. He here grants, that if Christs Doctrine ought to be tried by the Scriptures, then much more private Enthusiasms: But denyeth, that it will hence follow, that the Scriptures are the primary Rule, which I prove; for if the Doctrine of Christ be subject to the Scriptures trial, then no man can deny, that even these things, which are divine immediat Revelations, may be brought to the Scripture trial, that we may know, whether they be divine or not, as well as the Jews ought to bring the Doctrine of Christ to the Scriptures, that they might clearly see, whether it was divine or not, seing whatever can be said for exemption of these Revelations from trial, with good ground; might be said for exeeming of the Doctrine of Christ. Moreover by granting, that privat Enthusiasms ought to be tryed by the Scripture, he yieldeth all he p. 44was this whole time pleading for, which was, that, it might be lawful to embrace any impulse, or suggestion, which he thought was the Spirit of God, without further examination thereof.

The third Scripture▪ viz. Act. 17.11. is so clear, that our Adversaries can find nothing wherewith to darken and deprave it. It is true, that Robert Barclay, Vind. pag. 44. sayeth, It is the same way answered as Iohn 5.39. Therefore I say, our meaning is the same way vin…icate. N…xt all his verbal shif…s are wholly excluded here, seing such an high commendation given by the Spirit of God to these Bereans, ought to have no lesse weight with us than a Command.

The next place assaulted by them is 2 Pet. 1.19. We have a more sure word of prophecy &c. which place th…y will have to be understood of the Spirit, not …f the Scriptures; of which assertion, Robert Barclay pag. 26. giveth this Reason, that the Description or Narration of a thing, is not more sure than the hearing or seeing of the same, and therefore the Scriptures, which are but a Narration, and Description of such and such things, cannot be more sure than the sight or hearing of the same. Hence he would infer, that the discoverie, the Apostles had made to them upon the mount were really surer, than the Scriptures, but not so sure as the Spirit. George Keith, Truth Defended pag. 63. hath a long discourse, which resolves in this, that the Apostle is making a Comparison between Gods outward Word to the Ear, and inw…rd to the Heart, which he sayeth, p. 45is more sure to a man, than Gods immediat speaking, if it be heard with the outward ear. But such reasoning as this is as easily everthrown as invented: for it presupposeth that there cannot be immediat Revelation, where the Testimony of the senses goes along; And so their spirit is an enemy to sense: Otherwise why should this glorious vision made to the Apostles, of the Truth of which they had divine, and infallible evidence, to whom God spake as immediatly as to Moses on the Mount, be accounted uncertain, and suspected in respect of the Spirit? 2. To talk at this rate is to presuppose, that wherever God revealeth himself unto any person, some other way, than by speaking into his ear; that this Revelation bringeth along with it its own evidence, and perswadeth the soul to embrace, and close with it, as divine, which is both groundlesse, and therefore false and contrary to their own principles, who assert, that unlesse the understanding be well disposed, Revelation, tho immediat is not evident. 3. It insinuateth, that the Apostle in this comparison, gave out that one of the things compared, was in it self really more uncertain than the other, which is most false, seing considered in themselves, both real immediat Revelation, and the Scriptures, have all certainty possible, therefore this is only to be understood in respect of us, to whom the Scriptures are more sure, in that they are lesse subject to be counterfeited, or wrested by either the Devil, or our own sancy, than immediat Revelations are. The p. 46Apostle hath also his eye upon his Countrey-men the Iews, to whom he speaketh, who tho they were now Christians, gave in special manner credit to the old Testament, as Act 17.11. and else where. 4. Tho by this more sure word of Prophecy were understood immediat Revelations, the advantage that the Quakers could reap thereby could not be great: For this Word of Prophecy being studied and attended to, is recommended to us by the Apostle, as that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures: Hence it will follow, even according to the Quakers exposition, that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of our Faith▪ seing that if any of the two be it, the Text to be explained, much rather than the means or helps, whereby it is to be explained, ought to have this Denomination; we have seen the invalidity of his Reason, as also the small advantage, tho it had been valid. We shal in the next place shew, why by this more sure word of Prophecy, we understand the Scriptures: And first, because any phrase of the like import (as for this foreign a prophetick Word, or Word of Prophecy, it is not in all the Scripture beside, for any thing I know, in so many syllables) such as the Prophets Luk. 16.29. Apostles & Prophets, Eph. 2.20. The Law and the Prophets Math. 7.12. Are always taken for the Scriptures, so that when any did utter such expressions, but especially, while they discoursed of a guide in Faith and Manners, they were still understood, as speaking of the Scriptures, who p. 47(I pray) ever understood that phrase Luk. 16.31. Moses and the Prophets any other way than that Joh. 6.45. It is written in the Prophets. And indeed, if our Adversaries were not e…ronted and impudently bold, they would not adventure to cause a phrase of Scripture to speak that, the contrare of which, at the first view it proclaimeth. 2. Who but one that would adventure upon any thing, would make this phrase, Word of Prophecy in the 19 v. to speak any other thing, than the Prophecy of the Scriptures in the 20 verse, or simple Prophecy in the 21 verse, seing to do this, destroyeth the whole Connexion of the Context. 3. The same is evinced by the connexion of this with the following Words, for the Apostle giveth his Reason in the 20 Verse, why in the 19 he had admonished to study the Scriptures, viz. that unlesse they diligently search, and study them, they would be ready to miss the genuine, and fall into a private meaning of the Scriptures, that is one which the Scriptures, if well attended to, would not yield. 4. The same is evinced from the general commendation given by the Spirit of God to the searchers of, or attenders to the Scriptures. as Isa. 8.20. Ioh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. With many other places, which are sufficient Commentaries to this Text: Whereas on the other hand, these our Adversaries, no lesse void of Reason, then fraughted with audacity, cannot bring one Text commanding us to search or take heed to the Light within: Add to all this, that these our Antagonists contradict the stream of p. 48Orthodox Writers; upon this place, who all give their joint suffrage unto our exposition, as Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Christophorus Imlerus, Beza, the Dutch Divines, who give the same glosse with us, yea I dare averr with Confidence, that if we except some old Montanists, Cataphrygians, or the like antient Enthusiasts, or of later times, the Munserians, or such Libertines, none hitherto expone this place as the Quakers do; But we must yield to them, for, Hi soli sapiunt, alii velut umbra vagantur; Doubtless they are the Men, and Wisdom shall die with them: But I leave them to grapple with their Brother, William Pen, who in his Rejoynder before cited, pag. 334. yieldeth unto us that which they so stifly deny. viz. that by the More sure word of Prophesie the Scriptures are to be understood, and I passe on to the vindication of Luk. 16.31. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be perswaded, though one rose from the dead. Rob: Barclay in opposition to Mr: Broun, Vind. pag. 39.40. reasoning from this place that the Scriptures are the principal Rule of Faith, sayeth, first, That it will not follow from the Scriptures being more sure, than the Testimony of one risen from the dead, that therefore they are more sure than the Testimony of the Spirit. I Ans. Let him once prove, that every Man hath such a Spirit, as Quakers do alledge, and then let the Spirit go hand in hand with the Scriptures; but this he shall never be able to do. 2. This will follow, that Moses and the Prophets were a Rule to the Church at that time, Yea even the p. 49primarie Rule, otherways might not Abraham have said, The Spirit of God directeth every man immediatly, If they hear not him, they will hear none else, but this he said not: Therefore Abraham (or rather Christ in the Parable) judged the Scriptures the principal Rule on Earth. As for what he says concerning the Scriptures, being a principal Rule to the Iews only, is nothing to the purpose, unless he prove that they are not so to us, which if he hath done, we have seen above, 3. Certainly the voice of one of the glorified Spirits, coming from Heaven, where they behold the face of God, is no less to be accounted immediat Revelation, than the voice of the High-Priest unto the People, when he came out from the Holy of Holies, which in the Quakers account was immediate Revelation: But the Quakers can make what they will to be Divine Revelation. To the end that this may more fully appear, we shall consider a passage in his Apologie, pag. 4. where he maketh an Objection, viz. That after the Dispensation of the Law, Gods Method of Speaking was altered. To which he answereth, that Gods speaking was immediate alwayes to the Iews, in that it was immediat alwayes to the High. Priest, from between the Cherubims. To which I Reply, This Answer is strange, In that he sayes, The mind of God revealed by the High-priest unto the People, was to them immediate Revelation, for certainly a thing delivered from one person to another, by the hand of a third, cometh unto that person by the hand of another, which other must either be a Mediu… p. 50or Midss, or else, he must say that three make but two, which is a ridiculous Contradiction. 2. We say that even according to the Quakers principles Gods way of revealing himself to us now is as immediate as it was to the Jews, because we have these that were inspired by God speaking unto us, though dead: hence they have no reason to go about to prove the Scriptures, not to be the principal Rule of Faith on this account, that they are not immediate Revelation, for that which they contend to have been immediat Revelation, was no more immediat than the Scriptures.

My fourth Argument I draw from. 2 Tim. 3.15. And that from a Child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise through Faith unto Salvation.

From which place, I thus Reason.

That which is able to make such an one as Timothy, called the Man of God v 17. Wise through Faith unto Salvation, must be a sufficient Rule of Direction, to guide us in our Christian Course.

But the Scriptures are able to make Timothy, or the Man of God wise unto Salvation; Therefore they are a sufficient Rule, or Directory to guide u… in our Christian Course: And here it may be observed, that R. B. Vind, pag. 40, 41. is so pressed with the force of this Argument, that he can find no better off-come, but to challenge his Adversary as guilty of perversion of Scriptures, because he compared the 15 and 17 verse… together, saying, that the Scriptures were abl… p. 51to make the man of God perfect. But to challenge a man for perversion, upon such a ground as this, is an evident token of too much perversness; for if he had but looked unto the 15 verse, he might have seen, they are said to be foreign, able to make Timothy, which was a Man of God, wise through Faith unto Salvation, where there is an ability or sufficiency in some kind of Cause ascribed to the Scriptures. Now no other sort of ability or sufficiency can be imagined, if it be not that of a Rule, or causae Exemplaris seu directivae, for Faith is added as the instrumental Cause; or as the apprehender; Hence I evidently infer, that the Scriptures are the adequate and primary Rule, for if there were some things to be believed and practised, not contained in the Scripture, or if the Scriptures were subject to another Test or Rule to be examined thereby, without which other Tests or Rules, we might be deceived and misled, then the Scriptures could not in truth be called able to make the Man of God wise through Faith unto Salvation. But we need not insist, for how clear soever the matter be, little Justice, Truth, or fair dealing is to be expected at the hands of those who call Scriptures compared, Scriptures perverted, and deny that as false, the Truth of which themselves cannot but see: for I query, what difference can be imagined between these two phrases, able to make Timothy, which was a man of God, wise unto Salvation, and able to make the Man of God perfect: To abuse the Scriptures at this rate, I think is gross p. 52and impious enough, and yet no better all along doth this Author treat them: Of which a pregnant Example followeth, for Vind. pag. 41. in opposition to Mr. Brown, proving the sufficiency, and perfection of the Scriptures from Ioh. 20.31. 2 Cor. 3, 14. Psal. 119.70. He saith, that from this Doctrine, it would follow, that all Bo…ks written after such a time were superfluous. If this answer be sufficient, many a superfluity there shal be in Scripture, for if the writing of a Book after there are so many written as contain all things necessary for Faith and practise, (if we say) the writing of another Book, which may be either explicative of the Books before written, or contain many things for the bene esse of a Christian, be superfluous, how much more then shall the repetition of the same things, in the same words, and the same method be superfluous? but according to him the former is true: well then the Quakers Conclusions are, that the scriptures are Battologies. Lastly, (for we love rather to plead by the weight, than by the multitude of Arguments) we evince that the Scriptures are a compleat, adequate, and primary Rule of Faith, and manners; by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves: And first, that they are an adequat and compleat Rule is granted by R. B. who Vind. pag. 36. speaketh thus, next he carps at my saying, the chief Doctrines of Christianity, are contained in the Scriptures, asking where we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith? I answer freely, In the Scripture. p. 53And again R. B▪ and George Keith with joint suffrages grant, that the Scriptures are a full enough Declaration of all Doctrines, and principles both essential and integral of the Christian Religion. Quak. confirm: (or rather self confuted) pag. 38. Behold, Reader, thou hast our Adversaries granting to their own Contradiction all we plead for. The other Branch (viz.) that they are the Primary Rule, our Adversaries themselves also at unawares grant, for Rob: Barclay, in his second These, sayeth, that the Spirit is not to be subiected to the outward Testimony of the Scriptures as a more noble Rule, where it is clear that according to him the Spirit may be subjected to the Scriptures, tho not as to a more noble and certain Rule. Now this being granted, the Cause is yielded, for it is certain that a primary rule is in no case to be subjected unto its secondary, or the Rule which is ruled by it. For I think the Acts of Parliament are not at all to be subjected to these of an inferiour Court. Now if the Quakers would hold by this, and grant that a man swerveth not from his duty, tho he subject all suggestions, and motions to the Scriptures as a sure Tryal, and Test thereof, let them call it a more noble Rule, or what they will, they might the more easily be born with. But it is evident, by their pleading for the Spirit as their primarie Rule, that they will in no Case subject their impulses and Motions to the Scriptures. Our Adversaries grant also, That the Scriptures have proceeded from God, and therefore infallible. Now p. 54I hope that which is infallible, needs not be subjected unto, and tryed by a more sure Rule; for more sure than infallible, is impossible. I know nothing they can say, except that which G. K. said on the stage at Aberdeen, That we may beguile our selves with them, (viz.) by interpretation thereof. To which I answer, That the effective illumination of the Spirit of God, is sufficient to secure us from this hazard, which is no more objective Revelation than the Eye-salve is the Sun.

6. But our Adversaries soon repenting of their Liberality, endeavour to overthrow all their own Concessions, and to prove that the Scriptures are neither an Adequate, nor Primarie Rule▪ some of their Objections we shall name, that the Reader may Judge of the rest: And first they Object out of Bellarmine, de Certitudine Iust. That the Scriptures cannot shew unto a man, that he hath true Faith; for, (say they as the Jesuite did before them) Such a mans Name is not in all the Word of God: For altho the Scriptures contain the true marks of Faith; who shall perswade me that I have these Marks? that I believe? that I obey? Thus R. B. reasoned in his Apologie; To which his Antagonist answereth, 'That it is no less absurd to say, that this is the work of a Rule, than for R. B. Supposing that he had killed a man, to deny that the Law could put him to death, because no Law saith, that R. B. hath killed a man; or to deny that he is a Quaker, because the Law sayeth no such thing of him in particular. To which he replyeth, Vind. pag. 45.46. That such examples p. 55are poor Arguments, and miserably halt, for R. B. saith he, his Confessing himself to be a Quaker, & acknowledging every one of their Doctrines, is enough to prove him one in the sense of the Law of the Land, and the Judge is to condemn him as a Murderer, if convict by witnesses, that he really did the dead, and both these relate to outward things, which can be proven by outward Testimonies; for without the certainty of the evidence, the Judge cannot pronounce his Sentence: But is a mans own confessing or affirming that he hath the true Ma…ks of Faith, enough to prove he has them? and what are the Witnesses, (to apply the examples of committing of Murder) by which a man shall know he has these Marks? and who shall examine the witnesses? and judge of the certainty, and clearness of their Evidence? must it be the man that is accused? who useth that method? Ans. 1. Both Doctrine and proof he hath learned from his old friend Bellarmin, who de Cert. Iust. calleth the same Sophism a Theological demonstration, contradicting not only the Scriptures, but divers of the Papists themselves, as Amesius sheweth: Bellarmin also accounteth this Inspiration of the Quakers, the only way whereby a man can be firmlie assured of his having Faith, or that he shall have Salvation. And therefore appropriateth it to St. Francis, and St. Galla, and the like, which dottage is sufficiently refuted, exploded, and derided by Ames, and others, who have undertaken the Refutation of Bellarmin. Hence we may see, that if there be a Iesuit more opposite to the Reformed than another, with p. 56him he joyneth hands, He is therefore to be accounted amongst the grossest of Iesuits, and these his Romish Cavills are to be neglected, being an hundred times sufficiently enervate by our Divines in their Writings against Papists, especially in their answers to Bellarmin, out of whose Quiver he hath stollen this long ago blunted weapon. 2. The task incumbent to him was to evince, that it belongeth properly to the Rule of Faith; to tell a Man. v. c. Iohn or Iames in particular, that he hath true faith, whatever therefore he sayeth besides this, is besides the purpose. But 3. ex abundanti, The bare and simple Profession of Quakerism will no more prove one to be a Quaker in earnest, than the simple Profession that one hath Faith, will prove him to have it indeed; Seeing a man may profess himself to be a Quaker, and yet be a Iesuit, providing there be any difference between them: there is therefore more required, viz, that for any thing Men can know, such a man liveth according to the principle of the partie, and no more is necessary for the begetting a Judgment of Charity, than that a man profess the principles of Christianity, & Seriously, for any thing Men can know, practise accordingly; but no infallible Evidences that another hath true Faith, are any wayes necessarie; but only Moral Rational Grounds of certainty, those may be had; As for the other viz. infallible Evidences, those are only necessar to ones self, and these they may h…ve by the Scripture applyed in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdom, the Scriptures themselves being the Rule whereby to make the Examen, or p. 57Search. Is. 8.20. Ioh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. 2. Tim. 3.15. 16, 17.2 Pet. 1.19, 20. And the enlightned Conscience, the Judge, the Spirit of Adoption, or a filial Disposition, inclining the Believer to come to God; as a Child unto a Father, with both great Confidence, and Reverence, together with the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself. Rom. 8.15, 16, the witnesses. Hence his ant…-christian Cavills fall to the ground, and the similies no more halt; the other Examples brought for the illustration of any Matter, for all similes halt in some respect, otherwayes they should not be similies, but the same; and to think the similies here used cannot hold, because both Judge, & witnesses, are inward in the matter, illustrated by these Similies, is not only without, but against Reason; For even as the one thing being outward, and to be proved to others, not to the Murderer himself, who knoweth it well enough, requireth an outward Judge, and outward witnesses; So the other thing being inward, the infallible Testimony of which, the Person himself standeth only in need of, requireth inward Judge, and inward Witnesses.

7. The same Author hath another Objection prosecuted at large in his Apologie, and abbreviated in his Abridgement; falsly called his Vindication▪ Pag. 44.45. which is, that there are many things that the Scriptures cannot determine, as particular individual Actions; to which Mr: Broun had answered, that general Rules were enough, leaving the rest to Christian prudence, and Wisdom, and also that there should be need of a particular Rev…lalation p. 58for every particular Action, as Eating, Drinking, &c. Yea every particular Word. This Consequence he denyeth, saying, that from Spiritual to Natural Actions, the necessity of this Revelation will not follow. I answer first, The Consequence which he denyed he proveth himself, for the Reason why Spiritual Actions need particular inspirations, is because of their being either Sin, or Duty, that they may know how to give Spiritual Worship, and leave Carnal Worship, but this Reason he grants to stretch it self to natural Actions, saying, if he say, those natural Acts under some Circumstances may be sin, or duty, I confess then the Revelation of the Spirit is needful. Therefore if particular Immediate Revelations be necessary for the performances of Spiritual Actions, they are also necessary for the performance of Civil, or Natural Actions, seeing there is nothing more sure, than that every individual Action is so Circumstantiat as to become either Sin or Duty. 2. Who was ever so absurd, and ridiculous as to deny that any System, as for example, of Mathematicks, or Military Discipline, is a perfect Rule to guide any Mathematician, or Souldier, upon this account, that those Books comprehend not the Names of all Mathematicians, and Souldiers, that ever should exist, with all their particular Actions, and the Circumstances thereof? I am sure that such a one should be esteemed by all Men to have lost his Wits: and yet no better than such are the Quakers Achillean Arguments. Next he pleaseth himself in reckoning up some differences amongst Ministers: As for example, p. 59those called Remonstrants, and publick Resolutioners, and hence would infer the Insufficiency of the Scriptures, for decision of Controversies, and this he thinketh so strong, that he requireth a particular answer to it, least (Sayeth he) he, viz. Mr. Brown be said to leap where he cannot step. Ans. If this do any thing it will overdo, seeing he dare not deny, that both Paul & Barnabas had immediat Objective Revelations, who notwithstanding grew so hot in their Contention. Act. 15. that they parted one from another, of whose meeting again we hear not in all the Scriptures. But he labours so to fix that upon the Scriptures, with which the Corruption of men is only to be Charged, that he woundeth himself while he thrusteth at his Adversary, seing if this Reason be Valid, Objective Revelation is no more a sufficient Rule than the Scriptures: as this Instance of the division of Paul & Barnabas evinceth. Beside these, the Quakers have a heap of Topicks, to prove the Scriptures not a perfect Rule, such as, they cannot be a Rule to deaf persons, therefore they cannot be a rule to those that hear; and most men know not the Original Tongues. Ergo say they, the Scriptures cannot be a compleat Rule. They object also, the variety of Readings, Interpretations, and the like, which they have scraped out of Bellarmin and his brethren, and therefore deserve no more answer than what hath been given to them. William Pen in his Rejoynder, Part 1. Chap. 5. hath this Objection, the Scriptures cannot try, and examine particular Motions, and Prophesies, saying, that Paul Act. 16. reproved p. 60not the Spirit of Divination, which possessed that … Philippi, from the Scriptures; therefore they cannot be a Rule of Faith, and Life. But I deny the Antecedent, for had Iames Nailor but brought that particular Motion, whereby he was prompted to receive Divine Worship, to Scripture trial, he might have found his Spirit to have been the father of …, and Arch-deceiver of Mankind: but as the Papists to cover the rest of their abominations, have invented one greater, and more dangerous than them all, that is their Churches infallibility, So this Spirit of the Quakers, knowing that upon Tryal, he will be found a Counterfeit, hath taken the Councel given by Alcibiades to Pericles, that is, to study how he may secure himself from the hazard of a Trial. Hence these men are in all probability beyond the reach of a Conviction, but the many Instances, not only of other Antiscript…rians, but even of themselves, who have been most pitifully and palpably acted by the Devil, whom they notwithstanding took for God, might teach them at length, to suspect their Spirit, and try before they trust. As for the Prophesies of future Events, they may well be brought to the Scripture Test, to the end we may know whether the thing Prophesied may be expected, without contradicting the Scriptures, as for Pauls reproof of the Spirit of Divination, it is most irrationally Objected, Seeing Paul was immediatly Inspired, and a Writer of Scripture himself. 2…y. This Action was most Consonant to Scripture, being abundantly warranted by p. 61that promise of Christ Matth: 10, to his Apostles, that they should cast out Devils.

They use also many Arguments against the Scriptures being the principal Rule, of which the Chief and Ground of almost all the rest (with which they stand and fall, and therefore meriteth particular Consideration) is this, the Scriptures are not the Fountain it self, but a declaration of the Fountain; therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth, and Knowledge, nor the adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners, thus reasoned Rob: Barclay in his Appology. This consequence is by his adversary judged a Demonstration of the Authors folly, pag. 57. as being altogether ridiculous, saying, who ever dreamed that the Scriptures were God, or the Spirit of God? To which … Barclay, Vind. pag. 37. thus Replyeth, he sayeth, I come nearer to the Core of my design, which is to set up Enthusiasms, in affirming, that the Scriptures are not the Fountain, but a Declaration of the Fountain, and yet the Man, within three or four lines, confesseth it himself, ascribing it to my folly, to dream any man thinks so; (thus …e goeth backward and forward) which he illustrateth by the Example of Laws, But if it be so, are not they to be blamed, that account them the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge? whither the other branch of my deduction followeth from this: That they are not to be accounted the primary Rule of Faith and Manners, will appear when the Arguments and Objections p. 62relating to that, come particularly to be mentioned; and whereas he thinks this is absurd, and not making for my Design, because God Himself is the Fountain, and yet not the Rule, he mistakes the matter as urged by me: For I argue, that the Scriptures are not the Original Ground of Knowledge, but God, not simply considered, but as manifesting himself in divine immediat Revelations in the hearts of his children, which being the new Covenants Dispensation, is the primary and adequate Rule of Christians: For I was never so absurd as to call God simply considered, or the Spirit of God, (in abstracto) not as imprinting Truths to be believed, and obeyed in mens hearts, not contrary but according to Scripture (for he cannot contradict himself) the Rule of Christians, and this may serve to answer all his Cavills upon this Theam. Thus he. Answer, in his Apol. he thus reasoned, the Scriptures are not the Fountain, but a Declaration of the Fountain, therefore they are not the principal original of all Truth, nor the adequate or primary Rule of Faith. Now this Argumentation, which is all one with, fallacia plurium interrogationum, hath a consequent made up of two parts, and therefore there are to be considered here two consequences, of which the first, or the consequence as to the first part of the inference his adversarie calleth a demonstration of the Authors folly, as proving that which never man denyed, viz. that the Scriptures are not God himself: I add that this is also a demonstration of his Malice, for in this his ridiculous argumentation he p. 63would perswade the world, that the Reformed Churches (for against them in that place he bendeth his weapons) assert, that the Scriptures are God himself: Upon this account I say his Adversary accuseth him of folly; now in stead of a better offcoming, he giveth out that his adversary first denyed his Antecedent, and then again presently confessed it; whereas he never impugned the Antecedent, but blameth him for his consequence, of which (as we have already said) the first part is very ridiculous, proving the thing that never one denyed; and malicious, belieing the whole Reformed Churches, and the second part, viz. Because the Scriptures are not the Fountain, therefore they are not the adequat and primary Rule of Faith, a Rope of sand. The coherence of which will be made out ad Calendas Graecas. He sayeth, that the second Branch of his Deduction will appear, when the Arguments, and objections relating to that, come particularly to be mentioned, which is nothing to the purpose in hand; for unless he prove, that the Scriptures are not the primary and adequate Rule of Faith from this one Topick, that they are not the Fountain, but a Declaration thereof, the argument is gone. Hence all this wrangling is but a further proof of his Weakness and Malice. In his following Words, he confoundeth the Principal Rule, and the Original Ground together, which are things most distinct; and therefore these words are altogether void of good sense, or at best they are ridiculous, in that they speak nothing to the purpose: For he might well have p. 64known, if he had pleased, that by the Primary Rule, is understood that which is now among the hands of Christians, according to which they ought to examine ultimately all sort of Doctrines, and opinions of men, or yet suggestions from within concerning divine things, and reject, or receive as they disagree, or agree with this Rule. If in this sense, he had understood the primary Rule, he had not given such mysterious Niceties. But the Question is not, if God be greater than the Scriptures? for as man is above the word of a man, so is he above them; But the Question is, whether or not the Scriptures contain all things necessary in order to Faith, and practise, and whether or not we ought to see that every Doctrine we embrace be according to them? and if swerving from them we ought to reject it, tho an Angel from Heaven should teach it? Thus we understand the primary Rule; and while he doth not so, he but mistaketh the Question. 2. This Acyrology, or improper speech, to call a person a Rule, is a grand inductive of Confusion, for who ever called a teacher a Rule, for only the dictats taught are the Rule. Here we see that these new Teachers are contrary to all men, in their acceptations of Words as well as in Doctrines. But whereas he sayeth, that he was never so absurd as to call the Spirit of God, simply, or in abstracto a Rule, but as he imprints Truths in the hearts of Believers, he doth not answer these things which he calls Cavills; for these Rules imprinted in the Soul, are not God, under what notion soever he be taken: a Declaration of the Fountain, p. 65is not the fountain it self. Hence the Quakers grand principle that immediat objective Revelations, are the primary Rule of their Faith, falleth to the Ground, and these imprinted Rules are but only secondary: Ergo even according to what is here gained from the Quakers, the Scriptures are equal even in their primariness, to immediat Revelations, for the one can no more be called the primary Rule, than the other, and that by the Quaker his own Concession. Moreover seing these immediat Revelations, imprinted on the Soul, are not the primary but secondary Rule, then certainly they ought to be examined according to the primary Rule. Now to assert this is most impious: Seing these Revelations must be supposed to be self evident, and their Divinity already undoubtedly apparent. For this is to maintain that we ought to doubt whether or not there is veracity in God, and (horresco referens) Judge, that the God of Truth may prove the lyar, and deceive us. But once more, how shal these imprinted secondary Rules be examined! not by other words or dictats of whatsoever kind, for to do this will cost the examiner a journey to in finitum, to which he will not come in haste, seing these other Dictats or Revelations are not the Fountain, but a Declaration of the Fountain, more than the first; and to assert, that these Revelations may be examined according to God himself, and not by the Word of God, is to go some stages beyond the wildest of nonsense, and again there is very good Reason to wonder, why any Revelation should be more primary than the p. 66Scriptures, both being given by the same Spirit, seing the primarinesse is not the immediatness, but the chief binding power, & the prerogative to be the touch-stone of all Doctrines. Now this notion of a primary Rule being had, there is very good Reason to wonder, why the Dictats of the Spirit should be preferred before the Scriptures, seing God hath told, (whether mediatly or immediatly, it's all one: the Quakers themselves dare not deny that God hath indeed said it) that they are able to make the Man of God wise unto salvation 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. And hath commanded, and commended the perusal of them, as the Book in the determination of which we ought finally, and surely to rest, in the matters of greatest import, Isai. 8.20. Ioh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. With many other places. But on the other hand in all the Scriptures there is not so much as the least intimation that all persons within the Church, and fa… less all men, have divine immediat, Objective Revelations, by which they may examine, and discern good from evil, and here he is very angry with his adversary, because he accused him of confounding in his Apology, the principal Rule, and the principal Leader, and yet as though he had not confounded them compleatly enough in his Apology, he here again in his Vindication in one and the same page viz. 38. both calleth the Spirit, as imprinting Truths into the Soul, the primary Rule, as was even now cited: and also the same Spirit the principal Leader, as imprinting Rules into the Soul, to walk by, by which Rules must be understood the Truths he spake of just now above p. 67here the Reader may see, that not only the same thing is both Principal Leader, and principal Rule, but also that there is not so much as a Metaphysical formality betwixt them, for both of them is God under the notion of imprinting Rules or Truths, into the soul, yet the confidence (I shal not say the impudence) hath he to deny that he confounded them.

8. But the Quakers well knowing, that if God speaking in the Holy Scriptures, be admitted Judge of the present Debates between us and them, Or if the Holy Scriptures be not Esteemed False, Ambiguous, and Nonsensical, then their cause is lost, and their great Diana of Immediat Revelations, and the rest of their Monstruous, and Impious Doctrine falls to the ground, they assert with the Papists, that the Spirit of God Speaking in the Scriptures is not his own Interpreter, and so bereave the Scriptures of that which is the Soul, Sense, and Marrow thereof, denying all Scripture Interpretation, though never so Genuine and Clear, except they have Immediat Objective Revelation, to tell them that such a Meaning is true: Hence they say, they may very well reject all our Interpretations, and Consequences of Scripture, seeing we do not pretend to the Spirit that gave forth the Scripture, but declare our selves Enemies to it: Thus replyeth George Keith to Mr. Iohn Alexander. Truths Def. Chap. 8. Behold, Reader, the grossest of Popish Shift… to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine; for the Papists still say, that we can know nothing Certainly, because we reject their Doctrine of Infallibility, & just so do the p. 68Quakers, maliciously belying the whole Reformed Churches, Impiously crying out that they are Enemies to the Spirit of God, and that because we examine all Doctrines and Practices by the written Word of God. Hence we find that the Spirit the Quakers pretend to, is Diametrically opposite to the Scriptures, and therefore the Spirit of Lies, and Delusion; at this they are enraged, and cannot away with it, Nam trepidant immisso lumine manes. Hence William Pen thus speaketh, Rej. Pag. 72. Let them shew me that Scripture, that plainly and uninterpretatly tells me such a proposition is true, and such a One is false, that only consists of their additional Meanings; such a new Nick-named People Right, and such wrong, and they do their busines; If they cannot, as it is impossible they should, they must have recourse to some thing else to Rule, and Determine, and what can that be besides that Eternal Spirit. Thou seest, Judicious Reader, that according to the Quakers, God speaking in the Scriptures cannot tell us what is true, or what is false, who are Right, or who are Wrong; of the same Nature is that which the Quakers have in their Queries to Mr. Iohn Alexander, in which they often require an Answer to be given in plain words of Scripture, and in particular Querie 10. They have these Words. We (say they) expect plain Scriptures from you for this, without any Shuffling, Meanings, Consequences, or else never pretend Scripture Rule more; but acknowledge that it hath been your Meanings, & Consequences which have been your Rule; Hence according to this Doctrine p. 69our Saviour laboured but in vain, when he proved the resurrection of the Dead from the Scriptures; Matth. 22.31, 32. for the Sadducees might have answered, that such express words were not in the Pentateuch, viz. That the dead should rise again, and therefore they were not bound to believe it, tho the inference were never so clear, except they had a new immediate Revelation, which they might have said we have not, and who could have proved the contrary; yea, if this Doctrine be true, a man doth not sin, tho he worship the Crocodile, Ibis, Dog or Cat with the old Egyptians; yea, a man may believe, or do whatever cometh into his brain, for no where in the Scripture is any man in particular, as for Example, Robert, Anthonie, or Christopher forbidden, or commanded to do any thing. According to this principle also, they deny all Means, and helps for expounding of the Scriptures, all Commentaries and Expositions, witness amongst others these words of Geo: Fox in his Primmar to Europe. Pag. 37. What are the Means of searching out the meaning of the Scriptures? one whereof you say is a Logical Analysis, and what is a Logical Analysis of the Scriptures? and Robert B. Vind. Pag. 29. Impiously denyeth, that the Holy Ghost is a Distinct Person of the Trinity, and that upon this ground, because as he sayeth, these Words are not found expresly in Scripture; The same way Rob: B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 Iohn. 2.27. foreign, or as the words at the first sound, and without any explication, or clearing of them, argumenteth from them; He that hath an Anointing abiding in him, teaching p. 70him all things, so that he needs no man to teach him, hath an inward and immediat Teacher, and hath some things inwardly, and immediatly revealed unto him. The same way also he understandeth and expoundeth Jer. 31.34. So that whatever they say, or can say, to liberate their Doctrine of this most weightie, but just Charge, they shall only twist Contradictions the faster. And suitable to this Doctrine i… the Practice of Quakers, who notwithstanding that they Endeavour to perswade the World, that they are Illuminat, as the Prophets and Apostles were, yes, if not more; have never yet, for any thing I can learn, benefited the Church by commenting upon any one Book of Scripture, but account all Commentaries and such Treaties useless, and unworthy, except by detorting of them, to find out some thing opposite to the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Now certainly if these men be so Illuminat, as they would bear us in hand, there can be no reason Alledged, whey they benefit not the World, by illustrating the Scriptures, with clear Commentaries, and such Helps as may be most … for understanding thereof, if it be not that they either Envy the World of such a Good, which I think they will not say, Or else that all such Help; are superfluous. And indeed this they stick not to say, publishing to the World in Print, that all Catechetical Doctrine & …nstruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist, & learned from Papists; yea the very Scriptures themselve… they call by way of De…raction the Letter in by Divinity, & worse. Add to all this, their Doctrine of silent waiting, their railing against studied Sermons, p. 71and explications of Scripture. And that in all their Pamphlets they use not to exhort men to search the Scriptures, according to the Example of Christ Jesus; but in stead thereof, the Light within. These and many other things which might be said, sufficiently evince, that this their Revelation or new Light, is unto them in place of Commentaries, Catechism…, or any other Helps for understanding the Scriptures; yea and the Scriptures themselves: So that this one Darling of theirs, renders all others needless: Moreover, they deny with the old Manichees, that any part of the old Testament is binding upon us, and as for the N. T. William Pen saith, that the far greater part thereof is altogether lost, and sticketh not to say, that without their Spirit, we have no more certainty of the Scriptures than of the Popish Legends. Add to all this, that this Doctrine of the Quakers, viz. That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith, and manners, or chief Judge of Controversies, is downright Popish, and (as good reason they should be) both their Arguments to prove it, and their Answers to our Arguments against it, altogether Coincide with those of the Romanists, which might easily be illustrat in every particular; Some Examples we have given already, to those we may ad one other viz. Rev. 22.18. From which place we usually reason, that the Canon of the Scriptures is compleated; to which place the Papists answer, that this prohibition is only to be understood of the book of the Revelation alone, and that it will no more follow from this place, that Traditions p. 72ought not to be added to the Scriptures, as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners, then it will follow from Deut. 4.2. That the Prophets and Apostles were to write no Scriptures afterward; To this purpose may Bellarmin answer and the rest of the Jesuites. The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay (as these may do with the like support of their cause) both in his Apologie, and Vindication; and when Mr. Broun telleth him▪ that this as all the rest is a Popish shift; He replies Vind. pag. 35. in these words, what then, I could tell him an hundred Arguments used by him, which the Papists also use against us; will he say it follows they are invalid. But how pitiful and shameful this shift is, none see not; for can he say, that his Adversary had an hundred Arguments common to him with Papists, tending to the overthrow of the Doctrine of the reformed Churches, which they hold in opposition to papists, either this he must say, otherwayes he only discovereth a desperate Cause, and an Effronted Defender; For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papists, by which we defend the Truth of the Christian Religion in opposition to Heathens, and Iews, yet none except he that is altogether careless of what he says, or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex quolibet (as they say) will affirm, that Protestants are Papists, or Papists Protestants upon that account. Hence it is clear, that as there is not the least shadow of a Difference between Papists and Quakers in this point, so this Quaker is conscious of it, seeing, he could not but know that p. 73if this shift did him any Service, to distinguish him from a Papist, It will no less distinguish a Papist from himself, and prove him to be no Papist; So we see that the very shifts that these men use, under the covert of which they may Lu…k, contribut only to the more clear Detection and Discovery of their wickedness, in promoting what they can this downright Popish Doctrine, and gross Hypocrisie, in refusing the Name, when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing.