Truths defence, or, The pretended examination by John Alexander of Leith of the principles of those (called Quakers) falsly termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism, re-examined and confuted : together with some animadversions on the dedication of his book to Sir Robert Clayton, then Mayor of London / by G.K.

CHAP. II.

ANd here I give the Reader to know, that this pretended Examination of I. A. is in Answer to 17 Queries, which he saith came to him subscribed by I. S. But I believe I. S. never did Subscribe those Queries, nor was he Author of them, but some of our Friends in England; however it is possible that through a mistake, some had put the said Letters unto them. And though I. A. seemeth not a little offended that these Queries should be directed for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer, as if such a direction did argue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors; yet I do not believe that they all can Answer them sufficiently, holding to Scripture, without renouncing their former Principles in great part. Far less is this pre∣tended Examination of I. A. any sufficient Answer unto them, as the sequel I hope shall

make appear. In his Survey or Examination of the first Query, he alledgeth, That the Questionist doth pervert the whole state of the Question, For, saith he, who ever heard that the Church of Scotland, or any other Church, made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ? then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office, but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick, which the Adversaries themselves know to be most false.

To this I Answer, That not the Questionist but I. A. doth pervert the state of the Questi∣on, for the Question was not, Whether Gram∣mar and Logick, and the many Tongues, &c. was the only infallible Rule to make a Mini∣ster of Christ: but whether it was an infal∣lible Rule, &c. Now that may be conceived to be an Infallible Ru••e, which is not the In∣fallible Rule. Nor doth I. A. his consequence follow, that then they should never have re∣quired more of any man in order to his ad∣mission to that Office, but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logick, an example in other cases will show the weakness of this Consequence. It is reported that Plato made it an Infallible Rule to receive none into his School, but he who had some skill in Geome∣try, doth it therefore follow, that he required

no more of any man, in order to his admis∣sion, to be his Scholar, but that he had some skill in that Science. Another Instance may be this, in divers Incorporations and Cities it is an Infallible Rule, That none may be ad∣mitted to be a Magistrate in the said City or Incorporation, but he that is a Freeman there∣in, doth it therefore follow, that nothing is more required of any man in order to his be∣ing a Magistrate, but that he be a Freeman in that City? Now suppose the Church of Scotland make it not the one only Rule to make a Minister of Christ, that he hath Grammar, Logick, and the Languages, yet it may be very fairly Queried I hope, whether she makes it not an Infallible Rule? Seeing for many years by-gone she hath made no Mi∣nisters, but some as at least pretend to have Grammar and Logick, and Languages, and are called Masters of those Arts, (howbeit many of them have but a very small scantling of them for all the stress that seems to be laid on them.) And I Query whether it be not one of the Canons of the Church, that none be admitted into the Office of the Ministry but who have those aforesaid Arts? And if there be no infallible or absolute Rule or Canon in the case, then why do they not frequently al∣low men, wanting those Arts, who possib∣ly may have all the other Qualifications

required, to enter into the Ministry. And it is further Queried, Whether I. A. or the Church that he doth own, doth establish and avow that Doctrine of Iames Durhame, posi∣tively asserted in his Commentary on the Revelation, that Grammar Logick, or the like acquired Arts, are necessary to the esse or be∣ing of a Minister of Christ, and consequent∣ly much more necessary than true Piety and Godliness, which he maketh only but neces∣sary to his bene esse or better being, and only accidental to his being a Minister of Christ. And this Question, which is indeed the main design of the first Question, as is obvious to any ordinary understanding, I. A. for all his glorious pretence hath not in the least An∣swered, which is therefore returned upon him to be further considered.

And whereas I. A. saith, That Grammar and Logick are ordinary means of Knowledge, exceedingly requisite in a Minister. If by Gram∣mar and Logick he mean not those innate gift•• (which may be well called natural as com∣mon to all men having the ordinary use of un∣derstanding, and which I acknowledge to be in some degree necessary unto all) but the Systems of those Arts, as they are artificially composed of a great many Rules and Pre∣cepts, and commonly taught in the Schools. I ask I. A. Why are they more requisite in a

Minister, than in the rest of the Church? Ought not all the Church to have the know∣ledge of God, and of the Principles of Chri∣stian Religion as well as the Minister. And may not some of the people come to have as much true knowledge of God, as their Teachers; yea, may they not become wiser than their Teachers, as David said concerning himself? and whereby did David become wiser than his Teachers, was it by the hu∣mane Arts of Grammar and Logick? I trow not, but by the Law of God, wherein he did meditate both day and night. May not therefore people come to have as much know∣ledge of God at this day, without those aforesaid Arts, only by meditating in the said Law or Word, and praying to the Lord, as also waiting upon the Lord to have their un∣derstandings more and more opened, to un∣derstand the Scriptures, as I. A. hath, with all the help of his Arts? And if I. A. think that those Arts are necessary to attain Divine Knowledge, so as he who wants them, may not know as much of Divine things, as he who has them, I am not of his mind, nor •• hope are many others in his Church, who believe they may both know the Lord, and daily grow in the knowledge of Him till they have as much, and perhaps more of true Divine Knowledge than I. A. ever had, with∣out

all I. A. his Arts, which he doth so high∣ly magnifie.

But I. A. saith, The Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ, is set down in 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1.

Answ. It is very well. But I cannot find in these places, or any where else in all the Scripture; that Artificial Grammar and Logick, are made any one part of that Infallible Rule, or that God hath any where appointed them, as ordinary means of attaining Divine know∣ledge. And if they be the ordinary means of Divine knowledge; then it must needs fol∣low, that all who have the least measure of true Divine knowledge, have also humane Arts, or else they are extraordinarily taught; none of which I judge I. A. will readily grant. Now the Infallible rule set down by the Apostle, in these places already cited, requireth, That Bishops and Deacons (and consequently Mi∣nisters) should be blameless, sober, just, holy, temperate: And I Query I: A. if this one only qualification, viz. To be Holy, be as much made an Infallible rule, to make a Minister of Christ in the Church he owneth, as to have Grammar, and Logick, and Tongues: And how is this consistent with the foresaid Doctrine, that real Holiness is not necessary to the esse or being of a Minister of Christ? For is not that which is the infallible rule, to

make a Minister of Christ necessary to his very esse or being.

In the following part of his Examination of this first Query, I. A. doth further wrong the people called Quakers, As if they did hold that Grammar, Logick, and Languages, were un∣lawful among Christians: And upon this idle and false Supposition, he disputeth for the lawfulness of those Arts, which none of these people, so far as I know, deny: And for a proof to the contrary, that people have Schools wherein Grammar, and the Langu∣ages, viz. Hebrew, Greek and Latin are Taught, and some other Arts. Nor is it the use of these things, but the abuse of them, and lay∣ing too great a stress upon them, that we op∣pose. Nor do we deny, but Grammar, Lo∣gick, and especially the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Languages, may be of good use and service to him that is a Minister of Christ in a subordinate and subservient way, when he hath to do with men, especially that g••ory in these Arts, and in the abuse of them, contend against the Truth; such adversaries may be lawfully redargued from their own principles, and the points of their own wea∣pons turned against them, as the Lord giveth fr••••dom fo to do; although the simple naked Truth, out of the mou••h of a man, having none of those Arts, has more prevailed

against a Letter-learned Adversary many times, than many Learned men have done, whereof a famous instance is recorded to have befallen at the Council of Nice, where a simple Lay-man convinced again-saying Philosopher so called, when the Learned Bishops and Doctors could nothing prevail upon him; the which passage is at length recorded in Lucas Osiander, his Epitome of the Church History, Centur. 4.

But the said I. A. seemeth to dispute, not only for the lawfulness of Grammar and Lo∣gick, as they are Taught in Schools, but for the absolute necessity of them, to a Minister of Christ. For he saith, Would they then have a Minister, not knowing how to Speak and Write Sense. To which I Answer, And think∣eth he that none in all the Church of Scotland knoweth how to Speak and Write Sense, but they who have Learned the Art of Grammar. I suppose there are many thousands in that Church, who never Learned any Art of Grammar, that have as good Sense, and can both Speak and Write to as good Sense; at least in their Mother Tongue, as I. A. and perhaps to better too, if that Proverb hold good, That an Ounce of Mother-wit, is worth a Pound of Clergy. And do we not commonly Learn to Speak and Write our Mother Tongue, without any Rules of Grammar;

and these who so Learn to Speak and Write, only by Reading and Hearing, without Rules of Grammar, speak well enough to be understood. And what great or intollerable defect is it, if a Minister of Christ, having suf∣ficient knowledge and Piety requisite to that Office, should Speak or Write a little Incon∣gruous Grammar; doth or should that Un∣minister him? Is not a blemish or error in Life and Conversation, much more intole∣rable; although such is the Vice of the Times, whereof some good men have formerly com∣plained, that he who breaks a Rule of Gram∣mar, is more noticed, than he who breaks the Rule of Piety.

Nor doth the Translation of the Scriptures out of Hebrew and Greek, argue the absolute nec••ssity of those Languages, unto the Ministers of Christ; seeing men who are not Ministers, might have done that: And now since the Scriptures are Translated, (which we acknow∣ledge is a great Blessing of God) the Know∣ledge of these Languages seemeth less ne∣cessary on a general account; seeing what∣ever errors or weaknesses may be found in the present Iranss∣tions, they contain the form of found words, in respect of the more ne∣cessary things: And therefore the Scriptures thus Translated to him, who is indued with that Spirit that gave them forth, may well

enough suffice, though he hath neither He∣brew nor Greek: Which for all this pretended necessity, the far greatest part of those called Ministers in these three Nations have not so much skill of, but that they are as much ob∣liged to the Translation as many others that make no such Vaunt. And it is a great que∣stion; for all this pretended necessity of He∣brew and Greek, whether many called Mi∣nisters in these three Nations, ever once in all their life Read an intire Chapter of the Bible in Hebrew, or indeed can so do: And I see no cause why there is any more abso∣lute necessity for a Preacher to have Hebrew and Greek than any ordinary true Chri∣stian; for if true Faith, Knowledge and Piety, can be attained as well without Hebrew and Greek, as with it, then why is it made abs••••lutely necessary in the one, rather than in the other. Nor do we plead against the lawful∣ness or good use that may be made of Tongues▪ because they began at Babel, as I. A. doth alledge; but seeing they began at Babel, or Babylon, we may lawfully infer, they are not absolutely necessary to give the true knowledge of God, nor to make true Preachers, seeing there were men that did both truly know the Lord, and also Preach∣ed him in Truth, before the many Lan∣guages came in. Nor is I. A. his Argument

for the necessity of School-Logick less imper∣tinent. He that knows nothing (saith he) how to define, divide, judge and Argument aright (if any such were) is in no better capacity, than the Ass speaking to his Master: Take there (saith he) the Quakers Minister, very fit for Balaam's Sadle, if he had but four Legs. Ignorance I see is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion. By this Argument I. A. (as it seemeth) concludes, that all men who want School-Logick, are no more men, and have no more the use of their Rational Faculties, to define, divide, judge and Argument aright, than Balaam's Ass; and thus he puts many thousands, and ten thousands of his Fellow-Church-Members in the same List with Balaam's Ass, and maketh them as unskilsul to define, divide, judge and Argument aright, as Balaam's Ass, only be∣cause they want School-Logick. And is this a Vindication of the Church of Brittain, so to defame the greatest part of all her Members, by comparing them to Balaam's Ass, only for want of School-Logick, which I suppose scarce the hundreth person has any knowledge of? Indeed I confess, it hath been but too fa∣miliar for such men, to repute the people as Asses▪ for want of those School-Arts; and they have but too much used them in times past as Asses, and also Rid upon them. But whether is not I. A. short of Balaam's

Ass, which saw the Angel of God, and had its mouth immediatly opened by the Lord to reprove the Prophet; to none of which I. A. hath any pretence. and why doth I. A. con∣clude, That Ignorance is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion? Because they have not commonly School-Logick, and judge it not absolutely necessary to any Christian, or Mi∣nister of Christ. Then by I. A. his Irronical and Sarcasme, none have true Devotion, but these who have School-Logick; the which re∣flection striketh as much against his own Church Members as us. And I suppose there are many thousands in the so called Church of Scotland, that may think I. A. deserves a sharp reproof, for such an idle Satyr, as to conclude, because we establish not School-Logick as necessary•• to Devotion, That therefore Ignorance (according to us) is the Mother of Devotion. When the Prote∣stants blame the Papists for holding Igno∣rance to be the Mother of Devotion, I un∣derstand they mean the ignorance of the Scriptures, and principles of Religion, and not of School-Logick, which men may either have or want, and yet be truly Devout: And for all this scorn of I. A. I shall mind him of what Augustine observed above 12 hundred years ago, Surgunt indocti, & indoctae, & ra∣piunt coelum a nobis doctis: The unlearned men

and women arise and take the Kingdom from us who are the Learned: Which may well at least be applyed against them, who glory in their Artificial Learning, and set it up higher than it doth deserve. And said Paul, to the Corin∣thians, as well to the Preachers among them as others; For ye see your Calling Brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, &c. are called. And what is a man with all his School-Logick and other Natural Sciences and Arts, but a wise man after the flesh: And yet according to Paul's Doctrine, God had not chosen many such either to be Christians or Ministers. Moreover, whereas I. A. pleadeth for the great commendation of Humane Arts and Sciences of Grammar, Logick, &c. from Isaiah 50. 4. and 2 Pet. 3. 16. It re∣maineth for him to prove, that these places are to be understood of such kind of Learning, which I deny; and on the contrary affirm, it is Divine and Supernatural Learning, which is there to be understood. As to Isaiah 29. v. 12. 14. I grant that it is meant of human∣ly Learned; but it maketh clearly against him, seeing the Vision was a Sealed Book, as well to the Learned, as to the Unlear••∣ed: And therefore none of I. A. his Arts of Grammar and Logick could open the Seals here of.

Again, whereas he saith, The Quakers have often Objected to him against the lawfulness of Logick among Christians, because it was first used among Heathens; and then he scoffingly doth inquire, But what shall we do with the Isle of Brittain, which was first used by Heathens. I Anwer, that I suppose it is I. A. his mistake, or failure of memory, that the Quakers have ever Objected against the lawfulness of true Logick, which I know none to be against; only I judge it may be well argued, that see∣ing it was a thing used among the Heathens, and yet did not bring them to the true know∣ledge of God; nor can it bring any Christi∣ans thereunto now. And it seemeth unrea∣sonable, that any Art found or used among the Heathens should be made an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ. Or per∣haps, if any of those called Quakers have Disputed against Logick, it hath been only against that falsly so called, viz. a Sophistical way of contending about any thing, for or against, which is too much used in Schools at this day, and wherein too many glory, and are puffed up. But I. A. his comparison be∣twixt the Isle of Brittain and School Logick is very unequal, else let him prove that his School-Logick is as necessary, and profitable to the life of man, as the Land of Brit∣tain is.

Again, whereas in Answer to the Instances of Elisha, Amos, Peter and Iohn, who were not bred up in Grammar and Logick, and yet were true Min••sters, he alledgeth, It is no good consequence to argue from an extraordinary fact to an ordinary fixed Rule; I Answer, he hath not as yet proved that it is any ordinary fixed Rule by the Lord, that all must have those Arts of School-Logick and Grammar who are Ministers of Christ. He but here beggeth the Question, as it's ordinary for him to do in other cases. And as for us, we judge it no tempting of God, nor looking for extraordi∣naries to believe that we may receive true knowledge, and grow up in the same, so far as is requisite for a true Preacher to have, by our diligent reading and meditating on the Scriptures, by the help of God's Spirit assisting us to understand them, and withal using fer∣vent Prayer unto God, to obtain the said help of His Spirit, although we neither use the Art of Grammar or Logick; and we find not that Paul recommended Timothy to give atten∣dance to those Arts, but only to Reading, viz. the Scriptures, and not to neglect the gift that was in him, which I suppose I. A. will not be so ra••h as to say, was either Grammar or Lo∣gick. And now after diverse abuses and per∣versions of I. A. in his examination of this first Question, he concludeth with another

great calumny and false charge, in saying, The Quakers alledge that Peter and John had no Grammar and Languages, whereas the Que∣stion doth only alledge, That Peter and John were not bred up in Grammar and Languages, which doth not hinder it to be true, that God afterwards did immediately inspire them with the gift of Tongues. And yet even before they were inspired with these Tongues, they were Ministers.

In his Survey or Examination of the second Query, he continueth to play his old Game of perverting the state of the Question, which is not (as the Reader may see) whether Gram∣mar, Logick, and Philosophy, &c. were ex∣tant in the World before Christ his coming in the Flesh, for that we readily acknowledge; but the Question is, How long it was, after Christ, that those Arts were set up to make Mi∣nisters of Christ; To this he gives no Reply, but only goeth on to prove the lawfulness of Philosophy, and to tell what it teacheth. Now, as for true and genuine Philosophy the Quakers deny it not to be lawful, even that commonly called Natural Philosophy, which is a knowledge of natural things, and the ope∣rations thereof, with their effects; but that which they oppose is to make such a natural knowledge, so ••ar as it is only an Art taught in the Schools absolutely necessary to make a

Minister of Christ. Again, Secondly, We Question much, Whether that which is com∣monly taught in Schools, among those called Christians, under the name of Philosophy, be indeed the true and genuine Natural Philo∣sophy, seeing the far greatest part of it is ex∣ploded and rejected by not a few of the more knowing among your selves, and if any of us have called Philosophy, Foolosophy and Witchcraft, as I. A. alledgeth they did not mean it of any true Natural Knowledge, but in the Apostlessence, when he saith, Beware lest any spoil you through Philosophy, and vain deceit; which I. A. confesseth is Sophisticate and cor∣rupt Philosophy. And dare he say there is none of that sophisticate and corrupt Philoso∣phy taught in the Schools and Universities in Brittain. And may not sophisticate and cor∣rupt Philosophy be called Witchcraft in that sence used by Paul, Gal. 3. O foolish Galati∣ans, who hath bewitched you. And I Query what Philosophy doth I. A. mean by the true and genuine Philosophy, which he maketh so necessary to every Minister of Christ, whether Aristotle's Philosophy, or the Cartesian, or any other, seeing there are many kinds of that called Philosophy in the World, whose principles and rules directly contradict one another. And the Schools in Christend••m to this day have not agreed in the common

principles and Rules of that called Philoso∣phy, but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it, as is acknowledged, by the most ingenuous Professors thereof. Now to make a thing so uncertain (as their Philosophy is in many or most things, to wit, a fallible thing) an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth, is a very ab∣surd and unreasonable matter. But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions, which his School-Philosophy doth teach, the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God, who is Infinite, Eternal, Omnisci∣••nt, Omnipotent, Unchangeable; that every man is a Rational Creature; that the Soul of man is Immortal; that no Brute is a Man; that no Action can be without some Subject, nor without some effect; nor any Union without some extremes. But I suppose there are few men, if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men, that do not, or may not know all this without School-Philosophy, as well as I. A. doth with it. And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him? But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth; and as he particularly describeth them? they are these following, That every thing either is, or is not; that no∣thing can ••oth be, and not be at once; that of every contradiction the one part is true, and

the other false; that every whole is more than 〈◊〉〈◊〉 part, that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect, that nothing can work before it exist. But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions, are not taught by Philosophy, and are not any part of Philosophy, as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it; because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach, but presupposeth them as already known and understood, by the common dictates of understanding, that is in all men; and are called by them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 common Sentiments or Principles; and therefore we still desiderate, what peculiar Misteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach, that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know, or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection, without his Phi∣losophy or School-Craft. Not that I deny, but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach, that are not obvious to common understanding; but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions, which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth, but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true, as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work.