Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	king_n	know_v	power_n	6,767	5	5.0443	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A46640	Verus Patroclus, or, The weapons of Quakerism, the weakness of Quakerism being a discourse, wherein the choicest arguments for their chief tenets are enervat, and their best defences annihilat : several abominations, not heretofore so directly discovered, unmasked : with a digression explicative of the doctrine anent the necessity of the spirits operation, and an appendix, vindicating, Rom. 9. from the depravations of an Arminian / by William Jamison.	Jameson, William, fl. 1689-1720.	1689 (1689)	Wing J445; ESTC R2476	154,054	299

shift which he useth is the same with Robert Barclays second shift vi● That tho the Scriptures are in this place to be understood by Law and Testimony yet it will not follow that they are the principal Rule especially in Gospel times which shift is the same way removed that Robert Barclays was And here he essayeth to prove that people are sent to the Dictate Word or Light within from 2 Pet. 1.19 Deut. 30.14 Rom. 10.8 Ioh. 3.20 21. Iohn 12.36 Which places make not a whi● for his purpose yea diverse of them cut the Jugular Vein of Quakerism as shal be evinced in due time He hath moreover here a harangue by which he would prove as it seemeth that God and Christ dwell personally in Believers as God dwelleth in the humane Nature of Christ which is most abominable and false and tho it were true yet should make nothing for him for God and Christ can only be said to dwell in Believers whose Temples they only are But if he meaneth that God dwelleth in Believers only in respect of the habits of Grace implanted in their Souls whereby they are enlightned quickened and upstirred to believe and practise the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures then he sayeth nothing for this indwelling or God thus indwelling is not our principal Rule of Faith and Manners but the chief Leader and efficient Cause of Grace in the Soul. And thus this hodge-podge of most impertinent Words resolves at length into a direct begging of the Question Argument 3d. Christ and his Apostles proved their Doctrine from the Scriptures referred their hearers unto them for the final Decision of the most grave and weighty controversies that ever arose in the world and sent all people unto them as unto a sure and undeceiving Light by the guidance of which we may passe through this dark World and be kept from Hell in the ●lose Ergo the Scriptures are the primary Rule The Consequence is clear if we attend unto the Description of a primary Rule laid down above The Antecedent I prove from Math. 22.29 31 32. Ioh. 5.39 Act. 17.11 and 13 from the 14. to 42. 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Luk. 16.31 Our Adversaries like bats hateing and striking at the Light assault most of these Scriptures And first they endeavour to deprave Matth. 22.29 by telling us that it will no more follow that the Scriptures are the Rule of Faith and Manners than the Power of God yea the Power of God say they is rather the Rule being that which quickneth the Soul and Body without which none can truly know the Scriptures thus talketh George Keith in Truth Defended Pag. 68. But this is only a roving at pleasure without consideration what be said providing that the name of the last speaker be obtained for here he confoundeth the Rule with the power whereby we walk according to the Rule Hence as I admonished above he fighteth not against our Doctrine but against the fiction of his confounding brain for whoever said that Euclide cannot be a Rule for Geometricians to walk by because it cannot instill a faculty of reason in an Idiot without which it cannot be understood surely he that should thus Reason would be accounted of all men most ridiculous And yet no lesse ridiculous is this silly sophister for he reasoneth the same way But that I may fully declare either the profound stupidity or willful prejudice of this Quaker I suppose that a man in discourse with another about the Kings Power ignorantly denyeth that the King can do something which by the Laws of the land he is allowed to do the other checks him thus you erre not knowing the Laws of the Land and the power of the King And then proveth from the said Laws that the King hath ●ower to effect that which the other denyed Now should not any man that concluded from this mans discourse that the power of the King is all one with the Laws of the Land or that the power of the King is our Rule in C●vils no less than the Laws of the Land are expose himself to the scorn of all knowing persons And yet he inference of thi● Quaker differeth not a whit from such a blockish Conclusion Hence we may see that these Mens design i● not to speak well but to speak last The next place is Ioh. 5 39. To which Robert Barclay Vind. Pag. 43. attempting to make answer to the end that he may put it beyond all doubt that he is a devout Servant to his Holinesse and a true Roman Catholick stifly asserteth that the Word is to be taken in the indicative mode superciliously rejecting not only all the reformed and Body of primitive Interpreters but also the very Iesuits themselves in whom there is any spark of Conscience or Candour who all understand it in the imperative moode and good Reason they have so to do seing the reading of the Scriptures is all along through the whole Scriptures both commanded Deut. 17 18 19. Deut. 29.29 Exod. 13.9 Ios. 22.5 Deut. 6.8 and 11.18 Isa. 8.20 1 Tim. 4.13 with many others and commended Deut. 33.10 Neh. 8.2 3. Act. 17.11 and 18.24 2 Tim. 3.15 2 Pet. 1.19 20. Rev. 1.3 Besides many more which are sufficient to convince these men of palpable falshood and blasphemy Moreover there is sufficient ground from the Context abundantly to make out our exposition for Christ appeals to the Scriptures as sufficient to decide the then present controversy betwixt him and the Iews saying These are they that testifie of me Where he willeth them to give heed to Moses writings in order to the decision of the Controversy v. 46. Had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me But this subterfuge failing him he hath yet some others which we must also remove he asketh therefore in the next place whether the words that Christ spake to the Iews which are recorded in Scripture were less binding to them than the words spoken by Moses and the Prophets If they were lesse binding saith he then he overturneth his own tedious Reasonings by which he laboureth to prove that they are obligative and also he must show how they are binding now upon us and if he say they were binding to the Jews because spoken by Christ his proof falleth to the ground Ans. 1. Perhaps he pleased himself with this Argument having racked his wit to invent sophistry tho blunt as shal appear presently whereby the more to delude his already deluded admirers But I am sure to any rational man that is in earnest it will not have the weight of a Walnut Nor trouble him much even tho he were not in case to answer it seing if this word be to be taken in the imperative mood as we have even now demonstrat then it is as clear as the noon-sun that Christ sendeth the Jews to the Scriptures for the ultimate decision of the greatest Controversy in the World upon which their one thing depended Otherwise the Jews might still

the left and to the decision of which they were ultimately bound to stand in all Doubts and Controversies and that upon highest pains was the principal Rule But from Gods written Law they were commanded not to swerve or stray to the Right hand or left and were bound ultimately to stand to its Decision in all doubts and Controversies and that under highest paines Therefore to them it was the primary Rule the Major Proposition is incontrovertible The Minor is proved from two most pregnant places of Scripture Deut. 5.31 32. and 17 9 10 11. In both which places by the Law is to be understood that which God gave unto the Iews by Moses in writing as is evident to any that read the Texts Which Texts have been egregiously vindicat by our Divines writing against Bellarmin and the rest of the asserters of papal infallibility with whose shifts I am certain all that the Quakers can say will be found to co-incide 2. This Minor Proposition is clear from Is. 8.20 To the Law and to the Testimony If they speak not according to these it is because there is no light in them The first Shift that the Quakers use to elude the force of this Scripture with is that by Law Testimony is meaned the light within So sayeth Robert Barclay in both Apology and Vindication but for this exposition we must take their word for none of them giveth the least colour of Reason for it But that by this Law the Scriptures are to be understood these following Texts evince Exod. 32.15 and 34.29 Deut. 31.24 26. 2 King. 22.8 Nehem 8. v. 3 8. Psal. 78.5 Again God commanded that even the King himself and consequently the rest of the people Deut. 17.18 19. Should live according to this written Law to the end be might fear the Lord under which all the Duties of Religion are ordinarly comprehended Now shal 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 discussing thereof or that tho the Kings 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 wit will believe this yea to think so is to deny the immutability of God. Moreover this is by far the more frequent acceptation of the Word Law or Testimony Hence when the saving Work of Grace is understood by the Word Law there is something added whereby we may understand that the Word Law is to be taken in a more unusual acceptation as Rom. 7.23 and 8.2 But we need say no more for they sufficiently overthrow this their Exposition in that they give nothing for the proof thereof except it be their own most absurd Hypothesis But Robert Barclay hath yet another shift he granteth that this place may be understood of the Scriptures and asserteth that this is only spoken to the Jews and therefore that to them the Scriptures were a more principal Rule than to us and that as they were to try all things by the outward Law so we are to try all in the first place by the word within and accuseth his Antagonist of base disingenuity for leaving out these words in the first place And granteth only that the Scriptures were a more principal Rule to the Iews but denyeth that they were the primary Rule Ans. Whatever be understood by Law and Testimony in that place whether it be the Scriptures or Spirit it must be the primary Rule for to this Law they were ultimately bound for the Law and Testimony spoken of here was the ultimate and Principal Rule because whatever was spoken not according to these was to be rejected as the product of darkness 2. It is evident that this Law and Testimony here spoken of is the absolutely principal and ultimate Rule because to seek to it is all one with seeking unto God The Text is Let a people seek unto their God viz. speaking in the Law and Testimony which is put for one and the same thing Hence we see that this Law and Testimony here spoken of was the absolutely principal Rule to the Jews In the third place the Charge of disingenuity that he layeth to his Adversary is altogether groundlesse for certainly he or any man else of Sense and Reason was bound to understand those words In the first place in the one branch of the Parallel as well as in the other otherwise his Parallel will not only hault but prove wholly lame and without sense now seing as I think he will not deny that his Adversary ought to suppose he had to do with a Man of sens● and Reason who dealt but rationally in understanding both Branches of the Parallel to run alike He ought not thus to accuse him but sein● he will have himself to be thus understood to th● end that he may evite a self Contradiction let u● see if he have any advantage hereby Now the 〈◊〉 why he maketh his Parallel so manked is that 〈◊〉 may not be compelled to grant the Scriptures 〈◊〉 have been the primary Rule to the Jews and so this he earnestly pleadeth but if they were not a primary and principal Rule to them and so but a secondary Rule only and yet have not such a high and principal place under the New Testament as under the old then they shal not be so much as a secondary Rule to us and therefore but a tertiary only And if this be not beside a Contradiction to the Quakers own concessions who grant the Scriptures to be a secondary Rule a complex of most horrible impiety most wild and absurd nonsense that can readily be imagined I leave to the whole Christian World to judge from which many other wild dottages clearly flow such as The Spirit it self is but a secondary Rule even altho it be a Rule or else that although the Church have a tertiary yet it wants a secondary Rule with these and many other such horrid and most nonsensical Consequences is this Doctrine of the Quakers inseparably attended And whereas in the last place he requireth proof wherefore Mr. Brown rejecteth the version of the Septuagint we shal only referre him to solid Baillie in his Chronology and acute Voglesange in his Theological exerci●rations where he will find the Septuagint rejected with Reason enough Thus far Robert Barclay George Keith the other Champion of the Quakers in hi● Book against Mr. Iohn Alexander falsly called Truth Defended its true name being Truth depraved Pag 80 Shewet● his cause to be mortally wounded with the force of this Scripture Argument for he dare not expresly deny that by Law and Testimony the Scriptures are to be understood indeed he really granteth it in that he adventureth not to handle any of the places of Scripture brought by Mr. Alexander for the proof thereof and yet he detaineth the Truth captive and wi●l not confesse that which he dare not deny The