Verus Patroclus: OR, The Weapons of Quakerism, The Weakness of Quakerism: BEING A Discourse, wherein the choicest Arguments for their chief Tenets are Enervat▪ and their best Defences Annihilat; several Abominations, not heretofore so directly Discovered, Unmasked: WITH A Digression Explicative of the Doctrine anent the necessity of the Spirits Operation; AND An Appendix, Vindicating, Rom. 9 From the Depravations of an Arminian. By William jamison.  Tit. 3.10. 
A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second Admonition, reject.  
Edinburgh, Printed in the Year, 1689.   

TO THE Right Honourable, The EARL of DUNDONNALD, Lord Cochran, etc.  
AS, my Lord, amongst the innumerable precious Benefits and Blessings, which God hath graciously vouchsafed to Mankind, or to any part thereof, His Word, Statutes and sacred Oracles infinitely surpass, excel, and, so to speak, obscure all the rest by far, more than the Sun doth eclipse the lesser Luminaries: so according to that common saying, Corruptio optimi, pessima; Nothing by many degrees is so mischievous, noxious, and deadly as the Corruption and Depravation of these lively Oracles; For thus, though by a cursed accident, The Wine of our Father's Kingdom is turned into Wormwood, and that Heavenly and unpressed Honey into Gall; whereby the greater part of the visible Church hath perished! For the Poison hath this most unhappy advantage above all others, that it is of an hydropic nature, making the infected, the more they have drunk, so much the more desirous to drink. Hence that sagacious Spirit, the grand Enemy of Mankind, judged this the choicest expedient and mean, for restauration of his falling Kingdom: For to speak nothing o● the first 4000 years of the World, he hath ever, since the very infancy of Christianity, to his outmost, put this in practice, always raising up such as were most famous, or rather infamous, through their corrupting, abusing, and detorting the Word of Life, and Charters of our Salvation: Of which kind, in the early days of Christianity, were Cerinthus, Montanus, the Cataphrygians, Samosatenus, Arrius, and a multitude beside. But these first Essays, by reason of their palpable and direct overturning of the undoubted Fundamentals of Christianity which rendered all their sophistry, though never so subtle, most suspected, proved inefficacious to do the Business, though in some respect, infectious enough. Therefore the Lord having by many Means, and in special, by the first four Councils, blown away these pestiferous Mists, and cleared up to men's minds, these grand Truths of the Holy Trinity, the Godhead of Christ, the Unity of his Person, the Distinction of his Natures, and the like. The Method was altered, and the following opposers of Truth acted by the same Spirit, that the former were, went more subtly to work, not only forbearing to oppose these Fundamentals, but, in show at le●st, endeavouring to defend and assert them: By which it came to pass, that they were more easily believed in all they said, by the too simple people. In the mean while they secretly and slily sowed their Tares under the specious pretext of Unity, Order, Decency, Ornament, and ancient Tradition. Under the covert of these & the like, was the whole Mass of Paganism introduced, guilded only with the varnishing Title of Catholic Doctrine. For thus in stead of the humility of a Gospel-Ministry, was brought in a Prelatic Hierarchy, in imitation of the Pagan Protoflamines, which at length procreated to the World the Man of Sin, to head this degenerating Church in their Wickedness: And so they had Unity, which was worse than Division; and an Order, that became the cause of the most horrid Confusion the World hath hitherto seen. Thus also the simplicity of the Gospel was turned into Heathenish Pageantry; and the glory of the Church of God did degenerate into a mere worldly pomp and grandour. But at length how sad and miserable became the case of the Church, whe● through the power of humane inventions, delivered under the name of Tradition, & the Dictates of the Romish-depute of the old Dragon, such poisonous dregs became the best part of the essentials of their Religion! Justification before God, ascribed to the belief and practice thereof, and Justification by Faith in the Son of God, decried and maligned! Thus were the same fundamental Truths, which had been more openly assaulted by the former Heretics, now no less powerfully, but more subtly almost overthrown. But so soon as the Lord, as it were by the dawning of a second-Christian-day, had discovered Rome's Abominations, and rendered her hateful to all good Men; the old Artist & his associates changed their method, though not their design, impugning again more openly, these fundamental Truths they had assaulted in the early days of Christianity; But that the Weapon, already blunted, might yet cut, behold a new Artifice! For these attempts were not made, for the most part, by these who persisted in the company of the now deservedly hated Church of Rome, but by these who were in appearance the Deserters and Opposers thereof: Under the covert of which, they far more securely infected many, who were in communion with the reformed Church, impudently asserting, that the chiefest points of Christianity we●e Popery, on this account that the Papists had not expressly denied them. These were known by many names, as Servetians, Anti-trinitarians, Socinians, and the like. But more general was that of Anabaptists, comprising in itself all these, and many other such Vipers. The true progeny of these Anabaptists are these, now known by the Name of Quakers, the men with whom Ideal, who for design and method, are all on● with the bulk of both ancient and modern Heretics. Two Artifices were alternatively used by the ancient Heretics: and by a continued succession derived unto our present Adversaries, the one of which was to abuse the Scriptures; as if one should mould a Bushel of Jewels, into the shape of a Dog, Toad, or the like hateful Creature. The other, when in spite of all these shifts, they were Convicted out of the Scriptures, to turn upon the Scriptures themselves, as being not free of their own Errors, nor of Divine Authority. How exactly the Quakers write after their Copy, none acquainted with their Doctrines, seeth not. I hope therefore it shall not be unprofitable, if the following Discourse shall unfold more particularly these practices of our Adversaries, which I with a humble confidence can aver; and moreover I make some Discoveries, in particular of this more spiritual Mystery of Iniquity, by none I know hitherto directly undertaken. Moreover, this my Treatise can be judged by none altogether superfluous, who considereth, that the whole Land is ready to be overspread with the Hemlock o● Pelagianism, now known by the name of Arminianism, with which the bulk of the Prelatic Clergy is already infected, for with this Heresy I have several Rencounters. But I will not trouble your Lordship with a further account of this my small Undertaking; Yet this I crave leave to say, that whatever I intended of this kind, it was designed for your Lordship, not for instruction; for to a higher pitch, and that not without ground I presume your Lordship to be arrived, but only for a testimony of my gratitude to your Lordship's most Noble and Munificent Grandfather, whose large bounty to the Learned, and Learners, did liberally extend itself to me also, though most undeserving. Wherefore if there were any worth in this my small Essay, your Lordship by right of succession may challenge a propriety therein. Neither were your Lordship's Virtues unknown to me, while I had the honour of receiving my Education under the same Roo●, and at the same time with your Lordship. But the special motive of my ambition to prefix your Lordship's Name to my sheets, is, that your Lordship by undoubted arguments hath proved yourself, to be a sincere lover of the now much deserted and maligned Truths of GOD, and a true favourer of his afflicted Church, trampled on these many years by oppressing Lords, that never had lawful Dominion over her: whose Prelatical Yoke and Hierarchy, as it hath proved the stair, by which, beside many other Tyrants, the Pope hath got to the unmeasurable height, at which he is now arrived, so it is ready to become the bridge, and pave the way for his Retroduction into Britain, with this much I thought to have troubled your Lordship several Months ago, but then could not, for May last, my Papers not being admitted to the Press without the allowance of the then public Inspectors, were given to Doctor Munro, thereunto appointed by the Prelate of St. Andrews, by whom I was prohibited the publication thereof, unless I razed out of them, all mention of Popery whatsoever. So great hath the zeal of these good men been against Popery, that so far as they could, they would not suffer it so much as once to be named. Yet do I not complain of any wrong done to me, but only show to your Lordship, and the World, to how sad a pass things were then brought! Go on therefore, my Lord, espousing the Cause of the true Protestant Interest, in opposition to Popery, and whatsoever hath a tendency thereto: Thus shall your Lordship add the truest lustre to your Nobility, by causing the Heart of the destitute, and widow Church to sing, and bringing the blessing of her that was ready to perish upon your Lordship. And however matters shall succeed, your Lordship shall be Feasted with the Delicacies of a good Conscience, in respect of which, the choicest Banquet of Cleopatra with her Anthony, are far from amounting to the coursest of Commons. In which, that the Lord may prosper your Lordship, and bestow upon your Lordship and Family, his choicest Blessings, is, and shall be, the earnest Prayer of, my Lord,  
Your Lordship's most humble and devoted Servant, WILL. JAMISON.   

To the Judicious READER.  
THou will perhaps say, that this Treatise is but an Illade after Homer, or a thirteenth Enclo; So much already to so good purpose being written on this Subject: I therefore hold myself obliged to answer this Objection, by rendering thee an account of the Reasons that moved me to this undertaking; which were, the dangerousness of, though but the least infection, by this deadly Disease. The Proximity, or nearness of the Contagion. The wonderful readiness of its Patrons to broach Books, and Papers, bearing the Names of Answers of whatsoever is said, or written in opposition to it. That Quakerism is most dangerous, and the embracing thereof, of a lamentable and dreadful Consequence; none that seriously compare its Principles with those of Christianity, can be ignorant. I say, that compareth seriously, for others who have their Eye only, ad verum corricem; taking an overly view of the outside of things, may perhaps judge this difference not so great, and the Consequence of the Reception of Quakerism not so dismal. And apprehend that the worst things of Quakerism are only some ridiculous Stoicisms, and antic Toys, which, notwithstanding requite all the want of Civility, and good manners with sport and laughter, which thereby accrueth to the beholders. But by this their sloth, and neglect to compare the Doctrine of this Party with the Scriptures, they render themselves more capable to swallow down their poisoned wills, and eat out of the Pot filled with nothing but death. For as Ignoti Nulla Cupido, as a man cannot greatly love that which he knoweth not, though it be good, so neither can he sufficiently hate it, be it never so evil. Indeed their carelessness, and negligence meriteth no less. For certain it is, that bitter is no more contrary to sweet, darkness to light, than the Doctrine of Quakers is to that of Christ; being no other thing but a hodgepodge of the damnable Heresies, with which Christianity hath been from its infancy assaulted, and wrested, with to so good success, that few, though otherwise most audacious, have ventured to Patronise them, under their proper names, and genuine colours; but only under a mask and vizard, and new names and titles; all which are to be found in their Doctrine mixed, and compounded together, as if the Enemy of Mankind, mindful of that common saying, Ut quod non Possunt, singula juncta valent, had Collected in one body, all his broken and foiled Troup●: having somewhat changed his manner of Order, and Marshalling thereof, with which he may make the last one fall.  
The truth of this could easily be evinced, were this a place convenient, and the Sequel will afford many instances, by which the Reader may judge of the rest. Moreover, supposing that Quakerism were far less noxious than it is, seeing in every corner of the Land, there be many of its Defenders swarming among all people, it cannot be judged unnecessary to give an Antidote against it, more than to write Rules against any infectious D●sease, raging in a Land. Even although many things of this kind were already extant; especially seeing these Papers, with which I present thee, are both without Prolixity, and also discover some things of great concernment, which, for any thing I know, were never so fully, or directly handled by any others, which, I hope, may in part justify my undertaking. But the thing most moving me to trouble the World with any Treatise of this kind, was, that no sooner did any Piece in opposition to Quakerism, see the light, but presently there came forth another, bearing the name of a Refutation thereof. At this I did not a little wonder; for after a most impartial, and serious weighing of their Principles, in the balance of the Sanctuary, I found them (to say no more) directly opposite to the holy Scriptures. I therefore, with all seriousness, perused severals of the most elaboured Pieces, which had not been as yet answered; comparing them with these, against whom they wrote. After all which, my thoughts were quite altered; for I left off to admire their promptitude of answering, and fell to wonder at their impudence, seeing in every point, they in stead of Confuting, Confirm what their Adversaries say against them. In short, all the best of their answers, are either a quite omission, and passing by the substance of what is brought for the overthrow of their Doctrine, or at best mere shifts, or else a most audacious asserting of these things In Ter●●o●s, which are sufficient in the estimat of all Christians, to render the Maintainers thereof more abominable than worst of Pagans, though they were but only inferred by a long thread of consequences, which the Eternity of Christ's Manhood, and the Souls being a pa●t of God, no less loudly than impiously asserted by them, sufficiently witness. These, I say, they either directly maintain▪ even in their last pieces, or else can never be brought to disown them. Of which dealing, the Sequel will give divers undeniable instances, which indeed is the main Scope of this discourse. Among these Authors, I bestowed most thoughts upon Robert Barclay His Vindication of his Apology, which I found made up of untruths, perversions▪ false suppositions. As for example, to Vindicat and urge most of the places of Scripture brought in His Apology; as the foundation of his Doctrine, he supposeth that from the same texts his Adversary inferred our contrary doctrine, and thinketh it sufficient to desi●e his Adversary to prove our Doctrine from these places. These are the proper Elements of this Composition, but to make up a fourth, he knowing that by all men the Quakers were accused of matchless railing, taketh the Start, and filleth no small pa●● of his book, accusing His Adversary, as an unparalelled railer: The ground of which accusation is, that his adversary, as occasion serveth, telleth his Reader, that the Quakers, and this Apologist, among the rest, were no less gross and abominable than Arrians, Socinians, Pelagians, Papists, Libertins, Anabaptists, and the like. His Symbolising with which he adventureth not to deny: Which although at other times he doth, yet groundleslie, as these Papers will in part, and more fully, an entire collation of Quakerism with the Principles of these Sects, will demonstrate to any, who hath but the least Spunk of ingenuity, and Candour. I forbear to say, although I could, that our Vindicator is no novice in the very Crime, of which he so oft accuseth his adversary. However the matter be, he might have forborn his accusations of that which he knew his Brethren, to be of all Men most guilty, which, not to mention others, Burroughs answer to Bennets queries, and Hub●erthorns reply to Sherlok, evidently witness, Quis tulerit Grachos de sedi●●one querentes. The like I say of Geo: Keith in his book, entitled, Truth defended (evil enough, I am sure) For in it he never speaketh to the purpose, or toucheth what His Adversary Mr. John Alexander had said, or else marreth in stead of mending the matter: for others, I forbear to speak of them, these mentioned being the most learned of their Authors. Neither can I expect any better dealing, than these and the like have met with, and although they, as some of them have begun to do already, upbraid me with the infirmity in which divine Providence hath stated me, they will instead of doing their business hereby, only show to the World, that they have been too docil of a bad Lesson, taught them by the Pharisees long ago. John. 9 Neither do I intend at present to trouble myself and others, with whatsoever they shall give under the name of an answer, seeing the badness of their cause will not permit them to give any better, than What they have given to others: In which, they have been so unhappy, that one would have thought, that they of purpose verified that saying of the Poet, Causa patrocinlo non bona major erit. And although they say, that this is only but a shift to save me the labour of a reply. I value it not, but appeal to all the Reformers. Confessions of Faith, yea and all the Reformed Churches, as sufficient ●mpires in the case. Yea and in many points to all Christians of whatsoever profession, except the Socinlans, who retain nothing of Christian Doctrine, but only arrogat to themselves the name. Neither let them say with Rob: Bar: Vind: Sect: 6▪ That our Doctrine is contrary to that of some of the reformed Churches, in most weighty points, as for example Election, and Reprobation and the like; because in these we oppose the Modern Lutherians, seeing (as Wendelin in his Exercitations, and in special Exerc. 16, 17, 18. Hath fully evicted) the Modern Lutherians are altogether opposite in these points to the ancient Lutherans, such as Herbrandus, Hesnusius, Brentius, and most of all Luther Himself: And therefore are so far as touching these points, from deserving the name of Reformed, that they ought to be accounted their capital adversaries. But not to prefix a long preamble to a short discourse: In a word, I say, that as the Doctrine of Quakers is a heap of Non such Blasphemies▪ so their defences are mera 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Subtertuges so naked and silly, that one would admire, how any rational man could satisfy himself with them, but 
Qui bibit inde, furit, procul hinc discedite, queis est  
Cura bonae mentis, qui bibit inde, furit.  He strait runs mad who drinks hereof, 
Flee hence, who ever had  
A Love unto your precious Souls,  
who drinks hereof runs mad.   
Touch not, taste not, handle not the unclean things. For which end I present thee with these Sheets, of which that thou may reap profit, and advantage to thy Immortal Soul, standing in hazard from the infection of the Mortal disease of Quakerism, is▪ and shall be the earnest Prayer of thy Servant, to serve thee in the Lord.  
William Jamison.   

CHAP. I. Of the Holy Scriptures.  
A GOOD Name is better than precious ointment, saith the Preacher, Eccl. 7.1. Whosoever therefore intent 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 apposite, 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 Eulogies, 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 james Nailor, who in his Answer to the jews, 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 spoke them freely: Yea generally, All the Quakers unanimously deny, that the Scriptures are, or aught to be called the Word of God: But in so doing, they flatly 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. jer. 1.2. and 6.10. and 20. 8. Host 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 aught 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 spoke, 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 denied 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 epithet (or attribute) cannot be predicated, (or affirmed) of two things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or by way of eminence) without a gross contradiction: But in this he only betrays his own ignorance of the Laws of a Contradiction, and his desire of contradicting the Scriptures with a show of Reason: For whether by the Word of God▪ Christ or the Scriptures are to be understood this Elegy 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, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 more words in the Scriptures than one, Therefore they cannot be called 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 Fool's 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 more Letters than one. Not only the Jews who were Christ's Enemies, but even the Apostles themselves, had done right in the judgement 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 lie, seeing there are more 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, Host 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 john, 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 john 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, seeing 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 Metonymy is frequent in Scripture.  
The next Reason to prove that these Books ought not to be called the Gospel, which the Man's 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 entitled, 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 less 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 john 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 and john 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 john 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 schoolboy 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 always to be understood the power of God, or the essential Attribute of God's 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 jesus 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 choose which of them they will admit.  
2. But with no less Earnestness, and Industry do these men labour to cloth the Scriptures with base Epithets, and contemptible Aspersions, than to 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 ordinarily call the Scriptures the Letter, and by way of Disparagement, Writings, as the Queries given to Mr. john Alexander witness, Barclays 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 Almanac, witness Hollbrow, cited by Hicks, pag, 20. And that it is dangerous for People to read them, Fox, and Huberthorn, in Truth's Defence, pag. 101. And that Faith grounded on the Scriptures, is but an empty and implicit 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 persuades the People, to let the Scriptures be a Rule of Faith, and Practice would keep the People in 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, Says 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 john Faldo, pag, 70. Saith, but we have good Reason to deny them to be the Rule of Faith, and judge 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 judgement of those who Collected them, was sufficient to determine 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; If that Divine Counsellor preceded not, what assurance have our Anti-revelation-adversaries of their Doctor's 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 Uncorrupted, 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, etc. Faldo's Skill 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 judgement infallible, And to come nearer to our Times, Learned Men tell us of little less than 3000 several Readins 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 Ethnic Army, Robert Barclay Assaulteth the intrinsic Arguments, and Divine Characters, imprinted on the Scriptures; saying in his 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 Abridgement 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 Style 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 Counterfeit, although he had never heard these men immediately relate, Sing, or Declaim; Surely this will be denied 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 Style, no harmony of Parts, no Scope of the whole etc. 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 Porphyry and Celsus, the two Heathenish Champions, than for a Christian, seeing they bend all their Wit and Skill to revive again Heathnisme under the name of Quakerism. I shall only add for confirmation of my Assertion the Words of Benjamin Furly a Quaker in Rotterdam, cited by Mr. Hicks, in his Quakers appeal answered, pag. 16. There is nothing (Says 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 itself; 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 Horror 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 provoked the Holy God in his just Judgement, to let loose and permit these satanical Spirits to rage abroad, and pollute the very Air with their poisonous 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 shall 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 from 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 though 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 God's Spirit, and the Precepts of the Scripture, which now concern all, are binding upon all, so that they shall be justly condemned for not obeying, albeit by the perverseness 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 Faith 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, seeing 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 let us come to the Matter of Furley, of which he says, 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 seeing 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 shall not be bound to obey any of the Commands of God: As for Example, to abstain from Murder except the Lord by an immediate objective Revelation, such as he gave to Moses or the rest of the Prophets, enjoined this unto them. Behold, Reader, the dangerous Conclusion! The abominableness 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, yea 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, though 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 profane the Name of God, or to honour Parents, must have abandoned the exercise of Reason. 3. While he allegeth, 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, though 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 Superior, tell him, what for the time 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 Quakerism, 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, seeing 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 Defence 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, which doubtless he was in case to do, if there had been any such thing, seeing he professeth that he hath Knowledge of the Matter, which he doth not profess 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 Judgement to consider.  
4. From what is said, it is most evident, that the Scriptures according to the Judgement 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, intent. As for Example, that common Topick of the Quakers (viz.) That which was the Rule of the Patriarches 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 Patriarches Faith. Ergo according to the Quakers, the Scriptures in no respect can be called the Rule of Faith and Manners: but finding that the grossness of this Doctrine bewrayeth itself, 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 proved to be the Rule of Faith and Manners: As that the Scriptures are the Verbal and Histicorical Rule of Faith, which is the Devil's 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 complete, and Principal Rule of Faith and Manners, but only an inadequate, incomplete 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, though 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 abhor 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 Baal's Priests, Thiefs, 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 saving 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 Patriarches, Prophets, and Apostles: To whom God himself immediately did speak, and dictate his will without the Intervention of any thing; as a medium, or mids, Declaring that Revelation to the Patriarches, Prophets, and Apostles, or it may be mediate, as it was in respect of those, to whom the Patriarches, 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 blindness 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 ordinarily 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. 18. 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 falsely 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 absolutely necess●●ry, this all the Confessions witness, 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. 2. That we are guilty of Enthusiastic 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, join 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 ourselves 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 ruin of the Church of God: ay 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 showeth 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, and 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 inclining the will for perception, and embracing thereof. Now notwithstanding of al● this, poor mankind blind by nature, should be in perpetual darkness, if his eyes were not opened. Hence another Principle is necessary viz. The Spirits gracious operations enlightening, and sweetly inclining, 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 instrument in the Hand of God: For the Divin● Beauty, and Celestial Glory of the Scriptures is so transcendent, that the removal of the natural blindness, 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 Word, and may be more properly called an application of Divine Revelation, than Revelation itself. 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. Eyesalve, 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 immediate, but not necessarily so, but other some times mediate, 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 mediate, or immediate, 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 complete Circle. To which I answer that there is here no Circle, for a 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Characters of the Spirit of God argumentatively: 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 fanatical 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 Eyesalve, and the Sun: For one by the Eyesalve, or some efficacious Medicament of this 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 knoweth the Sun, and again by the Sun's light he may perceive what is Eyesalve, and what not. This egregiously illustrateth the purpose, and yet is many stages from a Circle. The second Example is of a Logician, his Reason, and his Systeme of Logic, 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 requited them with two unextricable Circles, if time did permit.  
5. I come to the Removal of the second Objection, viz that we cannot distinguish ourselves 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 symbolise with 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. showed 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 British, and Transmarine Protestants on this head, but chose a most entire harmony. Having therefore discovered this none-such weakness, and extreme disingenuity, I come directly to the objection, and answer both Papists, and Quakers together, we distinguish ourselves 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 strictly 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 Testimony 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. Luther's 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 showeth the arguments in the things themselves, impressed in the things which are to be believed, but before unknown. Woleb. Comp. Theol: pag. 4. The Spirit of God persuadeth 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 shall behold the wonderful things of God, and acknowledge God's 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 ourselves taught by the alone internal persuasion of the Spirit, we hold the Ministry of the Church in honour: internal persuasions without the external word we eat, as sanatical impostures; we judge out of the scriptures, we believe with the scriptures, or because of their Testimony, and therefore Heretics, 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 possessed with error, as acted with madness, there have 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 kill 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, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed for ever; he doth not tie the people of the jews to an outward Doctrine, as if he taught them the first principles, but rather, that it will be the true, and full felicity of the Church in Christ's Kingdom, to be ruled no less by the voice, than spirit of God. From whence we collect, that what are inviolably conjoined by the Prophet, are most sacrilegiously separat by these Villains. 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 to 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 divers, indeed if it were tried by a humane, angelic or any other Rule, he were to be corrected, or chastised (if ye will) but while it is compared with itself, while it is considered in itself, who will then say that there is injury done to it, and so it is brought to a Trial I confess, 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 itself 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 divers from himself, whatever therefore he showeth himself to be in the scriptures, such he must be forever. That is no contumely to him, except we judge it honour worthy to forsake, and degenerate from itself. 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. Judge therefore, Reader, if Robert Barclay had any ground to allege 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 shall 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 shall 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 extremes 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 extreme 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 another; so the greater odds that seem to be between Papists and Quakers they are the more nearly relied 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 juno of divine Revelation, but lighting upon a cloud of their own brain, in stead thereof have procreate 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, complete, 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 complete, 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 complete, and principal Rule. The Major is most evident, for what further certainty either aught we, need we, or can we seek, for what we believe or do, than the words of the most veracious, and unerring God? and no other thing can be understood by a complete 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 from 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 spoke, 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 less 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 Barclays; 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 Decision in all doubts, and Controversies, and that under highest pains: 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 jews 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 ordinarily comprehended. Now shall any be so stupid as to believe, when a doubt arose, that the King was not bound to apply himself, to this written Law, for the discussing thereof? or that, though the King's doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law, he was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him? I say, who in his 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 jews, but denyeth that they were the primary Rule. Ans. Whatever be understood by Law and Testimony in that place, whether it be the Scriptures, or 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 groundless: 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 halt, but prove wholly lame, and without sense; now seeing 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 this 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, than they shall 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 itself is but a secondary Rule, even although 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 shall only refer him to solid bailie 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. john Alexander (falsely called Truth Defended, its true name being Truth depraved) Pag, 80, Showeth his cause to be mortally wounded, with the force of this Scripture Argument, for he dare not expressly deny, that 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 will not confess, that which he dare not deny. The shift which he useth is the same with Robert Barclays second shift, vi●. That though 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. joh. 3.20, 21. john. 12.36. Which places make not a whi● for his purpose, yea divers of them cut the Jugular Vein of Quakerism, as shall 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 though 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 enlightened, quickened, and upstirred to believe, and practise the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures, than he sayeth nothing▪ for this indwelling, or God thus 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 hodgepodge 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 pass 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. joh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. and 13▪ from the 14. to 42. 2 Pet. 1.19, 20. Luk. 16.31. Our Adversaries like bats, hating, 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 quickeneth 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 the 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 Euclid 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 less ridiculous is this silly sophister; for he reasoneth the same way. But that I may fully declare either the profound stupidity or wilful prejudice of this Quaker. I suppose that a man in discourse with another about the King's 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 err, 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 denied. Now should not any man, that concluded from this man's 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 men's design i● not to speak well, but to speak last. The next place is, joh. 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 Servant to his Holiness, and a true Roman Catholic, stiffly 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 jesuits themselves, in whom there is any spark of Conscience, or Candour, who all understand it in the imperative mood, and good Reason they have so to do, seeing the reading of the Scriptures is all along through the whole Scriptures both commanded. Deut. 17, 18, 19 Deut. 29.29. Exod. 13.9: jos. 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 falsehood, 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 jews, saying, These are they that testify 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 spoke to the jews, which are recorded in Scripture, were less binding to them than the words spoken by Moses and the Prophets? If they were less binding, (saith he) than 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, though blunt (as shall 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 though he were not in case to answer it, seeing if this word be to be taken in the imperative mood, as we have even now demonstrat, than 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 replied, that this would not do the turn, seeing the Scriptures themselves were but a secondary Rule, to be subjected unto another, without the Determination of which, they could never acquiesce 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▪ and 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 spoke, and now recorded in Scriptures, were of themselves no less binding on the jews, than these spoken by Moses and the Prophets, though the jews, throw their wilful ignorance, and prejudice, which was their own great fault [the great Cause of which, was the neglect of the Scriptures, which testify 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 mere non sequitur. He here grants, that if Christ's 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, than no man can deny, that even these things, which are divine immediate 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, seeing 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 private Enthusiasms ought to be tried by the Scripture, he yieldeth all he was 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 john 5.39. Therefore I say, our meaning is the same way vindicate. N●xt all his verbal shifts are wholly excluded here, seeing such an high commendation given by the Spirit of God to these Bereans, aught to have no less 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 etc. 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 discovery, 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 God's outward Word to the Ear, and inw●rd to the Heart, which he sayeth, is more sure to a man, than God's immediate 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 immediate 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 spoke as immediately 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 persuadeth the soul to embrace, and close with it, as divine, which is both groundless, and therefore false and contrary to their own principles, who assert, that unless the understanding be well disposed, Revelation, though immediate is not evident. 3. It insinuateth, that the Apostle in this comparison, gave out that one of the things compared, was in itself really more uncertain than the other, which is most false, seeing considered in themselves, both real immediate 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 less subject to be counterfeited, or wrested by either the Devil, or our own sancy, than immediate Revelations are. The Apostle hath also his eye upon his Countrymen the jews, to whom he speaketh, who though 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 immediate 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▪ seeing 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, aught to have this Denomination; we have seen the invalidity of his Reason, as also the small advantage, though it had been valid. We shall in the next place show, why by this more sure word of Prophecy, we understand the Scriptures: And first, because any phrase of the like import (as for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a prophetic 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 (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 effronted 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, seeing 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 unless 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. joh. 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 less 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 Orthodox 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 gloss with us, yea I dare aver with Confidence, that if we except some old Montanists, Cataphrygians, or the like ancient 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 rejoinder before cited, pag. 334. yieldeth unto us that which they so stiffly deny. viz. that by the More sure word of Prophecy the Scriptures are to be understood, and I pass on to the vindication of Luk. 16.31. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded, 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 allege, 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 primary Rule, otherways might not Abraham have said, The Spirit of God directeth every man immediately, 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 jews 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 immediate Revelation, than the voice of the Highpriest 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 Apology, pag. 4. where he maketh an Objection, viz. That after the Dispensation of the Law, God's Method of Speaking was altered. To which he answereth, that Gods speaking was immediate always to the jews, in that it was immediate always to the High. Priest, from between the Cherubims. To which I Reply, This Answer is strange, In that he says, The mind of God revealed by the Highpriest 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● or 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 God's 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 immediate Revelation, was no more immediate 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● to 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 perverseness; for if he had but looked unto the 15 verse, he might have seen, they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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, than 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 and 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 joh. 20.31. 2 Cor. 3, 14. Psal. 119.70. He saith, that from this Doctrine, it would follow, that all Books written after such a time were superfluous. If this answer be sufficient, many a superfluity there shall be in Scripture, for if the writing of a Book after there are so many written as contain all things necessary for Faith and practice, (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 than 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 than 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 complete, adequate, and primary Rule of Faith, and manners; by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves: And first, that they are an adequat and complete 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, ask where we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith? I answer freely, In the Scripture. And 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 subjected 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, though 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 inferior Court. Now if the Quakers would hold by this, and grant that a man swerveth not from his duty, though he subject all suggestions, and motions to the Scriptures as a sure Trial, 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 primary 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 I hope that which is infallible, needs not be subjected unto, and tried 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 ourselves 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 Eyesalve 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 primary 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 show unto a man, that he hath true Faith; for, (say they as the Jesuit did before them) Such a man's Name is not in all the Word of God: For although the Scriptures contain the true marks of Faith; who shall persuade me that I have these Marks? that I believe? that I obey? Thus R. B. reasoned in his Apology; 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 replieth, Vind. pag. 45.46. That such examples are 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 man's 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 the Cert. Iust. calleth the same Sophism a Theological demonstration, contradicting not only the Scriptures, but divers of the Papists themselves, as Amesius showeth: Bellarmin also accounteth this Inspiration of the Quakers, the only way whereby a man can be firmly 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 jesuit more opposite to the Reformed than another, with him he joineth hands, He is therefore to be accounted amongst the grossest of jesuits, and these his Romish Cavils 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 stolen 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. john or james 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 jesuit, 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 party, and no more is necessary for the begetting a Judgement 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 ways necessary; but only Moral Rational Grounds of certainty, those may be had; As for the other viz. infallible Evidences, those are only necessary to one's self, and these they may h●ve by the Scripture applied in Christian prudence and Spiritual Wisdom, the Scriptures themselves being the Rule whereby to make the Examen, or Search. Is. 8.20. joh. 5.39. Act. 17.11. 2. Tim. 3.15. 16, 17.2 Pet. 1.19, 20. And the enlightened 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 Cavils fall to the ground, and the similes no more halt; the other Examples brought for the illustration of any Matter, for all similes halt in some respect, otherways they should not be similes, but the same; and to think the similes here used cannot hold, because both Judge, & witnesses, are inward in the matter, illustrated by these Similes, 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 Apology, and abbreviated in his Abridgement; falsely 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 for every particular Action, as Eating, Drinking, etc. 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 denied 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 itself 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 Mathematics, or Military Discipline, is a perfect Rule to guide any Mathematician, or Soldier, upon this account, that those Books comprehend not the Names of all Mathematicians, and Soldiers, 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, those called Remonstrants, and public 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, lest (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 immediate 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, seeing 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 Topics, 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 complete Rule. They object also, the variety of Readins, 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 rejoinder, Part 1. Chap. 5. hath this Objection, the Scriptures cannot try, and examine particular Motions, and Prophecies, saying, that Paul Act. 16. reproved not 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 james 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 Church's infallibility, So this Spirit of the Quakers, knowing that upon Trial, he will be found a Counterfeit, hath taken the Council 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 Prophecies 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 Paul's reproof of the Spirit of Divination, it is most irrationally Objected, Seeing Paul was immediately Inspired, and a Writer of Scripture himself. 2●y. This Action was most Consonant to Scripture, being abundantly warranted by that 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 itself, 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 Author's folly, pag. 57 as being altogether ridiculous, saying, who ever dreamt that the Scriptures were God, or the Spirit of God? To which 〈◊〉 Barclay, Vind. pag. 37. thus Replieth, 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 relating 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 immediate 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 men's hearts, not contrary but according to Scripture (for he cannot contradict himself) the Rule of Christians, and this may serve to answer all his Cavils upon this Theme. 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 adversary calleth a demonstration of the Author's folly, as proving that which never man denied, 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 would persuade 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 off-coming, he giveth out that his adversary first denied 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 denied; 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 known, 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, though 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 dictates 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 Cavils; for these Rules imprinted in the Soul, are not God, under what notion soever he be taken: a Declaration of the Fountain, is not the fountain itself. Hence the Quakers grand principle that immediate 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 immediate Revelations, for the one can no more be called the primary Rule, than the other, and that by the Quaker his own Concession. Moreover seeing these immediate 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 liar, and deceive us. But once more, how shall these imprinted secondary Rules be examined! not by other words or dictates of whatsoever kind, for to do this will cost the examiner a journey to in finitum, to which he will not come in haste, seeing these other Dictates 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 Scriptures, both being given by the same Spirit, seeing the primarinesse is not the immediatness, but the chief binding power, & the prerogative to be the touchstone of all Doctrines. Now this notion of a primary Rule being had, there is very good Reason to wonder, why the Dictates of the Spirit should be preferred before the Scriptures, seeing God hath told, (whether mediately or immediately, 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. joh. 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 immediate, 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 completely 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 spoke of just now above here 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 shall 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, than their cause is lost, and their great Diana of Immediate 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 Immediate 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 ourselves Enemies to it: Thus replieth George Keith to Mr. john Alexander. Truth's 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 Quakers, 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 show 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 nicknamed People Right, and such wrong, and they do their business; 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. john 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 our 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, though 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, though 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, Anthony, 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 expressly in Scripture; The same way Rob: B. in his Apology understandeth that place 1 john. 2.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 him all things, so that he needs no man to teach him, hath an inward and immediate Teacher, and hath some things inwardly, and immediately 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 weighty, 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 persuade 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 Alleged, 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 & instruction is the Doctrine of Antichrist, & learned from Papists; yea the very Scriptures themselves they call by way of Detraction the Letter in by Divinity, & worse. Add to all this, their Doctrine of silent waiting, their railing against studied Sermons, and 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, Catechisms, 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 add one other viz. Rev. 22.18. From which place we usually reason, that the Canon of the Scriptures is completed; 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 ought not to be added to the Scriptures, as a part of the rule of Faith and Manners, than 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 Jesuits. The same way directly answereth Robert Barclay (as these may do with the like support of their cause) both in his Apology, 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, otherways 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 jews, 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 Protestant's 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 if 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 Hypocrisy, in refusing the Name, when they cannot but know that they are guilty of the thing.    

CHAP. II. Of Immediate Revelation.  
AS the Quakers have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of God, speaking in the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make the Man of God wise unto Salvation; so they have most impiously and self-deceivingly given up themselves to the guidance of something, which they call the Spirit of God, as we have heard: and again in contradiction to this, the Soul of Christ extended and dilated, of which, say they, every man is a partaker. But most frequently they call it, the Light within, or simply, the Spirit, which they make the chief and principal Rule of Faith, and manners, to which Spirit God himself speaking in the Holy Scripture must do obeisance. Which Doctrine although we have already everted in the former chapter, we shall notwithstanding here propose and vindicate a few Arguments for the further overthrow thereof, and detection of the gross abomination and horrid delusion attending their principles, And first I will propose and vindicate an Argument proposed by Mr. Brown; Quakerism the plain way to Paganism pag. 46. Which Argument Robert Barclay attempteth to solve Vind: pag. 17. which is this, 
If since the Apostles fell asleep, and the Canon of the Scriptures was closed, all that have pretended to immediate Revelation, as a primary Rule, have been led by a Spirit of error, than it is not the way of Christ  
But the former is true.  
Ergo. etc.   
To this he answers 1. that Mr. Brown begs the Question, in his presupposing, that there are no Apostles now, and that the Canon of the Scriptures is closed; against which exception I reassume the Argument thus.  
If since the Apostles, whose Names are mentioned in Scripture, fell asleep, and john wrote the Revelation, all that pretended to this kind of Revelation have been led by a Spirit of error, than this is not the way of Christ;  
But the former is true.  
Ergo, etc.  
There can now no exception be made against the M●j●r, for none will deny, that the Apostles whose names are mentioned in Scripture are dead, and that john hath written the Revelation, and well enough he knew that Mr. Brown understood no other thing than what we have now said, and yet so covetous hath he been of shifting, that he behoved to have one, though he could not but know that it would serve no longer than it met with an impugner. I now come to his answer to the Minor, which Mr. Brown makes evident by an induction of many Sects, and Heretics, pretending to immediate Revelation, all which are known and not denied by Quakers, to have been led by a Spirit of error, to which we may add many of the Quakers themselves, such as I●: Nailor, Susanna Parsons; who as P●get relateth, being moved by this lying Spirit, fruitlessly attempted to raise from the dead, another of the Quakers, one William Pool by name, who had murdered himself, and Gilpins, of whose lying Spirit see at large in Clerks Examples; also john Toldervy, of whom see a little Book called, foot out of snare; Robert Churchman and many others, of whom you may read at large in Mr. Increase Maithers Book. And he requireth an instance of the contrary, which is the only way to answer an Induction; In stead of which he sayeth, that he is bound to prove, that there was never one pretending to immediate Revelation, but he was also led of the Spirit of error, which he hath done until he give an instance to the contrary: or else show another way of answering an induction, which will be new logic; which perhaps he may do, for he and his Brethren are very displeased with the old. 2 lie. That he may not be alone in this sore stress, he saith that Mr Menzies doth thus answer Dempster the Jesuit: which is an impudent falsehood, for neither the Jesuits medium nor probation of his Minor, is in the least like the Argument which we now vindicate; for the Jesuits Argument was this, That Religion cannot be true Religion which hath no peculiar ground, or principle to prove that it is a Religion, and conform to the true sense and letter of the Scripture, or Word of God; and he subsumes, But the Protestant Religion hath no peculiar ground, etc. Ergo it cannot be a true Religion. Hence it is evident that these two Argumentations have nothing of consanguinity; For if these two Argumentations had stricken alike at the two parties, against which they were framed, than the Jesuits Argument should have run thus; Whosoever since the Apostles fell asleep have pretended to, or pleaded for the Scriptures as their principal Rule, have fallen into palpable errors and open blasphemy, so that they became marks of God's heavy judgement. Now where should the Jesuit have found such a long Catalogue of these, as Mr. Brown hath found of deluded Enthusiasts. But which is the main thing and quite refutes the most falsely and impiously alleged coincidence of these Arguments, how easy should it have been to have adduced not only one instance to the contrary, but whole volumes thereof, ye● not only the whole primitive Church for divers Centuries after Christ, and all the Reformed Churches, both these whom men are pleased to call Calvinists, and Lutherans, together with the Greek, and Abassine Churches; But likewise the most grave, wise and learned of the Romanists themselves. By this time I hope this arch-falshood of the Quaker, whereby he would hide the shame of his desperate cause, already appeareth; again I answer directly to the Jesuit, and the Quaker his patron, that if we may believe the ablest, and fiercest of our Adversaries, such as Bellarmin, Contaren, Salmeron, the chief of the Doctrines, which we hold in opposition to pope●y are most agreeable to the true Sense of Scripture.  
His third answer is, that some of the primitive Protestants, such as George Wishart and john Huss had immediate Revelation, But, nequisquam Ajacem possit super are nisi Ajax, that he might be sure no other should refute him, he refuteth himself, and rendereth his instance altogether unserviceable, by granting they did not pretend to it as the ground of their Faith, and obedience in all matters of doctrine and worship? Lastly to the instance of ja: Naylor, they answer, that he repented again; which answer is an evident confirmation of what we plead for, viz· that the Quakers Spirit is ready to give them the cheat, and deceive them, for I believe ja: Naylor acted but according to his light when he received Divine Worship. From this argument we may observe these things first, if it hold as cogent, this is a serious Truth which he sayeth. Vindic. page. 25. is absurdly affirmed by james Durham (as he speaks) viz. that Christ spoke his last words to the Church, that is, put a close to these writings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church; for if all that pretend the like commission, or such immediate Revelation of the rule of their Faith (about which the question is) were led by a Spirit of error, than the Revelation was the last Scripture written, and sure, for any thing he knoweth, aught to be written, there is no reason to believe that there is any more to be written. 2 lie. Observe, that this Argument is demonstrative, for such are all inductions which have no instance to the contrary. 3 lie. It destroys wholly the Quakers cause; for this kind of Revelation being disproved, the very proprium quarti mod● of the Quakers is destroyed.  
2dly. Moses and the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles, and all the holy men that were inspired by God, to compile a rule of Faith, and Life, could by Infallible Evidence, and infallible proofs, even to the Conviction, and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers, demonstrat, that they were sent of God, but nothing of this kind the Quakers can do; yea, they are so far from it, that they can bring no more Evidence, or Credentials for their Rule of Faith, or pretended Revelation, than the most wicked Enthusiasts, as for Example john of Leyden and his followers, whom the Quakers themselves dare not deny to have him Acted by a most wicked Spirit of Delusion; seeing therefore, they will not subject their Revelations to the infallible test of the holy Scriptures, but contrariwise will Impiously make the Scriptures stoop to their Revelations, they can be no more certain, that they are not acted by the Devil, or at least by their own giddy-brain, and erroneous fancy, when they bear us in hand, that they are inspired by the Spirit of God, than they of Manster were. To this Argument they decline so far as they can a direct answer; Therefore, Robert Barclay Replieth to Mr. Broun. Vind. pag. 21. How cometh it that others pretending to be led by the Scripture as their Rule, as much as John Broun have been deceived, since the Scripture declares nothing but Truth; But how silly this is I have shown above and more largely in my Apology in these paragraphs which I observed he most foully omitted. And indeed this is a fine Argument, he has provided for Atheists, and Sceptics, for it renders all Faith, even that of the Patriarches uncertain: For since their ground, and warrant of Writing the Scripture, was in his own account Inward, Immediate and Extraordinary Revelations, and if such be, as he affirms, uncertain, than the truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such, must necessarily be uncertain, since the Stream cannot be more pure than the Fountain. Thus he; This Reply resolveth into two Hypothetick Propositions (as for the Paragraphs of which he here boasteth as unanswered, which take up six pages in his Apology, filled with Railing and Gall, against all the reformed Churches, they prove only that the Scriptures through men corruption are subject to abuse, which never man denied.) The first is, if the Scriptures through the Corruption of men, may be wrested and abused to the Patrociny of Errors and corrupt Practices, then although men clearly understand, and firmly believe them, and square their Practice exactly according to them; Yet they are no more able to be a Rule unto them, than these Revelations can be which john of Leyden held. The second is, He that will not admit of such Revelations as cannot be distinguished from these which led their followers into the most Blasphemous Opinions, and most wicked Practices imaginable, He (I say) that will not admit of these for his principal Rule, but preferreth unto them the Scriptures, which can both be invincibly demonstrated to have proceeded from God, and also call themselves sufficient to make one wise unto Salvation, provideth an Argument for Atheists and Sceptics: But thus doth Mr. Broun reason against the Quakers, and except this & the like other grounds, the Quakers have none for this heavy Charge. For that his Adversary called the Revelations of the Apostles & Prophets uncertain; Is a most palpable Untruth, the least shadow of which cannot be found in all his Writings, except they deduce it by such unreasonable Inferences as these. And now, Reader, speak thy mind in good earnest; Thinkest thou that this man was in his wit, or to be numbered amongst Rationals, when he made these Deductions, by which their palpable Impieties are indeed antidotes against seduction. But these men have an ordinary Trick of comparing their own Revelations, of the Divinity of which they can give no Signs, to these of the Apostles, and Prophets, that were to the conviction of all Opposers, proved to be Divine; and thus give away, and betray the Christian Cause; in labouring to defend their own Dottages. In the next place therefore, let us take a short view of the Quakers principal Rule, compared with ours, that it may more fully appear, which of the parties provide an argument for Atheists & Sceptics; And 1. We cannot know whether they ha●● any Revelations at all, they may be lying unto us for any thing we know, we have only their naked Word for it; whereas on the other hand, it is beyond denial that we have the Scriptures. 2ly. It being given that they have Revelations of some kind, from whence are they? from Heaven? their own fancy? or from Hell? This we cannot know, they neither do, nor can give any mark to distinguish them from these Revelations, which all the world are persuaded to have been from Hell, or at least from a Vertiginous Fancy. Go to then, let them speak their mind, and attempt the retortion of the argument (if they dare) upon the Scriptures. They yet more fully prove, that their Revelations are not from Heaven, while they affirm that they are common to all men, which (if the experience of the World, yea, of the word of God may be judge) is most ●alie. 3ly, Making a Supposition, which will never come to a solid Position, that they have divine Revelations, we yet cannot know for what end they are given; whether to be a principal Rule or not, or whether or not through their own corruption, they do not wrest and misunderstand, or though they do understand them, if they walk according to them (nothing of which can be 〈◊〉 of the Scriptures) we can hear nothing, nor 〈◊〉 nothing, but some men still amusing the World, Crying a new Light, without giving any Evidence or proof thereof, but only their own Word, & so are always their owned witnesses in their own cause, and therefore by all rational men ought not a little to be suspected. 4ly. This Spirit, inward Light, or Revelations of the Quakers, for I take all for one, can never be able to determine Controversies; Seeing two different parties may both of them adduce these Revelations to prove contradictory Assertions. Now Seeing neither of the parties, is in case to Evince that his Revelations are from God more than the other, the Controversy must remain for ever undetermined, Seeing they have no common principle in which they can concentre and meet. And thus standeth (for Examples sake) the case betwixt Quakers and Ranters, agreeing in this principle of immediate Revelations, and yet (if their books be to be believed) bitter Enemies to one another in several points, for which both of them allege Revelations as their grand Principle, and neither of them can evince their Revelations to have proceeded from God, more than the other. Hence we most rationally conclude that the Controversies betwixt these two parties are indeterminable, so long as they stick to this Principle. Now this Argument in no ways 〈◊〉 be retorted on the Scriptures, for though there have been through the corruption of men, wresting the Scriptures, many Controversies, and that even amongst these who assert that the Scriptures 〈◊〉 the Principal Rule of Faith, and Manners; yet wh● can say, that this is through default of the Scriptures, seeing our Adversaries cannot deny, but that they speak both Sense and Truth; and that when there is a real Contradiction between two, disputing cocerning any Doctrine, or Sense, and meaning of any text of Scripture, this Text speaks for the one, and against the other, though the one of the parties, either through Ignorance cannot, or through prejudice will nor see it; and that the sense thereof may be brought forth to the light, so that there shall follow a mutual Agreement between the two dissenting parties, and consequently that the Scriptures of their own Nature, are apt for the removal of differences about things contained in them. We have heard their retortion, let us now hear their direct answer, which is, that their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of God; Thus it's answered in their Quakerism confirmed, to the Students of Aberdeen; For which forsooth they bring Scripture proof from Matth. 7.15, 16. where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false Prophet. But what fruits these thorny prickling Plants have brought, and do daily bring forth, the world is not ignorant. If to deny the Holy Trinity, the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the Body, and to assert the Souls of men, yea and devils to, to be God Almighty, (of which abominations we shall ere we end this Treatise, undeniably prove the Quakers to be guilty) and in a word, to vomit out their Malice, so as to endeavour the overthrow of whatsoever God in his Sacred Word hath commanded us, either to believe or do. If these (I say) be the fruits of the Spirit? then indeed the Quakers have them, and abound in them, and other Fruits we know none, except (which are of little worth) some Stoicisms, and ridiculous whimsies, in which also some of the Mahometan and other Monks have gone far beyond them; yea, with these men. Envy, Pride, Contempt of all others, are so predominant, that though by this Character o●ly, it is easily judged by what Spirit they are acted. Add to all this, their constant custom of horrible lying, Perverting, and Railing; of which take one or too Instances in the practice of one o● their chief leaders Rob: Barcl. for Vind. pag. 60 He sayeth, that his Adversary inferred from the Quakers Doctrine of Christ's dying for all, that Infants come to heaven without Christ; But how gross an untruth is 〈◊〉, will be evident to any that read Mr. Broun, Cap. 6. Num. 14. where he inferreth this horrible consequence, from their de●ying of Original Sin; and again pag 64.65, he saith, that the Westminster Confession saith, that God did predestinate to everlasting damnation the most part of men, without any respect had to their sin; But a more palpable and horrid lie, hath scarce been hatched; for 〈◊〉 that Confession chap 3. §. 7. It is expressly said, that God 〈◊〉 ordain them to Wrath for their sins. Of the like nature, is that which he saith pag. 170; That his Adversary chap 27. maketh a Preaching to the Devil, and that a Minister at Lige●wood, made a Prayer to the Devil; whereas he only infers from the Quakers Doctrine, that they may make a Preaching to the Devil. And as for Railing, their whole writings are Stuffed with it. See for example Hubberthorn against Sherlock, whose whole Pamphlet, is nothing but an he●p of furious Railing, his best Language being, Thief, rude Fellow, Enemy to God etc. See also Edward Burroughs' in answer to Philip Bennet, whose best language is Serpent, the lake is prepared for thee, and such language as this is the marrow of the Quakers refutation of their adversaries Books. For in these two now Named Discourses, there is hardly the shadow of so m●ch as an Essay to answer; But this is the way how they gain the day, and obtain the last word. How fair an occasion is here offered to show to the world by a particular Enumeration of their horrid & monstruous practices that their fruits are the Grapes of Sodom, and the wine of Gomorrah; But they are but too too well known already; we forbear therefore to rake into this Dunghill, Certain it i● that the works of the Angel of the bottomless pit▪ will as soon prove himself ●o be an angel of Light▪ as the Fruits of these High-pretenders, will prove them to be acted by the Spirit of God.  
But more fully to confirm or rather illustrate this argument I shall show the Identity of their Spirit with that of the old Anabaptists in several particulars.  

A short parallel between the old Libertine Anabaptists, and the new, who are known by the name of Quakers.  
1. Muncer and the Anabaptists with him denied that the Scriptures, or external word (for thus they spoke that they might the better vili●y the Scriptures were the Word of God, but only a Testimony thereof; and said that the Word of God was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures. Bullinger adversus Anabaptistas' lib. 1. cap. 1. The same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers; only there is this difference, that the Quakers express themselves in this matter with more rage and fury, than (for aught I can find) the Anabaptists did, as the Reader may may see cap. 1. §. 1. of this Treatise.  
2dly. Muncer with his disciples preferred that which they called immediate Revelation and inspirations, (busked with the specious Title of Father's will, as the Quakers Revelations are now with that of the Spirit) to Gods written Word. Bullinger Ibid and cap. 2. & passim alibi. Sleidan: comm: Calvin: Instit: lib, 1 cap. 9 In this point also the Quakers are their successors, or rather the same, the name being changed, seeing they with Robert Barclay propos. 2, 3. assert, that not the Scriptures, but the Spirit, is the principal Rule of Faith and Manners.  
3dly. The old Anabaptists asserted, that the express Words and Phrases of the Scriptures are to be adhered to, without any exposition, interpretation or deduction. Bulling: lib. 1. cap. 8. & alibi. In this also their genuine children the Quakers follow them with both feet, as is evident in this Treatise cap. 1.  
4ly. The Anabaptists of old asserted that the whole Old Testament is now abrogate, and pertaineth not to a Christian, nor hath any obligation or force upon him, in which wicked Doctrine as they followed the Manichaeans, so at this day the no less wicked Quakers follow them, asserting that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us, but as it is ratified by Christ in the new, and hath precept or Authority from it, as is affirmed by Robert Barclay Vindic: P. 178. num. 5. Hence it is evident that according to them, no part of the Old Testament is more obligatory or binding upon u●, than the words of Aratus, or such heathen Poets are, and yet these men will not stick in contradiction to these their own words to say, we calumniat them. If we draw from this or the like passages that they deny the Authority of the Old Testament, Robert Barclay Ibidem.  
5ly. Both Anabaptists and Quakers deny Original Sin; for proof of which see cap. 3. of this Treatise.  
6ly. The Anabaptists, Muncer and the rest of his sect taught, that Christ made no Satisfaction for sins: and compared these who taught the contrary to the rabble of Scribes and Pharisees. Bulling. lib. 1. cap. 11. they taught also that its damnable and dangerous Doctrine, to assert that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, or by Faith, and not also by Works, Bulling lib. 4, cap. 1. & Sequ. In which Doctrine the Quakers have not only equalised but outdone and outstripped their Ancestors, as cap 5. of this Treatise more abundantly evinceth; and here it is to be observed once for all that all the Capital adversaries of the Christian Religion, how contrary soever they may be or seem to be one to another: symbolise in this grand heresy, and conspire together the overthrow, and subversion of the Doctrine of justification by Faith, or the imputed Righteousness of Christ, which is acknowledged by all the Orthodox, to be articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae, the grand pillar of the Christian Doctrine, without the support of which all must go to ruin; Hence, (to name no others) Pelagians the bulk of Papists, Socinians, and the old Libertine Anabaptists, and their successors now called Quakers, harmoniously agree in deriding, and abominating this Cardinal and Fundamental Doctrine of the imputed Righteousness of Christ.  
7ly. These Anabaptists asserted the possibility of fulfilling the Law. Bulling. lib. 1. cap. 8. and that they were arrived at a perfection of degrees and without sin, Bulling. lib. 1. cap. 11. From this the Doctrine of the Quakers differeth nothing; yea the latter hath far outdone the former; for besides that they commonly assert, that men may altogether fulfil the Law in this life, and be without sin; For the denial of which Robert Barclay promised continually to rail upon all the reformed; they to the horror of all men assert that man is equal with God; which I evince from the Words of Hubberthorn in chap. 4. of this Treatise, and that the Soul is a part of God, which is made good from the words of the famous, and leading Quakers, Ibid.  
8ly. These Anabaptists with blasphemous Melchoir Hoffman, denied the perseverance of the Saints, Bulling. lib. 3. cap. 13. with whom these Quakers also conspire, which any man in reason may judge a contradiction to their Doctrine of perfection; however they commonly maintain it with Robert Barclay, Prop: 9 with his Apology and Vindication thereof; contradicting his own express words cap. 2. where explaining that text 1 john 2.27. He had asserted that the unction there spoken of doth remain for ever in these to whom it is given.  
9ly. These wicked Anabaptists with their abominable Leader David George, denied the Resurrection of the Flesh, or of the same body, talking much of the Resurrection of another more spiritual body Bulling. lib. 2. cap 10. In this also the Quakers are not a whit short of these, as is made manifest chap. 5. of this Treatise.  
10●y These abominable Anabaptists, following their pernicious Leader, Michael Servetus, denied the Sacred Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ; In this blasphemy also the Scholars excel the Masters, as the Reader may find at large made out chap. 4. of this Treatise.  
11ly. These Anabaptists asserted, that the Ministers of the Gospel ought not to be tied to the explaining of Scriptures; that all in the Church ought to speak by turns, that which they judged the Spirit offered unto them: that the Ministers ought to have no certain Stipend, and many other things of this sort, Bulling. lib. 1. cap. 8. which is at this day the known Doctrine of Quakers.  
12ly. These Anabaptists denied that a Christian ought to be a Magistrate, or in any case make war; to take or administrate oaths, to trouble any man upon the account of his Religion, or to prohibit any kind of Religion; In all which points, the Quakers exactly jump with them; for though they do not in words deny the lawfulness of Magistracy, yet seeing they expressly deny the lawfulness of all Wars, and Oaths, and maintain an unbridled Liberty, to do whatsoever is right in a man's own eyes, all which is their known Doctrine, by most clear consequence, they take away all use of Magistracy and Magistrates.  
13ly. Anabaptists with Servetus and the Socinians spoke contemptibly of the Sacraments, and denied Infant-Baptism; but the Quakers have gone a further length, not only denying, but railing against both Sacraments, labouring by might and main, to abolish these pledges of the Love of God out of the World, I could easily prove the sameness of the Doctrine of the Muncerian Anabaptists, with that of the Quakers in many other particulars: But at present these may serve to show, that both of them are acted and guided by the same Spirit; which is that at present intended by us.  
3ly. If the Spirit, or the light within every man; were the Supreme, and principal Rule, than those who persecuted to death the Apostles, and Saints of God did not sin in so doing; but I am sure the latter is false, Ergo the former. The Consequence of the Major is most evident, for they followed their light within, thinking thereby they did God good service, john. 16.2. neither can they say, that then the day of all these persecutors visitation was passed; for Paul himself was one of them, whose light taught him, that he according to all that he had for light ought to do many things against the Professors, and Servants of Jesus Christ, Acts. 26.9. whose day of visitation I think the Quakers themselves will not say was expired.  
4ly. Divine light, or that light which is of God is always consonant to itself; but so is not that which the Quakers call their spirit, or the light within every man; for nothing is more evident than that the light within one man, is quite contradictory and opposite, to that within another, and that even in the most weighty, necessary and soul-concerning things in all the world; as the many and great controversies in all ages, do but too too well make out: neither can it be said that every one of these who oppose the truth, either act against their own judgement, or that sometime before they knew and embraced the Truth in their heart, and afterward did not hearken to that light: this we say cannot be said; for it is clear from the earnestness, and zeal of both Heretics, and Heathens for their own erroneous Principles, that they really think as they speak: yea have not many sacrificed their lives, to their own fantastic and damnable Opinions, which Opinions from the very beginning of their use of Reason, they did still hold; but not to multiply instances, all this is clear in the Person of Paul, for certain it is, that when he persecuted the Church, he both acted according to his judgement, and that he always was of that judgement, and never counteracted his light within, and though he confessed that he did it out of ignorance, yet this will not help them, for certainly this was all the light he had, if we may believe himself, and therefore he never had a true light within, until the day of his miraculous conversion.  
5ly. This Principle viz. That if every man follow his light within, he cannot stray from the Truth, overthroweth the whole ●a●●ick of Quakerism with one blow; for there are many in the world (of which I am one) who by all the Light they have attained unto, and after the most impartial search, firmly believe, without so much as one check from the light within to the contrary, that Quakerism is the path way to utter destruction; It must therefore be so, if the Doctrine, that every one must follow his light, be true.  
6ly. If God suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testament to walk in their own way●, than all and every one hath not sufficient Grace and Light whereby they may come to Salvation; But the former is true Acts. 14.16. Ergo the latter. The evidence of the consequence strangely straitneth Bellarm: de great. & lib. arbitr: for he would ●ain wrett this Text, telling us, that its meaning is, The Grace of God did not so largely flow them as afterwards, notwithstanding such a measure of Grace sufficient to divine Providence was not wanting; but thus he dissembleth the question, which was whether or not it pleased divine providence to give a sufficient measure of Grace, to every ●ndividual of the Posterity of Adam▪ 2ly. There are many Nations in the world, of which I believe, the jesuits, and Quakers will not say, that they have now more than sufficient Grace to bring them to Salvation, Ergo if all Nations had less under the Old Testament, than these nations have now, they had not sufficient Grace▪ 3ly. The context evinceth our purpose, for the witness of God there spoken of, is only the common benignity of Providence, viz. fruitful seasons, food and gladness, from which indeed they might have gathered, that there was a God, but was this grace alone sufficient to bring them to Salvation? this, Quakers and jesuits must either say, or else that the Apostle had not wit enough to speak to the purpose, for he might have mentioned this sufficient Grace, and Light, as a Testimony of God in their hearts, and told them that this Light within would have led them to Heaven, if they had pleased, whereas chose, he telleth them no such guide, but that they were permitted to walk in their own ways, and the same Apostle telleth the Gentiles, Ephes. 2.12. That they were without Christ: And yet in contradiction to this, the Quakers maintain, that these Gentiles had the Light of Christ, and Christ within them. This Answer of Bellarmin I have set down and refuted, because it is all one in substance with that which the Quakers use to give to this and the like Texts.  
7ly. Our next Argument we deduce from Ephes. 2.12, and 4.8. Thus, These who are without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the Covenants of Promise, have no hope, are without God in the World, have their understandings darkened through the blindness that is in them, being alienated from the life of God, and have blind Hearts, and are past feeling; add to these, 2 Tim. 2.26. That some are taken captive by the Devil at his will. Now these that are in this case, cannot have Grace and light sufficient to Salvation: But the Gentiles are said here to be in this sad condition; Ergo they had not sufficient Grace and Light. The Major, which can be only questioned, the Spirit of God hath in these places invincibly corroborat, by rejecting all the Shifts, and quibles that jesuits and Quakers are able to feign.  
8ly. This Doctrine of the Quakers is clearly overthrown by these Scriptures. Amos. 3: 2, You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth, etc. Psal. 147.19, 20. He showeth his Word unto jacob, his Statutes and judgements to Israel, he hath not dealt so with any Nation: as for his judgements they have not known them; Praise ye the Lord. What can be more clear, than that these to whom God did not give his Word, Statutes and Judgements, never had a light sufficient to guide them unto Salvation? & yet the Quakers, Quakerism confirm: pag. 2. who without all shame or conscience, care not what they deny, or what they affirm, providing they can find words to the purpose, or not to the purpose, all is one, have the confidence to deny it: Their reasonless Reason is because in John 1.5. it's said, that the light shined in darkness: For who but a Quaker will infer from these words, in which the Evangelist asserteth, that Christ is the true God, who in all ages manifested himself in some measure to the world, by which manifestation of God in the Works of Creation and Providence, the world might perceive indeed that there was a God, but could not notwithstanding comprehend God, so as to see and perceive that God the Creator, should in the fullness of time, cloth himself with man's Flesh, and become the Redeemer, for to this kind of Knowledge and Comprehension, supernatural and divine Light was necessary; now (I say) who but a Quaker will from this in●er that all nations, in all ages, had the Knowledge of the Word, Statutes and Judgements of God? For, sure I am, these who are altogether ignorant of them, in the Judgement of all men, (who have not with the Quakers renounced the Scriptures) will be esteemed void of a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation, with the like impudence page 5. they deprave yea and really contradict jude v. 19 where the Apostle positively asserteth, that some men have not the Spirit; for they tell us that men in one sense may be said not to have the Spirit, and in another sense to have it, even as a rich man who improveth not his money▪ both hath it and hath it not in divers senses, according to which Christ said, from him that hath not, shall be taken away, that which he hath: But this perversion is too palpable, for surely the Apostle, whose Pen God guided, intimateth no such thing, nor insinuateth the least respect wherein these ●●en can be said, to have the Spirit; whereas our Saviour, whose words they groundlessly add●ce to colour their contradiction of the Apostle, plainly telleth us that these evil servants, really had gifts which they abused, by neglecting to improve them; But on the other hand, the Apostle here hath no such thing, yea he telleth us that these men were twice dead, i. e. I think, as dead as can be, or altogether void of the Spirit; yea it can be no more alleged, that these men in any sense had the Spirit, than that clouds only swelling with wind, can be said to be filled with water; yea without all exception, or restriction, they are called, sensual, & I think few that care what they say, will affirm that such have the Spirit of God; where doth the Apostle in all this Epistle, ever compare these men, to these that have money, but do not occupy it? as the Quakers groundlessly, and therefore falsely give out; and yet these are the men who cry out upon us, for making any Pa●aphrases upon, or Consequences from Scripture, though never so clearly deduced from the Text, while they themselves by more than a poetic licence, obtrude upon the world flat contradictions of Scripture, for the meaning thereof. Add ●o these, that some things are absolutely necessary to be known in order to Salvation; the Knowledge of which can never be evinced that all men had, or have, therefore it is most groundless to assert, that all men have a sufficient light to guide them to eternal life, to which Robert Barclay replieth, that the knowledge of these things is only necessary necessitate praecepti, that is, because they are commanded us; not necessitate medii, i. e. in plain English, That Faith in jesus Christ, the knowledge of the Distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or that Christ is God and Man etc. is not needful in themselves to be known, or believed in order to Salvation; but how little soever respect he hath to the Scriptures, he ought to have had some care and consideration of his own Doctrine, for his first These is, these words John 17.3. this is eternal life etc. where it is plainly asserted without any distinction, or limitation, that the Knowledge of the Father and the Son, as one sending, and one that is sent, and therefore distinct the one from the other, is called eternal life itself, i. e, (if any thing) a mean so necessary to eternal life, as that without this knowledge it cannot be obtained. Moreover, the very Notion of Faith (without which none can be saved) implieth nothing less than a closing with God through Christ, and therefore necessarily, and of its own nature, and not with a respect to a command only, presupposeth the knowledge of the distinction of Father and Son, and of the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ, held forth under the Old Testament: as one to be incarnate in the fullness of time; and in the New Testament as actually incarnate, and really and in due Time come in the Flesh.  
9ly. Before I come to the Quakers Objections, I will overthrow one other of the Quakers Principles, upon which the whole Fabric of Quakerism is builded; which is, That in fallen man, there remain no relics of the Image of God, and that by the fall, his understanding is so darkened, that he cannot by all the Light of Conscience, reason, and common notions, perceive or gather, from all or any of the works of creation and providence, that there is a Sup●em being, or a God that created him, and all things b●side. In a word they utterly deny, that which is called the natural knowledge of God, or natural Theology; and deny moreover, that man in his fallen state, can think, or do any thing that is in itself, or as to the substance of the action ●ood; This Doctrine (which the Quakers have learned from their dear Friends the Socinians, as they are constrained to defend, so seeing they assert that every Son, and Daughter of Adam have within them a light and guide sufficient for Salvation; and the World clearly perceiveth that there is no Light common to all Mankind, except some small Relics of that once bright shining Image of God, like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantern, which are never able to show the wand'ring traveller in the dark night, his way homeward; They are necessitate to say, that this Light is supernatural, and a fruit of the purchase of Christ, and consequently that man, as to the things of God, hath no more Natural Light, than an Ox or Ass: See Rob: Barclays fourth These and his Apology cap 4. and Vindication sect 5.  
10ly. The falsehood of this Doctrine, we evince by these following arguments; and 1. It is not imaginable how one can be rational, and yet not be in case to infer from all the works of Creation, that there is a supreme cause and being; we say this is not imaginable except to a Socinian and Quaker, who can imagine, at least say, they can imagine what they will. Now the Quakers, Quakerism confirm: pag 3. Grant that Conscience and Reason, are distinguished from the saving Light of Christ, in all men, and the Revelation thereof as a natural and super-principle natural, are distinguished. Well then, seeing reason is natural, and man is rational, how can he, if he but contemplate these admirable Works of Creation and Providence, and exercise his reason in so doing, not conclude that these are the Product of an Infinite and Omnipotent Creator, who is to be Loved, Feared, and Adored? which thoughts of themselves or as to the substance of the Action are certainly good, and more Laudable than the Quakers silent waiting, which differeth nothing from sleeping, although they place a principal part of their worship therein.  
11ly. Secondly, whatever is in man, and common to all Mankind, is natural, but some sparks of the knowledge of a Deity, as also some thoughts and desires that are good in themselves, as for example, the desire of self-preservation, are in man, and common to all mankind; Ergo some Relics of the knowledge of God, and thoughts that are of themselves really good, are natural. The Major is most evident, for I defy all the Socinians and Quakers in the world, to give one Instance to the contrary: the Minor is no less undeniable, seeing there is no nation in the world, though never so barbarous and inhuman, who hath not some notions of a Deity, and desire to preserve themselves. But I know the Quakers dare not deny it, otherways they will overthrow all their universal Grace, and Light by them pleaded for.  
12ly. Thirdly, that which is originally born with every one, and groweth up to more and more maturity, as he in whom it is, groweth up, is undoubtedly natural; But some remainders of the knowledge of God are Originally, i e. in the principle and inclination (as they speak) born with man, and grow up to more and more maturity, according to the growth of him, in whom they are, Ergo they are natural. The Major is beyond controversy: The Minor therefore they can only deny, which yet is no less clear than the major; for they grant that some things that respect natural Sciences, and the prudent management of the affairs of the world, are not supernatural; See the forecited Vindication page 52. But certain it is, that some sparkles of the knowledge of a Deity, are as common and appear as early as these things which they deny not to be natural.  
13ly. Fourthly, That which is common to Devils, is not supernatural; but to know and believe, that there is a God, which is of itself a good thought, is common to devils. To this Robert Barclay Vind pag 51. answers, That once the Devils had this knowledge from a spiritual nature, and though they have fallen, yet they mey retain the memory of it: for that their Fall and man's is every way alike, none will affirm. But surely if he had not wilfully closed his Eyes, that he might not see the Truth, he might have clearly perceived this to be a most pitiful prevarication, for what though the fall of Angels, and the fall of Man, were not in all respects alike, can any man not altogether void of reason, conclude thence; that the thing which is common to devils with men, can be supernatural, or Grace in the one more than in the other? Again, Surely there is no reason in the world to say, that the devils retain their Memory, more than their understanding; For certainly the understanding is altogether as essential, if not more, to the rational creature, as the memory. Moreover, to say that the devils retained no knowledge of God, but the bare remembrance that they had knowledge of God, is completely to contradict the Apostle james, asserting chap 1.19. that the devils believe that there is one God and tremble; for to believe a thing, in the judgement of all men, presupposeth some knowledge thereof, and can be no more called an Act of the memory, than tasting can be called seeing, which is performed by the Eye; or Smelling, that which is performed by the Ear. Again, presupposing, which is possible, though not true, that the Devils had no memory of their knowledge of God, It is beyond all doubt, that these active, Sagacious, and skilful Spirits in the works of Nature, can easily conclude from these admirable Effects, that there is a Supreme Cause, first being, the Creator of all things: Now to say, that they can know that there is one God, and conclude from the works of Creation and Providence, that this God is most powerful, most wise etc. and yet to say that they have no principle of knowledge, whereby they can know this, is to assert that there is a Sream without a Source, or a Tree without a Root, or a Beam without the Sun. Lastly, If the Devils have only the memory of their knowledge of God, and yet believe that there is a God and tremble, than we may infer, that our first Parents, before the promise of the Messiah was made unto them, had no Divine Light, or Seed left in them, contrary to Robert Barclay's belief Vind pag 49. Seeing our first Parents might retain the memory of the knowledge of God, they had but just now lost; But it is needless to dwell upon such nonsensical absurdities, for the Quaker may as well affirm, that ● man may pay his debt, and sustain himself with the memory of the money he once had, as that the Devils can know so much of God, as without doubt they know, by the alone memory of the knowledge they once had.  
14ly. Fifthly. That which will accompany the wicked to Hell, cannot be called Grace, Divine or any thing Supernatural; but some relics of the knowledge of God will accompany the wicked to Hell: Therefore these cannot be called Grace, D●●vine, or any thing Supernatural; The Major i● beyond all controversy; The Minor is also mos● evident, for otherways the never-dying-worm could not feed upon them, whose torment consists most in the extremely bitter, and sad reflection upon, and consideration of, the various Attributes of God, with reference to themselves; Exem: gra. from the consideration of his immutable Justice and infinite Power, they conclude the impossibility of their relief. But we need not insist on this, seeing none that read Luk 16. can be ignorant that these Souls have some knowledge of God, except either wilful prejudice, or some thing of that kind, hath already preoccupied their minds.  
15ly. Sixthly, That men have naturally some relics of the Image of God, and can do some things contained in the Law of God, we most firmly conclude from that express T●x. Rome 2.14. the Gentiles that have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law. The Quakers, and amongst others, Rob: Barclay in his Apology ●lately contradicting the Text, Allegeth, that man naturally can know, or do nothing contained in the Law of God, because v 15. these Gentiles of whom this is spoken, are said to have the Law written in their hearts, which writing of the Law in men's hearts, is elsewhere in Scripture counted a part of the new Covenant. But this reason M●. Brown chap 5. n. 24. hath fully e●ervat, showing by many demonstrations, that the writing of the Law in the heart, cannot at all be taken in this place, for any part of the New Covenant, the removal of which arguments, the Quaker not so much as attempteth, & yet can impudently publish a lie to the world; that he hath vindicat his Apology; Yea, in stead of answering the Arguments, he confirmeth what his Adversary sayeth, and contradicteth himself: For Vind pag 51. He granteth that men by Nature, or Natural Light, have knowledge of Politics and the prudent management of worldly affairs, and other things of that kind. Hence I conclude that even according to the Quaker himself a man may be said to have the Law of God written in his heart, and yet have no new Covenant Dispensation, Seeing the second table of the Law, which is a Rule, for Politics, and prudent Administration of worldly affairs, is the Law of God as well as the first. The Quaker added a second reason in his Apology to prove that by NATURE in this place, is not to be understood, the corrupt nature of man, viz, because then the Apostle should contradict himself, who saith 1 Cor. 2.14▪ that the natural man cannot know the things of God, amongst which things of God, the Law must be accounted, which Rom. 7.12. Is called Holy, Just and good; which contradiction, Mr. Broun utterly denied to follow upon our exposition of this place, showing at large, Num. 25. the complete harmony of these places, notwithstanding of our exposition, to which the Quaker thinks it enough to reply, that the meaning given by Mr: Broun to the Text in hand, cannot be reconciled with what the Apostle sayeth 1 Cor 2.14. unless upon some supposition (but what that is he telleth us not) above by him denied. Now, Reader, had this man a respect either to Cause or Credit, who thought to cheat the world with such pitiful nothings as these? For this was one of his Apologetic arguments, whereby to overthrow the common Exposition of this Text, & to establish the gloss put upon it by the Socinians, whom he never leaveth to follow; and instead of urging this Argument, taketh the part of the defendant, and so giveth up the cause: for his answer ridiculously supposeth, that we urge this place 1 Cor. 2.14. as an Argument against us, which they urge as an Argument against us: And although his Adversaries Exposition cannot stand, but upon a supposition denied by the Quaker, it is little matter, for we know the whole Gospel cannot stand, but upon many suppositions denied and cried out against by that blasphemous party. And here pag 51. he Allegeth, that he acknowledgeth the fall of man, more fully than his adversary doth▪ because according to his adversary, fallen man retained some Relics of the Image of God, by virtue whereof he can do something really good; whereas on the other hand, according to the Quakers Doctrine, man by the ●all was wholly degenerate, retaining nothing of the Image of God, in whom albeit there remained a Seed of righteousness, yet no otherways▪ than as a naked seed in barren ground, by virtue of which he could do nothing, until visited by a new Visitation, which he received by virtue of Christ as Mediator.  
Ans. In the judgement of all men who are not so effronted, as to give such inconsistances for a sufficient Refutation of their Adversaries; It will be counted a complete contradiction, to say, that fallen man hath no Relics of the Image of God, and yet notwithstanding, hath a Seed of Righteousness in him, Seing that Righteousness is one of the chief parts of the Image of God. Eph. 4.24. But the truth is, there is a Mystery latent under this doctrine, which we must here discover: The Mystery is this, the Quakers have no other Christ than this that was left in Adam, and remaineth in man in his fallen condition, to which they give many great names, as Light, L●fe, Measure of God, God himself, and among others most frequently, the Seed; for the more full manifestation of which, take these following passages 1. Naylor's love to the lost, pag. 32. Christ is the Election, and the Elect Seed, and George Foxs Great mist; pag. 24. the promise of God, is to the seed that hath been loaded as a Cart with sheaves by the S●nner, which seed is the hope of Christians, or that which was loaded as a Cart under sheaves. George Keith in his way c●st up, pag 99, 100, 108. Ex●oneth it to be Christ or the life of Christ; and in his Immed. Revel: pag 44, 45, 46. Sayeth, when God created Man, he put his Image Christ, the express Image of himself in man, he breathed into him the breath of Life, he lived in God; and Christ the light of men, was his life and lived in him, than the Lamb was not slain, Christ the Lamb, the life of man— But when man sinned— So the Lamb came to be slain in him from the Foundation of the world; that holy meek— nature, the Lamb's nature was slain in him— the bowels of the father's Love stirred in compassion to the work of his own hands, that of the Pure creation in man, which though shut up in death, yet it remained and perished not, as to its being, it did not become a nothing, but remained a being, and this is the lost, which God sent his son into the world to seek and to save, not to seek and save the old Adam that birth of the Serpents begetting, but to destroy it, for it is not capable of God's Salvation, but that which Christ came to save, is that of God which proceeded from him, the seed of God in man, the seed of Abraham, whereof Abraham's old decayed body as good as dead, and Sarahs' barren womb was a Type. Moreover, by this Light of God, for all is one, they understand Christ, or God himself, as shall afterward be more fully made out, by several express Assertions of the Quakers. Hence we may see that the Doctrine of this man is most damnable, who acknowledgeth no other Christ, but the small and dark Relics of the Image of God in man's soul, and that his Hypocrisy and dissimulation is unparalellably great and hateful; in that even while he pretends to aggredge the fall of man most, he than exalteth man even in his lapsed Condition; beyond which it is hardly possible to elevat the nature of man, for from what is here quoted, and shall be more largely afterward alleged out of their writings, it is evident that they believe, or at least would persuade others to believe, that Christ has a Personal union with every Son and Daughter of Adam. To all this he addeth a most blasphemous and absurd Intimation, that this Seed, (which to him is alone with Christ or God,) stands in need of a new Visitation of Christ, to raise it up and make it active. Also here because his Adversary saith from Rom. 7.14. and 1 Cor. 3.1. that the Apostle and all Beleivers, are in a certain respect carnal, he thinks he hath gotten him in a notable absurdity, Saying, his Divinity will run thus; the Devil and all unregenerate men, are in a certain respect spitual, and the Apostle and all regenerate men, are in a certain respect Carnal; But if there be any absurdity, in saying that the Apostle and all Beleivers, are in a certain respect Carnal, it will light upon the Scriptures, according to which his Adversary spoke, and thus the Quakers covertly pursue their Design of wounding the Scriptures, through the sides of their Adversaries, and although he shall answer that the Apostle Rome 7. did speak of another in the person of himself, I care not seeing to all the fifteen Arguments whereby Mr: Broun proved the Apostle to be there speaking of himself, and not of another, the Quaker thinketh it enough to say, He giveth us a Preachment upon this place without a syllable more for Solution of these arguments. As for these words, that the Devils are in a certain respect Spiritual, they are none of his Adversaries; However the devil may be called Spiritual, in respect of his nature, seeing whatever is a Spirit, may be called Spiritual; as well as what is a Body, may be called Corporeal. Hence it is Evident, that the Quaker's pretended Absurdities, and Blasphemies, which he would fix upon his Adversary, resolve into mere fictitious Ho●goblines, fit only to fright Children.  
16ly. Seventhly, If Fallen Man retain no knowledge of God, no Principles of common Honesty and Morality, than there is no difference between a Man and a Brute, neither can it be told in what the wisdom of the Wise Gentiles, of whom the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 2. who notwithstanding could not perceive the things of God until they were again revealed, consisted: but the latter is false in both its parts, therefore the first; Robert Barclay Vindic. pag. 52. answereth that the Wisdom of these Gentiles did consist in the wise and prudent Management of worldly Affairs, for it is not yet proved, sayeth he, that it is necessarily united to a Knowledge of God, and things Spiritual, since it is said of some Beasts, that they have something of this, such as Bees and Ants. And that notwithstanding Man differeth from a Brute in many things, as in the knowledge of numbers▪ Mathematical and Mechanical Demonstrations, Is the Knowledge of such natural Truths, (that two and three make five, and the whole is greater than the part, and all that is deduced therefrom) the Knowledge of the things of God? but these Evasions are as easily everted as invented, for who can deny that by the same species or kind of Knowledge, and reason whereby man can deduce excellent politic, and Oeconomick Conclusions and order a Commonwealth, or Family, he can also conclude from the beautiful Fabric and comely order of Heaven and Earth, and the admirable Providence of God apparent therein, that there is a first and supreme Power, from which these things did proceed, and by which they are guided into their proper ends: And indeed in this did consist the wisdom of the wise Heathens, as is evident to any that have but the least acquaintance with the writings of Plato, Aristotle and such other heathenish Philosophers, to whom the invisible things of God, even his eternal Power and Godhead, were made manifest by the things that are made, being by them ponderated and contemplated Rom. 1.20. Certain it is, that it is as easy by the same kind of Knowledge and Reason, to know that every effect hath a cause as to know that the whole is greater than a part; But the Quaker granteth, that by natural light only a man may know this latter Axiom with whatsoever can be deduced from it, Ergo he may as easily know the former, with whatsoever may be deduced from it; but from this former Axiom the natural Philosophers firmly conclude, that there is a Supreme Cause, Ergo a man having natural Light only may conclude from this Axiom, which is imprinted on the hearts of all men, that there is a supreme Cause, or Author of all things, which is God. Moreover it is certain, that the defect of the Wisdom of the Heathens, is every where by Scripture placed in this, that by it they could not perceive Christ, and the Mysteries of the Gospel; which as they were to the jews a stumbling Block; so they were to the wise Greeks foolishness; and no where in this, that they could not so much as know that there is an Omnipotent and Just God, which ought to be reverenced and served, though with what kind of Worship they knew not; and that we ought to do unto another, as we would he should do to us. Again, that a Brute hath more knowledge in Politicques or Economics than it hath in Mechanics, or Arithmetic is false and ridiculous for indeed they have alike in both▪ for if the Bee can imitate the Politician, or the Governor of a Family, she can also be the ape of the Mechanic, and prettily imitate him in making Cells to contain honey; the hen also, when she hatcheth, or hath brought forth, can perceive if any be wanting of her Eggs or Birds. Hence I may conclude that the Hen is as skilful in Arithmetic as the Bee is in policy; the hungry dog also will be very loath to part with any piece of the Morsel he hath gotten into his clutches. Hence I may as well conclude that a dog understandeth that Axiom viz. that the whole is greater than the part; as the Bee or Ant understand the Fundamentals of policy and Oeconomie. But it is needless to dwell any longer in the refutation of these things which are no less unreasonable than impious.  
17●y. Our eight Argument we draw from Rom. 1.19, 20. Because that which may be known of God is, etc. from which place our Divines have always concluded against the Socinians, see Pareus on chap. 1. to the Romans dub. 16. and why may not we with as good Reason against the Quakers, infer. That there are some relics of the Divine Image or Natural Knowledge of God left in man; against which inference Robert Barclay pag. 52. saith that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which is to be known of God, is not understood any thing which man retained in the fall, but a new visitation of Light and Grace: And 2 dly that though this Knowledge of God be common to all men, yet they receive it only by this new visitation of Grace and Light: But to answer at this rate, is only loudly & confidently to proclaim that his Doctrine is pure Paganism, for who that ever thought there was any Necessity of the Christian Religion in order to Salvation, wou●d dare to affirm, that what was common to the Heathens, yea & devils also was as really saving, & the fruit of Christ's purchase as that which is proper to the godly: For surely this kind of Knowledge of God, of which the Apostle here speaketh, and sayeth that it is learned by the contemplation of the Creatures is common, not only to all the Heathens, but even to the Devils themselves. I hope we have by this time sufficiently demonstrated, that there are some relics of the knowledge of God, and something of the principles of Morality remaining in man, even considered in his lapsed Condition. We have also vindicated so many of Mr. Brown's Arguments as the Quaker thinks fit to take notice of, many others he hath left untouched, see for Examples sake chap. 5. num. 28, 29, 30. But indeed the Quaker here as he doth all along playeth like the Dog in Nile, making a mint and then to his heels again; for he either leaves the Arguments and Proofs of his Adversary, as also his answers given to his Arguments altogether untouched, or else opposeth such pitiful Trifles, as being examined and pressed, instantly resolve in the apples of Sodom; and yet certainly here, if ever, the Quaker was concerned to have played the man, and given sufficient ground for this Doctrine: For with this light all the Quakers Religion standeth and falleth, which indeed is nothing but the mere Remainders, and small spunks of that sometimes bright Image, that shined in our first Parents, which although they can never be quenched, yet are never alike, or sufficient to reveal these Mysteries; The knowledge of which, is absolutely necessary to Salvation, or to lead man through the dark and dangerous Wilderness of this World, into the more excellent Canaan of eternal rest: And therefore there is no Light common to mankind sufficient for Salvation, seeing all men have no other Light common to them, but this, which we have evinced to be altogether natural; and yet this natural Light, is to the Quakers, their God, their Christ, their Grace, their Scriptures, and whatsoever else is necessary to Salvation. That it is to them their Rule, or in stead of the Scriptures, we have seen already; and that this Light also is to them in stead of God and Christ, or that in their account, this Light of reason and Conscience, for no other is common to all men, is God himself, these following passages evince: In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. If the Life be the Divine Essence, the Light must be so also; for such as the Cause is, such the Effect must be; Thus George Whitehead in a Manuscript cited by Hicks Quaker. Appeal answered pag 4. and Will Pen to defend this passage from the absurdities with which it had been loaded by Hi●ks, in his first Dialogue pag 3, 4. such as, that then the Sun, Moon, Star, or Stone, is God, speaks thus. 
George Whitehead inferring from john 1. That if the Life was of the Divine Being, the Light must be the same, for as the Cause is, so is the Effect; it was never George Whitehead's principle or words, that the Life, which is the Light of men, is but in itself a mere Effect; for he owns it in its own being to be no other, than God himself counterf: Christ: detect,ed p●g 56 and again Wil Pen. Reason against railing. pag. 56 We assert the true Light, with which every man is enlightened, to be in itself the Christ of God, and the Saviour of the world. The same Will● Pen, Quakerism a new Nickname pag 9, 10. All men are enlightened— this Light is Divine, because it is the very Light of the world, which is God, not any effect of his power as a created Light, as some men fancy, and George Whitehead Dipl, p●: pag 13. to call the Light in every man a mere Creature, is contrary to john 1. In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men, which Light, is Divine and Increated.  
Also George Fox great Mist: pag 10. Some c●ll the Light Conscience.— which Light was before Conscience was or Creature was, or Created, or made Light was; He ma●e the Sun▪ the Moon— and the Light was before th●se were made; and p●g 23. some call it a natural Light, which Light was b●fore t●e word Conscience was or a natural Light the Sun, Moon, or Stars either; for all things that were made, were made by it, the natural Light, or made Light, are created Lights, It made the Sun, Moon, and Stars, they were made, & here it is the natural Light to the natural Eye, and the light that every man is enlightened with, that cometh into the world, was before these were made, glorified with the Father before the world began, Idem pag 185. The Light which every man that cometh into the World, is enlightened withal, is Christ, by whom the world was made. And pag 331. The Light which every one that cometh into the world is enlightened withal, is not Conscience, for the Light was before any thing was made, or Conscience named.  George Fox younger, in a Collection of his Works pag 171. Thus speaketh, 
All mind that Gift of God in yourselves, which maketh you sensible of your present condition, you must receive the living principle of God, in your own particular vessels, which principle I call the Light, it being a proper Name for it;  
But I shall not desire to tie up any of you, to give this principle of Truth only the name of Light, I shall not matter if you call it the Truth, or the gift of God, are a measure of the eternal Being.  Now, Reader, did ever the Sun shine upon such a Black and Blasphemous Company of men▪ who durst assert that that dim Light, by which most men have enough ado to perceive that there is a Suprem Being, and notwithstanding of which knowledge, they are Ignorant of the true way of the Worship of God, the Mystery of the Sacred Trinity, the Person of Christ Jesus, his Natures, and Offices, and are at every turn ready to deceive, and be deceived, I say, did ever a company of Men outdo, yea, or ever equalise these Quakers, who dare as●e●t such a Light as this to be God? Notwithstanding of this their matchless exaltation of this Light within every man, they again at other times, and when occasion serveth, depress and bring low, the same as much as before they cried it up; For they assert that the Light within any particular person, aught to yield and stoop to the light of their Church, or constitut body, For William Pen, Spirit of Alex: pag 14. sayeth, We deny that to be a Light, which opposeth the judgement of the body. Ibid pag 4.5. We as a body have power to determine, therefore we abhor, renounce, rebuke with all severity that rude imagination of the Haton in public prayer; and Sp. of the hat pag 21, We have the power, and will not such as are in the power do right. Ibid. the body will have a true sense, feeling, and understanding of Motions, Visions, Revelations, and Doctrines, therefore it is safest to make her the touchstone in all things relating to God. Behold, Reader as, the Quakers with the Papists reject the Scriptures from being the Suprem Rule, and ultimat Judge; So they no less than the grossest of the Romanists ascribe an Infallibility to their Church, and make this the suprem Rule, and ultimat Judge, to which every man's Light within must stoop and yield though never so clear: which is one of the grossest Errors of Popery; But yet it is infinitely more gross and impious in the Quakers, for in so doing, they proclaim the fallibility of that which they maintain to be Christ, and God, and subject it unto another, as capable of deceiving, and being deceived, which Impiety, I am sure is scarc● equalised.  
18ly. Although the absurdity of this Doctrine, may of itself abundantly secure us, that we need not b● much concerned, let them use what Arguments they will to prove it; we being certain, that whatever arguments can prove this, will equally serve to prove whatever entereth into any man's fancy; yet I will propose, and enervat these of their arguments which seem to be most strong, and plead most for them. One of which is proposed by George Keith, Truth-defend: pag 87. A Divine Law in all men is an inward immediate Dictat, but there is a Divine Law in all men. Of this Argument singled out of all that ever George Keith wrote, as the choicest Masterpiece, to uphold Quakerism, and overthrow the authority of the Scriptures, he is so confident, that by it alone, he thinketh to strike the Cause dead; But he is hugely mistaken▪ for if by a divine Law, he understand any other thing beside Conscience, and Reason, which he himself, together with his Brother Rob: Barclay: Quakerism confirm: pag 3. acknowledgeth, to be only natural. We deny his Minor, the proof of which we expect ad Kalendas Graecas; And thus the great Argument of one of the greatest Champions of the Quakers, evanisheth into smoke at the very first handling thereof. 2ly. Rob: Barclay. Vind pag 39 thus reasoneh, what if I should say, is not God a Light? And is not he in every man? and is not this Light within the increated Spirit? The Reader may here observe, that this Author is diffident of this Argument, and fearful to bring it forth; and good reason he hath; for by this reason he only evinceth, that which he elsewhere by all means endeavoureth to evite, viz, that the Quakers Grace, and Light, is common to Devils and damned Souls,, for God can no more be said to be in every Son and Daughter of Adam without exception, than in these wicked Spirits, if he think othewayes, let him essay the proof of it. 3ly. For the sufficiency of their universal Light, they thus argue: That which we sin in not obeying, is sufficient to Salvation; but in not obeying the Light within, we sin, therefore it is sufficient to Salvation. But this Sophism is too palpable, and gross to take with any that is not altogether willing to be deceived; for the Major proposition thereof is most false, otherwise the lawful commands of every Parent, Heathen, as well as Christian, should be a sufficient guide to Salvation, for disobedience to these, is as really a sin, as disobedience to our own Light. 4ly. To prove that there is a Divine Light purchased by Christ, in every man, they adduce john 1.9. That was the true Light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world: for Vindication of which place it shall suffice to overthrow what Rob: Barclay hath said in the Vindication of his Apology pag 91. For the confirmation of the Quakers gloss on this text: of which Mr: Broun, Quaker: path way to Pagan: pag 151, 152, 153, 154. had given divers expositions, as 1. that Light may be here taken for the Light of reason, 2ly. That by every man, is not to be understood every individual, but only every one which is savingly enlightened; these expositions with others, he at large evinceth and illustrateth from Scripture and reason; and showeth that the Quakers join with the Socinians in their exposition. Now whereas, if the Quaker had done any thing to the purpose, he ought to have refuted these expositions; but in stead thereof he sayeth, his adversary must be much puzzled with this Scripture, for he knoweth not what way to take it: But this I confess is a strange inference, for the Quaker from abundance, inferreth penury, and because his adversary gave divers expositions, any of which will serve the turn, Ergo (says he) he knows not what to answer. I was wondering at this Consequence, but I presently remembered that the Quakers were Enemies to Logic. He himself divers times hath given several meanings of one place, as for Example, Isa. 8.20. much therefore he hath been puzzled to answer our arguments, proving the Scriptures to be our principal Rule, which I do really believe, though upon another account: Now it is observable that this Quaker almost every where endeavoureth to turn Defendant, when he should be impugnant; for the Scriptures from which he drew his arguments in his Apology, fa●ling him, so that he can prove nothing from them, his Adversary having removed the vernishing of his Sophistry, he bendeth his whole wit in his Vindication to find out Evasions, and Distinctions, to defend his own gloss, and this artifice he useth here, which, think of it what he will, will serve for nothing, except to discover hi● Weakness and Conviction of a bad cause; and whereas he flouteth at his Adversary inferring from v. 5. of this chapter, the darkness comprehended it not; that by darkness is meant man in his natural Estate, in which Estate he can comprehend what is natural; we say whereas he flouteth at him, inferring from this, that man while in that Estate, is void of all Spiritual and supernatural light▪ saying, is not this a learned Refutation, Reader? He showeth only good will (as they use to say) to have the Doctrine of the Reformed become a mocking stock, and shame rubbed upon it, if he could; for all the expositions given by the Reformed Churches, on this place, quite contradict that of the Quakers, except he will call Socinus, and the like, Reformed Protestants; But the thing incumbent to the Quaker was, the urging and vindicating of his Reason, viz. that if man in his natural estate cannot comprehend this Light, who notwithstanding can comprehend the things of Nature, Ergo by this enlightening with which every man is said to be enlightened that cometh into the world, is not understood the Light of Nature and Reason; which consequence he shall never be able to prove, for although the Light itself viz. Christ, be supernatural, and the incomprehensible God of Nature, yet these little Beams or Sparks of Reason and Conscience which are the Effect and Gift of this great Ligh, Christ the Son of God, and Second Person of the Trinity, no less than of the Father and Holy Ghost, are altogether natural and comprehensible. Many places of Scripture beside this they detort and deprave, to the end that by the Scriptures themselves they may destroy the Scriptures, and prove that the light within, (which they being pitifully deluded, take for the Spirit of God,) is the Supreme Rule of Faith and Manners; all which glosses fall to the ground, though upon this one Account, that they have couched in them, this most dangerous and blasphemous falsehood viz. that the dim and dark Light of nature, is not only sufficient to guide us to Salvation, but (which ought to be heard with horror) is God himself. One of which Scriptures is John 14.26, 27. and 16.13. whence they would infer that all Believers are led by immediate objective Revelation, as the Apostles were, because (say they) the way that the Apostles were taught, which is by immediate Revelation, is there holden forth as common to a●l Believers, and the words to (lead) and to (teach) in their proper and native signification denote always an immediate objective leading or teaching. Thus Reasoneth Ro. Barclay, Vind. pag. 19.20. to which I answer, that these being two of the main places that he brought for proving the Spirit to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, he ought to have given some other thing, than bare assertions, if he had in good earnest intended to overthrow what his Adversary chap. 3. n. 27. said against his meaning of these places, which he hath not in the least done, for why may not immediate objective Revelation be promised to the Apostles in these places, and yet not unto all Believers, but subjective only, whereby they may understand and apply these Truths that were taught immediately to the Apostles and Prophets, upon whose Doctrine the Faith of all Believers is founded as its principal Rule, and Foundation Ephes. 2 20. Even as the like Phrases hold forth an immediate objective Teaching to some, and yet that only which is merely mediate as to others as Neh. 9.20. comp. with v. 30. 1 Kings 8. 36. Psal. 132.12. Deu. 32.12. Moreover that the words to [lead] and [teach] hold forth a mediate objective Teaching, or a subjective Illumination far oftener in Scripture than immediate objective Revelation, is manifest to any that are acquainted with the Scriptures, which if the Quakers deny, seeing they are the opponents, they ought to condescend to a collation of places, and show the contrary. Lastly, whatever the Quakers say, we cannot help it, certain it is that no man of sound Judgement will deny, that when one readeth the Scripture●, and hath his mind illuminated by the Spirit of God, that he may understand the wondrous things in God's Law, but such an one hath that promise of which we now speak fulfilled unto him, and thus the only Scripture argument which Robert Barclay attempts to urge in his Vindication, falleth to the ground, for all the rest of the Scriptures from which he deduced his Apologetic Arguments he slideth over, without any Vindication thereof, Robert Barclay Apolog. pag. 38. hath another Argument, which because he complaineth, as if it were not sufficiently solved by his adversary chap. 3. numb. last. I will set down here, and answer formally, that there may be no just ground of Complaint, The Argument thus runs; That unto which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind, do at last recur, and because of which all other grounds, are commended and accounted worthy to be believed, must of necessity be the only Rule most certain and immovable ground of all Christian Faith, but the inward immediate objective Revelation of the Spirit is that etc. Ergo. Resp. the Minor is ambiguous, and therefore most fallacious, for according to this kind of reasoning, they may conclude, that a man just now possessing a piece of land formerly enjoyed by his Ancestors, by Virtue of a Right granted to them by a Prince deceased many ages ago, spoke mouth to mouth, with that Prince dead ages out of mind, Thus, that unto which the present Possessor of such a piece of Land when pressed to the last, recurreth un●o, and for which other Grounds or Charters are commended or valid, must of necessity be the most immovable ground of, and Warrant for his possession of such a piece of Ground; but the Grant and Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago, first by word of Mouth, though again committted to writings, is that which the present Possessor being pressed to the last recurreth to, Ergo the present Possessor had immediate Discourse mou●h to mouth with a Prince many ages back ere the present Possessor was born. Certainly these must be admirable Fellows who can conclude, and that in modo & figura, qui●libet ex quolibet, and thus their strongest Arguments, serve only to prove the Authors to ●e in a paroxysm of folly, moving laughter in a very Heraclite. But ex abundante I answer directly to this their blunt Sophism, though forsooth the Quakers' Achillean Argument; Thus, But inward, immediate objective Revelation is that to which all Christians recur etc. this is inward, immediate objective in Respect of the Apostles and Prophets, I grant; in Respect of the present Professors of Christianity, I deny, and let them urge the membrum negatum. Of the like Nature is another, and that the chief of his Apologetic Arguments, viz. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and some others had immediate objective Revelation, therefore the whole Church had it; the Consequent his Antagonist chap. 3. numb. 11. denyeth, as not having the least shadow of Reason, let us therefore see how he vindicateth this Argument which is a sine quo non to the whole frame of Quakerism, and for this all that he sayeth Vindic: pag. 24. is, that then it seems there was more of God's immediate Revelation in those dark times, even by his Adversaries Confession, than now under the Gospel, where the chief pastors of the Church according to him, are to expect no such thing: neither is it proved that others not mentioned, had no immediate Revelations. Answ. true it is that even in these dark times, there was in some respect viz. of immediate Revelations, more of God, than there is now, and yet less in another sense, viz. in respect of more large propagation of the Truth of God, and of the large Measure of Grace dispensed unto Believers under the New Test: But what sayeth this to the probation of the Quakers tremulous consequence? how doth it prove, that because some few had these Revelations, all and every one within the Church had them? this is a baculo ad angulum, neither are we bound to prove the contrary affirmanti enim incumbit probatio: It is enough for us to tell him, that it is a groundless fancy to assert it, for how will he prove; ex. gr. that ever Abel had immediate objective Revelation? and thus the third Proposition of his second These, that God did always reveal himself by his Spirit, i. e. by immediate objective Revelation to every one of the Church, falleth to the Ground; and with it, the fourth viz. that these Revelations were, the formal object of the Faith of the Saints, for if it be altogether groundless to say, that every Saint had them, as we have now seen: it is no less groundless to say, that they were the formal Object of their Faith, and with these also his fifth Proposition, viz. that the same i e: immediate Revelation, continueth to be the formal object of the Saints Faith.  
— ea lapsa repente ruinam  
Cum sonitu trabit, & Tremulum super agmina late  
Incidit.  
Like the Trojan Tower, its couple being cut, the whole Fabric of Quakerism, tumbleth down about the ears of its Authors, and builders,    

CHAP. III. Concerning Original Sin.  
HAving canvassed the grand principle of the universal Light, and spirit of the Quakers, I shall consider some of the chief points of their Religion, and lay open the absurdity and blasphemy thereof, that the Reader may the better judge of the root, having seen the Fruit, and of the Basis by the Superstructure. The first of these shall be the doctrine of Original Sin, which they jointly deny▪ asserting that Adam's Sin, can be imputed to none but himself, and therefore none are guilty of the transgression of our first Parents, an● so liable to punishment until by their evil walking▪ or actual sins, they become transgressors. This Doctrine, although not so an 〈◊〉 as the Apostles and Prophets, yet is as old as the Doctrine of pestiferous Pelag●us, the first open asserter thereof, with Celestius his Disciple. Hence all who denied the Doctrine which now the reformed Churches hold ●●ent Original sin, were esteemed guilty of Pelagianism; which notwithstanding Robert Barclay: Vin●: sect 5. Numb 5. would fain deny but to ●o purpose, except to contradict what he himself said in his Apology chap 4. where he granteth, that Augustin with whom all the Orthodox wholly agree in this point, did hold the same Doctrine with the Westminster Confession, in opposition to the Pelagians, to which Confession of his, though now by himself retracted, or rather contradicted, I will add the words of Vincentius Lyrenensis chap 35. adversus haeret: cited by the Author of Melius inquirendum, who before Caelestius the monstrous Scholar of Pelagius, ever denied that all mankind stood guilty of Adam's apostasy from God? Moreover, whosoever will be at the pains to read the Magdeburgick History, centur. 5. colum. 577, 588, 589, 590. And compare it with the Doctrine of the Quakers in this point, he will find an exact harmony, between them and the Pelagians, both in Doctrine, and Probation thereof. But we need add no more, seeing Robert Barclay, in the place just now cited, after several serpentine windings and turnings, to the end he may (though he retain the thing yet) evite the Name, wholly rejecteth Augustin, and therefore gives up the Cause, ridiculously enquiring at his Adversary, if he will assert every thing that Augustin said, ridiculously (I say) seeing the question is, if Augustin did not hold our Doctrine anent Original Sin, as the Antithesis to that of the Pelagians in this point, which Pelagians have had many successors, though known by other Names, as Socinus, and his School, and holy and pure Anabaptists (as they called themselves) and were by contrariety of speech, called by others, the Fry of a deluded Enthusiast, Thomas Muncer; The horrid abominations of which Sect, and this their Doctrine of Original Sin among the rest, that famous reformer Bullinger, hath by Scriptures and Reason, so hammered, that one in reason should have thought, that it should never have had a Resurrection, as may be seen Lib: 1. cap 11. adversus Anabaptistas', where he also to purpose vindicateth Zuinglius from the calumny of the denial of Original Sin, wherewith first the Council of Trent, although contrary to their own Light, as judicious Soave observeth, and of late Rob: Barclay, both in his Apology and Vindication, hath traduced him.  
Secondly, Although this Doctrine hath by many Ages been assaulted most fiercely, by corrupt men, both of subtle wit and earnestness of Intention, yet the providence of God hath sufficiently pre-occupied, what they have said or can say, and fortified all who truly believe what God hath said in His Word, where there is good Store both of Sword and Buckler, for managing of this War; and of these many I shall here excerpt and vindicate a few. And First, Gen. 2.17. For in the Day thou Eatest thou shall surely Die, or Dying thou shalt Die, where is a clear proof of our Doctrine, whence we reason, as well against Pelagians, Anabaptists, Socinians and Quakers, as against the Papists, who deny Original sin in Infants after Baptism; Thus: Infants Die, Ergo they are guilty of Original Sin, seeing according to this present Text▪ Death is the punishment due to the breach of the Command. To this the Pelagians, as Augustin in several places, and particularly Quest. 3. C. 899-tom 4. colum. 666. And the Socinians, as Pareus on the place showeth, with other Enemies of the Christian Religion, and at this day the Quakers answer, that Bodily death is not included in this Threatening; But besides that the Pelagians were anathematised for this doctrine by one Council of Carthage, consisting of 224 Bishops Photius Biblioth. Colum. 42. This answer is evidently false, seeing that by this word (Death) frequently in Scripture, Bodily as well as Spiritual, is understood, and by the Phrase, to die the Death, the separation of Soul and Body is frequently holden forth: Moreover none can deny that Bodily Death of itself is an evil, and no evil could have befallen Mankind persevering in the State of Innocency; But Chap. 3.19. Will aabundantly dissolve all doubts about the meaning of the text to any unbiased Men: Where God himself, describing the punishment of Adam's transgression, denounce●h and foretelleth his return to the dust, as not the least part thereof. But we need not multiply reasons for the vindication of this text, seeing none, except Socinians and Pelagians, oppose our meaning thereof, and the reason adduced by our present adversaries, common to them with the Socinians, and in particular Crellius, for it's overthrown, in strength excelleth not a cobweb, although they pitched upon it, as the only weapon, which had any Teeth or keenness therein▪ The reason is, Adam died not that day that he did eat, therefore (say they) Bodily death is not Comprehended in the threatening: Neither hath this reason any stronger nerves than the rest used by Pelagians & Socinians, which yet for aught any thing I can find, the Quakers do not use, judging them (as it seems) unfit to serve their turn; Therefore Robert Barclay though he had Apolog: chap 4. Fought with this Reason as the only prop of his cause; his adversary chap. 5. num. 8. Having hewed it in pieces) in his Vindication essayeth not the reinforcement thereof, only Sect. 5. num. 3. In stead of a Vindication hath its repetition, adding, that death as it is now circumstantiated with Sickness and the like miseries, is a consequence, but not a punishment of Sin, which distinction is most Blasphemous, as here it is made use of, seeing it insinuateth that God Transgresseth his own Law, by inflicting more misery on fallen man, than was denounced in the Threatening. Either this he must say, or else that Sickness, and Death, as they are now circumstantiated, are not inflicted by God, which I am sure is little better than the former. But to shut up all, he sayeth, that his Adversary hath not said enough, to proselyte him to his Opinion, notwithstanding that he had so d●shed his reason, upon which it was builded, that the Quaker attempteth not the Restauration thereof: He addeth further as a reason why his Adversary had not said enough to proselyte him, that death to Adam in the state of Innocency should have been a pleasure & not a pain; which reason is altogether reasonless, seeing the reason why death is pleasant to any, is its being the port to free Men from all evil, & especially from Sin, without which Adam should have wholly remained, if he had persevered in his integrity; but it is too evident, that the Quaker is of Beauties' mind who de Statu primi Hominis, allegeth that man during his Integrity was not free of concupiscence and evil inclinations; which doctrine maketh God the Author of sin. But I leave this matter, only I cannot but here observe, which I might do in most places and weightiest points of Robert Barclay's Vindication; that per fas aut nefas (as they say) the Quakers must have the last words▪ for who will think it requisite to write after one, who can tell his Adversary that he hath not said enough to proselyte him, and yet never so much as essay to vindicate his own, or remove his adversaries reasons, as Robert Barclay doth here, and yet publishes his book to the world, as a sufficient answer or refutation of what his adversary had said, living in the mean time without so much as an attempted vindication, these points with which the whole frame of Quakerism standeth and falleth; for if Bodily death was included in the threatening, than our doctrine of Original sin is proved, which doctrine once being evinced, all the pretended absurdities and blasphemies, which Socinians, Quakers and others infer from our Doctrine of Original sin and Reprobation, fall to the Ground, and they are, if they be Christians, obliged to remove these themselves. Further its clear from Rom. 6.23. The wages of sin is Death, where death without exception of any kind of death is called the wages, not the consequence only of sin, as the Quaker both in his Apology and Vindication Sect. 5. num. 8. in contradiction to the express Text, expoundeth it; neither is his reason more weighty, than his exposition is sound, which is, that the whole Creation received a decay by Adam's fall, and yet Herbs and Trees are not to be called sinners, seeing the Apostle is not here speaking of herbs and trees, but of Men Women who are capable of receiving the wages of sin, as being the workers thereof, and certainly one may with the like reason, say that Herbs and Trees are capable of eternal life as that they may be capable of the wages of Sin. His other shift which he hath Ibid: by which also he destroys the former, viz. that by death is not to be understood Bodily Death, because Eternal Life is put as the Opposite of the death here spoken of, and obtained by Christ jesus, and yet natural death is not avoided, is not much better than the former, seeing that after the resurrection, the Bodies of the Godly, shall live as well as their souls, and the reunion of both doth belong to Eternal Life, and so natural Life is comprehended in Eternal Life, as well as Spiritual Life; and though believers die a Bodily Death, yet it is not a punishment to them, on this account that the Sting and Bitterness thereof is removed by Christ, who did bear the same, otherwise death is in itself a punishment, being the separation of Soul and Body, the most strictly united friends and companions in the World.  
3ly. Our Doctrine of Original Sin is clearly evinced from Rom. 5.12. As by one Man, Sin entered into the World and Death by Sin, etc. together with the following verses; whence divers strong arguments may easily be collected, for 1. The Apostle that he may prove justification not to be by works but by Faith, or the imputed righteeousness of Christ; maketh a comparison betwixt the two common Heads or Representatives, Adam and Christ, in this, that both of them represented the parties related to them, the same way, so that Adam was a Type of Christ in his standing in the room of one party as Christ did in the Room of another, by bearing of their Iniquities Isa▪ 53.11. By being made sin for them, 2 Cor. 5.21. (i. e.) by Imputation thereof unto him, for no otherwise this text can be understood without Blasphemy; that they may be made the Righteousness of God in Him, i. e. by imputation of it to them, as their Sin was imputed to him; Therefore Adam the Type, stood in the name and Room of Mankind, so as his doings or failings were imputed to them. Robert Barclay Vindication, Sect. 5. numb. 7. Allegeth that this comparison spoileth all our doctrine, because if the Righteousness of Christ is not to be imputed to men for justification, until they actually join with it apprehended by Faith, so neither is the unrighteousness and disobedience of Adam, imputed to Men for Condemnation, until they actually join with it. But I wonder not to see a man intending by right or wrong to Stick to his preconceived opinions, make use of Fig-leaf defences, when he can find no other: For may not Children before they come to the use of Reason, be justified and Saved by the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto them, and by consequence, others before the use of reason stand guilty of Adam's sin imputed to them, which is the Conclusion he fain would evite. Moreover he may as well say, that Adam's Sin doth not at all hurt any of his posterity, until they having the use of reason, actually join with it, which yet he no where sayeth, but granteth the contrary in several places of this Section. 3ly. Omne simile claudicat, this parallel ought not necessarily, to be stretched to every particular mode and circumstance, but only to the particular which is intended here, viz. the Imputation of what the two common representatives did or suffered, unto the parties represented by them; but the Quakers have Learned Bellarmin's Art, who by racking of this Parallel thought to overthrow our Doctrine of Justification by faith. 2. The Sin of Adam is such, that if this Text have any sense at all, by this Sin of his, all have sinned, and by it Death without exception is brought upon all Mankind. 3. It is such a sin of which they are guilty who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam, seeing death reigned over them, for death can reign over none but Guilty persons, but Infants are subject to Death, though they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam, i. e. by actual transgression, Ergo Infants are guilty of Adam's sin. 4. This Offence of adam's was of such a nature, that the Gild of it, or judgement flowing therefrom, came upon all the party represented by him, to the condemnation thereof, i. e. (if it be any thing) so that this party stood really condemned thereby. v. 18. But all Mankind were represented by Adam, Ergo all Men are condemned by the sin of Adam imputed to them: To this Robert Barclay answereth Vind. pag, 101. That judgement or Gild is not expressed in the Original, which is true, but while he sayeth, it ought not to be supplied, one would expect that he should give a better answer, which I looked for; but all that he giveth, is an individuum vagum [Something] which supplement denudeth the Text offence, making a Welshmans hose thereof; therefore certainly there can be no other thing understood, but either judgement, as our Translation hath it, or Condemnation, as the version of Tremellius out of the Syriak, or Gild, as Beza: Seeing the effect thereof was the condemnation of the whole party represented by Adam, as the Text clearly showeth. But to declare his Harmony with Rome he followeth the Versio Vulgata, which in this place hath nonsense supplying nothing. From all that is said, I argue thus, that sin which is described to us by the Apostle, that he saith brought death upon all Men, that men Sinned by it, and were made Sinners, even they who could not as yet actually sin, that they all became Guilty of Death and condemnation; that Sin by imputation is the sin of the whole Nature, included in Adam, and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation; but the first Sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostles, etc. Ergo, that sin is the sin of Nature, etc. Robert Barclay denyeth the Major of this argument, and that to the admiration of all Logicians, seeing no connexion can be clearer in the World, as might easily appear to any that consider it; for who can deny (not to mention other Members of this Argument) that if these who had not actually sinned, are made sinners by this Transgression of Adam, than this is the Sin of the whole Nature, or imputed to it, which is our Doctrine of Original Sin; who I say will deny this? Seeing there is no other thing in the consequence then in the antecedent, except a variation of words and Phrases holding forth the same thing, which yet cannot be counted a Tautology in strict Syllogistical argumentation, the scope of which is to evince the same sense by a clearer phrasiology or way of speaking. 2. He sayeth that in this argumentation, words not in the Text are foisted in, viz. they who have not actually sinned: But in this he only bewrayeth his Own and his brethren's capital error▪ that the Scriptures ought not to be interpreted or reasoned from; for his adversary used only this argument as a clear deduction from the Text, & yet because it is not in so many words in the Text, he rejecteth it; yea he saith Ibid. let him show me the place of Scripture that saith that Infants are guilty of Adam's sin. Behold, Reader, how the Quakers new light hath extinguished the light of sound reason, and provided for their ancestors the Sadducees a shield, such as it is, toward off the argument of our Saviour, whereby He to purpose proved the Resurrection from the dead; but had Robert Barclay been there, he had given him more ado, by saying, show me the plain Scripture that sayeth the dead shall rise again: Moreover we say that this followeth clearly from these words, in whom all have sinned. To this he answereth, that it is to be understood of all that could sin, i. e. actually having come to the use of reason▪ but this answer hath in its bosom a blasphemous falsehood that the righteousness of Christ, cannot be imputed to Infants, and therefore that they are not saved by him only, and come to Heaven throw his Righteousness, for whatever he say for the defence of this h●●●nswer, doth of its own accord tend to the protection of this Blasphemy; for altogether with the like reason, it might be replied to any pleading from this Chapter that the Justification and Salvation of Infants is to be ascribed to the Righteousness of Christ; that these are only righteous for the Righteousness of Christ, who could be righteous, i. e. After the use of reason actually joined themselves to that Righteousness. 2. He may as well say, that these received hurt and damage by the sin of Adam, who could receive it, i. e. actually join themselves to it, for there is alike reason for both. His reason why Infants cannot sin is, because they are under no Law, for the proof whereof, he refers me to what he has said above, whither with him I will return, which is num. 4. where he requireth in what Countries they use to kill all the Children whose Fathers are put to death for their crimes? To which I reply, 1. That it is enough to prove Children to be under a Law, that though in nonage or unborn, they undergo forfeiture and deprivation of Goods and privileges, for no evil of their own, but their Father's misdemeanours only. 2. Both in divine and humane writing, Children are recorded to have suffered death, who had committed no actual sin, and yet suffered the same punishment with their Fathers who had actually sinned: In divine story, the Sodomites▪ I am sure were put to death for their crimes, all whose Children were killed with them Gen. 19 Behold, reader, how easily his most perplexing questions are resolved. The like fell out to the Children of Core Numb. 16. The Children of Achan Jos. 7. and to the Canaanitish Infants; the Children of Benjamin; the inhabitants of jabesh-gilead: of the like examples humane Histories are full, of which the reader may see good store collected by that excellent divine Turret. in vol. 1. loco. 9 Quest 9 pag. 671. I am sure there is nothing more common than for Kings or Commonwealths to sack the Cities and Countries of Obstinate rebels, and thus to destroy the Children with the Fathers, and to kill the hostages of Covenant-breakers, without respect & regard to their age, examples of which see in Livy decade tertia. 3. If in any point of Religion and Faith, the admirable depth of the judgement and Secret Counsel of God, be to be seen, certainly it is be observed here; for I am sure Man's luxuriant reason, can find so much to object against even the very inherent corruption of Man, his miseries though in nonage, and his deprivation of the image of God, as being the effects or sure consequence of Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit, as may send the answerer to Paul's Sanctuary Rom. 9.20. Who art thou etc. We answer therefore, 1. That Adam was a public person, standing and falling in the Room of his posterity, in whose name and behalf, the Covenant of works was made with him as their representative, so that his first sin was not personal, but the sin of the whole Nature: To this Robert Barclay replieth numb▪ 6. requiring Mr. Brown to prove by plain Scriptures, that Adam ceased to be a public person after he had committed his first sin. Answer, he denyeth not, if this be proved, but that our Doctrine of Original sin will stand, for so much he here insinuateth; I therefore with the more cheerfulness prove, that Adam did cease to be a public person, which is evident from this, that he died in that day he did eat, and therefore made the Covenant void and null, now certainly no Man with reason can say, that a Man dead in Law, as Adam was after the breach of the Covenant by eating, can in his future actions be a public person, in respect of the same Law broken by eating; Therefore seeing the day he did eat, did put a term to this Covenant of Life (as no man with reason can deny it) and a period to this common headship, for the one of these standeth and falleth reciprocally with the other; it is clear and manifest to all, that Adam after his fall was no more a public person. Moreover the sin of Adam whereby we were damnified, is still holden forth as one, and not as many sins; as for example Rom. 5. All along in the comparison betwixt Christ, and Adam.  
Robert Barclay replieth, that we may as well hence conclude; that we are only justified by the first act of Christ's obedience, and so have nothing to do with Christ's death and sufferings. But by his favour Bonum oritur ex integra causa, Malum autem ex defectu q●ovis. The Scriptures every where, and in particular Isa. 53. throughout express a long series of doings and sufferings agreed upon in the Covenant of Redemption, none of which could be wanting for the fulfilling of the bargain and accomplishment of our Salvation: Whereas on the other hand, one defect in Adam was enough to complete (so to speak) his fall, and make the breach of the Covenant, it being an evil thing, for the making of which one defect is enough. And thus his Gordian, and insoluble knot (for so he accounteth it) is with all easiness untied. But we need not insist on this, seeing he endeavoureth to Shre●d himself, under the covert of his accustomed antiscriptural dottage, calling for plain Scripture; that is, That Adam was a public person before his fall, in so many Letters, and Syllables, knowing well that unless underproped with such damnable hypotheses his Doctrine cannot stand; but he buyeth bad Wares at a full dear price, for with the same breath he overthroweth both his own Apology, and Vindication, with whatsoever beside he has written in the defence of his principles; seeing these are not found in the Scriptures in so many Letters, & Syllables: But I again return to his seventh number, and in it next he allegeth Augustin as the Patron of his opinion, in contradiction to his own Apology Chap. 4. Where he granted Augustin to be of the same Opinion with his Adversary, acknowledging that according to the mind of Augustin, Infants even before their birth are Guilty of Eternal Death, and the pains of Hell. Thus he either speaketh self contradictions, or would make Augustin to do it. 2. The words of Augustin, from which he would conclude this self contradiction are these Serm. 7. Ex verb. Apostoli, what do ye think to say? And whose ears can hear it? Did they sin themselves? Where I pray you did they sin? When and how did they sin? They know neither good nor evil. Shall they sin that are under no Command? Prove that Infants are sinners, prove what is their Sin, is it because they weep, that they sin? Do they Sin, because they take pleasure, or repel trouble by motion, as dumb Animals? If these motions be sin, they become greater sinners in Baptism, for they resist most vehemently. But I say another thing. You think they have sinned; otherwise they had not died, but what say ye of such as die in there Mother's womb? Will you say they have sinned also? You Lie, or are deceived. etc. Thus Augustin in opposition to the Pelagians, who to evite the force of the arguments of the Orthodox proving Original sin, did assert, that Children presently after their birth become actual Sinners. And yet from this the Quaker will conclude that Augustin in these words contradicteth his own doctrine of Infants being guilty of Original Sin; of which there is not the least appearance, seeing this will be admirable Logic to infer from Augustin his proving of Infants not to be guilty of actual sin, therefore he denied them to be guilty of Original sin: Now what wou●d not these Men adventure to say in the dark, when they are so audacious, as to publish to the world in print, that Augustin denied Infants to be guilty of Original sin, when his own works do every where, and the World proclaim the contrary: yea and the Quaker himself also confessed it. Here he allegeth that the Apostle no where sayeth that Children, are under any Law; which is true, if he understand it in so many words, which yet notwithstanding may be gathered from the 13. and 14. verses of this Chapter, where the Apostle having said, That there is no Sin, where there is no Law, subjoineth that nevertheless Death, (which I have in my former Section, proved to be a punishment) reigned even over these who had not sinned after the Similitude of Adam: Which holdeth true of Children who never sinned actually as Adam did. When he seeth that it cannot be denied, that in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is of the same meaning with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to repeat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 making the words to run thus, In which, or by occasion of which, death, all have sinned. A Pelagian exposition, making men sin by imitation only, and the righteousness of Christ to be the occasion, and pattern only; and not the price of our acceptation, and Salvation. And although he say, that this is resolved by a serious consideration of the comparison between Christ and Adam, as stated by him in his Apology. This is not to be regarded, seeing after an impartial search, nothing of this resolution can be perceived: He ought therefore to have showed u●, how in particular he had in his Apology preoccupied our argument, whereby they are proved to be amongst the grossest of Socinians, who make the death and sufferings of Christ an occasion, or example only whereby to walk, and so to be saved: But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation, but Vltra posse non datur esse. But indeed this is a fine way of Vindicating one's Doctrine, to say in opposition to their Adversaries argument how pressing soever, in the general only, you do not understand our doctrine aright, or consider what we say. And upon this answer only erect his Triumphal Arches, and Cry Victoria.  
4. Our Doctrine is to the conviction of all, except of the Old and New Pelagians, evicted from Eph 2, 3. and yet Rob: Barclay (following Bellarmin, who played the like audacious pranks with Rom. 4. whereby we evince against the Papists, Justification to be by Faith) would turn our weapons against ourselves, and overthrow from this place our Doctrine of Original Sin, alleging that men's evil walking, is the cause why they are counted the children of Wrath: But if the Apostle had so meaned, in all likelihood, he should not have spoken so generally as he did; but had made some Intimation, that Children were excepted, which he neither here, nor any where else doth▪ 2. This Phrase by Nature, is still taken in Scripture, for, so soon as a thing hath a being, or for its very rising, or Original: which these Scriptures confirm. Rom. 2.27. and 11, 24. Gal, 2.5. and 4.8. 1 Cor. 15.44, 46. Hence we thus with Calvin, in opposition to the Pelagians, on the place reason What is naturally in every one, is in them from their very Original; and therefore if all be the Children of Wrath, or 〈◊〉 to wrath by Nature▪ they are so 〈◊〉 their very Original. These Scriptures, and this Argument of Calvin used by his Adversary Robert Barclay in his Vind●▪ Is so far from attempting to answer; that he maketh not the least mention thereof. From which one Omission, though there were no more, any may easily see, that his book deserveth nothing less than the name of a Vindica●tion.  
3. We add as a good secondary Confirmation, that the primitive Ch●rch used still this place to prove the same Doctrine, which we hold of Original sin, in opposition to the Pelagians, denying it; and in particular Augustin de Fide ad Petram diaconum Cap. 26. who sayeth firmissime tene, hold most constantly, and without so much a● once wavering, that every one who is conceived by the conjunction of man and woman, is born with Original sin, under the power of ungodliness, subject to death▪ (which he explaineth of eternal, as well as bodily death, Ibid) and upon the same very account a Child of wrath, concerning which the Apostle saith, and we were by nature the Children of wrath. And the like Doctrine, did Fulgentius, and fourteen bishops with him assert, as also Theodoretus, Primasius and Haimo on the place, taking by nature &c. to import all carnally born, and partaking of the nature of Adam, and so to be verified of all brought forth by the conjunction of man and woman. To this argument drawn from Orthodox antiquity, Rob. 〈◊〉 Vind. Sect. 2. N 5. replieth, what then▪ ●oth that render our doctrine null? Answer, Not indeed to a Pelagian; which every where, and in special here by his open Patrociny of this Here●y, he fully demonstrateth himself to be, notwithstanding that at other times he would fain deny himself to be one, studying to evite the name, though he hug their blasphemy. Their answer to our Argument drawn from Psal. 51.5. I was shapen in iniquity etc. Which by all the Orthodox, both primitive writers, as Augustin passim, and the Reformers, as Luther, in his Confession is understood of Original sin, is most strange, viz That David speaketh of the sin of his Mother, and not of his own. To which it is replied that thus the marriage duty shall the condemned. To this Rob. Barclay, Vind: Sect 5 N 7. returneth a denial of the inference; which yet is clear; seeing wherever in all the Scriptures, any did bewail the sins of their progenitors, they still specified and pointed at the sin in particular, as Neh. 9 with many other places; but here if any particular fact be specified, it must needs be that of the Marriage duty, therefore the inference holdeth good, & here I cannot but take notice of one of his pungent answers, or rather questions (if ye will) Which he proposeth ubi modo in these words, And I desire yet to be informed of him in what Scripture he reads of Original sin, and whether, if the Scripture be the only Rule, he cannot find words fit enough to express his Faith? or must he shift for them else where? Thus he, but in Lieu of these, I return him another question, and desire to be informed of him, whether or not he readeth of Actual sin, or findeth this in so many words? Behold then Reader▪ the desperate tendency of Quakerism, which is to make men believe that there is no sin at a● mentioned in the Scriptures, and therefore, not at all prohibited: For seeing on the account that the phrase Original sin, is not found in Scriptures, he denyeth our Doctrine how clear so ever it be proved, by Scriptural deductions: he giveth good ground to another▪ for inferring ad hominem, that there is not such a thing as Actual sin, seeing the phrase Actual sin, is no where in Scripture to be ●ound, more than that phrase Original sin.  
T●e same Truth may be yet further demonstrated by several other pregnant arguments. As first,  
Infants for the sin of Adam, are deprived of the Image of God therefore there is no reason to deny, that they can be accounted guilty of his sin. The Antecedent is denied by none of our present Adversaries. The Consequence is also firm, for its a punishment, yea, the greatest of punishments, equal with, if not greater than the torments of hell, to be deprived of the Image of God, and therefore of his comfortable presence, Communion, Love, and Favour. 2. The Scripture is ignorant of any persons that go to Heaven, except these that were guilty persons, these whose sin Christ did bear: Er: Children who have never committed Actual sin, are guilty before God. The Consequence is beyond all exceptions. Th● Antecedent also remaineth firm, until our Adversary's adduce some place of Scripture, showing that some persons who never were guilty go to Heaven, or are saved without the merits of Christ. Moreover, it is clear from the whole tenor of the Scriptures, that none are saved but sinners; which was Christ's errand to the Earth; 〈◊〉 the Scripture no where maketh any distinction, betwixt guilty persons, and sinners: and no where sayeth, that any are saved, but these whose sins Ch●ist did bear, and one would in reason think, that this can least of all men, be denied by our Adversaries, who assert that Christ died for all men without exception: Therefore if Infants be not guilty, there is no reason to say, that Christ ●ied for them, or did bear their sins, therefore we with all reason inquire, which our Adversaries according to their principles can never be able to answer, how Infants, if not guilty come to heaven, without the Death, and Merits of Christ? They are altogether void of reason, while they with Rob: Barcl. for want of a better answer inquire, How these whom we account Elect Infants come to Heaven? Seeing our reply is at hand, viz: that they are acquitted before God, by the imputed righteousness of Christ.  
3. Certain it is from the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and in special Rev▪ 22.15. That these who in the sight of God are dog●, are guilty persons, and to be excluded from Heaven, and therefore to be thrust into Hell, but whole Nations without any exception are such. Matth. 15.26. Therefore Infants being a part of these Nations, deserve to be excluded from Heaven, and sent to Hell. Add to this, that some Children are said by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7.14. To be altogether destitut of Holiness, which persons, Heb. 12.14. So long as they are so, cannot see God. Some of the Fathers in order to prove the Gild of Infants, flowing from Adam's transgression, made use of Gen. 17.14. The manchild that is uncircumcised, shall be cut off. This Deduction of some of the Ancients Mr: Broun mentioneth pag 132. But expressly telling, that he will not urge it, but inferreth notwithstanding from this place, that Children may be in some sense capable of breach of Covenant; and therefore under a Law, desiring his Adversary to chew his cud upon this inference, which if true, overthroweth all this Socinian Doctrine anent Original sin, which still presupposeth, that Children are under no Law. For reply to which Rob: Barcl. Vind▪ pag▪ 62. introduceth Mr. Broun as if he had willed him, to chew his ●ud on this first deduction, viz. that, of some of the Fathers; passing by the second, viz Mr. Broun's own inference, without so much as mentioning thereof; whereby he declareth that it hath broken his Jaws, or at best, is not yet digested.  
4, None can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again. joh. 3.7. But surely this new-birth, or to be born again, is the gift of God, and a privilege which he may withhold from whom he will, and therefore without prejudice to his justice may exclude whosoever hath it not, from the Kingdom of Heaven, but none are excluded from it, but guilty persons, which I believe none will deny, therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons.  
6. The main Objection, and that for any thing I know, upon which the bulk of all their Objections dependeth, against our Doctrine of Original sin▪ the Socinians and Quakers draw from Ezek 18.20. The Son shall not bear the Father's iniquity etc. Hence they infer, That no sin can be imputed. To which it is answered, that this will not follow seeing the Lord is there stopping the mouth of the wicked, but yet que●●lous jews, as though they had been altogether guiltless themselves, and punished for their Father's transgressions only; To whom the Lord asserteth that they had sin enough themselves; for which they might be punished & doth not at all say, that no sin can be imputed to another, this meaning we say, beside that it is evident from the Context, must of necessity be admitted, otherwise there shall be a flat contradiction between this, and many other texts. As for example the second Command▪ This text Mr. Broun pag 119. cleared, and everted what the Quakers had said from this place; therefore he in his Vindication pag 55. not being in case to force the text, to speak for him again, saith the words are plain. The Son shall not die for the Father's iniquity. And therefore they must stand to the overthrow of his Adversaries Doctrine. Such a Combatant as this is not fit for a second essay.   

CHAP. IU. Of GOD.  
IN this Chapter, I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things, each of which, is enough to Unchristian the maintainer thereof. 1. That they deny the holy Trinity with Arrius and Sabellius. 2 That their Doctrine maketh God the Author of in. 3. That they hold the Soul of Man to be God.  
First, we shall evince, that this Sect really denyeth the Trinity of persons in the Godhead; and is as abominable, if not more, as the old Arrians, Sabellians, Macedonians, or the latter Arrians, as the Socinians. And in the first place, we shall give you the words of George Fox, a Quaker of great note, in his ●rimer to Europe, pag 37. What is the Trinity in Unity? and whether all these words be ●ot of men's Wisdom and Teaching? Ans. To every particular Query & word that is queried of you here, and what was their first ground and root, and ●o the light bring it out, and the fi●st author of ●hem, and whether or no all this body hath not gotten up since the Apostasy, in the transgression, where men's wisdom teacheth words, and the words the Holy Ghost teacheth, is foolishness to them. Whether or not this is so? Answer me, yea, or no: What are the three Persons in the Trinity? How are the three Persons, subsistences of the Deity? How is the Trinity not the number numbering, but the number numbered? How is the opinion of the Trinity not only a Church Tradition, but a Doctrine expressed in the Scriptures?  
How is the word Hypostasis, which you acknowledge any singular Substance, used Metaleptically? or by taking one thing for another, for a person. Heb, 1.2. Since ye say, a person is a singular, ●ational, and complete Substance, and differing from another by an incommunicable property? Answer me this, and all the Terms, and Words, and Queries, and things before mentioned. What be the Wisdom that hath taught them, and Ground, and Root they are come from? And whether or not they have all come up amongst Christians, since the days of the Apostles? And learned of the Heathens that knew not G●d, that transgressed the life, that had nothing but their own Wisdom to teach them, who was taught by their own Wisdom, and whether that is not pleasing to a carnal man that knows not the things of God How are the Words, Persons, Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which ye grant, are not found in so many Syllables in the Scriptures, yet agree thereto?  
And George Keith in his Quake: No Popery pag 47.104. Sayeth, that, To speak of Persons in the Godhead, is an uncertain, unscriptural Notion, and a barbarous heathenish Term.  
The Doctrine and Principles of the Priests in Scotland, pag 19, 20. It is a lie that the Scripture doth declare of the three persons, or of the Trinity. Add to all this, that in all thei● Treatises, there i● nothing found concerning the Holy Trinity, except enough of this kind of Doctrine, of which we have given the Reader a taste.  
I will in the second place show, that thi● Doctrine is all one, if not worse, with the Doctrine of the execrable Arrians: For their Doctrine was, That the Son is separated, or divided from the Eternal, and Ineffable Substance of God the Father. In opposition● o which, The Council of Nice, says, chap· I. in their Symbol, That the Son is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. of the same individual Substance with the Father, Rufin. lib. 1. Now it is to be observed, whoever hitherto contradicted the Doctrine of this Nicen Symbol, were accounted by all Christians, Arrians. And upon this ground, abominated by the whole Church Cane pejus et angue, as they speak Next, I assert, that whosoever denied that the Son was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri, that is, of the same individual Substance with the Father, were by all the Orthodox counted Arrians, So that in that unhappy Council of Ariminum, when the Arrian Bishops had deceived some of the simpler sort, through their Sophistry, and made them through their own simplicity and ignorance of the Greek-tongue, to grant that the Son was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patri, they were judged to involve them in the profession of Arrianism; which is clear from Ruf. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1 Cap. 2●.  
The Argument wherewith they endeavour to prove, that the Son was not Consubstantial with the Father, was, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not found in Scripture, which appears from this last cited Author. They used also this Argument at a Convention at Carthage in the time of Hunnericus, with such impudent clamours, that they deafened their hearers. Christianus Mathias in his Theat. Hist. pag 744. So the Reader may se● here, that the Quakers have learned both their Doctrine and Proofs thereof, from the Arrians: They ought therefore to have the Name, seeing they have the thing.  
I will here subjoin the words of a late Arrian, in a Pamphlet of his called Antith: Christ et Antichristi, which the Reader may find inserted and refuted in the 7 Tom. of Zinchius his Works, which Words are his 20 Antith. to be found in Za●ch. Col. 872. 2. Tim. 1. 
Hold fast the Form of sound Words, which thou hast learned of me▪ The Apostle enjoined this to Timothy, and a●● t●e Ministers of the Church, to the end that they may flee strange Words and Phrases in speaking concerning God and the Mysteries of Faith, that they may be content with these, which he himself used in delivering the Doctrine of Religion, these words, Trinity, Essence, three persons ●n one e●●●nce:  
although they be neither used by Christ nor Paul, but invented by the Councils and Fathers: yet say the Orthodox, they are necessarily to be keeped in the Church; therefore let them confess as the matter is, that they are not the disciples of Christ and the Apostles, seeing so rashly they strive against their precepts, and the divine similitude, wherewith the Prophets and Apostles did holily express the Mystery of the knowledge of God, and Christ, being laid aside, they study new Forms, and in teaching the Church, they have the same oftentimes in their Mouth, not without vile Ignominy bo●h to the doctrine, and Church of Christ.  Behold now reader the identity of the doctrine of Quakers with that of Arrians, from whom they have learned it.  
But some perhaps may object, saying, that this identity is only in words, to whom I answer, Either the things imported by these words and phrases, and given by Christians Generally as the meaning thereof, and contained in Scripture or not: now if the first be true, then to stir up strife about these words, proves only the raisers thereof ridiculous. But 2. Supposing that the things themselves, which Christians understand by these words, or phrases are holden forth in Scripture, then to deny that we may use them, is founded on this Hypothesis viz. that in Explication of Scriptures or disputs about the meaning thereof it is impious, and unlawful to use any words or phrases except they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in the same Letters and syllables in Scripture, though we be never so sure, that as to the sense and meaning thereof, they be found in the Scriptures, but this Hypothesis, if true, overthroweth all Scripture consequences, interpretation of Scripture, blasts the hope of ever getting Heretics refuted, which none will deny except ●n Arrian, or the like Heretics, and while these deny it they only oppose their own practice to their own opinion, seeing they themselves as other disputants, endeavour to draw Consequences from Scripture, and paraphrase upon it to make it peak for themselves: Now that this absurd and blasphemous consequence sticks fast to this their Hypothesis, appears from no few places of Scripture, and among others Math. 22.31, 32. For if our Saviour had stuck to the mere Letters and Syllables of Exod. 3.6. I am the God of Abraham, etc. without deduction of a consequence from them, and so an exposition of them, he should never from these words have evinced against the Sa●ducees, the Resurrection of the dead. But I need not stay longer to evince this, for certain it is, and already proved, not only from the Quakers obstinate denial of a free and positive Con●ession of their Faith, anent this matter, but also from their useing of the same weapons with which the Arrians attempted the subversion of this truly Catholic Doctrine, as also sufficiently by the express words of Fox and these of the Principles of the Priests; but this Arrian Self Contradicting shift they are forced ●o us●, being conscious to themselves as the Arrians before ●hem, that their Doctrine cannot be proof against the firm and demonstrative deductions, which the Orthodox bring from Scripture, with which as so many Battering-Rams they with ease overthrow this Antirripitarian Impiety. Therefore the other Branch of the Dilemma viz. That the sense of these words, i. e. That which all Christians understand, as the Me●ning thereof according to the Quakers, is not in Scripture. And indeed this is the Truth: And so the Quakers are Arrians, the evicting of which is the intent of this present discourse. But yet farther that this is Truth, viz. That the Quakers are Arrians▪ if not worse, and deny that fundamental Doctrine of the persons of the ●oly Trinity, and that the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost also are of the same substance with the Father, and distinct persons from him, is most evident from their perpetual hellish raisings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, calling it an Abominable and stinking Doctrine, as these that heard them told me, and when they were reproved, their reply was, thou knowest not the Truth. Again they demonstrate to the world, that they are the Fry of Arrius, while they reject the Common Translation and Exposition of Heb. 1. ●. Admitted by all except the Arrians and their Brethren: For if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not to be rendered Person or Subsistence, as all the Lexicographers, and in particular Scapula, Pasor, Scrivelius upon the word, and all the Interpreters both ancient (as Pareus, in locum showeth, and modern, Dutch Divines, and English Translation render it) but, Substance (for certainly thus it must be rendered, ●f the word Person, or Subsistence be rejected) than it shall irresistibly follow that the Father and the Son are divided in substance, which was the Doctrine of Arrius, both in Ma●ter and Term●; hence it is clearer than daylight, that these men are his Disciples, yea it is to be observed that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place ought to be rendered Subsistentia or Persona, then if a man believe the Scriptures, and that words are the true Symbols of things, it is not possible that he be in Judgement an Arrian: A● chose if a Man believe, that the word ought to ●e rendered Substance, presupposing the Truth of the Scriptures, and that words are the true Ideas of things, he cannot but be an Arrian. Hence that for named Arrian Antithesi 4 ta apud Zanchium, pag 854 of his forecited book, says He●, 1. Christ is the splendour of the Glory of God, and figure of His Substance, Christ is the invisible God Himself, says the Church of Rome: For this Arrian still calleth all the oppose●s of Arrianism, members of the Church of Rome, as the Quakers do now. But it may be here objected, that several very Orthodox Writers have in this place, translated ●he Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by that of Substantia; to which I answer, that all the Orthodox, both Ancient and Modern while they thus spoke, did take the word Substantia, in the sense that both they, and we do the word Persona or Subsistentia. This our Assertion may be most evident to any, though but a little acquainted with the ancient and Modern Orthodox (i. e. the opposers of Arrians and Socinians) writers. For Augustin who in several places, and in particular lib. 5. and 7. De Trinitate ascribeth to God three Substances, or three Subsistences indifferently, yet notwithstanding elsewhere, carefully distinguisheth them▪ and in particular; de fide ad Petrum Diaconum ●ap. 1. where he sayeth, for if, as the substance of the Father and the Son is one, so also they were 〈◊〉 one person, than there should be nothing a● all which truly could be called a Trinity. Hence we se● that this word Substantia did bea● a twofold Signification▪ in the first of which it may be well put into the re●t as Equivalent with, or the Synonymum of the word Persona without the least shadow of prejudice to our Doctrine; it were easy to show the like ou● o● Hilarius, and others of the Ancients. I shall content myself to set down the words of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in his Bibliotheca Col. 299. Giving his Judgement concerning a book of Pierius an ancient Pastor, saying, as touching the Father, and the Son he believeth piously, except that he sayeth that they are two Substances, and as many Natures, howbeit not so as he adhereth to Arrius; for as may be gathered from what goes before and followeth, he useth the word, Substantia, for, or in the same signification with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or persona: See the same Author Col. 783, De Libris Ephremi Pariarchae Theopolitani, where he confirmeth at large this our assertion. Now observe, serious Reader, of how great a consequence in the Judgement of those who are in this great point most Orthodox, the right or wrong use of these words, about which we now treat, was esteemed, and also that they took them in the same sense, for which we now plead. But I forbear to add more out of the ancients. For Calvin Inst. lib. 1. cap. 13. Sect. 2. affirmeth this our proposition of all the Ancient Orthodox without exception, and Socinus ingenuously confesseth it. Of the Modern writers, I affirm the same, as is clear from Calvin ibid. and Tremellius in His version of the Text out of the Syriak, Pome●ranus on the place and others. It is clear than th●● we have both name and thing in Scripture, and indeed this Text doth so clearly hold forth this truly Catholic Doctrine, that George Keith is forced to discover that which he by all means endeavoureth to palliate: For Truth Defended p. 76.79. He sayeth that this Text is to be understood speaking of Christ as Man only. Now I am sure, if he could make out this, he should do a piece of non such service unto the Arrians and Socinians, for this is one of the Texts that they with greatest Care endeavour to pervert, and wrest, and the Orthodox to vindicate, inferring always from it the Divinity of Christ; but this he shall never be able to make out, for there is nothing more clear than that the whole Context and Scope of the Apostle doth evince, that this place speaketh of Christ as God; and again who d●re say, except the Arrians and Socinians, with George Keith, that Christ as Man can be called the Brightness of the Father's Glory, or the express Image, or Character of the Father: Man indeed was made according to the Image of God, but certain it is, that no Creature in Scripture is called the Image of the Father, hence when Christ Col: 1.15. Is called the Image of the invisible God; Divines take the the word (GOD) for the person of the Father, neither at all can it be otherwise understood, for Christ is there called the first born of every Creature, and he by whom all things were Created, and Consist: Hence Christ must be called the Image of the invisible God according to his Godhead, and by ● good Consequence by (God) must be understood the Person of the Father as a distinct Subs●st●nc● from that of the Son. From all which I conclude, that so firm is the Truth of our Doctrine, that the very things that seem to infringe and weaken it, resolve only into a fair Occasion of, and making way for its clearer Evidence and stronger Corroboration.  
Add to all this, that the primitive Church carefully retained these Words, and Phrases, as either being in Scripture, in Terminis, or bottomed thereon, and as being the true Symbols of these Divine Things, whereby the Church might most fitly express her mind, and repel the Sophistry of Heretics, both before, but especially after the rise of the Arrian Heresy: H●nce justin Martyr hath a book entitled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and describes a Person of the Holy ●rinit● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And Damascene Orth. fide, and others follow him in this Description. These and the like Phrases are generally found in the works of the Fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others before the rise of Arrianism, but especially after it, as Augustin, Athanasius, Hilarius, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Rufinus, Sozomenes, and many others, divers of which, as Augustin, & Athanasius, hath books with Titles expressly concerning the Holy Trinity: But as I sa●d before, after the rise of the Arrian and Sabellian Heresies, the Church with greater Care and Acuracy, distinguished the words, Substance, and Subsistence, as he that pleases may see in Ruf. l. i. Cap. 29 and in the History of Sozomenes, writing of the Council of Alexandria. Notable also to th●● purpose, and never to be forgotten are the words of Athanasius, who in his Symbol thus speaketh, Whosoever will be saved; before all things, it is necessary, that he hold the Catholic Faith, which Faith, except every man keep wholly, and inviolat, without doubt he shall eternally p●rish; this truly is the right Catholic Faith, that we worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, without confounding the Persons, neither separating the Substance, etc. From which Time, to this day, the Church hath Religiously Observed these Words, and Phrases, whereby She might express the Truth, and distinguish herself from that Porphyrian sect of the Arrians, (as C●●stantin the great called ●hem) and other Here●ick●. By this Time. I am confident that he that will not close his Eyes, may perceive that the Doctrine of Quakers, is all one with that of Arrians, Macedonians, Sabellians, which is the purpose of this Discourse. But yet ex abundanti, I will transcrib a Passage or two further, The first of which is in Truth Def. This complete Arrian, and self contradicter, having said pag 75. That, It is only the ●●scriptural Terms of Trinity, and Persons, which he denyeth, and not the Mystery, pag 77. He giveth himself the lie, and palpably bewrayeth his Arrianism, in these words. And if Io: Alexander ●ir definition of a Person be received, that it is an Intelligent Being, subsisting incommunicably or distinctly, one from another, I do not see, for my part but that three Persons, at this ●ate; shall infer 〈◊〉 Intelligent Beings, subsisting incommunicably, and consequently three Gods. Behold, Reader, the the Arrian dashing against the same stumbling-stone, upon which Arrians, and Socinians have always broken their necks. For upon this very Account, that it seemed to them to infer three Gods, the Arrians and Sabellians of old, and the Socinians at this day always malign, and endeavour what they can, to render odious that most necessary Doctrine of the Holy Trinity. With this passage of George Keith, well agreeth what Hubberthorn in his Reply to Sherlock impiously belloweh forth pag 19 That there is no Scripture for the Catholic Faith, and Trinity, and three Persons.  
Before I pass this Matter, I cannot but take Notice of the strange dealing of George Keith, attempting to make Augustin a Patroniser of his Arrian Doctrine; For in Truths Def: Cap 5. The Quaker h●th these Words. And indeed Augustin in his 5 and 7 Books of the Trinity, not only sayeth, the Words (three Persons) are improper, but disputeth against them, as I suppose. Io. Alexander for all his School Logic, and Philosophy shall hardly be able t● answer his Argument, the substance of which, 〈◊〉 my best remembrance, is this, The word Person, either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple, or relative; to say the first is absurd, otherways ther● shall be three absolute Beings, or Essence's in God, which is absurd; If somewhat Relative, which is referred or relative to another, as Father is relative to a Son (and therefore a Father is Father of a●nother, and no man is his own Father) the● to say, the Father is a person, is to say, the Father is the Person of some other, and so of the rest, which is absurd, to the which Argument, not as mine, but really Augustin's, I leave Joh. Alexander to answer. Thus George Keith. Ans. It seemeth that the Intent of the Quaker is, to fasten a false Contradiction on Augustin; for none ever used the word Person, in Application to the Holy Trinity, more frequently than Augustin hath done, as is obvious to any, that hath but a little acquaintance with his Works. And de Trinit. Lib. 5. Cap 8. He asserteth that the Latin Fathers, yea, and these of greatest Authority among them, still used the word Person, as the most fit that could be imagined, for the expressing of this Holy Mystery. To whom he assenteth both in this place, and else where, in the same Books, Cited by George Keith. We may hence see, what the drift of the Quaker is, even to render both the Persons and Doctrine of the choicest Champions of Christ, odious and contemptible, by making them speak self-contradictions, and that in these very points, anent which, if the Body of the Christian World be not grossly deceived, they were of all men, most Orthodox. 2. This same Father, de Doctrina Christi. Lib 1. Cap 5. Allegeth, that the word Causa, cannot sufficiently enough agree to God. And Cap 6. That the word Deus, is not fit enough, whereby God can be expressed. Sure I am, that in both these Books, mentioned by the Quaker, he saith nothing whereby we may conclude, that he is more disliking the word Person, than the word Causa, or Deus. But shall I think, that George Keith judgeth, that according to the mind of Augustin, God is not the Creator, or first cause of all things? And that we sin in expressing him by the Name of God? I do not think that the Quaker will assent to this, and yet no more Reason hath he to say, that according to Augustin, it is dangerous to say, that there are three Persons in the Trinity. For the main Reason why he thinketh that there is some inconsistency in the word (Person) for the full expressing of that inexpressible Mystery, he giveth the Trinit. Lib 7. Cap 4 In these words, When they inquire of us, what Three? or how these Three shall be called? we set ourselves to find some special or general Name, neither can we find it, because the supereminency of the Dei●y exceeds the strength of our Eloquence, and God is more truly Comprehended by the Mind, than expressed by the Tongue, and more truly existeth, than comprehended in the Mind. This I say, is the Reason, why Augustin thinketh the word (Person) not sufficient enough, for the Declaration of this incomprehensible Mystery: But the same is the Reason why, de Doctrina Christ. Lib 1. Cap 5. He thinketh that the word 'Cause cannot agree to God: Hence it is apparent, That an Atheist might as well, and with as good ground allege, that Augustin in the forecited places did patronise his Atheism, and publish to the world that God is not the Supreme cause of all things, or that there is not a God. 3. I have with care perused these Books of Augustin, but could not at all find this Argument which George Keith fathereth upon him: I Answer therefore the Argument not as Augustin's, but as a sinnowless Argument of George Keith, drawn from a simile of natural things, which hath little or no proportion to that which is Infinite. Hence I say, that it can have little or no weight. But again the Argument is false, and Ridiculous, on this Account, that the Quakers make every Father, the Person of his Son, which I am sure is absurd enough. For as a Father is the Father of another, and yet a distinct Person from another, so God the Father, is the Father of God the Son, and yet a distinct Person from God the Son. Hence the simile ●rought, not by Augustin, but by the Quaker, for the overthrew of the Truth, tendeth to the Illustration, and clearing thereof. From all this Lea●n how disingenuous Dealers these men are, that can find no better Means for the defence, and propagation of their Doctrine, than to deceive the Simple, by borrowing the Names of the Ancient Worthies, whereby to cover their blasphemous Doctrine. Thus their best refuge is to broach Lies, in Hypocrisies.  
2. I shall prove that according to the Quakers Doctrine, God is the Author of sin, which I thus Evince.  
God is the Author of every Substance, but according to the Quakers Doctrine, Sin is a Substance. The Minor I prove, Grace is a Substance, which is their Common Doctrine, therefore sin is a Substance also. The consequence Rob: Barclay Vind: pag 49. denyeth, which I thus prove, the Antecedent viz. that Grace is a Substance, they endeavour to prove by these Reasons. First because it is in and by this inward, and substantial Seed in their hearts, as it cometh to receive nourishment, and to have a Birth, and Geniture in them, they come to have these Spiritual Senses raised, by which they are made capable of Tasting, Smelling, Seeing, and Handling the things of God. Thus reasoned Robert Barclay In his Apology pag 95. This is also the Doctrine of George Keith in his Immed. Rev. That this Light, or Seed, or Grace, is a Substance, because it may feel, hear etc.  
Robert Barclays second Reason is, because it subsists in the hearts of wicked men, even while they are in their wickedness. Now if Sin may hear, feel, and perceive, as well as Grace and Light, and if it may feel, or perceive the things of Satan, as really as Grace feels, or perceiveth the things of God, and if sin may be in the. heart of a real godly person, than sin is a Substance, according to the Quakers; Otherwise these Reasons are reasonless: But the former is true, therefore the la●ter. The Consequence of the Major is most firm. For sin in the heart of one that is truly godly, is the same way to be considered, as Grace, and Light in the heart of the ungodly in this point. For I judge this be the Reason, why the Quakers Judge that this is the Reason, that the Being of Grace in the Heart of a wicked Man, while in his wickedness proveth it to be a substance viz. Because it can be where its contrary is, and strive, and wrestle with it, which is as evident concerning sin in the heart of a godly man, as is clear from Rom. 7. Gal. 5, 17, and also from Experience, which I believe our Adversaries themselves would hardly deny, seeing they grant that all Persons, that have real Grace are not at all times, after Conversion free of sin, and wrestling with it. Hence the Charge that they most maliciously lay to the Reformed Churches viz. that they make God the Author of Sin, is justly returned upon themselves, seeing God is the Author of every Substance. Which is yet more clear from the twelfth Query, sent to Mr john Alexander viz. What is Original Sin? Whether it be not the Devil? yea or nay? For doth not the Original signify the Beginning? What did Christ come to destroy? Was it not the Devil and his Works? What is more clear, than that in those Queries of the Quakers, God is made the Author of Sin? seeing that unless they profess, and avow Manicheism, God created the Devil, and this is yet more clear, if clearer can be, by George Keiths' Defence of this Querie Truth defend: pag. 177. Where he can find no better Defence of this blasphemy, than to call it in effect a purposeless heap of words without all scope, saying, that the Devil may be called sin, in a certain sense by a Metonymy, as Christ is called Righteousness, or sin, called the old Man. And thus George Keith acteth like himself, that is playeth the ridiculous babbler, for pag. 59 in Defence of that Query viz. If every Title in the Bible be the word of God? he sayeth, that to query a thing, will not conclude, that the questionist doth positively affirm, or deny what is queried. The same way he dealeth here with his Antagonist. For if the Quakers understood no other thing, than the Devil may get the Name of sin, as any cause may get the name of its effect: Then both they, and he in their Defence, prove themselves to be pitiful, purposeless wranglers, making a stir in the World about nothing: And of set purpose involving their Discourse● in such nonsensical Nice●ies, that none shall know the meaning thereof: Hence we may see, that it is but vain Labour to give any Answer to the Quakers. For whatever they have said, you cannot fix upon them, be as clear as it will; they will in their next Essay explain it to you in a sense, as opposite to that, which in the Judgement of all rational men, their words carry; as Black is opposite to White, or Light to Darkness. For what is more clear from the Words of the Query than that the Devil is sin itself? seeing I think no Man, except George Keith, will desire us to believe that all these Questions are given out for needless amusements of the World, importing only these things; about which there is not the least shadow of a question, or doubt, for who ever doubted that the Devil was the cause of Sin? Neither is his abuse of Scripture more tolerable: seeing the Apostle useth a figurative Speech, which in a matter known, and about which there is no debate; as the Matter was, about which the Apostle speaketh, may contribute much to the illustration, and clearing of the purpose: but far otherwise was it, wheresoever Christ, or the Apostles enured into any direct Disputation's, or reasoning, where they always so spoke, as these with whom they Reasoned might have easily understood what these Questions, and Reasonings tended to. In a word he that of set purpose involveth, and rendereth unintelligible his Discourse about Matters of such moment, in the Judgement of all Rationals proveth himself either a Fool, or a Knave: Therefore whether George Keith will, or not, we must do these Questionists right, and believe that they thought as they spoke, that is, that the Devil is sin itself. And therefore God is the Author of sin.  
3. I come now to the third thing, of which I promised to prove the Quakers guilty, viz. That the Soul is God, or as they with the like blasphemy speak a part of God. And first to clear the way for the Souls Divinity, they deny its Humanity; For Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlok pag. 29. sayeth, there is no Scripture which speaketh of a Humane Soul. And again pag. 31. to Mr. Sherlok saying that God is not a Spirit, as Angels, and the Souls of men are; he replieth, saying this is confusion: For Christ sayeth, God is a Spirit, and they that worship him; must worship him in Spirit, and Truth. And there thou art razed without the Doctrine of Christ. And pag. 30. in opposition to Mr. Sherlock, who had accused the Quakers of professing, and blasphemously boasting of their Equality with God, he thus replieth▪ Thy boasting is excluded without, in thy Generation. And thou art excluded from the life, and mind of the Apostle, who said, Let the same Mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the Form of God, thought it no Robbery to be equal with God. Phil. 2.5, 6. And this thou calleth blasphemy, and so thou hast showed what Spirit thou art of; contrary to the Apostle, here we have Blasphemy in its highest Degree, and an Equality with God pro●essed, and boasted of; For the Effectation of which being prompted thereunto by the grand Enemy of Mankind, Our first Parents fell from their Excellency, and most happy Condition: And except Christ had interposed, had forever lain together, with all their Posterity into that whirl pool, and gulf of Incomprehensible Misery, only for the desire of aspiring unto ●his, of which these Heaven dar●ing blasphemer▪ boast themselves: so that what the Poets feigned of the Giants contending with the gods, for an Equal Right to Heaven with them, the Quakers act in Reality. But the following discourse will evince, that an Equality with God will not please them, except they have also an Identity: For George Fox the great Prophet, and King of the Quakers in his great Myst. pag. 90. In answer to one, that said there is a kind of infinitness in the Soul, yet it cannot be infinitness in itself, speaketh thus, Is not the Soul without beginning▪ coming from God, returning to God again▪ who hath it in his hand, and Christ the Power of God, the Bishop of the Soul, which bringeth it up to God, which came out from him? hath this a beginning, or ending? and is not this infinite in itself? again George Fox telleth us in the forecited book pag. 29. that Magnus been sayeth that the Soul is not infinite in itself, but a Creature, and R. Baxter sayeth it is a Spiritual Substance, whereunto George Fox Replieth, Consider what a Condition these called Ministers are in: they say that which is a spiritual Substance, is not infinite in itself, but a Creature: that which came out of the Creator, and is in the Hand of the Creator, which bringeth it up unto the Creator again, that is infinite in itself. Again Great Myst. p. 100 The Quakers are accused for saying, there is no Scripture that speaketh of a Humane Soul: And for affirming that the Soul is taken up unto God; Hereunto George Fox thus answereth, God breathed into Man the Breath of Life, and he became a Living Soul. And is not this that which cometh out from God? is in God's hand? part of God? from God? and to God again? from these passages it is most evident, that both the Soul of man; yea and the Devils themselves (which I tremble to think) must be God over all; Seing according to these monsters of men, that which is a spiritual Substance, is infinite of itself, and not a Creature, and therefore God himself: For none will deny that both the Souls of men, and the Devils themselves are spiritual substances. Hence it will follow, that God, or a part of God (as they most blasphemously speak) committeth sin, which confirmeth that which we said before viz. that according to the Quakers Doctrine, God is the Author of sin. From this Monstruous Doctrine it also followeth that God, or a part of God is condemned, and is, and shall be tormented in Hell for ever. It followeth also from this Doctrine, that God is divided in parts, and that one part of him is Bishop, and Ruler over another. These and a thousand other such hellish Blasphemies follow upon this Doctrine, in which it is needless to insist. For as Calvin said, Fatuitas dogmatis me securum reddit. The very Poison itself being so black, and hellish, at its very first appearance carrieth along with it a sufficient Antidote. For we may well Cry out with Photius Col 403. of the wicked Maniehean, and Heathenish ●a●er of Christ, Agapius, who was the Quakers Ancestor in this Blasphemy, O huge madness! and indeed (if such a sad matter did permit any Jesting) One might readily fancy, that the Devil were now doting through old Age, for certainly he seemeth to be deprived of his ordinary 'Slight and Subtlety, that could find no gild, or Varnishing, whereby to cover the Superlative Impiety of this Doctrine: but what he wanteth in Deceit, he hath requited in Strength, who could thus Captivat, and Impose upon the Judgement of Rational Animals, so that they drunk down this Potion so manifestly pestiferous. Several of these passages were cited by Mr. Broun. The palpable abominableness of which, wholly rendered them incapable of any Defence, or show of any honest meaning: And the manifest Evidence thereof from the Quakers own Books, made them altogether undeniable: Therefore Robert Barclay (as he dealeth with all the rest) passeth them over with Silence. And yet, as if a Sport could have diverted any serious Man; from the abhorrency of Quakerism, in the last Section of his Vindication, he maketh himself ridiculous, saying, that Mr. Hicks, who cited some of these passages; Succumbed in a Disput against the Quakers, and from this, giveth out that Hicks, and such others, are not to be believed, say what they will of the Quakers, notwithstanding that Robert Barclay adventureth not to challenge either Mr. B. or Hicks of any particular miscarriage, in their particular Citations of the Quakers Books. This was therefore a strange Influence and more admirable, than that of the Remora upon a Ship, that Hicks his supposed failing had on this multitude of blasphemous passages, that it loosed R: Bar: and his Brethren, from any Obligation to answer for them, though they be to be found exactly as they are cited. He here mentioneth several Books written by Quakers, as answers to what Hicks and Faldo hath said, and among there's, Pen's Invalidity of Faldo's Vindication. In which book Pen sometimes proclaimeth himself a Sadducee, as in the point of Resurrection: sometimes a Papist, as in the point of Justification. At other times, more Antichristian than most of Pagans; Endeavouring with might and main, not only to rob the Holy Scriptures of their Divinity, but also of common Sense: Of which Doctrine the Reader hath gotten a taste above. And O that it might be the lot of all the obstinate Opposers of the Truths of God, thus to bewray at once, both Weakness, and wickedness, even when they think to appear like so many Goliahs for strength, and to Justify their Adversaries Charge, even while they attempt the removal thereof! as William Pen hath done. This horrible Impiety, these men following the Manicheans, (whom Augustin de Civ: Dei. Lib. 7 Cap 2, 8. de Genesi ad Lit. refuteth both in principles, and Probation) father upon the Holy Scriptures, viz. Gen 2, 7. where it is said, That God breathed into man's nostrils, the Breath of Life, or Lives. On this place also Ro● Bar. Vind Sect 5, par. 1, foundeth, (or at least seemeth to found) his opinion of a Substantial Light, and Seed distinct from the Soul, that remained with Adam after his fall. But these Opinions though contrary to one another, are both contrary to the Truth: For there is nothing either in the Words, and Phrases, or Scope, and Context that favoureth either of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth not in the least favour either of them, which according to the consent of the best Hebreans, is to be taken Metaphorically, and efficiently, not properly, sive instar Causae materialis, materially. Neither doth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 help them any more, which according to the mind of all sound Interpreters, as Pareus on the place showeth, and Lexicographers, as Buxtorf, Lewsden, Bithner, Leigh, signifieth only, the rational Soul of man. Hence the Opinion of Rob: Bar. is overthrown. Moreover, this word is used Isa. 2.22. where the holy Ghost sayeth, that Man's breath is in his nostrils; to the end that he may demonstrate the frailty of man. Hence we may conclude, that nothing of God, or of his Divine Nature can by the force, or significancy of this word be necessarily imported, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sometimes signifieth Beasts, as well as Men; All the forecited Authors understand by it, the Soul of man: And tell us that these who are no more critical considering it is in the plural number, take Sensitive, as well as Rational, here to be meaned. Others judge this Criticism to be neglected, because that oftentimes in the Hebrew a word is Voce pluralis, & significatu singularis Vide Leigh Critica Sacra pag 72. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet further confirmeth, that no other thing is to be understood in this place, but the soul of man. For the Dust of the Earth form by God into the Body of man, and this breath of Life, became a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a living Soul, as also that the Soul of man is nothing Divine properly so called; Seing this word sometimes signifieth the body of man. As Psal. 16.10. and elsewhere signifieth any living creature. Moreover, the scope of the place, which is to repeat more fully the Creation of man, which in the former Chapter was more shortly hinted at, evinceth that there is nothing here to be understood, but the creation of the Soul, and Body of man. But we need not insist to prove our negative from this place, seeing this is the only place, on which our Adversaries build their Affirmatives. It is enough for us, to challenge them to bring forth the least appearance of reason for them, which as they have not done hitherto, so shall never be able to do. Again as they to the horror of all men elevat the Creature, not only to an equality, but an Identity with the Creator, and so make that which is less than nothing all in all, and God over all blessed for ever, so with equal Impiety they bring down the glorious God, levelling him with the dust, and subject that most pure and Impassable being, to the weakest frailties of Mankind, Alleging that Christ weeped as God, and not as man over jerusalem, but that they may want all ground of Complaint; Let us hear themselves, who in the principles of the Priests of Scotland pag 33. say It was asked of him viz. Henry Foreside, of a fore ordained number to destruction, and for what Christ wept over jerusalem. He answered, as he was Human, he mourned and his godhead decreed them to hell, this is a lying Doctrine of the devil, for after, many of them of jerusalem came to be converted, as ye may read in Acts 2. And many of the Priests came to be obedient to the Faith, for all being gone astray both jews, and Gentiles, Rome 2.9. concluded under sin, the pure, the Eternal tendered over them; who had stopped their ears, and closed their eyes to that which was pure of God in them, that they might have come to that which is pure, and have been gathered under Christ's wings, Mat. 23, 37. Who is pure, and so have been converted, and healed, and have heard with their ears, and seen with their Eyes. And as for the word (Humane) that is not Scripture Language, it speaketh not that Language.   

CHAP. V. Of Christ, and of his Benefits.  
THE Quakers in words, commonly acknowledge that Christ is God and Man, and account it a wrong, when they are accused of the denial thereof: But beside these two Natures they really maintain a third, viz. a Spiritual and Heavenly nature in Christ, which they call the Heavenly man, Christ Jesus, which heavenly man, they say, did exist before the incarnation of Christ Jesus, and assert, that on the Flesh and Blood of this man, the Church in all Ages did feed. For George Keith in his way cast up, pag 38, 93, 96. Sayeth, Christ as Man, was and is before all, the first and the last, Id: pag 90. The Man Christ influenceth all Men by his life, and is in them; and pag 93. The word made flesh created all things, and the word only is is not properly the Christ. And George Keith in that Book contendeth at large, that Christ before his Incarnation was as properly the Christ as he is now. And in the same book pag. 94 he sayeth Christ as man came down from Heaven Idem ibid. Christ's Flesh and Blood came down from Heaven. pag. 94, 95, Thus Christ hath Spiritual Flesh and Blood, pag 95. Of his Spiritual flesh and blood did the Saints of old eat & drink. pag 97.98. He saith, The Man Christ is to be understood prov. 8.23, I was set up from everlasting from the beginning, or ever the earth was. And Ps. 110.1, 2, 3. and pag 99, 100, 108. It was this life of Christ as Man, that was pressed as a Cart etc. Amos 2.13. pag 100.108, 109. Thus (saith he) Apostats crucify to themselves again the Son of God. Heb. 6.6. pag. 100 Thus hath Christ been crucified by the wicked from the beginning. Ibid. Christ the Heavenly man lived in Abraham and Moses. pag 102. Christ was true, and real Man before he was born of Mary, pag 103. The word was made flesh from the beginning and dwelled in us. pag 104. According to his Heavenly Nature, even as Man, He (Christ) was the son of God. pag. 123. The Man Christ is every where, That is, his Soul is extended into all, in his divine seed and body, which is his Heavenly Flesh and Blood. From all which, beside other most horrid absurdities and blasphemies which follow upon this their Doctrine, this is a clear consequent, That Christ hath three Natures. To this they answer Quak. Confir: p. 33▪ That it will no more follow from their Doctrine, that Christ hath three natures, than it will follow from ours, who assert that Christ assumed into Union with the Divine nature, a Body, and a Soul. But this answer is easily repelled, for a Body & a Soul considered both together make up but one humane nature: Whereas according to their Doctrine, he was Man before his incarnation, and again man by incarnation, seeing every incarnation bringeth a man to the World: Which incarnation they have not yet denied (at least in words) And therefore Christ hath two entire humane Natures, and yet these strictly conjoined together in one man. Which doctrine maketh our blessed Lord a downright Monster.  
2. The Quakers doctrine, as it rendereth the Humanity of Christ altogether Monstruous, so it quite annihilateth, and destroyeth his Divinity. For Christopher Atkinson a known Quaker in a book of his entitled The Sword of the Lord in opposition to the sixth of the propositions (which Philip Nye, Thomas Godwine, and Sidrah Simson drew up at the appointment of Cromwell, whereby he might regulate himself in the toleration of Sectaries) viz. Christ is God, said, Hear Sotish minds your imagined God beyond the Stars, and your carnal Christ which ye would make appear through your Heathenish Philosophy, is utterly denied, and testified against by the light. In these words the Godhead of Christ is so evidently denied, ye●, and his manhood too, that the Quakers are able to put no Commentary, or gloss upon them (which is their usual custom, whereby to varnish, and make any thing speak what they will) And therefore to the Students of Aberdeen who Quak. Canvas. pag. 82. Have objected this passage unto them, they answer Quak. Conf. pag 36 that they cannot light upon Aitkinsons book. But it is not to be believed that such active, and busy Spirits for the promotion of Quakerism, as Robert Barclay and George Keith are, men of so great acquaintance; and correspondence with the Quakers in England could not obtain the sight of a book, which certainly is frequent enough there. But it mattereth not much what they say, for they stick not to deny passages that are verbatim in their own books. Of which kind of dealing take one place of many which might easily be given Will: Pen, Sand: Found: pag 26 sayeth, that Christ fulfilled the Law only as our pattern or example. And yet Rea●: against Rail. pag 78 counteth his adversary Hicks a forger for repeating these words, and stiffly denyeth that there is such a passage there, saying, I am very certain that the word (only) was not there. See Hicks Dial. 3. pag 74, 75, 76. Where you shall find a large bundle of the like impudent, and inexcusable lies. They say also, they can prove, that Christopher Aitkinson was not a Quaker, which they may easily say; but they ought to have proved it, not said it only, otherwise these words serve only to testify their dissatisfaction, with the ingenuous plainness of Aitkinson, in which he unma●keth, and ●ayeth open to the World, what the rest of the Quakers involve in Clouds of strange and mysterious Language, equivocal, and hardly intelligible terms; being the only covert, that they can find under which to shrewd their abominable Doctrine. Lastly, say they, If he deny Christ 〈◊〉 be Man, we disown him, who do say that Christ is both God, and M●n. This is a good confession▪ And a man that knew them not, might easily thin● that we wronged them, by charging them wit● the denial of the Divinity of Christ. But notwithstanding hereof, this confession serveth only to prove these Men guilty, of most wicked hypocrisy, lying, and self Contradiction to put a cheat upon the World, and cover their abominations: For whosoever taketh but an overly view of the passages above cited of George Keiths way cast up; he may clearly see, that if these passages be true Doctrine, the greatest arguments, for establishing the Divinity of Christ are for ever gone. For I appeal to the writings of all who have refu●ed the Doctrine of Arrius and Socinus, if prov. 8.23. Be not brought as one of the main texts to prove the Eternity, and Divinity of Christ; as also Psal. 110 by which Christ himself silenced, and for ever stopped the mouths of the Pharisees, who denied his Godhead, Matth. 22, 43, 44, 45, 46. Neither is there a greater argument, than that by him all things were Created: And yet if these forecited passages be true, the deniers of Christ's Divinity have an easy answer, that all these things are verified of Christ as man only; And so the greatest arguments for the Divinity of Christ fall to the Ground. Now let any man judge if the Quakers do not what in them lie to overthrow the Divinity of Christ, seeing they endeavour to undermine, and destroy all the arguments by which it is underpropped. Moreover this Doctrine robbeth God of his incommunicable attributs, in ascribing Omnipresence, or Ubiquity to a Man. But before I leave this point, I propose this dilemma to the Quakers.  
If all things were created by Christ as Man, then either the Manhood of Christ is created or not; if created, than it is created by itself, than which there is nothing more absurd; If uncreated, then there is an uncreated man, and a man that is coeternal with God. Which Blasphemy it's hardly able to equalise, far less to outdo. From all which it is most evident, that the Quakers do what in them lieth, to evert the fundamental Doctrines and basis of the Christian Religion viz. the Godhead of Christ. And in this they are more wicked, than the professed Arrians, or Socinians, that they add deep dissimulation, and hypocrisy to their horrid impiety, whereas the Arrians and Socinians more ingenuous than they, profess in words what they really believe. It is also clear that in stead of their Christ, they embrace a mere chimerical non▪ entity: seeing there is nothing more contradictiorie, than that either the Soul or the Body of a man, which is a mere creature, can be every where, or from Eternity. Lastly observe that the Quakers put no distinction betwixt their Christ, and their light within, and that the light within is nothing but the small dark Relics of the Image of God, or the dim light of nature, as we have already evinced. And so their Christ, their God, and all that is dear unto them, resolve at length into this almost quenched spunk, in which, all who have trusted, in stead of finding the safe port of Eternal happiness, have always met with certain Shipwreck.  
In favours of this Spiritual AntiChrist, or Antichristian figment, which they account for their Christ, they decry, vilify, and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be precious and dear to a Christian (for what will they not deny, seeing they deny the Godhead of Christ) they therefore with open mouth blaspheme, and deny Jesus Christ as a person without them, or as any thing distinct from their Imaginary Christ, or light within, of many which we could cite, take a few passages for proof hereof; & first Geo: With: Dip. Pl. pag 13. Jesus Christ a person without us, is not Scripture Language, but the Anthropomorphits, and Mugletonians. And in his Appen: to Reas▪ against Rail: pag 21. The Socinian telleth us of a personal Christ, and that the man Christ Jesus our Lord hath in Heaven a place remote from Earth, a humane body, but doth he believe him to be the eternal God, while he imagineth him to be a personal Christ, a humane Body so Limited, and confined to a remotness? And William Pen counterfeit christian pag 77▪ 78. Give me one place, that mentioneth Christ to be a distinct person without us, art thou destitute of common Sense▪ as to think of proving the Quaker no christian, because he denyeth, that Doctrine not expressed in the Scripture? George Fox Great Mist: 206 If there be any other Christ, but he that was crucified within, he is the false Christ, and he that hath not this Christ that was risen, and crucified within, is a reprobate▪ Though Devils and reprobats may make a talk of him without. And Great Mist: pag 207 God's Christ is not distinct from his Saints▪ nor his Body, for he is within them, not distinct from their Spirits. Ib. pag 16. Such are deceived that say, Christ is distinct from His Saints. Moreover the Quakers Doctrines & Principles of the Priests in Scotland pag 33 in opposition to Mr. Henry Foreside, who said, that Christ mourned over Jerusalem as He was Humane; answer, as for the Word (Humane) it is not Scripture Language, it speaketh not that Language. Certainly by this speech of these Quakers no other thing can be understood, but that Christ hath no Humane Nature: For though the word (Humane) were not found in the Scripture, if the thing imported by it be found in Scripture▪ then they must confess themselves to have been ridiculous, and purposeless pratlers, which I believe they will not do: and therefore its evident that they deny the Humane Nature of Christ. Again the Quakers speak, as contemptibly of the Body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, as if he were the basest of Men, as these words of Isaac Peningtoun witness, can outward blood cleanse? We must inquire therefore, saith he, whether it was the blood of the Veil? Or of that Spiritual Man, viz. of Flesh, Blood, and bones which took on Him the Veil, or Humane Nature? And the Mystery of iniquity Lieth in the Blood of Christ, sayeth Edward Billings: And Hubberthorn in his reply to Mr. Sherlock who had said, that Christ was not capable of Faith and Repentance, saith, here I charge thee to be a liar, and Slanderer; for he was capable of Faith, and Repentance. What then is clearer than that according to these men's Doctrine, the Spotless Lamb of God was really defiled with sin and stood in need of another Saviour to believe in? Moreover (as we have already heard) they still distinguish between the outward & inward body of Christ, wickedly & absurdly ascribing to their imaginary inward body of Christ, all that the Scripture attributeth to the Blessed Body of Christ, that died at jerusalem, such as sufferings, Death, Resurrection, and ●he like, by which distinction they render as much as in them lieth, the passion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus at jerusalem, altogether vain and idle actions. And in favours of this their inward body, they call the body that our Lord took of the Virgin Mary, only a garment: and that it's no constituent of Christ; and that Luke 2.26. Where it's said, that it was revealed to Simeon, that he should not die, till he should see the Lord's Christ, is to be understood of a Spiritual sight, or of seeing the Christ within, Will. Pen. Rej. to john Faldo part 2th: c. 9  
4. As these men deny Christ himself, so they deny consequently all the benefits purchased by him: For they say that Christ died only to be a pattern and example to Believers; hence Will. Pen▪ sandy found: pag. 26 sayeth, unless we become doers of that Law, which Christ came not to destroy, but as our example to fulfil, we can never be justified before God: Nor let any fancy that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their acceptance, but only as their pattern. Thus it is evident that the Quakers are altogether Socinians in their Judgements of the ends of the death of Christ, and so join themselves closely with them, and Papists in the Doctrine of Justification; yea, Rob. Bar. denieth not but that his Doctrine of Justification is all one with that of the Counsel of Trent. For the proof of which let the reader compare Mr. Brown Chap. 13. N. 8. with Rob. Barclay his Vindication Sect. 8. N. 1. and Apol, p. 137.139. He accuseth Luther, and the Body of the Primitive protestants, as great depravers of the Doctrine of justification, & doers of as great hurt by this their doctrine, as ever they did good, by what they broke down of Babylon.  
But I will give you their doctrine yet more fully in their own words, & first Will. Pen, serious Apol: pag 148. Hath these words. and indeed this we deny viz. Justification by the righteousness that Christ fulfilled in his own person for us; wholly without us, and boldly affirm in the Name of the Lord to be a doctrine of Devils, and an arm of the Sea of Corruption, which now doth deludge the World. And again Edward Burrows p. 33. To that query of Philip Binnet viz. Whether none be accounted righteous in the sight of God, in whom is any Corruption, or failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice? Answereth thus, Here thou polluted Beast makes it manifest what thou hast been driving at all this while; which is that thou would have thy corruption, and filthiness to be accounted righteousness in God's sight. that so thou mayest wallow in filthiness; but john sayeth, he that commits sin is of the Devil, the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil, and thou Man of Sin would have it stand. God doth not accept any, where there is any failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice. And Will. Pen Reas: against Rail. pag 80. We must not conceive that his, viz. Abraham's personal offering, was not a justifying righteousness, but that God was pleased to count it so; nor was there any imputation of another's Righteousness to Abraham: but on the contrary, his personal obedience, was the ground of that just imputation, therefore that any should be justified by another's righteousness imputed, and not inherent in him, is both ridiculous, and dangerous. Edward Burrows pag 32. Thou Beast to whom the plagues of God are due, and upon whom the wrath of God must be accomplished, who would have another righteousness than that which Christ worketh in the Saints. Pen. San: Fund: pag 25. Justification is not from the imputation of another's Righteousness, but from the actual performing, and keeping of God's righteous statutes, Ibid. pag 25.30. It is a great abomination to say, God should condemn, and punish his innocent Son, that he having satisfied for our sins, we might be justified by the imputation of of his perfect righteousness. Why should this horrible thing be contended for by Christians.  
5. With the like facility I could show, that the Doctrine of the Quakers is in every point contrary to the Doctrine of Christ; contradicting, and vilifying all his Ordinances, and denying all his benefits. I shall content myself with one great instance viz. Of the Resurrection of the dead. Concerning which point, the Quakers are downright saducees: For, in the hearing of many witnesses Geo: Whitehead said, This Body shall not rise again. Hicks Quake: appeal ans▪ pag 21. and Will: pen. Reas. against Rail. p. 133. Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with the Scripture Reason, and the belief of all Men right in their wits. And Ibid: pag 34. For shame, Let us not make such stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, for the absurdity of that is rather outdone, than equaled by this carnal Resurrection: And the same William Pen in his Invalidity, (I should have said his Validity, seeing he all along Justifieth his adversaries charges) of Mr. Faldoes Vindication, hath a Chapter prolix enough to defend his down right Sadducism. Yea what is more clear in all the Scriptures than Christ's visible appearance to judgement: And yet Geo: With. Christ Ascended (so, that according to him he shall never descend) pag 22. Sayeth, they are like to be deceived, who are expecting that Christ's second coming will be a personal coming. And Ib. he denyeth, that he shall come visibly; for although, sayeth he, He shall come in the like manner, yet every like is not the same. And no wonder it is, that the Quakers deny the visible return of Christ to Judgement, seeing they deny that Christ hath any personal being without men. Thus speaketh the same Author pag 18. And again pag 69. Christ in person, remote in a Body of Flesh, and not in Men, is not Scripture Language; but added. But it is needless to adduce more passages to show the detestableness of this Sack, enough being said already to discover it. I shall only add the words of a Leading Quaker related by Hicks Quake: Appeal: Ans. pag 12. who being asked what he thought of Christ Jesus born at Bethlehem, and dying at jerusalem? answered, jesus Christ at jerusalem a Type, a Figure, a shadow that is passed away; what have you to do with Christ at jerusalem; have done with him. From all this it is evident, that according to the Quakers, there is not such a thing now in being, as Christ Jesus that died at Jerusalem. And as they deny Christ the Son of God, so they arrogat to themselves by a most Diabolical Sacrilege, whatsoever the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures hath appropriated to Christ Jesus; of which Lucifer-like aspiring take a taste, josiah Coal an eminent Quaker, thus writeth to Geo: Fox,  
Dear Geo: Fox  
who art the Father of many Nations, whose life hath reached through us thy Children, even to the Isles afar off, unto the begetting of many to a lively hope, for which generations to come shall call thee blessed, whose being, and habitation is in the power of the highest, in which thou rules, and Governs in Righteousness, and thy Kingdom is Established in peace, and the increase thereof without end:  
Date 21. day of the 12 Month 1658.  
See Tyr: detected pag 19   

CHAP. VI Of Perfection.  
ALthough we have already given several instances of the damnable Doctrine of the Quakers, together with their miserable defence thereof: We shall notwithstanding for the more abundant evicting hereof, trace the Footsteps of one of their chief Authors Robert Barclay, in his Vindication of one or two of their chief principles.  
The first of which shall be that of Perfection▪  
The Doctrine of the Quakers in this point, is, In whom this pure & holy birth is fully brought forth, the Body of death, and sin, cometh to be crucified, and removed, and their hearts united, and subjected to the truth, so as not to obey any Suggestions, or Temptations of the evil one, to be free from actual sinning, and Transgressing of the Law of God, and in that respect, perfect, Yet doth this perfection still admit of a growth. And there remaineth always in some part a possibility of sinning; where the mind doth not most diligently, and watchfully attend unto the Lord.  
These are the words of his eight These; And afterward he sayeth, that, there may be a State in this Life, in which a Man cannot sin, it is so natural unto him to do Righteousness.  
Let us in the next place consider how he vindicateth this Doctrine, which is our main purpose. Having vind: Sect: 9 Spent a while in accusing his Adversary as guilty of railing, and in rejecting his own brethren's books; such as Saul's errand to Damascus. In which they maintain themselves to be equal with God. Which is also asserted by Hubberthorn against Sherl: pag 30. I say, rejecting these, or denying that they have said them (for he still insinuateth that Hicks only said these things, although it be evinced by particular citation of book and page, where they are;) In the next place he giveth away the cause wholly, by saying, that he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown sayeth N 6. viz. That by perfection in this life, is understood a change in the whole man, so that he yieldeth impartial obedience to all the Commands of God, though in a small degree, yet that he may seem to say somewhat, he enquireth, How this Doctrine is reconciled with that of daily breaking the Commands in thought, word, & deed? In answer to which question, it is enough to inquire how he evinceth them to be contradictory: Seing he may know if he will, that the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees, as well as parts, and that it is a disconformity to the Law of God, and consequently a sin, to be deficient in the one, as well as in the other. And whereas he enquireth; if to break Gods Commands daily, in thought, word, and deed, be the way to grow in grace? To put off the Old Man, and on the New. He but only useth his old Custom. viz. maliciously to calumniate. For who said such a thing? Or from what point of our Doctrine will he prove this? We shall attend his proofs of it. Which until we hear, we cannot but in reason Judge that he delighteth in malicious lies. For though we say according to the Scripture, that even the regenerate carry about a body of death with them until death, which defileth all their actions: Yet where did any of the reform teach, that to endeavour to break God's Commands is the way to grow in grace, as this Man insinuateth they do? What kind of light is this he has, that teacheth him such a faculty of lying?  
He goeth on saying, but he addeth that this perfection, rendereth gospel commands useless, but are the Commands useless, if men obey them? But certainly He that is above the breach of the Law, as the Quakers say, many may be, has no more use of the Law, or need of it to learn any thing from it, in order to the obedience thereof. And where is his vain subterfuge now? But that he may yet. further contradict himself and his Brethren; He sayeth, He has shown in his Apology, that all have▪ need to repent, and pray for forgiveness. For if some be equal with God, above the breach of the Commands, want a body of death: The most that they have to do, is to give thanks, and not to pray, or repent. For I think he will not say, that they pray, or repent which are in heaven. These duties presupponing sorrow, of which they are incapable, And far less (Horresco referens) these that are equals with God.  
In opposition to his Adversary showing that this Doctrine tendeth to the fomenting of pride, and security he sayeth, but where freedom from sin is, where can Pride and Security have place? Ans. This answer had been as fit to the Apostles Question Rom. 3, 27, as to this Argument. For he inferred that boasting might follow upon Justification by works. It might then have been as well replied? If a man be perfectly Just, and so without sin, how can he incur the fault of boasting? 2. How will he show, but this Doctrine of his doth bring many under a mistake, as if they were secure from sinning, when indeed they are not? Whereas he sayeth, that according to our Doctrine denying the perfection of degrees in this Life, the wicked Villains do less make useless Gods Commands than others, because they afford more matter, to exercise Repentance, and prayer for forgiveness of God: We only refer him to Rome 3.8. where he may have the like Objection with a fit Answer. And here he promiseth always to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus. And why? Because, says he, they must be made useful in breaking the Commands, in thought, word, and deed. His reason is a Calumny, if it have sense at all. What Ordinance teacheth, which we maintain, that it is one's duty daily to break the Commands of God, that the Ordinances may be the more useful to us? If this be not of the same nature with Cavil wiped off by the Apostle Rome 3. then certainly two, and three, are not five. But such malice the Church must resolve to be the Butt of, so long as she is militant.  
He goeth on, to remove this Absurdity from their Doctrine of Perfection viz. that then none that are regenerate, could sin at all, but would be beyond the possibility of it. Which inference is very clear, for the ground which they give for their Doctrine is joh. 3.9. He that is born of God, doth not commit sin. Which place they abuse, taking it without restriction; not attending to the context, speaking of a Tread and Custom of sin, and of a commission of it from Malice, like the devil, and the wicked, his Children. Which absurdity, that he may evite: He assureth, that a man is not regene▪ rat, and born again at once, or at one instant of time. His ground of which we shall now examine. And it is those two places of Scripture, viz. Phil. 1.6. He which hath begun a good work etc. Gal. 5.7. Ye did run well, etc. Now these Scriptures say nothing for him. For the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus, when this Epistle was writ, V 1. Now I think, none can deny that such are born of God. For the other Place it saith as little for him, except for it he would infer the Saints falling away, which is false.  
Next that the new Birth of Regeneration, as such doth not admit of degrees, but that every one of the Children of God are really converted, or born again; so that of the Children of ●rath, they become the Children of God, at one time, or Instant is clear. For as soon as a man hath true Faith, he becometh a Child of God. But that all that belongeth to the Essence of true Faith is infused in the Soul at once, (although some legal work in order to it necessarily preceded) I think none will deny. And the manifold Examples in Scripture, showing that men in a most short time, were made to turn from Satan to God, prove it. I would fain know if the Thief on the Cross, and Jailor were not born again? And if they were not perfectly born again? But to speak of any imperfection in his new Birth as such, that is to say, that one may be brought from Nature to Grace, and yet but half born again, or not fully born again; Because he hath not attained unto the full measure of Grace which is attainable, is no less absurd than to say, that one is not ●ully born, because he is but a little Child. Now this Absurdity is not a little removed, because what ever they can say, the like reason holdeth for the one, as well as for the other. These to whom the Apostle writeth, were perfectly born of God, and yet there were some little Children among them; 1 joh. 2.12. Now they were perfectly born; Because they had the Seed of God, or the Unction chap 2.27. which is all one with the Seed. Now the abiding of the Seed, is given as a reason of the perfection of the New-birth, so that they cannot sin. Ergo: If little Children; as well as Fathers, had this unction, or Seed abiding in them, they had this New-birth in the highest perfection pleaded for by Quakers. 3 The Apostle, 1 joh 3.9. speaketh without distinction, (Whosoever &c.) and so taketh away the elusion of our Adversaries.  
Next, he thinketh here to free himself of Pelagianism, of which he was proved to be guilty, by saying he always denied that men might keep the Commands by the power of nature, which groundless shi●t is overthrown above. chap 2. He al●ledgeth also, that because the Fathers say, That none by the strength of Grace did live all their days without sin; and the perfection ascribed to some in Scripture, was not from nature, but from grace, therefore they thought men might be free from sin by Grace. What miserable mankind and clipping is this? Is it not added in the very following words immediately? That none attained that measure of holiness in this life, that he could live any long time without sin, and that this perfection was not full, and absolute, but which might increase, and was mixed with evil deeds, so was a perfection of parts only, not of degrees. These are the very words of the Antithesis of the Orthodox, in opposition to the Pelagians. Vos. Hist. Pel. Par. Prim: Thes, 1. pag 146. Now I would desire any to show me, what this Doctrine differeth from that which the reformed Churches hold? Let the Reader see Mr. Broun himself pag 333, N 12, 13, where he may see this matter handled at large. I add these words of Orosius Apol. Cont: Pel: I do not undertake, I presume not, I dare not say that I shall be without sin, 〈◊〉 long as I shall be in this Corruption, which we have. And again, The man that can be without sin is Christ. He saith here, that what his Adversary addeth of the Father's arguments against Pelagians, and Socinians It is not his work to meddle with, or to heed what these Sects say. But it is not best to do so. For in so doing, he should fight against himself. For they must divide him from himself▪ that divide him either from a Pelagian, or a Socinian. I was about to admonish the Reader, to read especially this fourteenth chapter of Mr. Broun's Book: But I need not, seeing he granteth all we plead for, by saying on the matter, he doth not care though he be proved a Pelagian, and a Socinian. And whereas he sayeth, he considereth the matter as proposed in Scripture. The only way to know the truth of this, is to examine his Doctrine, which we have done in part. And through the Lord's assistance, shall yet further do it. We value not his Recriminations, which he hath here, but nameth none, since nothing that he can say can be of weight against us: As these Charges of Pelagianism, and Socinianism are against him, except he bring the fathers as much fight against the Doctrine of the reformed churches, and the reformed Churches against their Doctrine; as these fight against him, and his Brethren.  
Again he cometh to the Vindication of his Arguments, which are answered by his Adversary pag 337 N, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. And for urging of the first, which was, That this Doctrine is against the wisdom of God, he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of God, whereby they may be free from all sin, if they use them well. This I say he insinuateth, for here he mumbleth as one in a confused haste: But this is with as great facility denied, as any thing he hath hitherto said; For we assert, that it is the will of God, that perfect freedom from sin, be a property of the Church Triumphant only. And for probation of our assertion, it is enough to challenge him to give any example of one, thus freed from sin in the world, except Christ Jesus, who never had it, but by imputation. To me his following words are nonsense. He would fain insist over his Adversary, because he sayeth pag. 339. N 19 That the heart, & the renewed part of the man being for God and God only, and directly against Satan, and all his ways, doings, and designs, there is no formal service performed unto Satan, Saying, That then there is some material service performed to the devil. But this objection militateth as much against the Apostle, saying, Rom. 7, That with his flesh he served the Law of sin. Which I think the Quakers will hardly distinguish from the Law of Satan▪ 2. If this instance do any thing, it will overdo. For it tendeth to prove that no Action of any that have gotten saith, though in the least degree, can be at all tainted with sin. We mean their gracious Actions: He is angry because his Adversary saith; that it is the will of God, that his people be under a warfare so long as they are here, saying, But 〈◊〉 it the will of God, that they always be overcome● Seing if their Actions still be stained with sin, 〈◊〉 that they may be called service to Satan, they cannot but be said to be overcome. Ans. They are not always overcome. Because sometimes the man as Spiritual, prevaileth against himself as carnal. And always overcometh at length, and at the end of the War, though oftentimes foiled in particular Battles. The none consideration of which distinction, is the ground of this Cavil, his following words stand, and fall with this Doctrine of Original sin, and universal Grace, according to his own confession, we shall therefore pass them.  
Pag. 123▪ He repeateth his Argument, which is that our Doctrine is injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ. But he forgetteth to show how. Only he sayeth in opposition to his Adversary, saying, that the Gild of sin by by this Sacrifice, is taken away: And also he taketh away the stain thereof piece and piece, till in end he give full Victory. They refer that to another Life. The Question is concerning this.  
Ans. If he were minded to make a Difference betwixt Heaven, and Earth, he had not made a Question about full Victory in this life. 2. How profane a Heart must he have, that counteth all the attainments of a Child of God in this Life, as good as nothing: For notwithstanding of them all, he will still have the Sacrifice of Christ to be useless, except a man in this Life, become as sinless as an Angel. He was concerned to have proved this, otherwise not belied the World, by giving out that he had fully answered his Adversary. But especially he lieth here, in that he sayeth he hath fully answered his eight Chapter. In which of all places, he most failed. Of which I shall give the Reader a touch in my Appendix. And may be more fully seen by these who compare the Books themselves. He will not be content, that his Adversary sayeth, that the godly, and the wicked differ; In that the one sinneth with full Purpose of Heart, and the other, viz. the godly mourneth over, and repenteth of his sin, and shortcoming, but sayeth, seeing he supposeth the godly to remain in sin, all their life-time the similitude remaineth. Ans. And is it so? that there is no difference in sinning, between him that sinneth through Malice, and him that sinneth through Infirmity, let him prove this. For until he do it, we account it an abominable Assertion. For the Scripture maketh a clear difference, between the shortcoming of the godly, and wicked departing from God. And is it no difference, that the one repenteth, and the other not?  
Next he mentioneth another of his Apologetic Arguments viz. that our Doctrine in this Point, maketh the Ministry useless. But in stead of urging, what his Adversary answered, which was, that upon this very head the Necessity of a Ministry appeareth. 2. That it cannot be proved, that this ultimat end of the Ministry mentioned Eph. 4, 13. is attained here, and 3. That there is a Perfection of Parts and another of Degrees. I say in stead of urging of all this, he only sayeth," but the Question is, whether, or not that perfection is attainable here? Ans. He ought to urge his Argument: And not propone Questions, seeing he knoweth well enough that his Adversary, as always, so here denyeth that a sinless perfection is attainable in this life. Now let him prove this from the place, and he may be considered. But in stead of this, for as short as his Book is, he must make a Digression to tell us, that though Christ was sinless, yet he admitted of growth, which is nothing to the purpose, seeing Christ is not said to grow in the Love of God, and such moral Perfections, about which the Question is; but only in that kind of Knowledge, the pura nescientia, or want of which, is no sin, or culpable Ignorance.  
Next he sayeth it will not follow from Col. 4.12 and 1 Thes. 3, 12. that it is impossible that men should be free of sin here, by the Grace of God. These were the Places, from which he deduced an Argument, for sinless perfection in his Apology. And now being answered, he thinks it enough for urging of them, to bid us prove the contrary, from the same places. Judge Reader, if this man be not pithy. And yet he hath all the pith, that Socinus, and Crellius had, from whom he learned the Argument.  
His following Quibles are already answered. Only I must take notice that in this pag. 129. he enquireth, How these can be said, to have renounced the Works of darkness, who have need to be washed from their daily Defilements? Ans. Let him read the 12, and 13. of Zechariah, and there he may find that these two are consistent. And as for his (how's) seeing he will not see from the Scripture, they ought to have no other Answer. And whereas he venteth his Malice here in special, against the Presbyterians, we expect no o●her thing at his hand. For we know though Q●●kers, and Jesuits have an inveterat Hatred against all Protestants: Yet in a special Manner thei● hate burneth against Presbyterians, knowing that these are furthest off from the Church of Rome.  
Some oth●rs of his Apologetic Arguments he mentioneth, in the following page, but doth not so much, as attempt to urge them.  
Next the Examples of Enoch, and Noah, he also mentioneth, and again taketh his old Shift viz. the Defendants part; ●aying, how can we prove tha● they were never without sin? whileas affirmanti incumbit probatio. He doth not deny but they had once sin. Now, seeing he asserteth that at another time they were free of it altogether, he ought to prove it: And that by another Argument, than saying If they had not been altogether free of sin, they would not have been called perfect. Seeing that perfection is variously taken in Scripture, and not only for being free of sin, as himself confessed above; seeing he did not contradict what his Adversary said, about the Diversity of the Signification of the Word.  
He cometh in the next place to remove our Arguments. The first of them is drawn from 1 Joh. 2.8. If we say we have no sin etc. and here he sayeth first, that this will no more prove, that the Apostle john himself sinned daily, than what is said james 3.9.10. can be affirmed of the Apostle james himself. Ans. There is no parity. For James speaketh of gross outbreakings, from which the L●rds People are ordinarily kept. But here the Apostle speaketh simply of the Nature of sin. 2. Certain it is, that the Apostle John, even in his best frame, had sinful Actions, and his own Errors. Which none will deny that readeth Rev. 19.10, 11, and 22, 8, 9 and I think no Quaker will deny that John was perfectly born again if any ever was. Now let them quibble what they will, these two Texts are enough to refu●e them. He allegeth next, that his Adversary only proveth from this place, that men may sin in the present time, not that they do really and actually sin in the present time. Which is false. For he from the Context fully refuteth the Socinian Cavil, see among other places; v. 9 he den●eth here that the Seed of sin, maketh its Subject sinful. But we know no Seed of Sin, but that which is really Sin, neither doth the Scripture make any Mention of it. But this Doctrine is all one with the popish Doctrine of Concupiscence mutato nomine.  
He allegeth pag. 126. That it will not follow from Eccles. 7.20. That men sin daily, or that all their Actions are imperfect through sinning. But he forgetteth to apply that Law to himself, which he would impose upon others. For though the Text speaketh absolutely, without exception: yet he will not give a Reason of a Restriction. And here again he talketh of his absolute Regeneration. But to as little purpose as before. He leaveth the Consideration of the Hebrew Text, which he thought made for him, to the Reader, therefore I considered it, and found it in the Indicative mood. And consequently nothing for him.  
He cometh next to vindicate the meaning of the Socinians and Quakers of Rom. 7, 17, which is, that the Apostle there speaketh of another, in his own person. But he passeth all his Adversaries Reasons of our Meaning, with one blunt scoff, saying he giveth us a Preachment. Which effrontedness I Judge can hardly be parallelled. Next he sayeth, except he prove that Paul was a Carnal man; in respect of sinning at that time, he sayeth nothing. But his Adversary hath done it, from this present Text already, so that he durst not so much as present one of his Reasons, to his Reader, though never so manked, and clipped (as his Custom is) but thought it safest, to pass by them whole sale: Otherwise perhaps some of the Vulgar Quakers, who deluded by this Emissary of the Jesuits, might have seen how absurd their Rabbis are in explication of the Scripture, and so looked about them; before they had been further involved. 2. All this effronted, and false dealing will not do the turn; For the Reason why they reject such a plain meaning of the words, and admit such a strange figurative meaning. The reason I say, moving them to this, is because they think the Apostle Paul was above sinning, and that they may have him to be an Example of sinless perfection, but this helpeth him not a whit, For the Apostle john, was one of the chief Apostles, as well as Paul, and yet his sinning in his choicest Frame, and under the greatest outletings of Grace, is so manifest, that all the Sophistry of Satan hath not yet invented a Shift, for the Elusion thereof. The like may be said of Peter. Gal. 2. and many others which we pass.  
Next he cometh to answer Mr. Brown's Argument which is this.  
If we find no instances in Scripture of such Persons, as were so perfect, as that they did not sin, then to imagine such a Perfection, is but a groundless fancy, and dream.  
But the Former is true.  
The Consequence he denyeth. And consequently he denyeth that we ought to walk according to the guidance of the Scripture. And where is his holding by the Scriptures now, which we lately heard of? Let Quakers therefore no more cheat the World, with saying, that they walk according to the Scriptures, while with open face they assert, that they ought not to be a guide to us, or that we ought to believe points of Faith not contained there. 2. He sayeth that the Argument concludeth not in the Terms of the Question. But the Conclusion is, that such a Perfection, as the Quakers maintain, is but a fancy, and a Dream. And if he will admit this, we are agreed. And if he will not, he must deny some of the propositions. Neither let him object to me, that this is not the Argument; which he answered unto (for the Argument was proponed three different ways, the first of which he choosed to answer unto,) For either it is it, or another; if it be it, it is well: the same Argument than is now urged, if it be not it, then let him confess he skipped over, that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the jugular Vein.   

CHAP. VII. Of the Quakers Doctrine, of Silent Worship, and of the Sacraments.  
THis Author, in the 12 Section of his Vindication, of which the first part is opposed to Mr. Broun's 22 Chapter of Silent waiting, maketh a none such clamour, as if he were without parallel traduced. We shall therefore in the first place consider the chief of these things, which he calleth Calumnies and Perversions. Whereof the first is, That he would have us to understand that Christ's Resurrection was never till now, whereas (says he) I only spoke with reference to the time since the Apostasy. Ans. 1. Any may judge by his 11 Proposition, or yet by his chapter annexed thereto, if this be a Calumny; for whatever he there sayeth, may be as well applied, to Heathenish, as Popish superstition, especially if the Quakers salvation of Heathens be considered. 2. He is unhappy in removing his pretended Calumny: For the Apostasy was working in the Apostles time, and consequently he sayeth nothing. 3. Make the best of it ye will, this is but only what Munser, or john of Leyden said, that they might obscure these burning and shining Lights, the reformers, and mar the work in their hand. 4. Their direct opposition to the Orthodox primitive Christians, in the most weighty points of Religion; such as the Doctrine of the Trinity, Freegrace, the Sacraments, and the like sufficiently demonstrats, that they esteem none before themselves, except Arrius, or Pelagius, to have been at all in the way of God. And therefore that hitherto there hath been no spiritual resurrection. His second Calumny so called, viz. that Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms, and abstract from means, we have above evinced to be a truth, in the first and second Chapters. Moreover, he here denyeth, that studying of Sermons from the Scripture, which implieth reading, prayer, and Meditations, and the like exercise to be means appointed by God. And thus he only confirms what he even now denied, viz that the Quakers plead only for Enthusiasms, and abstract from means. His third Calumny, viz. that the Quakers Spiritual life is nothing but Nature▪ w● proved above Cap. 2. to be a truth, where we showed that all the Quakers grace and light is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of God in man. His fourth Calumny is his own, and not his Adversaries: For his Adversary only inquireth, If this Life be common at all times to them? Hence he inferreth, that he supposeth it to be so, the contrary of which, for any thing I can learn, he supposeth, as his Query pag 414. insinuateth, His 5 Calumny. as to what truth it hath, dependeth upon the controversy of perfection, to which he referreth his Reader, and I do the like to my survey of his Vindication. His next nominal Calumny is, that his Adversary supposeth it to be their Doctrine, that there is no setting about prayers, or other duties, without a previous motion of the Spirit. Now of all things, I wonder most, that he calls this a Calumny, seeing this very thing is asserted by himself, in his eleventh proposition: How he will reconcile himself with himself I know not well. Yet sure his following words are so far from mending the matter that they make it worse, which are, That they speak not of a previous motion in order of time, but in order of nature; Neither his proposition, nor any part of his Doctrine, for any thing can be learned, insinuate●h any such thing. 2. This motion must so far preceded the setting about duty, as that the persons perception of the motion must be interjacent, according to them. For they teach that before duty, we must not only be acted by the Spirit, but know that we are acted: Ergo the motion must be previous in order of time. And yet the man is so fraughted with a desire of altercation, that he must say some what, though he have not much advantage by it: otherwise he had not challenged his Adversary, as a Calumniator, while by the same very expression taxed by himself, he is forced to a distinction, unheard of heretofore as I think in this matter; and in reality a real contradiction of his own Principles. And again he allegeth he is wronged, because his Antagonist inferreth from his words, in his eleventh Proposition; That according to him Gospel-worship putteth away all external Actions. But he needeth not grudge at this, for their practice helpeth us to expone their words. Some other things he hath which he calleth Calumnies. One thing he taketh very ill, and that is, that his Antagonist pag 418. compareth the Quakers to the old Pythonicks, because of the strange and unusual motions among them, Antic fits, and strange Pranks. I always compared them in such fits to the Cumean Cybil, as she is described by Virgil in his 6 Eneid. To this he retorts the extraordinary working of the Spirit of God, mentioned in the fulfilling of the Scripture, called the Stwarton sickness: challenging us to assign a difference, between this and the strange influence of the Quakers spirit upon them, which we can with great facility do; for beside that these out-letting of the Spirit of God, made them to cleave more closely to the Scriptures, as the only Rule, and Star, to guide them through the sea of this world, to the safe port of their eternal rest. And endeared more and more unto the Ministers of Christ Jesus, his word, and Sacraments, we mean that which the Quakers call Water-Baptism, & the Communion of the Lords Body, in Bread and Wine, as sure pledges of the Love of Christ▪ commanded by him to be used until his coming to Judgement, which are openly contemned and vilified by the Quakers; We say beside this, these outlett●ngs were far from leading them into such strange and unheard of fits, as the Quakers are put into: of which I could instance a Legion of sure Examples, see a late piece written by a new English Minister Mr. Increase Meather. See also Paget's Heresiography, where he bringeth among other strange Pranks of theirs, to which they were moved by the Spirit, One Susanna Parsons a zealous Quaker, attempting to raise one of their number, who had murdered himself, from the dead, but in vain. And this i● attested by all the Magistrates of a considerable City in England, viz. Worster Anno 1659. See also a little piece called Foot out of snare, of the strange and antic influences of this their Spirit on one john Toldervei. What shall we say of james Naylor, who following the Light of this Spirit, did arrogat to himself divine honour at Bristol. Now though they say, he recanted this again, it is all one matter: For this Antiscriptural Spirit, which is their principal Rule, can no doubt change itself, as it seeth occasion: And having too much bewrayed itself with the grossness of its Delusion, can easily turn itself to a more subtle way of imposture. So that we may in a word say, that the difference between the workings of the Spirit of God, on his people mentioned in Scripture and these of the father of lies, and deceits on the Pythonicks or Cybills, was no more palpable, than the difference between the working upon these mentioned by him, and that upon the Quakers. He sayeth moreover, that the story of Gilpin, who as Paget showeth us, was mad through Quakerism, is refuted long ago. But forgetteth to tell by whom or where. Next he cometh to wipe off the absurdity of their silent waiting, that this their abstracting of their mind from all thoughts, so that the soul doth not at all act upon any kind of Object. Which posture they say prepareth them for the Spirits motion. And this is the result of their asserting, that a man ought to do nothing of the Service, or Worship of God, except they know that they are moved thereto by the Spirit. Now such an inturning (for he counteth it a great wrong in his Adversary to call it introversion) is not possible unto a man, except he be sleeping, as the experience of the generality of men witnesseth, who still perceive their Souls acting upon some Object, either good, or evil, except they be sleeping, or in an ecstasy▪ And so this is a direct following of the Heathens, who went and sleeped at the Temples, or Groves of their gods, that they might have conference with them in dreams. But they used to take sheepskins and lie upon, as Virg. in his 7 Book, speaking of Latinus, which if the Quakers do, or not, I am uncertain. Now in his defence of this pag: 147 being challenged as guilty of this absurdity by his Antagonist, among other words, he hath these viz. If he would understand it of the old man, the man of sin, that is corrupted, we will say with the Apostle, that it ought to be crucified, and die. And again he sayeth, that albeit in one sense, they are said to die, yet they more truly live, and exist, citing Gal. 2, 20. And this is the substance of what he sayeth, on this point. To which I answer, it is well that at length, they forsake their prime Opinion, or Characteristical note. Hitherto he with his brethren, were defending the relinquishing of all thoughts whatsoever, in order to the Spirits Motion, and our setting about of duty, now he only defendeth the leaving of Carnal thoughts. But he doth not consider, that this Cheat will easily be perceived: For there is a time to be presupposed, in which the Spirit is not moving: For I hope he moveth when, and where he listeth. Now I say at this time, as man cannot Act, yea or think warrantably, of the things of God, according to them: Because the Spirit is the principal Rule to them, therefore whatever is not done by this inward Command, is not of Faith, and consequently sin. All which they plead for. Therefore before this motion come, a man may not excercise his mind concerning religious ma●ters and thoughts, ●o endeavour to love, fear, and walk with God, now is this only to relinquish carnal thoughts, or the thoughts of carnal things▪ Or was the Apostles living, or Christ in him by the life of Mortification, and Faith a mere abstracting from all Exercise of the faculties of the Soul. This I think none will say, exercising reason: And yet this he must say, if he speak according to his Principles, otherwise they will be necessi●●te to let their reasonings against all worship, to which we are premoved by a sensible Enthusiasm, or Inspiration of the Spirit, fall to the ground, which is the substance of Skeen's Queries, of which he boasteth.  
2. We come to the Vindication of some Arguments, which by him are called nibbling quibles.  
The first is, If there be times appointed by God, then according to them the Spirit is limited. To which he answereth, that they limit times of worship so as not to exclude other times. But this answer presupposeth, that every duty doth not prerequire immediate Inspiration, which is false according to them, as George Keith endeavoureth to prove in his book of Immed: Rev: and to defend in his disput with Aberdeen Students. 2. Either these times appointed by them which recur weekly, are appointed by God, or not: If they be not, then how dare they keep them, as a thing inviolable? Seeing the Lord determineth the time, as well as the nature of the worship to his people. And jeroboam 1 Kings 13. Is condemned for appointing an Anniversary day, not appointed by God, as well as for changing the Religion. Ergo they limit the Spirit in appointing a day, perpetually recurring, or else they have a previous motion, in order to the appointing of every meeting; which he doth not assert, or grant. Here he sayeth, he followeth Calvin, in denying the Sabbaths morality, from whom, as also the generality of Protestants we differ in this matter. But that he may see his mis●ake herein, and that we neither differ from Calvin in his more deliberate thoughts, nor from the generality of Protestants: He may ready learned crawford's Apologetical Exercitation for the morality of the Sabbath day, Cap. 2. And there beside both the Fathers, & generality of Protestants, he may find that Calvin himself, in his Commentary on the Gen: written 27 years after the Institutions, sayeth the same that we do. Let him see also most Learned Torretin on this head, who at large vindicateth Calvin from this Imputation. Next he sayeth, That none can be fitter for the Worship of God, than such as make silence, and in turning of the mind necessary to their entry to Worship. And thus he thinketh he has answered his Adversaries Argument pag 413, against their Worship, drawn from the Quakers want of preparation. But if this in turning were an abstracting from worldly things only, and looking unto God, and considering our own sinful state and frame, and the necessity of holiness, in order to approaching unto God, he would say well: But seeing in the same page, and with the same breath he reasoneth against this also, ridiculously saying, that then there should be a progressus in infinitum, he only confirmeth that which we have proved before, viz. That the Quakers silent waiting is a mere Ecstasy, or all one with sleeping: And contradicteth what he said even now above. Here he allegeth that the Apostles, if they had pleased, might have written more Books of Scripture, than they wrote: and seeing they wrote them not I doubt not but the Apostles, if this be true▪ may be taxed of neglect of their Duty. For I think he will not deny but these Books had bee● very useful, and that the Apostles were obliged to lay out themselves for the Churches good, 〈◊〉 much as they could. The Scriptures brought i● his Apology for this silent waiting, he forgettet● to press, therefore his Adversary answers to 〈◊〉 inference from them, must stand till he find tim● to reinsta●re his Arguments. He referreth us to George Keith his way cast up, insinuating, that he is the man can prove this Silent waiting. But he will just prove it, as he has done, as soon as any judgeth his Book worthy of an answer: Otherwise might he not have borrowed some of his Brother's Arguments, to refute his Adversaries Answers; as well as throughout the whole of his Books be a debtor to Pelagius, Bellarmin, Socinus, Ostorodius, Volkellius, and the like, rather than said stark nought. Here he granteth that Peter and Paul had a natural man, in which the Devil might work, and a Spiritual man, which can resist, and so contradicteth his Doctrine of Perfection, or at least his explication of the 7 of the Rom. for if this be true, there is no ground for explaining that place of another than the Apostle himself.  
His following words are arhapsodie or railing, in which he all along accuseth his adversary, calling him, and his Brethren Priests (subintellige, of Baal, for so the Quakers speak) greedy Merchants of Babylon, persecuters, with more of such stuff. Next he granteth, that ceasing to do evil is not without all action of the Mind; E. when the Quakers think not at all, nor exercise the faculties of their soul, and consequently have no action of the mind, which is their silent waiting, they never cease to do evil. And it's like there be too much truth in this.  
Because his adversary sayeth pag 424. That watching is not a turning inward, but a looking outward also. Then sayeth he men shut up in a Dungeon could not watch Spiritually, the repeating of which is more than the refuting. For well he knew that his adversary understood by looking outwardly, minding of God, and our distance from him, and the like. Whereas what the Quakers mean by watching, and waiting, we heard above. Mr. Brown out of Doctor Stillingfleet of the Phanaticism of the Church of Rome, and out of the Sermons of one Taulerus a Fantastic Monk, applauded notwithstanding by Bellarmin, and others of the chief Papists from pag 429, to the end of that Chapter, evinceth, that the Quakers in this point, not only in substance, but for the most part in expressions, agree exactly with the wildest dottages of Popery. To which he answereth that his adversary misseth his Aim; For he cannot prove, sayeth he, that the chief preachers amongst the Quakers ever heard of Taulerus. Ans. yea on the contrary he gaineth his design, for thus it is evinced that there is a great sibness betwixt their genious, which he confirmeth the more, while he granteth the truth of the bulk of what Taulerus sayeth.  

Section II. Of Baptism.  
The contempt the Quakers vent against the Sacraments is so well known, that it will be superfluous to tell the Reader in the entry, that they deny them. See his 12. Proposition, and his Apology thereto annexed. Vindication pag 162 He cometh to urge one of his Apologetic arguments against these Sacraments in general, viz. That the many controversies among Christians about them, prove them to be a real pharisee. To which when his adversary replieth that if this argument hold, it will overthrow all the parts of the Christian Religion. He answereth that he should not have used this argument except he had other weighty ones. And then he cryeth out upon his adversary, as showing a malicious genius. Judge, Reader, if he had reason so to cry out, and yet no better is the ground of his complaints through the whole of this Treatise. But to the main purpose, julian, or Porphyry might as well have used this instance, as he; for they thought they had weighty Arguments against the Christian Religion. And he doth but merely think, that he hath weighty arguments against the Sacraments, as in the Sequel shall appear. However in the mean time we may observe that this argument, as the most part of the rest, is borrowed from the Pagans. For this very Argument drawn from the division of Christians, they improved what they could to overthrow Christianity. From them the Papists borrowed it, wherewith to impugn the Protestants. And lastly the Quakers from them, and hath placed it where it was again at the first, to be a battering piece against Christianity in general. So it hath gone from hand to hand in Circulo.  
Next he cometh to vindi●at another argument borrowed from the Papists, in their plead for traditions against the Scriptures, viz. that the word (Sacrament) is not to be found in Scripture, (take heed to the consequence, Reader,) E. The thing is not in them. Is not this valid? But this Argument in its very defence, he is forced to let go, while he sayeth, he denyeth not the thing truly imported by the Trinity. Very well then he can say no more of the Sacraments. For the thing signified is in the Scriptures, and the words (Sign, or Seal) by which (though he denied) we very ordinarily express that which we mean by (Sacraments) is very frequent in Scripture. And yet before he want something to say, he will cavil; though he grant all we plead for before the close, as here. Pag 163 He cometh to vindicate his meaning of some places of Scripture, brought in his Apology wherewith to overthrow Baptism, And first Eph. 4.5. where he taketh notice that his Adversary Pag 469, sayeth that the Scripture no where sayeth, there is but one only Baptism. To which he replieth, that it will as well prove, that there is but one only Baptism, as there is one only God. Ans: First true it is, that this Phrase (one only Baptism) is not found in Scripture. 2. The one cannot be so well proved as the other. For these (ones) must be exponed, according to the subject matter, seeing it is beyond debate, that it cannot be proved from this place, that there is but one only Faith, or no kinds thereof but one. The Phrase therefore (One Baptism) will no more prove, that there are not divers kinds thereof, than the phrase (one Faith) can do it in respect of divers kinds of Faith. If he think otherwise he ought to prove it, seeing he is the opponent. Next he sayeth That his adversary understandeth the extraordinary gifts of Tongues, and the like by Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and of fire. And hence saith he, concludeth, that this Baptism is ceased. Ans. This is most true, which to prove, let him compare Act. 1.5. with Chap. 2. For he cannot deny, that the Apostles had the Spirit of God before this promise, which is together with its fulfilling, chap. 2. an explication of the like phrase in Matth, 3.11. For the clearing of which I assert, that john's Baptism, was no figure of the New Testament Baptism, in opposition to Papists and Quakers, who say it was only a figure of the New Testament Baptism. Otherwise if the sign, which john could, only administrat, be opposed to the thing signified, we may understand the Baptism, with the Holy Ghost, and with the fire spoken of Matth. 3. of Sanctification and Mortification.  
Next he sayeth, It is a lie that the Quakers would have none to be baptised, with the Spirit, but such as have extraordinary Gifts. But do they not still boast of their Revelations, and inspirations, comparing themselves to the Apostles, calling themselves perfect? and I think these are extraordinary things. And as for others beside them, they call them only carnal, and say, they are in darkness, these are the most modest of their Expressions, and yet enough to prove the thing denied. When his Antagonist telleth him in Opposition to his saying, that if this Water-Baptism were to be accounted a true Baptism, than there should be two Baptisms, contrary to Eph. 4.5. I say when he telleth him, that it might as well be said, that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament, one in the heart, another in the flesh; he granteth the Consequence, and challengeth his Adversary of Levity in using such an Argument. Well then with as little absurdity, we grant his Consequence: viz. That in some sense there are two Baptisms in the Church, though in another Sense, there be but one; viz. considered complexly of the Sign, it is understood in the place in hand; and indeed one might as well have reasoned to press Unity among the Jews, that there was but one Circumcision, as the Apostle doth from the one Baptism. And for any thing I know, the Word Circumcision is not used in the plural Number in the Scriptures. And if he say, that it is spoken of as twofold Rom. 2.28, 29, I answer: so is Baptism spoken of. 1 Pet. 3.21.  
Another Reason of his Antagonist, against his meaning of this place, is, that he may as well conclude from this place, that there is but one Faith, as that there is but one Baptism. And yet there are divers kinds of Faith mentioned in Scripture, as sometimes, for the Doctrine of Faith Gal. 1.23. And for the outward Profession of Faith. 1 Tim. 1.19. The Faith of Miracles, or the like. To which he answereth, that all these are included in the one Faith here spoken of. And to say that Baptism with water is included in that one Baptism is a begging of the Question. Ans. It is no more a begging of the Question, than that all these kinds of Faith are included in this one Faith. If he think otherwise, let him prove it. But he thinketh it rather fit to shift, and give naked assertions. For what Reason is there why the Baptism with water is not included in this one Baptism, more than that these other kinds of Faith, are not included? He may show this if he please, for this is that which is incumbent to him to prove: That Baptism with Water is not included, as well as these various Kind's of Faith. 2. How will he prove that the Faith of Miracles is included in this one Faith? I do believe this will trouble him. And when he has done these two, than he may bring up his Achillean Argument, viz. that such as were baptised with water were not baptised; Therefore baptism with water is not the baptism of Christ. Which Sophism might have been as well made against Circumcision as Baptism, as we have but even now shown. He is angry at his Antagonist for telling him, that he hath stolen his Arguments from Socinians, saying, he never read three lines of him. Answer, neither did ever I hear one line in Socinus his own Book, yet I have heard an hundred of Socinus his Arguments. He miserably bewrayeth his genius: For if he without reading of their Writings, still fall upon the Socinian Arguments, then how near of kin must he and they be. But this he still doth, as the whole Series of his Adversaries Book declareth, still citing the Book, and page of the Socinian Writings, where his Arguments are to be found. Which he dare not deny, whereas he should vindicat pag. 164. his Doctrine built upon 1 Pet. 3.21. he sayeth mere nothing. But only that his Adversary giveth mere Assertions. But he doth not attempt to impugn them. And is this urging, and Vindication of his Arguments. How desperate must his Cause be! When he leaveth the very place, upon which they found the Abrogation of Baptism, without attempting to prove his own meaning of it. Next I say that whatever I can build upon this place, against Baptism with Water, the same Argument might have still holden against Circumcision in the flesh: seeing still it was true, that he is not a Jew, that is one outwardly, and that that is not Circumcision, which is outward in the flesh, but that he is a Jew that is one inwardly, and that is Circumcision that is of the Heart, and Spirit, and not of the Letter etc. Rom. 2.28, 29. In a word whatever they shall say against Baptism with Water, from this place of Peter, there is still as much to be said against Circumcision with hands, even during the Law, flowing from the perpetual Truth of this place of Paul to the Rome But I think themselves will not say, it militates any thing against Circumcision made with hands, during the Law. Ergo they ought to conclude nothing from this place of Peter against Baptism with Water. Here he sayeth that his Adversaries answer to this Argument from this place of Peter. and Gal. 3: 27. Col. 2▪ 12, is built upon the Supposition, that Water-Baptism goeth to the making up of Christ's Baptism. And then sayeth, he will expect his proof of his exposition of these places, is not that fair arguing, Reader, to frame an Argument from a place of Scripture, and when the Defendant denyeth such a thing followeth from this Scripture, to tell him he has lost the Cause, unless that he prove that it will not follow? But seeing he is the impugner in this place, if he had not intended to expose himself, and his party to scorn, he had certainly at least attempted to prove his own Expositions of these places, and urged his two Arguments, which in his Apology were in modo & figura. But this heat of dispute was soon allayed; For so hath his Antagonist combated with him, that he essayeth not to reinforce them. See pag. 473.479. How seared must these men's Consciences be! when they endeavour to put a cheat upon the World in so weighty a business. 2. It's most groundless to say, that there is any petitio principij here, as the Quaker insinuateth.  
Next he cometh to reply to his adversaries 9 Num: Where he had evinced that john's Baptism was not a figure of Christ's. And passing the marrow of what he had said, he only compendizeth his Apology, saying, that john's Baptism was a washing with Water, & that the Apostle ascribeth the putting on Christ to the Baptism of Christ, as washing with water Typifieth or signifieth the washing of regeneration, so doth john's Baptism that of Christ. But all this was obviate before, while his adversary answered his Argument, wherewith he intended to prove his third proposition, denying, that the Baptism of Christ is only the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and with fire: asserting also, and that upon good grounds, that the Baptism with water is Christ's Baptism instituted by Him, see the Forecited Numb.  
Next I say that john's Baptism, as being institute by Christ, and comprehending the thing signified, is not only Baptism with water, but Christ's whole true Baptism, and so this quibbling is groundless.  
Neither is that which followeth any solider, where he sayeth because his adversary denyeth, (he must increase, but I must decrease) to be meaned of the abolition of john's Baptism, that then if this be meaned of their persons, john grew more decrepit, and Christ more tall, Spectatum admissi risum teneatis? Was there not another member of the disjunction? I answer therefore to this miserable cavil, that the meaning of the place is, that the person of Christ was to grow more and more in honour, and glory, so that within a little the fame, and repute of john was to be eclipsed through the brightness and splendour of Christ.  
Next he sayeth, that though john had a command for baptism, it will not follow that it was no legal rite. Ans. It will well follow, for all the legal Rites, such as held forth Christ, and his benefits by way of Type, to the whole Church, which each Member was to practise, were either institute by Moses, or before him. The design of which was that the people might see Christ, though darkly as in a Glass, until the time of his coming, therefore this could not be a legal Rite, which was commanded directly at the coming of the Messias, and at his very appearance, preaching to the world, when there could be no use of legal Rites, but these which were within a little to be abolished. 2. All the Legal Rites are abrogat in the New Testament, but no where is the command given to John recalled, and his Baptism abrogat: Otherwise let him show me the place of Scripture, (But not 1 Pet. 3.21. which they ordinarily use.) Either immediately given by God, or the Apostles contrary approved practice equivalent to a Command. 3. That the Baptism of John was a Gospel Ordinance is clear from Mat. 11.12, 13. Where it is said, that the Law and the Prophets prophesied until joh. To which place, I know they ordinarily answer, that (until) doth not exclude John But this is refuted abundantly by the former vers. For in the time of the Law the Kingdom of Heaven cannot be said to suffer violence, and yet it suffered Violence in the days of John. And certain it is that this particle, if it be not taken exclusively here, can be so taken no where else in Scripture, as the collation of this with other places will evince. 4. No legal thing, person, or Rite was prophesied of in the Old Testament, but John was clearly prophesied of, as a sweet Gospel Minister▪ E. There is no reason to Judge, that John was a Legal Minister, or had Legal commands.  
Next he cometh to vindicate what he deduced from 1 Cor. 1.17. Where he only seeketh to shift, neglecting wholly what his adversary sayeth, see Pag. 476. N. 12.  
The first of these shift are, That because his Antagonist sayeth, why did Paul baptise, if he had not a Commission? He answereth, that this a quarrelling with the Apostle. What strange disingenuity is this? To say, he quarrelleth with the Apostle, when he only quarrelled with the Quakers exposition. And upon the supposed truth of this inferred this absurdity, that the Apostle did that which he ought not to do, which being false, his exposition cannot be true. Thus a Man might say still, when one inferred an absurdity from his exposition of a place of Scripture, that he were fixing absurdities upon the Spirit of God. For he knoweth that we expone Paul's words (that he was not sent ●o baptise) for the less principal part of his errand, according to Hos: 6.6. Matth: 9 Ier: 2.23. and many other places, even though there be no explicative clause following, as he allegeth is in Host 6.6. providing that there be no absurdity following upon this gloss. And beside this, there are good reasons why we should so expone the phrase here. For first the Apostle insinuateth clearly, that all these Corinthians were Baptised, without reproving them for it. Whereas he still reproveth the Gentiles for using of, and tenaciously sticking to Jewish Rites, or any man that imposed them upon them, either by example, or doctrine, as the body of the Epistle to the Gal. doth declare. 2. he doth not say, that his Fellow-Apostles were not sent to baptise, but nameth himself alone. 3. He still did administrat this Sacrament to the Gentiles, upon their embracing of Christianity, as his recorded practice doth declare, which Mr. Brown hath showed, but the Quaker most disingenuously passeth over; let him not therefore object, that to expone the like phrase, where the thing is said not to be, for to be less principal would make wild work: Seing we give sufficient reasons for our explication of this place, and do not plead for the phrase to be still so exponed, but only where the Nature of the subject matter will permit it.  
3. He cometh pag 166. to answer our argument from Matth: 28, 19 And first he denyeth that the Apostles while Christ was with them, baptised with Christ's warrant; and sayeth, he will wait his adversaries proof of it. Ans: He hath done it▪ already from john 3.26 and, 4, 3. Of which places the Quaker durst not adventure to take notice. We shall therefore wait what he sayeth the next time against them. 2. He sayeth the Apostle did eat the passover with Christ's warrant, yet it followeth not that we ought to do it. Ans. There is no parity between these two practices; will he say that ever the eating of the passover was imposed upon the Gentiles as they did Baptism, as a necessary consequent of their embracing of Christianity, as the whole Tenor of the Acts of the Apostles declareth? 2. The Passover was a Legal Custom introduced many hundreds of Years before, whereas▪ Baptism was but in its very rise and beginning.  
2. He sayeth, that though it be joined with Discipline, as Circumcision was joined with it among the jews, it will no more follow that Baptism, is to be continued, than that Circumcision is to be continued. Ans: that the Baptism here spoken of, is to be continued, I think himself will not deny. We speak now of the institution of an ordinance given to the Christian Church. Therefore this his consequence of Circumcision is vain, and without the least appearance of Reason.  
Lastly this Reason is wholly nonsense, for none can perceive what it leveleth at.  
3. He denyeth that the Apostles constant practice can declare, that Baptism with water is the meaning of the Command. For, sayeth he, the practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declareth this to be false. Ans: 1. That this which he sayeth of the Apostle is false, we have proved above. 2. All things practised by the Apostle must be reduced to three sorts, either commanded, permitted, or simply sinful. This last I think they will not say their practice of Baptism was, neither do they say it, but only that it was an indifferent Jewish Ri●e, permitted for the time, as Circumcision, or the like. But this is false. For either such Rites were not at all imposed on the Gentiles, Or if they were, they were after abrogated. As for example, abstinence from blood, and things strangled, enjoined Act 15. This I say was again abrogat 1 Cor: 10. and in the Epistles to the Gal. and Tim. (2.) That it is not an indifferent Jewish Rite, clearly appeareth from this, that the reason why they impose Jewish Rites upon any Christian, whether Jew or Gentile, was to bear with the Jews for a time, and to condescend to their weakness. But the condition of baptism, was still their embracing of Christ; and the ground of it, their receiving of them into the Church. In a word Condescension to the Jews weakness, is in Scripture ever holden forth to be the ground of the imposition of Legal Rites upon Christians. So that there is mention made of this ground for every particular Rite imposed; but this condescension is never said to be the ground of imposing Baptism, but a quite other ground given, which we named already. 3. If this had been a thing only permitted for a time, and to be abrogat afterwards, then either the Apostles unrepealed practice, which they exercised toward all Christians indifferently, and that as such were not sufficient to walk by: Or else this was abrogat afterward, but the last they cannot show from Scripture? Therefore it is false, and the first absurd. From all which it followeth, that this was a Commanded practice. And I desire any man of Reason, to Judge whether all the Apostles perpetual unrepealed practice, or these men's naked assertions, be the best Commentary on this place. 4. He denyeth that the word Baptism, as we expone it, is taken in its proper signification, and sayeth, that it is not necessary to take it as we do, for Baptism with water, in so many places, as it must be taken for baptism with the spirit. Ans. This a mere assertion. In opposition to which I say, that he shall not be able to give one place of Scripture, where this word is undoubtedly taken in their sense; but I shall give him two, where the word is taken in the sense, which here we plead for, and that undoubtedly. And so there is a double impropriety in the Quakers exposition of the word, fi●st against the Grammatical, and 2. the Scriptural propriety. We expect therefore according to his own Postulatum, that he will give some more weighty reasons the next time of this explication.  
Next I reason thus. To Baptism with the Spirit is not in all the Scripture applied to Men; Therefore it is not safe without very solid reasons, to expone it so here.  
Again, all that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism, is sufficiently expressed in the context. Er. There is no necessity to flee to this strange exposition.  
Lastly This exposition is the product of the brain of Diabolick Socinus, as its first Author; which I think will make it be suspected; and (seeing it wants all ground) abhorred of all the Lovers of Christ Jesus, seeing this arch-enemy of his invented all the shifts and sophistry, the Devil and he could, to destroy both the Godhead of Christ, and all his Ordinances. His following words are answered above.  
Next as for what he sayeth in opposition to the 17. Numb. of this chap. in his 168 pag. it is so miserable, that I only desire the Reader to compare these two places together. Whereas he insinuateth in this page, that Peter Commanded expressly the Gentiles to be circumcised, which he buildeth upon Gal. 2, 12. is most false. For the reason why Paul reproved him, was his dissimulation mentioned in that chapter, and no express Command, if he will give us Leave to expone Scripture by Scripture. He sayeth, as if Mr. Brown had denied it, that josephus writ before the 200 Year of Christ. Whereas he sayeth, that the first which wrote the Jewish Alcoran, or Misanioth, with a tendency to destroy Christianity, was Rabi jehuda Hakkadosh, about the 200 year of Christ. As now the Quakers do.   

SECTION II. Concerning the Lords Supper.  
IT is most notour, that as the Quakers deny Baptism, so they deny the Lords Supper. See his 13 proposition, with his Apology annexed thereto, where he maketh this only to be a Legal Institution.  
It will be needless for me to take Notice of what he sayeth pag 170. viz. That his Adversary pag 489, maketh a Preaching to the Devil, whereas he only inferreth from their Doctrine of Universal Salvation to every Creature, that they may preach to the Devil according to their own Principles. Hence we may learn how impudent these men are! Just as if because Robert Barclay had challenged a man of murder; he that is challenged, should conclude that Robert Barclay called himself a Murderer. As false, though not so ridiculous, is that, of which he challengeth one Preaching near Lawther. viz. that he prayed to the Devil. But he dare not name the man who did it, neither these who heard it; Therefore let him bear the just censure of a Calumniator (to say no more) until he name the man, and prove it.  
When he cometh to the matter itself, he is as weak, as before he was wicked. For in stead of pressing his Argument against the Lord's Supper, viz. That if there were a relation between the Body, and Blood of Christ, and the Bread, and Wine in the Sacrament, than it would either flow from the nature of the thing, or the Command. And while his Adversary denyeth, that an institution, and promise is all one with a Command. All his probation is his mere assertion, that they are in all respects one, neglecting the reason that his Adversary gave for his denial. But why should I take notice of such a shameful Vindication, wanting the very show and appearance of reason. To the rest of his 11 paragraph, in which by many weighty Arguments, this duty is proved from 1 Cor. 11. he sayeth only, that he speaketh not to the purpose, without so much as attempting to wipe off his reasons.  
He cometh to answer his 12 number, and first sayeth, that the Blessing, and Eating, spoken of Mat: 14, 19 will as much prove a Sacrament, as these places of the Gospel, and the Epistle to the Corinthians ordinarily brought, can do it. But this Adversary never inferred any thing of this kind, from simple blessing: But from other things considered with blessing, such as, This is my Body, This is my Blood, and the unrepealed Command and Institution 1 Cor. 11, and the like. In Opposition to which, he scarcely giveth so much as a shift, and far less any solid reason. But we must excuse him, seeing he doth as well as he can. His next words are a mere Compend of what he said against our meaning of 1 Cor: 11. in his Apology, without so much as attempting to answer his Adversaries 14. Num: to which I refer the Reader. He sayeth indeed, which is as good as nothing that the Institution of the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. was a Permission; and therefore the practice thereof was not will-worship. But upon the same account he may elude any Command in Scripture. For that there was a Command for this practice, he granteth; and that the Apostle correcteth the abuse of this practice, he granteth also, without so much as mentioning its indifferency. Neither can he show in all the Scripture, where this Command was abrogat, or the practice prohibited, as other things indifferent were. What Titanian boldness must this than be, to say this was by mere Permission!  
In Opposition to his 16 Num: where his Adversary showeth the disparity, between Christ's teaching his Apostles Humility, by his Example of washing their feet, and his Command and Institution of this Ordinance, he sayeth mere nothing, but calleth him a Pope.  
In Opposition to Num 17. he sayeth he should prove from Scripture, how they are safe in practising the one part (ridiculously calling the whole Duty one part) and not the other (meaning the occasional Circumstances of time, and place, and the number of twelve, and the like, which he as foolishly calleth another part of the Institution) But his Adversary showeth from many places of Scripture in the forecited Num: such as Act: 26: 7. 1 Cor. 11, 18. and 20. That these Circumstances are not to be observed, but left indifferent. But this man still intendeth to cheat his Reader, by passing over the Marrow of what his Adversary sayeth.  
What he sayeth in Opposition to N: 18, Is a mere denial that Act 2, 42, is meaned of the Lords Supper, without so much as the least attempt, to answer his reasons, or to Vindicat what he himself said in his Apology, in opposition to our meaning of this place, Neither is he more happy in answering his 19 Num: where he proved that in Act. 20.7. Is understood public and Sacramental Eating. For he, according to his Custom, slighteth his reason; as the Comparer may see (what he sayeth in opposition to the follwing number▪ is of the same Nature. viz. mere Assertions, false Suppositions, such as, that the Corinthians were superstitious, in that they at all practised this Duty of the Lords Supper. Yet one thing I will take notice of, viz. how he vindicateth his Answer given to that argument, drawn from 1 Cor. 11, 26. Ye show forth the Lords death till he come. Which is, That by Christ's coming, is understood his inward, Spiritual coming. Which answer his Adversary so happily impugneth, that he on the matter sayeth nothing, except ye will call this something, viz. That Babes in Christ may have these indulged unto them: But his Answer still cutteth off Babes with the rest, seeing to them Christ is come in the Spirit already. But it is needless at all to Impugn this distinction, it's own groundlesness sufficiently doth it.  
He cometh next to answer his 21 and 22 Num: and there he asserteth, That that which the Christians were enjoined to Observe, Act, 15, 29. was no part of the Ceremonial Law, but an Apostolic Command and thinketh that whatever can plead for the abrogation of this Injunction, will also plead for the abrogation of the Lords Supper. But taketh no notice, that his Antagonist showed that there is no little Vanity, and impiety in his adducing Rom. 14.17. Col. 2.16. To prove this; and therefore he shamefully passeth over what he sayeth on these places, and so giveth up this his Socinian Cause. For he that is a Socinian in this point, he doth not deny, he sayeth, That this Command seeing it was given after the out-pouring of the Spirit, hath as much of a Gospel Institution, as any thing commanded before by Christ can have. Ans. Well then I see, we will be no more troubled with quaking preachers, seeing this Command Act. 15. according to himself is repealed, and yet hath as much of a Gospel Institution, as preaching hath Matth. 10. and certainly it will as well follow from Col. 2.20. that preaching of the Gospel is abrogat, and not allowed now by Christ, as from v 16, and Rom. 14, 17. that the Lords Supper is now abrogat, and not allowed by Christ. Now, let both old and new Socinians (I mean the Quakers) try to infringe this if they can. And I shall still infer the one upon as good ground, as they can do the other. Which Consideration, and Parity of places destroyeth this Socinian Conceit, say what they will in its defence.    

AN APPENDIX. IN which the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, and in special of the Reverend assembly at Westminster, in their Confession of Faith, Chap. 3. deduced from the Ninth chap: to the Romans defended, and the Text Vindicated from the Corrupt Glosses and Depravations of William Parker, and his pretended examination of the Westminster Confession, which Robert Barclay hath made his own by referring us thereunto, as sufficient solutions of all our arguments for our Doctrine of Election and Reprobation, deduced from that place.  
AMongst the many and damnable Errors which the Quakers have raised out of their Graves, that of their denying Eternal Election, or at best making it wholly conditional, uncertain, and depending upon the will of the Creature, so that notwithstanding the Decree of God to the contrary, it might so have fallen out, that none should have been saved, is not the least: In which they conspire with the grossest of Pelagians, but the downright and most palpable contrariety of this their Doctrine of the holy Scriptures, which they sometimes would fain seem to follow, hath made the more knowing among them to conceal so far as they are able, their thoughts anent the Doctrine of Election; Thus dealt Robert Barclay, who in all his Theses and Apology, though in his account an entire System of Religion, never delivereth his mind thereanent. And Vindic. Sect. 6. In defence of this non-such Omission, he sayeth only, that all do at times Confess, that it is not safe, nor proper too curiously to inquire into the Decrees of God, which he prooflesly allegeth his adversary to have done: and that it is only needful to say, God calleth every Man every where to Repent, and be saved through Faith in Jesus Christ: Neither doth he any where directly Impugn our Doctrine of Election; And yet he fiercely falleth upon our Doctrine of Reprobation, and thus declareth to the World his self-repugnancy, seeing none can be ignorant, that our Doctrine of Reciprobation is Reprocally and inseparably linked to that of Election. Moreover he thus publisheth his Mind concerning Election, although he by all Means endeavours to conceal it; for whoever denyeth Reprobation, by an Infallible Consequence downright denyeth Election: And thus, Nill he, will he, we have his mind positively anent Election, and also Confession intimated, that his Judgement about Election cannot abide to be tried by the Scripture Bench. And yet I think few will say, That his Doctrine of positive and dounright denial of Reprobation is much better founded; seeing he with a Pythagorical silence, passeth over all his Adversaries arguments, proving all our Doctrine there anent. chap. 7. num: 10.11. These Arguments I say, about twenty in Number, he doth nor so much as mention, and far less attempt a Solution thereof, although he knew well enough, that except these be untied, the whole frame of Quakerism is entirely dissolved. But in stead of Resolution of his adversaries arguments, as he doth all along, he giveth the World a mere Contract of his Apology, under the cheating Title of a Vindication. But when his adversary saith, That the Quaker can no more Impugn our Doctrine, than he can Impugn what the Apostle saith, Rom. 9, 19 The Quaker Sect. 6. pag 67. answereth two things; 1. That this is all one, as if a Quaker should say, confute all the Scripture which contain our Doctrine, and therefore dispute no more, until Thou first do that. But the Man is good, where there is little to do: But if he had not intended to play the shifter, he had condescended upon some particular place, as his adversary did, otherwise he no less declareth his own fear than Darius did, when he objected to his pursuing Enemy, That he could not be subdued, because of the spacious Countries, thorough which it behoved Him to follow him. 2. He referreth his Antagonist to the Examination of the Westminster Confession, chap: 3. Where saith he, he may have his misapprehensions corrected. But How cometh it to pass that the Quaker hath taken no notice of many Authors, as Twiss, Rutherford, Dickson, to whom his Adversary in this very point did refer him. 2. But his care is not very great of Commutative Justice.  
Notwithstanding of which, Ex abundanti we will make a particular and impartial enquiry into all that he bringeth against the meaning of the Reformed Churches upon that place. The Author is an Enthusiastical Arminian, called William Parker who is the Man I believe the Quaker understandeth; for beside him I know no other particular examinator of this Confession.  
Now because our Quaker placeth so firm confidence in this Author, that he thought a simple reference unto him sufficiently doth his bussiness. I had a great desire to know what he could say against our meaning of this place: Which place appeared to me to hold forth our Doctrine, as clearly as the sun-light: Having therefore made diligent search, at length I found the book, in which Chap: 3. He undertaketh a particular discussion of all the Arguments brought from this place, for our Doctrine concerning Election and Reprobation, which how he hath done, comes now to be weighed. And 1. From Vers. 6. He frameth to himself an Objection,  
that because it is said, that they are not all Israel, that are of Israel, therefore it seems, that all are not elected; To which he answers, that the Apostle intimate, that the Carnal Israel, or all that are come of Jacob, surnamed Israel, are not the Israel, to whom the promises of Salvation are absolutely and finally made, though in general the conditional promises belong to all Israel, as the Apostle shows vers. 4. That we may not be misunderstood, know, that among others, there are seven promises made to the overcomers, Rev. 2 & 3: Chap. and such as persevere in the Christian Race, unto the end, or to the death and burial of sin.  
Now these and the like promises belong unto the Elect, that are chosen out of the furnace of affliction. Isa. 48.10. Which with Paul have fought the good fight of Faith. 2 Tim: 4: 7, 8: And so may fully expect the reward, because God is faithful that hath promised it. Heb: 6, 12: and 10: 36. James 1.12.  
I Reply, this commentary (I shall not say a comment) is founded upon some Scriptures violently detorted; for none of them doth in the least insinuat, that these of whom they speak were chosen to grace only, & not to glory (which groundless distinction was invented of old by the Pelagians, and condemned and refuted by the Orthodox, as is evident in the Epistles of Prosper, and Hilarius Arelatensis) and tendeth to the overthrow of the Covenant of Redemption, and the promises of God the Father to Christ, viz. that he should see his seed, and the travel of his soul. Isa. 53.10, 11. and many such like, for if this Doctrine were true, it might so fall out, that none should come to Glory; for according to it, the gift of perseverance is bestowed upon none, and so the Apostle's persuasion, that None could separate him from the Love of God, Rome: 8.35. Should have been vain and groundless. And the promise to cause the Israel of God to keep his Statutes and his Judgements, to do them, Exit 36, 27. Should be mere words of deceit; these and six hundred beside of such absurd blasphemies are unseparably linked to this Doctrine. As for the Scriptures cited by him, they hold forth a Character of such a● shall be saved, viz. That they do through grace overcome, love the Lord Jesus, exercise Patience, Faith▪ and the like graces; but they do not at all hold forth, that these graces, and perseverance therein are in Man's own power, so that he may reject or refuse them, according to the inclinations of his own will, and that God doth not make Men irresistibly, yet sweetly of unwilling to become willing. All which this Neo- Pelagian through the Violence of torture makes these Scriptures to speak, but the verse itself doth sufficiently refute this exposition; for according to it, the word or promises of God, might be without any effect, seeing it might fall out, that though all were elected, none might be saved. Now seeing this Exposition cannot Stand, the other, which this Arminian would fain reject, of its own accord follows, viz. That not all, and every one is from all Eternity elected, and chosen to Salvation, as the whole Scope and series of this Chapter doth demonstrate, as we shall evince, while we reply in particular to the Answers he makes to the objections, which he frames from this place.  
2. He goeth on thus, Rome 9.7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham, are they all Children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Where the Apostle alludeth to Gen 17.18, 19, 20, 21. It may seem then, that only Isaac and not Ishmael was chosen. Ans. Isaac was chosen alone to be the representative seed of God, being a Type, first of Christ, in whom God hath made his Covenant. 2. He being a seed born by Sarah, represents Faith out of the promises, rather than by the Strength of Nature: So is a Figure of the Spiritual Seed of Abraham, which are begotten or born by virtue of the promises. For so the Apostle explains himself v. 8. That is, they which are the Children of the Flesh (of whom Ishmael carried the Type) These are not the Children of God, but the Children of promise are counted for the Seed: As for Ishmael, who was begotten by the Strength of Nature, and according to the Flesh of Hagar, which represents the the Law, Gal. 4.21, 31: He figured forth these which should be saved, not by the grace of the promises, but by the works of the Law, a people, with whom God has not erected His Covenant, that they should be saved in that way, but though Ishmael carried the Figure of such, it was without any prejudice to his Eternal Election or Salvation: For Abraham praying thus for him, Gen: 17.18. O that Ishmael might live before Thee, or in thy presence. v: 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard thee. His being such a Type, was no more prejudicial to Him, then that Moses and Aaron were debarred entrance into Canaan (They therein being a Figure of those, that should be shut out of God's Kingdom for unbelief) without any hazard to their own Salvation, as hath been said before.  
In order to our Reply to this and the following Objections, we premit. 1. That this and the following Verses of this Chapter, are brought in by the Apostle, as Arguments, to prove his Proposition laid down, v. 6. viz. That all are not Israel, that are of Israel, therefore whatever floweth from these Verses, as their immediate Consequents, is the meaning of the sixth Verse. 2. That the convincing clearness of this place hath forced all to acknowledge, that the Apostle is here speaking of Predestination of men, in order to their eternal estate, and not as to the things of this Life only, as Bellarmin de Grat et Lib. Arb. L. 2. C. 15. Stapleton Ant, pag. 526. And among the modern Lutherans, Hunnius upon the place in hand, who confesseth that the Apostle digresseth into the large field of Predestination. Yea Arminius himself, in his Analysis of this Chapter, dareth not deny it, though he fain would. Having premised these things, we come to his Answer, The Substance of which is▪ That Ishmael was not himself rejected of God, but only a Type of these that are not the Children of God, which we shall refute, by evincing these two Things. 1. That though Ishmael be considered here as a Type only, this place gives good ground for the Doctrine of our Confession of Faith, against which he here fighteth. 2. That Ishmael himself was not elected. As for the first of these Propositions, it is evident; For otherwise there should be no Correspondence betwixt the Type and the Antitype, and so a Type should not be a Type. I prove it: If Ishmael was excluded from being counted the Seed of Abraham, only by the mere good pleasure and absolute Dispensation of God, and not conditionally, so that Ishmael himself could have caused it to come to pass, that he should have been counted the Legitimate Heir and Lawful begotten Son of Abraham, of whom the Church and Christ according to the Flesh was to Spring, than there are some passed by in the Eternal Decree of God, and that absolutely, to whom God from all Eternity determined to give no Saving Grace, but punish them for their sins; But the Former is true, yea and so true, that (I am sure) none acknowledging the Scriptures will deny it. The Major is no less clear, except (as we said before) any shall be so absurd, as to deny a Correspondency or Analogy betwixt Type and Antitype, and so deny a Type to be a Type, for in this Ishmael was a Type, in that he was not reckoned to be the Seed of Abraham, and a Child of the Flesh, not a Child of Promise, all which came to pass by the absolute Dispensation of God, and not conditionally, so that Ishmael might have brought to pass, that he should have been the Legitimate Heir and Seed of Abraham, and born by Virtue of a special Promise: Neither on the other hand was the Election of Isaac unto these Privileges, from which Ishmael was excluded, conditional, but by the absolute Dispensation of God: For I think none will say, that Isaac could have hindered himself to be born by Virtue of a special promise, and so counted the only Son, as we see he is called Gen. 22. 2. Therefore, if there be any Correspondence betwixt Type and Antitype, the Lord from all Eternity did pass by some, that is, decreed that he would not give them Grace, but permit them to remain Children of the Flesh, whom he did not give unto Christ Jesus, to be his Seed by Virtue of the Promises of the Covenant of Redemption.  
We come now to the second Proposition viz. That Ishmael himself was not Elected, This by any thing we can learn from Scripture, is most evident. For 1. He was by Gods own Command thrust out of the Church, Gen. 21.12. And that upon the Account of his persecuting the Heir of Promise, and the Church and Image of God in him. Gen. 21.9. Gal. 4.29. Now in Scripture we find no mention made of his Repentance, or Readmission into the Church: Hence there is no Ground of Charity concerning his Salvation. 2. We find nothing that Ishmael exercised all his Life, except Robbery and Bloodshed, as appears from Gen. 16.12. and 20 v. Which Lessons the Saracens his Posterity have exactly learned from him. As for Gen. 17.18, 20. It speaks of nothing less than the Salvation of Ishmael: for as it appears from verses 19.20. compared together, the Lord clearly intimates, that he will neither establish his Covenant with himself, nor with his Seed, and clearly asserts, that the things in which he heard Abraham for his son Ishmael, was only these pertaining to this Life: From all which it is clear, that Ishmael lived and died without Grace, or special Favour of God, and therefore was no Elect Vessel; for I believe that none will deny, that the making out by Scripture, that Ishmael lived without the Special Favour of God, will abundantly clear this place from all the mist, whereby our Adversaries endeavour to darken it; That which he says of Moses and Aaron, their being Types of these who were to be excluded from God's spiritual rest, who notwithstanding were godly themselves, is so far from saying any thing to the Purpose, that I am certain he considered not what he was saying: For who did ever infer simply, because he was a Type of those that were passed by in God's Eternal Decree, therefore he was passed by in it himself, we make no such Inference, as may be seen from what we have already said. I might here take notice of many other things, such as his forming the Objection, so that he dissimulates no small part of the strength thereof, not at all taking notice of the Analogy between the Type and Antitype, he knew to be urged not a little by our Divines, notwithstanding that he himself asserreth Ishmael to be a Type, and so considered in this place, 2. I might take notice, that he clearly intimates, that there is now a possibility of Salvation by the Works of the Law and Strength of Nature. If it be Replied, that he qualifieth what he saith by the following words, viz. that God hath not made a Covenant that men should be saved this way. We return, That if his Principles stand, these words and the former must of Necessity complete a Contradiction, for all these that were to be born (to use his own Words) by Virtue of the Promises, Isaac represented them, but Ishmael represented not these, but others; now seeing these represented by Ishmael, might be saved, as well as these represented by Isaac, according to the Principles of the Universalists, it inevitably follows, that they must be saved by the Works of the Law.  
His next Objection he gives in these Words together with his answer, is Rom. 9.10, 11.  
It is said there is a Purpose of God, according to Election, not of Works, but of him that calleth.  
Ans. Although Election there seems to import nothing but God's Grace, as the Explanation following (not of Works, but of him that calleth) will in some sort evict, yet we grant there is a Purpose of God, both according to Election of Persons and Things, and that either General or Special, as hath been by us already often acknowledged, and the Eternal Election of Persons in Mankind now fallen, whether General or Particular is out of Grace, and not by their own Works, wrought by the Strength of Nature, howbeit in that Special or Particular Election arising out of the special Foreknowledge of God; Works of Grace and perseverance therein are looked upon as Means and the way to Life, yea as a Condition, and a Motive both in that and the final Election of the Saints, which we call the Election out of the Furnace, Rev. 3.4. Thou hast a few Names in Sardis, which have not defiled their Garments, and they shall walk with me in white, Rev. 3, 8. Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it, for thou hast a little Strength, and hast kept my Word, and not denied my Name. Read more at large, Rev. 7.13, 14, 16, 17.  
Reply, This answer, though I will not say the best, is the rarest that any man could have readily lighted on: for to assert the cause of Election to be Grace, and yet to be some stages behind good works, as he doth here, while he acknowledgeth Election to be of works, not wrought by the strength of Nature, as saying somewhat more, than when he granted Election to be of Grace, is certainly so absurd, that one can invent nothing more absurd, though he bend his wit to the very purpose, for than it were all one to say, that works done by the strength of Nature are the cause of Election, and Grace is the cause of Election: or Election is of Grace, and Election is of works, done by the strength of Nature were Equipollent. 2. That Election is Grace, or rather to speak with the Apostle, Rome 11.5▪ of Grace, is most certain, but he takes again his Confession, and soon reputes that he hath spoken the Truth, while he maketh Election to be of Works, though not wrought by the strength of Nature, and maketh these to be Motives moving God to Elect some rather than others, quite contrary to the Apostle, Rom. 11.6. who makes a clear Opposition betwixt Grace, and Works, of whatsoever kind in the point of Election. But 3ly. He is yet more blasphemous and absurd, in that while the Apostle telleth us, that by these words, but of him that calleth, work; in general, or without limitation are excluded, he will in spite of him, force this very same Phrase to include Works. But 4ly. That the Apostle here excludeth all kind of Works from being the cause of Election, is clear from the Connection of the Words with what goeth before and followeth; for these words (that the purpose of God etc.) cite the consequent of the Apostolic En●hymem, of which the words going before in this verse, and the following is the Antecedent: which two propositions the particle (that) coupleth, obtaining the place of the Particle therefore; But this Antecedent, or the Apostle by it most carefully excludes all kind of Works, from being the cause of Gods preferring jacob to Esau, Therefore no kind of Works can be the cause, why God elected some, while he rejected others. Now it is to be observed, that even giving, and not granting, jacob and Esau to be considered here only as Types, that this our conclusion will well follow, seeing without respect to their future Works, it was determined, That the younger should have the Inheritance, Lordship and Dominion, and the elder contrary to the custom of Humane Laws, only for the good pleasure of God, was to be excluded from them. Now we say, seeing there must be an Analogy betwixt Type and Antitype, of necessity some must be appointed to the heavenly Canaan, and Spiritual Dominion, without consideration of their doing good, as the cause moving God to this Election: And some must be excluded from this Spiritual Canaan, Inheritance, and Dominion, without the consideration of their evil deeds, as the cause moving thereunto; If any should say, though the Children had done neither good nor evil, yet the Lord foreseeing the good deeds of the one, and the evil of the other, did so and so decree concerning them, they can say nothing more absurd, and antiscriptural; For 1. then there can be nothing made of these words, (neither having yet done good or evil) neither can any reason be showed, why they were here cast in by the Apostle. But 2. and more particularly, these words of necessity exclude some kind of works from being the cause of Election or Rejection; Ergo they exclude works of whatsoever kind, seeing they exclude without limitation, the doing of good or evil, and so render that distinction of Works, done by the strength of Nature, and by the help of Grace, of which he here talketh, altogether groundless; yea according to this distinction of his, one might say, that such good works are here only excluded, which though good as to the substance of the Action, yet are accompanied with no kind of sincerity and singlness, but are intended directly for a sinful end: But good works accompanied with any kind of sincerity, and having no sinful end directly intended, though they be notwithstanding wrought only by the strength of Nature, are not excluded; I say, according to his distinction, this might be said. For the Text affords a like ground for both; which assertion he that denyeth, is bound to give a ground for the one, more than for the other, from the Text. 3ly: The Apostles conclusion drawn from this Text, which is, as hath been showed, his Antecedent, excluding works without limitation, from being the cause of Election, convinceth all these of contradicting the Scriptures, who will notwithstanding pertinaciously assert, that only some kind of works is excluded. And now from what is said, this his distinction of special and general, that is, certain and uncertain Election falls to the ground; For if the cause thereof be not works, but the grace and good-pleasure of God, than no part of Election can be uncertain, except (Obstupeo, surgunt que comae, vox faucibus haeret) they make the good pleasure of God, that is, God himself changeable; and then all Election shall be uncertain, and so this distinction shall fall to the ground however. Behold, Reader, the blasphemy and absurdity, into which these universalists run themselves; For Election, which is the cause of good works, they make to be the Effect of good works, and so something which is eternal, to be the Effect of that which is in time, destroying all kind of order (This Argument Augustin useth against their Doctrine. D●. Predest. Sanct. C. 16) and proclaim real changes in the Father of lights, in whom is no variableness or shadow of turning; But why should we tarry so long in refuting one, in whom is not to be perceived the least shadow of reason, for what he saith, as the Reader may perceive. As for the Scriptures brought by him here, we have nothing to say, but only deny, that they make any thing for his vagrant Election, seeing he doth not essay to infer any thing in its behalf from them, contented himself barely to act them, which when we have diligently considered, we cannot find the least appearance of their Doctrine to flow from them; we shall therefore pass on to his ensuing Objection and answer.  
Rom. 9.10, 11, 12. For the Children not being yet born, it was said, That the elder shall serve the younger, where Jacob and Esau were disposed before they were born.  
Ans. 1. It is granted, that all men may be so, yea are so both for their temporal estates here, & eternal condition hereafter, but in a most wise and just way.  
2: We have showed before that the Apostle relating to Gen. 25.23. doth not speak of the persons of Jacob and Esau, but of their seeds, The Nations of the Edomites, and the people of Israel.  
3. It is not their eternal state that is there spoken of, but their Rank and Place in this World. Now as it is lawful for the Lord to make some Governors and Superiors, and others Inferiors or Subjects; So it was not any injustice in him, to make the Seed of Jacob the greater and superior Kingdom: For even the Edomites were appointed to a good and comfortable condition.  
4 The Apostle makes this disposal of them before hand, to prove that Jacob or Israel 's preferment was of mere Grace, and so the Argument was apt for this Discourse, and in that book where he asserts God's grace against our own Natural Works and Merits.  
Lastly, there is in this Subordination of Esau to Jacob a Spiritual Document, showing, that the Natural or Earthly Man must be subject to the Spiritual and heavenly Man, for Edom signifies Earthly.  
Reply, It is well that after ●o long struggling for a desperate Cause, he conceds all at length: For if God hath disposed of the Eternal Estate of every one, universal Election is a bottomless Fiction, except his Patrons affirm, That either all obtain Eternal Life, or else that matters fall out otherwise than God hath disposed, and determined concerning them. 2ly. Whatever he hath said relating to Gen. 25.23. For his Opinion before, we refuted it before, except he mean some other place beside this, which he handleth this present Text. viz. Rom. 9 3ly. That their Eternal Estates are there spoken of is clear, seeing the Apostle without the least shadow of ambiguity, speaks of the Children themselves, and that the Election of the one, and the Rejection of the other, was antecedent to their doing good or evil. And that this is spoken of the Children themselves in some respect, he himself here asserteth: Then I say, If this be true, their Eternal State must be here spoken of, seeing the Lord loved the Person of jacob, and hated the Person of Esau, before they were born, or had done either good or evil: And that this Assertion may the more evidently appear (viz. That God loved the Person of Jacob, and hated the Person of Esau, even before they were born, I shall more particularly vindicat Mal. 1.2.3. from his depravations, which follow in his next Objection, and Answer thereto: The first of which is, That this place Mal. 1.2, 3. cited here by the Apostle v. 13. to confirm that which he had said concerning Jacob and Esau in the former verses, is not to be understood of their Persons, but of their Seeds. For then this place of Malachi should be adduced by the Apostle to no purpose, seeing he is here speaking of the Person of jacob and Esau, which to say, is both blasphemous and absurd. Moreover, the Prophet Malachi clearly intimats, That he is speaking of the Persons of jacob and Esau, at least rhat he is not speaking of their Seeds, so as to exclude their Persons, Was not Esau Jacob's brother? which Phrase must be understood in the first place of jacob & Esau themselves▪ and secondly of their Seeds: Neither is the reason of this Arminian of any weight, drawn f●om the words of the 3 verse, And hath laid his Mountain waste, to prove his point, yea, the very contrary follows from the words. Thus I have hated Esau, Therefore, I have laid his Mountain waste, for the Vastation of the Idumean Mountains is mentioned as the effect of divine hatred against the Person of Esau, extending itself in a secondary manner to his Posterity: Even as the love of God to jacob did extend itself to his Posterity, as is clear from Deut. 10.15. with many other places of Scripture. Where it is evident, that the love of God did principally and chiefly terminat upon the person of jacob, and secondary on his Seed and offspring. Furthermore, our exposition is clear from the very words of the Text itself: For the good Condition or Freedom from Devastation, in which then the Jews were, is holden forth by the Prophet, to be an Effect of the Love of God to jacob, extending itself to his posterity, even as the Destruction of the Edomites was an Effect of his hatred of God to Esau. In a word, the good Condition of the Israelites hath the same kind of Relation to the love of God towards jacob, which the Devastation of Edom hath to the hatred of God towards Esau: But that the good Condition of the Children of Israel, was the Effect of the free love of God to Jacob, the Prophet there clearly intimateth, and as we said before, many other places assert; Therefore the Devastation of Edom, was the Effect of the hatred of God to Esau, extending it self to his wicked Posterity: He sayeth moreover, That the cause why God hated Esau's Posterity at that time, is declared in the 4 v. In these words, We are impoverished, but will return etc. In which words, saith he, Their Incorrigible wickedness is declared. Reply, That Edom was an incorrigible wicked people is true, but nothing to his purpose: For in this their Resolution, considered in itself, of which Resolution alone the Prophet speaketh, and in reposing themselves in their own Lands, there can no wickedness be showed. Hence we conclude with Junius, that noble Interpreter of Scripture, on the words, That in this 4 v. is contained a Decument, that God is about to confirm Israel, now brought back from Captivity, to defend the Land, and to magnify himself in all things; but on the other hand, that he was about to deprive the Idumeans, whom he had Reprob●t, of all power to return or rebuild their Common wealth, though they had endeavoured to do it. Add to all this the body of Orthodox writers, both Ancient and Modern, approving our meaning of this place, we shall name two; But as Gylippus was to the Lacaedemonians, they me accounted in stare omnium: The one is Hierom among the Ancients, upon the place, who saith, He doth not only say, I loved Jacob before he was born, but also I hated Esau before he was brought forth; But I also have reserved my love and hatred for their Posterity. The other is Luther, De servo Arbitrio, Cap, 161▪ who says It is not therefore the temerity of the Idumeans which is reproved, but the ingratitude of the Children of Israel, who see not what God bestoweth upon them, and of what he depriveth their Brethren, the Idumites, for no other cause, but because he loved the one, and hated the other. In which place Luther largely demonstrats, that the Prophet here speaks of these things which he did to Israel and Edom, as the Effect of his eternal love and hatred, in opposition to Erasmus, who by special Command of the Pope, did undertake the defence of the Pelagian Doctrine, in his Diatribe de Libero Arbitrio. Add to all these the History of Jacob and Esau, as a good Commentary on both places, now in hand, which declareth that Esau was a profane Person Heb 12.16. and elsewhere, and that Jacob got grace, and so was saved, which is more than a demonstration, that the Lord determined from all Eternity, to save the one, and pass by the other, which is the thing we plead for; That which he says in the fourth place is true, but nothing to his purpose. Seeing the Question is, whether or not the Apostle in this place handleth the matter of Eternal Election and Reprobation: In the fifth place, he taketh the place of the old Libertins, who denied that any godly man ought to be subject to any Magistrate, though never so just, if he want true Grace; by reason of which Doctrines huge Confusions were raised in Germany, as also by Venner, who with his Complices began to raise great Tumults in England, while he minded to make this Doctrine of our Author practicable.  
He goeth on to deprave the 14. and 15. verses; The substance of what he saith, we shall faithfully deliver in so far as he militats against our Confession. Having inferred from these verses by way of an Objection to himself, That it seems there are some to whom God will not show mercy. He answers, That the Apostle preoccupies an Objection, which some might make out of the Continuance of God's Mercy, still to the Children of Israel, but withdrawn from Edom, as before; What shall we say, is there unrighteousness with God? Next that Exod. 33, 19 here cited by the Apostle, speaks not of God's first Grace, which he gives to all alike, but of the second which he continueth to these that walk humbly, and answerably to the first, as Moses had done. To which I reply. 1. That he makes his Objection, pre-occupied by the Apostle, to be no Objection: For from the Lords continuance of his Mercy upon the Humble-walking under it, and his withdrawing the same from Esau, upon the abuse thereof, none could infer with any colour of reason, That there is unrighteousness with God, seeing the abuse of good things deserveth the Depravation thereof: And so according to him, the Apostle was trifling all the while. Again any that runneth not into wilful prejudice, may see that the Apostles objection hath more apparent Strength in the judgement of Humane Reason, by far than our Author maketh it to have; for it is an inference drawn from what the Apostle had said in the former verse, of the absolute rejection of some, while others were Elected, which Doctrine carnal reason, as it doth yet, knew too well how to wrest; And from this Doctrine according to carnal Reason no little absurdity seemed to follow: Wherefore the Apostle appeals from its Tribunal to that of the Scriptures, yea even to such a Text as speaketh of the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature. Yea the most absolute imaginable. Now if the objection had been such an one; as this Arminian professeth it, there had been no necessity of the Apostles betaking himself to this place of Scripture. 2. What he talketh here of his twofold grace, stands and falls with what he said of his twofold Election, which distinction we have already rejected; for this Distinction of Grace in first and second, it is groundless, for it is not in the least insinuated in this Text, viz. Exod: 33: 19 That Moses had gotten in the beginning from God some kind of Grace, which had not the Divine power of God coming along therewith, causing Moses irresistibly, yet sweetly walk in God's Statutes. But leaving him to use well, or abuse the grace gotten. Now he must prove this from the Text, if he would conclude any thing from it; moreover, If Moses speak only of a second grace here, which a first must in Faith and humble walking necessarily preceded, than this Text holds forth the Dominion of God to be no more absolute over his Creatures, than that of a Magistrate towards his well or ill deserving subjects, whom he ought to reward or punish, according to their desert, and not to whom he will only: And so this Text shall destroy itself. Lastly, if the exposition of this universalist were sound, than the Apostles Conclusion, which he gathereth in the next verse should not follow, but rather the quite contrary thereof. For if God give a first grace to all, and that so sufficient, that it lies only in Man's will to come, or not to come unto God, and that Man hath power either to will or nill, at pleasure, either to turn, or not to turn to God: and yet notwithstanding, some come, and some come not, than all that makes the one to differ from the other, is certainly of him that willeth. The Answer of our Antagonist to this 16. verse is rare viz. Tho our Salvation be mere of Mercy, yet Man can both will and run in some sort, as this Scripture imports; because he could have said nothing less to to the purpose: For the Argument which may be framed from this verse, and it is not of him that willeth, Ergo Election, or the purpose of God, (one of which words must of necessity be supplied from verse 11. Otherwise the Apostles words would want a cohesion, and the verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which of necessity must be understood here, shall want a Noun) is not an effect of the will of Man, or of his good works moving God thereunto. Now this Argument is not touched by the answer, as is of itself apparent: He therefore here delivereth up the cause, and endeavoureth to cheat his Reader. 2. This place imports no more a power in all men to will, or run in the way of God's Commandments, than these words in Ezek. 36.22, 32. Not for your sake, and leave in all Men a power to merit at the hand of God. He goeth on to comment upon the 17. and 18. verses. And 1. He desires us, To note that here the Lord doth not say, for this purpose I have created thee, but raised thee up or brought thee upon the Stage. But this is the vainest of evasions, for none but an Atheist can deny, that God from all Eternity did decree to raise up Pharaoh for that same end, for which in time he raised him up: and consequently, that he decreed to create him for the same end, otherwise God failed of his first end, and was forced to betake himself to the next best: Which to affirm is to make God a Man, and so to profess atheism with open face; yea this Doctrine bringeth the wisdom of God below that of a Man, seeing according to it the omniscient God, did create Pharaoh for an end, which he knew he was never to obtain. But 2. That Pharaoh was not only brought on the Stage, but also created to the end, that God might manifest His Power and Justice in His Destruction, is clear from Pro▪ 16.4. Where it is said, that God made, wrought, form, or created, for all these will the word Pagnal bear, all things for Himself, yea even the wicked, the Spirit of God holding forth, that this is a Paradox, unto the day of evil. 2. He says, That Pharaoh was known unto the Lord to be a proud and obstinate Rebel, as is evident, Exod: 8.2. But what he would hence infer is not evident, except that Pharaoh's ill disposed will was unconquerable by the grace and power of the omnipotent God: To repeat which Conclusion is more than to refute it. That which he says in the third place, viz. That God showed Pharaoh the danger of disobedience before he sent his Plagues upon Him: As also his fourth observation, viz. that he makes him of unwilling willing to let his People go, is mere nothing: For himself here on the matter grants, That from Gods Exalting Pharaoh to the Throne of the Kingdom, He was destinat to destruction, and his day of grace gone, otherwise his first note upon this Text is nonsense: Therefore it follows, That all the warnings antecedent to the Plagues are not Declarations of the mind of God to save Pharaoh: And that his causing of him to let the people go, was no infusion of grace in him. His 5. note viz▪ That God did not harden Pharaohs heart, by infusing any hardness into it, but rather used means to soften it, and bend his heart to obedience, we embrace withal our heart, as to the first part; for the second part thereof, it is ambiguous; For if we understand these words of a real design in God to soften the heart of Pharaoh by these means, it is false, seeing God himself declareth, Exod: 4.21. Even before these were used toward Pharaoh, that he had no such intent, but the contrary thereof. He says 6ly. That the Lord destroyed him not, until his heart biased and wilfully revolted from that inclination of letting Israel go, to which the Lord had brought and wrought him: So that the Lords pleasure in hardening, must out of this example be understood of such as are first or last refractory against his grace and gracious requiring Motions. Reply, upon as good a ground he might assert, that Dives in hell had such inclinations and workings of grace, together with power to use them aright, if he had pleased, which if he had improved aright, he might have passed thorough the impenetrable gulf, to the place where Lazarus was. For Dives, Luk. 16.27, 28. Had an inclination and a vehement desire, that his five Brethren might shun the place of torment, in which he was: And surely this inclination and desire was as good in itself as Pharaohs, of letting Israel go; and surely the Motive that prompted Pharaoh to yield to the people's departure, was not a whit better than the motive of this desire in Dives, for both were acted by the fear of punishment: Hence let the Universalists be ashamed of their first grace, seeing it is common to these in Hell as well as to these in the World. 2. If this his Doctrine (viz. that Pharaoh and every Man else had a sufficient Measure of Grace given them, and power to use it well or ill at pleasure, according to the good or ill improvement of which, they might have been saved or damned) be true, and this Arminians exposition of Exod: 9.16. Here cited by the Apostle be to be received, than the Apostles Conclusion verse, 16. is a mere Non sequitur; for according to his exposition, the Lord should not have mercy on whom he will, and harden whom he will, but these only who will, or desire to have Mercy, or to be hardened; seeing this Universalistick Doctrine makes the main and Chief difference, betwixt these that are actually saved, and not saved, to flow from the will of Man, which they say has a power to receive or reject Grace, and so to be mollified, or hardened absolutely, at pleasure; now I say, to say this, and yet to assert that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and hardeneth whom he will, is no less ridiculously contradictory, than if one should say that such a judge had absolute power over such a guilty City, to save alive or put to Death all the Citizens at pleasure, and yet in the mean while that there were such and such Conditions proposed to this City, which they could embrace or respect as they listed, upon the performance of which Conditions, this judge could not, nor might not put to death any, nor save the rejectors thereof.  
He goeth on to comment upon the 9 verse. Why doth he yet find fault? Who hath resisted his will! Thus, it seems then that his will in condemning the wicked is irresistible. Answer, the will of God is manifold. First voluntas Signi, that which he would have done by Men, and that may be resisted or dissobeyed. 2 lie. Voluntas Beneplaciti, that which he is pleased to effect, and that either absolutely, to be done by himself alone, or with others, which cannot be withstood; or conditionally in case the Creature act his part, this Conditional will may also be repugned; So that wicked Men can not excuse themselves by the irresistibility of the first or last mentioned will of God's irrevocable decree, at length passed upon the obstinate and incorrigible sinner, which like his powerful and efficacious will, is inexpugnable: But it is the obdured Man's refractory and inflexible will, that hath now made this will or decree of God so peremptory against him. So that God hath just cause to fault and blame the Man that perisheth, but not è Contra.  
Reply in the framing of his Objection, he should have inferred that it seems that the Will of God, in passing by some, while he from all Eternity elected others to Glory, and of hardening them in time, is irresistible, or unchangeable, for of these two the Apostle here speaks: But let us come to his Answer, in which we may observe, that this distinction of voluntas Beneplaciti, in absolute and conditionat, is a mere fiction, as appeareth even by the Testimony of Arminius himself, who in his Book against Perkins, acknowledgeth that voluntas beneplaciti is without limitation efficacious. But 2dly this Distinction of voluntas Beneplaciti in absolute and conditionat, makes God as changeable as a man; for if the Lord have a real Will and Intention, that such and such things be done by some men, in order to obtaining such and such Privileges, v. g. Eternal Life, than there can be nothing imagined, able to hinder the bringing to pass of this desire, but two things, viz. either the want of Power, or a real Change in the Will of God; but both those are equally absurd: neither let any say here, that this will of God is only conditionat in respect of the ends only, and not of the Means and Conditions thereof: For whosoever willeth any thing, he willeth and desireth all the Means and Conditions, in order to its bringing to pass, and will give a Being to all those Conditions, if it be in his Power, which Power none dare derogat from God. 3dly. This Objection, as this Arminian propones it, is no Objection, for in Substance it is this, If the Lord hath proposed such Conditions, as men can perform and so obtain Salvation, and yet obstinately refuse them, so that at length the Lord after their rejection thereof, decreeth their Eternal Ruin, than he hath no Reason to find fault with Man, but the Blame thereof lieth upon himself. Now I say to propose the Objection thus, is to render the Apostle ridiculous, for there is no more appearance of Reason here, than a Subject should have to grumble and repine, when he is punished by his Prince, for denying Obedience to him, which to have performed was in his Power. 4ly▪ If the Objection had been of no more seeming strength, than this Arminian or Pelagian (for all is one) allegeth it to be, the Apostle had easily found out another Answer, than that which he doth in the following Verses, where he stops the Mouth of the Objecter with the absolute Power of God over the Creature, showing that the Creature hath no more Reason to complain that God decreed, to pass by some, and condemn them for their Iniquity, than the clay of the same lump hath to complain of the Potter's Unjustice, because he did not destinat it for as honourable an use, as another part of the same Mass. In short, if the Objection could be so framed, as that there could be an Answer thereto found out, suiting the Genius of Humane Reason (which is the Scope of our Author here, and all the rest of his Brethren) then there should be an indissolvable, and more than Gordian knot cast to any that were persuaded of the Divinity of the Scriptures, for considering the Apostles Answer in the following Verse, they should have but too much Ground, to suspect most vehemently, that the Apostle was not assisted with the Divine Spirit, who betook himself for Sanctuary to the absolute Power of God, in the case wherein he, or any man else might have sweetly satisfied Reason, and not thus stopped its mouth, by imposing as it were an imperious silence, and left it far less quieted, than they found it; That which he commenteth upon v. 20 is not a whit les● vain than the rest: the Substance of which is, that the Apostle in this v. stops the Mouth of these, who complained, that God created them with Liberty of will, and so with power of falling, to which saith he, it is answered, that this Faculty might be improved to the Salvation of the Creature, as well as to the glory of God's grace.  
To which we Reply, that no such Interpretation can be gathered from the Text, for the Objection proposed in the former v, doth not in the least intent, from the Liberty of Man's Will, to do Good or Evil, to conclude that Man is not guilty, but rather God. But from the Immutability and Irresistibility of God's Will and Decree of passing by and rejecting some, (as he did with Esau) the Objecter endeavoureth to free Man from Gild, and fix it upon God, neither is he a whit happier in taking up of the Apostles Answer; for the Apostle doth not flee to the Liberty of Man's will, that he may draw his Answer hence, but the absolute Dominion of God over the Creature, and that 〈◊〉 an one as he hath, who possesseth wood, Iron, Day, or such Materials, and is wilful to make various Kind's of Instruments, which may serve either for honourable or dishonourable uses; but these Materials that are appointed by the Owner and Artist thereof, cannot be said to be wronged by him, or to have any Ground of Complaint, and that by Reason of the absolute Power, that the Owner and Artist hath over them; even as any of Mankind that from all Eternity are passed by and rejected of God, and destinat to Destruction for Gods own Glory, as it is said Prov. 16.4. have no Reason to complain. Now in this Analogy lies the Strength of the Apostles answer, which who ever denies shall never be able to find the Sense of this Text. Hence it appears (whether ignorantly or maliciously, I know not) that this Arminian hath come short of uptaking either Objection or Answer: But most of all absurd is what he sayeth, in his Commentary (rather depravation) of the 21 v. viz. That as the Potter makes no Vessels of set Purpose to be broken, though he makes some for dishonourable uses: So the Lord makes none of the Sons of men of Purpose to be destroyed, though he makes some Superiors and Inferiors in the Church and Commonwealth; I say this is most of all absurd, for it is as clear as if written with a Sunbeam, that the Apostle is here speaking nothing of high and low Degrees in Church or State, but of these who perish, and these who are saved Eternally; according to this Explication, every one that is in low Degree should be a Vessel of Wrath, fitted for Destruction: Seing none can deny, that this is all one with a Vessel of Dishonour: as also every one that is in high Degree in Church or State should be a Vessel of Mercy, aforetime prepared unto Glory, and one of Gods called Ones, as the Apostle was, (whose calling I think was effectual, and so certainly a Saint) such a mark of Believers and Unbelievers was never heard before.  
To Corroborat what he says on this Verse he gives us his notes on Jer. 18.3, 4, 5. among which one is, that the Lord expostulates with Israel for not suffering him to mould them a new. To which we answer, that it will no more follow from this place, that the Heart of corrupt man is stronger in resisting than the Power of God, and that God cannot make men of unwilling to become willing, which is the meaning of our Adversaries Words, than real ignorance of what was to come, may be concluded to be in God from Isa. 5.4. and 59.16. Other notes he has upon this place, such as, That the Lord forms men a new by Force or Violence, but works with them as free Agents, serving for nothing except to declare this Author's maliciousness; for he here insmuates, that the Reformed Churches judge, that God deals with a sinner in his Conversion, as if he were a Stone or a Bruit, the contrair of which appeareth from their Confessions, and in special in the Confession, which he here impugneth. Ch. 10.1.  
He goeth on to comment upon the 22 verse where he says, That it is not so much as employed, that these Vessels of wrath, spoken of in this verse, by the Apostle, were fitted by the Lord to Destruction. Yea saith he, the contrary is imported, where the Apostle says, That 〈◊〉 endureth them with much long suffering; For if God created them, or designed them of purpose to Destruction, things had succeeded according to his hearts desire.  
In Reply to these Cavils we find no difficulty; for God may be as well said to fit men to Destruction, as he is said to harden some. verse 18. For I think none will deny, but hardening is a fitting to Destruction. 2. I think none dare deny, that even while God was hardening Pharaohs heart, he was exercising his long suffering patience, in permitting him to fulfil his course of sin. Augustin de Civit. Dei Lib. 16. says. God of the same Mass, condemned through Original sin, did as a Potter make one to honour, and another to dishonour: Our Author sayeth moreover, That it is not said, they were created but fitted for Destruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reply, Although our Adversary loves always to pass over the Connection of the verses of this Chapter, as indeed he hath good reason to do, he notwithstanding may permit us to consider it: In which we shall find, that men may be said to be fitted to wrath, even as some part of the lump of clay is fitted by the Potter, for Vessels of Dishonour: But it is appointed for this dishonourable use as soon as it is appointed to be vessels: But so it is, That the Lord so ordereth of men as the Potter of his Clay, as the Apostle here shows. It is clear therefore, That by this word Fitted, must be understood among other things, Appointed or Decreed.  
He goeth on to Comment on the 23 verse, where among some other things, which he hath not to the Purpose that he intendeth, he asserts, That this preparing of the Vessels of Glory, is not attributed to God's Eternal Decree. And in this he is but like himself, who, as we have heard above denyeth on the matter, that there is any Decree of God concerning the Salvation or Damnation of men in particular before death: Although at another time, as we have also heard, he sticketh not to contradict this; But that this preparation is Attributed to the Decree of God, is clear, not only from the Scope of the Apostle, and the Energy of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also from no few other Scriptures, such as Eph. 1. 4, 5, 6, 7.  
A length to shut up this Discourse, Let the Reader Observe with me. 1. That though men bring full Wain-loads of Arguments, in appearance like Goli●h's Sword, from the Armoury of corrupt Reason whereby to overthrow the genuine meaning of this place, they are not to be regarded, neither on this account are we to be moved or shaken, as touching the behalf of this place. For in so far as we are shaken from it through the force of these Reasons, We yield to these great Adversaries of Christ Jesus, the Socinians, that grand Principle of all Orthodox Christians viz. that Reason as well as the rest of the Scriptures Rivals, aught to strike fail, and yield preeminency thereto, as being the entire and ultimat Rule of the Faith and Manner● of a Christian. This I have good reason to note here; For there be many that though they cannot but perceive this Text to be, without the highest violenting and detorting thereof, utterly incapable of any other sense, than what the Reformed, and in especial our Reverend Westminister Assembly, give upon it still, notwithstanding allege, that on the account of their most powerful Reasons to the contrary, This our meaning is not to be received, seek another where we will. 2. That if there be a Doctrine in all the Holy Scriptures, out of the r●●ch of, and far above the Line of Humane Reason, contrary to Corrupt Reason, and in its Estimat repugnant to all Reason (as certainly there is) than no man will deny, but that this Doctrine of Eternal Election, and Reprobation, is one of the chief o● such Doctrines, as having for its Object, that which i● no less Impervestigable than Eternity, no less unfathomable than Immensity, no less Incomprehensible, than he whose very name is Wonderful, and so wonderful that none can know it, even God himself, according to his Eternal actings and workings, 3ly. That this place of Scripture, is one of the chief Seats of the Doctrine of Election and Reprobation: Hence we most rationally infer, that in agitation of this great Controversy; If any Scriptures be brought, which seemingly (for none do it really) speak contrary to this Text, Light is to be brought from this place, for expounding and clearing up the meaning of these seemingly repugnant Scriptures, 〈◊〉 rather, that ê contra, these should be made 〈◊〉 Standard and Guide in exposition of this.  
FINIS.