Rusticus ad Clericum OR, THE PLOUGHMAN REBUKING THE PRIEST, In ANSWER to Verus Patroclus, Wherein, the Falsehoods, Forgeries, Lies, Perversions, and Self-contradictions of WILLIAM 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉  
By JOHN ROBERTSON.  

Vtque d●v●●●●● verum  
Nebulas, Manes & 〈…〉 aucupunt  
Pariuntque Monstra● q●●is nec est pes nec caput  
●eu vacua Magnos a●●●innitus cient:   Prov: 4. 16. For they sleep not except they have done mischief, and their sleep is taken away, except they cause some to fall. 17. For they eat the Bread of Wickedness, and drink the Wine of Violence. 
Printed in the Year 1694.   

Rusticus ad Clericus, OR THE PLOUGHMAN REBUKING THE PRIEST, In Answer to VERUS PATROCLUS, etc.  
FRIEND,  

AS Our Neighbours and Countrymen, who are acquainted with our Principles and Practices, know us to be Lovers of all Mankind, such as seek the Good of All, and the prejudice of none; So we have no such Enemies as the Clergy now Regnant, and some of their  Disciples, whom they have bewitched with fair words, and smooth speeches, to believe all they say without examining, whether it be true or false.  
This Tribe of Lying Levites, have now for many years made use of all the unworthy Methods their Wi● and Malicé could invent, to Blacken, Desame, Slander, and Misrepresent Us; This is no New thing: It is but the Doctrine of Demetrius the Silver Smith; For they w●ll know that if people were taught to believe according to the Scriptures, that GOD would reach his people himself, And that be who knoweth not Christ in him, to teach him, is a Reprobate▪ That they who know him not thus, let in to the Conscience, to parge it from deadworks and to Reign as King, Lord, and Lawgiver, are at best but nominal Christians; Than certainly their 〈◊〉 Trade of Preaching for hire would be at an end, for upholding whereof, all his bustle is made in the World.  
All their clamours concerning the Scriptures, Christ, Trinity, (so called) original sin, etc. Are but mere pretences: For let an Angel from Heaven teach any thing contrary to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, though never so consonant to the Holy Scriptures, he must expect ●● better acceptance from these Men, then to be branded: with the odious name of Heretic, as if they alone had becti commissionate to sect bounds to the Faith of all Mankind.  
My Reader must not expect from me a long and Rhetorical Introduction, who have been more accustomed to use Plough then the Pen, for nigh Thirty Years together, I was 〈…〉 and but 〈◊〉 in the City; And therefore if I treat m●●● Adversary with any lets decor●●●, than he may suppose to be due to a man of his Robe: I hope my Rustic Education will excuse me, and the rather because I have little or no knowledge of him, but what I gather from his Book, which at first view gave me no good Character of him, by his falsing soul upon the Bishop of Andrews. Certainly no generous man will strick a fallen Foe: And although he would 〈◊〉 that he did not complain for stopping his book, yet is evident that he exposeth the Bishop and his Brethren to the Fate of his Predecestor, if the Rabble would but take the Alarm, The next thing I learn of him, is, that he is a Presbyterian Preacher, 〈…〉 his seeking a Licence from the 〈◊〉 of Andrews, be no great sign ●● his Zeal, and seems to intimate, that if the Prelate should get a new Throw for the Chair, our Author might be brought to cry peccavi Pater, etc.) If information hold, and if such, then consequently a sworn Enemy to all Mankind, except those of his own Fraternity, by the Solemn League and Covenant; Yea, his being a Clergy man is dangerous, For (as Machiavelli tells us) they have been now for more than a thousand years forming and setting up an interest, distinct and separate from all the rest of Mankind. And when the Popish Clergy were justly extruded because of their Cruelty and Insolency: Lo, here we have their Successors no less insolent, ctnel, and covetous, if they had but power; And this was foretold by the same Machiavelli in his Letter to Zenob, page 28. who faith thus, But this I will prophesy, before I conclude, That if Princes shall perform this business by halves, and leave any root of this Clergy, or Priest craft, as it is now in the ground. Or if that Famous Reformer fled some years since out of Piccardie to Geneva, who is of so great Renown for Learning and Parts, and who promises us so perfect a Reformation, shall not in his model wholly extirpare this sort of Men: Then I say, I must foretell, That as well the Magistrate as this Workman, will find themselves deceived in their Expectations, And that the least Fibra of this plant will overrun again the whole Vineyard of the LORD, and turn to a diffusive Papacy in every Diocie, perhaps in every Parish, etc. Whether we have seen this prophecy fulfilled by the Disciples of the same Reformer Calvine, let the  Reader judge.  
The next thing in his praeludium (all his work being like a Stage, play,) is, That albeit this Knight Errand, with his Achillean Armour, and Titanian Boldness, (words borrowed from himself, from the Blind Poet) hath bid Defvance to all that profess christianity, And hath concluded them all (except his own way) Heretics. Yet in opposition to the Quakers, he calleth in for Auxihary Forces, a Prelatic Preacher, and an Independent, and chief an Anabaptist, (whom in his book he calls wicked and abominable,) as the Pharises joined with the Sudducees, Herodians and Romans to crucify CHRIST. As for the Prelatic Clergy, he saith, it is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianism: And in his Frontispecce, he hath told you their Fate, that is, They are to be rejected. But what more? Is then no Civil Sanction follows upon Presbyterian Excommunication▪ If it 〈◊〉 the S●ing it will be nothing regarded, ●●t of old it was not so▪ For the first step 〈…〉 ●urse▪ th●● 〈…〉 pr●scribe▪ And ●● brought in alive, th●● there was in sto●e prison's▪ 〈◊〉 B●●●shments, Axes, and Halters for Heretics▪ And our 〈◊〉 is so 〈◊〉▪ delighted in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it seems he covets the office▪ but Blessed be the LORD, the Civil Magistrates are now become ●●e● than to be the Clergies 〈◊〉; And their ●o●g experience of the HONEST and PEACEABLE PRINCIPLES of the QUAKERS, hath confirmed the Magistrate in a ●etter Opinion of Them▪  
As ●● the 〈◊〉 of his Adulatory Epistle to his Patron, I shall only say, that he hath rather 〈◊〉 the● obliged his Patron, by espousing him to such a Cast-M●●●ress, as is the Controversy against the Quakers, which never Man yet under●ook but ca●e off with Disgrace. After he hath sufficiently (and a little more than become a Protestant) rated the Episcopal Party▪) he fa●●● to the 〈◊〉 of his Dedication; About the end whereof, he hath these words, Go on therefore my Lord, espousing the Cause of the true Protestant Interest, in opposition to Popery, and whatsoever hath attendancy thereunto: By this tendency he certainly intends not so much the Quakers, as the Episcopal Church, which may be seen in the 15th. page of his Dedication. But he must give me leave to tell him, that the Episcopal Church of England hath done, and suffered more for the Protestant Interest than all the Presbyterians in the World; And the three hundreth Lives laid down in the days of Queen Mary, were of more service to the Protestant interest, than an hundred Thousand▪ ●ost by the Solemn League and Covenant. And yet both Prelatic and Presbyterian Churches departed from the Protestant Principles, in that they have first set up to themselves an absolute Authority in matter of Faith and Worship. 2ly, That they have not contented themselves with Excommunication, but have persecuted such as could not comply. And 3ly, By this persecution thy have rendered themselves guilty of all the Apostacle, Hypocrisy, and Dissimulation of such have as complied out of mere fear: which three things, as none of the least causes of separation have been charged upon the Church of Rome: And frequently casts in her teeth by all Protestants: Yet hath the Ruling Clergy of every Protestant Church followed her footsteps, how soon they got Power: For this see a paper called the third part of Naked truth, Printed 1681. I need not here mention the many troubles, Wars, Devastations and Miseries brought upon Europe by the Romish Clergy these 1000 years bypast: But to come nearer home, and in our own Age; Have we not seen the execrable Murder of One King, the banishment of Another, the loss of an Hundred Thousand Lives, and infinite Treasure, the ruin of our Native Country, not yet recovered; And all this to satisfy Ambition, and avance of a contentious Clergle: Yea, and such contention as amounted to no more than, whither the Precess of their Assembly should be constant or movable; And whither he should be called Moderator or Bishop, which King Charles the first calls the Skirts or Suburbs of Religion. And yet alace! Men have so mancipated their Judgements to the dictates of the Clergy, they own that there is great cause to fear a Relapse.  
I shall earnestly desire my Countrymen to consider what brought us to the present condition we are in, but the artifices of the Clergy? The Popish Clergy having got a King of their own Religion, have incessantly cried on him, that the Churches, Colleges, Rents, Revenues, Tithes, and Benefices, were of right theîrs: And that it was Sacrilege to keep them out of Possession. The Episcopal Clergy had the Reformation to plead, the sad sufferings of their predecessors, and the Law of the Nation, their own piety, and Moderation (as they pretended) But the Presbyterians think they have been but lately put from it by the Prelates, they had gained it by the Sword, and that Major Vis is a good Right; and they have been still attempting it since the year 1666: And clamouring that the Nation is under a Solemn Oath by the Covenant to extirpate all others, and establish them: So that we are brought into this present confusion, only to satisfy the ambition and avarice of the Clergy; The Honour and the wealth is the Bone of contention, settled Revenues, Tithes, and forced Mantainance: and while the Civil Magistrates patronizeth any one of the three in Possession of those; We need expect no quiet, but take away the Bone and the Dogs will cease.  
Having done with his Dedication, I must tell thee then shall expect none from ●he; Being—  
Nullius addictus Jurare in 〈◊〉 Magistri.  
But I must look back to his Frontispiece, where he gins will Verus Patroclus.  
What he intends by this, We must consider, Either he intends the Quakers, his own Book, or himself.  
If he intends is the Quakers, he is greatly mistaken, For (if we may believe Tradition) Patrocius was a soldier at the siege of Troy, and borrowed Achilles' Atmour, to fight against Hector, by whom he was killed. Now the Quakers are so far from borrowing Carnal Weapons, That they have beat their own swords into plough shears, etc. and resolve to learn War no more.  
If he intent his own Book, he hath yet erred, lot we read, that Patroclus was à very man like one of us, and had tongue and teeth as well as our Author.  
But if he intends himself, I wonder how he calls himself, the True patroclus, But it seems that by reading Virgil's o'th'. Eclugue, he hath d●●●med that Plato's great year was come, Atque lterum ad Trojan Magnus mittetur Achilles; And that he is the very patrochus, so being assured of his Fate, he attacks the whole Christian World with great confidence. If therefore I some times call him patroolus, some times our Author, and some times mine Adversary, I hope my Reader will understand me.  
He gins his preface to the Reader with a jealousy about the acceptance of his Book (not without cause) He had told us before in his Dedication that it could not be judged altogether superstuous, Because of the Hemlock of pelagianism, wherewith the Bulk of the Prelatic Clergy is infected: Yet fears after all this it may be called an Iliad after Homer, etc. And therefore that his Baby may not be neglected, he tells the causes of its production over again, and though he told us it was designed for his Patron as a Testimony of his gratitude for his education: Yet here it comes to be a Public concern, and he gives us three Fathers who have beget this Monstrous Birth upon one Mother, his Brain, Viz. The danger of this deadly disease The prximoity of it, and the readiness of its possions to broach Books.  
It seems he means Truth to be this dangerous disease, but it is so to none but such pedantic Chaplains as he who gets their Bread by lies; Not is it dangerous to any but the Clergy, because its followers decry their Tyths, their Belly, their God. As for its proximity, I know no sober man but likes their Neighbourhood, even the moderate among the Episcopal Teachers. And as to their Broaching of Books: This is great impudence who was troubling him? Hath he seen any controversy written by the Quakers since the Year 1679. And now when the LORD had moved the hearts of the Civil Magistrates to give them a little respite from their sad sufferings; Beholld this Gladiator attacks them (and by all the lies, Forgeries, and false Accusations that he can invent to defame) provokes them again to enter the Lists in the defence of that Blessed Testimony, which will for ever stand over him, & all such forgers.  
And how unwilling we have been to broach Books, may appear by our long delay to answer this Babble: Yea, had not some of their Preachers at Aberdeen, and in the West, vainly boasted that it was unanswerable: We had not yet thought it worthy to be noticed.  
The next thing that occurs, is that he accuses the Nation of negligence, for not comparing the Doctrine of the Quakers with the Scriptures. Oh! That he or any else could awaken them to that diligence, and that they would put on that Nobility commended in the Bereans, and come to an impartial search, not as Patroclus, Faldo, and Hicks, represent them, but as they are indeed, But Reader, he intends nothing less: For after all thy pains, except thou will implicitly allow his Character of the Quakers, and take his sense of the Quakers, he will be sure to Stigmatise thee for a Heretic. All their clamouring the Scriptures, the Scriptures is but a mere Jugle, it's their own Gloss they intent. Interpres loquitur Litera Sacra silet. A little after he tells us, ignoti nulld cupido, very true, for if the principles of the despised Quakers were but well known, Patroclus Book would be hissed out of Doors: And therefore in the end of this Epistle, he saith, touch not, taste not, handle not the unclean thing; strange Doctrine! try, and try not; I have told you what they are, stop your ears and run upon them.  
The rest of his Epistle (being all satire, composed of Railing Lies, Forgeries, and false insinuations, I omit; he bringing me no better proof for them then his own confident assertion, or rather impudent calumny in these words: in a word, I say, That as the Doctrine of the Quakers is a heap of none such Blasphemies, ●o their defences are mere subterfuges.  
Very well Patroclus, this is borrowed Armour indeed, and that from the 〈◊〉 in Cathedra, I say, ergo, verum est: Take his word Reader, and his book is superfluous; This is no humble confidence, as he elsewhere words it: But if 〈◊〉 was puzelled to distinguish 〈◊〉 a Pope and Presbyters in Hell, he would not have been cleared of his doubts by reading this passage.  
And now to his Book,   

CHAPTER FIRST, Of the Holy SCRIPTURES,  
HE gins with a citation of Scripture, A good Name is better than precious Ointment, the more shame for Patroclus, who hath laboured to rob the Quakers of it, by all the black-mouthed detractions he could invent to defame them.  
His first charge is, That the quakers deny that the Seriptures are or aught to be called the Word of GOD.  
Answer, This appears to me but a mere Logomathia in Patroclus; For that the word Logos is diversely translated in Scripture we confess; As Preaching, 1 Cor; 1. 18. Utterance. 1 Cor: 1. 5. Speech Cor: 4. 6. And divers otherways. Now that the Scriptures in such senses may be called Logos; That is, the speech, discourse, o● words of the Logos, or Word of GOD, which he spoke to the Pattiarches, Prophets, and Apostles, and by them recorded for the benefit of the Church, we willingly grant: But the Word of GOD being a Name so peculiatly atoributed to CHRIST JESUS, who being a Jealous GOD, will not give his Glory to another; Out of mere tenderness of Conscience we can singly from the bottom of our hearts say, and not in the least from any difesteem of disparagement of the Scriptures (which are our delight to meditate in, and peruse often) do we scruple to give them that Escential Tittle or Name of Christ, it being so solemnly and frequently by the Scriptures themselves attributed to the Son of God. As in that remarkable place. John 1. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and the Word was mads Flesh (which can no ways be said of the Scriptures.) And there be▪ Three that bear Record in Heaven, The Father, The Word, and the Spirit. And his Name is called the Word of God  
Now len any sober  Christian People judge, whether we deserve all these black Epithets this Author loads us with, merely for being tender of Attributing the Sacred Name of the Creator, to a Creature,  
But he bringeth a bundle of Citations to as little purpose as the Westminster Confession uses to do in such case, As R. B. hath remarked in the end of his Confession of Faith. The Impertinency of which Citations may be clearly apparent by inserting the Word Soripture in place of the Word of the Lord. As Numbers 3. 16. And Moses numbredthem, according to the Word of the Lord: Patroclus sense is, and Moses numbered them according to the Scriptures, whereas yet there was none extant: Second is, Duter: 5. and 5. I stood between the Lord and you at that time to show you the Word of the Lord, Now how impertinent would it beto say, That Moses had the Bible in his hand to show the Israelites.  
Among all the test of his Citations he lays most hold on Hosea 1, and 2. The Beginning of the) Word of the LORD by Hosea. This sayeth he is a Denying of the Eternity of the Son of God; But how grossly he erreth here may be seen above by divers Accoptations we grant of the Word; As in Psalm 19, 2, The same Word signifieth Speech. Now to take this Word for the Scripture would be a gross lie; For it was not the Beginning of the Scripture much having been written before And therefore the true meaning of this place to all single heatted ones 〈◊〉 clearly the time when Christ, the Word of the Lord began to speak to Hosea, Or as the Latin hath it, Prinoipiam loquendi Domini in Hosea.  
There are no more of his citations that seem to have any weight but that of Mark 7. 18. compared with verse 10. I shall begin at the 9 And he said unto them, full well ye reject the Commandment of GOD, that ye may keep your own Traditions. Verse 10. For Moses said Honour thy Father and thy Mother, etc. Verse 13. Making the Word of GOD of none effect.  
Now that this Word mentioned by the Evangelist was one of the Ten Words spoken on Mount Sinai, we do not deny, And that every Commandment Precept, Promise, or Threatening in the Scripture, is a Word of God, we fully acknowledge: And so all he can make of this is; That the fifth Commandment here meaned is one of the 〈◊〉 Words that came from Christ the Word the Eternal Son of God.  
And whereas he quibles upon the word Per eminentiam, or by way of Eminency: This fifth Commandment before mentioned shall furnish us an Example. The King of Scotland is an Epichet predicated of the chief Magistrate: Now I ask him, if this Epithet can be predicated per emmentiam of any other Man, Book, or thing in the Nation without Treason? And see if his Properly and Improperly will serve him here. The very Committee of Estates, although it exercised the Regal Power in the Late Rebellion did not usurp the Title of King, though they were a little too familiar with his Authority and Person. But I hope hereafter Patroclus will be a little more tender of the Titles of the King of Kings. Having granted the Contraversy in Terminis.  
For in page 3▪ He granteth that Christ is the essential and Substantial Word of God, The principal Dictator of the Mind of God. And that the Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables The first he calls improper, the second proper: But how pertinently the Reader may consider: If that which is Escential and Substantial to a thing be not proper to it, he may tell us with the next, what is more proper than the Essence or Substance of a thing is. Henceforth according to him, we must call the Beams or Rays coming from the Son, properly the Sun; But the Sun himself from whence they all come must be improperly so called.  
And now to show, That this is a mere strife about words, I shall sum up this contraverfie thus, R: B: saith, Christ is the Word of GOD: Patroclus saith, Christ is the Essential and Substantial Word of GOD: R: B: saith, The Scriptures are a True and Faithful Declaration of the Mind and Will of GOD, revealed by the Word of GOD to his Servants: Patroclus saith, Christ is the Principal Declarer of the Mind of GOD. R: B: saith, The Scriptures are the Words of GOD. Patroclus saith, The Scriptures are a discourse composed of Letters and Syllables.  
Now let the Reader judge where the Contraversy lies.  
Page 4. About the end, He saith (after some some scurrilous Language) That the Quakers deny, The Title of Gospel to the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, And then falls to hard words again, saying The defence of this wicked and bold Contradiction of the Scriptures, William Peh undertakes in his Rejoinder to John Faldo page 117. Where observe first, That he asserteth it a Contradiction of Scripture; When he hath brought no Scripture seeming to contradict what is said. But Mark 1. 1, Which shall be considered in its place. Observe 2dly, That to oppose Truth; The Presbyterians and Independants can join issue. (like Herod and Pontius Pilate) Notstanding all the Clamonis we have heard in Aberdeen about the Text; Holiness becomes Thy House, O LORD,  
To prove this assertion, William Penn produceth Scripture Reason, and the Authority of Ancient and Modern Writters. First, The Gospel is the Power of GOD to Salvation: To which he answereth, That the Scriptures may as well be called the P●wer of GOD to Salvation, as the Gospel. Here he hath granted the Scriptures to be one thing, and the Gospel another, and must come to his Diversity of Acceptations properly and improperly, again for he hath done with it.  
He says page 5th. It was the same Doctrine which the Apostles preached and committed to Writing, Who denies this, or what saith it for him, more than Luke 1. 1. A Declaration of these things which are most firmly believed amongst us: And this no Quaker ever denied. But Secondly, He tells us, that by Power of GOD to Salvation can be understood no other thing but the mean Organ or Instrument whereby GOD exerteth or put, teth forth his Power to the saving of Sinners; And again in page 6. He saith the Power of GOD, That is GOD Himself; See the Man's confusion and self contradiction.  
In the next place William Penn gives him another Scripture, Rev: 14. 6. Which is nothing to Patroolus, except it suit with his mind; For after a few Quibles, he saith the Doctrine contained in these Books is the same with, and therefore no less everlasting than the Gospel proclaimed by the Angel: This William Penn granteth, That they are a Declaratior Narrative of the Gospel, and, that the thing they declare of is the Gospel.  
Page 5th About the end, He citys William Penn saying, The Gospel is Glad● Tidings; But Matthew, Mark, &c: are but Narratives, etc. and not Glad tidings: Which last Words he hath added like his Brethrens, Hicks and Faldo. And in page. 6th. He saith, They are divers Narratives of the same Doctrine, and all which Books contain the Glad tidings, &c: Yet after all this, he falls a failing, Therefore I shall set down William Penn's Words, That the Reader may Judge how he is dealt with.  
William Penns rejoinder page 118 Which is further proven by the signification of the Word GOSPEL, To wit, Glade, which are to be understood of the coming of Him that was the Saviour of the World; Of whose blessed Appearance and wonderful Transactions, the Scriptures are but Narratives: Besides one of their Authors (Luke) expressly calls them a Declaration consequently not the Gospel thereby declared of; Which Definition Peter Martyr that superintendent Reformer in England, chooseth of all others, part. 1. cap: 6. of his common places. Tertulian calls the Scriptures, Instrumenta Doctrinoe, That is Instruments of Doctrine; And the New Testament Writings, Fuangelicum Instrumenium: And Matthew he calls a Faithful Commentator of the Gospel: chrysostom being required to swear upon the Gospel, both denied those Histories to be the Gospel and to swear as all, etc. Now let the Witness of GOD in the Conscience of the Reader, compare this with the 6th. page of Patroclus and Judge whether his contempt, railing and reproach, hath been hereby deserved, I shall only say, The LORD forgive him.  
To conclude this Matter, he brings one Scripture, Mark 1. 1. After he hath asserted a great untruth; and then raised violently upon it, To wit, That William Penn denyeth that the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, contain Glade tidings; Whereas William Penn hath three times over called them Narratives, or Declarations of the Gospel, or Glade tidings This is great Impudence but common to Men of his Coat.  
Then from the Scripture before cited, he bringeth forth a Dilemma, which is easily answered by a Dilemma, which is easily answered by a distinction betwixt the History and the Mystery of the Gospel, which he might have considered before he had given us all this Trash▪ But to let him see what follows upon his Sense of these scriptures he abuseth, I will adventure (for once) to sylogize thus.  
The Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the Gospel.  
But the Gospel is the Power of God, etc. Ergo, The Books aforesaid, Are the Power of GOD, etc.  
And again.  
The Books before mentioned are the Power of GOD.  
But the Power of GOD, is GOD, Himself or  
Ergo, The Books before mentioned are GOD Himself.  
I have here inserted nothing but what he hath asserted in terminis, in his 4, 5, 6. pages, where mark that he calls it abominable Swo●k-●●ieldianism to understand, Rom: ●. ●6, any other ways then of the Books before mentioned.  
Page 6th. About the end, he gins with a kind of Scolding Oratory, to defame the Quakers, Saying, They cloth the Scriptures with base Epithers and contemptible Aspersions, as the Heathens did  the Christians with Beasts skins, that the Lions and other wild Beasts might the more readily destroy them: All this yet 〈◊〉 Man not minding the Words of our Saviour to his Predecessors the Pharisees (who were no less Exaleers of the Scriptures than he or his Brethren) Matth: 23. 29. For in cruelty ye are nothing inferior to them.  
〈◊〉 let us see what he hath for this matter, first, the Quakers call the Scriptures the letter.  
Answer, so doth the Scriptures themselves, in distinction from the Spirit, As 2 〈◊〉 3. 6. Except Patroclus intent to turn Socinian, who understood this place on Scriptures to be meant of the Gospel; or Scriptures of the New Testament, as may be seen in the Cracovian Catechism Page, 162, 163. Asserting the Holy Spirit to be the Ipsum Evangelium and at best to be but a certain hope of Eternal life promised to us.  
Secondly, (they call the Scriptures Writings, Is not this plain Soots for Scriptura Or what difference is there betwixt Scriptures and Writings? It seems the fault is that the word is not a little Latinized; But every Quaker is not so good a Linguist as Patroclus.  
His third charge is, that the Quakers call them them a letter, about the meaning, whereof nor two are agreed.  
Now Patroclus, I pray thee, for once deal ingenuously with me, and ommiting many other instances, answer only these two; First, if the Scriptures be so plain and obvious to every well disposed intellect (as your party word it) how came the whole Ministry of Scotland to differ so fa●r in the year 16●0, about so easle a case, as whether it was Lawful for the Mallignats to fight for their Native Country against a Foreign Enemy.  
And secondly, It is well known, that about the year 1661., & after divers Presbyterian Ministers were suspended from the exercise of their Ministry, who notwithstanding did not submit, but continued preaching, and gathered to themselves congregations in the desert to the great disturbance of the Nation. On the other hand in the year 1689, several hundreds of the Episcopal Ministers have been suspended, and their Flocks left destitute; Yet all of them have submitted and are silent. Now seeing both parries acknowledge the same Scripture: Tellme I pray thee whether they be agreed about the meaning, and bring me plain Scripture to decide these two contraversies, ●t eris mihi Magnus Apollo.  
After this in Page 7, he falls upon citations, where he promiscuously, and at all adventures, citys Hicks and F●l●●, upon whose Bankrupt Faith he lays no small stress. I always doubted Patroclus to be no sound Presbyterian: For sure they who could not allow Malignants to fight for their Native Country, would never allows Sectaries to contend for the Faith, which certainly is more Precious than all outward things: But especially they being men who by their open forgeries and falsehoods have forefeited their Credit with all Honest Men:  
I shall be at the pains with one or two of them, though they desorve no notice.  
In Page 8, he cites one N: L: Cited by Hicks and saith, he evinced by him against Pen, That if the Bible were burnt, as good an one might be writ, these words Hicks saith, were spoken by N: L: To one he knows very w●ll, upon publishing this in his Book; N: L: gives forth a Testimony under his hand, dated London 29th. 3d. Month 1673, denying he ever spoke such words, or any thing like them, calling it an abominable lie, & wicked slander, and appeals to GOD to clear his ● 〈◊〉: But after some search, Nicholas is sent to one Henry Stout to prove the matter, who at last gave his Testimony in write under his hand; thus,  
I Henry Stout of Hartford, never in all my days heard Nicholas Lucas speak the words (nor any of the like importance or tendency as) charged on him, be Thomas▪ Hicks nor before any man else that I can call to mind▪ But am satisfied in my conscience, that he hath most grossly wronged N: L: To which I subscribe.  
H: Stout.  
So now let the Reader judge what seared Consciences, and Brazen faces these men have, or our Patroclus to cite such a base and false calumny.  
The second Citation, is that of William Penns rejoinder, Page 70, 73. We have good reason to deny them to be the rule of Faith and Judge of contraversy, which can neither give nor govern Faith, nor Judge of Contraversies. If he added the rest, I should have left it to the Reader to Judge without more; And therefore I shall only add these following words as they lie▪ Viz. As the many different persuasions in the World fully prove: For then all that have the Scriptures would be of one persuasion, as it is most certain those are who have, & walk by the one Spirit. Let the Word be joined and then Judge. The other part of his Citation is Page 73, thus in short, the Scriptures are not the Rule, but a declaration of Faith and knowledge; Here he stops: But I entreat the Reader before he trust these men to be at the pains to read the Book Cited by him: There he shall see whither William Penn and his friends deserves to be called disparragers of the Scriptures, and that it looks more like malice and interest that acts these men than the love of Truth.  
The rest of his Citations, at least many of them, I never saw nor read, but in such books as his.  
Page 9 About the end, he falls upon a long Citation of William Penns rejoinder, concerning the Canon; The Authority of those who gathered it, the Transcribers and their dissensions, the exactness of the copies, And lastly that some learned men of our times tell us of little less than 3000 several readings in the Scriptures of the N●w Testament in Greek. Answer, Can he say William Penn hath lied in what he hath Written? If he do, I will produce him Protestant Authors who confess no less; But if he had added the rest of William Penns words he had done more honestly, but not so much to his purpose, and therefore I will do him the kindness to set down a few of them.  
Farr be it from me (saith William Penn) to Write this in any the least undervalue of that Holy Record: It's only to show the weak foundation my Adversaries foundation stands upon. I believe great and Good Things of them, and that from no less evidence than the Eternal Word that gave them forth; Which hath often times given my Soul a deep Savour of these blessed Truths it declares of, &c: And after many such expressions he concludes We accept them as the Words of GOD Himself; And by the assistance of his Spirit, they are read with great Instruction and Comfort, I esteem them the best of Writings, and desire nothing more frequently than that I may lead the Life they exhort to.  
Thus William Penn, Whereby the Reader may perceive the malice and disingenuity of Patroclus in concealling the Words which would have vindicated him from that soul charge of vilifying the Scriptures. And I desire the Reader will only compare Patroclus and his Party with the Pharase●s, who while they extolled the Scriptures were found the murderers and persecuters of CHRIST and his Apostles.  
Having thus dissingenuously dealt with William Penn, he fails upon R. B. in these words: On the other hand of this Ethnic Army, R. B. Assaulteth the intrinsic Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures, Citing his Apology, Chap: 2. That they do not think that the Authority of the Scriptures doth depend on any Efficacy or Virtue in these Writings, &c: And so runs on for a whole page in tragical Exclamations.  
To all which I shall only return the words of Calvine, instit. cap. 1. Numb: 24. Quare, si Conscientiis optime consultum volumus, ne instabili dubitatione perpetuo vacillent altius petenda, quam ab humanis, vel rationibus, vel judiciis, vel conjecturis scripture Authoritas: Nempe ab Interiori spiritus sancti Testification: Etsi enim Reverentiam su● sibi ultro Majestate conciliat, tunc tamen demum serio nos afficit cum per Spiritum obsignata est cordibus nostris. And a little after, Talis ergo est persuasio quae rationes non requirat talis denique sensus qui nisi ex caelesti Revelatione nasci nequeat. Non aliud loqu● quam quod apud se experitur fidelium unusquisque. Thus Calvine. In English thus,  
Wherefore, if we would take the best course to provide for the peace or clearness of our own Consciences, that they may not perpetually fluctuate with an unstable uncertainty, the Authority of the Scripture is to be deduced higher, then either from Humane Reasons, Judgements, or Conjectures: viz. From the Inward-witnes▪ bearing of the Holy Spirit: For albeit its own Native Majesty doth gain to it a peculiar Reverence, yet then doth it seriously affect us, when it is sealed upon our hearts. And a little after, Such than is that Persuasion which requires not Reasons, and such; that Perception which cannot be bred but of a Revelation from Heaven. I do not speak any other thing, than what every one of the Faithful finds experimentally true in himself.  
And now let the Reader judge whether R: B: hath said any more than Calvine hath said: That every one of the Faithful experienceth in himself; Yet what is sound Doctrine in Calvine must be Heathnism in R: B:  
And whereas he saith, shall the writings of Livy, Virgil, and Cicere carry such evidences that they were theirs, so that a Humanist may distinguish, etc. Shall then GOD Himself be outstriped and overcome by these Writers!  
Answer, Albeit we neither deny the Majesty of Style, Harmony of parts, or any other Divine Characters in the scriptures, which may declare their Author: Yet we confidently affirm that the forelaid writings of Livy, Virgil, and Cicero, which are the things of a man can only be known by the spirit of a man, and not of a beast; So we say, the scriptures being the things of GOD, can only and alone be known by the Spirit of GOD, as saith the Apostle in so many words.  
But he proceeds, and citeth the word, (as he allegeth) of Benjamin Furley, and for his Author gives Hicks the Forger; And then he falls a glorying as if he had done his business fully, saying, by this time I have abundantly justified my charge. Soft Patroclus, till thou put off thine Armour. An: I cannot but wonder with what confidence, or rather impudence this man and his brother Brown can cite these books of Faldo, Hicks, etc. Which have been so fully & manifestly convicted of falsehood, forgery, and perversion, that their Authors are become detasteable to all honest and unbyasled men, and whom our present adversary accounteth Heretics: And what a case must the Quakers be in, if such Janissaries in Religion, who have been known to undertake the contraversy for hire, and have been found to be men of no integrity; I say, if such men their sworn Enemies shall be held sufficient witnesses against them? If I should produce the Papists Testimonies against Luther and Beza, what would Protestants say? And albeit R: B: chargeth Brown with it as a callumniator, yet our Author hath not brought the least proof to mend the matter, nor the Citation of any book but his beloved Baptist Mr. Hicks (as he calls him.) And whereas he saith they have Cited book and page for their other Citations, so did Patroclus cite William Penns rejoinder, when he accused him for saying the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not contain glad tidings, so the Proverb is verified in all of them. A Priest, a Liar, no news; And so till he prove these to have been the words of Benjamine Furley I have done with him.  
And here I must tell Patroelus I have seen Brown's book which was lent by an old and learned Minister, so called of the National Church, with the Caveat. I would not, said he, lend you this Book, but that I know ye would get it from some other: For if all the copies were in my hands, they should never be more seen. I acknowledge they are a scandle to our Profession, and the author a stain to his function; But, (said he,) do not think we allow them. And the truth is, except Polwart and Montgomeries flyting, I never r●ad its fellow.  
But to return to what R: B: answereth in the matter of Benjamin Furley, he hath set it down at large, and spends a deal of labour upon it. He begins with R: B: his dilemma, to which he answereth: Seeing R: B: insinuateth, that there are an subjective Revelations and, elsewhere clearly denyeth that there are any, therefore his dilemma is impertinent, etc. Now let the Reader judge what cander we can expect from this man who hath out done both Hieks and Faldo, they cired book and page, yet were found Forgers; He citys nothing, yet would be trusted, let him mend this fault with the next before he produce his argumentum ad hominem, and his absurd and malicious consequence upon it: Which is, that according to the Quakers, men are not obliged to abstain from Murder, without such an immediate objective Revelation as Moses and the Prophets had.  
Answer, This is very dissingenuous, did ever any Quakers pretend to give a new Law to the World, and confirm it by miracles, as did Moses? Or did they ever teach, That the Foretelling of things to come (as did the Prophets) was necessary to Salvation? The Quakers pretend to no new Revelations of new things, but to a new Revelation of the good old things, as shall be seen more hereafter; And for such stuff it may take with Patroclus Hearers, but every Man of Sense will deteast such dealing.  
His second Answer to this Dilemma, is yet no better; For saith he, Tho the Illumination of the Spirit be of abjolute necessity, for such a knowledge of the Scriptures whereby we may know GOD revealed in them, and have true Love and Faith, and Fear, etc. Yet he that shall deny that any Reader of the Scriptures, though endued with sound reason only, can distinguish betwixt Commands given to a particular people for a certain time; and these that hind at all times; must have abandoned the exercise of Reason. This the Sum of what he saith.  
Answer first, What he meaneth by the Word (Only) I see not, Except he think Reason can do something more, But what this is he hath not been so honest as to tell us: He hath said before, that the Illumination of the Spirit is absolutely necessary to such a knowledge of the Scriptures, as i● useful to beget Faith, Love, and Fear of of GOD. etc. But he would teach us another Knowledge which reason cannot produce. But if he will allow me the first, I shall allow him the last to get his Living by. Only I must tell the Reader, that in this he outdoes the Socinian who in his Catechism aforesaid. Cap 3. quest: 3. Laid the blame of the Differences about the sense of the Scriptures on their not imploting the Gift of the Holy Spirit which GOD hath promised to those that call upon Him. And lastly, I wonder to see a pretended Presbyterian cite the Examples of the third and fifth Commandments, Of which two precepts they have been such notorious Transgressor's.  
His third Answer is as unhappy as the rest, For he laboureth to ca●se R. B. to contradict B. F. While he hath neither cleared his Brethren Hicks and Brown from being reputed Calumniators: Nor hath attempted any way to prove these to have been the Words of B. F. But thinks the World is bound to believe him, because he saith it, Where I leave him to rave till he bring better proof.  
He tells us Fourthly, That it is impertinent to say that without the Operation of the spirit, men cannot obey the Good of their own Souls, And is saith he, falcem pro ligone dare. Answer, It seems the Man intends an Obedience which is not for the good of men's own Souls; And what this can be, except it be either superstition or supererogation I am to learn. As for his Proverb; I fear if the Men of his Robe did not get the Sickle before the Spade, That is did not eat the Fruit before they planted a Vineyard, we should see many of them with Lean cheeks, and Lank sides. But as he hath told us before of two kinds of Knowledge, one from the Spirit, another from Reason. So he tells here of two kinds of Duties, one profitable for the Soul, but the other he hath not told us for what, and such are many of his Duties like to be.  
In the fifth place he chargeth B. F. with Blasphemy, for saying that it is (as he allegeth) the greatest Error in the World that ever was invented, and the ground of all error to affirm, that the Seriptures ought to be a Rule to Christians: And then he tells us the palpableness of the Blasphemy is an Antidote to the poison; and hath rendered R. B. speechless.  
Well Patroelus! And is this all the proof that yet we have against B. F. Now three times printed without proof; And R. B. might have justly rejected it at first, and here with falls what thou brings in the last place, which was a sufficient answer to I: B: and is yet to thee till thou clear him of these ignominious Epithets of Fool and Calumniator (as thou calls them) which neither thou nor he have ever yet attempted.  
But I must ask thee a little, What thou intends here by blasphemy? For whatever the old signification of the Word may have been; I am sure a Blasphemer is now taken for a Man, who by injurious word or thought hurteth the Divine Majesty; So that except the Scripture be Patroclus God, he cannot find Blasphemy in the foresaid Words.  
Lastly, All the Proof we have is, If, says he, the words were falsified, he was bound to have vindicated and delivered them. Here we have a new Law; if any Man call Patroclus a Thief, he is bound to prove himself an honest Man; And hence it shall follow that no Liar can be punished.  
To conclude this particular, Not withstanding this Author accuseth the Quakers as Velifiers of the Scriptures. Yet GOD is our Witness, that it is far from our Intention, but on the contrary we have a high and reverend esteem of them, And although some years ago this Language might have passed for good Coin; Yet now (Blessed be the LORD) we are better known both by our Principles and practices, not only to our Neighbours, but to many knowing Men all Briton over, than we formerly were, So that a malicious Priest will not be so readily trusted, being a kind of men who cannot sleep unless they have wounded some, either in their persons or Reputations I shall here only desire the Reader to see Duplessis of the Trueness of Christian Religion, cap: 6. Where he shall see, That before the Canon of the Scriptures were filled up, yea before many of them were written, CHRIST is called the Word of GOD, not only by the Jews, but by the Heathen Philosophers and their Oracles; So that there was a Word of GOD before the Scriptures.  
And secondly, If the Preaching of the Gospel be glad Tidings, Then the Preaching of Patroclus is not the Preaching of the Gospel, According to Luke 2. 10. Behold I bring you good Tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people; Whereas his Doctrine of Reprobation, is the most sad and lamentable Tidings that ever was preached to Man: kind. For first by their Confession of Faith, cap. 3. A certain number are elected from Eternity and the means foreordained to bring them to Glory, and all the rest of Mankind are ordained to dishonour and wrath, Now the means whereby this end is attained and fore ordained for that purpose, are (according to their Catechism) The Word Saoraments and Prayer. And so according to Patroclus, All Mankind who want these men's are reprobates, consider then Reader; into how narrow a Compass he brings all people: The World being divided into 30 parts, There be yet 19 of them Pagan, and six Mabumitan, and only five Christian; The half of this five is of the Romish Communion, & want the use of the Bible! The Lutherans, he sayeth, in his Epistle to the Reader, deserve not the Name of Reformed, but are to be accounted Capital Adversaries; The Church of England is infected with the Hemlock of Pelagianizm, and Episcopacy is an Antichristian Hierarchy; The French Protestants are for passive obedience, and Non Resistance; And even Geneva itself errs in two great points, Viz. In allowing Lawful Recreations on the Sabbath day, and denying Tithes to the Clergy: And our English Presbyterians are such enemies to the Scottish Covenant, that they have gone near to Anathematise it For R: Baxter in his hundreth propositions, wherein he sayeth, all Protestants are agreed; Propos. 99 saith, If any will make their unnecessary forms of Synods, and other adjuncts to seem so necessary, as to enter Leagues and Covenants, to make them the terms of the Church's Unity; GOD will not own such terms nor waves, nor will they be durable, etc. With much more to this purpose. And now let the Reader judge whither Patroelus Gospel be glad tidings to all people.  
We are now come to the Rule of Faith, and Life, page 17, where having begun with a great lie, Viz. That in the judgement of the Quakers the Scriptures are in no sense to be accounted a Rule.) He citeth William Penn, to prove it, rejoinder page 76. I beseech thee Reader here to take notice of this man's double dealing, and dissingenu●ity: For first William Penn in page 69 and 70, confesseth the Scriptures to be a Rule, but not the Rule, by way of excellency, as the Reader may see there, and in R● Barclays, his apology Theses Tertia.  
And because he Citeth William Penn to prove his false assertion, let the Reader know they are no words of William Penn, but of one Thomas Collier, a great Professor, whose words William Penn Citeth against Faldo, some whereof I shall transcribe, General Epistle, page 249.  
And truly, my Brethren, it is my earnest desite to see souls to live more in the Spirit, and less in the Letter, than they will see that we judge of the Litter by the Spirit, and not of the Spirit by the Lett●er: Which occasions so much ignorance amongst us, and these who profess themselves to be our Teachers, are chief in this Trespass. The Spirit of GOD who is GOD, is the alone Rule of a Spiritual Christian, and in page 48, he saith, That some setting the Scriptures in the Room of the spirit, they make them an Idol.  
His next Citation of William Penn in page 18, is his rejoinder, page 71, where he Citeth these words, the scriptures are the verbal and Historical Rule of Faith, which is the devil's faith, William Penns words are these: For Faith in his (I; Fald●) sense rises no higher than so many articles laid down (suppose truly according to the letter of the scriptures which the devil can belive as well as he: This Faith I call merely verbal and Historical, etc. And this is the candour of our insulting adversary; Let the Reader judge whose reputation can be safe who deals with such an impudent Calumniator.  
In the same page, and in contradiction to himself, he mentions a distinction of primary, and Secondary. Well Patroelus, it seems the Quakers own the scriptures in some sense to be a Rule, therefore Patroclus confesseth himself to have belied them in the foregoing page.  
His third, is Huberthorn, The words are, except by a Miraculous Revelation from Heaven, These words sound harshly, and so fit to defame the Quakers; But (if yet thou hast retained any shamesacedness, or the least grain of honesty) I charge thee tell me: Have not George Keith in his Books on that subject, and Robert Barelay in his Appollogie sufficiently cleared the Quakers in that point: So far, that if thou wilt rightly state the controversy, thou must lay aside all these expressions of miraculous extraordinary, and the like; But who can expect far dealing from a man of thy manners?  
And therefore to stop the mouth of this Callumniator, I shall tell the Reader what George Kieth says to obviate such accusations, immediate Revel: page 2. First, we do not understand the foretelling things to come, etc. Secondly, (page 3) We do not bereby understand the Revelation of an other Gospel, etc. Thirdly (in page 7.) Not an outward audible voice, etc. Fourthly, Nor any outward audible voice. Fifthly, Nor dreams and visions, etc. Sixthly, Nor any outward Miracles, etc. And now let the Reader judge with what candour this man hath represented us.  
Page 18 and 19 He saith in order to the Production of true saving Faith, two principles are required; First the declaration of the object, or thing to be believed, etc. Now the thing he would have me believe, is, that the scripture is the Rule of Faith and Life, and in order to this he presents me the Bible; Is I ask him, how shall I believe this book to be the Rule of Faith and Life? He answereth me, the book saith so (though there be no such word in it) And this is objective Revelation, and needs no more but an application of this Revelation already made. And the second he calls subjective revelation, but he must excuse me to tell him, that before he can perswaed me to believe that proposition laid down in the Westminster Confession or Catecbism: Quest: 2, that the scripture is the only rule.) He will need to produce me better arguments for the Holy Ghost (according to the Westminster Confession, Chap 7, Act 3) must be given to make men willing and able to believe, and this is more than an application.  
He tells us that this revelation was either mediate or immediate. Who denies this? But I hope when it was mediate, it needed the immediate operation of the spirit to make them able and willing to believe, and so the operation of the Spirit was the Rule of this Faith whereby they choosed or rejected these mediate Revelations.  
That the illumination of the spirit is necessary for understanding of the soriptures, no man denyeth; But it is to be regarated that he and his Brethren take upon them to expond scripture to others, while they have it not, and mock and persecute Others who bear witness for it.  
To prove subjective Revelation, he bringeth several Scriptures; Among others Luck 24. 46. The Words are these, And said unto them, Tbus it is Written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. Now the Question will be, whether this was an objective, or a subjective Revelation; I affirm it to be Objective, and that CHRIST did here reveal to them things they never knew before, nor had occasion to know, albeit they might have been darkly shadowed forth in the Scriptures; So that Christ speaking to them, and at the same time opening their Understandings, both Patroclus principles concurred immediately to the production of their Faith with out the Bible: Neither is he limited to Scripture words, though he may and often does make use of them; And these words He spoke are not to be found in all the Old Testament. And the Quakers do not pretend to revelation of New Things, but a new Revelation of the Good Old Things.  
Secondly, Consider that he calls his first Principle a Declaration of the Object or Thing to be believed Now the Scriptures are the Object or Thing to be believed; And therefore (according to himself) the Declaration is necessary. And I must ask Patroclus what this Declaration is? Sure he can intent nothing here but the Glosses, Commentaries, Paraphrases, which he and his Brethren make upon the Scriptures, whereby they get their Living. But if Men were but once convinced that Christ's sheep hear his Voice, and that his Spirit teacheth them, and bringeth all things to their remembrance whatsoever they have heard of (or from) him; Then that sordid Trade of Preaching for h●re, and Divining for money, would soon come to an end; And Men would say with Thomas a Kempis Let not Moses and the Prophets speak to me, but thou, O LORD my GOD. And with the Psalmist, I will bear what the LORD GOD will speak in me. Whereas now (pretend what they will) they are as positive in their dogmatising and no less angry to be contradicted then their Ancestors the Papists. Hence it is evident, that it is their Interpretations, sense and Preachments upon the Scriptures, which they would have to be the Rule of Faith, and the Declaration of the Object.  
In page 20 He makes a digression, wherein he tells us the same things overagain; therefore I shall only touch suchthings, as, chief concern the matter in hand, if yet lawful for a Ploughman to touch his school-terms, by which that Trib have darkened Counsel with words without Knowledge: And if Patroclus be a Parochus, or Parish Priest, I am sure the tenth man of his Hearers cannot understand his Terms.  
First, He confounds the Matterial with the formal Object, saying as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths, so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity; Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own ltradiant and illustrious Beams: And this in contradiction; both to Calvine and him; self. To Calvine in the place before cited; Where he saith, That to settle the Conscience, such a Persuasion is necesseary as needeth no Reasons; And such a sense as cannot be attained but by Divine Revelation. To himself in page 23. Where he saith, We being demanded, how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD? We answer by the Testimony and operation of the Spirit. And herein he may reconcile himself to himself and his friends when he hath Leasure.  
Secondly, In page 22, speaking of subjective Revelation, he calls the spirit an Instrument in the hand of GOD: This Language sounds not sweetly to me, for I believe the Spirit is GOD, and therefore cannot like these Words; GOD an Instrument in the Hand of GOD.  
3ly He tells us in page 23 That subjective revelation is more properly called an Application than Revelation itself. And yet in the same page he calls it the Testimony and Opcration of the Spirit: Now a Testimony is a Witness bearing; And we know a dumb Man cannot be a Witness; But he hath told us, That the Spirit speaks neither to the Ear nor the Mind, and so cannot bear a Testimony: This is palpable confusion.  
Fourthly, page 24. He saith, so that we can Reason, because surch spirit (v; g:?) He that confesleth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is said by the Scriptures to be of GOD; Therefore I know and believe that is true Doctrine, and that this spirit is of GOD. If this Scripture be taken Literally by Patroclus, and that he intends as he Writes, I must confels I expected not so much Charity at his hands; For at this rate he accepteth Papists, Lutherians, yea and the Palagian Chureb of England, who all believe that Christ is come in the flesh; But I will expect a Commentary upon the Words with the next.  
Fifthly, In the same page he saith, We do not with the Fanatical Enthusists reason thus; The Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures; Therefore I believe them to be so: But he hath given us no Reason, why he believes such and such Books to be the Scripture●, For which we must wait his Leisure.  
Sixibly, His lame example of the Sun and Ey-salve is no better; He saith by means of the Salve he seethe and knoweth the Sun; And again by the Sun Light he may perceive what is Ey●salve, and what is not: But he might have considered, That though he see that Sun and Ey-salve both, he needeth his Natural Understanding to know the Sun, and to discern what is Ey-salve and what is not; And as in Naturals, so in Spirituals. No man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man which is in him, so the things of GOD no man knoweth, but by the spirit of God.  
Seventhly, In page 26. He chargeth R. B. for calling the Westminster Divines dark, etc. Because they not separate the Word from the Spirit; But said that the Testimony of the Spirit was in ant with the Word; And then reflects upon R. B's. Vindication, page 33. But takes no notice of what he saith page 33. and 34. Because they were too hot for his fingers. He citeth Isaiah 59 21. My spirit which is in thee, and my Words which I have put in thy mouth, &c: Observe First, That the Tenot of this Covenant is Spiritual; My Spirit which is in thee. Secondly, That they are distinct though not contrary, else they needed not the copulative Conjunction: (And) Tbirdly, They are called Words and not Word. So then Patroclus confesseth, That GOD putteth Words in his mouth to preach to his People; I shall allow him to be concerned in this Covenant. And I hope he will not here after be angry with the Quakers calling the Scriptures the Words of GOD.  
Eightly, He saith there was never the least contraversy betwixt the British and Transmarine Divines on this head, but an entire Harmony. This is another Lie, I shall instance one Jo● W: Bajer, Profeslor os Divinity at Jena in Germany, writing on that Subject against the Quakers, page 33. and 34. Saith the in ward Illuminations and Operations of the Spirit are altogether necessary to beget true and saving, Faith in Men, and that these inward Illuminations are objective, or by way of Object; Which is not very Harmonious with Patroclus' Doctrine of Application. And this is all the discovery he hath made of R: B's. Non such weakness and extreme disingeunity, which he hath left undiscovered till his next Printing.  
And now in page 26. He saith, he comes directly to the Objection. Saying First, The Work of the Spirit, the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective, being rather if we speak properly, an Application of the things revealed in Scripture, than a Revelation of Testimony strictly so taken. Observe First, That this being granted, all these words of Protestant Writers, such as the Testimony, Illumination, Inspiration, Persuasion of the Spirit, are but mere cheats and impostures put upon Mankind; And that Calvine when he speaketh of Divine Revelation as necessary to beget True Faith, meant no such thing, nor any of these Authors he citeth, are to be understood according to their own words, but according to Patroclus' sense, and thus he and his Brethren deal by the Scriptures. Headds, Whereas the Revelations to which the Quakers pretend are altogether objective, like that of the prophets. This is another Lie, for the Quakers own both Subjective and Objective Revelations, as hath been shown above. I shall here and Luk. 24. 32. Did not our Hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures. Now let the Reader judge whether this was an Objective Revelation as well as Subjective; Their bearts burnt, and he opened to them the Scriptures: Now Opening presupposeth a Shulting, and the Lamb only is found worthy to open the Seals of the Book; That is, Poreveal the Object.  
In page 27. He saith, we assert the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a Rule containing all things necessary to be believed or done, which they deny. This is another Lie, For the Quakers believe the Scriptures to be a Rule subordinat to the Spirit, containing a full and sufficient Declaration of all Christian Doctrine.  
Thirdly, Saith he, We believe the Scriptures to be the principal and ultimat Rule, into which our Faith is lastly to be refolved, For answer to this, I shall only set down the words of one of his Brethren, Viz: The Author of that Book called Melius Inquirendum, page 303. I would said be informed (says he) what an ultimat Rule signifies, with him that pretends to speak plain English, to then that understand nothing else: I have heard of a subordinate and ultimat End; And I have heard also of a near and a remote Rule, but an ultimate Rule like that Monster which was like a Horse, and yet not a Horse, is like Sense, but in Truth very None-sense. Thus he, and yet as great a Calvinist as Patroclus.  
After some Repetitions he comes to his Citations, and gins with Luther in these Words; If any thing should deliver any Doctrine which it could not prove by Scripture he would spit in its face, knowing certainly that it were the Devil. I know no Quaker but will say as much; Yea, I know no Protestant but will say as much: Yet the contraversies are no whit leslened by all this, because they reject the Spirit by which alone the Scriptures can be understood, and without which they are a sealed book as well to the learned Patroclus as to the unlearned Plough man. And here let the Reader observe what is become the fate of the Fathers as well as of the Scriptures, To be cited By all parties, Papist against Papists, and Protestant against Protestants, and Calvine is made to speak for all ends and all purposes: But he hath told us, that such a persuasion concerning the authority of scripture is needful, as cannot be brought forth but by Divine Revelation. Inst: Chap: Numb: 24.  
All these his citations for three pages serve for nothing else but to make one party of his pretended Transmarine Divines, contradict another. If he had done any thing, he should have proven R: B's. citations to have been either spurious or impertinent, else if they contradict his citations, Patroclus errs in his affirming an Harmony among them. In page 31, he saith (after some of his Brethtens Rhetoric) it can be made out by the unanimous consent of all the reformed Churches But hath taken no notice of what R: B: hath cited out of their Confessions, but we must take his word.  
In the end of page 31, and the beginning of page 32, he summeth up what he hath said, and hath done the Quakers a favour, that whereas some of his blind brethren have called them Papists, he hath set them and the Papists at such a distance, as he hath left room for himself to hang betwixt them, as Erasmus is said to have hung betwixt Heaven and hell: For saith he, page 32 The Papists have gone too low, resolving their faith ultimately in men; The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high (that is) to resolve their Faith in GOD; Patroclus resolves his faith in a Book, and neither in GOD nor man; Let the Reader judge which of the three is the best Foundation.  
He concludes with a Greek fable of Ixion (Et quiquid Graecia mend●x audet in Historia) & most profainly compares a desire after Divine Revelation (which Paul's commands to pray for) to the adulterous desire of Ixion after Juno, and then talks of the production of Hipocentaurs, that is in broad Scots Troopers, or if he will, Apostolical Dragoons; Like those of France. And now let the Kingdom of Seotland judge from forty years' experience, whether the Quakers or the Presbyterian Clergy have been most fruitful in producing such Hipocentaurs.  
In page 32, he layeth down his Thesis thus: The scriptures are the adequat, complete and primary or prineipal Rule of faith and manners. Observe first, the word primary signifies first, and he hath before called them the ultimate Rule: This is the first and the last, he hath called them The word of GOD, he hath called them the Gospel, and now the first and the last, which are Epithets belonging only to Christ: Tertul: ltb: 2 Carm: Adversurs Mar:  

Atque ideo non verb Librised Missus in orbem.  
Ipse Christus Evangelium est, Si cernere vultis.   

Thus Englished.  
Not the words of the book but Christ who is  
Into the World sent, the Gospel is.   
Observe Secondly, That he hath here given away the Cause, for the Catechism saith, The Scriptures are the only Rule, Whereas his asserting a Primary implies a Secondary.  
And now we are come to his Arguments, whereof the first is; That which was dictat or given out by the Infallible God, and containeth the whole Counsel of GOD, may well serve to be a complete and principal Rule; But the Scriptures were given out and dictate by the Infallible GOD, and contain the whole Counsel of GOD. Therefore, They may well serve for to be a complete and principal Rule.  
Answer first, Observe, That all his boasting is come to no more than a May be, saying, It may serve to be a Primary Rule: And I must tell him, That a Cartload of May-bees, are not worth One-is.  
Secondly; I must tell him, That his definition of the Rule of Faith and Manners is New, and I cannot accept of it. And before I proceed to take notice of his Arguments, I shall give my Reader an account of the Scope of this Man's Labours. First, He cannot deny that the Quakers own the Scriptures for a Rule, and his Work proves no less (though in contradiction to himself in page 17.) And I can assure my Reader, That it is the constant care of every true Quaker to square his Life according to the Scriptures. Secondly, His offering to prove them to be a Primary Rule implies (as I have said) a Secondary: And this must be the Teachings of the Spirit, for he hath not told us of another: Hence the Reader may see, what the Tendancy of his Argumentations is, To wit, To exalt the Letter above the Spirit; The Creature above the Creator, a Book above GOD; In which I cannot agree with him; Yet GOD knows I reverence the Scriptures as much as any Presbyterian in the World: And if the Quakers slighted them (as this false Accuser slandereth them) I would have no fellowship with them. And certainly it is not so much the Scriptures, as their own Glosses and Interpretations they plead for: For if Patroclus would speak what he thinks, I doubt not but he would say, That the Westminster Confession and Directory; Especially having the Covenant joined to it, might serve for a Rule of Faith and Life.  
His Argument set down before erreth in the very form, according to the Rules of Logic; Which are when both Propositions are particular, nothing follows. And again particular, nothing follows. And again the Major being particular in the first figure cannot rightly conclude. Now that this Major is particular will be evident, if he explain himself what he means by the word (That) By which he cannot understand Man nor beast, nor Angel nor any other thing, if he speak sense but that Book: And so his Argument will run thus, That particular Book which was dictate, &c: But the Book called the BIBLE or the Scripture was dictate, &c: Therefore, &c: If he thinks I have wronged him, let him explain himself next, and make his Major universal.  
Secondly, This is a direct begging of the Question, for it is denied that a Book can be the Primary Rule of Faith, for there was Faith before there was a Book in the World, and the World was two thousand years without Scriptures, and if they had no Rule nor Law to walk by, than they had no sin; For where there is no Law there is no transgression: If they had a Rule, it was certainly Prior to the Scriptures, and consequently the Primary Rule, except that Patroclus would say, That GOD had changed his Rule!  
His Minor is a very uncontravetted Truth in the first part of it; But he must excuse me to distinguish the second; And contains the whole Counsel of GOD: Which I think Robert Barkelay hath done to very good Purpose; That the Scriptures contain a full account of all the Essentials and fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Religion: But that many things occur daily of which the Scriptures do not clearly determine our Experience clearly proveth: And first as to Faith, I desire he may give me plain Scripture for Persons in the God. head? Sacraments in the Church, and keeping Holy Sunday. This was required by K: CHARLES the Martyr, from Alexander Henderson; But how it was Answered, the Papers which passed betwixt them will evince.  
Secondly, As to Life, I ask whether it was lawful for me in my Youth to take the League and Covenant? Being first contrary to the Command of Christ, Swear not at all; And then contrary to the command of the Supreem Magistrate; Yea, in opposition to Him, whom the Scripture commands me to obey. This was a Case of Conscience to me, and yet by the Presbyterian Church I was commanded (his non obstantibus) to take it; And by George Gillespie in his Casses of Conscience, the refusing of the Covenant is called sinful in itself, a great dishonour to GOD, and a great scandal to the Church, no less punishable than the kill of the Apostles. Nevertheless, I must say, I can find no Scripture which allows me to take it. And again there is a great doubt at present seeming to arise in the minds of many Protestants and Wellwishers to the Government; Which is, whether the Popish Monarchical tyranny in Church Government, or Presbyterian Democratical tyranny be more eligible? for it is now become a common Litanie; from Popery and presbytery, libera nos, etc. As for that great and incurable Schism, which destroyed presbytery in the Assembly at Dundee; Whether a Malignant having in the Nation an Estate, Wife, and Children, might lawfully fight in defence of his Native Country; In Case of a foreign Invasion.  
These and such like doubts (saith he) page 56 Are to be resolved by the Scriptures, applied in Christian prudence, and Spiritual Wisdom. This is strange, That there was neither Christian prudence nor Spiritual Wisdom in all the whole General Assembly! That they split upon such a trivial Question, and never reconciled again to this day: But the cause was, They lacked Wisdom, and did not ask of GOD who giveth liberally, and upbraideth not: For had they been taught of GOD and received the Word of Wisdom from his Mouth, they would have seen this controversy to be as impertinent as that about Easter in the Primitive Church.  
Next in page 39, he saith, The corruptions of men are to be charged with all these defects: This is very true, for the corruptions of men, and chief of the Clergy have separated them from knowing, or seeking to know the mind and Counsel of GOD, by the teachings of his Spirit, and to lean to their own corrupt Wisdom, their natural and acquired parts, hence some of them have not stuck to affirm, that a wicked Reprobate, a man void of grace, and of the spirit of Christ, may be a sufficient Minister.  
Before I leave his first argument, with his spurious definition of a Rule, I will give him another, which I think he will like the better, because it comes from his brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum; Who says, The mind and will of GOD, however notified to us, is the Rule of our obedience. Now if Patroclus will prove that the mind and will of GOD was never notified or made known to mankind before Moses wrote the Pentateuch. I shall grant to him, that the Scriptures are the primary or principal Rule, for the words signify no more but first, or belonging to first, for the two words Primary or Principal being Latin words signify no more but first or belonging to first, if we believe our Lexicons.  
To prove that the Scriptures contain the whole Counsel of GOD, he citeth Acts. 20, 27. Whert Paul sayeth to the Elders of Ephesus, That he had not shuned to declare unto them all the Counsel of GOD. Here observe that this was before he had written his Epistle to the Ephesians, and therefore I entreat Patroclus to inform us where we may find Paul's Preach recorded that he mentioneth here, wherein we may find all the Counsel of GOD; For it seems the Fathers at the Counsel of Laodicea have forgotten to add them to the Cannon.  
His second Argument is thus;  
That which was the Principal rule to the Jews is the Principal Rule to us: But the Scriptures were the Principal Rule to them, therefore they must be the same to us.  
Answer, To begin with his Major, he saith it is Robert Barkclays; This is the height of deceit, dissingenuity, and Impudence: For in the second Chapter of his apology cited by our Author, there is no such word to be found. In this Chapter he chief treateth of the formal object of faith, and but little of the Rule, he proveth that indeed that Divine immediate Revelation was the formal object of the Faith of the Ancients, and citeth Noah and Abraham for examples, whom I believe to have had Faith, and also a Rule for their Faith before there was either Scripture or a Jew in the World; So that granting the Major he gains nothing by it, unless he can prove that the Scripture was the Primary Rule of Noah and Abraham's Faith, or else, that GOD hath changed his Rule.  
His Minor I deny for the same reason.  
Secondly, I acknowledge that Moses Law which is a part of the Scripture was more a Rule to the Jews, and more binding upon them then upon any of the Nations, or any living either then or since, And this is all that his after reasonings can prove.  
But what if I should say with other Protestant Writers, that the was givenparticularly for that Nation, and was binding upon no other Nation in the World, as I: Humphrey in his book called Medioeria, to which Richard Baxter a Famous Presbyterian, assents and subscrives, I am of the same mind. R: Baxter of the Covenants, page 14. The Old Covenant is that which GOD made with the Jews, when Moses led them in the Wilderness, the new is that which we have under the Gospel; the Old Covenant than is not the Covenant of works, for that was made with all in Adam, and as written in our hearts must be Eternally obligatory; but the Old Covenant was made with the Jews in opposition to other Nations, and as peculiar to them is vanished & binds not: And for the same reason he sayeth it is not the Covenant of Grace, which is called the New Covenant: But saith he, the new is not the old.  
The argument he bringeth to prove his Minor is that from which the Jews might not swerve to the right nor left hand, and to the decision of which they were ultimately bound to stand in all doubts and contraversies, and that upon highest pains, was the principal Rule; But from GOD's Writtin Law, etc.  
Therefore to them it was the Primary Rule.  
Answer, First, This argument proveth no more than this is already granted, Viz. That Moses Law was a more Principal Law to the Jews then to any other Nation. But until he prove the Children of Israel to have had no Law, no Rule of Faith nor Life before Moses wrote that Law, his argument can conclude nothing.  
Secondly, Mine Adversary may tell me, whether they were to stand to the decision of the Law in a matter which the Law did not decide? for we find that after the Law was given; In many things the Law giver, Moses, could not decide without immediate Revelation, as in the matter of the Daughters of Zelophehad: But when the case was proposed to him, he went and enquired of the Lord; And again, when the Law was finished, and Joshua to succeed him. What saith the LORD: Numb: 29. 21. And he (to wit) Joshua) shall stand before Eleazar the Priest, who shall ask Counsel for him after the judgement of Vrim before the LORD. If this be ultimately to recur to the Scriptures of Moses Law, the Reader may judge.  
To prove his Minor he citeth one place which I cannot omit, Dut: 17, 9, 10, 11 And thou shall come unto the Priests, the Levits, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the Sentence of Judgement, and thou shall do according to the sentence which they of that place (which the LORD shall choose) shall show thee, and thou shall observe to do according to all that they inform thee. Now Reader, could the Pope of Rome have sought out a Scripture more fit to have established his universal Dictatorship over Christendom then this? Is there one word of Scripture, Law or Testimony here? No, but the Priests, the Levites, and the Judge: That is in Broad Scots, The General Assembly, and Committee of Estates, who were as absolute in their Determinations, as ever the Pope and his Conclave: But Patroclus must know that he and his Brethren are not Levites, although they take the Tithes, nor am I to take their Counsel, till they assure me that they have the Judgement of Vrim.  
His second Proof for his Minor is, Isaiah 8. 20. To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to these, it is because there is no light in them.  
This Scripture hath been so much tossed by the Adversaries of Truth, and so often answered, That Patroclus who promiseth greater Matters than his Brethren had brought, might have let it alone.  
He denies that this Law and Testimony can be inward; And says, For this Exposition we must take their word, &c: But he hath forgotten (it seems) that William Pen in his rejoinder hath given him other men's words for it, and perhaps better men's then himself; And because the Book is not so common among Presbyterians; I shall here insert some of the Testimonies cited by William Peen.  
First del: Trial of Spirits, page 16. Wherefore they who are true believers (saith he) and have received Christ's Spirit, their Judgement is to be preferred in the Trial of spirits before a whole council of Clergy Men: And they only who can try Spirits by the Spirit of GOD, and Doctrines by the Word of GOD written in their hearts; by the Spirit can in measure discern all Spirits in the World. And the Spirit of Christ which dwelleth in all true Christians cannot deceive, nor be deceived in the trial of spirits.  
Collier: General Epistle, page 249. and page 258. Obj: Is't, it is said Isa: 8 20. To the Law and to the Testimony, &c: Ans: Truth; There is the Law and the Testimony in the Spirit as well as in the Letter, The Law of GOD is in the Heart, There it is written and there it testifies the Truth of GOD; And if any Man speak not according to this Rule, it is because there is no Light nor Morning arisen in them. the Spiritual Man judgeth all things, yet be himself is judged of no man.  
These were the words of two Famous Professors who were no Quakers.  
Next he citeth some Scriptures to prove that Moses Law is understood by the Law and Testimony; As if GOD had made void his Promise, To write his Law in the Heart, and put it in the inward parts: But of this a little after  
In page 35. He gins with a Question drawn from Deut: 17. 18, 19 Now (says he) Shall any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose, That the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discusing thereof? Or 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 Wits will believe this? Very well Patroclus, I am one so stupid as to believe that when a doubt arose, which Moses Law could not clearly determine, that the King was bound to inquire of the LORD; Of which the Scriptures gives us many examples. As 1 Samuel 23. 2. 4. and 30. 8. 2 Sam: 2. 1. and 5. 19 1 Kings 22. 7. And 2 Kings 22. Where the King, the High Priest, the Scribe, and some others, had the Book of the Law and knew not what to do with it, but sent to inquire of the Lord, and that by the mouth of a Woman. But he hath been so warrie in his second Querie as to add; Tho the King's doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law; Yet hath not the Candour to tell us, what the King was to do, in case his doubt was not clearly discussed by the Law. As for the word Miraculous Revelation, &c: It is his own, a fine bugbear to fright his silly Disciples from ask Counsel of GOD; For I am apt to believe, that Divine Revelation is now a miracle among Presbyterian Priests.  
To trace him in all his Raillings and Boastings, reflections against Ro: Barkelay and Geo: Keith, were very needless; The Reader may see them of no weight. I shall therefore here take notice of some of the Scriptures cited by him in page 34. To prove that by the Law and the Testimony is understood the Law of Moses on Exod: 32. 15. And Moses turned, and went down from the Mount, and the two Tahles of the Testimony were in his hand, etc. 34. ●9. With the two Tables of Testimony in Moses hand, etc.  
Now I beseech the Reader to consider what this Man can make from hence, or from any of the rest, to prove that Isaiah meant the two Tables of the Law to be a primary Rule either to Jews or Christians. Was never the Moral Law a Law to Mankind, until it was written in Tables of Stone? Then certainly Cain had not sinned in killing of Abel; If there had been no Law against Murder; Or what more can he make of this Scripture (if he make the Law and Testimony to be the Ten Commandments?) But this, That whoever speaketh or acteth contrary unto them; It is because he is dark, not knowing the Mind of the LORD; nor harkening to the Voice of the Divine Light in him, which would have taught him to speak and act according to that Moral Law.  
But I would willingly learn of him, whether he would have the whole Law of Moses, Moral, Judicial, and Levitical, or Ceremonial, to be the primary Rule to Christians now a days: For the Moral is confessed by all parties to be binding upon all Mankind, and that it was Imprinted upon the Souls of all Men, even before it was written: But the Judicial Law as well as the Ceremonial Law hath been rejected by all Christians, except the Presbyterians, who composed Cargils' Covenant. What then would the man be at? I can conjecture nothing but this; The Presbiterians have three beloved Doctrines, Viz: Swearing, Fight, and Tithes, which no one Line of the New Testament seems to favour, and therefore they would have the Law reinforced, lest these their Darlings fall.  
To conclude: The Law was added, (saith Paul) because of Transgression. Therefore there was a Law or Rule transgressed before this Law was added: And that it was a Written Law, let Patroclus prove with the next.  
I shall now come to his third Argument, page ●9. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them, for the final decision of the most grave and weighty Contraversies that ever arose in the World; And sent all people into them as a most sure and undeceiving Light, by the Guiding of which we may pass through this dark World, and be kept from Hell in the close: Ergo, the Scriptures are the Primary Rule, etc.  
To prove the Consequence of this Argument, he sendeth us to the Definition of (a may be) Rule in his first Argument; which is proven to be lame, and a begging of the Question.  
Next to prove his Antecedent, he citeth a Bundle of Scriptures, for merly adduced by his Brethren, and answered divers times: But he thinks all the rest but Bunglers, and therefore he will have at them again.  
The First is, Mat. 22. 29, 31, 32. Te do err not knowng the Scriptures, nor the Power of GOD.  
He gins with a parcel of Presbyterian Rbetorick, saying, Our Adversaries are like Baits, etc. Let the Reader judge, whether I have occasion here for a Repartee, but I'll spare him.  
There be Two Things in the Citation, for the Ignorance of which the Jews are blamed, to wit, Of the Scriptures and the Power of God. Now if this prove one of them to be a Rule, it cannot miss to prove the other to be a Rule also: And so the Contraversy remains in stain quo prius, that is, Whether the Scriptures, or Christ the power of God, and the Wisdom of God, Teaching and Revealing the Mind and Will of God to his People, is to be preferred. The Quakers never denied the Scriptures to be a Rule, but only that they were subordinat to the Teachings of Christ by His Spirit, Whom He promiseth to send, and that he should Teach them all Things: And this I say is preferable, and he hath brought nothing to prove the contrary.  
This cleareth George Keith from what he allegeth, of his confounding the Rule with the Power: And as for his Simile of Euclid, it will nothing mend his Matter; for certainly Euclid had a Rule by which he wrote his Book, which was the Dictates of his Reason; and except his Propositions can be demonstrated to me by Reason, I am not bound to believe them. Therefore the Dictates of my Reason are a more Noble and Excellent Rule to me than Euclid's Propositions, though the Book be an excellent Help for me to attain to that Art.  
And whereas he hath talked very disdainfully, though wrongfully, of consounding the Scriptures and the Power of God, he should have remembered that in Page 36. He hath said, That to seek to the Scriptures is all one with seeking unto GOD: Whether this vergeth upon Blasphemy, let the Reader Judge.  
But to put our Stupidity or prejudice beyond doubt, he brings us another simile of a King.  
Answer, Above all things he should have shunned dilcoursing upon this Topick; For it is impossible to keep a Presbyterion Priest within his Bounds: Here he hath described a King in Querpo, subordinate to the Laws and limited by them.  
Whereas it is well known, That the King is the fountain of our Law, our Legislator: And by the same Authority whereby he makes Laws, can cashier annul and rescind them: And it is a known Maxim in Law, Rex non potest peccare; But this is the old Doctrine of Lex Rex, and Jus Populi: And that famous piece, The Hind let lose.  
Now if this his Simile prove any thing, it will be this, That as (according to their Dialect) The King can do nothing but what the Law of the Land allows: So GOD can do nothing but what the Scripture allows: And consequently CHRIST could not command the Man to take up his Bed and walk upon the Sabbath day, because no Scripture then written allowed it.  
The next place is, John 5. 39 Here he challengeth R. B. as a Papist, for saying the Words ought to have been Translated, Ye search the Seriptures: But Patroclus, If I shall cite Bellarinine against the payment of Tithes (who say they, Are not due by any Law of GOD or Nature, since the coming of Christ) Will thou also call me a Papist? If thou do, thou att mistaken; And so art thou in him. And when thou can prove that there are no errors in the Translation, thou may stick by this. The Scriptures thou brings prove nothing for this Translation, for they do not mention it; And we never denied it, that the reading of the Scripture was both commanded and commended; Yet thou art not ashamed to say, They are sufficient to convince these Men of palpable falsehood and blasphemy. This is Language for the Pulpit among the Hood-winked hearers, but will trouble no unprejudiced Reader.  
As to the great stress he layeth upon these words, And these are they that testify of me; Therefore they are the Primary Rule. Did he not say, The Works which I do, They hear witness of Me? And if we may believe History, the Sibyls testified of him: Doth this prove that they were the Primary Rule?  
But the very foregoing Verse is to be considered, And ve have not his Word abiding in you, for whom be hath sent, him ve believe not. And verse 36. I have a greater Witness than that of John; For the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. Here let him consider, that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses, every thing is to be proven. Our Saviour bringeth here four Witnesses, The Testimony of John, The Works which he did, The Word of GOD abiding in Men, and the Scriptures. The contraversy is not whether any of these or all of them were Witnesses, but which of them was the greatest and most Preferable? And if the Works which He then did were a greater Witness than the Testimony of John (who was inferior to none of the Prophets) Then the Works which He now doth in the Hearts and Souls of Believers by His Word abiding in them, in healling all their Infirmities, quickening and enlightening their dead Souls, and speaking peace to them; is a greater Witness than the Scriptures.  
He falls next upon R. Bs. Dilemma, Which he saith, hath not the weight of a Walnut; It seems the hardness of the shell hath blunted his teeth, that he hath not reached the Kernal. For (saith he) If the words are to be taken in the Imperative mood, as we have even now demonstrated, than it is as clear as the Noon Sun, etc.  
But how hath he demonstrated it? That the Word bears not the Indicative Signification; as well as the Imperative, is obvious to any that understands the Conjugations. And the Scriptures brought to prove it. I shall touch some of them Deut: 17. 18, 19 And be shall read therein all the days of his Life: Ergo, The Words John 5: 39 Are to be taken in the Imperative Mood, If this be not as wild a consequence as to say William Jamison is verus Patroelus by a Metempychosis, Ergo, The whole Church of England are Heretics, (which he hath boldly asserted in his Adultory Epistle to his Patron) I leave it to the Reader to Judge.  
The next he brings is, Deut: 29. 29. The Secret things belong to the LORD our GOD, but those Things which are revealed belong to us and to our Children for ever, that we may do all the Words of this Law. Ergo, The Words of John are to be taken in the Imperative mood; Who would follow such an Adversary at this Rate?  
But seeing he is so good at Walnuts, I will give him another of the same kind to break,  
Either the Words of John the Baptist, (who was as great a Prophet as Isaiah) were as much a Rule to the Jews when spoken by him, as they are now to us when recorded in a Book, or as the words of Isaiah formerly recorded in a Book; or they were not? If they were, Then the Works which Christ worketh now in the Souls of His Servants, must be a greater Witness than the words of John recorded in a Book; As well as the Works he then did were a greater Witness.  
But if he say, they were not so much a Rule when spoken, as when written I ask him, how they came by that excellency by being Written? Or was it the Council of I aodicea that gave it?  
Page 43 He saith, He hath broken one of the Horns of his Dilemma, and made his Consequence a mere Nonsequitor. And why? Because he hath confessed (saith he) in a word, That the Words of Christ and his Apostles, as then spoken & now recorded in Scripture, were of themselves no less binding upon the Jews, than these spoken by Moses and the Prophets.  
But this hath strengthened the Dilemma, for if they were as binding, and yet needed a Rule to try them by; Then the Writtings of Moses and the Prophets needed a Rule to try them by, and that Rule another Rule; Et sic infinitum.  
That all Doctrines of Men may be tried, and aught so to be by the Scriptures, was never denied; And hath no way given away his Cause. But as for what follows, That it might be lawful to embrace any impulse or suggestion, which he thought was the Spirit of GOD; Without further Examination thereof, is a gross untruth, but ordinary to him and his Brethren; And therefore he hath wisely foreborn to tell us where R: Barkelay said so.  
His third Scriptute is, Acts 17. 11. He saith, His Adversaries can find nothing to darken and deprive it, and therefore he waves it. Not being willing to meddle with what R: B: saith there: To wit, If the Bereans were obliged to believe and receive Paul's Testimony, because he preached the Truth to them by Authority from GOD; Then their using them, or his commending of them for using the scriptures; Will not prove the scriptures to be the Primary Rule, Yea more a Rule than the Doctrine they tried by it. For it the Doctrine preached by Paul to the Bereans, had been but recorded in a Book, it had presently become a Primary Rule.  
The fourth is, 2 Peter 1. 19 We have a more sure word of prophecy, etc. This place he will have to be meant of the scriptures. His first proofis is, Because (saith he) This presupposeth, that there cannot be immediate Revelation where the senses go along: And so their spirit is contrary to sense.  
But this is an old Cavil against Christianity, and brought on the stage by Julian the Apostate, in his Book against the Primitive Christians. This Doctrine (said he) sigbteth against common sense: See Chron: Carionis, page 278.  
To this he addeth another, Why should this Glorious Vision of which the Apostles had Divine and infollible Evidence, &c: Be accounted uncertain and suspected in respect of the Spirit ● Answer, Why should uld it be uncertain and suspected in respect of the scriptures? And why should it become the Primary Rule when recorded in a Book, and not the Rule when spoken immediately on the Mount; If thou say, Because it is more obvious to sense, than it seems thy Religion is more sensual than Spiritual.  
His second Argument is, That this Revelation (according to us) brings along with it its own self Evidence, and persuades the Soul to embrace and close with it as Divine: But this is both groundless, and therefore false (saith he) because we assert, that unless the Understanding be well disposed, Revelation though immediate, is not evident.  
Answer first, He here brings nothing to prove this, That it is groundless and false; except his ipse dixit; And therefore I may not take his word.  
Secondly, What had all the Patriarches before Moses Law, and even Moses himself to try their Revelations by? Yet they believed them upon their own self evidence: Yea, Balaam who had not well disposed Intellect, yet knew and believed his Revelations to be Divine. And Lastly, Doctor Barron in his Book against Turnbul, saith, That the most noble kind of Revelation is, that which is by intellectual speaking or illumination, as Thomas and Swarez teach.  
Thirdly, He saith, We insinuate, That the Apostle in this Comparison, gave out that one of the things compared was more certain than the other; Which (saith he) is most false;  considered in themselves, both have all certainly possible. But in respect of us (saith he) The Scriptures are more sure, because less subject to be counterfeited or wrested either by the Devil or our own fancy; But here (it seems) he hath forgotten himself, for this same Apostle hath told us that the Scripture can be wrested. But who, saith that the teachings of the Spirit of truth can be so? None but Patroclus; And so the comparison holds, that which can be wrested is less sure than that which cannot be wrested. He adds, the Apostle hath his eye upon his Country men; And so have I upon mine, who pretend so much to the Scriptures, and yet wrest them grossly to their own damnation.  
Page, 46. comes to prove, that by these words (more sure word of Prophecy) are meant the Scriptures; after he hath told us that albeit immediate Revelation were meant or understood by the more sure word of Prophecy, it would be no advantage to us, because it is recommended to us: As that whereby we may come to the genuine interpretation of the Scriptures, and so not the Principal rule, but a means to explain the Principal Rule, and for this he brings no proof, but we must take his word, and then he will make us Quid libet ex quo libet.  
First, He saith, by these words a more sure word of Prophecy, is understood the Scriptures, because any phrase of the like import is always taken for the Scriptures, as Luke 16, 29. Eph: 2. 20. Matt. 7. 12. And yet he confesseth in a Parenthesis, the words Logos Propheticos, are not to be sound in all the Scripture besides, but by the words Law and Prophets are meant the Scriptures; Ergo, by the more sure word of Prophecy are meant the Scriptures: This is a non seqitur, with a witness.  
The rest of his arguments such as, if our Adversaries were not affronted, and impudently bold, such as would adventure upon any thing, etc. and the like; Are not worthy of any answer: But seeing he would explain one Scripture by another, I will help him to one more sit, John 1. 4, 5. Where it is said, In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men, and the Light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. How like this is to the more sure word of Prophecy, which shineth as a Light in a dark place; But the life of CHRIST, the light in men, is a sear Crow to Presbyterian Priests, they cannot abide it One reasonless reason he gives us, is, because men are commended for searching the Scriptures; But I would be obliged to him if he would form a Syllogism upon the medium, and draw his conclusion from it.  
In page 48 he tells us, that Luther, Calvin, etc. Understand it so. Is this fare dealing Patroclus? Dost thou agree with Luther, or even with Calvin in all things? If thou say yea, I'll prove that contrary, and yet their Testimony must oblige us; Then he computes us among Ancient Heretics, but he would not be satisfied if I should compute him and his brethren among Mahumitans for believing a Stoical Fate. Lastly, He leaveth us to grapple with William Penn's rejoinder, page, 334, who, he sayeth, yieldeth to him what we deny.  
To satisfy the Reader, I shall set down some of William Penns words; He sayeth, John Faldo acknowledgeth, That the writings of the Prophets are not more true in themselves than any other Revelation of the mind of GOD, but more certain with respect to the Jews, who bade a greater esteem for, and testimony of the writings of the Prophets to be of GOD, and not a delusion, then of Peter's Revelation; So that we here have (saith William Penn) from John Faldo himself; The scripture is not set above the Spirit as the more sure word, the thing promoted of old by our enemies, and which we only oppose: For I doubt not but the Scriptures were more lure to the Jews than CHRIST Himself, else they would never have thought to find Eternal life in them, whilst they neglected, yea persecuted him; Which, whether it was their perfection or imperfection, so to do, I leave with the judgement of my serious Reader, which I likeways do whether Patroclus be a fair adversary or any honest man.  
He comes next to Luke 16. 31. If they ●ear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one risen from the dead.  
First, Let the Reader observe that this is a Parable, and that the Presbyterians believe that any such apparitions are but Devils assuming the body, or the shape of the dead: And therefore any thing may be more certain to them then such a Testimony, and we read of none such but that of Samuel to S●ul. Secondly, This Scripture brings no comparison betwixt the Scripture and the Spirit, and whereas he saith, let the Quakers prove that every man hath such a spirit as the Quakers allege, this shall come in its own place.  
Next he proveth the Scriptures to be the Primary Rule, because otherwise Abraham might have said, the Spirit of GOD directeth every man immediately; If they hear not him they will hear none else: If Abraham said so (it seems Patroclus would have been displeased; But a greater than Abraham said so, even the LORD JESUS John, 14. 26. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my Name, he shall teach you all things, whose teaching are preferable to all the writings in the world, seeing he taught them what they wrote, and their being dictated by him, giveth them all their excellency.  
He saith R: Barkclay saying, The Scriptures were a written Rule to the Jews only, is nothing to the purpose, but he should not have belied him, for he saith, they were a more principal Rule to the Jews; But never that they were a principal Rule to the Jews. He passeth by what he said upon the Scripture, Viz. Page, 40. This Parable was used by Christ to the Jews, to show them their Hypocrisy; who albeit they deceitfully pretended to reverence and sol● low Moses and the Prophets; Yet they did not really hear them, else they would have acknowledged him, of what Moses & the Prophets did so clearly write, since he did as great and convincing Mitacles before them, as if they had the Testimony of one Risen from the Dead.  
In like manner the Presbyterians now, albeit they pretend so much to reverence the writings of the Apostles, yet they will not really hear them, else they would not fight, swear, nor exact a forced mantainance, even from these who are not of the communion of their Church.  
His Third argument is, Certainly (saith he) the voice of one of the Glorified Spirits coming from Heaven, where they behold the Face of GOD, is no less to be accounted immediate Revelation, than the voice of the high Priest unto the people, etc. But he should have proved that GOD took his method to reveal his mind unto his people, which he never did: But the High Priest was a Type of Christ, and a Mediator betwixt GOD and the Jews: So that to deny this to be immediate, because it was first spoken to the High Priest, is to deny the words of Christ to be immediate to his people, because he saith, he had heard and received them of the Father; or that the light of the Sun is not immediate, because it is conveyed to us through the Air. Only let him tell me, whether the supreme Magistrate who is at present troubled with the clamours of the two kinds of Clergymen in Scotland, can go and inquire of the LORD, and have as certain an answer, which of the two Church Government are Jure Divino, as the Jews many times had, and then he says something? For the Jews had the Scriptures, Moses and the Prophets as well as we, and yet were many times necessitat to go and inquire of the LORD, which evidently proves they had a higher rule than Moses Law.  
In page 50, he giveth an argument like the rest, Viz. God's way of Revealing himself to us, is as immediate as it was to the Jews, because we have those that were inspired by GOD, speaking to us tho Dead. Hence he concludes, that the Scriptures are as immediate to us as the voice of Moses, or the High Priest, or the Prophets was to the Jews.  
This Argument is singular for deceit & folly; for First, where did any Quaker deny the Scriptutes to be the Primary Rule upon the account of their not being immediately revealed we acknowledege that they were immediately revealed to the Prophets and Apostles, & recorded by them, but this doth not let them above the Spirit which did reveal them, and so his gross lie and his argument are both answered; and yet he might have considered that the promise of Christ is more full to his people than it was to the Jews; As he may read, Matt: 10: 19, 20. It shall be given you the same hour what ye shall speak, for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.  
His fourth argument from 2 Then. 3. 15. Is, That which is able to make such an one as Timothy, called the man of GOD, wise through faith unto Salvation, must be a sufficient Rule, etc. But the Scriptures are able to do so, etc. Therefore they are a sufficient Rule.  
Answer, This argument militates nothing against us, for the Question is not, whether the Scriptures be a Rule, but whether they be the Primary Rule, which this Argument toucheth not, and Faith is added here as a principal ingredient, which themselves acknowledge to be a work of the Spirit, this Faith hath a rule; as also that faith whereby a man believes the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, let him tell me with the next, what is the Rule of this Faith?  
He tells next, The scriptures are Causa exemplaris, and therefore the Primary Rule, they call them causa formalis, Causa materialis, causa exemplaris; And the word make would seem to make them causa efficiens, so that according to them, they are, To Pan, and the Spirit Verse Nihil.  
From the Scriptures being Causa exemplaris, he saith, I evidently infer that they are the adequat & Primary Rule, because if there were some things to be believed and practised not contained in Scripture: Or if they were subject to another Test, etc. They could not in truth be called able to make the man of GOD wise unto Salvation: This I have answered before, if he understand the Essentials and fundamentals of the Christian Religion; It is confessed, they do contain them, but there are many things occur in our Christian course (as he words it) which the Scriptures do not determine. Such as whether it was Christian or Antichristian course for the Presbyterians to come up to Bothwel-Bridge to fight against the King. And Secondly, Whether the late assembly ought to have united with their Brethren of the Episcopal persuasion, till they had undergone Penance for their Apostasy upon the Stool of Repentance. The First brought much trouble upon the Nation, and the Second is feared to be of no better consequence, except our Author bring us clear Scripture to determine the case, to the satisfaction of all parties.  
He saith little Justice. Truth, or far dealing is to be expected from us, But far less from him so long as he trusts more to Aristotle's Elenobis in frameing deceitful Sophisms, then to the Testimony of the Spirit of Christ; the reason he gives for this great calumny is, because R. B. accuseth his brother John Brown for perverting the Scriptute. 2 Tim: 3. 16. Now it is evident that the 16, Ver: hath not such word in it, and that the 17 Verse saith only, That the man of GOD may be perfect; So the difference here is very obvious, which R. B. hath largely handled in the same 41 page, and our Author takes no notice of it, but most deceitfully insinuates that he makes the scriptures Tautologies, because he cannot evite the distinction there made by R. B. To which place (never touched by our Author) I refer my Reader.  
Lastly, (saith he) For we love rather to plead by weight of Arguments then by multitude of Arguments. Answer, If this had been true, thou had spared a dale of Paper and pains.  
We evine (saith he) That the Scriptures are a complete adequate and Primary Rule of Faith and Manners, by the Testimony of our Adversaries themselves.  
Answer, If this be true, it is manifest that allhe hath said on that Subject, is superfluous: Against whom did the Man write? Omerciless Adversary This is like the Papists in Q: mary time: Tho you recant and be received into the Church, yet you must burn! But let us hear what he faith?  
His Proofs are these, First, R: Barkclay's Vindication, page 36. The chief Doctrines of Christianity are contained in Scripture, And we may find the whole Doctrine of the Christian Faith in though Scriptures: And George Keith saith, That the Scriptures are a full enough declaration of all Doctrines and Principles, etc.  
Both these I have cleared before granting all that they said; And yet have proven that many things may and do occur, which the Scriptures do not clearly determine.  
The other Branch that they are the Primary Rule, Our Adversaries themselves (saith he) at unawates grant. Very well Patroelus, it is a fine trick of a Soldier to take his Enemies napping and vanquish by stratagem, but it seems there is some difficulty in it.  
He citeth R: Barkclays 2d. Theses, saying, That the Spirit is not to be subjected to the Scriptures as a more noble Rule; Therefore (saith he) The Spirit is to be subjected to the Scriptures, though not as a more noble Rule.  
Answer first, He should have said, These Divine Revelations, for they are the words of the These; But we have often acknowledged that all Doctrines of Men, how holy soever, or how much soever they pretend to the Spirit, are to be tried by the Scriptures, and if they be contrary to them are to be rejected; But this proves nothing of their being the Primary Rule to us, more than to Enoch who was a Man of GOD, and had true Faith, and walked with GOD before there was a line of Scripture in the World.  
Again, (he saith) Our Adversaries grant that the Scriptures proceeded from GOD, and therefore are infallible, and more sure than infallible is impossible. This is a strange Argument. The Scriptures are infallible because they proceeded from GOD, or were inspired by the Spirit of GOD; And shall the Inspiration of the Spirit be fallible, or a more uncertain Rule then that which it dictated? These words sound harshly But I expect when Patreclus comes to be serious in cold Blood, he will grant, That if there be more or less in the Case of Infallibility, he will grant the more to the Spirit which dictated the Scriptures, and from which they derive all their Infallibility, Certainty, and Excellency.  
Here I desire the Reader may observe, that his Arguments and the Scriptures cited by him, tend only to set up Moses Law to be the Primary Rule of Faith and Life; And not one word of the Scriptures of the New Testament, so that he contends for Judaisme rather than Christianity. For Christ said, It hath been said of Old, an Eye for an Eye, &c: But I say unto you resist not evil, &c: So that the Jewish Law is not in all things to be a Rule for Christians; Otherways Patroclus may ofter Sacrifice as well as take Tithes.  
In page 54. 55, and 56. He ranteth and roareth against R: B: as a Jesuit, because (he allegeth) he hath taken an Argument of Bellarmine's to prove the Scriptures not to be an Adequate Rule, but what a silly kind of Reasoning this is, (though true) may easily appear. Bellarmine says, there is one GOD, so do I, therefore I am a Jesuit. The Jesuits say, That Dominion is founded upon Grace; And so do the Presby●erians, Therefore the presbyterians are Jesuits.  
Then he comes to vindicate John Brown's simile of killing a Man; And at last giveth us, the Law, the Judge, and the Witnesses: The Scriptures are (saith he) the Rule whereby to make the Examen, the en●●ghined insolence the Judge, the Spirit of Adoption; or a ●ilial Disposition, &c: Together the renewed Spirit of the Believer himself the Witnesses.  
But first, I must ask him, whether it be the Man himself, or the Judge that needs this Spiritual Wisdom, and Christian prudence to apply the Rule?  
Secondly, Whether the Judge be a Person distinct form the person judged, for (to use his own Simile) If the Man ●● yet be his own Judge, he is not like to suffer.  
Thirdly, What he meaneth by the Ex: Position he gives us of the Spirit of Adoption; As if he thinketh it nothing else but a Filial Disposition, inclining the believer to come to GOD, as his Words imply.  
Behold Reader, what a Judgement is here to be expected; Where the Man himself dislected into so many Parts, is the Applyer of the Rule, the Judge and the Witnesses. And yet in page 57 He confesseth, That for the infallible Assurance of the Person himself, the thing standeth in need of, or requireth an inward Judge, and inward Witnesses; Which I hope must be things distinct from the Person himself to whom they are to give infallible certainty.  
As for his pretending, That it belongeth not properly to a Rule of Faith to tell a Man whether he hath true Faith or not, is not to the purpose; For an adequate Rule of Faith must put me beyond doubting what I am to believe, and what not; Otherways it is no adéquate Rule. And to conclude, I would advise him to be sparing in calling Men Antichristian: For I know no people, except the Papists to whom the definition of Antichrist given by the Apostles, is more agreeable then to the Presbyterians. That is, He exalteth himself above all that is called God, or the civil Magistrates, who are called Gods in Scripture, Goodman saith, they may kill wicked Princes as monsters, and oruel beasts.  
Knox History Fol: 78. If neither the Magistrate nor the people do their office in deposing or killing the King, than the Minister must Excommunicate such a King. Goodman, page 110. Any private Man may do it against the greatest Prince: A private Man, having some special motion, may kill a Tyrant!  
If these Doctrines be not more like Antichrist, than the Doctrine he accuserh, let the Reader judge.  
In Page 57 he cometh to another Argument of R. B's, There are many things that the Scripture cannot determine. To which I: B: Answers, That General Rules are enough, leaving the rest to Christian prudence, and Wisdom! If this be not flatly to contradict the Scriptures concerning the chief Instances cited by R: B: Let the Reader judge after he hath read and considered the following Scriptures.  
Rom. 8: 16. The Spirit itself beareth Witness with our spirits, that we are the Children of GOD.  
1 John 4. 13. Hereby do we know that we dwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of his Spirit, And Vers. 5. 6. And it is the Spirit that beareth Witness, because the Spirit is Truth.  
To these Scriptures cited by R: B: He hath not answered one Word: Bu● all his Answers are Quibles. As first, If we need Revelation for Spiritual Actions, we need them also for Natural Actions. Poor Man! Are we contending for a Rule for Eating and Drinking (as he talks) If he be sick, let him consult the Physician, what and when he shall Eat: But if he mean the Fasts appointed by the Presbyterian Clergy, his Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Persuasion have need to consult an higher Oracle, And when he is hungry and thirsty, his stomach can teach him. Nevertholess, Whether we eat or drink, we are to do it to the Glory of GOD.  
His second Answer is ridiculous, alleging that a system of Mathematics or Military Discipline is a sufficient Rule, though the Books comprehended not the Names of all Mathematicians and Soldiers that ever shall exist But the Question is, Whether a system of these Arts can put a Man beyond doubting in every Emergent that may occur in these Arts when practised? And not whether their Names be there or not. As whether he is to take upon him to be General of an Army, as R: B: tells his Adversary, page 45 of his Vindication. The Question is, how James and Peter Knew they should take upon them to Rule? But in case these systems fail to satisfy a Man at a straight (which I hope any experienced Soldier will confess and the daily new Inventions do fully evince) What then is the Soldier to recur to? Is it not to that by which the first Man wrote the System, That is, his Reason; And see if that can help him when his Book cannot: Yea, have there not been good Soldiers who could neither Read nor Write? Yes, General Lesly, who did more for the Presbyterian Interest then Patroelus and Achilles both can do. And will a Mathematician receive a Mathematical Proposition set down in a System hand over head, without satisfying his Reason? These are poor similes, and rather hurtful then helpful to his Cause; If by these he minds to prove, That humane prudence can assure a man that he is a Child of God. I am apt to suspect by his Book that he hath never trodden this narrow Path himself; Else he would have spoken other Language. Next he comes to answer for his Brethren the Remonstrants and Public Resolutioners, comparing then (indeed) to Paul and Barnabas: But he hath forgot to tell us which of them was in the right, and to decide the controversy by plain Scripture to the stopping the mouths of the other Party, but I doubt this would have puzzled his prudence. As for his Instance of Paul and Barnabas, their contention was not for matters of Faith or Doctrine as Beza testifieth, and the Scripture saith no where that they did not meet again; But our Assembly Men never reconciled to this day.  
But knowing this will not do, he giveth a better Answer, Saying, The Corruptions of Men are only to be charged with this.  
Ah! Lamentable, The whole General Assembly of the Church of Scotland corrupt men: What guides then had such poor Laics as I? Put all this saith nothing, except he decide the Contraversy by plain Scripture; Which when he hath done, I shall say, It's pity he was not present at the Assembly.  
Next he falls upon some other Arguments, which he tells us are scraped out of Bellarmine, and therefore deserve no Answer. Which Answer, whether true or false I know not, having never read Bellarmine's Works: But I find this is a fair shift to win off, and an Hebergeon proof against any Dart.  
He spendeth his whole page 60. on Reflections, First on James Naylor; he might have remembered Major Weir. But De mortuis nill, &c: I disdain to scrape in that Dunghill.  
Next he compares us to the Papists, saying, As the Papists to cover the rest of their Abominations, have invented a greater and more dangerous than them all, that is, Their Church's Infallibility: So this Spirit of the Quakers, knowing that upon trial he will be found to be a Counterfeit, hath taken the Counsel given by Alcibiades to Pericles, that is, To study how he may secure himself with the hazard of a Trial. And here he citys William Penn's Rejoinder, Part. 1. Chap. 5. about the Man of Philippi.  
I beseech the Reader to peruse the place cited by him, that he may see him past all shame, or care of being reputed an honest Man. For First he says, W. Penn useth it as an Argument to prove, The Scriptures cannot be a Rule of Faith and Life; whereas in the same Page, W. Penn hath owned them for a Rule of Faith and Life, though not the Rule by way of Excellency, nor, as Patroclus saith, the Primary Rule.  
Secondly, He makes no Argument of it, but an Instance, as he doth that of Ananias and Saphira, That the Scriptures could not be a Rule to Peter nor Paul in these cases; as he doth that also of flying or standing in the time of Persecution; and asketh what do Professors mean, when they advise People to seek the Lord in this o● the other Case? Why do they not go seek the Scriptures rather? and much more, which for brevity lomit.  
To evite all which, he makes a Nonsensical Argument, and denies the Antecedent when he had none. And then falls a Railing for a whole Page together, a part whereof I have set down above.  
For Answer to which: First, The Quakers own no other Spirit but the Comforter, whom Christ promised to send to Reprove the World for Sin (for they never refused to subject the Spirits and Doctrines of Men to the Scriptures) and therefore if he have called the Spirit of Truth a Counterfier, the just God will Rebuke him for his Blasphemy. And this poor Man, who can pretend to no more Infallibility than the Pharisees of old, (who had the Scriptures as well as he, and yet were found guilty of Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost) may be afraid he be found in the same Case with them. But I wish he may find Repentance.  
Secondly, The Presbyterians may be no less fitly compared with the Papists: For their Doctrines being tried by the Scriptures, they being Interpreters themselves, it is a mere shame to speak of a Trial: For whatever Interpretation doth not agree with the Analogy of Faith, is to be rejected; Now the Analogy of Faith is of their own composing, so that Faith and Trial and all is but Man's work, and in fine a very cheat.  
But next he must give us the most deadly blow of all; Saying, We are beyond the reach of a Conviction; But the Reader may excuse him a little, being now among his Brethren, the Grecian Hero's, Alcibiades and Pericles. But who told him this, that the Quakers were beyond the reach of a Conviction? Sure not the Scriptures; For there is no such Sentence in them all; Nor the Spirit, for he cannot endure Divine Inspiration, the Capital Enemy of the Presbyterian Priesthood: Who then? Imagination: A thing the Presbyterians call Faith; The very counterfeit he hath been talking of just now.  
Next he tells us, That Prophecies of future Events may well be brought to the Scripture Test: Then I beseech him tell me, what Scripture Test could Noah his prophecy of the Flood have been brought to; Or George Wisharts Prophesy of the Cardinals being Killed in such a place, and not in another.  
In the close, he saith, Paul was Divinely inspired, and the Actions were conform to Scripture, consonant, and warranted by the Promise of Christ, & C: But it seems he hath forgotten what he said in page 39 Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines by the Scriptures, who were Immediately inspired as well as Paul; But any thing will serve after such a fatal blow as he hath lately given.  
Page 61. He saith, The ground of their Arguments, with which they stand and fall is this, The Scriptures are not the Fountain itself, but a Declaration of the Fountain: Therefore they are not to be accounted the principal Original of all Truth and Knowledge, nor yet the adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners.  
For Answer, Let the Reader observe, That this is but a These; And that our Adversaries themselves grant the first part of it Reason therein adduced: But the Argument to prove the second part, he hath never mentioned, as being too hot for his fingers, Which is this following. Apol: page 44.  
That which is not the Rule of my faith in believing the Scriptures themselves, is not the Adequat Primary Rule of Faith and Manners.  
But the Scriptures are not nor can be the Rule of that Paith by which I believe them, &c: Therefore, &c: This he hath taken no nottice of: But gives us a long Citation out of R: B: his Vindication, page 37. And then tells us the Coherence will be made out Ad Calendas Graecas; As if it were the Custom when Men publish Theses to set down in the Body of them, all the Arguments to prove them. But seeing he will have a Coherence, let him take it thus. The Scriptures are not the Fountain, but a Declaration of the Founta in, and when the streams fail, men use to recur to the Fountain; Therefore when the Scriptures cannot resolve the doubts which ordinarily arise among Christians, They ought to recur to the Fountain. That this hath been the practice of the Saints in all ages is manifest from the Scripture, I shall instance one or two with divers before cited. That Divid was a Man of GOD, and Knew the Scriptures; I hope mine Adversary will not deny, and that he had Abiathar the Priest with him, to help him to the right sense of them (if need were) when he was at Keilab; Yet he was necessitate to recur to the Fountain, & inquire of the Lord: Will Saul come down? And will the Man of Keilab for me up unto him, 1 Sam: 23 9, 10, 11, 12 And again at Zigl●g when the people were like to stone him; Did he not then inquire of the LORD, 1 Sam▪ 30. 8 And I would willingly know what the Presbyterians means by seeking the LORD in their straits, except it be to ask his Counsel when all other means fail them: Hence all his boast evanisheth  
Next he challengeth his Adversary, as confounding the principal Rule and Original Ground, together calling it None-sense, ridiculous, and nothing to the purpose; But he should have remembered that in page 46. He hath cited Ephes: 2. 20. To prove the Scripture to be the Foundation, and all along calls them the Principal Rule: If this be sense, so the other.  Sanum Reprênsor debet habere Caput. 
In page 64. He comes to beg the Question in terminis, and tells us positively, The Scriptures are the Primary Rule, And Concludes, Thus we understand the primary Rule, and while he doth not so, ho but mistaketh the Question. This indeed is imperious Logic, and more becoming a Grecian Hero then a Presbyterion Priest; But he must Know that the word Primary is out of doors. As it signifies First, And before he give it another signification, he will need to alter all the Lexicons I have yet seen, For there was a Rule of Faith before there was a Book in the World; And therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Primary Rule.  
Next he comes to his Acyrologie, to let us know he hath studied Rhetoric: Saying, to call a Person of Rule, is a great Inductive of Confusion, But to call GOD and Christ the habits of Grace (as the doth in page 38) is a far more improper speech.  
Then he citys R. B's words in answer to I: Brown, but not fully, and draweth his consequences from them; the words are these. For I was never so absurd, as to call GOD simply considered, or the Spirit of GOD (in obstracto) (but as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in men's hearts, not contrary, but according to Scripture, for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians.  
From hence he deduceth two Conclusions, First, that the Quakers Grand principle, that Immediate objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their faith, falleth to the ground; And that these Imprinted truths are but secondary. But who seethe not deceit and malice in this consequence? Certainly he must fear his cause, when he takes such weak Pillars to underprop it: For any man of candour may see that R: B: intendeth only to prove that truths Imprinted, and not the Imprinter to be the Rule, And he confesseth it to be one Acylogie, or improper speech. And to conclude the Ruin of his Adversaries cause from one improper speech, is either great folly or great malice, so that his Antecedent being tightly understood according to the Author's sense, his consequence together will all he hath deduced from it, is a mere Nonsequitur.  
His other Consequence depending upon the first falleth with it: Only he hath been assert that these Revelations are self evident, and that to assert otherways were impious, And (a little after) to judge that the GOD of Truth may prove the liar; and deceive us! Well then Patroclus, it seems there are yet such Revelations by thine own confession, as are self evident, which we may take notice of in due time.  
He proceeds, saying, There is very good reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primary than the Scriptures, both being given by the same spirit, seeing the primariness is not the immediateness, but the thief binding power, and the prerogative to be the Touchstone of all doctrines? But who denyeth this prerogative to the Scriptures, of being a Rule to try all Doctrines of Men how holy so ever? Have not his Adversaries granted all this times? And what then, I hope to believe this proposition is an Act of Faith no where mentioned in Scripture, neither is itself evident, and therefore needeth a Rule: Yea more, the scriptures of the New Testament make mention of a Rule only three times, to wit. 2 Cor. 10. 15, 16. Gal. 6. 16. and Phil. 3. 16. And if Patroclus with all his prudence and wisdom comparing Scripture with Scripture, can twist and twine a sense out of these Scriptures to prove his matter, he may boast of it.  
Next, he citys 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17. in these words, they are able to make the man of GOD wise unto salvation. But whether there be such words there, let the Reader judge; Then he plainly showeth us what he intends, and it is the book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest, etc.  
If this be true, then certainly the Tenor of the New Covenant is made void, and they who lived under the Law had a rea.dier access unto GOD, and to know His Mind than they who live under the Gospel.  
And yet the difference is evident, for as the Law was an outward Rule written by Moses, the outward Leader of outward Israel; so CHRIST the SpiritualLeader of Spiritual Israel writteth His Spiritual Law in the heart.  
I shall add one argument thus, That which was a Rule to the Faith-makers at Westminster in composing their form of Faith, and imposing it upon the Nations, may serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes.  
But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth, was their Rule. Ergo, etc.  
The Major I hope they will not deny, and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance, which was as followeth,  
Die Jovis 6: of July 1643.  
I A: B: do seriously and solemnly protest in the presence of Almighty GOD, That (in this Assembly whereof I am a Member) I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine, but what I think in my conscience to be Truth, Or in point of Discipline, but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glory of GOD, and to the Good and Peace of the Church.  
Hence it is evident, That their Conscience was their Rule; But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Error, whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom, let Patroclus choose, And to help him in his Election, he may consult his Brother, the Author of Melius Inquirendum: who a little after he hath told him, that his ultimate Rule is a monster, Tells him also, That nothing can possibly interpose between the Authority of GOD and the conscience, and that its dictates are uncontrollable.  
Next, he tells us, That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil: But the Scripture saith not, that men are condemned for want of Light, But because Light i● come into the World, but Men love darkness rather than light. And also, that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men.  
He closeth up this Number, accusing R: B: for confounding the principal Rule, and the principal Leader; but these are his Ac●rologian mistakes, and not his Adversaries confusion: For any man not maliciously biased, may see that he intends no more, but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule, and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader; as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39: saying, that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul, that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit, is more primary and principally the Rule than the Scriptures, some things written and received only from another. This he hath maliciously passed by, together with the Question following, which he could not answer, so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisi●al formalities return upon his own head.  
In page 67: He comes to the interpreter of Scripture, where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetoric, like that of hi● Brother Mackquair, the Arch-scold, saying, 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 scripture be not esteemed false, ambiguous, and nonsenfical; then their cause is lost.  
What more malicious and wicked falsehood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People, who from their Hearts abhor any such thought, concerning the Scriptures, as to esteem them false, ambiguous and nonsensical: Or what end could this snicked Liar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth? Except it be to raise their Beloved Refo●me●s the Rabble, to stone us! as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow, had almost been stoned to Death by them.  
But, he saith, The Quakers well knowing, etc. If this were true. we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster: Who in chap: 23: numb: 4: of their Confession, say, Infidelity or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authority; nor free the People from their due Obedience to him; While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King, a Pious as well as Protestant Prince. Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first, and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second: So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture ●alse, ambiguous, or nonesensical. Wherefore he should have said, If the Spirit of GOD, which dictated the Scriptures, be the only true Interpreter of Scripture, then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost.  
As for his phrase, GOD speaking in the Scriptures, and a little after, The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures; It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary: For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them, and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort, is confessed; But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood, and in effect, a mere shame to amuse his Reader. As for example, When Patro●lus stepeth up into his Pulpit, and readeth a sentence of Scripture, which may be somewhat obscure, As this my Body, He begins to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors, then of the Lutherian, and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors; Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text.  
Now I would willingly know, whethe● it be GOD or Man that speaks here; The First, he would be afraid of as Enthusiastiok. And if the Second, What becomes of his Phrase, GOD speaking in the Scriptures? So the Reader may see, That it is a mere humane device to keep up a sordid Trade (for by this Trade they have their Living, as the Silver smith's had) of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake.  
But let the Reader know, That we fully own the Spirit of GOD, which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter, neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means, such as Reading, Meditation, Prayer, and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures, as many of our Friends have published to the World. So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following, falls to the ground, being built upon no one solid Argument.  
But I shall take notice of some of them; And First, He citeth George Keith, Saying, We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture; seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth, but declare themselves Enemies to it.  
To this he Answereth, Behold Reader, The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine. Answer, If this be true, than Patroclus is a great Liar; For in page 32. he saith, 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: And in that foregoing page, placeth themselves in the middle. So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists than we. And in good earnest, any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practices, will find the Difference nothing but Pretence. For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith; so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith, and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters than the Papists. Only (Blessed be the LORD) they have not such power.  
As for his saying, We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD, because they try all Doctrines and Practices by the Scriptures.  
This contains two Lies; First, That we condemn all the reformed Churches; For R: B: hath cited severals of them who are of his Judgement, and more may be cited in its place. And Secondly, The Reasou is a gross Lie; For we always owned, That all Doctrines and Practices of Men were to be tried by the Scriptures.  
Next he saith, Hence we find, That the spirit of the Quakers is Diametrically opposite is the scriptures, and therefore the spirit of lies and delusion: Whence I pray thee Patroelus? Because we reject private Presbyterion Interpretations; Which are but Man's wit and work: This Consequence will be made out (as thou sayest) ad Kalendas Graecas. When in a vapouring humour he giveth a Latin phrase, and maketh us Ghosts and Hobgoblins; But he hath not yet fallen upon the right spell to conjureus, except it be his cutting our Juglar Veins, which he yet wants power, though not will to do.  
His next os any weight is, That from our denying their Interpretations; It follows, That our Saviour laboured invain, when he proved the Resurrection of the Dead from the scriptures: But he might have considered, that he was GOD as well as Man who spoke there, and that his Word was sufficient.  
Secondly, That this Scripture was an Argument ad bominem to the saducees who believed Moses Law better than Christ.  
Thirdly, The Consequence will be very gross, That because Christ who had the Spirit above measure, proved an Article of Faith by Scripture; Therefore every Presbyterian Priest pedant may by his own natural and acquired parts, without the Spirit interpret Scripture. But there is at present too great controversy which seems to bring a fiery brand in the tail of it, like to destroy all that is profitable or beautysul in the Nation (as it hath once already done) and to hazard the lives and estates of many well meaning men and good Patriots; That is, whether there be any difference betwixt the office of a Bishop and a Presbyter in the Church? Now if our Author can decide this controversy by Scripture to the silence of the Malignants, as our Saviour did the Saddusees, he will do better service to his Native Country, then by all his weak and deceitful wranglings against the poor Quakers, who are not compeating with him for the Chair.  
But his next consequence is very odd; Yea saith he, if this Doctrine be true: A man doth not sin if he worship the Grocodale; lbis, Dog, or Cat, with the old Egyptians: Yea, a man may believe or do whatsoever cometh in his Brain, etc.  
First, ' This Doctrine that the Spirit of GOD is the only true interpreter of Scripture can bring no such consequence along with it; For GOD never taught a man to commit Idolatry, and to say that a general prohibation is not binding upon a man because his name is not in it, is ridiculous, and no man that I know, ever thought it. But Secondly, If his consequence be true, than no Idolater sinned before Moses Law was written; Yea (according to our Author) the Egyptians he speaks of did not sin: For if they had, no inward Law, sure they had no outward Law; And (borresco referens!) the old World sinned not to deserve the Flood, because they had no written Law, nor any Presbyterian Priest to interperate scripture. Next he says we deny all Commentaries and expofitions of scripture; He should have added which are merely man's work without the Spirit of Christ, if he will not be accounted a liar.  
Then he chargeth R: B: for laying that the Holy Ghost is not a distinct Person of the Trinity.  
I shall set down R: B's: own words that the Reader may see how fairly he deals with R: B: Thus, I desire to know of him in what Scripture he finds these words, that the Spirit is a diltinct Person of the Trinity; For I freely acknowledge according to the Scripture, that the Spirit of GOD proceed eth from the Father and the Son, and is GOD: And then asketh him whether any hath reason to think he truly makes the Scripture the Rule of his Faith (notwithstanding his pretence) when he either will not, or cannot find words in it to express the chief Articles of his Creed And now whether R: B: hath not fully confessed the the mystery, and only denied words of man's invention, let the Reader judge.  
Next he challengeth him for taking the words, 1 John 2. 27. At the first sound, and without any explication, but he hath no leisure to give us any explication, nor to disprove what he said from the words; But concludes thus, So that what ever they say, or can say to liberate their doctrine from this most weighty, but just charge they shall only twist contradictions the faster.  
This is a great blow from a Grecian Gallant, but hath not the weight of a Fear there: For we own the scripture for a Rule, and the best outward Rule in the World, and yet disown the Presbyterian expositions, and Commentaries on them, so long as they deny the assistance of the Holy Spirit in the work. And whereas he challengeth us for not writing Commentaries; The World is so overloaded with Commentaries of Man's making, each almost contradicting another upon the same text; that we think it best to let Patroclus abound in his own sense, till GOD reveal that also unto him, Phil. 3. 15.  
After this for about a page, he doth nothing but rail and rove at randum, as if Patroelus like he had the Trojans in chase, and were upon execution; And to sum up his Victory, he concludes us Bapists, because forsooth, we deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and 〈◊〉, and the chief Judge of contraversies.  
Answer: First, He hath need here of some of his Metaphisical formalities to distinguish betwixt the Rule or Law, and the Judge, But this we may expect next: The Reason he giveth is, because our Arguments (as he allegeth) conclude with theirs, and instanceth that of Revel: 22: 18: compared with Deut: 4: 2: but hath brought nothing to disprove the inference; Only telling us, to this purpose may Bellarmine answer, and the rest of the Jesuits: But the difference lieth here, the Papists would thereby set up the Roman Church and unwritten Traditions to be the primary rule; But we the Teachings of the Spirit of CHRIST: so that according to patroclus own words, in page 32, we differ as far as Heaven and Earth; And he hath chosen a middle place for himself and his Brethren, in which of the Limbos he may tell us next: And let this suffice to answer all his Roving to the end of the Chapter.   

Chapter II. of Immediate Revelation.  
HE gins this Chapter with an h●dgpodg of railing lies, nonsense and contradictions; such as a man pretending to sense and Learning may be ashamed of, if his desperate malice had not blinded him; Whereby he seeks to bespatter and blaken the Quakers, so as so render them the object of the Magistrates severity, Or expose them to the rage of his beloved Reformers, the Rabble. For, First, he says, they have rejected the guidance of the Spirit of GOD, adding his wont phrase, speaking in the Scriptures. But if I shall ask him, Doth GOD nowadays speak at all to his Church? He would readily answer me, No: And within four pages, he labours to prove, that GOD hath spoke his last words to his Church; Which is also clear from their Confession of Faith, chap: 1: so that as is said before, this phrase is a mere cheat.  
Secondly, he saith, We have most impiously and self-deceiving lie given up ourselves to the guidance of some Thing, which they call the Spirit of GOD, as we have heard. Here he falsely insinuates, That we give up ourselves to the guidance of some Thing, which is not the Spirit of GOD, which is a gross untruth: For GOD knoweth, and our Consciences bear us witness, that we own no other Spirit but the same, which Christ promised to His followers, John 14. 16. I shall pray the Father, and be shall give you another Comforter, that be may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of Truth, whom the World cannot receive; because it seethe Him not, neither knoweth Him; But ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in ●on; And Vers. 26. But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, Whom the Father will send in my Name, He shall teach you all things; And 15 Changed 26. 8. and 16. 17, 18. The Comforter who will reprove the World of sin, etc.  
This is that Spirit of Truth, To whose Guidance we have given, and do give up ourselves; And if he mean any other thing, he is a wicked Slanderer and Callumniator.  
Next he adds, And again in contradiction to this, the Soul of CHRIST Extended and Dilated  
This is a part of George Keiths Book, called, The way cast up; To which book he promiseth an Answer: But the Man is able, and can answer for himself against all the Presbyterian Priests in Scotland.  
Then he says, But most frequently, they call it the Light within, or simply, the Spirit. And it not this Scripture Language. GOD who commanded Light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts: And was not this the Apostles Message, that GOD is Light, And how frequently is the Holy Ghost in scripture called simply the Spirit without any addition?  
But he adds to which Spirit GOD himself speaking in the Scriptures must 〈◊〉, obey the same. This blasphemous Gibberish, being the invention of his own brain deserves no answer; But may well be added to the Presbyterian Eloquence at the next impression. But I pass by the rest of his railing, and come to his defence of his Brother John Brown's Argument, which is this; If since the Apostles fell a sleep, and the Cannon of the Scripture was closed; All that have pretended to immediate Revelation as a Primary Rule, have been led by a Spirit of error, than it is not the way of CHRIST.  
But the former is true, etc. Ergo, etc.  
To which R: B: hath answered, and our Author accepts his answer, and changeth the argument thus.  
If since the Apostles, whose names are mentioned in Scripture fell a sleep, and John wrote the Revelation, all that pretended to this Kind of Revelation have been led by a spirit of error; Then this is not the wayof Christ: But the former is true. Ergo, etc.  
And now he thinketh there can be no exception against his argument, but that it will certainly do his business, yet is he like to be mistaken.  
For first his argument seems to insinuate that before the Apostles fell a sleep, immediate Revelation was the Primary Rule, and if it was so, it continues to be so yet, by his own former Concessions: For GOD hath not changed his Rule; so that if he makes his argument to speak to the purpose, he must say thus, all who pretended to this kind of Revelation, as well before as since the Apostles fell a sleep were led by a Spirit of error, which I think he would be loath to affirm.  
Secondly, He will gain very little though I grant his argument in terminis, for I have as little kindness, for pretenders as he hath or can have; and do readily grant that all who pretend to this kind of Revelations and have them not, are led by a Spirit of error, as well as that all Presbyterians who pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule, and do not frame their Faith and manners according to them, are Hypocrites, and are led by a spirit of error▪ So that except his Argument say, all who have been led really and truly by the Spirit of Truth (of whom Christ promised that he should teach them all things, and lead into all truth) were led by a Spirit of error: He doth but ●eat the air, and fight with his own shadow; For we have had pretenders amongstus whom we have denied and rejected. And what he brings concerning the corruptions of men, we deny not: For as men of Corrupt minds may pretend to the Scriptures, so they may pretend to the Spirit, but the LORD hath always hitherto given his Church a spirit of discerning, whereby such pretenders have been detected, rejected, and denied.  
And did not Zede●iah the Son of Chenaanah pretend to the Spirit, with as much confidence as Mieajah, 1 King: 22. 24. When he smote Micajah, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee? Will it follow from hence, That Micajah was led by a spirit of error, because Zedekiah pretended to the same spirit? Or that the Presbyterians are led by a spirit of error; Because the Lutherians, Anabaptists, Independants, and Arminians, pretend to the same Rule with them? So as the Scriptures may be wrested to the condemnation of the Wresters; Our Author must confess that he needs a Guide to tell him when he goeth astray.  
And whereas he citeth some called Quakers, who have erred (whether truly or falsely I know not) I will bring him ten for one among the Presbyterians: Yea and the greatest part of the Presbyterian Ministry of Scotland about the year 1661., foully deserted the good old cause, and yet no less pretend to the Scriptures for their Rule than they had formerly done.  
He falls next to prove, that there is no Consanguinity betwixt the Jesuits argument to Jo: Menzies, and this of I: B: But let the Reader consider whether both Arguments terminate in the same thing; For the Jesuits presseth I: M: to produce his Grounds and Principles; And our Author in page 78▪ saith his Argument is demonstrative, except his Adversary can produce any Instance to the contrary; And if this be no Consanguinity, let the Reader judge. And whereas he turneth over the Jesuits Argument, he might well have expected that the Jesuit would and might have said so of the Presbyterians in Scotland, who have fallen into palpable errors, and have felt heavy Judgements; Notwithstanding of all their pretences to the Scriptures for their Rule: For their work of Deformation (falsely by them called Reformation) began with the Sword, raged with the Pestilence, and sickened with the famine; And was at last utterly destroyed By 〈…〉 of their own Brood. O: C:  
But the Man will so far exceed I: M: That he tells us; How easy had it been to have adduced whole Vollumns; whereas I believe I: M: was much abler to deal with his Antagonist, than our Frothy Au. hoc with all his Grecian sophistry.  
A little after he taketh all the Christian World upon his side. Yea, Christian, and Antichristian, Papists, Protestants and Greeks, (though in his Epistle to the Reader, he calls the Lutherians their capital Enemies) certainly Patroclus hath made a notable Multer against the Quakers, if all were true, But (I pray him) whence come all these divisions, if ye be all of one mind? I wonder how a Man in his Wit●s could talk at this rate.  
Next after a piece of Frothy Triumph, he says, I answer directly to the Jesuit and the Quaker his Patron; If we may Believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries; Such as Bellarmine, Contaren, Salmeron, the chief of the Doctrine which we hold in opposition to Popery, are most agreeable to the true sense of Scripture.  
Answer, If I had thought so, as he allegeth upon these Doctors; To wit, That the true sense of the 〈◊〉 had been upon the Presbyterian side, in their controversy with us, I should never have opposed them; For sure I am, GOD cannot contradict Himself. And I would willingly learn from Patroelus, upon what ground they could burn Protestant's, when they believed the true sense of the scriptures to be on their side: Neither can I believe the Papists are so gross, as to believe the first and practise the second: For I suppose the greatest difference betwixt the Presbyterians and Papists, and all their other Opposers; is about the true sense of the Scripture: And therefore he raveth, when he calleth R. B: the Jesuits patron; For I am certain that he neither believed you nor the Jesuits to have the true sense of the Scriptures; And so his direct Answer comes to a direct nothing to the purpose.  
To R: B ●▪ Third Answer, Viz: That George Wishart and John Huss had Immediate Revelation, &c: He replieth, That R: B: granteth, They did not pretend to them as the ground of their Faith and Obedience in all Matters of Faith, Worship, and Doctrine. But certainly they did it in some Matters, for none of them could pretend to an outward call to preach the Protestant Doctrine and Worship; And yet they both preached it, and I believe upon a better Ground than a Presbyterian Call. But however, our Author does not deny that these Men had Immediate Revelation; And consequently his serious Truth absurdly affirmed by James Durbame; Viz: That Christ hath spoke his last words to his Church, is a fabulous untruth.  
Next, he falls again upon James Naylor; And because R: B: saith, He repent again, our Author draws a Noble Consequence from it, thus, Which Answer is an evident Confirmation of what we plead for, To wit, That the Quakers spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them; For I believe I: N: acted but according to his Light, etc. This is just as much as to say, he that sinneth against the Law of GOD and repenteth, he evidently confirmeth that the Law of GOD hath given him the cheat and deceived him, Absit Blasphemia.  
And further, About the beginning of the Covenant, your Ministers had sworn Canonical Obedience to their Ordinaries; Then they swore the Extirpation of them & their Office. And about twenty years after, swore again Canonical Obedience; In all which Three contrary Oaths, they pretended the Scripture for their Rule. Was it therefore the Scripture which gave them the cheat and deceived them? No surely. So James Nayler sinned against his Light; and the Law of GOD in his heart, and Repent and confessed, he had sinned against his Light, and condemned himself under his hand, (though this malicious man insinuates the contrary) which I doubt he can say of few of his Brethren, who perjured themselves in taking the Covenant.  
From what hath been said, he draws three Consequences, first, his serious truth before mentioned, to wit, That CHRIST hath spoken his last words to his Church; And to help his Brother out of this Quagmire, he adds, That is put a close to these writings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church; being ashamed to deny, that there were immediate Divine Revelations after the Writing of the Revelation, being so much testified to in Church History: And themselves having called Samuel Rutherfoord a great Seer, much upon his Master's secreets. But how will he deal with his Brother Jurieu, who in his account of the Shepherdess of Daphine, comes very near to assure us of an age at hand, Wherein we shall have Men divinely inspired, v●a, and able to work Miracles; And in his Book upon the Revelation, tells us, That the first Reformation begun by Luther; (which he calls the Harvest) was carried on by the Ministry of Men; But the second which is yet to come, he calls the Vintage, and saith, It will be by the Inspiration of GOD; And in his Characters of the Kingdom of CHRIST, he gives for one of them, That there shall be a plentiful pouring out of the Spirit, whereof (he saith) That which the Apostles received at Jerusalem was but a Type.  
I could instance many others, some who have had it, and others who have foretold of it; But this being a Modern Writer, a Calvinist, and a Sufferer, well esteemed of by all protestants, I thought might suffice to show, that all the Calvinists believe not this serious Truth, as he call it.  
His two following Consequences deduced from his Argument formerly answered and Refuted, are of no force; For (blessed be the LORD) we can instance Thousands who neither have fallen into palpable Errors, nor open Blasphemy; Nor have marks of GOD's heavy Judgements, but have lived and died in Favour with GOD and Good Men, though persecuted by the Presbyterians and Independents their Brethren; By whose unjust Judgement some of them have been put to cruel death.  
His third Consequence being a mere windy bauble, deserves no answer.  
His second Argument is, Moses and the Prophets, CHRIST and the Apostles, and all the Holy Men that were Inspired by GOD t● Compile a Rule of Faith and Life, &c Can by infallible Evidence and infallible Proofs, even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers, demonstrat that they were sent of GOD, But nothing of this kind Quakers can do; yea they are so far from it; that they can bring no more Evidence or credentials for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation, than the most wicked Enthusiasts: As for example John of Layden, and his Followers, etc.  
To this Argument he sets down R. B's. Answer, but slily omitteth what followeth, which is, And therefore most weak is his Reasoning in page 461, That such Revelations cannot be more sure than the Scriptures, which are the Objective Revelations of the Apostles written down, since the certainty of these Writtings depends upon the certainty of these Revelations by which they were written: And if any case that Maxim of the Schools hold, it must in this; Propter quod unum quodque est tale, illud ipsum est magis tale. And this may serve to answer his talk of a chief binding power, and prerogative to be the Touchstone of all Doctrines: For if they be so, it is because they were Divinely inspired; And therefore Divine Inspirations must be much more so. But let us consider his Argument.  
First, He saith, The Prophets and Apostles, (for Christ wrote no Scripture) could by infallible Evidence and proofs, even to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposets demonstrate, that they were sent of GOD; but whence came it then that their greatest Opposers did not receive their Testimony? Why did they persecur them even to death? As their Successors the Presb●terians and their Brethren the Independents have done to some of us? Was it not because they were not convinced that they were sent of GOD? Or was it because they maliciously hardened their hearts, and would not believe it? The same is the case with our Author, and his Brethren at this day. But perhaps he expecteth miracles for Proofs and Evidences; And in this followeth the footstepts of his predecestors the Papists, who dealt so by the first Reformers: And the same Answer the first Reformers gave to the Papists may serve him: For as they said, They needed not Miracles because they preached not a New Gospel: So we pretend not Revelations of New Things, But a New Revelation of the Good old things: And again what can he pretend to that we want? He hath produced nothing: Only in page 81, He saith on the other hand. It is beyond denial, that we have the Scriptures: And is it not as true that we have them? But the Question is, Who hath the true sense of them? The Papists say, They are the only true Infallible Proponders: I: B: and our Author say, Christian prudence and Wisdom, comparing the Text with the Text; And we say, The Holy Spirit, who gave them forth, is the only Right Interpreter. Et ad buc sub judice lis est.  
But he falls upon R: Barkclay, for saying, That others pretending to be led by the Scriptures as their Rule, as much as I: B: have been deceived. To which he answers, If the Scriptures, through the corruption of men may be wrested and abused to the patrocinic of errors and corrupt practices; Then although men clearly understand and firmly believe them, and square their Life exactly according to them: Yet they are no more able to be a Rule to them, than these Revelations can be which Jobn of Leyden held.  
This he saith is the first proposition into which R: B's. Argument resolveth; And the second is no better than this, Viz: He that will not admit of such Revelations which cannot be distinguished from these that led their followers into the most blasphemous opinions and most wicked practices immaginable; He who will not admit of them for his Principal Rule, but preferreth unto them the Scriptures, &c: Provideth an Argument for Atheists and Sceptics.  
Answer, Can the Devil himself in his most cunning subtle transformings. have more deceitfully and dissingenuously represented this sober and discreet Answer of R: B: But it seems the man is passed all shame: For first, He insinuats that R: B: saith, That men firmly believing and clearly understanding the Scriptures, and squaring their practice exactly conform to them, may err as did John of Leyden. Secondly, That he owns the Revelations which John of Leyden pretended to to be a Rule. And thirdly, That he denyeth the Scriptures to be a Rule. All which three are gross and notorious Lies, unworthy of a man of any Candour or Honesty.  
His second Proposition is drawn from these words of R: B: And indeed this is a fine Argument he hath produced for Sceptics and Atheists, for it renders all Faith, even that of the Patriarches uncertain: For since their ground and warrant for writing the Scripture was in his own account, Inward, Immediate, and extraordinary Revelation: And if such be, as he affirms, uncertain, than the Truth of the Scriptures which depends upon such, must necessarily be uncertain. Now the man certainly knew that R: B: was pleading for none other Revelation, but Divine, Inward, and Immediate Revelations: But being straitened by this Answer, he betakes himself to the covers of Deceit, and the refuge of Lies for his Reply instead of the Revelation of the Spirit of GOD (which he knew his Adversary meant) he puts in the Revelations of Jobn of Leyden; Which impudent treachery is obvious to Reader at first view.  
Hence he might conclude, That because Micajah wrought no Miracles to prove his prophecy more than the Priests of Achab did, therefore he was not to be believed: And because Jobn Huss, George Wishart, and Samuel Rutherfoord, wrought to Miracles; Therefore they were no more to be trusted then Jobn of Leyden; For Miracles only excepted, I know no proofs he can lay claim to, but we can do the same.  
But the best is, That in page 80, he would father these Deductions upon his Adversary; Saying, And now Reader, speak thy mind in good earnest; Thinkest thou that this man was in his Wit, or to be numbered among Rationals, when he made these Deductions, etc. Truly he is very weak Reader, That seethe not this mans affronted deceit; And seeing the Deductions are entirely his own and none of R: B's: He must (by his own Confession) be numbered among Brutes: And whereas he saith, That I: B: never called the Revelations of the Prophet's uncertain; He should have told what hath made Divine Revelation uncertain now, which he cannot; Or have proven that it is altogether ceased, which he dare not undertake, though it be an Article of his Faith. And thus by denying the certainty of Divine Revelations (for R: B: pleads for none else) let the Reader judge if lie have not laboured to confirm his Brother's Atgument for Atheists and Seepticks.  
In page 81. He thinks to put an end to the controversy by some positions, whereof the first is to this purpose; We cannot know whether they have any Revelation at all, They may be lying unto us: For any thing we know, we have only their naked words for it; whereas on the other hand, it is beyond denial that we have the Scriptures.  
This had been very suitable language for their predecestors, The Jews when they stoned the Proto-Martyr Stephen, Acts 7. 56. When he said, Behold I see the Heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the Right Hand of GOD; And for Joash the King, when he caused Zachariah to be stoned to Death, and for Achab to Mieajab, and many other of the Prophets who wrought no Miracles to prove their Mission; But Christ's sheep bear his voice, and know it from the voice of a stranger, whom they will not follow; Tho ravenous Wolves in Sheep's clothing, neither can not will believe it to be his voice: And whereas he saith, it is beyond denial that we have the Scriptures; Is it not beyond denial, that we have them also? Or do any who profess Christianity want them? Or what Advantage have they by them, which others have not; Except it be to make a sordid Tarde of selling their Interpretations of them. So that we dare attempt the Retortion very easily, thus the Lutherians, Independants, Baptists, Socinians, and Arminians, &c: had the Scriptures as well as the Presbyterians have them; So that the Controversy is only, Who have the true sense of them, each party pretending to it. And now I ask him, what infallible Signs, Evidences, and Proofs can he give, to the conviction and self condemnation of the greatest Opposers (as he words it) to demonstrate that the Presbyterians and none else have the true sense of the Scriptures? Which till he do, the retortion stands good.  
But to take his words as they lie, I can compare them to nothing better than to the words of the Pharisees, Joh: 9 29. We know that GOD spoke by Moses, as for this fellow, we know not from whence be is.  
His second is, It being given, that they have Revelations of some kind; From whence are they? From Heaven? Their own fancy, or from hell?  
Answer, We plead for no Revelations, but such as are Divine; And therefore, as his Question is blasphemous, so it is no less impertinent than to say; It being given that Patroelus is a Man, from whence is he? Whether the son of a Man, or a horse, or of a mad Dog? But he proves they are not from Heaven, because they are common to all men; Yet, Bonum quo communius co melius, Christ hath enlightened every man coming into the World, and GOD is just, He never punished a man for breach of a Law, which he never made known to him.  
Thirdly he saith, If they have Divine Revelations, we know not for what end they are given; Whether to be a principal Rule or not, whether by their own corruptions they do not wrest and misunderstand them; Or if they walk according to them? Nothing of which can be said of the Scriptures.  
Answer first, For what end they are given, Job: 14. 26. To teach you all things. And 16. 13. He will guide you into all Truth: And that they are the principal Rule, is sufficiently proved before. The second part is an impudent self contradiction, where he saith, That wresting or misunderstanding, through corruption cannot be said of the Scriptures: Whereas he hath frequently covered himself before, with saying, in the very foregoing page next save one, That the Scriptures, through man's corruption are subject to abuse, never man denied; Thus goeth he backward and forward. And Thirdly, He saith, They know not if we walk according to them: But we well know, that they walk not according to the Scriptures; And it's strange with what impudence the man can obtrude such say upon the World. He would insinuate in page 79. That they squared their practice exactly according to the Scriptures, and here he would have us walk according to Divine Revelation: Whereas they have told the World in their Larger Catechism; That no man is able to keep GOD's Commands by any Grace received in this Life. Then he giveth us the reason of his Ignorance thus; For we can hear nothing nor see nothing, &c: Who can help his spiritual deasness and blindness? None but the Spiritual Physician of Souls whom he is rejecting.  
In page 82. He cometh to the Judge of contraversy; where he laboureth to prove two things, Viz: That the Spirit of God cannot be a Judge of Contraversy; And that the Scriptures are apt to be a Judge of Contraversy; Which he dares not to say absolutely, but for removal of differences about things contained in them.  
The Reason he gives is, Because two different parties may both of them adduce Revelations to prove contradictory assertions; And that the one of them cannot evince his Revelations to be from GOD, more than the other. This is the substance of what he saith against the Spirit, and for the Scriptures he saith thus: Now, this Argument can in no ways be retorted on the Scriptures; For though there hath been, through the corruption of men, wresting of Scripture in any Contraversy; And that even among these who assert the Scripture to be the Principal Rule of Faith and Manners; Yet, who can say, That this is through default of the Scriptures; seeing our Adversaries cannot deny, but that they speak both sense and Truth, &c: And a little after, so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties, etc.  
First, Let the Reader observe his self▪ contradiction, Saying, The Scriptures may be wrested by the corruption of men; And yet in page 81. He saith, Nothing of this can be said of the Scriptures.  
Secondly, That be confesseth (because he cannot deny it) that there have been (and yet are) wresting of Scriptures, and many Contraversies even among such as assert the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners; And therefore it is evident, that his conclusion falls, Viz: so that there shall follow a mutual agreement betwixt the two dissenting parties; For this agreement hath neither followed, nor is like to follow by all his endeavours.  
And Thirdly, The Scriptures can never give a sentence, being but a Law; And every Law needs a Judge to determine. But the matter is in plain terms, we must admit the General Assembly to be Judge, which will determine and convince, neither by the Spirit, nor by Scripture, nor by Reason; But by Force and Fury, Ares, halters, Fire and Sword.  
Fourthly, If this had been true, all the difference among Protestants would have come to a mutual agreement before now, or else he must say, They are all corrupt men, except the Presbyterians.  
As for what he faith of the Ranters (who learned from you to make GOD Author of all their wicked actions) their fruits make them manifest, as your fruits do you, notwithstanding of both your Pretences.  
In page 83. He saith, We have heard their Retortions, Let us now hear their direct Answer; That their fruits declare them to have the Spirit of GOD; For which forsooth, they bring Scripture Proof from Matthew, 7. 15. 16. Where fruits are made the Test for trying whether one be a true or false prophet. Thus he, And then falls a railing with great bitterness, lies and false accusations, which is always his last Refuge when he is straitened. But let the Reader observe, First, That he mocks at Scripture proof (though he dare not deny it) adding a Forsooth to it, as if none had right to the Scripture but Presbyterian Priests.  
Secondly, That for Fruits, he enumerats four gross and abominable Untruths, wherewith he chargeth us. To wit, That we deny the Holy Trinity, the Person of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, The Resurrection of the Body, and that we assert the Souls of Men, yea, and devils too, to be GOD Almighty; Of all which he saith, he will prove the Quakers to be undeniably guilty, before he end his Treatise.  
This needs no Answer, But to say. The Lord rebuke this lying spirit which hath gone forth in the mouth of this lying false Accuser: For the LORD GOD whom we serve, knoweth our Innocency in this matter; and will in his due time vindicat his people from these malicious Callumniators.  
But Thirdly, The Man might have considered that these are points of Faith and not of Works, and that our Saviour spoke here of Works, and not Faith only. The most wicked Man in the Nation may believe all the Westminster Creed as well as Patroclus doth, and yet receive the Sentence in verse 23. of the same Chapter, Depart from me ye workers of iniquity. And therefore, though he should add another Forsooth to it, I will betake me to the Fruits mentioned in Scripture, and then let the World (which he says is not ignorant) judge between them and us. Galat: 5. 20. Where these are reckoned for Fruits of the Flesh, Variance, Emulations Wrath, Strife, Seditions, Envyings, Murders. etc. Which whither they have been peculiar to that Tribe, let the Nation judge. On the other hand the Fruits of the Spirit are Love, Peace, Joy, Long-suffering, Gentleness, Faith, Meekness, Temperance, etc. And whether the people, in derision called Quakers, be found in the Exercise of such Fruits, let such as are acguainted with their conversations, bear Witness for or against them. And I may say without reflection, if to devour and destroy, be the fruits of Abbadon and Apollyon, These are the only Spirits, the Presbyterian Fruits can lay claim to; which to enumerat, were to writ a history, but the late Advocate George Maekenzie hath given an Epitome of them, to which I refer the Reader:  
In page 84. He chargeth R. B. with three lies; Citing his Vindication; But how groundlessly, will be evident to any who will be at the pains to examine R. B's. words, to which for brevity I refer the Reader. Only this, the first is as really John brown's, as his two Hypothetick propositions are his own, in page 79. To which R B. answers, what a horrible lie is this? The Second is no lie, For in chap: 3 Num: 2. Of the Westminerr Confession we have these words. Although GOD knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed Conditions, yet he hath not decreed anything, because be foresaw it as future, or as, that it would come to pass upon such conditions.  
And in the very next words, they add By the Decree of GOD for the Manifestation of His Glory, some men and Angels are predestinated unto everlasting Life, and others fore ordained unto everlasting death. Let him interpret this with the next, for if it bear not all that R. B. saith, it is no better than the Answers of the Delphic Oracle. So that which he calls a palpable and horrid Lie, will be found to be a manifest Truth to any that can read the Confesfion above cited.  
His third is that I. B. makes a preaching to the devil, to deny which, is impudence with a Witness: And as for railing in pulpit and print, it is too well known to the Nation to seek to cover it. Whereof Brown and Mackquare are two famons instances, neither is our Author a Novice in that ignoble art, wherein lest he should come short of his Brethren, he giveth us a short parralel between the old Libertine Anabaptists, and the new, who are known by the name of Quakers,  
This is an old blast from a new horn, a work already done by George Meldrum, when he was Preacher at Aberdeen, and fully answered by George Keith without any reply, To which I might remit my Reader, but because it is not yet printed I shall touch at some of them, and it is to be suspected not without cause, that the hand of Joab is in all this.  
His first is, That these men said, The Word of GOD was a certain heavenly thing distinct from the Scriptures: Adding, the same is the downright Doctrine of the Quakers.  
Answer, What was their Doctrine I know not, for I see little ground to believe their Adversaries did not belie them more than that our Adversaries do not belie us now: which they are not ashamed to do in the face of the Sun, but our Doctrine is well known to be, That Christ is the Word of GOD, according to the Scriptures and that the Scriptures, are the words of GOD.  
His second is about immediate Revelation, But our Doctrine on this head is sufficient. lie cleared in the foregoing Treatise.  
His third is, That the express words and phrases of the Scripture is to be adhered to without any exposition, interpretation, or deduction: That is a gross Calumny may be seen in page 67. of his own Book, where he accuseth George Keith of popery for rejecting their interpretations without the Spirtt; And it is manifest we have always contended that the Spirit was the only true Interpreter of hard Scriptures, where they were heard to be understood, and that the express Words were to be adhered to, where plain.  
His Fourth is, that we assert, that nothing recorded in the old Testament is binding and incumbent to us, but as it is ratified by CHRIST in the new, and hath precept or authority from it: For which he citeth R: B's: vindication, page 178. Num: 5. And to show the Reader his base ingenuity; I shall transcribe R: B's words, which are these: He seeks maliciously to infer that I deny all authority of the Old Testament, which is a horrid calumny: But since there are many things therein, which himself will acknowledge, are not binding upon us now; What shall be the Rule whereby we shall judge what we are now tied to, and what not: etc.  
If this be to deny the obligation of the Old Testament, or to say it is abrogat, let the Reader judge: But it seems our Author thinketh the Ninth Commandment to be abrogated, else he would not so confidently bear false witness against his Neighbour.  
His fifth inslance of Original sin, he referreth to his third Chapter, and so shall I.  
His sixth is, That Christ made no satisfaction for sins, and compared them who taught the contrary to the Seribes and Pharisees to assert which of the people called Quakers is gross and detestable injustice, forgery and malice: But to cover this, he addeth another no less false as to us, that it is damnable and dangerous Doctrine to assert that we are justified by the Righteousness of Christ, etc. Which he promiseth to prove in his fifth Chapter, but will never be able to prove any thing like these two calumnies against us, as I hope shall be seen in its place.  
His Seventh is, that they asserted the possibility of fulfilling the Law: If he had said that we assert a possibility of keeping the Commandments of GOD (not of ourselves, but) through the Grace of GOD. We own this charge, and think it no error, but a sound and great Truth. As for the word Law we are not under the Law but under Grace; And here according to his custom, he inserts a gross lie upon R. B: saying, for the denial of which R: B: promised continually to rail upon all the Reformed. It seems the man hath dreamt this: For I am certain he can never tell where or to whom he promised any such thing; What he undertakes in his fourth Chapter, we sh●ll see how he proves it.  
His eight instance is, that they denied the perseverance of the Saints.  
In this, he also misrepresents us, for we have always asserted, that there is a state of Confirmation in Grace, attainable by all, and attained by in any, which cannot be fallen from: And that some have made shipwreck of Faith and a good conscience cannot be denied.  
His Ninth instance is, their denving of the Resurrection of the same body, and referts to the fifth Chapter of his book: But whatever the Apostle Paul saith in I Corinth: 15. We do willingly believe and acknowledge, and if this Man hath any thing more revealed unto him, concerning the Resurrection, than what Paul tells us, he will do well to publish it.  
His Tenth is, that they deny the Sacred Trinity, and the Divinity of Christ, which he also deceitfully chargeth upon us, referring to his 4th Chapter, wherein I hope his deceit shall be detected. The Just GOD who searcheth our hearts, and knoweth the contrary will certainly reward this false accuser, according to his work, except he repent.  
His Eleventh instance is, That they asserted. The Ministers of the Gospel ought not to be tied to the explaining of the scriptures, that all in the Church ought to speak by turns, etc. And that the Ministers ought to have no certain Stepend.  
This instance hath three accusations; To the first, we say, If any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of GOD, and according to the Grace given him, so let him Minister: Not that we are against the explaining of scripture by a Minister, as he is led thereto by the Spirit of Christ, But that in his Preaching he should be tied thereto only, we see no reason for it, for either this tye upon him is by Divine or Humane authority: If by Divine authority, let our author produce it, and it shall be no more disputed; And if by human authority (as indeed the whole Presbyterian Ministry is) Then this tye is not binding upon any true Gospel Minister; But he may teach, exhort, admonish as GOD giveth him utterance, not contrary, but according to the Scriptures, without taking a Text, and telling his own dark imaginations from it.  
His Second accusation is, that all in the Church ought to speak by turns, This is another gross lie, for we never said that all in the Church ought to speak, but we are not ashamed with Paul to say, 1 Corinth: 14. 13. For ye may all Prophesy one by one, (yet not all in the Church) for as the same Apostle sayeth, No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.  
His Third accusation is, That the Ministers ought not to have certain Stipend: It is strange that this malicious adversary can represent in its true and  colours, but twines and twists like a crooked Serpent, to fasten some reproach upon innocent men. Can there be a more certain Stepend then the free benevolence of true Christians to a true Christian Minister; Or do any of our Ministers complain of wanr, or come to beg of the Presbyterians? but he should have said we were against a forced mantainance by Horning, poinding, Imprisonment, Adjudication of Lands, by which tools ye exact Temporals from such as will have none of these things ye call Spirituals: And herein we have many Martyrs, and good Protestants for us, as ye cannot but know; although this degenerate and self seeking generation have forsaken their paths, and have followed the way of Balaam, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.  
His twelfth Instance is, They denied that a Christian ought to be a Magistrate or in any case make Warr, to take or administer Oaths; Or trouble any man, upon the account of his Religion, Or to prohibit any kind of Religion.  
Here are five bold accusations again; whether they were doctrines of these Anabaptists, I know not, nor am I concerned: I think it is very unlike that such fighters as they were said to be, would deny all Wars to be Lawful.  
But to the first I Answer, It is a horrid and shameless Lie; And for instance, some of us have been Magistrates partieularly Gavine Lawrie in the Province of East New-Jarsey in America, to the great satisfaction of 〈◊〉 the Inhabitants: In this place a certain Presbiterian Preacher came to him, and complained of his Hearers, That contrary to their Contract made with him, they refused to pay him for Preaching: Whereupon both parties being heard, He discerned, that during the time contained in the Contract, they should pay him; Which was a great disapointment to the Brethren. As for the unlawfulness of Oaths and Wars under the Gospel. We own it, and have abundantly proven it in many Treatises, yet unanswered: And as for Liberty of Conscience, it wont to be the great cry of the Presbiterians, when they were under persecution themselves; But being now the Church triumphant in Scotland, they may perhaps change their tune: But for this he may Brother, the Author of Melius Inquirendum. And if it be the duty of the Magistrate any kind of Religion to prohibit, then sure Reformation of Religion does not belong to the Commonality, as John Knox saith; Yea, if this had been only the Office of the Magistrate, presbytery had never reigned in Britan. But to take these accusations in the Complex, and compare them with these of Julian the Apostate, against the Primitive Christians; And Reader will find a greater agreement then betwixt us and the Anabaptists. Philip Melanchton, in his Chronicon Carionis page 278. Scripsit & ipse libros contra Christianos, &c: Thus Englished, He also wrote Books against the Christians, or the doctrine of the Church; In which Books, He chief debateth the forbidding of Revenges: He saith, They take away Magistracy, Judicial Sentences, Punishments, Lawful Wars, And infinitely confirm Robberies: And Lastly, That this Doctrine fighteth with common sense, and taketh away the Nerves of humane Society. Behold Reader the Doctrine of our Author.  
His thirteenth and last Instance is, concerning the Sacraments (so called) wherein I think the man hath not been well in his Wits, when he ranked us with Anahaptists: But because these things are to be handled elsewhere, I shall here wave them.  
Now Reader, I desire thou may consider, That there is not one of the thirteen, wherein he hath not either grossly belied or deceitfully misrepresented us; And in some things, these Anabaptists, as in his twelsth Instance (for which he hath cited no Book) he allegeth they denied the Lawfulness of all Wars; Whereas sleidan's Commentaries lib: 5. Mieneer incited the Boors of Germany to undertake the Holy War (as he called it) against the Princes; Telling them, That he was commanded of GOD to cut off all wicked persons and Princes. And how well this agrees with the Presbyterian practices and Doctrines, is but too nottour. Read the Hind let lose, and Zions' Plea, Fol: 262. Strick the Basilick Vein. Nothing but this will cure the Pleurisee of our State.  
And to say, That they were for Liberty of Conscience, is no less inconsistent with their Practices, for they laboured to propagate their Religion by the Sword; And so did our Presbiterians: Yea, and put themselves under a necessity so to do by a solemn Oath? Only the difference betwixt Muneer and the Presbiterians was this.  
I'll crueem seeleris pre●ium tulit hi diadema. There was another Doctrine common to them, both Anabaptists and Presbiterians, Viz: all is Durs; Which Text they expounded thus; That all the wealth of the World belonged properly to the Saints, and whatsoever other men possessed was but by usurpation: Agreeable to this was the practice of our Presbiterians, who after they had got possession of the King's Revenue, the Bishop's Rents, the Papists Estates, and these they called Malignants, and were squeezing the Nation with insupportable Cesses and Excise: They at last devised a trick how the Israelite might robe the Egyptian, by forcing every man, who was not as Zealous as the fervency of the times required, To lend them his money upon the public Faith (commonly called the Blind Bonds) which Faith certainly will never justify them, For the wicked borrweth and paveth not again. Yet in all this the Judgement of GOD was visible, for the most part of them who goat the spoil of their Native Country, lest their Heirs in a worse condition than they might have done, if they had never meddled.  
By all this it is evident, That the Man's malice hath blindfolded him, and that all his Lies and Perversions cannot help his bad cause: But their enmity and hatred to Truth drives them on, though they might remember, that he who hates his Brother is a murderer, and no murderer hath Eternal Life abiding in him. Had it not been as easy for him to have said, The Lollards taught several Doctrines which the Quakers hold, and which we have neglected, though we desire to be accounted their Successors. Such as,  

First, It is not lawful to Fight for the Faith.  
secondly, That Tithes ought not to be paid to Ecclesiastical Persons.  
thirdly, That every faithful Man and Woman is a Priest.  
Fourthly, That in no case it is lawful to Swear.  
Fifthly, That true Christians receive the Body of Christ every day etc. All these we should have acknowledged, though this backsliding and degenerate Tribe have denied them.   
Next, we come to his third Argument, against Divine immediate Revelation; viz, If the Spirit or the Light within every Man, were the Supreme and Principal Rule, than these who persecuted to Death the Apostles and Saints of God, did not Sin in so doing; but I am sure the latter is false: Ergo the former: To prove the Consequence of the Major, he citeth Paul and John 16. 2. alleging, That Paul walked according to his Light, and that his Light taught him, that according to all he had for Light, he ought to do many things against the Professors and Servants of Jesus Christ.  
Answer, Let the Reader observe, First, His constant disingenuity, whereof he hath been so often found guilty: For he should have said, If the Teachings of the Spirit of Christ and His Light, wherewith He hath enlightened every Man, be the principal Rule, etc. Which would have urged upon Blasphemy, if the rest of his Argument had been added to it: Which notwithstanding is the true state of the Controversy. Secondly, Observe how blind the Man is, for he hath fallen in the Ditch he digged for us; Paul (saith he) according to all that he had for Light, Ought to do many things against the Servants of Jesus, etc. But Paul had the Scriptures (and was learned in the knowledge of them) for Light: Ergo, according to our Author, Paul according to the Light of the Scriptures ought to persecute the Saints.  
Thirdly, By this Argument the Old World, yea all who lived before Moses wrote, had no Sin, because no Scripture, and the Light of Christ, and Teachings of the Spirit, was no sufficient Rule to them: All the Mahumitans and Pagans at this day have no Rule, therefore no Sin. These are the wild Consequences of this Argument.  
Fourthly, His instancing Paul is very impertinent; For Paul had the Scriptures, and was one of them who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures, and no doubt he thought them a Rule for his persecuting the Saints: For he said he had lived blemlesly according to the Low: And therefore it could be no other thing but the Light of Christ, and the teachings of his Spirit, which brought Paul to a better Understanding. And whereas he saith in his next Argument, That Paul never counteracted, his Light, was always of the same Judgement, and therefore never had a true Light till the day of his Conversion, This clearly contradicts the Scriptures, and the experience of all Ages: John 12 Chap. 36. While ye have Light believe in the Light, that ye may be the children of the Light: Hence it is clear, Men have Light before Conversion, or becoming Children of Light. And again he said John 3. 19 The condemnation of the World was not for want of Light, but for Loving darkness more than Light: Every Servant received a Talon, and it was said From him that had not shall be taken away even that which he hath. All which intimats, that it is not want of Light, but not believing in nor taking heed to the Light that causeth Men to err. And Prov: 1. 23. Turn ye at my Reproof, behold I will pover out my Spirit upon you, etc. 24. I have called and ye refused, and I have stretched out my hand; and no man regarded. verse 25. Ye have set at naught all my Counsels and would none of my reproofs, 30 They would none of my Counsel they despised all my reproofs; therefore they shall eat the fruits of their own ways.  
Hence it is manifest, That CHRIST the Light the Wisdom of GOD, calls, reproves, stretcheth out his hand, oflers his Councils even to such as reject him, and do not regard him, and therefore are at last rejected by him.  
And lastly, The Experiences of all Ages showeth that it is a Law engraven or imprinted on the Souls of all men not to do that to another, which we would not should be done to ourselves. This the Heathens taught before Christ preached it; And therefore persecution cannot be but esteemed a sin against Light, and though Paul by the prejudice of his Education, and a blind Zeal for upholding of that Law or form of Worship which was to be abolished did ignorantly and inconsiderately ruo on to persccute the Saints: Yet it can no more be said that he acted according to all he had for Light, than it can be said that the Presbyterians acted according to the Scripture in the that Murder of the Arch Bishop.  
And though this may serve to answer the two following Arguments. Yet what seems to have weight in them, I shall take notice of.  
His Fourth Argument is, Divine Light is always consonant to itself. But the Light within one Man is quite contradictory and opposite to that within another, as the many and great Contraversies in all ages do but too well make out.  
This is easily answered, and no less easily retorted; For who dare deny but the Scriptures is always cousonant to itself; And yet how many and great are the Contraversiys among these who profess it to be their only Rule. Was the Command of GOD to Saul Dubious, to destroy Amaleck? No, But Saul disobeyed it. The like is the example of Jonah. Is not the Counsel of GOD always consonant to itself, yet men reject it. And for his Argument from the pertinacy of Heathens and Heretics. I am ready to think nothing of it, when I consider the madness of mine own Country men, who would rather choose to he hanged then pray for their Lawful King, in obedience to a plain Scriptute precept.  
All the Conntraversies in the World, as well as all the Wars are the product of men's lusts, and neither is the Scripture nor the Light culpable, but carnal corrupt minds of Men; Especially the Clergy: (See 1 Corinth: 3. and 3.  
His Fifth Argument is a singular one, The substance whereof is, There are many in the World (whereof I am one says he) who by all the Light they have attained to, and after an impartial search, firmly believe, without so much as one thought from the Light with; in to the contrary, that Quakerism is the pathway to utter destruction: It must therefore be so, if the Doctrine that every man must follow his Light, be true.  
This Argument is sufficiently Answered before, only his Instance of himself is strange, I would therefore ask him will, ling, Had he never any check for all the Lies, Slanders, Perversions, and deceitful Insinuations published in his Book? If he say nay, I must say, Certainly the man is in a very desperate condition, and to be pitied: But I doubt not the day shall come in which the Light, now by him so much despised, will speak to him in a Language that shall not be very pleasing to him, and which all his deceitful Quibles cannot silence, I wish it may be in Merey. His Ipse dixi hath no force with me, He firmly believes, That all the other Professions of Christianity except his own, are the path way to utter destruction: It is therefore true? Because, dumb idol Shep beard hath said so, whose right Eye is utterly darkened, and whose right Hand is clean dried up: If the light in him be darkness how great is that darkness?  
His Sixth Argument is, If GOD suffered the most part of men in the time of the Old Testament to walk in their own ways, than all and every one bath not sufficient Grace and Light, whereby they may come to Salvation; But the former Is true. Ergo the latter for proof of his Minor, he citeth Acts 14. 16. And telleth us that the Evidence of the Consequence strangely straitneth Bellarmine.  
But it doth not straiten ns, for we know that the Spirit of the LORD strove with the Old World, & he Called and they refused. He Gave his Counsel, but they rejected it; therefore he suffered them to walk in their own ways, Rom: 1. 10. For the wrath of GOD is rovealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, &c: 19 Because that which may be known of GOD is manifest in them, for GOD hath showed it unte them. And verse 21. Because when they knew GOD they glorified him not as GOD, &c: So in verse 26 he saith, for this cause GOD gave them up to vile affections: So that GOD is just who requireth no more of man than he giveth him. And certninly some of these Gentiles, whom this Author and his brethren will have reprobats, and to have had, no Light nor Knowledge of GOD, seem to have had more true Religion than many Presbyterians have at this day. For which, read Morney du Plesse (a Protestant writer) his Book, called Of the trueness of the Christian Religion, and Augustine de Civitate Dei: I could cite many Author's, but William Penn and George Keith have done it abundantly already. Only Du Plesse clearly proveth from their Books, That they believed on GOD, Father, Son, and Spirit; The Creation of all things by him, the fall of Man, the immortality of the Soul, and futur rewards and punishments; Yea many things concerning the coming of Christ. Was not Balaam one of the Gentiles? Were Job and his friends Israelites, had they the Scriptures? I shall only cite two say of Seneca; The first in his 74 Epistle at the end, Nulla sine DEO, &c: Thus Englished▪ There is no good Mind without GOD: There are Divine Seeds sown in the bodies of Men, which if a good Husbandman receiveth, then cometh forth Fruits like to their Original, and arise like unto those of which they were born; But if an evil husbandman, then like barren and waterish ground, it kills the seed and maketh filth in stead of Corn. And Epistle 41. GOD is nigh unto thee, He is with thee, He is in thee, The Holy Ghost sitteth within us, an Observer and Keeper of all our Good and evil Actions, and as he is dealt with by us, so dealleth he with us.  
Who told Seneca these things if he had no light? But Epictetus, his Motto Bear and forbear is an Evangelic precept, which I never yet knew a Presbyterian who had learned it: Neither needed our Authorto have gone so far back as the Old Testament: For GOD hath now suffered the Presbyterians, for many years to walk in their own ways; For though there was a good beginning among them many years ago; How soon they betook themselves to the arm of flesh, GOD left them to their own ways, as Samuel Rutherford saith, God turned his back upon them, and never since looked over his shoulder unto them.  
This may serve to answer his seventh argument drawn from Ephes: 2. 12. Where the Gentiles are said to be or have been without Christ, Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, etc. Therefore they had not sufficient Grace and Light; This again impeacheth the justice of GOD, to condemn men for breaking a Law which they never had contrary to that Scripture, where there is no Law, there is no transgression: And if he bade but considered the 3, 4 and 5 Verse of the same Chapter, he would have found that Paul placeth himself, and the Jews in the same condition with the Gentiles; And the only difference was, that the Jews had the outward Law, which was added because of transgreffion, and yet could not make the come●s thereunto perfect.  
His Eight argument is from Amos 3. 2. You have I known of all the Families of the Earth And Psalm 149. 19 20. He showeth his word unto Jacob his Statutes, and Judgements unto Israel, etc.  
From h●nce he inferts that they who have not the Scriptures, never had a Light sufficient to guide them to Salvation; But he is somewhat crafty in his expresion, saying These to whom GOD did not give his word, which I fully grant; But if hereby he understands the Scriptures, it is great impudence to assert it, for than it will follow, that Abel Enoch, Noa●h, Abraham, Job, etc. Had never a light sufficient to guide them to Salvation.  
Then he raileth a little, and is very angry at such as say, The Light shined in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not. He may, if he please, rail at me next, for telling him that the world was never condemned for want os Light, but for loving darkness more than Light. A little after he rants tho without reason, saying, Now I say, who but a Quaker will from this infer, that all Nations in all ages had the knowledge of the word Statutes and Judgements of GOD, who but a Presbyterian will deny that GOD may be known without the Scriptures? And that the word of GOD is GOD, and was known before there was a Book in the World: As for the Statutes and Judgements given to Israel, they were peculiar to that Nation as his elder Brother R: Baxter hath confessed above, and GOD is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation be that feareth him, and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him. Acts 10. 34. And Doctor Barron against Turnbul, page 56. Saith, Potuit DEUS olim imo etiam bodis potest sine Scriptura, Ecclesiam suam Colligere & tueri. That is, GOD could of old, ●ea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripture.  
The next Scripture he mets with, is that of Judas Vers. 15. That some men have not the Spirit.  
This R: Barkelay hath answered in Quakerism confirmed, citing the words of our Saviour; Viz. From him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath; Intimating thereby that men may be said in one sense to have, and in an other not to have the Spirit. To this our Author replieth, that although these wicked servants had gifts and abused them, yet no such thing can be said here, because they are said to be twice dead, etc. And senswal; But if it be lawful to look to the context which in the end of this page he is very unwilling to allow unto us? he will find by the examples there adduced, that even they had something too; For in Vers. 5 and 6 he compares them to the children of Israel, who were brought out of Aeg●pt, and on their way to the Land of Rest, yet were destroyed for unbelief, and then the Angels (saith he) who keep not their first Estate. Where it is manifest they had a first Estate, To which they might have kept, that they were Twice dead, proves that they were once Living: And their being sensual, saith no more but that all such as reject the Counsel of the LORD, and despise his reproofs, do (as in the 18 Verse) walk after their ungodly lusts, and become sensual more and more; Are not all men by nature sensual? And yet Christ hath enlightened every man coming into the World, is it not said, the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil Spirit from GOD came upon him; Yet at sometimes he was enforced to cry out, thou art more Righteous than 1, 0 my Son David.  
But the Spirit of GOD hath given us special symptoms, whereby we may know and discern these men, viz. The malicious cruelty of Cain, the insatiable avarice of Ballaam, the seditious practices of Korah, and the speaking evil of Dignities; The first three speak for themselves, and for the Fourth, take this instance of the Hind let lose, where the Author speaking of King Charles the Second, sayeth, Notwithstanding of all his numerous brood of Bastard brats, begotten in adultery and I●●●st; Yet he died a Child's l●ss poltroon, and had the unlamented burial of an Ass, and none to succeed him but he who Murdered him. Horresco referens, etc.  
Next he saith, The knowledge of some things are absolutely necessary to Salvation; But all men have not this knowledge; therefore all men have not sufficient light to guide them unto Eternal life.  
This is a mere Non sequitur, such another as to say, some men shut their eyes and will not see: Ergo, the Sunshineth not. I have told him before that the World is not condemned for want of light, but for loving darkness, and I acknowledge where the Scriptures are to be had; The knowledge of them is indispensibly necessary, but where that cannot be had, I say with Doctor Barron, GOD could of old, yea can at this day gather and defend his Church without Scripture: And I think our Author dar not say that the Spirit of Christ which taught the Apostles to write Scripture, cannot teach men now all things necessary to Salvation: Or if he say, that he hath limited himself, that he will not; I shall expect his proof of it by the next, for I believe no such thing as yet.  
His Ninthly is no argument, but a new war undertaken against the Light of Christ; He gins with his usual forth, saying, will overthrow another principil of the Quakers, upon which the whole fabric of Quakerism is builded; He had said in his first argument, that the whole fabric of Quakerism was overthrown: This than must be superfluous, but the man forgets himself sometimes and must be pardoned.  
He gins according to his custom with three gross lies; Is, that we aslert that man in his fallen estate cannot do any thing that is as to the substance of the action good, for an unregenerate man may, blow which is good as to the substance of the action, and yet the Ploughing of the wicked is sin.  
Secondly, He accuseth us as Socinians, whereas he himself is the Soeinian, in that he acknowledgeth that fallen man by nature can know that there is a GOD who is to be Loved, Feared, and Adored; page 99 And that we ought to do unto another as we would he should do unto us, page 110. This is to say, nature fallen and corrupted can teach us to love GOD, and and our Neighbour which is the sum of the Law, and the Prophets, against which Socinian Doctrine R: B: hath bestowed more than a whole page of his apology  
His Third lie is, that the whole World perceiveth clearly, that there is no light common to all mankind, except some small Relics of that once bright shining of GOD, like the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantron; And herein lies the stress of the controversy. We on the other hand assert, that when man had by his fall brought himself and his posterity into a miserable condition, GOD had mercy on him, and entered into a new Covenant with him, in the seed of the Woman, CHRIST JESUS: Upon better terms then the former Covenant, and that Christ the Light did of New Enlighten him, or to use his own words; Light the Candle of that extinguished Lantron, whereby he might see and know the things of GGD, and be saved from out of that miserable estate whereinto he had brought himself his fall, and that this is most consonant to Scripture and sound reason, will appear by the Sequal.  
First, The Covenant of works was made with Adam in his integrity, and the Covenant of Grace was made with man in his fallen estate, and confirmed to Abraham and David, and all the Law, and ratified by by the Death of Christ under the Gospel. Now the question here is, whether the Covenant of Grace left mankind in the same condition it found him; That is to the dim sparkles of an extinguished Lantron, which (our Author saith) are never able to show the wandering traveller in the dark night his way homeward, or whether Christ the Mediator of this Covenant the Light, which enlighteneth every man coming into the World, did give unto man light and grace sufficient for fullfilling the Terms of this New Covenant? For to deny, this were to impeach the justice of GOD: For the Adam had sufficient Light, Grace, and Power, to fulfil the First Covenant, I hope our Author will not deny; And to assert, that his Posterity had not Light nor Grace sufficient to fulfil the Terms of the Second Covenant, were no less than to say, that men were nothing bettered by the Covenant of Grace, but were left to seek their way with their extinguished Lanthron; And that the Old World was drowned, and they damned for want of Light, or Knowledge of the Will of GOD, which is absurd as well as contrary to the Scriptures: For the Spirit of GOD strove with them, and told Ca●in, that if he did well, he should be accepted, and if he did evil, sin lay at the door; Which saying presupposeth that Cain knew the God and the evil. Did not Christ preach to the Old World in the days of Noah, I Pet: 3. 19 And if this be true, that fallen man had no Law nor Light, but an extinguished Lantern, by what Law could the men of Sodom and Gomorah be condemned? I know nothing he can say to this, but that direful Doctrine of Reprobation, which yet will not serve his turn.  
Secondly That this Light wherewith Christ hath enlightened every man, is supernatural & sufficient, is so largely proved by Samuel Fisher, William Penn, George Keith, and Ro: Barkclay, and all the Objections answered, is nottour to any who hath been at pains to read their Writings, so that it might suffice to direct my Reader thereto; Yet shall I take notice of what seems to have any weight.  
In the first he comes above board, and calls it Reason; And then (for I wave his railing and reflections) Reason is Natural, and Man is Rational, That Man excrising his Reason and contemplating the Works of Creation and Providence, cannot but conclude that they are the Product of an Infinite and Omnipotent Creator, who is to be Loved, Feared, and adored, which thoughts as to the substance of the Action are certainly good. And what saith all thy to the purpose? Are not the prayers and ploughing of the wicked as good as the substance of the Action, and yet sin?  
But the Question is, Whether man had no other Principle in him, whereby he could discern these things, but his natural and corrupt Reason, which was the thing incumbent upon him to prove, and which he hath wholly omitted; Seeing the Apostle saith, The natural man cannot discern the Things of GOD.  
His Second Argument is, Whatever is in man, and common to all Mankind is Natural, but some sparks of the Knowledge of a Deity, and some good Thoughts as the desire of self-preservation are in man, & common to all Mankind: Ergo, c&.  
The Major is false, otherways it would follow, That the Grace of GOD which bringeth to Salvation (which is in Man) and hath appeared to all Men, must be Natural, and the Life of Christ, the Light of Men must be Natural, both which are absurd.  
His Third is much to the same purpose, That which is originally born with every Man, and up to more and more maturity. is undoubtedly natural, but some remainders of the Knowledge of God are originally, that is in the Principle or Inclination, born with Man, and grows up to more and more maturity, according to the growth of him in whom they are, Ergo, etc. They are Natural.  
Certainly if this Argument hold, & Man that lives long and grows up to a great height, must acquire a great Knowledge of God, which is ridiculous: And Seneea had more Knowledge than this Author, as before cited, who said, There were Divine Seeds sown in Man, which grew according to the entertainment they melt with: And whether this of Seneea be more consonant to our Saviour's Parable of the Sour and the Seed, than our Author's Argument, let the Reader judge. The Seed was sown by Christ in all Grounds; the Seed gtew. Ergo (according to our Author) it was Natural; And the Talents were given to the profitable and unprofitable Servants, and they grew as they were improved; Ergo, they were Natural.  
His Fourth Argument is, That which is common to Devils, is not supernatural; But to know and believe that there is a God, which is of itself a good thought, is common to Devils, Ergo, etc.  
When our Author gives us a learned Treatise of Nature of Angels, of their Fall, and what they Lost, and what they Retained; And tells us whence he learned it, and then proves, that Men and the Devils in their nature, in their Fall and since their Fall, are in all things alike, he may have an Answer: For my part, I seek not to be wise above what is revealed; I know that Men and Angels Fell, and that Man was Redeemed by Christ, and not Devils; And that he purchased for Man Grace, whereby he might attain to Faith, Repentance, and New Ohedience; which are the Terms of the Second Covenant. I know also the Devils believe that there is a God, and that this their belief of His immutable Justice, is no small patt of their present as well as future Torment; where by they know that they shall be eternally tormented in Hell. And if ever our Author come there, (which God forbidden) he will find this to be a part of his Nature, as he would insinuate in his next Argument, where he saith, That which will accompany the Wicked to Hell, cannot be called Grace, Divine, or any thing supernatural: He should have said, that which suffereth in Hell: For certainly all that is natural to Man must suffer in Hell, but that which causeth Man to suffer in Hell can be no part of his Nature: Hence Causin in his Holy Court Tom. 3. Pag. 433. The Darkness of Hell is apprehended as most intolerable Evil, and that with just cause: Notwithstanding I affirm the grearest Torment of the Damned, and height of their notable Calamities, is Light, I say, Light of Science and Knowledge, etc.  
His Sixth Argument is, That Men have naturally some Relics of the Image of God, and can do some things contained in the Law of God, we must firmly conclude from that express Text, Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles who have not the Law, do by Nature the things contained in the Law.  
First, He proceeds upon his former deceitful Insinuations, as if we denied that fallen Man, or Man in the Fall could do any Action good, as to the substance, (as he saith now) he can do some things contained in the Law of God; whereas the Devil could confess Christ before Men, as in Luke 4. 34. I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.  
This is a mere Quibble: For the Question is, Whether Man by Nature as Fallen and corrupted, can do any thing that is acceptable to God? which he should have proven, or else been silent. And as to that Scripture he citeth, it maketh nothing for, but against him: For clearing of which, I shall ask him this Question-Whether the Actions done by these Gentiles (who not having the Law, did by Nature the things contained in the Law, which show the work of the Law written in their Hearts) were acceptable to God, or not? If he say, not: He contradicts the Apostle, Vers. 26. Therefore if Uncircumcision keep the Righteousness of the Law, shall not his Vncircumsion he counted for Circumcision? And Vers. 27. And shall not Uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the Law, judge thee who by the Letter and Circumeision, dost transgress the Law? And Act. 10. 34, 35. Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation, he that feareth him, and worketh Righteousness, is accepted of him, If he say, these Actions done by the strength of fallen and corrupted Nature were acceptable to God; than it follows, that Man by Nature in the Fall, can please God, and so have no need of a S viour. I shall here add a Saying of J. Humphrey, with the Approbation foresaid of R. Baxter, in his Book of Election and Redemption, Pag. 29. 30. It is agreeable to that Righteousness of God, which is revealed in the Gospel, and to common Reason, that when Christ died to Redeem the World from the Law of Works, because through the weakness of the Flesh, it was impossible for us to perform the same; The new Terms which he hath procured for us in the remedying Law, should be so adopted to our fallen Estate, as to be made no less possible for us, or within our power now, than the Covenant of Nature was to Adam in the state of Innocency. There is no Interpretation of Scripture must be admitted against universal Reason and the Goodness of God. Now to say, that the Just and Merciful GOD would require fallen Man to walk without Light, to act without Power, is contrary to the Goodness of GOD and universal Reason, and to the Tenor of the new and remedving Covenant.  
In page 104, He saith, Men by nature have the knowledge of Politics and the prudent management of Worldly affairs; Therefore men may be said to have the Law written in their Hearts without a New Covenant dispensation; Because the second table of the Law which is a Rule for Politics, is the Law of GOD as well as the first.  
This can import nothing less than this, That because he had natural and corrupt reason, he had nothing more; Or that he that hath his senses hath not Reason: For Nimrod had Politics and so had Moses, but Nimrod had not such a foundation for his Politics; And why? Because Moses Government was a Theoeracie; Nimrods' an humane Monarchy; And therefore Moses needed the immediate Teachings of GOD for his Politics; Nimrod only Reason; Tho he had more, if he had regarded it. And yet the second Table of the Law is more like Penal Statutes then Politic Laws. And whereas he saith, That Jo: Brown hath proven by many demonstrations, that the writing of the Law in the Heart cannot at all be taken in this place, for any part of the New Covenant; He might have been so kind to his Reader, as to have given one of these many demonstrations, before he had so railed at and gloryed over his Adversary: Especially, considering that John Brown's Books are so rare to be seen, and seldom or never objected to us by any man of sense.  
His next is in answer to R: B's: saying, If Romans 2. 14. Be understood of corrupt nature, It would contradict that of 1 Cor: 2. 14. Where it is said, The Natural Man cannot know the things of GOD.  
To which he Replies, That Mr. Brown, as he calls him, hath utterly denied this contradiction to follow upon their exposition of this place; But hath neither given us the Exposition, nor the Harmony of the places; This might pass in the Pulpit, but it is shameful in Print, he had better waved it as he hath done many more: But if the Reader will be at the pains to look Beza's Notes, he will find that he expressly saith on 1 Cor: 2. 14. The Natural man is he that hath no further Light of Unstanding then that which he hath brought with him, even from his Mo●bers womb, As Judas defineth it, Verse 19 And upon the word, Spiritual Man, he hath noted, That is by Virtue of the Holy Ghost. Now let the Reader compare what our Author hath said in the foregoing page upon Rom: 2. 14. And what Beza saith upon 1 Cor: 2. 14. And see whether our Anthors answer be sufficient to take away the contradiction: Yet we must get Foam and Froth not a little, the usual product of troubled waters: Nevertheless, it is manifest, this one note of Beza's, overturns all he hath said for his extinguished Lantern.  
In page 105. After a citation of R: B's words concerning the fall of man, he saith, It will be counted a complete Contradiction to say, that fallen man hath no Relics of the Image of GOD, and yet hath a Seed of Righteousness, seeing that Righteousness is one of the chief parts of the Image of GOD. But wherein lieth the Contradiction here? In saying, he who hath the Seed, hath not the Fruit? Or in saying, that the Seed though sown in all kinds of Grounds, needs an influence from Heaven before it can bring forth Fruit? And (to use his own similitude) till the Candle of his extinguishrd Lantern be of new lighted again, it can do us no good, nor afford us any Light but smoke and stink: But the absurdities are his own in contradicting the Westminster Catechism; Which to the Question, What is original sin? Answereth, It is the want of Original Righteousness, and the corruption of our whole nature, etc. Now let the Reader compare this Answer with our Author's Doctrine; Who saith, That fallen man hath so much Original Righteousness, as to Know, Love, Fear, and Adore the Infinite and Omnipotent GOD, and to do to others as he would be done by, which our Saviour says are the two great commandments, And then consider how consonant he is to his Principles. But all these absurdities, and many more they are forced to run into for defence of that Abyss of abominations; their darling Doctrine of Absolute Reprobation.  
After this being conscious to himself, he hath said nothing to purpose, he flyoth to the covers of deceit, and refuge of Lies; Saying, There is a Mystery latent under this Doctrine, which we must here discover; The Quakers have no other Christ then this that was left in Adam, and remaineth in man in his fallen condition, to which they give many great Names, as Light, Life, measure of GOD, GOD Himself, and most frequently the Seed. Then he citeth some broken Passages out of Books, which whether true or false I am indifferent; For they are chief out of two Books of George Keiths yet unanswered; And if our Author please to enter the lists with him, I shall be willing to be a Spectator; Till than it is currish manners to snarl at his heels, while he dare not set his face to it. But I pray thee Patroclus, should I set myself to pick out sentences out of Presbyterian Books; What a Hodge podge of None-sense and Blasphemy could I make up together? Thinkest thou they did well who have presently published that Pamphlet of the Presbyterian Eloquence? But that Consequence thou drawest from these thy assertions, is such a horrid and detestable Lie, as needs no other Answer, But the LORD rebuke that lying spirit, that is gone forth, and entered the mouths of the Presbyterian Clergy. He who searcheth our Hearts knoweth that we are falsely accused, And that we own no other Christ but Jesus the Son of the living GOD, and the Virgin Mary. And I hope all Men of Candour and Ingenuity will acknowledge that we should know what we believe better than this malicious Railer doth; So I hope they will hereafter give no credit to him nor his Brethren, thus misrepresenting us, as about the end of page 107 He saith, We believe, or at least would persuade others to believe that Christ hath a Personal Union with every son and daughter of Adam! O! impudent Slanderer, the poison of Asps is under his tongue.  
Next he calls it Blasphemy to say, That the seed needs a new Visitation to raise it up: But hath not told us where the Blasphemy lieth.  
In page 108, To clear his Brother John Brown of the absurdity of asletting that the Devils and all unregenerate men are in a certain respect Spiritual, and the Apostle and all Regenerate men are in a certain respect carnal; He giveth us a very ready solution of it thus▪ Whatever is a Spirit may be called Spiritual, and whatever is a body may be called Corporal, and so the Devil is a spirit, and unregenerate men have souls: Therefore they are spiritual, and the Apostle had flesh, therefore he was Carnal. To prove this further, he saith John Brown hath given 15 arguments; Whereof our Author could not bestow one upon us, but if they be no better than the last we got he hath done well to be frugal of his paper, and think it enough to vapour a little, and tell us all these are but fictions, hobgoblins fit only to fright children.  
His seventh argument is, If fallen man retain no knowledge of GOD, no principles of common honesty & morality, than there is no difference betwixt a Man and a bruit, neither can it be told in what the Wisdom of the wise Gentiles consisted, of whom the Apostle speaketh. 1 Cor. 2. Who notwithstanding could not perceive the things of GOD, until they were again revealed, but the latter is fall in both its parts, therefore the First.  
Answer, this argument serveth only to make a muster, the substance whereof hath been handled before, for it is grounded upon the false supposition that Mankind received no benefit by the second Covenant, but was left in that miserable condition brought upon him by the fall, which is contrary to the scope of the whole Scripture, and our Author hath been so wary as to contradict it himself in his very arguments; Saying, who not withstanding could not perceive the things of GOD, until they were again revealed, whereas he hath said before, That man by nature could know and understand the first and second Table of the Law; Yea know GOD to be Infinite, Omnipotent, and that he should be loved, feared and Adored, and that we should love our Neighbour as ourselves, which is nothing more than to do to others as we would be done by; What need then of a new Revelation, seeing this is the Law and the Prophets. He citeth 1 Cor: 2. In all which Chapter I can find nothing but what contradicts him to his Teeth, and Beza's note at the end of it is, We are endued with the Spirit of Christ, who openeth unto us these secrets which by all other means are unsearchable. (Mark) and also all truth whatsoever. Now if all Truth whatsoever be unsearchable without the Spirit of Christ, as Beza saith they are, what is become of our Authors dark Lantern, whereby, as by the light of corrupt nature he will have men to know that great truth, the foundation of all Truth, Viz. That there is an Infinite and Omnipotent GOD, who is to be Loved, Feared and Adored. Add to this, That no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall Reveal him; And then let the Reader consider whether Beza and the Scriptures are better to be believed then our Author his dark Lantern. As to the Wisdom of the Wise Gentiles, there is a Wisdom whereby GOD is known; and a Wisdom whereby GOD is not known; So saith the Scripture, The World through Wisdom knew not GOD, and that some men were brutish in their knowledge, and as Judas saith, what they knew naturally as bruit in these things, they corrupt themselves; This is Man's natural Wisdom: But Job who was one of the wise Gentiles, tells us that the Inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding: Aristotle also, Another of the wise Gentiles, tells us in his Ethics Lib: 10, Chap: 4. 7. They that did these things did them not as men, but as having something Divine, or of GOD in them; And Dindumus said to Alexander the Great: If thou wilt hearken to my words, thou shalt possess of my goods, who have GOD to my friend, and whose inspiration I enjoy within me. I have instanced Aristotle to him already, next let him hear Plato, whom he also nameth; Phaed: The Light and Spirit of GOD, saith he, are as Wings to the Soul, or as that which raiseth up the Soul into a sensible Communion with GOD above the World, which the mind of man is ready to be mire itself with.  
It could add many more, but these may suffice to show, that the wise Gentiles derived their Knowledge of GOD from an higher principle than our Authors dark Lantern; I shall only add one; to wit, Philo the Jew, Leg: Alleg: Lib: 1. How should the Soul of man know GOD, if he did not inspire her, and take hold of her by his Divine Power.  
In page 110 he saith the defect of the Wisdom of the Heathens was in this, that they could not perceive Christ, but he should have remembered the last words of Plato whom he nameth, related by Marcilius Ficinus, who wrote his life, being asked by some that visited him, how long men should attend to his writings? He answered, till that more Holy and Divine Person should appear to visit the World, whom all men ought to follow; And that Elogue of Virgil (which seems to have at first cracked him) is a plain intimation of their knowledge of the coming of Christ, and that they did not receive him when he came is not to be attributed to their want of Light, any more than the Phariseer, who had the Law and the Prophets; For we see that many of the Gentiles were more ready to receive the Gospel, than these learned Rabbis who thought they had Eternal Life in the Scriptures. As for the difference between a Man and a bruit, it is reason which GOD gave for the Government, and preservation of the outward man, for which see Poiret.  
In page 111. He tells us a Hen hath skill in Arithmetic; If this be true, certainly the Presbyterian hens must be wiser than ours, for our women who look after the poultry, assure me that our Hens have no such skill, but that a cunning man like out Author, may steal half her Eggs from her, and never be quarrelled. If he read Le Grands Natural History, he may get better Instances; But this is ridiculous.  
His eight Argument is from Rom: 1. 19 20. Because that which may be known of GOD, is manifest in them, for GOD hath showed it unto them. From hence he concludes, that there is some Relics of the Divine Image or Natural Knowledge left in Man: And to say, that the true Knowledge of GOD and Divine Things, is not Natural Man, but the Fruits of Christ's purchase to Mankind, after the Fall, in and by the Covenant of Grace; This he calls pure Paganism. And to prove all this, he only cries, Who would dare to say or affirm, that what was common to the Heathens, Yea, and Devils also was as really saving, and the Fruit of Christ's purchase, as that which is proper to the Godly.  
Answer, I verily believe, the Devils have more knowledge than he, how they came by it, I am not concerned, he may ask them when he hath occasion; But I know none ever asserted it to be saving, except it be his Brother John Brown, when he printed his Preaching to them. But Mankind was not left in the same condition; For Christ was preached to them immediately after the fall; And to deny that they received Grace, were to contradict the Scriptures, For that the▪ Seed swoon in the stoney ground, and in the Good Ground was the same, none but a Presbyterian will deny. And that the Talent given to the unfaithful servant, was as true Money as the rest, I think all will confess; Or else how could he have been condemned for not improving it. So that if he condemn us here, he must condemn the Scriptures with us; Which also saith, That GOD wills all men to be saved: But here they tells us, That GOD hath a revealed Will to save them, and yet a secret will to damn them. O impudent and pervetle Generation/ Who dare accuse the Righteous GOD of Truth with hypocrisy, The wise Gentiles whom they reject, would have abhored such doctrine. Moteover, it is very absurd to say from this Scripture, Rom. 1. 19 That man had the Knowledge of GOD by Nature: For First, The Apostle saith, It was manifest in them, not in the Creatures without them (though that was also an Adminacle to help their Knowledge) but their Knowledge was inward, and all that might be known, therefore not any imperfect Knowledge. And Secondly, GOD hath showed it unto them; That is, GOD hath manifested or revealed to man in himself that which may be known of GOD; For the words Shown and Manifested, are the same in the Greek, and very consonant to that other saying of the same Apostle; The things of GOD can no man know but by the Spirit of GOD.  
In the rest of page 112. and 113. He takes the Liberty to scold, rail, and lie at random; All which I pass by except this: And yet (saith he) this Natural Light is to the Quakers their God, their Christ, their Grace, and whatsoever else is necessary to Sal vation. To prove this, he giveth us an heap of Citations, which it seems he hath gathered from his Brethren Hicks and Faldo, the known Forgers. I shall show his disingenuity in the first of these of Citations, by setting down William Penn's words, whereby the Reader may know whose footsteps our Author hath followed.  
Christian Quaker, page 116 If then the Life of the Word be the Light of Men, unless the Life of the Word he Natural, the Light of it must be supernatural, Divine and Infinite, as becomes the Life of the Word to be; And this checks the dull ignorance or base deceit of Thomas Hicks who either could not or would not understand George Whitehead, when he said (the Light must be Divine, because the Life from whence it comes is so, and the Effect is always of the same nature with the cause) in any other sense then this; That because (saith T: Hicks, GOD is the cause of Beasts and Trees, therefore they are God. Which strange Construction of George Whitehead's words, bewtays either great stupidity or disingenuity, I would ask the very angry man, Is there no effect of Power beside that of Nature? Did the Father of T: H: beget a Beast or a Man when he begat him? Surely unless he has abandoned all understanding, me thinks, he that makes in his Book so notable a distinction betwixt Reason and Railing, by using so little of the one, and so much of the other, should put put one betwixt a Natural and Potential Effect, I mean such an Effect as proceeds from Nature, and one that comes from mere Power. The Divine Life can naturally produce nothing that is not as Divine as itself; But its Power had made all that is not of its self, as well inanimate as animate Beings.  
I have set down William Penn's words at length, That the Reader may see, how little Conscience these men make of traducing honest Men; And that our Author cares not to join with Anabaptists, Independents (whom he accounts Heretics) Yea, to take Hell rather than to want some Lie to allege against the Quakers, wherefore I shall trouble you no more with his Citations, being fully Answered by others, but shall proceed to see what more he hath to say.  
In the end of page 115 he falls a railing and clamouring dispetatly, Telling us, that by this dim light, Men have enough ado to perceive that there is a Supreme Being, what then is become of his late great assertions; That this dim light of Nature, Reason, Conscience, extinguished Lantern, etc. Can teach men that there was one GOD, that he was Infinite, Omnipotent, to be Loved, Feared, and Adored, and to do others as they would be done by, which is the substance of the Law and the Prophets; This is confusion and contradiction with a Witness, yet he glories in the end, and heaps togeher lies in hypocrisy, which deserve no answer.  
In page 116, He would insinuat, that we depress the light as much as formerly we had exalted it, because when some pretending to it have erred, we say, their Doctrines are to be subjected to the Judgement of the Church, This he calls Popery, and at last worse, Viz. A subjecting of Christ and GOD to another, as capable of deceiving and being deceived.  
By'r I would know from this windy man whether if he or any Presbyterian should teach any Doctrine contrary to the Covenant and Confession of Faith, and pretend Scripture for it, I say, whether he would be liable to the Judgement of the General Assembly, and whether it were the man's pretences, or the Scriptures, which the Assembly takes upon them to judge even so we neither take upon us to judge Christ, nor his Light, which can neither deceive nor be deceived; But the deceit and follv of such pretenders as our Author and his Brethren who pretend to the Scriptures, and neither understand them, not walk according to them.  
In the next place, after a little of his accustomed froth, be saith, he will propose and enervat those of their Arguments which seem to be most strong, etc. And gins with George Keith, citing, Truth defended, page 87, but is page 85. A Divine Law in all men, is an inward immediate dictate, but there is a Divine Law in all men, ergo, etc. To this he answereth by denying the Minor, which I cannot but admire, seeing George Keith hath so abundantly proven it in the same page, yet never noticed by our Author: But he thinks he hath guarded himself sufficiently in his Preface to the Reader, by forbidding them to touch or handle such unclean things, as George Keiths books; But all this deceit will not cover him, for George Keith tells him, First, that he hath proven this by many arguments in his book of Immediate Revelation. Secondly the Americans (whom his Adversary names) transgress the Divine Law, therefore they have a Divine Law: For where there is no Law there is no transgression. And thirdly, he cited Bishop Sanderson, saying, the Law in the hearts of all men, is as really the word of GOD as that Printed in our Bibles; But Patroclus reads not this, and therefore makes short work with it, and glories as if he had Vanquished Euforbis, by whose Dart Patroclus fell.  
The next he attempts is R: B's: Vindication page 39; But this is no Argument as he would falsely insinuate, but written to stop the Mouth of a windy man, I: Brown, charging him with Blasphemy.  
But he proceeds page 118. That which we sin in not obeying is sufficient to Salvation, but in not obeying the Light within, we sin; Therefore it is sufficient to Salvation. Answer, First, he hath neither told us where, not by whom this Argument is used, and may be his own for any thing I know; But Secondly, he seems to confess that they sin who do not obey the Light; And Thirdly, his answer is very nonsensical, to wit, it is sin to disobey the Lawful commands of Parents, which commands are not sufficient to Salvation; But what made that disobedience to Parents to be sin; If the Law of GOD had not commanded obedience to them? Every sin is a transgression of the Law of GOD, and therefore every sin presupposeth a Divine Law, and here I must tell him that his brother the author of Melius Inquirendum tells him page 303. All that conscience dictates as a Counlelour, all that Conscience determines as a judge, is in the name of the Supreme and Soveraion JEHOVAH, adding there is one Lawgiyer who is able to Save and to destroy, and a little after Conscience hath in its Commission to dictate before the fact, as well as to reflect upon the fact, it teaches what we ought to do as well as examine whether we have done well or not, By these it appears this man was of the mind, that that there was a Divine Law in all men, call it by what name he will.  
Next he comes to John 1. 9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man coming into the World, where he giveth two glosses of it; I; brown's, First, that Light may be taken for the Light of reason; This is nonsense, as if man could be a man without reason; It is every man not every bruit he enlighteneth, and till we understand more, we believe it is reason makes the difference, so the gloss must run thus, he enlighteneth every reasonable creature with the light of Reason, The Second gloss is, that by every man, is not to be understood every individual, but only every one which savingly enlightened; Upon this R: B: saith he is puzzled with this Scripture, for he knoweth not what way to take it, Whereupon our airy Author insults, saying, He infers penury from abundance; But, says he, I remembered they were Enemies to Logic; But less stoath might have sufficed; For I am sure, if he had not been puzzled he would never have given two such contrary Expositions, The first making the Light merely natural, yet Universal. The second Gloss, making it saving and supernatural, but special and not Universal; Which evidently shows that Jo: Brown and our Author who would defend him are both in Babel. And therefore it being a matter of Consequence to know, whether the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men, the Light where with every Man is enlightened be Natural or Supernatural, Universal or Special, Saving or Damning; It concerns our Advetlary to consult the General Assembly, which of the two Glosses may be best to hold by, seeing both cannot stand. In the rest of this page he doth nothing but undervalue his Adversary, whether Justly let the Reader Judge.  
His next Combat is with John 1. 5. The darkness comprehended it: He saith, That by darkness is meant money in his natural Estate, in which Estate he can comprehend what is Natural: Whence he inferis that man in this estate is void of all Spiritual and Supernatural Light, Which Inference is void of all Sense and Reason, for the very words before it are, The Lightsined in the darkness. That is according to our Author Man in his Natural Estate, who could comprehend natural things, but could not comprehend the Light; Therefore (according to our Author his own Confession) The Light must be Supernatural, or else the darkness would have comprehended it. After a little vapour he saith, Although the Light Christ be supernatural, yet the little Beams and Sparks of Reason and Conscience are Natural. But who ever denied this? The thing he was to prove as well as assert; Was, That the Life of Christ which is the Light of Men, and the Light which Men are commanded to believe in, is Natural: Which he may either do or be silent for ever. Next he rails a while, and concludes with an abominable Lie, Viz: That we assert, That the dim and dark Light of Nature is GOD himself: This he hath learned from the Father of Lies the Prince of Darkness, and to him it will return, and he with it, except he repent.  
The next Argument he deals with, is R: B's page 19 20. of his Vindication; I shall entreat the Reader to look the place, and compare it with our Authors bungling upon it; R: B: proveth by Rom: 8. 9 14. 1 John 2. 27. John 6. 45. John 14. 16. 17. That the Promises of the Spirit to teach, lead and guide, were common to all Believers and not particular to the Apostles: To which our Author replies, he should have given some other thing for proof then bare Assertions; For so he calls all the Scripture proofs he hath brought, but meddles not with one word of them: But our Adversary will not serve us so, he will give us Questions for all, and ask us, Why may not Immediate Objective Revelation be promised to the Apostles in these places, and yet not to all Believers? Answer, Because GOD had promised before to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh; And Paul tells us after, If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. As for the Scriptures he citys, they nothing touch us, for we never denied the use of Means in the leadings of the same Spirit, as R: B: hath shown at large in the place last cited.  
But in stead of a solid Answer to R: B's Argument, he boldly begs the Question; Saying, Whatever the Qnakers say we cannot help it; Certain it is, that no man of sound Judgement will deny, that when one reads the Scriptures, and hath his mind Illuminated by the Spirit; he hath that promise fulfilled to him of which we now speak. Very well Patroclus, This is more like a a Pope then a Preubyter; But the man hath told us he cannot help it.  
The next Argument he assaults, R: B's Apology page 38. That which all Professors of Christianity of whatsoever kind, are forced ultimately to recur unto, when pressed to the last; That for because of which all other foundations are recommended and accounted worthy to be believed, and without which they are granted to be of no weight at all, must needs be the only, most true, certain, and unmoveable foundation of all Christian Faith; But Inward, Immedist Objective Revelation by the Spirit, is That, &c: Ergo, etc.  
To this he offers two Answers: The first by a Simile thus, 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 into which the present Possessor of such piece of Land, when pressed to the last recurreth unto, and for which other Grounds or Charters are commended or valide; Must of necessity be the most  ground of and warrant for such a piece of Land his possess●ion of it: But the Grant or Donation of such or such a Prince given many ages ago. First, By word of mouth, though again committed to writings; Is that which the present Possesser being pressed to the last, recurreth to. Ergo, The present Possessor had discourse immediate mouth to mouth with a Prince in many ages back e'er the present Possessor was born.  
This he, And then as if he had done some notable feat he falls a roaring, insulting and mocking his adversary, saying, These must be admirable fellows, etc. Their strongest argument serve only to prove the Authors to be in a Paroxysm of folly, moving langhter in a very Heraclitus.  
But it seems our Author hath been in a Paroxysm of madness and blasphemy, for his Simile can conclude nothing less than this, Viz. That Christ is dead, the Spirit of Christ i● dead, ages out of mind, that no man heareth his voice now, nor can recur to him to be satisfied of his doubts, that he hath broken all his promises to his Church, of being with them to the end of the World, of sending the Comforter to teach them and lead them into all truth, and that great promise he that is with you shall be in you; Many more are the promises in the Old Testament, as in Jeremiah, Joel, and that in Isaiah 54. 13. All thy Children shall be taught of the LORD, Testified unto, as fulfilled in 1 John 2. 20, 27. If the Preaching and Printing such gross blasphemy as these, which naturally, and unavoidably flow from this simile, be fit to move laughter, and not rather terror and astonishment in the Author, let the Reader judge.  
I shall here add two Arguments fit for this place.  
First, Christ's Sheep hear his voice.  
But the Presbyterian Clergy hear not his voice.  
Ergo, They are not of his Sheep.  
Secondly, Where there is no Vision, there the people perish.  
But among the Presbyterian Clergy, there is no vision.  
Ergo, Their people perish.  
But blessed be the LORD we know and believe according to the Scriptures, That Christ our Prince is dead ages out of mind, but liveth and Reigneth for ever, and that he is Faithful and True, and that he is always present with his Church, that he standeth at the door of their heart and knocketh; if any open to him, he entereth; and that he dwelleth in them and walketh in them, and is to them a GOD, and they to him a people, and that if any be otherways minded he will even reveal this also unto them Phil: 3. 15. So let our Author glory in his Chartor, which we have as well as he, but be war to blaspheme the Spirit of Christ, lest the end thereof be no laughter, but weeping and gnashing of teeth.  
His Second answer is, By distinguishing immediate objective Revelation, granting it was Immediate and ohjective in respect of the Apostles and Prophets, but not in respect of the present prosessors of Christianity.  
Answer, First, he here maketh the ground and foundation of 
See his page 33.  the Faith of the prophets and Apostles one thing, and that of the present professors of Christianity another thing which is absurd. Secondly be excludes all Christians from Immediate Objective Revelation, except Prophets and Apostles, & therefore among them the seventy Disciples, and Luke who wrote two books of the New Testament, and many others mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles; But Thirdly, The foundation of Faith, as well as the Rule of Faith hath still been the same in all ages of the Church, as he hath formerly confessed, and therefore if immediate objective Revelation was so to the prophets and Apostles (as he granteth) it must also be the same to the present professors of Christianity, and this shall suffice for his Membrum negatum.  
In page 124. He falls upon the last argument he deals with calling it the chief of his Apostolic Arguments (though I find no such argument in all R: B's apology, which he setteth down thus; Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and some others, had Immediate objective Revelation, therefore the whole Church had it. He and his Brother John Brown deny the consequence, but hath he not hereby cut his own throat, by giwing way to Tradition, as the Rule of that Church saith, for sure they had no Scripture, and therefore had no other foundation for their Faith, nor Rule for their life but Tradition; And so having pleaded before, that what was their Rule must be ours, he must confess that in default of Scripture and Revelation, there remains nothing for them but Tradition, which must continue to be our Rule also; For this the Papists own him thanks.  
A little after, he confesses there was more of GOD in these dark times of the Old World, than there is now, Viz. In respect of Immediate Revelation.  
But I would know the Reason of this, Seeing the Promises are greater, even to pour out his Spirit upon all flesh; Is his hand shortened or his Ear heavy? Or is he dead, (as our Author insinuats) or hath he lest off to care for his Church? No, But our iniquities have separated him from us, and our unbelief.  
But to do his Business fully, he adds, How will the prove that ever Abel had Immediate Objective Revelations? I Answer, GOD hath always communicated as much of himself to the Righteous as to the wicked, but wicked Crin had Immediate Objective Revelations, Ergo, Righteous Abel had them.  
Then he tells us that the third, fourth, and fifth Proposision of the second These falls to the ground; But upon what ground he saith so, let the candid Reader Judge.  
He concludes this Chapter with a piece of his first Dream of the Trojan War, and citing Virgil, he tells us, like the Irojan War, its couple being cut, the whole Faorick of Quakerism tumbleth down about the Ears of its Authors and Builders. It's a pity the poor man should have read this Poets and others on the History of Irov; For the Reader may see how he extravages upon that Subject, it hath quite spoiled him. But he hath been a little mistaken here, for Patroclus did not live to see the Trojan Tower fall; And if he will stretch the Allegory a little further, he may remember that the Posterity of the Trojans, brought the Posterity of the Greeks under their subjection, and made them Tributaries, which may happen to be the face of this Author and his Brethren. But sure I am, this Language is more like a Gallant bowling over his Cups in a Tavern. than a lober Christian writing for the satisfaction of a Dissenter.   

Chapter III. Of Original Sin.  
IN this Chapter he gins with his old clamour of Pelagianism; But now deservedly, we shall see anon. And first, I shall cite the Westminster Confession, Chap: 6. Numb: 2, By this sin, they fell from their Original Righteousness, and Communion with GOD, & so became dead in sin, & wholly defilled in all the faculties & parts of Soul and Body. And Numb: 4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, & made opposite to all Good, & wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual Transgressions, To both these willingly assent, But how this agreeth with the dark Lantern doctrine of our Author (who for twenty eight pages together in the foregoing Chapter, hath laboured with all the force he hath, to prove that fallen man retained such a pottion of the Image of GOD (which he calleth Righteousness) as there. by to know one Infinite, Omnipotent GOD, who is to be Loved, Feared, and Adored, and that men should Love their Neighbour as themselves, which is no more then to do to others as they would be done by) let the Reader Judge. And expect his Brethren will take notice of him not only for calumniating us, but for giving the Lie to the Westminster Confession.  
And here I must take notice of a word he hath inserted into some of his Arguments, maliciously insinuating, That we said, A wicked man could do no Action that was good upon the matter, or as to the substance of that Action: This is no word of ours, but foisted in by him to render us the more odious. For we know a wicked man may feed the hungry, or  the naked; And as I told him before, The devil confessed Christ before Men to be the Holy One of GOD; Which as to the substance of the Action, was better than some of our Presbuterian Solemnities; Whereof one was their solemn Fast and Humiliation for the Prevalency of EPISCOPACY, appointed for all the Ministers of the Nation immediately after their late Re-Establishment; By which act they resolved to murder the Consciences of their Brethren of the EPISCOPAL Persuasion, who esteem EPISCOPACY a Right and Lawful Church Government; And after this, for some other pretence to have turned them out of their Live, which is their Lives; Many of them being so poor, as they cannot subsist without them; Which they had certainly done, if their beloved Beformers the Babble, had been as obedient in the North as they were in the West.  
Now we read of a desperate Milanese, who having forced his Adversary for fear of his Life to blaspheme and abjure GOD; immediately killed him, calling it a noble revenge to murder both Soul and Body at once. Let out Author make the Application, and for bear his malicious Fast, and black mouthed Calumnies for the future.  
Moreover the gross Doctrines of Pelagius were, First, That man had no loss by Adam, and so were as apt from their birth to serve GOD as Adam was before the Fall. Secondly, That men have no absolute need of Grace, of Love, and the Gift of the Holy Spirit: Only it did facilitat, or make the work the easier, but Man by his nature could do good without Grace. Thirdly, He affirmed all the Grace was at best Objective, such as the Outward Preaching of the Gospel, etc. But he denied any Subjective Grace, or any Grace that moved or inclined the Will immediately unto GOD. All which we renounce, And therefore let out Author and his Brethren be for ever hereafter silent of that false and unjust Calumny of Pelagianism.  
Having thus cleared the Truth of the false Accusation of Pelagianism, I find nothing more of weight in this Chapter, but his endeavours to prove that Infants are condemned for Adam's sin, upon which he acknowledgeth their Doctrine of Reprobation depends, I shall offer him the thoughts and arguments of some Protestants upon this subject, and then take notice of his argumentations.  
And First, the learned Jeremy Tailor in his book called Unum necessarium, denyeth this Presbyterian Doctrine, and reason thus; Either Adam was condemned eternally, and is now suffering in hell for that transgression, or he was pardoned, and is now a Glorified Saint: the first he saith, no Christian will allege Adam being a Type of Christ, and also that GOD entered into a new Covenant with him: So that he was not condemned for that sin; And if the second be true, that is, that he was pardoned, and is now a glorified Saint; How then can these men be so wickedly audacious as to charge the Infinitely Just and Merciful GOD with such cruelty and injustice as the wickedest of men would be ashamed of? To wit, to pardon the Malefactor (yea put him in a better condition than he was before) for his transgression, and yet to punish his Posterity (innocent Infants) who had no being till five Thousand years after, who never had accession, nor so much as a consent to that sin, and yet upon this wrong and wicked notion of the Deity depends their doctrine of Reprobation.  
Secondly, There is no remission without repentance (saith the former Author) and allegeth he never yet met with the man, that could say he had Repent for Adam's sin, and I doubt if our Author will say it either, for Repentance is either to be understood, Penitentiam agere, to do penance, or resipiscere, to grow wise again, or to do so no more. let our Author choose which of the two he will, and tell us with the next whether he hath repent for Adam's sin.  
Thirdly, It is the Soul that sinneth or is guilty of sin which (according to themselves) we have not from Adam but from GOD by new creation, who made never any thing impure, and therefore I will expect something next from this learned man concerning the Soul, Quid & unde, for I acknowledge they are little enough cleared yet by the Learned, though I think our Country man Barron is inferior to none I have yet seen; But if our author be for preexistance, will more easily give us a reason for our inclinations to evil.  
The next I shall cite is the sorenamed John Humphrey with R: Baxters approbation, who asserts page 26 of Election & Redemption, that a discharge of mankind from damnation for Adam's sin only is a fruit of Christ's death immediate and Universal.  
Again in page 28, of the Covenant he asserts that Infants being Baptised are saved, And adds if they be not Baptised we are yet to look on them as such who have not broken this new Law, or never resuled and rejected their remedy and so long as by the Redemption of Christ they are delivered over with all the World from the Covenant of works to the New Law to be judged, I will not be the man that shall condemn one Infant to Hell, or unto torments; And here I must tell our Author that its strange to see him contend so much for the Scripture to be his Rule, and yet be so dogmatical in a matter so lubricous, when he can produce no plain Scripture for it, nor a consequence without excessive straining, and whereas he objecteth some Protestants, and some Fathers, I had rather with one Athanasius believe the Divinity of Christ, and wonder that the whole world was become Arrian, then follow the multitude in such a gross error as that was and is.  
In the next place I shall consider where the strength of his Arguments lie, rather than follow his rambling, for I perceive he makes the greatest noise and clamour when he hath least to say, and boasteth greatly when he hath done nothing.  
The whole strength of this Chapter lieth in two Hypotheses, First, that If Adam had not sinned, he should have been Immortal. Secondly, that as the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to man for Justification; So Adam's sin is imputed to man for Condemnation. And to prove these two Doctrines upon which much of the Presbyterian Religion depends, he should have proceeded candidly, and given us Scripture proofs obvious to every well disposed intellect, whereas he hath brought no Scripture which any plain man like me can think to relate to such a matter.  
First, He calleth R: B: tidiculous, for enquiring if his Adversary would assert every thing that Augustine said. But he should have confessed, that Augustine erred in this very Matter, in saying, That all Infants dying without Baptism were demned, And then have told us, That he who erred in one thing might have erred in the other, But this (though true) would have wronged his Cause.  
His first Argument he draws from Gan. 2. 17. For in the day thou eatest thou shall surely die: Hence he arguds, Infants dies Ergo, they are guilty of Original sin. This Consequence is very gross, for if bodily death had been hereby threatened; Then Adam could not have lived one day after the commission of that sin, whereas he lived some hundreds of years after it: And the Westminster Confession is wiser than to make it a part of Adam's punishment in all the first five Paragraphs of it, till they join actual sin with it, calling it only a death in sin, and a defilement or corruption of our whole nature. But he pleads death is an evil, and no evil could have befallen t●an if he had not sinned; This he answereth himself confessing, That to the Scints, where the sting of death is taken away, it is no evil: Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, death had been no evil to him.  
But I must ask him a Question, seeing it is confessed by all, that Eternal death is a punishment of sin, from which the Saints are freed? How comes it that the Saints are not freed from bodily death also? Seeing, according to our Author Bodily death is no less a punishment of sin then Eternal Death is. If he say, That all Mankind were to die because of Adam's sin, although all Mankind were not to be condemned for it (which yet is nothing but his own assertion) How came it that Enoch and Ellas died not, but were translated? And that Paul saith, We shall, not all die, but we shall all be changed, etc. All which seems to bear that the Earth should not have been Eternal, nor Adam have lived Eternally on it, although he had not sinned: Which being the grand Pillar, upon which he builds his Doctrines of Original sin and Reprobation, he should have proven by plain Scripture or sound Reason, which he hath not done to the satisfaction of any Reader, yea he hath scarce attempted it except by a Rhapsody of railing words: But he had an easier way to have proven both, and more consonant to his own Principles, By telling us, That it was foreordained from Eternity, that Adam should sin, and that all Mankind should die, and that the far greater part of them should be reprobates, and be damned eternally: For the Westminster Catechism saith, GOD for his own Glory, hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass; But all these things comes to pass; Ergo, GOD for his own Glory hath foreordained them.  
His next is Rom: 6. 23. The wages of sin is death. Where, saith he, Death without exception of any kind of death, is called the wages of sin.  
If the Apostle had meant more kinds of Deaths than one, it is like he would have said, deaths in the plural number; But the Apostle intends here no other kind of death than the same kind of Life he mentions in the same sentence, which is Eternal; The words are, For the wages of sin is death, But the Gift of GOD is Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ our LORD. Now to cause the first speak of bodily death, and the last of Eternal Life, is so strained an Interpretation, as might nauseat a Reader. He would mock R: B: for saying The whole Creation suffered a decay for Adam's sin, But it seems he hath forgotten, that GOD cursed the Earth for man's sake, and yet the Earth was not guilty of Man's sin; But saith he, The body shall after the resurrection live as well as the Soul, and therefore bodily death is a punishment of sin. This is pretty singular, for it is acknowledged by all, that the body is a mere Instrument to the Soul; And at this rate, our Anthors' Pen is guilty of all the Lies and blasmphemies in his book, and Patroclus Swordguilty of the blood of all the Trojans he killed; But proves nothing that bodily death was here meant by the Apostle, yea he confesseth that bodily death is not a punishment to believers, ●eing the sting thereof is removed by Christ.  
Now are we come to his second Argnment I spoke of, To wit, That as we are justified by the Righteousness imputed to us, So infants are damned by the sin of Adam imputed to them. So that it the first be false in the Presbyterian sense the last is also false.  
I shall first tell him what I: Humphrey saith of it, Treatise of Justification, page 21.  
As for what they add usually (saith he) in the definition that Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us, and made ours by Faith as an Instrument; I must confess they are notions, which as they never came into the head of Saint Augustine, nor were received (I suppose) into the Church till within a Centurie or two of years since, so do I question, whether a Centurie or two more, may not wear them qui●e away again. Again, page 25. If the Righteousness of Christ be imputed to us (as if it were ours in its self) it must be the Righteousness of his active or passive Obedience or both; If his active Obedience be imputed to us, than we must be look upon in him as such who have committed no sin, nor omitted any Duty; And than what need will there be of Christ's Death, How shall Christ die for our sins, if we be looked upon in Christ as having none at all? If Christ's passive Obedience be imputed, then must we be look● upon as such, who in Christ have suffered and satisfied the Law, and born the full curse of it; And then how shall there be ●oom for any Pardon? The Man who pays his full debt by himself or Surity, can in no sense be forgiven by his Creditor. If Christ's active and passive Obedience both are imputed, then must GOD he made to deal with Man according to the Covenant of works in the business of Justification, when nothing is more aparent in Scripture, then that by Grace we are Justified, and by Grace saved.  
A little after he saith, There was no need to bring in this notion of Christ's imputed Righteousness into the Church, But that our Protestants mistake themselves, and forget that we are justified and saved by the Covenant of Grace, and not by the Law of Moses or Covenant of our Creation; And in the foregoing page, he saith, I would fain know whether any of the Disciples, James, John, or Paul himself, whether Clemens, Roman, or Alexanderin, Justine Martyr, Cyprian, Ambross, Augustine or any of the Fathers, Whether Gounsels or School men, whether John Huss or Wickliff, or any Father or Holy writer (without resting on some bare incoherent scraps of sentences) did ever understand or receive the full notion of Faith's instrumentality, and the imputation of a passive Righteousness before Luther? And if not, whether it be possible it should be of any such moment as is made of it by most Protestant's▪ I have set down these that the Reader may see we are not alone in this matter, but that as good Protestants as the Presbyterians, yea and some of themselves (to wit, Baxte●) are of the same mind with us; And yet in page 134, he is so confident of this his new notion unknown (as this man saithe) to the Apostles, Fathers, Counsels, and first Protestants that he asser●eth either Adam's sin to be such as by it all have sinned and by it death without exception is brought upon all mankind, or else that the Spirit of God speaketh nonsense in this Text. Certainly the Apostles were plain men, and had more plain simple and less intricat thoughts of the Christian Doctrines then our Schoolmen have devised, and I believe few of them would have understood their terms of Art now in vogue, and if the Apostles, or rather the Spirit of GOD had intended any such Doctrine as necessary to our Salvation; It would not have needed Hathenish Philosophy and Logic to have strained a consequence from the Text, which prehaps the writer never intended; and our School mens seeking to cause the Doctrine of Christ quadrate with Heathenish Philosophy hath beeh the ba●e of Christianity, though is he now made no less than absolutely necessary to the being of a Minister; And yet for all, this man is so confident, let the Reader, but look to the 16 Verse of the Chapter, where the comparison is made, and he will see that condemnation Eternal death is meant, and not bodily Death. His other Argument, that Death Reigned from Adam to Moses, can prove nothing for bodily Death hath Reigned from Adam to Patroclus; and what than? Ergo, Infants are condemned for Adam's sin, for none can die but sinners, this is boldly to beg the question and no more.  
His great Argument in page 135 is, That sin which is descrived to us by the Apostle, that he saith, brought Death upon all men, that men sinned by it, and were made sinners, even they who could not as yet actually sin, that they all became guilty of Death and Condemnation, That sin by imputation is the sin of the whole nature included in Adam, and rendereth the whole nature obnoxious to death and condemnation; But the first sin of Adam is thus described to us by the Apostle, etc. Ergo, that sin is the sin of nature.  
Answer, The Major containeth many great lies in it, and the Minor is a gross untruth which he and all the Presbyterians in the World can never proves from the words of the Apostles rightly understood, the indeed they have a saculty of causing the Scripture speak contraries, as we have seen and heard at Aberdeen, upon the Text, Holiness becomes thy house, O LORD, etc. I shall therefore insert one sentence more of I: H: There are some apt to conceive only that Adam being the root of Mankind, Humane nature itself sinned in him, and so when we come to exist his guilt is derived upon our persons as virtually and seminally in him, no otherwise than Levi is said to have paid tithes to Melchisedeck in the Loins of Abraham. I should (saith he) incline to this explanation, but that I see not then why all the sins of Adam besides, & of all out Progenitors, should not be ours also upon the same account, as much as that first transgression.  
He rails at R: B: for denying the Major of this argument, and telling, John Brown how he had abused the Scriptures, soisting in words of his own to deceive the simple Reader; I desire the Reader may be at the pains to see R: B's vindication and then judge betwixt him and his adversary.  
In page 136 he reproacheth R: B: for saying, show me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adam's sins But it would have wronged the cause to tell why R: B: said so, which was because I: Brown had challenged him for adding an interpretation, though he told him it was so, and therefore he saith, I am content there be neither addition nor so much as consequences made use of, adding let him show me the place of Scripture that saith Infants are guilty of Adam's sin? and now I entreat the Reader to compare the Books, and see what candour, integrity, or honesty is among such adversaries, or what Justice we can expect from men of such foreheads, as can raise a calumny on such a foundation, which themselves gave first ground for. He talks abundantly about the Salvation of Infants but to no purpose, forging Blasphemous consequences, and Fathering them upon R: B: while they are his own if they be Blasphemies, For he never said, that Infants are not saved by Christ only, and hath sufficiently cleared himself in his Vindication from this, but repeated calumny.  
To R: B's saying, Infants are under no Law, he answereth in three instances, that Children are forefaulted and deprived of their Father's Estate for their Father's faults; 2, That the Children of Sodom, etc. And of ●●re▪ and of Achan, etc. Were punished for their Father's sins; But its strange with what confidence he can repeat these tales which R: B: hath so fully answered, and it is manifest they suffered not for Adam's sin (if they were at all punished for sin) it must needs be the sin of their immediate Parents: And in the very words of Austustine, cited by himself in page 141) he saith, shall they sin that are under no command, That is, under no Law. He would abuse R: B: as saying, Augustine did not think Infants guilty of original sins; Whereas he only citeth Augustine to prove they are under no Law, which the words plainly impott.  
His Third is a very rare one, Thus, If in any point of Religion and Faith, the admirable depth of the Judgement and secret Counsel of GOD be to be seen, certainly it is to be observed here, etc. I would fain learn from this Author, what worse the Faith and Christian Religion would have been, though this contraversy of Infants being condemned for Adam's sin (while Adam himself was pardoned) had never been started in the  
Church by such capricious Clergiemen as our Author? Or does he believe that the belief of this Doctrine is absolutely necessary to Salvation? Certainly if it be so, the number will be few, and somewhat more few then Shepherd makes them in his Sincere Convert. But he saith, The depth of the secret Counsel of GOD is to be seen and observed here: If seen and observed here, than it is no secret, and if it be secret, it is not where seen nor observed: But the Presbyterians to know the secret Counsel of GOD, and yet deny the Revelation of his Spirit; This is unaccountable Doctrine, But he sends us to Paul's Sanctuary, Who ●rt thou, &c: If he had added the rest of the Doctrine he asserts, To wit, Who dare deny, That GOD condemneth innocent Infants, for that sin he hath pardoned to the Transgressor, he had come off fairly.  
But he answers Paul's Question, saying, we answer therefore, First, 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.  
I wonder whence our Author hath gathered all this Stuff, for in all the Scriptures is no such Doctrine to be found, And he denys any other Means of Knows ledge▪ And therefore upon good ground l●r●p●at it, as R: B: hath done. But he should have proved, that the Nature of the Covenant of works was on this wise; That although Adam died by the breach of it, yet he should be pardoned, yea, and put in a better Condition than he was before the fall; But his innocent Posterity, even Infants, who never had accession to that sin, not had a being for some thousands of years after the same, should be condemned Eternally to hell fire for that first sin: And till he prove this he saith nothing to the Contraversy.  
But he labours to prove, That Adam seized to be a public person after the fall; Because he died in the day he did eat, and so became dead in Law, What strained Consequences are these? Did not Adam live again the same day? And was he not a public person in the Second Covenant made with him the same day? Or was there any other Man then on the Earth to make a Covenant with? Or was not the Remissiion of that sin through the promised seed Jesus Christ, of as large an extent as the sin was? That as Adam the Transgresiour was not condemned eternally for that sin, So neither was any of his Posterity condemned for that sin only: Which I have showed before to be the mind of as good Protestants as our Author.  
To prove that for Adam's one sin only, all Mankind are condemned, he giveth us a Philosophiek Axiom, Bonum ex integrd eausa, malum ex quolibet defectu: And citeth Isaiah, 53. 31. But he should have told us in what verse of this Chapter it is said, That Christ suffered for Adam's sin, For I find not such thing in it; But our sins, our Transgressions, out Iniquities: We all as sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the Iniquities of us all; And therefore he will do well with the next, to give us Scripture, for proving this lunscriptural Dogma, of the damnation of Infants for Adam's sin; Or else acknowledge that the belief of it is not necessary to Salvation; And certainly if it necessary, the Scriptures will be sufficient to prove it; Tho our Author be pleased to call our saying so an Antiscriptural dottage: His words concerning Augustine I have told him before, were cited by R: B: to prove that Infants are under no Law; Which he ●●veth, and deceitfully insinuateth, that R: B: cited these words to make Augustine say, That Infants are not guilty of Adam's sin; Which he never intended further than the words bear; To wit, That they are under no Law; Yet our Author defends Augustine in condemning Infants; And again cannot choose but condemn Augustine for saying, That Infants dying without Baptism are condemned; So he owneth Augustine when he pleaseth him, and rejecteth him when he dilpleaseth him. In the end of page 141, He glorieth a little upon his false Insinuation, which only manifests his deceit and folly, as is his ordinary Custom.  
In page 142, He returns to prove that Infants are under a Law, which he acknowledgeth cannot be found in Scripture in so many words, but may be gathered (by a Presbyterian Commentator) from the 13 and 14 verses of Romans 5. For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no Law; Nevertheless Death reigned from Adam to Moses: even over them who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. Now let the  Reader judge whether any word h●●● c●● infer that infants are under a L●w, or are condemned for Adam's sin? To prove this, he saith, Infants die, and the death here mentioned is a bodily d●ath, and Death is a punishment of sin, and refers ●● to his former Section already answered, But R: B: saith it may rather signify that which Paul calls a body of Death, and is often called Death and Old Adam, and flesh, and the Law in the members, b● which corruption os man's nature; Man kind is made obnoxious to fall under the temptations of Satan, and is naturally in clined to evil, as R B: hath described a● large in his Vind: page 57, which he slily, or rather deceitfully passeth by, and then crycth out, a Pelagion exposition, as if R: B: had said that men sinned only by imitation, than which he could hardly have devised a greater lie, and I entreat the Reader to see the page now cited, and consider what faith these men can deserve, And as to the comparison betwixt Adam and Christ in R: B: his Apology, and again in his Vind: page 58. he says they are not to be regared, because they are to be accounted among the grossest Sooinian● who make the the Death and suflerings of Christian occasion or example only, etc. But not at all the procuring cause of Salvation. This needs no other answer but this, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy Brother, and I hope we should know our own Faith better than this li●ing Priest.  
His next to prove Infants guilty of Adam's sin is, Ephes: 2, 3. The words a●e, Among whom we all also had our conversation in times passed in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the Children of wrath as well as others.  
Who is he that reads this verse and seethe not, that it mentions actual sins? And that by nature is understood that corrupted nature which hath brought forth these forenamed transgressions; But that any word here can intimate that Infants are condemned for Adam's sin is a wild consequence; He saith, if the Apostle had meant otherways he would have excepted Infants, But he might as well have said he meant no such thing as the damnation of Infants; because he hath no where afserted i●; But to prove that by nature is meant original sin, he citeth some Scriptures but so impertinently, as a man might think he dreamt, Gal: 2. 5, and 4. 8. 1 Cor. 15 44, 46, etc. Which the Reader may see and consider his citation of Calvin, he might have spared his pains, and if R: B pasled by them, it was because they were not worth his while, and so his conclusion resolves in Wind.  
Next he gives us a whole page of Augustine and some others against the Pelagians, and what then? Will he own all that these men have written, but he tells us of fourteen Bishops, and therefore I must ask him whether these fourteen Bishops were L●mbs of Anti-christ as our Bishop's use to be called? Or if a Bishop can be a good Christian?  
His next is, Psalm 51. 5. I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my Mother Conceive me. Saith he R: B: denyeth the inference which yet is clear from Nehemiah 9: But hath not been so honest as to tell the verse, and I can find no such thing there except in the 2 verse, whether it is said they Confessed their sins, and the iniquities of their Fathers, and so throughout the whole Chapter, but no mention of Adam's transgression. What he saith of the Marriage duty is most impertinent, except he can say that David's Parents had no sin, except it were the marriage duty, which I think no presbyterian will assert: But he thinks he hath done a brave late in ask, when his adversary readeth of actual sin, because R: B: asketh him in what Scripture be readeth of Original sin, but he may find if he will, that he shall receive according to the deeds done in the Body, whether good or evil. And 1 John 3. 8. He that committeth sin is of the Devil, and John 8: 34. He that committeth sin is the servant of sin, and many more. Let him bring as plain Scripture that Infants are condemned for Adam's sin, and he hath done this busmesses.  
In page 146, He oflers us several pregnant arguments (as he words it) to demonstrate his Doctrine, as first Infants are deprived of the Image of GOD, therefore they are guilty of Adam's sin, he proves his consequence, because to be deprived of the Image of GOD is a punishment equal with, if not greater than the torments of hell.  
But our Author hath mistaken all his measures here; For if it be a punishment to be deprived of that which a man never had, than it is a punishment for Patroclus to want the Bishopric of St. Andrews (so called) that it was a punishment to Adam who once had it, I deny not, but he cannot prove that Infants had it, and so cannot be deprived of it▪  
His next is, None go to Heaven except those th●● were guiltyp●rsons, therefore▪ Infants who ha●e▪ never committed actual sin are guilty before GOD▪ None are saved but sinners▪ which was Christ's ●r●and to the Earth, etc. And such like trash of John brown's, fully answered by R: B: page 60 and 61. He at last resolves all into a Question, How infants if not guilty to come to Heaven without the death and meri●s of Christ? What he intends by this Question is hard to be understood, it's much if he knows what he ●ayes, for we never said nor believed that any person, Infants▪ or Old man came to Heaven without the Death and Merits of Christ; So that his Question if it have any sense at all, must be, what need have Infants of Christ if they he not sinners▪ nor guilty of Adam's sin? This is ●nswer●d by R: B: page 61, They have ●e●d of Christ who died for them, as a Saviour to deliver them from the seed of sin▪ ●nd corruption in them, which is called ●a●th▪ and the Old man▪ that they may ●u● off this▪ ●●d sing the song of the Redeemed, as John Brown words it: But how by what means he doth this he hath o● toll●us, and I desire not to be 〈◊〉 above what is revealed. ●●s answer 〈◊〉 B's▪ Question, how elect infants come to besaved, whom he accounts guilty of 〈◊〉▪ Is, by the imputed Righteousness of Christ▪ But than, what becomes of the 〈◊〉 mentality of Faith, without which they deny imputation, let him help this same answer with the next.  
His next is, These who in the sight of GOD are dogs, are guilty persons to be excluded from Heaven, and therefore to be cast into hell▪ but whole Nations without exception are ●uen▪ therefore Infants being a part of these Nations, deserve to be excluded from Heaven and ●ent unto hell. To ●rove his Minor he bringeth▪ Matt. ●●, 26. It is ●● meet to take the children's bread and ●ast it to dogs; but it seems he hat● forgotten to look unto the 28 Verse. O▪ Woman! Great is th● Faith, etc. And ●● they be dogs, who have Faith, yea and great faith; I must ask him who are Children? And i● such who have great Faith deserve to be excluded from heaven, and sent to hell? He might have considered that many of the Gentiles who formerly wallowed in the lusts of the Flesh, and were dogs came afterwards to be washed from their pollutions, and that Publicans and sinners entered the Kingdom of Heaven when such professing S●rib●s and pharisees as our Author were shut out▪ The other place he citeth 1 Cor▪ ●▪ 14. For the unbelieving husband is Sanctified b● the wife, and the unbelieving▪ wife is Sanctified by the Husband, else were your Children unclean, but now are they holy. I● this be any thing to the purpose, it is against our Author, seeing it relates, to the uncleanness and holiness of the immediate Parents, and can never be thought to intent Adam's sin, but any thing may serve to make a Muster.  
His next is ●en▪ 1●▪ 14. The man Child that is Uncircumcised▪ shall be cut off. Hence he saith that Mr. Brown inferreth that Children may be in some sense apabl● of breach of Covenant, and therefore under a Law desiring his adversary to chaw his Cude upon it; First, I observe how timorously they propose this argument with a may ●e, and in some sense; But it is strange how men pretending to sense could propone in it, for whose sin was it i● the Child was un-Circumcised? Can it Circumcise itself or could it desire another to do it? Or did ever the Just and Merciful GOD require such an impossibility of an Infant of ●ight days old? It was therefore the Father and not the Child who was obliged by this Covenant, and who sinned in case of Non▪ performance▪ So that R: B: needed not trouble himself with such nonsensical stuff.  
His fourth pregnant Argument is, John 3. None ●an enter into the Kingdom of Heaven except they be born again: Upon this he argueth, the New Birth is a Gift of GOD, which he may withhold from whom he will; And therefore without prejudice to his Justice, may exclude whosoever hath it not from the Kingdom of Heaven; But none are excluded from it but guilty persons, which I believe none will deny. Therefore Infants may well be accounted guilty persons. I answer in short, when he tells us h●w his Elect Infants are born again, he may take the same wa● with the rest; For I have told him before▪ I pretend not to be wise above what is revealed; But his Doctrine of Imputation will not serve his turn here.  
Lastly, He comes to answer that of Ezek: 18. 20. For which he bringeth no answer; But tells us Mr. Brown hath cleared this Text; Why then did he meddle with it? But he says it contradicteth the second Commandment. Answer, No such matter, for the second Commandment saith, Visiting the sins of the Fathers upon the Children▪ &c: Which is generally expounded of Temporary punishments, and relates to the immediate Parents; But Ezekiel saith, The Soul that sinn●th it shall die, which is meaned of Eternal punishments.  
And now to conclude, I must ask this great Pretender to a knowledge of the secret Counsel of GOD, and the state of Infants after death; Whether they shall continue Infants, and be such every way at the Resurrection and to all Eternity, as they are the time of their decease? And I shall expect his answer with the next.   

Chapter iv Of GOD.  
HE gins this Chapter with three malicious and false Accusations, according to his custom, saying in this Chapter, I shall prove the Quakers guilty of three things, each of which is enough to Un-Christian the Maintainer thereof; But I hope not the Denier thereof.  
His three things are,  
First, That they deny the Holy Trinity with Arrius and Sahellius.  
Secondly, That their Doctrine maketh GOD the author of sin.  
Thirdly, That they bold the Soul of Man to be GOD.  
All which three we positively deny ourselves to be guilty of, and I hope all sober and unprejudiced Men will acknowledge, that we know what we believe better than this our deceitful and malicious Enemy doth: And therefore this whole Chapter needeth no other Answer, But the LORD rebuke this lying spirit that is gone forth into the mouths of these lying Prophet's, Who take pleasure to defam● and bespatter innocent Men, thereby to lay them open to the fury of their bigoted Admires, and blind folded followers: But the just GOD who searcheth our Hearts knoweth our Innocency, and will in due time rip off these covers of deceit, and take away this refuge of Lies, wherewith these Men cover themselves, that they may hurt the Innocent.  
To begin with the first, R: B: in his Apology, George Keith in his Book of The Way cast up. have so fully vindicated us from the Arrians and Sabellian herefies, that I wonder with what face this Author can accuse us; And it is evident to all single hearted Men who read our Writings, that it is the Words only we oppose; To wit, words invented by the deformers of Christianity, the Clergy, who by their heathenish philosophy (by a new name called School Divinity) have invented and brought into the Church these heathenish and unscriptural terms which we reject. Nevertheless, this perverse and malicious Author, like an Advocate pleading at a Bar, Bawls, Cries, Rants, and Tears, and will perf●● & nefas have us guilty of Arrianism.  
And first he sets down that Arrian heresy to be, That the Son is separated from, or divided from the Eternal and Ineffable Substance of GOD the Father.  
Now I charge him and all the Presbyterians in the World to produce on sentence in our Writings, bearing this Doctrine, which I am sure they cannot. Moreover Philip Melanchton in Chron: Carionis. page 264. Saith, That Arrius denied the Divinity of Christ, and That the Son was Coeternal with the Father that he was a Creature ex non existentibus, That is ex nibile▪ All which we detest and abhor.  
But to stop his mouth for ever, I tell him we own the Nicen Creed, which I shall here insert so far as concerns this Contraversy.  
I believe in one LORD JESUS CHRIST the only begotten Son of GOD, born of the Father before all Ages; GOD of God, Light of light, True GOD of true God, Begotten not made, Consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, who for us Men, and for our Salvation came down from Heaven, and was Incarnate of the Holy Ghost, and the Virgin Mary, and became Man, was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was buried and arose again the third day, according to the Scriptures, he ascended to Heaven, sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father, and is to come again with Glory to judge the Quick and the Dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.  
And now what can our most malicious Aduersaries require more of us for I hope it is evident to all Men, that it is the words of Man's Wisdom invented, that we oppose and not the Mystery itself.  
And here by the way I must tell him, that this Counsel hath been no friend to Presbytry; For we read of no Presbyters there, but such as were Legates sent by Bishops, who for age or sickness could not come; As also that they appointed two Metrapolitan Bishops, one in Rome and another in Alexandria, See Chron: Carionts, page 205.  
The rest of his Tatle is only about the Translation of Hebr: 1. 3. For which he citeth a number of Lexioons, I have none of them by me, but one Serevellius who in his Lexieon Graco Latinum translats it Persona, and in his Lexcon Latino Gr●cum translats it Substantia: But Hi●rom, Erasmus and Melanchton translats it Substantia: And so if George Keith have said any thing which offends our Author, in this or any other point, he may deal with his Books when he hath a mind, and I do not Question his ability to answer for himself.  
I cannot omit one notable proof he gives to prove his salsehoods; Thus, It is most evident from their perpetual bellish roillings at the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, calling it an abominable and stinking Doctrine, as they that heard them told me, etc.  
Now Reader consider, what can be expected from such an Adversary, whose malice blinds him that he cannot see his own folly? Perhaps as great a Liar as himself told him a Tale, and he will print and publish it to the World, to defame an Honest and Innocent Body of People; This is Hicks and Faldo downright.  
As for the Word Persona, it is not to be found in the Nicen Creed, and not only Augustine, but Jerom, and Laurentius Valla, find fault with it, as no fit word to express the Mystery: But a late writer who calls himself a Protestant Minister, poirc● e●gh: rationales de DEO, etc. disputeth at large against the word Persona, to whom I refert our Author.  
That it is an unscriptural word, he confesseth, and then why may we not seek plain Scripture for it, as well as his Brother Jo: Brown, in page 175, saith, It is considerable, that no where in Scripture we find it affirmed expresiv, that Christ died for all Men. why then is all this trouble made. But it seems Presbyterians may do many things, which are not allowable to others, seeing they would fain be accounted Dictator's over all Consciences in Briton. But I hope what is said will suffice to clear us of Arrianism to any prejudiced Reader: And therefore I shall proceed to his second Calumny.  
Which is, that according to the Quakers doctrine, GOD is Author of sin.  
We have heard of some Witches, who after they were condemned, have impeached many Innocent Persons: So our Author being unable to clear his Brethren of that guilt charged justly on them by R: B: and fully proven, would have the Quakers as guilty as they, Solatium est miseris multos habere pares, But two Blacks make not a White.  
His Argument is, GOD is the Author of every Substance.  
But according to the Quakers, sin is a substance, Ergo, etc.  
He proves his Minor thus, Grace is a Substance, therefore sin is a substance.  
He saith R: B: denyeth the Consequence, which he thus proveth.  
Sin can hear feel and perceive as well as Grace and Light, it may feel and perceive the things of Satan as well as Light. And Grace feels or perceives the Things of GOD, and may be in the Heart of a real Godly person, Therefore it is a Substance. Thus our Author.  
Answer, The Scripture is cleat, That the Life of the Son of GOD is the light of men, and that this is a substance I think he will not dare to deny, and he hath seemed to grant that there was a substantial life in Adam before the fall, which he saith was extinguished by the fall; Hence came the darkness, the Death, the Pollution, the Corruption, the lust, the flesh, or Body of Death, and all sin as the West-minster Confession teacheth. Now to compare these together, and to say the light enlighteneth, therefore the darkness enlighteneth, the life of Christ in man feeleth and perceiveth, therefore Death, Pollution and Corruption doth feel and perceive, is a most wild consequence, and if he intent to make the seed of the Serpent every way equal to the seed of the Woman, it's but the path way to Manichism, and indeed he hath manifested his favour to the Serpent's seed very much, by contending so warmly for its Kingdom in his Chapter of perfection. But it will not do, for no Man can deny, that he hath had the Counsels, Prohibitions, Approbations and Reproofs of the Light and Grace of GOD, either before or after the doing of the Good or evil act, which speak forth a living and substantial Principle; Whereas the other is a mere defect, privation, weakness, corruption, and a want; And hath more of the nature of an accident (though I dare not call it one) That is, which may be present or absent without destroying its Subject; For Adam had no sin, and was better without it then with it; And so will our Author if ever he have the good Luck to be delivered from it (though contrary to his Faith) And Christ the best  
Man that ever, was never had it, as he saith, The Prince of this World cometh and hath nothing in me; But his mightiest argument is the last, which he builds upon his own weak judgement thus: For I judge this to be the reason why the Quakers judge that this is the reason (it seems the man hath lost both lense and reason) that there being grace in the bearts of wicked men, while in their wickedness proveth it to be a substance; Viz. Because it can be where its contrary is, and strive, and wrestle with it, which is as evident concerning sin in the heart of a Godlv man.  
Answer, If Patroclus had lived till Aristotle's time, surely he had learned his Logicks better, but he had the ill hap to meet with Hector before Aristotle was born; And for as great enemies as we are to Logic in our Author's esteem and account. I must tell him this judgement and reason of his hath lost his cause: For Aristotle saith (with other Logicians) Substantiae contrarium est nihil, and Substantia Substantiae non contrariatur; So that if the light be a substance, its contrary is nothing: And this may give a Specimen of this windy man's learning. as we have many of his honesty; All this is but George Meldrums Dicats to the Students at Aberdeen, put in a new dress, and fully answered in Quakerism Confirmed, Sect: 4.  
He is very angry with George Keith for saying, The Devil may be called sin by a metonomy, but he might have remembered that Paul calls sin a body of Death, the Old man, the flesh, and Old Adam, all which are figurative speeches; Yet he calls George Keith a ridiculous Babbler, he is not the first babbler who hath reproached him, and this is all the fair dealing we can expect.  
He also compleans that GergeKeith says, that to query a thing will not conclude, that the Questionist doth positively affirm or deny what is queried, which the Author will find true in the query, I have proposed to him in the end of the last Chapter, where I neither deny nor affirm the thing queried. In conclusion, he will have George Keith, and the Querists, to say, that the Devil is Original sin, whether he will or not, I shall set down the Querie.  
What is Original sin? Whether it be not the devil: For doth not Original signify the beginning?  
Now he bathe spent two whole pages of his book full of abusive language upon this query, still affirming that the Querists affirmed hereby the devil to be Originael sin, which he can never prove from the Query; For why may not an Unscriptural word (as Original sin is) be examined, as to its meaning, without affirming or denying any thing concerning it? That the devil was & is the Original of all sin, I think our Author will not deny: But to say, that GOD made so, is his blasphemous insinuation, and none of ours, and therefore his conclusion is his own.  
But how affrontedly impudent this poor man is, and how his malice hath blinded him, is evident here, where he spendeth two whole pages of his Book, asserting that to query a thing is to affirm it, and for denying this, he calls his Adversaries pitiful, purposeless; wranglers, and their discourse nonsensical niceties, and calls George Keith a fool, a knave, and what not, while in page 208 of his book he betakes himself to the refuge for defence of his Brother I: B: saying, he only enquireth, and a little after faith, the contrary of which, for any thing I can learn he supposeth; So that according to this Author, a Quakers Query is an assertion, and a Presbyterian Query is a flat denial, at lest a supposing the contrary; But these Priests are Holy men, and Holy men like Holy write must be read backward, but he knows he is accountable to none but his Biethrens in Prima instantia, for his Doctrine, as was answered by them to King James the sixth, when he accused Blackie for preaching at Andrews, Chat all Bings were the devils bairns; Who are not like to censure him for traducing the Quakers.  
His third Calumny is, That we hold the Soul of man to be GOD; To prove this, he citeth two Authors, Hubberthorn and George Fox; These books I never saw, only I find that William Penn hath been assaulted with the latter, by our Authors beloved Anabaptist Hicks, and hath so fully answered it, that our Author might have taken notice of it if he had minded to be ingenuous, he may find it in Counterfeit Christian, page 68, 69, 70, and 71. But admit all he allegeth were true (as it is a most hateful lie) that these two men had believed and written so. Was there either honesty or fair dealing in our Author to charge this on a whole body of People, who had publicly denied any such Doctrine to be intended by the Writers, or owned by them as William Pen hath done in the place before cited, If upon the Presbyterian Eloquence should accuse the whole Body of the Presbyterians, of the Blasphemies and Absurdities there in charged on particular persons, Who would be readier to blame me then this Author? who upon Hicks and Faldoes Testimonies hath published (its like) these Citations, Or should I cite here some Presbyterian Authors, Saying, This Discipline is no small part of the Gospel, it is the substance of it: And this Discipline is the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD: And this Discipline is the Eternal Counsel of GOD. The Authors I will not name, except he put me to it, because I am not of the mind that any soher Presbyterian will own such Doctrines: But lexpect no such fair Dealing from our Author, who cannot but know himself to be a false accuser, if he but seriously read, and considered the Books he hath cited in his pamphlet.  
Therefore to satisfy all men, who may have occasion to see this, I do hereby for myself, and in the name of my Friends declare, That we believe the Rational Soul of Man which joined with the Body, constitutes him a Man, and distinguisheth him from beasts, to be a 〈◊〉 Creature ereated by GOD, and that it is neither GOD, nor any part of GOD. And this I hope will satisfy all unprojudiced Readers, and demonstrate the malice and deceit of this our surious Adversary. And with this one Declaration of our faith in this Article, all his Cant for eight pages together falls to the ground; Which being chief stuffed with Macquairs Rhetoric deserves no other answer but, to tell him, I am not so well skilled in the art of Scolding as he.  
I shall here only entreat the Reader to take notice of what he saith concerning R: B: in the end of page 172, and the beginning of the next, and to compare this with R: B's Vindieation page 190 and 191; That he may see what cause he hath to boast of his Anaboptist Auxilary, and to call R: B: ridicusous. He is pleased to call William pen a Saducee, a Papist, and a Pagan, but leaves the probation of it till he writ next. As for the words Spiraculum Vitarum, be tells us of three or four Lexieo graphers, upon whose skill of the Language his faith depends; But William Penn tells him of Rabbi N●bmunni, Hiskuni and P: Fagius; And as I told him before, R: Barkelay told him of Athanasius and Gallus Alexandrinus; whose Authority is as good as his Lexicographers, if not better; And therefore we must expect better proofs next.  
His last Citation in page 176, is nothing to his purpose, except that any thing which he thinks can blaken the Quakers, is pertinent enough. But I must ask him here, doth he allow of Henry Forsides Answer, To wit, Being asked, For what end Christ wept over Jerusalem? He Answered; As he was humane he mourned, and his Godhead deareed them to bell: If thou owest this answer, thou and he are the Blasphemers, in asserting a will in Christ as Man, contrary to the Will of GOD, for no Man mouths for what he desires, and delights in; But certainly Christ as Man, delighted in fulfiling the Decrees of GOD.  
But the words he carps at are, The Eternal tendered over them. This he calls a subjecting that most pure and impassable Being, to the weakest Frailties of Mankind; Poor Man! Doth not the Scripture say, That it repent the Lord that he had made Man, and is grieved him at his Heart, Gen: 6. 6. And Eph: 4. 30. Grieve not the Good Spirit of GOD.   

Chapter V Of CHRIST and His Benefits.  
OUR Author gins this Chapter with his ordinary Ingenuity, as he ended the last, Saying, The Quakers in words ordinarily acknowledge, that Christ is GOD and Man. Yea Patroclus, and in Writ too, if thou could learn to write the Truth; But saith he, They maintain a Spiritual and Heavenly Nature in Christ, which they call the Heavenly Man, which did exist before the Incarnation of Christ, and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this Man, the Church in all ages did feed. Then he giveth us a bundle of Citations out of George Keiths Book. The way east up, But never one of the Scripture Arguments which he bringeth to prove these assertions: Which she weth evidently that they have been too hot for his Fingers: This is not like the Champion Patroclus; And he might have considered that George Keith was a Philosopher, and therefore might have allowed us one Casuist, and have discussed him before they had charged his Doctrines upon▪ us: But he tells us, it is a clear Consequence of this Doctrine, that Christ hath three Natures▪ and addeth, To this they Answer, Quake: Confession page 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 with no better Candour hath he cited this place, than his Brother Hicks and Faldo used to; I shall therefore set down the words. But if they argue that at least Christ hath three Natures in himself; We say, their own Principle will conclude that as much as ours, For the Godhead is one Nature; The Nature of the Soul is a second; And the Nature of the Body is the third. And our Adversaries themselves teach, That as GOD is three Persons in one Nature, So Christ is three Natures in one Person.  
Who seethe not here that our Author hath disingenuously skipped over the strength of the answer, to wit, the latter part of it, which is an argument, ad hominem, and that themselves are owners of that which they would make an absurdity in others▪ But if he have leisure he may read the Cantabridgian Philosopher, H: More concerning the Astral bodies of men: For which I find him not censured by any, as making men to be Monsters, and so you may allow George Keith some latitude in such Metaphisical stuff, however he is of Age, and can answer for himself.  
His next is in page 179, where he chargeth us with quite anihilating and destroying the Divinity of Christ, for which he citeth a book of one Christopher Aitkinson in the time of Oliver Cromwell; But I ask him, hath he this book? Or hath he taken it upon trust? Or found it folding up wares in some Gross Shop? For my part I never saw this book, nor know I if there be such a book Extant in this World, but he hath had two sufficient answers, the first, that G: Aitkinson was not a Quaker, the Second, if he deny Christ to be a man we 〈◊〉 him who do say, that Christ is both GOD and Man. And here let the Reader observe, that I: Brown thought this a good answer to R: B: as is to be seen, Vind: page 67: But our Author will hear no such thing, and affirmeth in page 181; That this confession serveth only to prove us guilty of the most wicked Hypocrisy, lying and self-contradiction to put a cheat upon the World, and cover our abominations, to prove this heap of gross and unworthy calumnies, he betakes himself to George Keiths book again, and the places before cited, quite ommitting (as before) all the arguments used by George Keith, and never offering us one argument to prove his false accusations of Hypocrisy, lying and false accusation, but proceeds like a scolding Kailwife, reeling and roaring like a drunken man, foaming out his own shame; But he saith, these Doctrines of George Keiths destroy all the arguments for proving the Divinity of Christ, of which he mentioneth one; By him all things were Created. But was the power of the Logos lessened by taking that Flesh of the Virgin? And was he not as able to have Created the World after his Incarnation and Assumption of that Body, as he was from Eternity? And then what did his being the Heavenly Man, the first born of every Creature hinder the Logos from Creating the World, and all things therein? As for his ubiquity, George Keith hath abundantly cleared himself in the Book before cited, to which I refer him, and shall now come to his Dilemma, which is this.  
If all things were created by Christ as Man, Then either the Manhood of Christ is Created or not? If Created, 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.  
Answer, The fallacy of this Dilemma lieth in the first supposition, and is obvious to a very mean understanding; To wit, If all things were Created as Man, This was never asserted by George Keith, as his own words cited by this impudent Author will easily prove, page 93; The Word made Flesh Created all things. Now except he will say, that he was weakened or disabled by assuming a Body, he can make nothing of his Dilemma, for he was still and is, and will be for ever the same Eternal and Omnipotent GOD as well as Man. If he ask who made that Heavenly Body? I answer The same GOD Almighty who made the Body which he took of the Virgin, and so his Consequence of an Vnereated Man, Coeternal with GOD is a mere fancy, For George Keith calls the Heavenly Man, the First Born of every Creature, as the Apostle also doth, and never asserted that he was Man from all Eternity.  
I need not trouble further abont G: K: they having promised a full answer to the Book, and I think he will hardly refuse to enter the Lists with this Grecian Here; But I shall give a citation to chaw his Cude upon, (as he words it) and so leave this matter, Melan: (bron: Car: page 274, citeth Socrates Scholastious for three Cannons of the Counsel of Syrinum, The second of which is,  
Si quis cum Jacob, non filium, tanquam hominem Colluctatum esse dixerit, sed no● gonitum Deum, a●t Patrem Deum, Anathemasit.  
After his Dilemma, and a little railing, Telling we are worse than Arrians or Socinians, and such like stuff, not worthy to be transcribed; He at last falls upon the Light, calling it a mere chimerical None-entity; Seeing there is nothing more contradictory then that either the Soul or the Body of a Man can he every where, or from Eternity.  
That it was from Eternity, is his false Alledgiance, and none of our Assertions▪ And for its ubiquity, he may see Quake eonfirmed, in the place before cited; That the Seed and Life is in Him in the fullness, as in the fountain or spring, but in us, as the streams; in Him as the Head, in us as the members; And as the Light is principally in the Body of the Sun, yet diffuseth itself through the whole world; Even so the Light of Christ the Sun of Righteousness. As for his Relics of the Image of GOD in Adam that quenched spunk of his Extinguished Lantern, he might have left it alone for any Advantage he made by it last.  
In the beginning of page 83. He takes a very singular fit of railing and Lying, He says, in favours of this Spiritual Antichrist or Antichristlan Figment, which they account for their Christ; They decry, vilify, and do what they can to overthrow whatever ought to be dear and precious to a Christian (for what will they not deny, seeing they deny the Godhead of Christ) They therefore with open mouth blaspheme and deny Jesus Christ as a Person without them, etc.  
What will this Man stick to assert, who after so many accounts of our Faith in this matter, can with an hardened face, and (I may say) a seared Conscience assert such gross untruths; For which I wish the LORD may grant him Repentance. But as the Poet saith,— Nam quis innocens arit, quis tristiore liberabitur nota, si eriminare sufficit? I hope the World hath learned by a long Experience, that a Clergy Man is not always to be trusted (I had almost said seldom) when he turns accuser of the Brethren.  
But to a muse or rather abule his Reader, he gives us a bundle of Citations, upon the Authority of his Friend Mr. Hieks, (as he calls him) so sully answered in the very places cired by him, and our Doctrine sully cleared in this matter; That if the man had not been past all shame, he would not have dared to revive the Dottages of that defated Forger: Who durst not again attempt to answer for himself. But this Author's impudence must be more than ordinary, who hath throughout his whole Pamphlet been crying out against us, as one both with Anabaptists and Soceniaus, whom in page 89▪ he calls wicked and abominable; And yet in this place he takes them for his fellow Soldiers against the Quakers: This is certainly as bad, as to receive the Mallignants into the Army: Yet common to the Chieff Priests, Seribes and Pharisees in former times.  
But what is the matter he intends by all these Citations, Namely, They deny (saith he) Jesus Christ as a Person without them, distinct from Christ in them. For cleating of this matter to all  persons, I shall state the matter thus;  
That Christ is with and in his Saints is a Doctrine, so fully testi fied to in the Scriptures, that no Christian will deny it, Matth: 28. 20. And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the World. Which Beza saith is meant, of the manner of the presence of the Spirit, &c: But is absent from us in Body. In which Body, we acknowledge him, a Person without the Saints, & distinct from them; As William Penn hath told thee, though thou had the Candour to conceal it, But that Christ the LORD from Heaven, the Quickening Spirit is one in the Saints, and another distinct Person without them, we deny; And such as affirm it make two Christ's. See John 14. 20, 23. and 15. 4. 5. and 17. 23. Rom: 8. 10. 2 Cor: 13. 5. Gak 1. 16. cock 1. 27. Revel: 3. 20.  
But in the end of these Citations, He must have a second hit at H: Forside. Is this to tell us again, That Christ as man hath a will contrary to the will of his Godhead? No, But for saying that the word Humane is no Scripture Language, but saith our Author, the thing imported is found in Scripture. He might have minded that the word Humanus may be derived from Humus the Earth, as well as from Homo: And that the Body of Christ now in Heaven is an Earthly Body, is a very gross Notion.  
Again page 84. He returneth to Hicks and Faldo, but citeth us no page, running at random: And truly Patroclus, this is an easy way of writing Books, if to publish all the Lies and Forgeries devised, and maliciously vented against the Quakers be an honest Employment, thou might have had another Book of that kind written before we noticed this.  
I shall only take notice of one of the grossest of them, he nameth Edward Billings, but citeth neither book nor page, to which George Whitehead in the Appendix before cited by our Author, saith, it is gross and blasphemous to say, that the Mystery of iniquity lieth in the Blood of Christ.  
Now Reader, consider this Man's honesty, who but he that would be accounted such himself, could adventure his reputation upon such Authority as this? Or would spread such impudent calumnies and forgeries after they had been proven so fully to be such? certainly it must be a bad cause that need such Pillars to underprop it; But I entreat thee Patroelus for the future, speak Truth and shame the Devil.  
In page 185, he transcribes a deal of Faldo's stuff, alleging we render the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of our LORD JESUS at Jerusalem, altogether vain and idle actions, and that we call the Body that our LORD took off the Virgin only a Garment, and that it is no constituent part of CHRIST. A heap of gross and unparaleled lies. To prove all which he citeth William Pen his rejoinder, part 2, Chap. 9 Saying thus, Whereas it is said that it was revealed to Simon, that he should not die till he should see the LORDS Christ, is to be understood of a Spiritual sight, or of seeing the Christ within.  
Certainly, This must be a man of no Credit, nor one that values a good name, though he begin his Book with it: For if he can produce in that Book or Chapter such an expression of William Penns, he shall surely cause Print a new Copy and insert it; for I assure my Reader, there is no such thing, so that henceforth our Author deserves better to be called Simon then Patroelus; Yea, he out does Faldo, for Faldo accuseth William Penn only for saying, that the Body of Jesus was not the whole entire Christ, Which Faldo labouring to prove, and sometimes deny, (that any man having the use of his Reason, might have been ashamed of) he fully bemires himself, and yet our Author's citation is more odious.  
He cometh now to another false charge, saying, as these men deny CHRIST Himself; So they deny consequently all the benefits purchased by him. The Father of lies could scaroely have been more audacious, though perhaps more cunning then to have Printed himself a liar; The First is proven to be ae●lie already, let us hear what he saith for the Second. For this he returns to his trade of forging citations, and gives William Penns Sandie Foundation shaken 26. Thus, Unless we become doers of that Law which Christ came not to destroy, but as our example to fulfil, we can never be justified before GOD; nor let any fancy that Christ so fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their Obedience from being requisite to their acceptance, but only as their pattern, etc.  
This Threadbare citation hath been many a time cast in our teeth, and tossed over and over to no purpose: For William Penn hath so fully cleared himself of it, that no honest man would have charged him or us with it, as my Reader may see in Reason against Railing, page 78, and Sergeant Christian detected from page 22 to page 78, which were too tedious to insert here, but hath brought an indelible brand of infamy upon Thomas Hicks, whereof (it seems) our Author covets a share.  
In page 186, He contemns at the old rate of forgery and falsely accusing us, first of Socinianism, and then of Popery, saying, R: B: denyeth not that his Doctrine of Justification is all one with that of the Council of 〈◊〉; He citeth for proof of his Calumny Apol: page p37, 139, and Vind: Sect: 8, N: 9 Where, faith he, He accuseth Luther, and the Body of the Primitive Protestants, as great Deprivers of the doctrine of Justification, and doers of as great hurt by this their Doctrine, as ever they did good, by what they pulleddown of Babylon.  
A grosser lie, nor a greater forgery was never Printed in this Age; What shall men do when they deal with such audacious slanderes? But Patroelus tell me seriously, didst thou think that any who Read thy book, would be at pains to compare it with the places cited? If they did, how could thou think to escape the black Character of an infamous forger? Doth not R: B: in both places cited, dispute largely against the Papists? And in his Vindication doth he not challenge I: Brown for Patronising the Papists? But thy Forgery is more than manifest in the latter part of thy charge; Wherein thou says, he accuseth the Protestants, as doers of as great hurt by this their Doctrine as ever they did good by what they pulled down of Babylon.  
R: B's Words are these; For in this, as in most other things He [Luther] is more to be commended for what he pulled down of Babylon, then for what he Built of his own.  
Let the Reader from this one citation Judge of our Author's Candour, and whether this perversion be not wilful as well as malicious.  
In the next place, he giveth us a whole page and some more of Hicks and Faldo's stuff so fully answered, and the Perversion thereof so fully detected; by William Penn, that the Authors themselves durst never attempt their Vindication; But it seems our Author thinks these of his own stamp will believe him implicitly, and the Books he hath forbidden; them to read, and so thinks himself secure, but he being manifested to be a Forger as above; I hope the Reader will be at the pains to read William Penns Book against Hicks and Faldo, where he will find all these Citations fully handled, which were superfluous to transcribe here.  
In the end of page 187. He saith, with the like facility I could show, That the Doctrine of the Quakers is in every point contrary to the Doctrine of Christ.  
Truly it is easy for a man who loves to make Lies, and makes no Conscience of so doing, to vent and Print them: But what is now sweet in his mouth, may prove bitter in his belly. But he proceeds, saying, I shall content myself with one great Instance, Viz: The Resurrection of the Body, concerning which the Quakers are down-tight Saducees.  
This is another like the rest, And to return a lie upon him, I shall first say, We believe, according to the Scriptures, a Resurrection of the Dead, of the Just and unjust; So that this unjust Adversary here chargeth us very falsely; For we can justly say, If in this Life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. Nor were we ever charged with denying the Resurrection, but only of that same body Niomerical Concerning which we willingly assent to what the Apostle hath said, 1 Cor. 15 from verse 35. to the end. And 2. Cor. 5. 1. 2, 3. Which Beza ●nterprets of the Resurrection: And if our Author will be wiser than the Spirit of GOD, I must leave him there, and remit him to cultivate his Reason better, by conversing with some of the Modern Philosophers; As Henry More and others, and particularly Kenelm Digby, in his Observations upon Religio Medici, page 343. I shall offer him only two Sentences of his, First, All sublunary Matter, being in a continual Flux, and in bodies which have internal Principles of Heat and Motion, which continually transpireth out to make room for the fresh Supplies of new Aliement; So that in process of time all is so changed, that the body of the Young Man is not the same body of the Old Man, and so one body sinneth and another suffereth.  
Secondly; That which giveth the numerical individuation to a body, is the substantial Form, as long as that remaineth the same, though the matter be in a continual flux and motion, yet the thing is still the same. It is evident that Samenes, This-nes, and That-nes belongeth not to matter by itself, but only as it is distinguished and individuated by the Form.  
The rest of his Work to the end of this Chapter, being nothing but the foul Vomit of two malicious Forgeries already answered, deserves no answer.   

Chapter VI Of Perfection.  
HERE he beginneth with insolent and insulting Language, and then (with more than his usual Candour) sets down R: B's. eight These; But lest I should have mistaken him, he returns to his Priestine State and Old Principles; Saying, and afterwards he saith, That there may be a State in this Life, in which a Man cannot sin, it is so natural to him to do Righteousness.  
Tho I be wearied with such Perversions and Paltry stuff; I am enforced to transcribe R: B's. Words to evince yet once more his dissigenuity. Apol: page 170. Lastly though I affirm that after a Man hath arrived to such a condition, in which a man may not sin, he yet may sin: I will nevertheless not deny, but there may be a State attainable in this Life, in which to do Righteousness may become so natural to the regenerate Soul, that in the stability of this Condition they cannot sin; Others may perhaps speak more certainly of this State, as having arrived to it▪ For me, I shall speak modestly, as acknowledging myself not to have arrived at it; Yet (observe▪) dare not deny it, for that it s●m● to be so positively asserted by the Apostle, 1 John 3. 9 He that is born of GOD sineth not, neither can he, because the Seed of GOD remaineth in him.  
Now let the Reader Judge whether to assert be one thing, and not dare to deny be another thing; And the Reason our Author gives is, It is so natural to him to do Righteousness, Whereas R: B's: Reason, why he dare not deny it, is because the Apostle seems so positively to assert it: But this is not the first we have met with.  
The next we get is another piece of Hicks (one of his wicked abominable Anabaptists (as he words it) which I intent no more to concern with.  
But he tells us R: B: hath given away the Cause; Vind▪ Sect. 9 Saying, That he pleadeth for no more than Mr. Brown saith, Numb: 6. To wit▪ That by Penfection 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. Thus our Author.  
Certainly it's strange what the man could promise to himself by such base and unworthy dissimulations? For R: B: citeth John Brown's words, page 328. 329. In regeneration, the whole man is changed, so that he is now born a new Creature, sanctified wholly, in Mind, Heart, Spirit, Affection, Conscience, Memory, and Body, though but in a small measure or degree, yielding Impartial Obedience (through the Grace of GOD) unto all GOD'S Precepts waving none.  
These are the Words cited by R. B. and miserably mancked by our Author, who hath skipped over the most matterial parts of his Brother's words, that he may have the more room; but this is a very mean subterfuge, and will not long cover him: For, saith he, R. B. enquireth, how this Doctrine is reconciled with that of daily breaking the Commands in thought, Word, and deed? In answer to which question▪ (saith he) It is enough to inquire, How he evineeth them to be contradictory? Observe Reader, That according to this Man, (for I will not think that his brethren will own him) to be changed in the whole Man, to be born a new Creature, to be wholly sanctified in the mind, heart, Spirit, Affections, Conscience, Memory and Body, etc. And to break the Commands daily in thought, word, and Deed; are no ways contrary, and need no Reconciliation. Behold this Man's Sanctification! And let him tell me with the next, what difference there is betwixt his Holiness or Sanctification, and other men's wickedness where malice is wanting.  
As for that he adds, That the Law of the Lord requireth a perfection of degrees as well as as parts; He might have known that we are to be judged by the Gospel and not by the Law.  
Next he saith, And whereas he enquireth; If to break Gods Commands daily in Thought, Word, and Deed, be the way to grow in Grace? To put off the Old Man and put on the New? This he calls a malicious calumny, But who gave the occasion for it! Did not ● B. bring this for a proof, that Men sin daily in thought, Word and deed, viz. That Christians are exborted to grow in Grace. To put off the Old Man which is corrupt, to put on the nor Man; to mortify their Members: And now I leave it to the Reader to judge, whether R. B's question were pertinent, and neither malicious nor calumnious: Yet our Candid Author must add something that he may still be like himself; Ask, Where did any of the Reformed teach, that to endeavour to break Gods Commands to grow in Grace, as this Man insinuates they do? First he hath added the Word (Endeavour) and then he hath fathered the import of l. B's argument upon R. B's question. Is this honesty? To tell his Adversary, His Light teacheth him a faoulty of Lying, while himself is both the Lyet and the Forger.  
He goeth not to give us I. Bs second Proof. thus, This perfection renders Gospel Commands useless: R. B. Answers by a Simile, Ask Are the Laws useless if Men obey them? He answers. He that is above the Breach of the Law, hath no more use of the Law, or need of it, to learn any thing from it, in order to his Obedience thereof. Is not this a poor Subterfuge: How shall a Man obey the Law, if he know it not. Or how obey it if he take not heed to order his Conversation according to it? And is then the Law useless him? But he might have remembered, that R. B. asserted a possibility of sinning, and only modestly said, he durst not deny a further State, because the Apostle seemed positively to assert it. But the Apostle saith, Against such there is no Law, he may tell us next who these are?  
But to sum up this Paragraph he will not only fasten a contradiction upon R. B. but also Blasphemy, saying, But that he ●hay further contradict himself and his Brethren, He saith in his Apology, that all have need to repent and pray for forgiveness: For (saith our Author) If some be equal with God, above the breach of the Commands, want a body of death, the most that they have to do is to give Thanks, and not to pray or repent.  
Is not this a profound as well as fair Disputant? Did his Adversary ever say, That any were equal with GOD? No: And therefore the Blasphemy is his own, for which he hath need to repent; And so had the best Saints, for that all have sinned, and whosoever hath sinned need to repent and pray for Forgiveness; And if he will consult the Scriptures he may see that after the Intimation of Pardon, the Saints have mourned, and prayed for Forgiveness. See 2 Sam. 12. 13. Compated with Psalm. 51. 14. But his Malice blinds him in this and many more things.  
He comes now to John brown's next proof; Viz: This doctrine tends to foment pride and Security, and taketh away diligent Watchfulness, Holy fear, Humility, etc. To which R. B. answers, But where Freedom from Sin is, where can pride and Security have place? or Diligence and Humility be wanting? But with him to sin is the way not to be proud and secure, but to be watchful and humble For answer he sends to Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded, By? what Law of Works? Nay, But by the Law of Faith. But prithee Patroclus, what saith this for thee? Are we boasting in our own strength, or in the strength of the Grace of God? Or do we depend upon the Law of Works? No, But on the Law of Faith, which purifieth the heart and worketh by Love. If to exalt the Grace of God as sufficient be to boast in thy Sense, thou hast Liberty to abound in thy own sense, wherein no good Christian will own thee.  
But he giveth us another citation of R B's in these words, That according to our Doctrine, denying the perfection of degrees in this Life, the wicked Villains do less make useless God commands then others, because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for forgiveness of God.  
Will, thou never deal honestly, Did R. B. once mention a perfection of degrees But to I. B's, argument, That the keeping the Commands of God, takes away the exercise of Repentance, Prayer; etc. He returns thus, If this his Argument hold true to prove, that Men must sin all their Life-time, and break the Commands every day, in thought, word and deed, than the greatest sinners and most prefligate Villains, do less make useless Gods Commands then others, because they afford more matter to exercise Repentance and Prayer for Forgiveness of sins. For answer, he sendeth to Rom: 3. 8. Let us do evil that good way come. Which saying though it was falsely and slanderously said of the Apostle; Yet is truly said of him and and his Brother I. Brown, who have thus asserted it in terminis: By saying, That the Keeping of God's Commands renders the Ordinances of Christ useless.  
His very next Words are a gross Lie, saying, And here he promiseth always to cry down the Ordinances of Christ Jesus. 〈…〉 Words are these, As for such Ordinances ●s must be made useful by dayily breaking God's Commands in shought, Word and Deed, I resolve never to cry but always to cry down. And here let the Reader take notice of his Blasphemy, who asset●s the Ordinances of Christ Jesus to be such. As for his ●●llowing Question, it is Nonsense: F●● he, R. B. never said that any Ordinance taught it; but that he and his Brother have taught here, That this is the use of their Ordinances (but not of the Ordinances of Christ) is obvious to every Reader.  
〈◊〉 the next place we have another of J. B's Proofs▪ That then no●e that are regenerate could Sic at all, but would be beyond, the possibility of it: For which the citeth▪ John 3. 9 and Expounds it of a trade and custom of finning from Malice, like the De●●● and the Wioked his Children And 〈…〉 prove, that Regeneration adteth of no Degrees, but is one instan taneous Act.  
To the First, to wit, J. Brown's Argument; I say it is a wild Consequence, to conclude from a posse non peccare, to a non posse peccare: And yet Calvin in his Instit. cireth Augustine, saying, Ade fuisse libertatem posse non peccare, nostram vero multo majorem non posse peccare. And still our Author takes R. B's modest Expression, I dare not deny, for a full Assertion.  
As for his Exposition of 1 Joh. 3. 9 of a Trade and Custom of Malice, like the Devil; It is a mee● Dream, there being no shadow for it in the Context.  
His Doctrine of being Regenerate in an instant, contradicts his Brother John Brown, Numb 18. who says, It may be begin, where some Members may yet the to be mortified: But according to J. B. elsewhere, the Man is wholly sanctified in Mind, Heart, Spirit, Affections, Conscience, Memory and Body. Behold Reader, how these our Adversaries reel and stagger like drunken Men!  
I shall therefore here give him the Sense of Augustine, set down by J. Brown, and approven by R. Baxter in his Paper of Perfection. pag. 13. He tells us that Augustine in his Book, lays some two or three of these Texts together. To wit, Solomon, Paul, James, John, and offers us this Solution: That which is born of GOD sin●eth not, which is as much as to say, there is that which is born of GOD in the true Christian, and that which is not born of him. Where is then the full and complete Regeneration at one Instant? The two Scriptures Phil: 1. 8. and Ga● 5. ●. He makes very short work with; Telling us the Philippians were Saints in Christ Jesus when this Epistle was written. Ergo, they were wholly sanctified, in Mind, Heart, Spirit, &c: As I: Brown saith the Regenerate Man is; And yet breaks the Commands of GOD daily, in Thought, Word, and Deed: To the other place, he saith, It says as little for him, from it he would infer the Saints falling away, which is false (says he) but I hope he will not deny, that Paul was in part regenerate, when he said, Lest when I have preached the Gospel to others, I myself should be a east away.  
He spends page 195, proving Regeneration to be accomplished at one instant, not by Scripture, for that fails him here; Only he instanceth two, Saying, I would said Know, If the thief on the Cross, and the J●●●● were not him again? 〈…〉 from a Particular to an Universal 〈◊〉 J●mes▪ and John, saw Christ Transfigured therefore all men did so Rnoch & 〈◊〉 were translated, Therefore all the Saints are so. What he speaks of Children in Christ, R. B. grants that they are under a possibility of sinning, and a capa●●● thereunto; but modestly again Tin page 120 saith, dare no● affirm▪ But that there man be some 〈…〉 sin? 〈◊〉▪  
He proceeds, alleging from 1 John 2. 12. That thee to whom, the Apostle wrote were perfectly 〈◊〉 of GOD, but that Scripture saith no such thing, only that their sins were forg●●●n, which according to himself is the first Act of Justification, and proceedath Sanctification of the whole man (as 〈◊〉 words it) in mind, hear, etc. And so not perfect Regeneration. But doth this prove that these Children did break daily the Commands of GOD in thought, word, and deed? That they were perfectly born of GOD the proveth, because (saith he) They had the seed of GOD, or Unction abiding in them.  
But the Seed before it come to perfection or ●obring forth froit, in requites a time, and I hope our: Author will not deny, that the young man mentioned here by the Apostle who had overcome the Evil one, were more perfectly and fully Regenerated then the Children, though the Children were perfect as to their measure; So that it follows not that any of them did break the commands of GOD daily in thought, word and deed (which only is the matter in debate) no more than it follows, that how soon the seed is in the Womb, it is as perfectly a man, as when it comes to the use of reason.  
But seeing he here talks of the Seed of GOD and of the Unction, I desire he may inform us by the next, what he intends by these words? Whether a Substonce or an accident, or only the dim spunks of his extinguished Lantern?  
His next work is is to prove us Pelagians, and remits his Reader to his second Chapter, which I also do. When R: B: tells I: B: that the Fathers he citys thought that men might be free from sin by Grace; Our Author calls it mancking and clipping, and saith Is it not added in the very following words 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 absolur, but which might increass, and was mixed with evil deeds, so was a perfection of parts only not of degrees, Here these Fathers say, any long time without sin, and therefore I must ask our Author of what extant this long time is? I am sure one day is a very short time, and no ways deserves the word long to be added, and yet if they grant 'tis but one day; The West minister Divines have done with it for ever.  
I hope our Author will not accuse Augustine of Pelagianism, and therefore I must let him see that Augnstine saith as much as R: B: Also John Humphrey perfection, page 7, saith Augustine in his second Book, Chap: 15. De Peo: mer: & rem: and de Spiritu & Litera, hath the luck to treat industriously on this matter. Alia est Questio utrum esse possit Homo in hae vita sine pectato; Alia utrum sit? It is one question whether a man can be in this life without sin, and another whether he be so? For the former Question he destinguisheth of what is possible by Grace, and what is possible by our own strength, to hold that any man by his free will only without Grace is able to keep all GOD's Commandments and be without sin, is that Grand Pelagian Doctrine, against which he sets his face, and de●astes it▪ But that it is possible to attain this by Grace, or the special assistance of GOD's Spirit, he thinks it best it seems to grant; He thinks it not fit nor safe to say, any (nor all) of GOD's Commandments are impossible Besides, Where GOD Vouchsafes his Grace the work (he pleads) is to be ascribed unto him, to whom nothing is impossible, And I hope this (being all we plead for) will forever acquit us of Pelagianism, and come pesce all the slanderous tongues of our ignorant and malicious Adversaries.  
As for his Orosms; The first is a modest saying, like that of R: B: before mentioned, but the second is a heedless expression; The man that can be without sin is Christ, from which it would follow, that Adam was Christ, who could have been without sin, and once was without it; And I hope there are are some now who are clansed from all their Pollutions, washed and purged from all their sins, according to the Scriptures, yet are not Christ's: But because R: B: saith it is not his work to meddle with what is said against the Pelagians, and Socinians, he will: herefore conclude him a Pelagian, and Socinian. What trifling is▪ this? Because our. Author will not defend Mahumentism, and Judaisme, therefore he is a Jew and a Mahometan, Is this as good consequence? And yet in such doth our Author delight. But the best is, that he saith, Nothing that R: B. can say, can be of weight against us; And why so Patroclus? Are▪ Presbyterians Infallible, or in accountable? Or when (came they by this privilege? I thought they had been subject to mistakes as much as other men; And here he turns to the Fathers again▪ But the Fathers of the three first Centuries only are reputed. Orthodox by Presbyterianly, And it is clear they fall in with Papists there, and have as much need of a Purgatory as they.  
His Next is to answer this Viz. That this Doctrine is against the Wisdom of GOD. Our Author answereth, Saying, he only insinuateth that there are means given to the people of GOD, whereby they may be free from all sin, if they use them well, Adding that he mumbleth▪ as one in a confused haste, but our Author's haste is much greater▪ For R: B: hath write a whole page and more upon this Argument▪ and our Author does not take notice of six lines of it.  
But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 insinuateth this, That the only wife GOD, A being to gather to Himself a peculiar People, Holy and Righteous; And for that Effect sent His Son into the World to save them from their sins, and hath given them his H●ly Spirit to sanctify them throughout, and to cleanse them from all sin (as the Scripture testify). Now to say that he cannot compass that end, is to derogate from the Wisdom of GOD. But he answers, This ●● with great facility denied; for we say (saith our Author) that it is the Will of GOD, that perfect freedom from sin be a property of the Church triumphant only. Sat pro imperio, He might have left this to the Pope. Now for proof of this hold assertion, he saith, It is enough to challenge him, to give any example of one thus freed from sin in the World, except Jesus Christ, who never had it but by Imputation.  
Thus the Man who tells us, Affirmenti incumbit probatio, but he confesseth Infants have no sin but by Imputation. And I would fain know when Enoch and Elijah were punged? Whether in the World before their Translation, or in the Empereal Heaven, into which they either entered with their sins, or were freed from sin in the World: And if so, he may tell us with the next, how long they were so freed before their Translation, for I can assure him they had no need of Purgatory.  
To R: B's▪ alleging from I: ●'s▪ words, That he confessed there was some material service performed to the devil; He answereth, This objection militats as much against the Apostle, Saying, Rom: 7. That with his flesh he served the law of sin. For answer to which, I remit him to the 17 and 20 verses of the same Chapter; Neither hath he yet proven that Paul speaks here of his present State, as the second verse of the next Chapter doth evince. That this Instance will overdo, he is mistaken▪ upon his begging the Question, that the best and most gracious Action of the Saints are tainted with sin, which we must take his word for.  
His next is, That it is the Will of GOD, that his People be under a warefare so long as they are here. To which R: B: answers, But is it the Will GOD, that they he always overcome: After this he adds his own words in stead of his Adversaries, according to his Juggling Custom: But let us heat his Answer, He saith, They are 〈◊〉 always overcome▪ What? Is not daily while they are in this Life always? If to break the Commands of GOD daily, in thought, word and deed, as long as they live, be not always, he may tell us the difference next. But, saith he, They always overcome at the end of the Wars. I must expect a Paraphrase upon this Text, when this War endeth, and whether it be in Time or Eternity? Or if he will allow the Saints one day to live after their Victory; For Paul seems to intimate that he had fought the Good Fight, and had finished before his dissolution.  
To R: B's: affirming that this Doctrine is injurious to the Sacrifice of Christ: After his brother's Evasion he giveth us his Answer in two parts. First, If (saith he) he were a mind to make a difference betwixt HEAVEN and Earth, he had not made a Question about full Victory in this Life. Then it seems he thinks the Victory must only be after this Life, and in Purgatory; For no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom: Let his brethren judge of this Doctrine; For as the Tree falleth so it lieth.  
His second Answer is, How profane a heart must he have, that accounts all the attainments of a Child of GOD in this Life 〈…〉 nothing, For ●●●withstanding of them all, he will still have the Sacrifire of Christ to ●e useless, except a Man in this Life become as sinless as an Angel: Thus he  
But what a profane heart must he have who will not part with his sins and pollutions one day in all his Life-time, although Christ came to save him from them and not in them? And that the Sacrifice of Christ was sufficient to purge him from the stain as well as the guilt, I think he will not deny: And that Christ requireth not impossibilities, but giveth strength to obey these Precepts. Be ●● Holy, Be ye Perfect, I think every Christian will acknowledge, and so the fault lieth still in his profane heart, which chooseth his pollutions, and will not part with them.  
How R. B. hath answered his Brothers eight Chapter. He refers to his Reader, and so do I. In the next place he most dissingenuously representeth R. B. as saying, That there is no difference betwixt him that sinneth through malice, and him that sinneth through infirmity; And asketh, is there no difference, that the one repenteth and the other not?  
All this stuff is largely answered by R. B. page 123. But what doth h● intent by Repentance▪ The word must either be taken for p●●nitentiam ag●re, to do penance▪ (according to the Papists) Or for 〈…〉▪ That is to grow wise again; Or to do no more so; In the first sense I think out Author will not take it; And in the second sense, It's quite another thing, then to break the Commands of GOD daily in thought, word, and deed▪ For he who truly repenteth becomes a hater of sin, and a doer of Righteousness.  
●o R. B▪ argument, That their doctrine maketh the Ministry useless, he giveth three Answers of ●▪ B's sufficiently replied to by R. B: But let us hear them, First▪ Upon this very head the necessity of a Ministry appeareth. Upon what heed▪ To tell us that GOD's Commands are impossible, and that it is ●olly to attempt the keeping of them. For no man since the fall, by any Grace received in this Life, ●● able to keep them, But doth daily Break them in thought▪ word, and deed▪ His second Answer is, That it cannot be proved, that this Vltimat end of the Ministry mentioned Ephes. ● 13. is attained here. This Answer confirms R. B's Argument, For according to their own Opinion. 〈◊〉 est 〈…〉 quod nunqu●m obtinere potest 〈…〉 That is, In vain is that mea● which can 〈◊〉 allain its end. His third Of a perfe●●on of Parts and Degrees, is frivolous For R. B. never denied a growth i● Holiness.  
For his putting of a cleansing from sin till the other Life. He saith nothing for it, bu● his own bare assertion; And it is obvious to any Reader, that the Apostle to the Ephesians 4. and 5. Chapters, is speaking of the Conversations of the Saints in this Life, Which I desire my Reader to consider, where he will find this Subtersuge of our Author, sully manifested to be nought.  
In his next, he is no less dissing●●uous, He (R. B.) saith, it will not follow from ●oll. 4. 12, 13. and 1 Thes: 3. 12. That it is impossible that Men should he 〈◊〉 from Sin, here by the Great of GOD. Whereas he hath first rebuked I. B. for commenting upon these Texts, which he tells him are in themselves as plain as can be And yet though I. B's Commentary were admitted, His Doctrine, would not follow. Hence the Reader may see this Man's pithy as he words it) and how hard shift he makes to escape at any door, how unworthy soever: But that the two Texts stand firm against him is evident for if to increase & abound ●● Love, to abound in Holiness, and to stand perfect and complete in all the Will of GOD, can consist with the breaking the Commands of GOD daily in thought, word, and deed, I confess I know nothing of such Commentaries, not shall ever desire to learn such Contradictions.  
To R. B's Question. How these can be said to have renouneed the works of darkness, who have ●eed to be washed from dark desilements. He answereth, let him read the 12, and 13, of Z●●ariach and there he may find that there two are consistent. But Patr●clut I can find no such thing there, I find mexico of a Fountain opened for sin and uneleaness, but there is no word of daily here, I find also a refining as silver is refined, and trying as gold is tried, but not every day, for after that he saith They shall call on my Name and I will heat them, But GOD heareth not finners) I will say it is my people, and they shall say, The LORD is my GOD, And if this be to be sinning daily, and Washing daily, let the Reader judge. And yet this is all that concerns his ma●●●● in these two Chapters.  
He and's this paragraph with a gross lie, saying, For we know the Quakers and Jesuits have an 〈…〉 ha●● against all Pi●●●●●a●ts, ●et in a special manner their hate burneth against the Presbyterians; knowing that these are fa●● thest off from the 〈◊〉 of Rome. This Patroclus is indeed Am●●●m Testimonium. And I assure thee few Protestants here away believe it. Thousands of Protestants know that we love and honour them, and will trust more to our plain honest Simplicity, then to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Presbyterian priest; It seems our Author converteth with few Men who dare avow their Sentiments of Presbytry, or loves best to heat Sycophants; For in this Country there is little difference thought to be 〈◊〉 a 〈…〉 and a Jesuited Presbyterian Priest, except a few Princip●●, Creeds, and Confessions; Both being acted in their practices by the 〈◊〉 p●oud, 〈◊〉, imperious, and perfecting Spirit. As for the 〈◊〉 so called among the Presbyterians, we love them, and also the persons of the Clergit, ●ut we 〈◊〉 that the people should be so hood wi●ked and led 〈◊〉 by this Covetous and Ambitious Generation, who see● themselves, and 〈◊〉 there the Glory of God, not the 〈…〉 of the people: We ha●e no mal●, knowing that he who hates his Brother is a Murderer, and no Murderer hath Eternal Life abiding in him.  
To the Examples of Enoch and Noah being called perfect; He saith, R: B: confesseth they once bad sin: Therefore, how came they at another time to be free of it altogether; The answer is easy, 1 John 1. 9 If we confess our sins, He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. As for the word Perfection its having divers significations, It may be so: But I am sure it can never be truly predicated of him who breaks the Commands of GOD daily, in Thought, Word, and Deed.  
He comes next to vindicate their Arguments, for the Devil's Kingdom, or Sinning Term of Life: The first whereof is. 1 John 2. 3. (misunderstood by them) If we say we have no sin, &c: Answer first, I say with Augustine upon the Galatians: Aliud est non peccare, aliud non habere percatum. Secondly, The following words of the Apostle are, If we confess our sins, He is Faithful and Just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness; And he that is cleansed from sin, is the same that was before said to have sin; Now it is said in the 7th. verse, The Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin; Here cleanseth is in the present Tense: Now to be defiled with sin, and cleansed from all sin at the same time, seems a contradiction, and therefore must be admitted to be two several times; Let our Author solve this by a fair Commentaty with the next.  
To his Answer, That it follows no more that the Apostle John was at that time defiled with sin, then that the Apostle James was a Curser, when he said of the tongue, herewith curse we men; Our Author Replies, There is no Parity; And why? Is it because they are both in the plural Number and present Time? No, But saith he, James speaketh of gross outbreakings, and John simply of the nature of sin.  
Very good, I see our Author can distinguish betwixt morial and venial sins; Of which, sure lying must be one (in his Judgement) or else he had been unsainted long since. But knowing this would not do, he tells us, the Apostle John even in his best Frame, had sinful actions, and citeth Revel: 19 10, 11. and 22. 8, 9 The first place is, That he falls down at his feet to worship him. And the second is, That he fell down to worship before the feet of the Angel. Which second place cannot be understood of worshipping the Angel, but of Worshipping GOD before the feet of the Angel. But admit they both meant so, our Author must acknowledge this to have been one of his venial sins, if a sin at all; For it was but a mistaking the Angel, who in Chapter 18. 1. Is said to have great Power, and the Earth was enlightened with his Glory; I say it was but a taking this Angel to have been Christ: And therefore he may see the LORD did not permit the Apostle to commit the sinful action upon that mistake, but stopped him; And he reads not that John offered to worship the Angel after he knew him to be his fellow servant. And so these two Texts he boasts of, can do him no service.  
To the rest in this Paragraph he giveth no Answer, but It's false; And again, we know, &c: without any Reason, but his imperious assertion, which deserves to be neglected.  
Next he endeavours to prove from Ecclesiastes 7. 20. That Men sin daily, etc. Which place he little urgeth, only tells us, He hath considered the Hebrew, and hath found it the Indicative Mood; So saith our Author, Ergo, verum; But he must excuse me, to think Jerom and Junius, Tremellius as good Linguists as he, and yet have translated it in the Potential Mood, and may not sin.  
His next is Rom: 7. 17. From which Texts he saith I: B. hath proved, That the Apostle was in Carnal State in respect of sinning at that time: But he hath not been so just as to tell us how he proved it, lest his Arguments should have been sound like these, he citys page 200. But I wonder how a Man of Sense can assert it, if he but read the next Chapter throughout; The second verse whereof cleareth this matter, where the Apostle saith, The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, had made him free from the law of sin and death; And many times after witnesseth a better Condition; As that he had sought the good fight, &c: Nothing could separate him from the Love of GOD, &c: And Phil: 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me. His Objection of the Apostle John is already answered. That of Peter proves no more than that a Man may sin, which is not denied. He comes at last to his great Argument.  
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. Ergo, etc.  
For answer let the Reader observe, first that our Author finding his Brother's Argument fully refuted by R: B: hath not attempted the Vindieation of it; But he saith, the Argument was proponed three different ways, the first, of which he chooseth to answer unto.  
Answer, Either this Argument which he answereth unto, was to the purpose or not? If it was to the purpose it was right to answer it; Seeing our Author calls them not three arguments, but one proponed three different ways, any of which his Adversary might lawfully choose; If it was not to the purpose (as was the greatest part of his book) than he might have spared it; But because R: B: took not our Author's argument to task (which perhaps was not there) he saith, he must confess he skipped over that which did cut this point of Quakerism in the Jugular Vein.  
This is a Rhodomontado expression, more like Don: Quixot then a sober man writing about Religion, though very ordinary with our Author; But let us see what cause there is for all this froth.  
First then, I deny his Minor, for I can find him many recorded in Scripture, of whom there is no failing recorded; to wit, Enoh, Melchizedeck, Elias, John the Baptist, and many of the Prophets, and let him prove by Scripture that these men did sin; For Athanasius in his fourth Oration against the Arrians, saith, That many were born holy, and free from all sin, and particularly Elias, and John Baptist.  
Secondly, I ask him whether the sins of the Saints were recorded in Scripture for our imitation, which he seems here to insinuate, for we say not that we ought not to walk according to the Scripture, But that the sins of the Saints are recorded, that we may shun them, not that we should follow them; neither is there want of precep's and examples in abundance for us without them.  
But before I leave this matter I shall give one argument yet, If there be any who need no Repentance, then certainly there be some who do not break GOD's Commands daily in thought, word and deed, but the first is true, Ergo, etc. The Minor is proved by Luke 15. 7.   

Chapter VII. Of Waiting in silence; And of the Sacraments.  
OUR Author Denominates his seventh Chapter of silent Worship, which is a word of his own Coining, and none of ours, and then falls to a vindication of his brother I: B's Calumnies; The first whereof is. John Brown asserts, that R: B: would have them understand, that Christ's Spiritual Resurrection was never till now.  
R: B: answereth, I speak only with reference to the time sin●e the Apostasy, and not to the primitive times before.  
Our Author says, first, any may judge by his eleventh proposition, etc. Or by this Chapter annexed thereto.  
I am truly willing that any be judge that▪ is not biased, as most part of the Clergy are; And therefore I inteat the Reader to see R. B's Apology, page 247, where he will find this calumny more clearly obviated. His second answer is, he is unhappy in removing this calumny, for the Apostasy was working in the Apostles time. But he is more unhappy in over turning one of the two chir● grounds of the Protestant Religion assigned to the Jesuit by I: M: To wit, the Father in the first three Centuries.  
But shows ignorance here as well as malice, for if there was no true Spiritual worshp in the Church after the Apostasy began to work; Then according to our Author, there was no Spiritual Worship in the Church till the Reformation; The contrary of which R: B: asserteth; Yea even in the darkest times of Popery he citeth Bernard, Bonaventur, Taulerus, and Thomas a K●mpis, and also commends the first Reformers for denying the Popish abominable superstition and Idolatry of the Mass, the Adoration of Saints and Angels, the Veneration of the Relics, the Visitation of Sepulchers.  
Yet nevertheless, Our Author in his third and fourth answer compares us to Muncer, John of Lyden, Arrius, Pelagius, and what not; And it's much he hath not called us Papists too: But let the Reader judge whether he hath mended I: B's matter, and not rather added lie to lie, and calumny to calumny.  
The second Calumny he defends is, That we acknowledge no motion, nor inward breathing of the Spirit, but what is extraordinary, and merely Enthusiastic; As also, That we abstract from all means. Which Calumny our Author saith, he hath above evinced to be a Truth▪ in his first and second Chapters: How truly the Reader must Judge.  
But he giveth us a second Instance, R: B: denyeth that Studied Sermons are means appointed of GOD, (for what he adds are his own words, and not R: B's) but behold the Argument; Studied Sermons are denied, Ergo, all means are denied; Be ashamed.  
His third is, That the Quakers spiritual life is nothing but Nature, Thus he saith, he proved, Chapter 2d. That all their Grace and Light, is nothing but the small remainders of the once bright shining Image of GOD in Man. To which I also refer the Reader. And withal, I must desire the Reader to take notice of our Authors little Tricks, in his Parallel betwixt us and the Anabaptists, he refers to what follows of his Book; And in the end of his Book he refers to what is past, thinking (its like) his own implicit Hearers will take it on trust; But I expect thou will trace him better, which if thou do, thou will soon find what he is for all his vain boast.  
The fourth Calumny he denyeth, and saith his Adversary only enquireth it. If this be a sufficient Answer, let him consult his own Book, page 167. 168. and 169. Where he will needs have a Query to import a full affirmation of the thing queried, and so proves himself signally dissingenious, and also leaves his brother in the mire.  
The fifth Calumny, he saith, depends upon the Contraversy about Perfection, and so shifts it.  
The sixth Calumny, he insists on is, That there is no setting about Prayer, or other Duties, without a previous motion of the Spirit.  
The Nicery is in the word Previous, and therefore I shall refer him to the fifth Section of Quakerism confirmed, where that matter is fully handled, and all his Quibles Answered; Which Book I perceive the Man hath read, and so might either been silent, or brought us some new thing, which he hath not yet done.  
The seventh Calumny is, That Gospel Worship putteth away all external actions; And upon this Calumny, his brother ●: B: had charged a Contradiction upon R: B: Yet our Author bestows no more answer upon both. But, He needeth not grudge at this for their practice helpeth us to expone their Words; If this be fair dealing, let the Reader Judge.  
He tells us next, That I: B: compareth us to the Old Pithonicks, And as if his brother had not been slanderous enough, he adds, I always compared them in such fits to the Cumaena Sybilli, as she is descrived by Virgil 6. Aenead: And John Brown (passim) That we are acted by the Deull, possessed by him at his pleasure To all which I shall again with R: B: modestly reply, That of all men the Presbyterians might have for born this, had they but remembered the Stuartown sickness.  
But our Author giveth us a mighty difference thus, These at Stuartown after these outletings of the Spirit upon them, cleaved to the Scriptures as the only Rule, and were endeared to the Ministers of Jesus Christ, and his Word and Sacraments; We mean, saith he, Water-baptism and the Communion of the Lord▪ Body in Bread and Wine, &c: Which says he, were commanded by Christ to be used until his coming to Judgement: Which are contemned and vilified by the Quakers. And for all this, we must trust our Author's word; But how comes it then that our present Presbyterians, who are found in all these things now have no such outletings of the Spirit? Yea, why are they found the chief Opposers and blasphemers of such Out-letting of the Spirit? If they were good then, I think they should be expected and waited for now? But this would savour of Enthusiasm, and therefore cannot be endured.  
But I must tell our Author the true Reason, why these outletings of the Spirit ceased among them; To wit, Because they foresook that Power which reached them at first, and betook themselves to Men, who in stead of the Gospel of peace, preached up Wars, Seditions, Tumults, Scrife, and Contention; And in stead of Prayers, Tears, preached up Swords and Spears, in stead of Suffering, fight, and contending with the Civil Magistrate; Which was never the way of CHRIST not Christians. As for Water-Baptism, and Bread, and Wine, it is no good Argument that they cleaved to them, which are called Meats and Drinks, and Divers Baptisms, and Carnal Ordinances, while they wanted that Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost, wherein the Kingdom of GOD standeth.  
But our Author returns to his old trade of citations, and gives us an English Minister and Paget for his Authors, which books I never saw, and may be as great liars as himself▪ Who may the next time be cited as a famous Author, but admit all these were truths (as they are not) What then? If our Author will but invite me with the next I will give him undeniable Instances of Presbyterian Priests that have far out done all these Instances of his, in abominable wickedness, not mentioned in the Presbyterian Eloquence, but this is a pitiful way of Reasoning.  
He cannot omit Virgil and Latinus, to show us that he reads the Heathen Poets, it seems, as carefully as the Bible; Otherwise he had never inserted such a foolish tale, as the Heathen Lying upon Sheep's Skins; And maliciously adds, which if the Quakers do, or not, I am uncertain. This one Sentence in the end renders all the rest uncertain and ridiculous: But it is Observable in our Adversaries, that when a Scottish Priest hath a lie to vent he goeth to England for it, and in England they fetch it from Scotland, Holland, or some forraignplace at a distance, to cover deceit and malice.  
And now at last, we are come to silent waiting upon the LORD, or turning inward our minds to hear what the LORD will speak in us; As David saith, I will hear what the LORD will speak in me, etc.  
This our Author saith, is impossible to a man, except he be sleeping or in an ecstasy; But giveth no proof, but ipse dixit; As for Ecstasies I know them not, but sleeping men have their minds sometimes very buss, and even our Author himself, I doubt, is not quite free from dreams.  
And because he citys Virgil here, I think he who so much delights in Heathen Poets might have been at the pains to read some Christian Poets As Boetus de Consol: Phil: 3: lib: metrum: 1●: where he will find this matter clearly held forth; And even Beza commendeth silence, though not that turning in of the mind, which that other speaks of. But whereas he says, the Soul must act upon some object; He showeth how ignorant he is of true self-denial, as one of his Transmarine Divines, saith, purae negationes sui, etc. These pure acts of self-denial are, that a man cease from his own works, his own willing and running, and from his thoughts and imginations, which are only evil continually, and are as clouds and obstacles, which hinder of that Divine inward peace giving light in the bottom of the Soul; These Clouds therefore being removed, the light immediately shineth upon the denial of self, neither (saith he) can there be a vacuum here, but these are Heresies as well as Mysteries to our Presbyterian Clergy, who Preach, Pray, and Praise in their own willings, and by their own strength, without waiting for Divine assistance, or the influence of the Spirit of Christ, without which they affirm a man may be a sufficient Minister.  
But saith he, R. B. saith, the Old Man, the Man of sin that is corrupted, must die, and be crucified; And again, saith he, albeit in one sense they are said to die: Yet they more truly live, Gal: 2. 20.  
Upon this our Author quibles, saying, that in stead of relinquishing all thoughts, he now only defendeth the living of carnal thoughts, but this he calls a cheat: For saith he, there is a time to be presupposed in which the Spirit is not moving, etc. And what then? Must Patroclus Preach? Yea, although Christ hath said, Without me ye can do nothing; Yea, Calvine saith on the Fourth Commandmant, The Sabbath is a resting from our own works, that GOD may Work in us. As for a time betwixt, which seems to be the only thing he quibles upon, I have told before, and now again, that how soon the Clouds are dissipat by a true self-denial; The Sun of Righteousness immediately appeareth, and there is no vacuum. As to what he talketh of the Apostle, I hope when he was dead, and Christ lived in him, our Author will not be so gross as to say, that he acted without Christ as to Spiritual things, though the faculties of his Soul were as vived and active as our Authors now are.  
What he saith in page 214 on this subject, only showeth his ignorance in these things, or want of experience, or that he thinks GOD to be at a distance, and to require a time to come to man to work upon him after he hath denied self.  
His next Quibble is concerning appointed times, for meeting together to wait upon the LORD. Alleging that we should have a previous motion to every Meeting, otherwise (saith he They limit the Spirit. But might not our Author have allowed us the use of this Interpreter of Scripture in such Externall cases as appointing Meetings. to wit, His Christian Prudence and Wisdom; For I hope our Author will not say, that Meeting together is an Act of Worship, and therefore I refer him to Quakerism confirmed, for a full Answer to his Quibles, which if he had been just, he had taken notice of here.  
In his Vindication of Calvine about Sabbath Day, he doth him very little kindness, telling the World he contradicteth himself twenty seven years after he had wrote his Institutions: I wish he had done so with his doctrine of Reprobation also. But we have many famous Protestants for us in that matter, as well as Calvine, As Dr. Barnes, William Tindal, and almost all Christians.  
He chargeth R. B. with a contradiction for saying, That Peter and Paul had a Natural Man, in which the devil might work, and a Spiritual Man which might resist. This he saith contradicts his doctrine of Perfection, or at lest his Exposition of Rom: 7.  
For the strst, R. B. always asserted a Natural and Spiritual Man, as may be seen in all his Writtings.  
And for the Second, It is one thing to say, the Devil may work, and the Spirit resist, and another to say, the Devil doth work and overcome; The first may be said of Paul in his best state; The second is our Adversaries doctrine which we deny: And thus his alleged Contradiction is a meet false Insinuation.  
In the next place, he accuseth R. B. of Railing; He should have said R. Maequair, and used his own phrase. Quis tulerit Graccbos, etc. But he calls them Priests, (saith he understand of Baal) Thus he hath helped R. B. For conscius ipse sibi de se putat omnia dici.  
To defend his Brother, saying, That Watching is not a turning inward, but a looking outward. To which R. B. replieth: Then a man shut up in a dungeon could not watch spiritually: He answers, That by looking outwardly, they understand minding GOD, and our distance from him, and the like: This is Nonsense, as if by looking outward a man could see GOD.  
His bauble about Thaulerus is nothing but a malicious Insinuation of our being Papists, which none that knoweth us will believe: Thomas a Kempis was a Papist, yet his Book of the Imitation of Christ is more spiritual, than any Presbyterian Book I ever yet saw, And if he will call me a Papist for saying so, I cannot help it, but I am sure it is false; And if Popery should prevail in the Nation (which GOD forbidden) it would soon appear whether they or we were the truest Protestants.  
To conclude this matter, It is evident, That our Author is against all Spiritual Worship, Mental prayer, Quietness of mind, etc. As opposite to that sordid Trade of Preaching for hire, and divining for money: And if Michael Molmos (of whom all Protestants, that I have seen mention him, writ favourably) had appeared Glasgow Scotalnd, when he appeared at Rome, and Naples in Italy, It is manifest our Presbyterian Clergy would have accused him as fiercely here, as the Jesuits did there, Which among other things may show that they are not mistaken who call them Cousin-germen.  

Section Second, Of BAPTISM.  
HERE our Author very wisely passeth by a great part of the controversy; To wit, whether Sprinkling of Infants, (the only Baptism now in being in the Presbyterian Church) be either the Baptism of John or of CHRIST? Both which we deny; And this our Author should first have proved before he had accused: For admit another man be wrong in his Religion, he can never be obliged to change until his Adversary prove his to be right. Neither is it just to desire him to come from his own, (though wrong) to yours, except you can prove yours to be right: But for this he must consult his good Friend Hicks the Anabaptist, whose weapons he hath often borrowed in this conflict.  
Secondly, The Westminster Confession, chap. 27. num. 4. saith, Neither of the Sacraments may be dispensed by any, but by a Minister of the Word lawfully ordained.  
Now we deny that any of the Presbyterian Priesthood are such, and therefore (though these sings were to continue) they may not dispense them. These our Author knewwell enough, but skips over them.  
But it is observable, That the Scriptures cited in the Confession to prove this Article, do all of them point to an inward Call, one is Hebrews 5. 4, and no man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of GOD as was Aaron: I hope this was not to derive his Call from an Apostate Idolatrous Church, as that of Rome, from which our Presbyterian Priests are not ashamed to derive theirs.  
Thirdly, The Presbyterians acknowledge that these signs are not absolutely necessary to Salvation, and in the time of their last Reign, limited Baptism to Preaching days, and refused to the Children of Ignorant or Scandalous Parents, by which means many Infants died without it, Tho they say that the contempt of it is damnable: And since the late Revolution, I read of one of them who said, It was but the Relics of Popish Superstition to be curious for Baptising of Children; And that he knew a good and godly Minister who lived to a great Age, and was never Baptised. What then needs all this clamour against us.  
The first thing he takes notice of, is, the many divisions and disputes among Christians about these Signs, which he falsely calls one of R. Bs. Apologetical Arguments, whereas it is nothing but a part of his Introduction, as any that reads his Apology may see: And in his Vindication, he tells his Adversary page 162. he hath not used it as an Argument at all; And in his Apology tells them, how much it would contribute to Peace, that they would lay aside such Heathenish and Barbarous words as these: Nevertheless our Author will have him a Heathen for this advice to procure unity; but it is too manifest that though Salamanders we have to do with are Peace-haters.  
Next, he falls upon the word Sacrament, which he must confess is not a Scripture expression, and from this draweth a foolish consequence, to wit, Ergo, the thing is not in them; he should have said, Ergo, it's a Humane invention, introduced by the Apostasy. and therefore to be laid aside by the Reformation, but he is not so ingenuous, but he saith, the word Trinity is not to be found in Scripture; but the thing imported by the word is, Why may not then the Scripture words be used, and both these words laid aside? Except our Clergy think they can word better than the Spirit of GOD. But our Author who is so well acquaint with the Latin Poets, cannot be so ignorant of their Historians as not to know the true and most common signification of Sacrament to be a  
Military Oath; And therefore I think there is no presbyterian ceremony that I know which so well deserves the name of a Sacrament as the Solemn League and Covenant.  
His next business is to deal with Ephes. 4. 5. from Which R. B. proves there is but one Baptism, to which J. Brown answereth, the Scripture no where saith, that there is but one only Baptism. To which R. B. replieth, it will as well prove that there is one only Baptism, as that there is One only GOD: But our Author very candidly quites the matter, and betakes himself to Faith; And because there are (saith he) more kinds of Faiths than one, the Text must be so expounded concerning Baptism: But let me have the one Faith and the one Baptism mentioned here, and our Author may take all the rest to himself, for there is a false Faith which I covet not.  
But in page 219: he asserteth, That the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is ceased; And in page 224: he boldly asserts, That John's Baptism is Christ's whole true Baptism, but says nothing to prove it.  
From which Doctrine it followeth, That whosoever is Baptised with water is Baptised with the Holy Ghost. Secondly, That as many as are baptised with water have put on CHRIST. And Thirdly, That the Apostle Paul erred grievously in Acts 19: when he said, unto what then were ye baptised, seeing they had received John's Baptism before: But the man is so confused all through this Section, that he knows not what he asserts, for in the same page 219: he again asserts, That John's Baptism was no Figure of the New Testament Baptism; this he asserts without any proof, yet fearing it may not pass, he adds, Otherwise if the Sign be opposed to the thing signified, we may understand the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, and Fire, spoken of Matth: 3: of Sanctification and Mortification.  
What a hodg-podg is this! Schition like to fight and flee, or to change shapes like a Proteus; And first tells us Dogmatically, it is no Figure; And then, if it be as a sign opposed to thing signified, etc. That Sanctification as well Mortification is a part of the one Baptism, is not denied.  
To R: Bs. saying, it is ally, That he would have none to be Baptised in the Spirit, but such as are endued with these Extraordinary Gifts: To this I say, he answers; But do they not still boast of their Revelations, and Inspirations, comparing themselves to the Apostles, calling themselves perfect, etc. A heap of gross untruths; And yet this is the best return we, meet with, to mend one lie by making two or three more.  
In page 220: contrary to that of Ephes: 4: 5: from which R: B: infers, if Water Baptism be to continue, there should be two Baptisms. I: B: answers, it might be as well said, that there were two Circumcisions under the Old Testament, etc. Upon which our Author saith, he grants his consequence, and challengeth his Adversary of Levity for such an Argument: Here he gins with a lie, for R: B: saith, if he can answer no better then by smiling at it, we must pity the Levity of his Spirit. Now let the Reader judge, if the Argument was the ground of the challenge; or his laughing at that which he could not answer. But R: B: answereth, What then? As long as the outward continued there were two; to wit, the outward and inward, that of the Flesh and that of the heart; and let him stretch the simile as far as he can, it will help him nothing, for the Apostle saith, Rom. 2. 28. That it is not Circumcision which is outward in the flesh, because it was a Figure, and all Figures were to cease, even so of the other: That is not CHRIST'S Baptism which is outward, to the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience, I Pet. 3. 21.  
But he comes again to Faith, saying, he may as well conclude from this place, that there is but one Faith, as that there is but one Baptism. And yet faith our Author, there are divers kinds of Faith mentioned in the Scripture, as the Doctrine of Faith, Galat. 1. 23. The profession of Faith, 1 Tim. 1. 19 The Faith of Miracles, or the like; This is (if learned at all) so learned, that I freely acknowledge I cannot understand it, to wit, that the profession of Faith is one Faith, the Doctrine of Faith another, The Faith of Miracles a third Faith, And the One Faith a fourth Faith, in which none of the other Three are concerned: This will require four several and different definitions, which when our Author giveth us, we may judge of the truth of his assertion, till than he must excuse me to think he deserves a smile, no less then R. B. did from his Brother J. B. and will find he hath begged the Question as well as his Brother did For I perceive he builds upon his own mistake, That no man who hath this one Faith can miscarry. But I tell him, some have made shipwreck of Faith, and of a good Conscience. And this is the Scripture testimony: So albeit some might work Miracles, and thereafter become wicked; yet this faith nothing against their having true Faith at that time: And if, he faith, every one who hath true faith, doth not work miracles; The answer is easy, such a great measure of Faith is not required for Salvation, yet difference in the measure makes no difference in the kind. Neither doth it follow, that Baptism with Water is included in this one Baptism; For the Apostle Peter plainly contradistinguisheth them, 1 Pet. 3. 21.  
So Robert Barclays Argument (which Patroclus (minding his old Friend Achilles) mocks at, stands in full force; Which because he hath so minchingly set down, I will set down at large, and expect a more solid answer next, the Argument is this, seeing such as were baptised with water, were not therefore baptised with the Baptism of CHRIST, therefore water Baptism cannot be the Baptism of CHRIST.  
But he comes to his old trade again, accusing R. B. of Socinianism, and a little after must be at Circumcision again, alleging that what ever can be said against Water Baptism from I Pet. 3. 21. Will militate as much against Circumcision under the Law.  
But it is manifest, that the Law was a Figurative, Typical and Shadowy-Dispension, which stood in meres and drinks, and divers Baptisms and Carnal Ordinances imposed on them until the time of Reformation: But that the Gospel was such a dispensation, I think our Author will not dare assert; And therefore the difference is very evident, that although Circumcision was to continue among the rest Carnal Ordinances until the time of Reformation; Yet the Gospel being a spiritual dispensation, in which Carnal Ordinances, Types & Shadows were to cease after the Substance was come, see Col. 2. from 16. to the end; so John's Baptism was to cease among the rest of the shadows, seeing John was sent only to the Jews to prepare the way of the LORD.  
His next assault is nothing but wind and froth, wherein he challengeth R. B. for denying John Brown's Expositions of Gal. 3. 27. and Col. 2. 12. Which J. B. saith, may be understood of putting on CHRIST by profession, though not in Truth and Reality; For which Eposition saith R. B. I shall expect his proof next time, if he hath any. And now let the Reader judge, if our Author have any ground for his boasting: And whether he who hath undertaken the defence of John Brown was concerned to have proven this spurious interpretation of his Brother to be the meaning of the Apostle: For Robert Barkclay was no further concerned then to deny it, as I think any sincere Christian will do: And therefore it is manifest, that the seared Consciences are his own & his Brothers; who dare adventure to cheat the World, by putting a senso upon the Apostles words, which was never intended by him.  
In the next place he refers us to J. Brown, which is a fair Go-by, but subjoins (more like a Pope than a Presbyter, if they be distinguishable) very imperiously. Next, I say (faith he) that John's Baptism, as being instituted 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. And why? Because our Author sayeth so. But lest he should quarrel, let us consider what he hath said, First, then, faith he, John's Baptism, as being instituted by CHRIST, etc. Answer, That all the Baptisms, and Carnal Ordinances of the Law were instituted by CHRIST is not denied; But that John's Baptism was instituted by Christ after he took Flesh of the Virgin Mary, is denied, and the Scriptures proves the contrary, Acts 19 4. Next he faith, and comprehending the thing signified: Very well, I hope our Author will no more quarrel with the Papists about opus operatum: For if Water Baptism (John's baptism) comprehend the thing signified, than it is the Laver of Regeneration, consers' Grace, and is absolutely necessary to Salvation▪ But the Papists will hardly accept of him, for, conveniet nulli qui secum dissidet ipsi. He hath said in page 219. that John could only administer the sign. And in his other page, he asserts, That John's Baptism comprehends the thing signified: this language will need a gloss.  
He comes now to the words of John, He must increase, but I must decrease: This our Author and his Brother will have to be understood of their persons And after some of his ordinary vanity, tells his meaning thus, I answer therefore, 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. To this (I think) his own phrase may be added, spectatum admisst risum teneatis, etc. For where did the Jews call John a Devil? Did not they receive him ak a Prophet? Or did they call him a Glutton, and a Drumkard? Or did they cracified him, or seek his life; If Herod had let him alone? All which show that they honoured the person of John more than the Person of CHRIST: But it is evident that John's Ministration was to decrease, as being only to prepare the way to CHRIST'S Ministration, whose Ministry then eclipsed the Ministry of John, as it hath done ever since: And therefore if he be not yet pleased, he must give usa more sound exposition next.  
In the end of page 224. he undertakes to prove, that the Baptism of John was no Legal Rite; His first Argument is, All the Legal Rites, such as held forth CHRIST and his Benesites by way of Type to the whole Church, which each Member was to practise, were either institut by Moses, or before him, therefore this could not be a Legal Rite, which was commanded directly at the coming of the Missiah, and at his very appearance, preaching to the World, When there could be no use of Legal Rites, but such, which were within a little to be abolished.  
Answer, First, I deny that any Rite was institute by Moses, but as a Servant he published the Institution of these Rites to the People, and Recorded them, and these before him in his Writings; so that if GOD had seen it meet He could have added new Rites by any other of His servants, as He did this of Baptism by John, who was as great as Moses.  
And secondly, This Rite which was commanded directly at the coming CHRIST, when there could be no use of Legal Rites, but these which were within a little time to be abolished, ought now (as it is long since) to be abolished. These are his own words.  
His second Argument is, All the Legal Rites are abrogate in the New Testament, but no where is Baptism abrogate, etc. Otherwise, saith he, show me the place of Scripture; but note 1 Pet. 3. 21. Is not this a fair Adversary? If Hector had been advised by Patroclus what Arms to use, he might readily have escaped his hand. But Patroclus must take this Scripture in the first place, for the Repeal or Abrogation of John's Baptism; And lest he should grumble, I shall add Acts 19 2, 3, 4. and Heb. 9 10. with John 3. 30.  
His third Argument is Matth. 11. 12. All the Prophets, and the Law prophesied until John: And What then? Was not John one of the Prophets? Yes, and that a great One, yet the least in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than be; Which evidently proves he was no Gospel Prophet: As for his certainty of taking the particle Until, exclusively by the collation of places, I tell him, I have found him trip so often, I shall not take his word.  
His fourth Argument is to prove John was no Legal Minister, because prophesied of before he came, which no Legal Thing, Person, or Rite was. But here he runs too fast, the Kings of Israel were prophesied of by Balaam; And Judah's Sovereignty was prophesied of by Jacob, and 1 Sam. 15. 28. But if john was a Gospel Minister, how then was the least in the Kingdom of Heaven greater than he?  
In page 126. he comes to 1 Cor. 1. 17. Where Paul says, CHRIST sent me not to Baptise, to this john Brown answereth, If Paul had not been put to Baptise, why would he have done it? R. B. Answereth, I think it needless for me to answer the absurdity he would here fix upon the Apostlo; it sufficeth me, and I hope will other good Christians, that the Apostle saith positively, he was not sent to Baptise; This our Author quarrels at, and in the end saith, he knoweth that we expone Paul's words, [That he was not sent to Baptise] for the less principal part of his Errand, and citeth Host 6. 6. Matth. 9 jerem. 2. 23.  
The first two are the same, to wit, I desired Mercy and not Sacrifice, and are explained by the context, and the knowledge of GOD more than Burnt-Offerings; And that of jerem. 2. 23. I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim, is not at all to the purpose; Except he will say, that the Jews were unjustly accused, which I think he will be afraid to assert. That all the Corinthians were Baptised with Water, he doth not prove; And it was known to be deferred by many of the Primitive Christains until their old Age: And although Paul reproved the tenacious sticking to Jewish Rites, yet some of them were continued even to Tertullia's time.  
Secondly, He saith, That paul doth not say, that his Fellow Apostles were not sent to Baptise, but himself alone; But saith he not, That he was not inferior to any of them, but that he had laboured more, etc.  
Thirdly, That still he did administrat this Sacrament to the Gentiles, upon their embracing Christianity, which (saith he) Mr. Brown hath showed.  
Our Author might have borrowed this from J. B. and given us a hint of it; For where J. B. hath any thing of worth (in his esteem) we are sure to get it, and very little else. To take Not, for the not principal part, would make work. R. B. hath shown by 1 Cor. 2. 5. which our Author is it at leisure to concern with, and therefore his reasonless Reasons are rejected.  
In page 227. he comes to Matth. 28. 19 Where he saith, R. B. Denyeth that while CHRIST was with the Apostles they baptised with CHRIST'S Warrant. And says, he will wait his Adversaries proof of it. To this our Author, he hath done it already from John. 3. 26. and 4. 3. of which places the Quaker durst not take notice.  
That this is false, is evident, because R. B. rejects it as a sufficient proof; and the second citation (which should have been John 4. 2.) showeth that the report brought to John in the former citation was a mistake, and therefore the first citation is to no purpose: The second is, Tho JESUS himself baptised not, but his Disciples; Doth this say any thing more for their having a Warrant to Baptise, then to fulfil all the Levital Law, which was not yet abrogate, nor nailed to His Cross? Did not He command some that were healled to go to the Priests, and offer according to the law of Moses? But also john's Baptism was not then ceased; john was alive, and some who had been john's Disciples were become CHRIST'S Disciples, and so were continuing to Baptism; And we must expect an account of the warrant he pleads for from CHRIST, as a Gospel Ordinance.  
But R. B. saith, What if it were all granted? Did not the Apostles prepare and eat the Passover with CHRIST'S Warrant and Authority, is it therefore to continue?  
He answers, There is no parity; first, Because the eating of the Passover was not imposed upon the Gentiles, as accessary consequent of their embracing Christianity. Which he saith, Baptism was. This he had no leisure to prove, because he could not: For I hope he will confess that Constantine the Great had Embraced Christianity, when he sat as a Member of the Council of Nice; and yet was not baptised for divers years after: Neither can he be ignorant of many Gentiles who were not Baptised for many years after their embracing the Christian Faith, and that even after Superstition began to creep in.  
Secondly, He saith, The Passover was an old Legal custom, whereas Baptism was in its very use. Well then according to our Author it was the nearer its fall, who tells us in page 225. There could be no use of Legal rites then, but such as were within a little to be abolished.  
Page 228. he citys R. B. saying, That though it be joined with Discipline, as Circumcision was with it among the Jews; it will no more follow, that Baptism is to be continued then Circumcision. He answereth, that the Baptism spoken of, to wit, Matth. 28. 19 is to continue he thinks, Robert Barkclay will not deny: But the Question is whither this be water-Baptism, to prove the continuance whereof he brings this Scripture, which seeing it is not to be continued, cannot be here intended.  
Next, where they object the constant practice of the Apostles: This R. B. saith, The practice and testimony of the Apostle Paul declares to be false; this saith he, we have proved above to be false; but the Reader must be judge, to whom I leave it.  
Next, he proves, that abstinence from blood and things strangled were abrogate by 1 Cor: 10. Where I will be obliged to him to show me one word of either the two. Next he gives us two whole Epistles, Galat: and Timothy, without citing either Chapter or Verse, because he could not: But that these two continued in the Church even in Tertullia's time; I have told him above: So that his Abrogation hath not been intelligible to the Primitive Christians.  
His second Argument is but a Repetition of what he hath said before, That Baptism was always upon condition of their embracing CHRIST, which is false as I have showed before. He saith, There is another ground given for Water Baptism, than Condescension to the Jews; But he should have told by whom; For except himself, I yet know no other.  
Thirdly, He saith, Either the Apostles unrepealed Practice was not sufficient to walk by, or else this was abrogate afterwards; But saith he, The last is false, and the first is absurd.  
Answer, The first I have already shown from Scripture, and the last is no absurdity; Except it be so to the Presbyterian Priests, who pretend to be the Apostles Successors, and yet are not found in their unrepealled Practices, Viz: To heal the Sick, to teach all Nations, and to Preach the Gospel freely; Which last, our Adversaries are so far from doing, that some of them have not been ashamed to Print and publish to the World, Nos non gratis accepimus, ergo neque gratis dare tenemur.  
Next he promiseth us two Scriptures for one, where the Word Baptism is taken for Baptism with the Holy Ghost. We shall expect his Catalogue with the next; And yet he may give us ten for Circumcision in the Flesh, for one of Circumcision in the Heart; Tho the first be abrogate and the latter continueth.  
Page 230. He gives us an Argument thus, To baptise with the Spirit is not in all the Scripture applied to Men; Therefore it is not safe without very  Reasons to expone it so here. This I Confess, is modest, and therefore I shall modestly answer him, I never looked upon Men as more than Instruments, neither in this nor in Teaching under the New Covenant: Christ is the principal Teacher as well as the principal Baptiser of His People, without whom they can do nothing. And therefore, I justly reject all such Ministers as profess that they can teach or baptise without the Immediate Assistance of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
His next is an Old Quibble renewed thus, All that they understand by this Spiritual Baptism, is sufficiently expressed in the Context. This hath been often proposed and as often denied, and the contrary proved; And therefore deserves no answer upon his bare Assertion: See Truth's Defence, Page 129. where this is fully discussed: For the greatest part of his work hath been to bring up old Stuff in a new Dress, knowing it will pass with such as have pinned their Faith on the Sleeves of such Teachers, especially having secured them in his Epistle to the Reader, with a Touch not, Taste not, Handle not (lest ye be informed and find out the cheat.  
His next Paragraph being against, the Socinians, I am not concerned with it.  
His last hath nothing to the purpose, but one Perversion; Where he R: B: insinuateth, That Peter commanded expressly the Gentiles to be Circumcised, which (saith he) he buildeth upon Galat: 2. 12. Now R: Barkclay saith only, he constrained the Gentiles, And citeth verse 14. Where it is said, Why compelest thou the Gentiles, &c: After this Perversion, he concludes with a Lie, where I leave him, and proceed. Adding only this one Argument.  
That Rite or Ceremony which was institute in the time of the Law, and also practised; That is before our LORD JESUS CHRIST began to preach the Gospel; Must needs be a Legal Rite; But Baptism with Water, or John's Baptism was such; Ergo, It was a Legal Rite.   

Section Third, Of the SUPPER, etc.  
HE gins with a Lie, great Saying, We deny the LORDS Supper: Whereas we affirm, That except a Man eat his Flesh and drink his Blood, he hath no Life in him.  
After he hath passed by a whole page of R. B's. Vindication, He comes at last to J. B's. Preaching to the Devil, and denies it to be his, but only an Inference from our Doctrine; But the Truth is, That upon R. B's. saying, The Gospel is to be preached to every Creature under Heaven, which is Scripture Language, Isay, If upon this Text, John Brown make a preaching to the Devil, who is to blame? Whence it is a apparent, that his Simile about Murder, is Nonesense.  
Next he comes to the Priest near Lawder, who prayed to the devil; This R. B. doth not assert for a truth, but only tells he heard it, and so is no Calumniator. But if I should say, I have heard and read many as gross things of some of you, I should neither Lie nor Calumniat: See the Presbyterian Eloquence.  
In the next Paragraph he hath nothing, but accuseth R. B. for neglecting the Reason his Adversary gave for his denial, and then exclaims. But why should I take notice, &c: Now should not our Author rather have enforced this Reason? If it had been worth his while he had not skipped over it. But when he perceives it will not do, it is enough for him to say, John Brown hath done wonders, why should I take notice, etc.  
Next he comes to Matth: 14. 19 Which R: B: says (according to our Author) will as much prove a Sacrament, as the places of the Gospel, and the Epistle to the Corinthians ordinarily brought can do it.  
Here Reader thou hast another instance of his deceit, for clearing whereof I shall set down R. Bs. words, he asketh, What signifieth CHRIST'S blessing of the Bread, breaking, giving it to his Disciples, desiring them to eat? Answer, Christ blessed the Bread, break it, and gave it to his Disciples to eat, and they to others, where themselves confess no such Sacrament or Mystery, as they would have here is reduceable, see Matt. 14. 19 Mark 6. 41. Now let the Reader judge of this man's ingenuity.  
But, says he, R. B. 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 unrepealled command and Institution, 1 Cor. 11. and the like.  
What Foppery is this? Doth he think to infer the real Presence from these words, this is my Body? Or will his mere assertion satisfy, that 1 Cor. 11. was a command for continuance of of that Sign? For to call it the institution is nonesense, being institute before Paul was a Christian: but to use his own words, he hath done as well as he can, and is to be excused, if he would but cease to boast.  
That which follows is no better, where he citeth R. B. saying, he saith indeed, that the institution of the Sacrament, 1 Cor. 11. was a permission, etc.  
When will this man learn to deal honestly? upon R. B's. saying, That 1 Cor: 11. Will not prove the necessity of its being now performed, I: B: says, That then it was an act of will worship and superstition. R: B: Answereth, What is done by permission for a time, is not Will Worship and Superstition, &c: Now it concerned our Author to prove that there was no Institution of this Rite before this Epistle to the Corinthians; And in that case he had delivered his Brother, and made it an act of Will-Worship. For his saying, That R: B: granteth there was a Command for this Practice, is nothing to his purpose, for he did not say, this was it, but another before it; And so this was no Will-Worship to the Corinthians, nor any proof for its continuance.  
The next is about washing the Disciples feet, and his express Command, that they should wash every one another's feet. To which he answereth, John Brown hath showed disparity; And that R: B: saith mere nothing, but calleth him a Pope. This every Man that will be at the pains to read the place, will find to be a gross untruth, but this is ordinary.  
His next in page 234. Where he citeth Acts 20. 7. to prove that the circumstances are not to be observed: The words (it seems) are, when the Disciples came together to break Bread, Paul preached unto them, and therefore say our Adversaries, This was a Sacramental Eating, & no circumstance to be observed. A singular Consequence and well worthy our Author; May he always dispute thus against us; And 1 Cor: 11. 18, 20. I desire he may tell us next what relation it hath to his matter.  
In the next place he gins with Acts 2. 42. And complains that R: B: denies this to be meant of the LORDS Supper. But herein he accuseth Beza who in his notes upon this place, saith, The Jews used thinn Loaves, and therefore they did rather break them then cut them. So by breaking of Bread they understand that living together, and the Banquets which they used to keep. The Reader may see what trouble it is to trace him to no purpose.  
But he cometh again to Acts 20. 7. And saith R: B: slighteth his Adversaries Reason; Which is another gross Lie, as the Reader may see, Vind: page 172. But why doth he not bring some thing to help his Brother? and not tell us he hath done all; When all Intelligent and  Men judge he hath done more hurt than Good to his own Cause; And yet this Section is nothing but a mere Elegy upon I: B's: Book.  
In Answer to Numb: 20. Saith our Author, R: B: bringeth nothing but mere Assertions, false Suppositions, such as that the Corinthians were supperstitious, in that they at all practised this Duty of the LORDS Supper.  
I acknowledge he must be sharper sighted than I, who can see these words in R: B's: Vindication, upon Numb: 20. or any where else. But being near the close, he gins to Dream again, and may perhaps be Simon next, because he was Patroclus last, and sure he is more like the first, for Lying and Deceit is the best part of his work.  
To R: B's: Saying, That 1 Cor: 11. 26. Is to be understood of Christ's Inward and Spiritual Coming, Apol: page 341, and his Vind: page 173, He giveth no Answer; But it is needless at all to impugn this distinction, it's own groundlesness sufficiently doth it.  
This is like a mighty Man, and well worthy a Groecian Hero.  
And now he is come to his ultimus conatus, which (he must excuse me to tell him) is of all his Book the most ridiculous. For to conclude from the Abrogation of Rites, Signs, and Ceremonies, That preaching the Gospel was also abrogate. To prove this, he saith, it will as well follow from Col: 2. 20. That preaching the Gospel is abrogate, as from verse 16. and Rom: 14. 17. That the LORDS Supper is abrogate. I shall therefore set down the Words, and leave it to the Judgement of the Reader, Rom: 14. 17. For the Kingdom of GOD is not meat and drink, but Righteousness, and Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost. Col: 2. 16. Let no Man therefore judge you in meat or in drink or in respect of an Holy Day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath Days.  
I shall now add his Citation for abrogating of preaching, Col: 2. 20. Wherefore if ye be dead with CHRIST from the Rudiments of the World, why as tho living in the World are ye subject unto Ordinances? Touch not, Taste not, etc.  
Now if the Lord's Supper as used by you, be not Meat and Drink, I know nothing what Bread and Wine are. But what a Commentary will this 20. verse need to cause it intent preaching of the Gospel? I remember the Presbyterian Dialect was wont to run thus; To hear Sermon, was called a Haunting of the Ordinances; And to abstain, was called a dishaunting of the Ordinances: And therefore it seems he understands the word Ordinances in the 20. verse for Preaching. He must show us, what relation Preaching hath to the following words, Touch not, Taste not, etc. And clear his Inference before ●● boast so confidently.    

Postscript.  
I Intended here to have Summed up his Extravagancies, and represented them to his Brethren: But when I considered what Justice R: B: met with, in the like Case, I resolved to forbear.  
I shall give one only Instance, whereby the Reader may have a taste of the Malice and Injustice of our Adversaries.  
Robert Barkclays Vindication, page 195, George Keiths Position, which John Brown and Robert Macquair, two eminent Presbyterian Preachers in the Index at the end of John Brown's Book, affirm to be one of the abominable heads of Quakerism. Is,  
That the Man CHRIST JESUS is the Mediator, The Apostle his assertion (1 Tim: 25.) Is,  
That there is one Mediator between GOD and Man, The Man CHRIST JESUS.  
We desire [addeth he] the Sense and Censure of the Presbyterian Ministry upon this: Or otherwise we hope they cannot in reason be offended, if justly reputed Accusers of the Spirit of GOD, that taught the Apostles to speak, and thence be condemned as signal Calumniators and Heretics.  
Thus R. B. But in stead of any censure, or so much as a confession of this horrid abomination. Behold our Author Patroclus appears on the stage, sometimes like a Petulant and wanton Gallant, with a lascivious Fable in his mouth; And anon he is quite transformed into a right Hypo centaur▪ and breathes nothing but Blood, Terror and Desolation, pulling down Castles, overturning Fabrics, and cutting Juglar Veins: Yet never forgets to extol his brother I. B. And now and then to give us Paneygrick upon the mighty Acts performed by his Exorbitant Blatant Ribaldry, which is indeed all the Justice we can expect from that Generation.  
His Appendix I am not concerned with, being (as he saith) written against one Parker, whom he calls an Enthusiastic Armenian; This name to some of his Hearers may serve for Gospel to conjure the devil, but I will English it for them: It signifies a man inspired of GOD, who believes the Doctrines of james Arminius. I know no Men in this Nation who are under that denomination: But if I could find one truly such, I would prefer his Conversation to all the Presbyterians in the World, that deny the Inspiration of the Almighty, and tell us that Christ spoke his last words to his Church 1600 years ago: If he be alive, he will easily answer for himself, if not, I hope his Brethren will vindicat him.  
To conclude the Presbyterian Doctrine is, That the Decrees of GOD are Eternal Purpose, according to the Counsel of His own Will, whereby for His own Glory he hath foreor dained whatsoever comes to pass. According to which Doctrine, it is manifest, that all the Actions, Words, and Thoughts of Men are necessary, and that it is impossible for them to do, think, or speak any otherways then they do.  
And therefore I hope Patroclus and his Brethren cannot in Reason be offended at me, for any thing I have written in this Treatise, seeing, according to their own Doctrine, I was under an invincible necessity to write this, and no otherwise; Nor was it possible for me to forbear one Letter thereof. And GOD open their eyes to see the Tendency of these wicked Principles, and their Black and Bloody Practices which flow from them; that they may find Repentance and Mercy in the Day of the LORD JESUS.   
THE END.   

Account of the most Matterial Errors in Printing, that any ways mar the sense; Hoping the Candid Reader will pass by, and excuse smaller Literal faults, or wrong printing: Considering our continued difficulty in Printing, through the unjust malice of our Adversaries, lest their slanders and our Innocence should be manifested.  
Page 1: Line 13: for aucupunt Read sucupant. page 3: line 1: for Clericus Read Clericum. page 4. line 21: for His read This. p: 5 l: 22 for Isr. It is. p: 7 l: 14 for ●rom himself read By himself. ib. l: 19 for Auxibare r. Auxiliarie. l. 28. for is then read is there. p. 9: l: 2. for attendance read a tendancy. ib. l: 16: for departed read have departed. l. 23. for thy read they. l. 25 for have as read as have. l: 29 for casts read cast. p: 10 l: 15 for ambilton read the ambition. ib. read avarice. p. 13 l 23 for proxmoity read proximity. lb. l. 24 for passions read patrons. p. 15 l: 4 for Hicks I represent read Hicks represent. ib: l. 18 for this read his. p. 23 l. 2 for for read or. p. 27 l., 5 for or his read he or his. p. 30 l. 23 for added read had added. p. 33 l. 17 for in these read placed in the●e. p. 35 l. 18 for word read words p: 35 l. 19 for an read any p. 39 l. 2 for this the read this is the ib. l 12 for cannot read can. p. 40 l. 8 f●r ●he good read to the good p. 42 l. 5 for velefiers read vilifiers. p. 47 l. 8 read but once, nor any outward ●●●●ble voice. ib. l 9 for 〈◊〉 read fourthly ●. 10 for sixthly read fifthly p. 48 l 6 for 〈◊〉 read art. p. 5● l. 27 for Chapter read Chapter II. p. 67 l. ●● for proveth that read proveth ●nd●●● p. 73 l. 22 for boastings read 〈◊〉 p. 8● l. 22 for m●●cinpyc●osis read Met●mp●ycn●sis. p. 86 22 for comes read he comes. p. 89 l 18 for any read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 11 for said so ●●●d h●d said so. ib. l. 28 for the read ●is. p. 9● l. 4 for wh●t read whom. p 103 l. 23 for then read them. p. 1. 2 l. 17 for Acyrogie read Acyrologie. p. 116 l. 18 for then the Scriptures read then the samethings. p. 118 l. 23 for this my read this is my. p. 121 l. 12 for when read then▪ p. 122 l. 7 for too read A. p. 128 l. 24 for it read is. p. 129 l. 4 for must do obey read must obey. p. 132 l. 28 for Defomation read Deformation. p. 139. l. 4 for if any read if in any. p. 154 l. 9 for hard Scriptures read Scriptures. ib. l. 10 for were heard read were hard. p. 157 l. 18 for in ●ny read many. p. 159 l. 19 for represent read represent nothing▪ p. 162 l. 28 for Miencer read Muncer. p. 163 l. 18 for Hi read Hic. p. 166 l. 5 for urged read verged. p. 193 l. 21 for to Salvation read Salvation. p. 207 l. 20 for it could read I could. p. 209 l. 14 for natural man read natural to Man. p. 217 l. 24 for which savingly read is savingly. p. 223. l. 23 for is dead read is not dead. p. 225 l. 8 for Apostolic read Apologetic. p. 226 l. 24 for War read Tower. p. 233 l. ● for will more read he will more. p. 246 l. 12 for Aust●stine read Augustine. p. 250 l. 27 for regated read regarded. p. 252 l. 23 for whither read where. p. 254 l. 12 for guilty to come read guilty. p. 256 l. 26 for propone in it read propone it. p. 268 l. ● for di●ats read dictates. p. 269 l. 10 for Man read the Devil. p. 271 l. 2 for upon the Presbyterian Eloquence read upon the credit of the Presbyterian Eloquence. p. 273 l. 15 for owest read ownest. p. 275 l. 20 for used to read used to do. p. 278 l. 21 for created as man read Created by CHRIST as Man. p. 286 l. 22 for contemns read continues. p. 289 l. 13 for niomerical read numerical. p. 295 l. 11 for to grow read is the way to grow. p. 302 l. 19 for proceedeth read precedeth. p. 306 l. 4 for this as read this ●. ib. l. 16 for their read here. p: 30● l. 26 for will GOD read Will of GOD. p: ●09 l: 20 for were a mind read were not a mind. p: ● 13 l: 12 for dark read daily. ib. l: 15 for there two read these two. p. 322 l. 19 for but shew● read but he shows. p: 324 l. 1 for thus read this: p. 329 l: 13 for hinder of that read hinder that. p: 338 l. 24: for but read nix●. p. 339 l. 25 for Schitian read Schithian. p. 340 l. 4 for to thing read to the thing. ib. l. 5 for as well read as well as. p. 346 l. 19 for because our read because forsooth our. p. 350 l. 5 for coming CHRIST read coming of CHRIST. p. 354 l. 2 for it at leisure read not at leisure. p. 355 l. 20 for as accessary read as a necessary. p. 361 l. 5 for where he read where he saith. p. 362 l. 3 for lie great read great lie. p. 364 l. 12 for reducable read deduceable. p. 373 l. 10 for Paneygrick read Panegyric. ib. l. 20 for Gospel read a Spell. p. 374 l. 11 for Eternal purpose read his Eternal Purpose.