power As for his saying We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD because they try all Doctrines and Practises by the Scriptures This contains two Lyes First That we condemn all the Resormed 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 Lye For we alwayes owned That all Doctrines and Practises of Men were to be tryed 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 lyes and delusion Whence I pray thee Patroelus Because we reject private Presbyterion Interpretations Which are but Mans wit and work This Consequence will be made out as thou sayest ad Kalendas Graecas When in a vapouring humour he giveth a Latine 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 tho not will to do His next os any weight is That from our denying their Interpretations It follows That our Saviovr 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 Sadducees who believed Moses Law better then 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 contraversie which seems to bring a firie 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 contraversie 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 Aegyptians Yea a man may believe or do whatsoever cometh in his Brain c. 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 rediculous and no man that I know ever thought it But Secondly If his consequence be true then no Idolater sinned before Moses Law was written Yea according to our Author the Aegyptians 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 sayes we deny all Commentaries and expofitions of scripture He should have added which are meerly mans 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 truely 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 Mystrie and only denyed words of mans 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 leasure 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 Graecian Gallant but hath not the weight of a Fear ther 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 Mans 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 alleageth 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 Jesuites But the difference lyeth 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 Rovings to the end of the Chapter Chapter II. of Immediate Revelation HE begins this Chapter with an hâ—dgpodg of railing lyes nonsense and contradictions such as a man pretending to sense and Learning may be ashamed of if his desperate malice had
honest as to tell us He hath said before that the Illumination of the Spirit is absolutly necessary to such a knowledge of the Scriptures as iâ— usefull to beget Faith Love and Fear of of GOD. c. But he would teach us another Knowledge which reason cannot produce But if he will allow me the first I shal 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 Commandemenâ—s Of which two precepts they have been such notorious Transgressors His third Answer is as unhappy as the rest For he laboureth to caâ—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 Mens 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 cheecks 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 Blasphemie for saying that it is as he alledgeth the greatest Error in the World that ever was invented and the ground of all errour 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 rendred 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 Lyar 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 reverent esteem of them And altho some years agoe this Language might have passed for good Coyn 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 Brittan over then 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 shal 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 Tydings 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 mens 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 saieth 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 it self errs in two great points Viz. In allowing Lawful Recreations on the Sabbath day and denying Tithes to the Clergie And our English Presbyterians are such enemies to the Scottish Covenant that they have gone near to Anathematize it For R Baxter in his hundreth propositions wherein he sayeth all Protestants are aggreed 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 Churches Unity GOD will not owne such terms nor waves nor will they be durable c. 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
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 forbid 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 Spirituall Worship Mental prayer Quietness of mind c. 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 Clergie would have accused him as fiercely here as the Jesuites did there Which among other things may shew that they are not mistaken who call them Cousin-Germans Section Second Of BAPTISM HERE our Author very wisely passeth by a great part of the Contraversie 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 oblieged to change untill his Adversary prove his to be right Neither is it just to desire him to come from his own tho 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 Priest-hood are such and therefore tho these sings were to continue they may not dispense them These our Authour 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 dayes and refused to the Children of Ignorant or Scandalous Parents by which means many Infants dyed 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 Relicts 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 Baptized 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 fasly 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 Apologie tells them how much it would contribute to Peace that they would lay aside such Heathnish and Barbarous words as these Nevertheless our Authour will have him a Heathen for this advice to procure unity but it is too manifest that tho 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 Apostacy 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 Clergie think they can word better than the Spirit of GOD. But our Authour who is so well acquaint with the Latine 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. replyeth it will as well prove that there is one onely 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 Johns Baptism is Christs whole true Baptism but sayes nothing to prove it From which Doctrine it followeth That whosoever is Baptized with water is Baptized with the Holy Ghost Secondly That as many as are baptized 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 baptized seeing they had received Johns 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 Johns 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 c. That Sanctification as well Mortification is a part of the one Baptism is not denyed To R Bs. saying it is alye That he would have none to be Baptized in the Spirit but such as are endued with these Extraordinary Gifts To this I say he answers But do they not still
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 Heretick All their clamouring the Scriptures the Scriptures is but a meer Jugle it s their own Gloss they intend Interpres loquitur Litera Sacra silet A little after he tells us ignoti nulld cupido very true for if the principles of the dispysed 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 Satyr 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 â—o their defences are meer 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 begins with a citation of Scripture A good Name is better then precious Oyntment the more shame for Patroclus who hath laboured to rob the Quakers of it by all the black-mouth'd detractions he could invent to defame them His first charge is That the quakers deny that the Seriptures are or ought to be called the Word of GOD. Answer This appears to me but a meer Logomathia in Patroclus For that the word Logos is diversly translated in Scripture we confess As Preaching 1 Cor 1. 18. Utterance 1 Cor 1. 5. Speech Cor 4. 6. And divers otherwayes Now that the Scriptures in such senses may be called Logos That is the speech discourse oâ— words of the Logos or Word of GOD which he spoke to the Pattiarchs Prophets and Apostles and by them recorded for the benefite 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 meer 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 wayes 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 unbyassed Christian People judge whether we deserve all these black Epithets this Author loads us with meerly 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 numbred 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 shew you the Word of the Lord Now how impertinent would it beto say That Moses had the Bible in his hand to shew 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 grosly 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 lye 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 c. 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 Commandement Precept Promise or Threatning 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 Magistrat 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 altho it exercised the Regal Power in the Late Rebellion did not usurp the Title of King tho 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 â—ssential and Substantial Word of God The principal Dictator of the Mind of God And that the
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