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
will accompany the Wicked to Hell cannot be called Grace Divine or any thing supernatural He should have said that which suffereth in Hell For certainly all that is natural to Man must suffer in Hell but that which causeth Man to suffer in Hell can be no part of his Nature Hence Causin in his Holy Court Tom. 3. Pag. 433. The Darkness of Hell is apprehended as most intollerable Evil and that with just cause Notwithstanding I affirm the grearest Torment of the Damned and hight of their notable Calamities is Light I say Light of Science and Knowledge c. His Sixth Argument is That Men have naturally some Relicks of the Image of God and can do some things contained in the Law of God we must firmly conclude from that express Text Rom. 2. 14. The Gentiles who have not the Law do by Nature the things contained in the Law First He proceeds upon his former deceitful Insinuations as if we denied that fallen Man or Man in the Fall could do any Action good as to the substance as he saith now he can do some things contained in the Law of God whereas the Devil could confess Christ before Men as in Luke 4. 34. I know thee who thou art the Holy One of God This is a meer Quibble For the Question is Whether Man by Nature as Fallen and corrupted can do any thing that is acceptable to God which he should have proven or else been silent And as to that Scripture he citeth it maketh nothing for but against him For clearing of which I shall ask him this Question-Whether the Actions done by these Gentiles who not having the Law did by Nature the things contained in the Law which shew the work of the Law written in their Hearts were acceptable to God or not If he say not He contradicts the Apostle Vers 26. Therefore if Vncircumcision keep the Righteousness of the Law shall not his Vncircumsion he counted for Circumcision And Vers 27. And shall not Vncircumcision which is by nature if it fulfil the Law judge thee who by the Letter and Circumeision dost transgress the Law And Act. 10. 34 35. Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons but in every Nation he that fearth him and worketh Righteousness is accepted of him If he say these Actions done by the strength of fallen and corrupted Nature were acceptable to God then it follows that Man by Nature in the Fall can please God and so have no need of a S viour I shall here add a Saying of J. Humfrey with the Approbation foresaid of R. Baxter in his Book of Election and Redemption Pag. 29. 30. It is agreeable to that Righteousness of God which is revealed in the Gospel and to common Reason that when Christ died to Redeem the World from the Law of Works because through the weakness of the Flesh it was impossible for us to perform the same The new Terms which he hath procured for us in the remedying Law should be so adopted to our fallen Estate as to be made no less possible for us or within our power now than the Covenant of Nature was to Adam in the state of Innocency There is no Interpretation of Scripture must be admitted against universal Reason and the Goodness of God Now to say that the Just and Merciful GOD would require fallen Man to walk without Light to act without Power is contrary to the Goodness of GOD and universal Reason and to the Tenor of the new and remedving Covenant In page 104 He saith Men by nature have the knowledge of Politicks and the prudent management of Worldly affairs Therefore men may be said to have the Law writen in their Hearts without a New Govenant dispensation Because the second table of the Law which is a Rule for Politicks is the Law of GOD as well as the first This can import nothing less then this That because he had natural and corrupt reason he had nothing more Or that he that hath his senses hath not Reason For Nimrod had Politicks and so had Moses but Nimrod had not such a foundation for his Politicks And why Because Moses Government was a Theoeracie Nimrods an humane Monarchy And therefore Moses needed the immediat Teachings of GOD for his Politicks Nimrod only Reason Tho he had more if he had regarded it And yet the second Table of the Law is more like Penal Statutes then Politick Laws And whereas he saith That Jo Brown hath proven by many demonstrations that the writing of the Law in the Heart cannot at all be taken in this place for any part of the New Covenant He might have been so kind to his Reader as to have given one of these many demonstrations before he had so railed at and gloryed over his Adversary Especially considering that John Browns Books are so rare to be seen and seldom or never objected to us by any man of sense His next is in answer to R B's saying If Romans 2. 14. Be understood of corrupt nature It would contradict that of 1 Cor 2. 14. Where it is said The Natural Man cannot know the things of GOD. To which he Replyes That Mr. Brown as he calls him hath utterly denyed this contradiction to follow upon their exposition of this place But hath neither given us the Exposition nor the Harmony of the places This might pass in the Pulpit but it is shameful in Print he had better waved it as he hath done many more But if the Reader will be at the pains to look Beza's Notes he will find that he expresly saith on 1 Cor 2. 14. The Natural man is he that hath no further Light of Unstanding then that which he hath brought with him even from his Moâ—bers womb As Jude defineth it Verse 19. And upon the word Spiritual Man he hath noted That is by Vertue of the Holy Ghost Now let the Reader compare what our Author hath said in the foregoing page upon Rom 2. 14. And what Beza saith upon 1 Cor 2. 14. And see whether our Anthors answer be sufficient to take away the contradiction Yet we must get Foam and Froath not a little the usuall product of troubled waters Nevertheless it is manifest this one note of Beza's overturns all he hath said for his extinguished Lanthorn In page 105. After a citation of R B's words concerning the fall of man he saith It willl be counted a compleat Contradiction to say that fallen man hath no Relicts of the Image of GOD and yet hath a Seed of Righteousness seeing that Righteousness is one of the chief parts of the Image of GOD. But wherein lyeth the Contradiction here In saying he who hath the Seed hath not the Fruit Or in saying that the Seed tho sown in all kinds of Grounds needs an influence from Heaven before it can bring forth Fruit And to use his own similitude till the Candle of his extinguishrd Lanthorn be of new lighted again it can do us no
is now a miracle among Presbyterian Priests To trace him in all his Raillings and Boastings reflections against Ro Barkelay and Geo Keith were very needless The Reader may see them of no weight I shall therefore here take notice of some of the Scriptures cited by him in page 34. To prove that by the Law and the Testimonie is understood the Law of Moses on Exod 32. 15. And Moses turned and went down from the Mount and the two Tahles of the Testimony were in his hand c. 34. â—9 With the two Tables of Testimony in Moses hand c. Now I beseech the Reader to consider what this Man can make from hence or from any of the rest to prove that Isaiah meant the two Tables of the Law to be a Primarie Rule either to Jews or Christians Was never the Moral Law a Law to Mankind until it was written in Tables of Stone Then certainly Cain had not sinned in killing of Abell If there had been no Law against Murther Or what more can he make of this Scripture if he make the Law and Testimonie to be the Ten Commandements But this That whoever speaketh or acteth contrary unto them It is because he is dark not knowing the Mind of the LORD nor hearkning to the Voice of the Divine Light in him which would have taught him to speak and act according to that Moral Law But I would willingly learn of him whether he would have the whole Law of Moses Moral Judicial and Levitical or Ceremonial to be the Primarie Rule to Christians now a dayes For the Moral is confessed by all parties to be binding upon all Mankind and that it was Imprinted upon the Souls of all Men even before it was written But the Judicial Law as well as the Ceremonial Law hath been rejected by all Christians except the Presbyterians who composed Cargils Covenant What then would the man be at I can conjecture nothing but this The Presbiterians have three beloved Doctrines Viz Swearing Fighting and Tithes which no one Line of the New Testament seems to favour and therefore they would have the Law reinforced least these their Darlings fall To conclude The Law was added saith Paul because of Transgression Therefore there was a Law or Rule transgressed before this Law was added And that it was a Written Law let Patroclus prove with the next I shall now come to his third Argument page â—9 Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrines from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final decision of the most grave and weighty Contraversies that ever arose in the World And sent all people into them as a most sure and undeceiving Light by the Guiding of which we may pass through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the close Ergo the Scriptures are the Primary Rule c. To prove the Consequence of this Argument he sendeth us to the Definition of a may be Rule in his first Argument which is proven to be lame and a begging of the Question Next to prove his Antecedent he citeth a Bundle of Scriptures for merly adduced by his Brethren and answered divers times But he thinks all the rest but Bunglers and therefore he will have at them again The First is Mat. 22. 29 31 32. Te do err not knowng the Scriptures nor the Power of GOD. He begins with a parcel of Presbyterian Rbetorick saying Our Adversaries are like Baits c. Let the Reader judge whether I have occasion here for a Repartee but I le spare him There be Two Things in the Citation for the Ignorance of which the Jews are blamed to wit Of the Scriptures and the Power of God Now if this prove one of them to be a Rule it cannot miss to prove the other to be a Rule also And so the Contraversy remains in stain quo prius that is Whether the Scriptures or Christ the power of God and the Wisdom of God Teaching and Revealing the Mind and Will of God to his People is to be preferred The Quakers never denied the Scriptures to be a Rule but only that they were subordinat to the Teachings of Christ by His Spirit Whom He promiseth to send and that he should Teach them all Things And this I say is preferrable and he hath brought nothing to prove the contrary This cleareth George Keith from what he alledgeth of his confounding the Rule with the Power And as for his Simile of Euclid it will nothing mend his Matter for certainly Euclid had a Rule by which he wrote his Book which was the Dictats of his Reason and except his Propositions can be demonstrated to me by Reason I am not bound to believe them Therefore the Dictats of my Reason are a more Noble and Excellent Rule to me than Euclid's Propositions tho the Book be an excellent Help for me to attain to that Art And whereas he hath talked very disdainfully though wrongfully of consounding the Scriptures and the Power of God he should have remembred that in Page 36. He hath said That to seek to the Scriptures is all one with seeking unto GOD Whether this vergeth upon Blasphemy let the Reader Judge But to put our Stupidity or prejudice beyond doubt he brings us another simile of a King Answer Above all things he should have shunned dilcoursing upon this Topick For it is impossible to keep a Presbyterion Priest within his Bounds Here he hath described a King in Querpo subordinate to the Laws and limited by them Whereas it is well known That the King is the fountain of our Law our Legislator And by the same Authority whereby he makes Laws can cashier annul and rescind them And it is a known Maxim in Law Rex non potest peccare But this is the old Doctrine of Lex Rex and Jus Populi And that famous peece The Hynd let loose Now if this his Simile prove any thing it will be this That as according to their Dialect The King can do nothing but what the Law of the Land allows So GOD can do nothing but what the Scripture allows And consequently CHRIST could not command the Man to take up his Bed and walk upon the Sabbath day because no Scripture then written allowed it The next place is John 5. 39. Here he challengeth R. B. as a Papist for saying the Words ought to have been Translated Ye search the Seriptures But Patroclus If I shall cite Bellarinine against the payment of Tiths who say they Are not due by any Law of GOD or Nature since the coming of Christ Will thou also call me a Papist If thou do thou att mistaken And so art thou in him And when thou can prove that there are no errors in the Translation thou may stick by this The Scriptures thou brings prove nothing for this Translation for they do not mention it And we never denyed it that the reading of the Scripture was both commanded and commended Yet thou art not ashamed to say They
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
serve to be a Rule to the present Presbyterian Churehes But their thinking it in their consciences to be truth was their Rule Ergo c. The Major I hope they will not deny and the Minor is proven by the Oath taken by every Member at his entrance which was as followeth Die Jovis 6 of July 1643. I A B do seriouslie and solemnlie protest in the presence of Almightie GOD That in this Assemblie whereof I am a Member I will not maintain any thing in matters of Doctrine but what I think in my conscience to be Truth Or in point of Discipline but what I shall conecive to conduce most to the Glorie of GOD and to the Good and Peace of the Church Hence it is evident That their Conscience was their Rule But how it was instructed to discern Truth from Errour whether by the Divine Spirit or by Humane Prudence and Wisdom let Patroclus choose And to help him in his Election he may consult his Brother the Author of Melius Inquirendum who a little after he hath told him that his ultimate Rule is a monster Tells him also That nothing can possiblie interpose between the Authoritie of GOD and the conscience and that its dictates are uncontrollable Next he tells us That all men have not Divine immediate objective Revelations by which they may examine and diseern good from evil But the Scripture saith not that men are condemned for want of Light But because Light iâ— come into the World but Men love darâ—ness rather than light And also that the Grace of GOD which bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men He closeth up this Number accusing R B for confounding the principal Rule and the principal Leader but these are his Acâ—rologian mistakes and not his Adversaries confusion For any man not maliciously byassed may see that he intends no more but that the Truths Revealed or Imprinted by the Spirit are the Rule and the Spirit Revealing is the Leader as he explains himself in the beginning of page 39 saying that Commands as they are Imprinted upon the Soul that is the Law written in the heart by the Spirit is more primarie and principallie the Rule than the Scriptures some things written and received only from another This he hath maliciously passed by together with the Question following which he could not answer so that his confidence or impudence and metaphisiâ—al formalities return upon his own head In page 67 He comes to the interpreter of Scripture where he intertains us with a dish of Rhetorick like that of hiâ— Brother Mackquair the Arch-scold saying The Quakers well knowing That if GOD speaking in the holy Scriptures be admited judge of the present debates between us and them or if the Holy scripture be not â—steemed false ambiguous and nonsenfical then their cause is lost What more malicious and wicked falshood could the Father of Lies have devised against a poor innocent People who from their Hearts abhore any such thought concerning the Scriptures as to esteem them false ambiguous and nonsensical Or what end could this â—nicâ—ed Lyar propose to himself in asserting such a gross untruth Except it be to raise their Beloved Refoâ—meâ—s the Rabble to stone us as two of our Friends lately at Glasgow had almost been stoned to Death by them But he saith The Quakers well knowing c. If this were true we were as great Hypocrites as the Faith-makers at Westminster Who in chap 23 numb 4 of their Confession say Infidelitie or Difference of Religion doth not make void the Magistrates just and legal Authoritie nor free the People from their due Obedience to him While in the mean time they were actually in arms against their Lawful King a Pious as well as Protestant Prince Now the Faith-makers cite Scripture for the first and the whole party can cite Scripture for the second So let the Reader Judge who it is that tenders the Scripture â—alse ambiguous or nonesensical Wherefore he should have said If the Spirit of GOD which dictated the Scriptures be the only true Interpreter of Scripture then certainly the Good old Cause is utterly lost As for his phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures and a little after The Spirit of GOD speaking in the Scriptures It is an Acyrologie which will need a Commentary For that GOD spoke the Scriptures to the Prophets and Apostles who wrote them and that he speaks them now to his Servants in their Hearts at times to their great comfort is confessed But that he speaks in the Scripture is a phrase hard to be understood and in effect a meer sham to amuse his Reader As for example When Patroâ—lus stepeth up into his Pulpit and readeth a sentence of Scripture which may be somewhat obscure As this my Body He begines to give us the Interpretation of the Popish Doctors then of the Lutherian and lastly of the Calvinist Doctors Which last he asserts to be the genuine sense of the Text. Now I would willingly know whetheâ— it be GOD or Man that speaks here The First he would be affraid of as Enthusiastiok And if the Second What becomes of his Phrase GOD speaking in the Scriptures So the Reader may see That it is a meer humane device to keep up a sordid Trade for by this Trade they have their Living as the Silver Smiths had of making Merchandise of Souls for filthy Luere sake But let the Reader know That we fully owne the Spirit of GOD which gave forth the Scriptures to be his own Interpreter neither do we deny the use of Lawful Means such as Reading Meditation Prayer and waiting to know the Mind of the LORD in the Seriptures as many of our Friends have published to the World So that all which this malicious Man hath said in six pages following falls to the ground being built upon no one solid Argument But I shal take notice of some of them And First He citeth George Keith Saying We may well reject all their Interpretations of Scripture seeing they pretend not to the Spirit that gave them forth but declare themselves Enemies to it To this he Answereth Behold Reader The grossest of Popish shifts to defend the grossest of Popish Doctrine Answer If this be true then Patroclus is a great Liar For in page 32. he saith The Papists have gone too low resolving their Faith ultimatly in Men The Quakers on the other hand attempting to go too high have contracted a Vertigo And in that foregoing page placeth themselves in the middle So that by his own confession he must be nearer a kin to the Papists then we And in good earnest any who are acquainted well with their Principles and Practises will find the Difference nothing but Pretence For as the Popish Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Popish Faith so the Presbyterian Doctors are the Makers and Rulers of the Presbyterian Faith and no less angry persecuters of all Dissenters then the Papists Only Blessed be the LORD they have not such
power As for his saying We charge all the Reformed Churches as Enemies to the Spirit of GOD because they try all Doctrines and 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