givenparticularly for that Nation and was binding upon no other Nation in the World as J Humphry in his book called Medioeria to which Richard Baxter a Famous Presbyterian assents and subscrives I am of the same mind R Baxter of the Covenants page 14. The Old Covenant is that which GOD made with the Jews when Moses led them in the Wilderness the new is that which we have under the Gospel the Old Covenant then is not the Covenant of works for that was made with all in Adam and as written in our hearts must be Eternally obligatory but the Old Covenant was made with the Jews in opposition to other Nations and as peculiar to them is vanished binds not And for the same reason he sayeth it is not the Covenant of Grace which is called the New Covenant But saith he the new is not the old The argument he bringeth to prove his Minor is that from which the Jews might not swerve to the right nor left hand and to the decision of which they were ultimatly bound to stand in all doubts and contraversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from GOD's Writtin Law c. Therefore to them it was the Primary Rule Answer First This argument proveth no more then this is already granted Viz. That Moses Law was a more Principal Law to the Jews then to any other Nation But untill he prove the Children of Israel to have had no Law no Rule of Faith nor Life before Moses wrote that Law his argument can conclude nothing Secondly Mine Adversary may tell me whether they were to stand to the decision of the Law in a matter which the Law did not decide for we find that after the Law was given In many things the Law giver Moses could not decide without immediate Revelation as in the matter of the Daughters of Zelophehad But when the case was proposed to him he went and enquired of the Lord And again when the Law was finished and Joshua to succeed him What saith the LORD Numb 29. 21. And he to wit Joshua shall stand before Eleazer the Priest who shall ask Counsel for him after the judgement of Vrim before the LORD If this be ultimatly to recurr to the Scriptures of Moses Law the Reader may judge To prove his Minor he citeth one place which I cannot omit Dut 17 9 10 11 And thou shall come unto the Priests the Levits and unto the Judge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the Sentence of Judgement and thou shall do according to the sentence which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee and thou shall observe to do according to all that they inform thee Now Reader could the Pope of Rome have sought out a Scripture more fitt to have established his universal Dictatorship over Christendome then this Is there one word of Scripture Law or Testimony here No but the Priests the Levites and the Judge That is in Broad Scots The General Assembly and Committee of Estates who were as absolute in their Determinations as ever the Pope and his Conclave But Patroclus must know that he and his Brethren are not Levites altho they take the Tithes nor am I to take their Counsel till they assure me that they have the Judgement of Vrim His second Proof for his Minor is Isaiah 8. 20. To the Law and to the Testimony if they speake not according to these it is because there is no light in them This Scripture hath been so much tossed by the Adversaries of Truth and so often answered That Patroclus who promiseth greater Matters then his Brethren had brought might have let it alone He denyes that this Law and Testimony can be inward And sayes For this Exposition we must take their word c But he hath forgotten it seems that William Penn in his Rejoynder hath given him other Mens words for it and perhaps better Mens then himself And because the Book is not so common among Presbyterians I shall here insert some of the Testimonys cited by William Peen First Dell Tryal of Spirits page 16. Wherefore they who are true believers saith he and have received Christs Spirit their Judgement is to be preferred in the Tryal of spirits before a whole council of Clergie Men And they onlie who can try Spirits by the Spirit of GOD and Doctrines by the Word of GOD written in their hearts by the Spirit can in measure discern all Spirits in the World And the Spirit of Christ which dwelleth in all true Christians cannot deceive nor be deceived in the tryal of spirits Collier General Epistle page 249. and page 258. Obj I st 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 speake not according to this Rule it is because there is no Light nor Morning arisen in them the Spiritual Man judgeth all things yet be himself is judged of no man These were the words of two Famous Professors who were no Quakers Next he citeth some Scriptures to prove that Moses Law is understood by the Law and Testimony As if GOD had made voide his Promise To write his Law in the Heart and put it in the inward parts But of this a little after In page 35. He begins with a Question drawn from Deut 17. 18 19. Now sayes he Shall any be so stupid as to believe when a doubt arose That the King was not bound to apply himself to this written Law for the discusing thereof Or tho the King's doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law He was bound to wait for a miraculous Revelation from Heaven to determine him I say who in his Witts will believe this Very well Patroclus I am one so stupid as to believe that when a doubt arose which Moses Law could not clearly determine that the King was bound to enquire of the LORD Of which the Scriptures gives us many examples As 1 Samuel 23. 2. 4. and 30. 8. 2 Sam 2. 1. and 5. 19. 1 Kings 22. 7. And 2 Kings 22. Where the King the High Priest the Scribe and some others had the Book of the Law and knew not what to do with it but sent to enquire of the Lord and that by the mouth of a Woman But he hath been so warrie in his second Querie as to add Tho the Kings doubt had been most clearly discussed by the Law Yet hath not the Candour to tell us what the King was to do in case his doubt was not clearly discussed by the Law As for the word Miraculous Revelation c It is his own a fine bugbear to fright his silly Disciples from asking Counsel of GOD For I am apt to believe that Divine Revelation
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 Nâ—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 Lexico-graphers if not better And therefore we must expect better proofs next His last Citation in page 176 is nothing to his purpose except that any thing which he thinks can blaken the Quakers is pertinent enough But I must ask him here doth he allow of Henry Forsides Answer To wit Being asked For what end Christ wept over Jerusalem He Answered As he was humane he mourned and his God-head deareed them to bell If thou owest this answer thou and he are the Blasphemers in asserting a will in Christ as Man contrary to the Will of GOD for no Man mouths for what he desires and delights in But certainly Christ as Man delighted in fulfiling the Decrees of GOD. But the words he carps at are The Eternal tendered over them This he calls a subjecting that most pure and impassible Being to the weakest Frailties of Mankind Poor Man Doth not the Scripture say That it repented the Lord that he had made Man and is grieved him at his Heart Gen 6. 6. And Eph 4. 30. Grieve not the Good Spirit of GOD. Chapter V. Of CHRIST and His Benefits OUR Author begins this Chapter with his ordinary Ingenuity as he ended the last Saying The Quakers in words ordinarly acknowledge that Christ is GOD and Man Yea Patroclus and in Write too if thou could learn to write the Truth But saith he They maintain a Spiritual and Heavenly Nature in Christ which they call the Heavenly Man which did exist before the Incarnation of Christ and assert that on the Flesh and Blood of this Man the Church in all ages did feed Then he giveth us a bundle of Citations out of George Keiths Book The way east up But never one of the Scripture Arguments which he bringeth to prove these assertions Which she weth evidently that they have been too hot for his Fingers This is not like the Champion Patroclus And he might have considered that George Keith was a Philosopher and therefore might have allowed us one Casuist and have discussed him before they had charged his Doctrines upon us But he tells us it is a clear Consequence of this Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures and addeth To this they Answer Quak Confession page 33. That it will no more follow from their Doctrine that Christ hath three Natures then it will follow from ours who assert that Christ assumed into Vnion with the Divine Nature a Body and a Soul But with no better Candour hath he cited this place then his Brother Hicks and Faldo used to I shall therefore set down the words But if they argue that at least Christ hath three Natures in himself We say their own Principle will conclude that as much as ours For the God-head is one Nature The Nature of the Soul is a second And the Nature of the Body is the third And our Adversaries themselves teach That as GOD is three Persons in one Nature So Christ is three Natures in one Person Who seeth not here that our Author hath disingenuously skipt over the strength of the answer to wit the latter part of it which is an argume nt ad hominem and that themselves are owners of that which they would make an absurdity in others But if he have leasure he may read the Cantabridgian Philosopher H More concerning the Astral bodies of men For which I find him not censured by any as making men to be Monsters and so you may allow George Keith some latitude in such Metaphisical stuff however he is of Age and can answer for himself His next is in page 179 where he chargeth us with quite anihilating and destroying the Divinity of Christ for which he citeth a book of one Christopher Aitkinson in the time of Oliver Cromwel But I ask him hath he this book Or hath he taken it upon trust Or found it folding up wares in some Grossers Shop For my part I never saw this book nor know I if there be such a book Extant in this World but he hath had two sufficient answers the first that G Aitkinson was not a Quaker the Second if he deny Christ to be a man we 〈◊〉 him who do say that Christ is both GOD and Man And here let the Reader observe that J Brown thought this a good answer to R B as is to be seen Vind page 67 But our Author will hear no such thing and affirmeth in page 181 That this confession serveth only to prove us guilty of the most wicked Hypocrisie lieing and self-contradiction to put a cheat upon the World and cover our abominations to prove this heap of gross and unworthy calumnies he betakes himself to George Keiths book again and the places before cited quite ommitting as before all the arguments used by George Keith and never offering us one argument to prove his false accusations of Hypocrisie lieing and false accusation but proceeds like a scolding Kailwife reeling and roaring like a drunken man foaming out his own shame But he saith these Doctrines of George Keiths destroy all the arguments for proving the Divinity of Christ of which he mentioneth one By him all things were Created But was the power of the Logos lessened by taking that Flesh of the Virgin And was he not as able to have Created the World after his Incarnation and Assumption of that Body 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 Vbiquity George Keith hath aboundantly cleared himself in the Book before cited to which I referr him and shall now come to his Dilemma which is this If all things were created by Christ as Man Then either the Manhood of Christ is Created or not If Created then it is Created by it self then which there is nothing more absurd if Uncreated then there is an uncreated Man and a Man that is Coeternal with GOD. Answer The fallacie of this Dilemmâ— lyeth in the first supposition and is obvious to a very mean understanding To wit If all things were Created as Man This was never asserted by George Keith as his own words cited by this impudent Author will easily prove page 93 The Word made Flesh Created all things Now except he will say that he was weakened or disabled by assuming a Body he can make nothing of his Delemma for he was still and is and will be for ever the same Eternal and 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
doth the Scriptures themselves in distinction from the Spirit As 2 〈◊〉 3. 6. Except Patroclus intend to turn Socinian who understood this place on Scriptures to be meant of the Gospel or Scriptures of the New Testament as may be seen in the Cracovian Catechism Page 162 163. Asserting the Holy Spirit to be the Ipsum Evangelium and at best to be but a certain hope of Eternal life promised to us Secondly they call the Scriptures Writings Is not this plain Soots for Scriptura Or what difference is there betwixt Scriptures and Writings It seems the fault is that the word is not a little Latinized But every Quaker is not so good a Linguist as Patroclus His third charge is that the Quakers call them them a letter about the meaning whereof nor two are agreed Now Patroclus I pray thee for once deal ingenuously with me and ommiting many other instances answer only these two First if the Scriptures be so plain and obvious to every well disposed intelect as your party word it how came the whole Ministry of Scotland to differ so faâ—r in the year 16â—0 about so easle a case as whether it was Lawful for the Mallignats to fight for their Native Country against a Forraign Enemie And secondly It is well known that about the year 1661 after divers Presbyterian Ministers were suspended from the exercise of their Ministry who notwithstanding did not submit but continued preaching and gathered to themselves congregations in the desart to the great distuâ—bance of the Nation On the other hand in the year 1689 several hundreds of the Episcopal Ministers have been suspended and their Flocks left destitute Yet all of them have submitted and are silent Now seeing both parries acknowledge the same Scripture Tellme I pray thee whether they be agreed about the meaning and bring me plain Scripture to decide these two contraversies â—t eris mihi Magnus Apollo After this in Page 7 he falls upon citations where he promiscuously and at all adventures cites Hicks and Fâ—lâ—â— upon whose Bankrupt Faith he layes no small stress I alwayes doubted Patroclus to be no sound Presbyterian For sure they who could not allow Malignants to fight for their Native Country would never allowes Sectaries to contend for the Faith which certainly is more Precious then all outward things But especially they being men who by their open forgeries and falsehoods have forefeited their Credit with all Honest Men I shall be at the pains with one or two of them tho they desorve no notice In Page 8 he ciâ—es one N L Cited by Hicks and saith he evinced by him against Pen That if the Bible were burnt as good an one might be writ these words Hicks saith were spoken by N L To one he knows very wâ—ll upon publishing this in his Book N L gives forth a Testimony under his hand dated London 29th 3d. Moneth 1673 denying he ever spoke such words or any thing like them calling it an abominable lie wicked slander 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 dayes heard Nicholas Lucas speak the words nor any of the like importance or tendencie as charged on him be Tho Hicks nor before any man else that I can call to mind But am satisfied in my conscience that he hath most grosly 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 Rejoynder Page 70 73. We have good reason to deny them to be the rule of Faith and Judge of contraversy which can neither give nor govern Faith nor Judge of Contraversies If he added the rest I should have left it to the Reader to Judge without more And therefore I shall only add these following words as they ly Viz. As the many different perswasâ—ons in the World fully prove For then all that have the Scriptures would be of one perswasion as it is most certain those are who have walk by the one Spirit Let the Word be joyned and then Judge The other part of his Citation is Page 73 thus in short the Scriptures are not the Rule but a declaration of Faith and knowledge Here he stops But I intreat the Reader before he trust these men to be at the pains to read the Book Cited by him There he shall see wither William Penn and his friends deserves to be called disparragers of the Scriptures and that it looks more like malice and interest that acts these men than the love of Truth The rest of his Citations at least many of them I never saw nor read but in such books as his Page 9. About the end he falls upon a long Citation of William Penns rejoynder concerning the Canon The Authority of those who gathered it the Transcribers and their dissentions the exactness of the coppies And lastly that some learned men of our times tell us of little less then 3000 several readings in the Scriptures of the Nâ—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 shew the weak foundation my Adversaries foundation stands upon I believe great and Good Things of them and that from no less evidence then the Eternal VVord that gave them forth Which hath often times given my Soul a deep Savour of these blessed Truths it declares of c And after many such expressions he concludes We accept them as the Words of GOD Himself And by the assistance of his Spirit they are read with great Instruction and Comfort I esteem them the best of Writings and desire nothing more frequently then that I may lead the Life they exhort to Thus William Penn Whereby the Reader may perceive the malice and disingenuity 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 Pharaseâ—s who while they extolled the Scriptures were found the murderers and persecuters of CHRIST and his Apostles Having thus dissingenuously dealt with William Penn he fails upon R. B. in these words On the other hand of this Ethnick Army R. B. Assaulteth the intrinsick Arguments and Divine Characters imprinted on the Scriptures Citing his Apologie Chap 2. That
angry to be contradicted then their Ancestors the Papists Hence it is evident that it is their Interpretations sense and Preachments upon the Scriptures which they would have to be the Rule of Faith and the Declaration of the Object In page 20 He makes a digression wherein he tels us the same things overagain therefore I shal only touch suchthings as chiefly concern the matter in hand if yet lawful for a Plowman to touch his school-terms by which that Trib have darkned Counsell with words without Knowledge And if Patroclus be a Parochus or Parish Priest I am sure the tenth man of his Hearers cannot understand his Terms First He confounds the Matterial with the formal Object saying as the Scriptures hold forth other Truths so they evidently declare and manifest the Characters of their Divinity Even as the Sun proveth himself to be the Sun by his own ltradiant and illustrious Beams And this in contradiction both to Calvine and him self To Calvine in the place before cited Where he saith That to settle the Conscience such a Perswasion is necesseary as needeth no Reasons And such a sense as cannot be attained but by Divine Revelation To himself in page 23. Where he saith We being demanded how we know the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD We answer by the Testimony and operation of the Spirit And herein he may reconcile himself to himself and his friends when he hath Leasure Secondly In page 22 speaking of subjective Revelation he calls the spirit an Instrument in the hand of GOD This Language sounds not sweetly to me for I believe the Spirit is GOD and therefore cannot like these Words GOD an Instrument in the Hand of GOD. 3ly He tells us in page 23 That subjective revelation is more properly called an Application then Revelation it self And yet in the same page he calls it the Testimony and Opcration of the Spirit Now a Testimony is a Witness bearing And we know a dumb Man cannot be a Witness But he hath told us That the Spirit speaks neither to the Ear nor the Mind and so cannot bear a Testimony This is palpable confusion Fourthly page 24. He saith so that we can Reason because surch spirit v g He that confesleth Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is said by the Scriptures to be of GOD Therefore I know and believe that is true Doctrine and that this spirit is of GOD. If this Scripture be taken Literally by Patroclus and that he intends as he Writes I must confels I expected not so much Charity at his hands For at this rate he accepteth Papists Lutherians yea and the Palagian Chureb of England who all believe that Christ is come in the flesh But I will expect a Commentary upon the Words with the next Fifthly In the same page he saith We do not with the Fanatical Enthusists reason thus The Spirit bids me believe that such and such Books are the Scriptures Therefore I believe them to be so But he hath given us no Reason why he believes such and such Books to be the Scriptureâ— For which we must wait his Leasure Sixibly His lame example of the Sun and Ey-salve is no better He saith by means of the Salve he seeth and knoweth the Sun And again by the Sun Light he may perceive what is Eyâ—salve and what is not But he might have considered That tho he see that Sun and Ey-salve both he needeth his Natural Understanding to know the Sun and to discern what is Ey-salve and what is not And as in Naturals so in Spirituals No man knoweth the things of a man but the spirit of a man which is in him so the things of GOD no man knoweth but by the spirit of God Seventhly In page 26. He chargeth R. B. for calling the Westminster Divines dark c. Because they not separate the Word from the Spirit But said that the Testimony of the Spirit was in ant with the Word And then reflects upon R. B's Vindication page 33. But takes no notice of what he saith page 33. and 34. Because they were too hot for his fingers He citeth Isaiah 59. 21. My spirit which is in thee and my Words which I have put in thy mouth c Observe First That the Tenot of this Covenant is Spiritual My Spirit which is in thee Secondly That they are distinct tho not contrary else they needed not the copulative Conjunction And Tbirdly They are called Words and not Word So then Patroclus confesseth That GOD putteth Words in his mouth to preach to his People I shall allow him to be concerned in this Covenant And I hope he will not here after be angry with the Quakers calling the Scriptures the Words of GOD. Eightly He saith there was never the least contraversy betwixt the Briâ—tish and Transmarine Divines on this head but an intire Harmony This is another Lie I shall instance one Joâ— VV Bajer Profeslor os Divinity at Jena in Germany writting on that Subject against the Quakers page 33. and 34. Saith the in ward Illuminations and Operations of the Spirit are altogether necessary to beget true and saving Faith in Men and that these inward Illuminations are objective or by way of Object Which is not very Harmonious with Patroclus Doctrine of Application And this is all the discovery he hath made of R B's Non such weakness and extream disingeunity which he hath left undiscovered till his next Printing And now in page 26. He saith he comes directly to the Objection Saying First The Work of the Spirit the necessity of which we maintain is only subjective being rather if we speak properly an Application of the things revealed in Scripture then a Revelation of Testimony strictly so taken Observe First That this being granted all these words of Protestant VVriters such as the Testimony Illumination Inspiration Perswasion of the Spirit are but meer cheats and impostures put upon Mankind And that Calvine when he speaketh of Divine Revelation as necessary to beget True Faith meant no such thing nor any of these Authors he citeth are to be understood according to their own words but according to Patroclus sense and thus he and his Brethren deal by the Scriptures Headds Whereas the Revelations to which the Quakers pretend are altogether objective like that of the Prophers This is another Lie for the Quakers own both Subjective and Objective Revelations as hath been showen above I shall here and Luk. 24. 32. Did not our Hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the way and while he opened to us the Scriptures Now let the Reader 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
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 recurr to the Fountain Therefore when the Scriptures cannot resolve the doubts which ordinarly arise among Christians They ought to recurr to the Fountain That this hath been the practise of the Saints in all ages is manifest from the Scripture I shall instance one or two with divers before cited That Divid was a Man of GOD and Knew the Scriptures I hope mine Adversary will not deny and that he had Abiathar the Priest with him to help him to the right sence of them if need were when he was at Keilab Yet he was necessitate to recurr to the Fountain enquire of the Lord Will Saul come down And will the Man of Keilab ver me up unto him 1 Sam 23 9 10 11 12 And again at Ziglâ—g when the people were like to stone him Did he not then enquire of the LORD 1 Sam 30. 8 And I would willingly know what the Presbyterians means by seeking the LORD in theit straits except it be to ask his Counsel when all other means fail them Hence all his boast evanisheth Next he challengeth his Adversary as confounding the principal Rule and Original Ground together calling it None-sense ridiculous and nothing to the purpose But he should have remembred that in page 46. He hath cited Ephes 2. 20. To prove the Scripture to be the Foundation and all along calls them the Principal Rule If this be sense so the other Sanum Reprênsor debet habere Caput In page 64. He comes to begg the Question in terminis and tells us positively The Scriptures are the Primary Rule And Concludes Thus we understand the Primarie Rule and while he doth not so ho but mistaketh the Question This indeed is imperious Logick and more becoming a Grecian Hero then a Presbyterion Priest But he must Know that the word Primary is out of doors As it signifies First And before he give it another signification he will need to alter all the Lexicons I have yet seen For there was a Rule of Faith before there was a Book in the World And therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Primary Rule Next he comes to his Acyrologie to let us know he hath studied Rhetorick Saying to call a Person of Rule is a great Inductive of Confusion But to call GOD and Christ the habits of Grace as the doth in page 38 is a far more improper speech Then he cites R. B's words in answer to J Brown but not fully and draweth his consequences from them the words are these For I was never so absurd as to call GOD simply considered or the Spirit of GOD in obstracto but as imprinting Truths to be believed and obeyed in mens hearts not contrary but according to Scripture for he cannot contradict himself the Rule of Christians From hence he deduceth two Conclusions First that the Quakers Grand principle that Immediate objective Revelations are the primary Rule of their faith falleth to the ground And that these Imprinted truths are but secondary But who seeth not deceit and malice in this consequence Certainly he must fear his cause when he takes such weak Pillars to underprop it For any man of candor may see that R B intendeth only to prove that truths Imprinted and not the Imprinter to be the Rule And he consesseth it to be one Acylogie or improper speech And to conclude the Ruine of his Adversaries cause from one improper speech is either great folly or great malice so that his Antecedent being tightly understood according to the Authors sense his consequence together will all he hath deduced from it is a meer Non-sequitur His other Consequence depending upon the first falleth with it Only he hath been assert that these Revelations are self evident and that to assert otherwayes were impious And a little after to judge that the GOD of Truth may prove the lyar and deceive us Well then Patroclus it seemes there are yet such Revelations by thine own consession as are self evident which we may take notice of in due time He proceeds saying There is very good reason to wonder why any Revelation should be more primarie then the Scriptures both being given by the same spirit seeing the primariness is not the immediateness but the thief binding power and the prerogative to be the Touch-stone of all doctrines But who denyeth this prerogative to the Scriptures of being a Rule to try all Doctrines of Men how holy so ever Have not his Adversaries granted all this times And what then I hope to believe this proposition is an Act of Faith no where mentioned in Scripture neither is it self evident and therefore needeth a Rule Yea more the scriptures of the New Testament make mention of a Rule only three times to wit 2 Cor. 10. 15 16. Gal. 6. 16. and Phil. 3. 16. And if Patroclus with all his prudence and wisdom comparing Scripture with Scripture can twist and twine a sense out of these Scriptures to prove his matter he may boast of it Next he cites 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. in these words they are able to make the man of GOD wise unto salvation But whether there be such words there let the Reader judge Then he plainly sheweth us what he intends and it is the book in the determination of which we ought finally and surely to rest c. If this be true then certainly the Tennor of the New Covenant is made void and they who lived under the Law had a rea dier access unto GOD and to know His Mind then they who live under the Gospel And yet the difference is evident for as the Law was an outward Rule written by Moses the outward Leader of outward Israel so CHRIST the SpiritualLeader of Spiritual Israel writteth His Spiritual Law in the heart I shall add one argument thus That which was a Rule to the Faith-makers at Westminster in composing their form of Faith and imposing it upon the Nations may
the Presbyterians in Scotland who have fallen into palpable errours and have felt heavy Judgements Notwithstanding of all their pretences to the Scriptures for their Rule For their work of Deformation falsly by them called Reformation began with the Sword raged with the Pestilence and sickned with the famine And was at last utterly destroyed By 〈…〉 of their ovvn Brood O C But the Man will so farr exceed J M That he tells us How easie had it been to have adduced whole Vollumns whereas I believe J M was much abler to deall with his Antagonist then our Frothie Au. hoc with all his Grecian sophistry A little after he taketh all the Christian World upon his side Yea Christian and Antichristian Papists Protestants and Greeks tho in his Epistle to the Reader he calls the Lutherians their capital Enemies certainly Patroclus hath made a notable Multer against the Quakers if all were true But I pray him whence come all these divisions if ye be all of one mind I wonder how a Man in his Witâ—s could talk at this rate Next after a peece of Froathie Triumph he sayes I answer directly to the Jesuite and the Quaker his Patron If we may Believe the ablest and fiercest of our Adversaries Such as Bellarmine Contaren Salmeron the chief of the Doctrine which we hold in opposition to Popery are most agreeable to the true sense of Scripture Answer If I had thought so as he alledgeth upon these Doctors To wit That the true sense of the 〈◊〉 had been upon the Presbyterian side in their Contraversie with us I should never have opposed them For sure I am GOD cannot contradict Himself And I would willingly learn from Patroelus upon what ground they could burn Protestants when they believed the true sense of the scriptures to be on their side Neither can I believe the Papists are so gross as to believe the first and practise the second For I suppose the greatest difference betwixt the Presbyterians and Papists and all their other Opposers is about the true sense of the Scripture And therefore he raveth when he calleth R. B the Jesuites patron For I am certain that he neither believed you nor the Jesuites to have the true sense of the Scriptures And so his direct Answer comes to a direct nothing to the purpose To R B â— Third Answer Viz That George Wishart and John Huss had Immediat Revelation c He replyeth That R B granteth They did not pretend to them as the ground of their Faith and Obedience in all Matters of Faith Worship and Doctrine But certainly they did it in some Matters for none of them could pretend to an outward call to preach the Protestant Doctrine and Worship And yet they both preached it and I believe upon a better Ground than a Presbyterian Call But however our Author does not deny that these Men had Immediat Revelation And consequently his serious Truth absurdly affirmed by James Durbame Viz That Christ hath spoke his last words to his Church is a fabulous untruth Next he falls again upon James Naylor And because R B saith He repented again our Author draws a Noble Consequence from it thus Which Answer is an evident Confirmation of what we plead for To wit That the Quakers spirit is ready to give them the cheat and deceive them For I believe J N acted but according to his Light c. This is just as much as to say he that sinneth against the Law of GOD and repenteth he evidently confirmeth that the Law of GOD hath given him the cheat and deceived him Absit Blasphemia And further About the beginning of the Covenant your Ministers had sworn Canonical Obedience to their Ordinaries Then they swore the Extirpation of them their Office And about twenty years after swore again Canonical Obedience In all which Three contrary Oaths they pretended the Scripture for their Rule Was it therefore the Scripture which gave them the cheat and deceived them No surely So James Nayler sinned against his Light and the Law of GOD in his heart and Repented and confessed he had sinned against his Light and condemned himself under his hand tho this malicious man insinuates the contrary which I doubt he can say of few of his Brethren who perjured themselves in taking the Covenant From what hath been said he drawes three Consequences first his serious truth before mentioned to wit That CHRIST hath spoken his last words to his Church And to help his Brother out of this Quagmire he adds That is put a close to these writtings which were to be a Rule to the whole Church being ashamed to deny that there were immediate Divine Revelations after the Writting of the Revelation being so much testified to in Church History And themselves having called Samuel Rutherfoord a great Seer much upon his Masters secreets But how will he deal with his Brother Jurieu who in his account of the Shepherdess of Daphine comes very near to assure us of an age at hand Wherein we shall have Men divinely inspired vâ—a and able to work Miracles And in his Book upon the Revelation tells us That the first Reformation begun by Luther which he calls the Harvest was carried on by the Ministry of Men But the second which is yet to come he calls the Vintage and saith It will be by the Inspiration of GOD And in his Characters of the Kingdom of CHRIST he gives for one of them That there shall be a plentifull pouring out of the Spirit whereof he saith That which the Apostles received at Jerusalem was but a Type I could instance many others some who have had it and others who have foretold of it But this being a Modern Writer a Calvinist and a Sufferer well esteemed of by all protestants I thought might suffice to shew that all the Calvinists believe not this serious Truth as he call it His two following Consequences deduced from his Argument formerly answered and Refuted are of no force For blessed be the LORD we can instance Thousands who neither have fallen into palpable Errors nor open Blasphemy Nor have marks of GOD's heavy Judgements but have lived and died in Favour with GOD and Good Men tho persecuted by the Presbyterians and Independents their Brethren By whose unjust Judgement some of them have been put to cruel death His third Consequence being a meer windie bauble deserves no answer His second Argument is Moses and the Prophets CHRIST and the Apostles and all the Holy Men that were Inspired by GOD tâ— Compile a Rule of Faith and Life c Could by infallible Evidence and infallible Proofs even to the Conviction and self Condemnation of the greatest Opposers demonstrat that they were sent of GOD But nothing of this kind Quakers can do yea they are so far from it that they can bring no more Evidence or Credentialls for their Rule of Faith or pretended Revelation then the most wicked Enthusiasts As for example John of Layden and