SECTION FIRST.

IN their first section, they alledge, we doe wickedly put many indignities upon the holy Scriptures, and that we monopolise the Spirit to our selves, which are grosse lyes, but that they are against the Spirit, is no mali­cious accusation, but a thruth as will appear to any true discerner: Their comparing us, when wee plead for the Spirit, to them, who cryed the Temple, the Themple, is unequall and profane, they that cryed the Temple, the Temple, rejected the Spirit of God, and relyed too much on the Temple, and out­ward priviledges, but dare they blame any for relying too much on the Spirit of God? Again, in their first subjection they committ a grosse de­ceit in which they follow G. M. their master, who (useth the same in his manuscript to us) in alleadging, they are more for the Spirit then we, becaus they affirme, that the efficacy of the Spirit is insuperable. For wee doe affirme, that the efficacy of the Spirit is in a true sense insuperable, as namely wher the mind is well disposed, See R. B. his thesis, wher he useth the word insuperably, but that the Spirit doth insuperably move, or irrestibly force the ill disposed minds of all in whom it operats is false, and contrary to scripture, which saith, that some resist the Spirit, yea and is contrary to the experience of all, who are acquainted with the Spi­rits workings, that know, that the Spirit many tymes worketh so gently, that his operation may be resisted, therfore said the Apostle, Quench not the Spirit. Now that doctrine which is contrary both to Scripture, and expe­rience [Page 2] is not for the spirit, but against it. Again, how are they more for the spirit then we, seing they affirm the Spirits influence is but only effective, as having no evidence in it self, sufficiently to demonstrat that it is of God; we say, it hath, as being both effective and objective. 2. They say, the influence of the spirit is only given to some; we say, to all. 3. They say, it is so weak, that it can bring none to a perfect freedom from sin in this life, though never so much improved; we say, it can, yea. 4. They say com­monly, the influence of the spirit cannot keep the best Saint one moment from sin, we say, it can keep them for whole dayes, yea alwayes, if they improve it, as well as they can. 5. They say, a Man may and ought to pray without the spirit, which we deny, and so we leave it to the judicious, if here they do not commit a gross deceit. Lastly, in their stating the question, they accuse us falsely, as if we did hold, that all men ought to judge, and examine all the materiall objects of faith and Articles of religion by inward revelations, as if all men were bound to an impossibility, all men have not all the materiall objects of faith propounded unto them, for some of the materiall objects of faith are meerly accidentall unto all mens salvation, as to believe that Abraham begat Isaak, and Isaak Iacob, &c. others although not accidentall, yet are but integrall parts, and not es­sentiall of Christian religion, such as the outward history of Christ, &c. and so by this distinction divers of these arguments are answered, with­out more ado, especially the first two, where they spend much paper fighting with their own shaddow, telling us, that the heathens have no revelations, shewing the birth, passion, resurrection, &c. of Iesus Christ, which we do grant, for the belief of such things is only necessary to them, to whom they are propounded, and the Scriptures alledged by them, at most prove no more, it were a needless labour and not worth the pains to answer particularly to all their impertinencies, follies, and blasphemies, which they obtrude upon us as arguments, and in the issue, their last pro­bations resolve into meer assertions, as much denyed by us, as the things they undertake to refute, therefore upon each section or subsection we shall, but take notice, what their arguments resolve into at last, and as there is occasion, set down some propositions that may serve as a key to open the Readers way, through all these heaps of confusion and blasphe­my, wherewith they fill their pages. As for the Scriptures brought by them Arg. 1. as Isa. 9. 2. Matth. 4. 16. Psal. 147. 19. 20. These prove not, that they had no light, for the light shineth in darkness Joh. 1. and [Page 3] Prov. 29. 18. doth not import that people have wanted vision from the beginning, but that for some time, they may want it, to wit, when their day of visitation is over, which we deny not. And whereas they tell us that the Greek particle [...] is often to be translated among, and therefore so to be Col. 1. 26. and other places alledged by us; we deny this conse­quence. And that they say, the Apostle is speaking of the outward preach­ing of Christ Col. 1. 26. is their bare assertion without any proof. Also in their first argument they alledge a gross untruth upon G. K. as if he did hold in his book of Immediat revelation, pag. 11. that the Jewes general­ly under the Law had no immediat revelation in the Seed, let the place be read and it will clear G. K. where he distinguisheth a twofold sort of reve­lation in the seed, according to a twofold condition of the seed, the first sort of revelation is more hidd and obscure, the seed not being compleat­ly formed, but as under ground. The second is more manifest and clear, so as with open face to behold the glory of God. The first sort of revela­tion is given universally unto all both Jews and Gentiles, but the second is only given to the Saints, in whom the seed is compleatly formed and brought forth. As to their Queries we answer that Conscience and Rea­son are distinguished from the saving light of Christ in all men, & the reve­lation thereof, as a naturall and supernaturall principle are distinguished, and it was the naturall, which Pelagius did exalt too much, as our adver­saries also do, who affirm that men may be lawfull preachers without being renewed by the supernaturall principle of Gods saving light and Grace.

In the prosecution of their second argument. 1. They deny the inward blood and sufferings of Christ, referring us to their proofe afterwards, which we shall in its place examine. 2. They alledge that we hold an heavenly and spirituall nature in Christ, which is distinct from the God­head on the one hand, and from the Manhood on the other, which they call a third nature in Christ. But this their alledgance is false, for that heavenly and spirituall nature is not a third thing distinct from both the Godhead and Manhood of Christ, as shall be afterwards shown. 3. They alledge that the Apostle doth not speak of any inward hearing or word, but of the outward. The Contrary is manifest from the Apostles own words in the same chapter, the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart. Nor is their reason valid to prove it, for the words vers. 14, 15. are not arguments made by Paul, but objections adduced by him, which he [Page 4] afterwards answereth, and this is usuall with Paul in this Epistle. As to their question, wherein consists the nature and essence of faith? we say, it is a receiving of Christ, laying hold upon him, according to whatsoever revelation he makes of himself in mens hearts, which is in some greater, in others less, but in all is in some degree.

In their third argument they undertake to prove that according to us the Scriptures are not necessary secundum quid, or profitable, but all in vain, as for their example, as they know examples prove not, so is it vain and impertinent, for we never compared the Scriptures to a mutilated and dim coppy, they are a clear and perfect coppy as to all essentialls and necessaries of Christian religion: but they are not the originall; and seing we have answered them so many questions, let them answer us this one. Are not all these divinity books and Commentaries on the Scripture made by men not divinely inspired, as a mutilated and dim coppy in compa­rison of the Scripture, and whether is the Scripture or these books more perfect? if they say the Scripture is more perfect, then what need they the mutilated and dim coppy of these divinity books, or what profit can they have, by them, which they cannot have rather by the Scripture? A­gain, here they confound the materiall and formall object of faith, as if we did hold that inward revelation without Scripture did propound unto us the materiall objects of faith, which is false, for there are many of the materiall objects, which are only propounded by the Scripture, to witt, such as the historicall part of the Scripture, and in this respect, we do not plead that inward revelation is the materiall object, but the formall.

In their fourth argument, they are so blind as not to take notice how we can give the same answer that they give, concerning the Law, that we who are under grace and obedience to the inward Law, are dead as to the con­demning power, but not as to the commanding power thereof. But that it is not the letter or any outward testimony of the Law that doth so powerful­ly convince a mans conscience, as of other sinns, so of covetousness, as the Spirit of God doth in his inward convictions and smitings upon the conscience, is clear from the experience of all these, who have known and passed through the state, which the Apostle spake of, when he said, I was alive without the Law, but when the commandement came, sin re­vived, and I died. Yea what law is that of the mind, whereof he makes mention Rom. 8. but an inward Law, by which the knowledge of sin [Page 5] comes, and through which both the knowledge, and remembrance of sin sticks more closely to the soul then through any outward law it can? and did not Christ say, that the spirit should convince the world of sin? yea how many of those called Heathens, who had not any outward law, have declared that inward concupiscence was a sin? As for their malicious accusation against us, of our lust and covetousness, we reject as not worth the noticing, seing they assert it without any colour of proofe, but it seems they have learned that wicked and devilish maxime calumni are audacter aliquid adhaerebit. i. e. calumniat boldly that something may stick.

Their fifth argument is answered in the first as being a branch thereof.

Their sixth argument is built upon a false supposition, that according to our principle, all would be prophets, and that no difference could be assigned betwixt prophets, and pastors and teachers, seing prophets and teachers teach, both from the spirit. The first is answered at large in the end of G. Ks. book of Immediat revelation. To the second we answer, that by prophets in the strickest sense are meant those who prophecy of things to come, as Agapus was; by teachers, they who instruct the people in doctrine, and this is a manifest difference, although in the large and common sense prophecying and preaching are one thing.

Their seaventh argument, they pretend to build on that Scripture Jud. 19. but it is easily answered, that men in one sense may be said not to have the spirit, and in another to have it, even as a rich man who improveth not his money, both hath, and hath it not in divers senses, ac­cording to which Christ said, from him that hath not shall be taken away that which he hath. And whereas R. B. doth grant that they whose day of visitation is come to an end, have not the spirit, so much as to invite and call them unto God; here they insult as if all were granted they seek, but they are greatly deceived, for though he grant that some have not the spi­rit to call and invite them, yet he granteth not that they have not the spirit to reprove them, for even the devils and damned souls of men and women sin against the Spirit of God witnessing against them in their hearts, which is in them a law of condemnation, as David said, if I go down into hell thou art there, yea do we not read not only that God spak unto Cain a most wicked man, but also unto Sathan Job. 1. which speaking of God to Sathan, we suppose the Students will not say, was by an out­ward [Page 6] voyce, and consequently it was internall. But we ask them if all wicked Professors of Christianity should burn the Bible and destroy all outward rules and means of knowledge, should they by this means cease to sin, because they should have no rule, or should they be excused from gospell duties, because they have no rule, by this supposition (according to the Stu­dents) to require them?

In their second subsection they spend both their strength and paper, in labouring to prove some things which we no wise deny, as the sequel of their Major §. 14. but in the proofe of their Minor, where the whole stress lyeth, they utterly faill in both its branches, as we shall briefly shew. As to the first, they argue thus, they know no such inward objective evidence of inward revelations of the spirit in themselves, therefore they have none such. We deny the consequence, they see it not, nor know it, because they will not, their prejudice against the truth doth blind them, and indispose their understanding; yea might not the unbelieving Jews have reasoned the same way against Christ, when he was outwardly present with them, we do not know him to be Christ, Therefore he is not Christ. Again, whereas they querie in a scoffing way, can a thing that is self evident be hidd from the whole world except a few Illuminado's? We answer, if it were hidd from the whole world, except a few in comparison of others, it is no more then what the Scripture saith, that the whole world lieth in wickedness, & their wickedness blindeth them that they do not see the light that is in them, yet we could instance many who are not Quakers, so called both Christians and Gentils who have acknowledged the evidence and certainty of divine inspiration in all men, as the surest ground of know­ledge, but we need not digress into this here; we have enough besides to stop their mouths. For do not they say, that the Scriptures have a self­evidence, and yet are not the Scriptures and the truths declared in them hidd from the greatest part of the world? The Mahumetans reject both Old and New Testament, and the Jews the New; although they read them, and yet according to our adversaries, they have self evidence, so that it is evident, the same argument is as much against the Scripture, as the Light within in point of self evidence, and indeed much more, seing many who deny the self evidence of the Scirptures, even heathens have a know­ledge of the self evidence of divine inspiration, as Socrases, Plato, Ploti­nus, Phocyllides, Seneca and many others. And here in the close being sensible of their weakness after they have laboured to prove the negative, [Page 7] they tell us, that seing the negative is theirs, they are not bound to prove it, and so would roll it over on us to prove the affirmative against their own law, which would have us to be meer defendents. As to the maxime, Affirmanti incumbit probatio, it doth not help them, for they have affirmed a negative, and have been at great pains to prove it. But all in vain. And why may we not put them to prove their Minor being a negative, as well as their master, I. M. put the Jesuit Dempster to prove his Minor, which John Meinzies affirmed to be negative?

In their prosecution of the second branch they affirm that the Q. can­not give any sufficient evidence of their revelations. This we deny and put them to prove it, but how shamefully they fail here is apparent, for in­stead of proving of what they affirm, they put us to prove the contradi­ctory, and so contrary to their own Law, would urge us to be impugners and defenders at one time, a silly trick they learned from the Baptists in their dispute at London, as indeed the Students argument about an evi­dence is the same upon the matter with that which the Baptists used against us at London long before them and which the Iesuit used against I. M. long before them both. So that we may see what sort of patrons the Students here follow. But it is well to be observed, that when they seek an evidence from us, they tell us pag. 57. They mean not an evidence which will actually and de facto convince a pertinacious adversary, but an objective evidence or clearness in the thing it self which is apta nata, fitt of its own nature to convince, and will really convince the well disposed. Very well! this their plain concession destroyeth their whole building, for seing they press upon us by way of Dilemma, either we have the Spirit of God, or we have it not, which is I. L. his argument. We may very lawfully by his own example press him and his fellow Students, with the like argu­ment, either they have a well disposed mind, or they have not. If they say, they have not, then they confess they are a pertinacious adversary, and so not capable to be convinced of our evidence, and surely it were great folly in us to seek to convince them of the truth of a thing, who are not in a capacity to be convinced. If they say, they have a well disposed mind, then let them prove it to us, or give us an evidence of it, seing by their own rule, Affirmanti incumbit probatio. Who is so weak that doth not see that they are intangled in the same difficulty they would urge upon us, yea into a far greater, for they can not so much as pretend to any objective evidence, whereby to convince us that they are well disposed, seing they [Page 8] altogether deny such a thing. If they answer, that they are not bound to say either the affirmative or negative, but require of us to prove the negative, who seeth not that we have the same to reply unto them, when they urge us, either the Q. have the spirit, or they have not, that we are not bound to say, either the affirmative or negative, for although to have, and not to have, are contradictory, yet to say, that we have the spirit, and that we have not the spirit, are not contradictory, being both affirmative: and in­deed when we assert things only in thesi, we do not say, either that we have, or have not the spirit, but this we say, and we are able to prove from Scri­pture, that all good Christians have the Spirit of God, immediately to teach and guide them into all truth, and all men have it so far as either to justi­fy or condemn them. By this we stand, and are able to defend it through the help of God, as consisting both with Scripture, and sound reason, and testimonies of Ancients. But if they think with their little craft to bring us down from the Thesis to the Hypothesis, they must know the same will bring them down to it also, for seing it is a truth acknowledged both by them and us, that all true Christians and children of God have the Spirit of God, working in them at lest as an efficient cause: from this we urge them thus, either they have the Spirit of God working in them as an effi­cient cause, or they have not. If they say, they have not, they confess they are not true Christians, or children of God, which we suppose they will be loath to say, if they say, they have the Spirit of God as an efficient cause of faith working in them, and subjectively inlightening them, let them prove it, or give us an evidence of it. Who doth not see, that poor men they are taken in their own snare? we know all rationall and sober men will acknowledge that we are not bound to receive their affirmations without proofe, more then they are bound to receive ours, nor indeed so much, we being as the case stands, but defendents.

As touching their answer to R. B. his retortions about an evidence [...]shall be examined in the next section.

In pag. 60. they tell, that we assign them at last some shaddows of evi­dences, namely first, our own declaration. 2. the Scriptures. 3. the imme­diat testimony of the Spirit. But that these are not shaddows, will appear to the judicious and well disposed, if they consider these two things 1. That by our declaration we mean not a bare verball declaration, having no virtue or manifestation of life in it, for we confess, such might be as good a ground for a heretick in way of evidence, but by our declaration, [Page 9] we mean such a declaration as doth really proceed from the spirit of God in us, and is therefore a living declaration having a manifestaaion of life in it, and with it, and which is not only in words of life, or living words uttered through us from the spirit of life, but also in works of life or living works, which are the fruits of the spirit, as said Christ, by their fruits shall ye know them. Now such a declaration, can no Heretick have, however he may pretend to it. If our adversaries say, that we only pretend to such a thing. We answer them with their own rule, Affirmanti incumbit proba­tio. i. e. The affirmer ought to prove. Let them prove us only to be pre­tenders, which yet they have not done, nor can do; and indeed such a de­claration from the Spirit of God in the Apostles, as when John said, we are of God, &c. was an evidence that no heretick could justly pretend to; 2. it is a most unjust and unreasonable thing to require of us any other evidence of our having the spirit, then that which every true Christian may and ought to give, seing we pretend to no other spirit, but that which every true Christian hath, nor to any revelations, but these, which are the priviledges of all true Christians, nor to any doctrines, which are not conform to the Scriptures of Truth, as we are ready to prove, and as G K. hath already shewed in his book Immediat Revelation, which neither the Students nor their Masters have given us any refutation of. Now have not all good Christians, these three evidences for them? and we can prove by the help of the Lord that they are as applicable to us, as to any upon earth: and here note, that when we say the Scripture is the best outward evi­dence, that can be given, we mean it not as a particular evidence, but as a generall common to all good Christians, for we grant that the Scripture cannot prove that any particular man hath the Spirit of God in such a way as true Christians have it, but it proves in generall, that all true Christians have it, yea and all men to convince them at least.

In pag. 61, 62. They reject the Scriptures testimony as an evidence to us, because according to us the Scriptures testimony hath no evidence with­out the Spirit. In answer to which we say. But it hath an evidence with the spirit, his inward evidence going along with it, which inward evidence, we say, doth go along with it, sufficiently to convince every well disposed intellect. And this we can prove from the Scriptures testimony. Nor is this to commit an unlawfull circle, as they foolishly alledge, which is but an old threed-bare alledgance of Papists against the Protestants, as Turn­bull alledged on Paraeus, that he proved the spirit by the Scripture, [Page 10] and the Scripture by the Spirit. Some Protestants in our dayes do mi­serably seek to extricat themselves of that circle, that they know the spirit by the Scriptures objectively, and they know the Scriptures by the spirit effectively, and so indeed they get free of the circle, as not being, in eodem genere, i. e. in the same kind. But they affirm a gross untruth that the spirits influence, is only effective and ex parte subjecti, whereas we know it is objective, and can prove both from Scripture and primitive Pro­testants, see G. K. his book of immediat Revelation, and Quakerism no po­pery. Where the same is at length proved. But we have a most clear way to extricat our selves of that circle imposed on us by Papists and these Stu­dents, to wit, that we know the Scriptures testimony by the spirit tanquam à priori, as we know the effect by the cause, and we know the Spirits testi­mony by the Scriptures, tanquam à posteriori, as we know the cause by the effect, and so both are objective, and yet in a divers kind, because the ob­jective evidence of the spirit is a self evidence and primary, the objective evidence of the Scripture is but derived and secondary.

In their answer to G. K. his retortion from the practice of Christ, who though his own immediat testimony was to be received, referred them unto the testimony of the Scriptures. They most miserably betake themselves to their old trade of affirming things without any proof, and yet on the proof of these things the whole stresse of their answer lyeth, as 1. They say, the Iews rejected only the outward immediat testimony of Christ. How­ever dare they say, but that the outward immediat testimony of Christ was to be believed? and yet he referred them unto the testimony of the Scriptures. 2. They say, they have no such testimony themselves as the in­ward objective testimony of the spirit. 3. They say, according to Christ, the Scriptures were the rule, meaning the primary rule, and so, they set the Scripture above Christ, his own immediat outward testimony, a most gross disorder. All which we reject as meer affirmations without any proof. Their insinuation that G. K. acteth the part of a cunning sophist, when he spoke these words repeated by them, pag. 4. is no less without any reall proof, for it is a truth, that no Scripture truth can be savingly believed but by the illumination of the spirit, which is objective.

In paragraph 28. they think to evade G. K. his argument, that we have inspiration, because all men have it, that then Papists, Mahumetans, Pa­gans and men bodily possessed have inspiration, which we do affirm, viz. that these have it so far as to convince them, and is sufficient to be a law [Page 11] of condemnation, and render them without excuse for their sin, and this all men have, not only within their day, but after their day of visitation is expired. But as to their imposed glosses and senses, which they say their divines have already vindicated on these Scriptures cited by G. K. for uni­versall grace and inspiration, as they refer us to their Divines, so we refer them to our friends and our books, where their silly and weak reasons are answered against this gospell truth. As for the word EVERY we ac­knowledge it is not taken alwayes universally, but seing it is taken so most frequently, it lieth on them to prove that it is otherwise taken in the places cited.

Before we close the answer to this subsection, we propose further unto the Reader these two Considerations. 1. That when we say, inward di­vine revelations in the seed are self evident, we do not mean it alwayes in respect of the materiall objects, of things revealed, but in respect of the formall object, or revelation it self. 2. Although we affirm that the illu­mination and influence of the spirit, in mens hearts, is both effective and objective, yet we do not affirm that they are two distinct things, but one and the same thing under different respects; so that we do not plead for another influence, then that which in words they seem to grant, but we say, it is a more excellent thing then they acknowledge it to be, as being in it self perceptible and having a self evidence, whereas they will have it only a medium incognitum, a thing altogether undiscernible and inevident of it self, so as to convince or satisfie the understanding that it is of God. And thus according to our adversaries sense, and upon their principle, this inward illumination of the spirit may be said to be fallacious, for want of evidence, seing according to their own argument that which hath not a suf­ficient evidence is fallacious.

But whereas the Students in their account grant in words, that the soul hath spirituall sensations and that the work of grace may be felt, this confes­sion destroyeth their wholl superstructure; for if the work of grace can be felt or is perceptible then it is objective, for whatever is perceptible is ob­jective, ad seing they grant that the soul hath spirituall sensations, we ask them, what are the objects of the sensations? Are they only words and letters, or things such as God himself in his heavenly refreshings, water­ings and bedewings, if the first, it is most unreasonable, for it would make the spirituall senses to fall short of the naturall, seing the naturall senses reach beyond words to naturall things themselves, if the second, they must [Page 12] needs with us acknowledge inward objective revelations, for by them we understand no other thing but as God, and the things of His Kingdom are felt in us by way of object.

SECTION SECOND.

THere hath enough been said heretofore to demonstrat the fal­lacies in the form of their arguments in which also it resembled the Iesuits, which to avoid repetition we shall now omit. Their medium against us, is, that we cannot give an evidence of our being led by the spirit, but that which may be as good an evidence for Here­ticks, for thus they word it in their account, alledging we wronged them, in saying, they used the words, which Hereticks may pretend to, yet abstracting from this false charge, we shall take is as they now express it, being indeed equivalent. To prove that it may be as good an evidence for hereticks, they make I. L. argue thus, other Hereticks declare and say, they have the Spirit of God, teaching them as well as you. Therefore, if your saying you were so taught, were a sufficient evidence, &c. Then their declaring, &c. Now let the Reader judge, whether this argument amounts to any thing more, then that, that is not a sufficient evidence to the Q. which other Hereticks may pretend to. Thus the Students dispute against the Q. let us hear how the Jesuit disputes against I. M. their Master Pap. Lucif [...]g. pag. 3. after the Jesuit hath repeated his argument, he adds, ‘May it please the answerer of this syllogism to remember that the ground or principle, which he shall produce to prove the truth of his religion must have this property, that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a false religion as the grounds and principles that one produceth to prove that he is an honest man must have this property, that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a knave to be an honest man. &c.’ Let the judicious Reader consider whether there be any materiall difference betwixt these [Page 13] two argumentations. But to proceed and shew that their arguments are no better then the Jesuits against their Master, and our answers no worse, then their Masters against the Jesuit; we shall place them together,

And when they write next, let them shew the difference, which they have not yet done.

In answer to this Retortion, they alledge pag. 67. That R. B. said their master, [...]o. M would not assign the Iesuit a ground, to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion, and therefore, say they, R. Bs. practices agree exactly with the Iusuits Moralls, and gives an egregious specimen of his Iesucticall hones [...]y, which makes us suspect him to be a Iesuited emissary. This is a [...] disproved by their own account, where pag. 8. upon this occsion, They confess R. B. said only that their master desired the Iesuit to prove that the Protestant Religion had no ground for it. Will they deny this, let them read the very first four lines of their masters first answer to the Jesuits paper pag. 3. and they will find he put the Jesuit to prove his Minor, which was, that the Protestant Religion had no such ground. As [Page 14] it doth not therefore follow that I. M assigned not afterwards a ground; so neither will R. B. his repeating this, infer that he said, he did not assign such a ground. Yea in contradiction to themselves pag. 60. They acknow­ledge he told, their master named the Scripture as a ground, &c. So it is manifest they have given here a specimen of their Iesuiticall honesty, and because they could not answer, they forged lyes to fill up the paper, and things not to the purpose as pag. 57. where offering to reply to this retor­tion, they say: But for answer it is well known R. B. was brought up in a Popish Colledge, & it is thought by many that he is a Iesuited emissary, &c. Is not this a pungent answer? Reader, R. B. was educated in a popish colledge; ergo, say the Students, our answer is not that which the Iesuit used against our master. It seems the Students are offended that R. B. hath forsaken popery, or otherwise their charging him with his education must be very imperti­nent, as indeed it is no less foolish, then if we should upbraid Luther, Cal­vin and all the first Reformers as Papists, for being so educated, and though it is no wonder their folly and malice led them into this imperti­nency, yet it might have been expected that their gratitude to the Bishop of Edinburgh, who was pleased to permitt their book to be printed, might have hindered them from this folly, seing he was educated in the same Popish Colledge R. B. was, and owes some of his Philosophy to it, wheras R. B. learned only there a litle grammar, and came thence in his 15 Year, but the Bishop was there professing popery in his more mature age. So if this reflect any thing upon R. B. it will much more against the Bishop, which they will do well to clear, and be sure not to omitt, when they write next, or else acknowledge their impertinency herein. It seems they wanted strength of reason, to evite the retortion, which makes them thus rove, offering also to prove that their master did assigne a ground, which was never denyed and that he was defendent, so was R. B. also. what is that to the purpose, unlesse to make the retortion the stronger, and show they cannot get by it? but pag. 60. They say, that wheras the Iesuit pressed their master that hereticks did say, their Religion was con­forme to the Scripture, as well as he, and so the Scripture was no peculiar ground for him, more then for hereticks. They say their master answered, That it was not a pretended, but reall conformity unto the Scripture, that demonstrats a true Religion, &c. and upon this they inquire, what follo­wes, alledging they argued from being as good and not pretending, and so fall a railling, saying, that the light of our Consciences is ecclipsed by a new [Page 15] found light, and that we misrepresent them malitiously. This railing is for want of better reasoning, but seing they are so blind as not to see, whe­ther they will see it or not, wee shall tell them, and, wee hope, let the Reader see, what followes here from. Jo. Meinzies the Students master saith to the Jesuit, it is not enough that hereticks say the Scripture is a ground for their Religion, unlesse it really be so, and that other Hereticks saying so doth not inferre, that it is as litle a ground for his owne (to witt J. Ms.) Religion. Very well! The Quakers tell the Students, That it is not enough that hereticks declare they have the Spirit, unlesse it be really so, and their saying, they have it, while they have it not, doth not inferre, that our saying we have it, is as litle a ground for us. Who but such as are as childish as the Students, will affirme, there is here any diffe­rence? But further, they confound most ignor antly the Internall testi­mony of the spirit with the declaration of having the spirit, which are two different things. It was incumbent upon them to have proven that the internall testimony of the spirit is as good an evidence for Hereticks, as for us, which they have not offered to do; next, they have not proved that the declaration of Hereticks is as good as ours, neither can they un­less they can prove ours to be false, which they neither have nor can do. But they have egregiously falne in that in convenience, they would fix upon us, pag. 58. 59. where in answering R. Bs. retortion, shewing them, that if mens being deceived, contradicting themselves, or one another, who say the spirit is the rule, did infer the spirit not to be a certain rule, then mens being deceived, contradicting themselves and one another, who say the Scripture is the rule, would the same way infer that the Scripture is not the rule. Here they are miserably put to it, and therefore not ashamed to de­ny that they plead not against the spirits being a rule, for these Causes. The contrary for which is known to all that are acquainted with these contro­versies, & for example, let them read their so much applauded W. Mitchell his Dialogue and his sober answer, so called, where he makes this the chief cause, yea themselves for the same reason within two pages to wit pag. 60. and 61. plead against the teaching of the spirit, affirming that But besides, will not their Masters answer above mentioned meet well with them here, that since these sects and saincts, did as both they and the Q. confess but pretend to the spirit, that because they did but pretend therefore the Q. do but pretend also, no more then because some hereticks do pretend their religion is conform to the Scripture, therefore I. M. doth so too. because the Georgians, Fa­milists and pretend­ed Saints as Francis and Loyola, &c. pre­tended the inward [Page 16] teaching of the spirit, and had an outward show of godliness, therefore the spirits teaching to deny ungodliness is as good an evidence for them as for the Q. Who but the Students would run themselves into such miserable con­dictions? but to give the Reader an evident demonstration of the Stu­dents gift of contradicting themselves, take one here in their own words, they say this above mentioned retortion doth not meet their argument, why? do we conclude that the spirit is not the rule of faith, because they cannot give an evidence which will actually convince, that they are led by the spirit, no such thing, compare this with 1. Ls. medium of his second argument, where he undertaketh to prove that the spirit is not the rule of faith, (as it is ex­pressed by themselves) because there can be no evidence given of it in the world, but if they think to creep out here, that there may be evidences given, though not such as do actually convince, because of the want of: subjective evidence, or disposition of the mind, as they afterwards add, and that we can give no evidence, of this last sort, it remains then for them to prove that their minds are well disposed, seing they are the Opponents, and we the meer Defendents, and that the evidences assigned by us, or such as are not manifest even to the well disposed, and yet to go round, pag. 59. paragraph. 19. They account this of the well disposed mina ridicu­lous, though it was the best answer their Master could give the Iesuit in the like case, as above is shown, but thou may perhaps judge Reader, that these that are so nice and scrupulous in receiving evidences from others, would give some very solid ones for their own rule; when pressed the same way to give us an evidence, that they have the Scripture to be their rule from God, and that they have the true sense of it. Take then notice of them here Reader, and see how satisfactory their answer is Now (say the Students pag. 59.) The solution is easy, for they who make the Scripture their principall rule are either our Churches, or they are Sects dissenting from us. If the first, have not our divines frequently proved both from the intrinsick characters of Divinity that appear in the Scriptures themselves, and also from the outward motives of credibility, that we have these Scripturall re­velations from God? and have they not often assigned sufficient objective evidences and proofs of the senses of the Scriptures taught by our churches as to every point controverted by us, and all Sects whatsoever, so that dissen­ters remain unconvinced for want of subjective evidence and disposition of mind; and really ought to believe us teaching such senses of Scripture, &c. Is not this rarely wel solved? do the Students give any better evidence for [Page 17] all this, then their own declaration, and is not this (according to them­selves) as good for other Hereticks as for them? is it not strange with what confidence they should print such stuff? Besides as to the first part of it, it is manifestly false, for Calvin the chiefest of their Divines, hath in plain words asserted.

That all the objective evidences & motives of credibility are not suffici­ent to establish the Conscience in the beliefe of the Scripturs certainly, & that therunto is necessary the secret and inward testimony of the Spirit, yea that the same Spirit that was in the Prophets and Apostles enter into the heart &c. So say all the publick confessions of the Protestants abroad, and seing of this according to the Students ther can be no objective evi­dences in the world given, then neither can there of the Scripture, which they confesse is their rule. So the Reader may see that their work is like the vipers brood, that destroyeth it selfe; & tends to overturne the certainty of all Christian religion, landing in Scepticisme, which be­caus they can not shun, they end their section in vaine boasting & rail­ing, saying, pag. 77. they provoke all the Papists & Qu. of the world to argue against them so, if they can. Here are high words indeed, but seing they are so busy in boasting we accept the Challenge & offer us to prove before as publick an auditory, as the last Dispute was, that their arguments against the Q. are no better then the Iesuits against their mas­ter. And here to conclude, they adde, Let the Reader therfore judge, whether railing Robin shewes forth more of an asses then of a vipers nature, where he brands our argument with the black mark of Popery. Well! wee leave to the Readers judgment, who also may judge, if this be not rail­ing, and if the Students, who talk at this rate, be to be trusted in their Preface, saying that they have abstained from all personall criminations, and have not rendered evil for evil, and what may be thought of men that are not ashamed thus to belye themselves.

SECTION THIRD.

FIrst, They say, They might argue that the Q. have not revelations from the Spirit, becaus of their mad & impious practices, and then they turne this assertiou into a question, asking, have not the Q. committed such practices, saying they were commanded by the Spirit? And for this they referre the Reader to severall bookes writ against the Q. by their declared adversaries: which signifie nothing unlesse they will prove that these men spake Truth, which they neither have, nor can do, and so are no more valued by us, then Cochleus lyes against Luther. But to confirme this, They place at large a citation out of H. More, whom they say, the Q. have reported to be a Quaker. This is a false calumny, which they are dared to prove. That H. More hath in a letter to G. K. owned some of the Q. principles, is true, as particular­ly that of immediat objective Revelation, called by them the head of the Monster, and that the seed is a substance, which they count one of the Q. grand errours. As for that citation of H. More, he wrot it upon trust, and was not an eye-witness of these things, and it recurrs upon him and them to prove the things true. The story there mentioned of I. N. seing it was at that very time disowned by the Q. and since condemned by himself; militats nothing against us, no more then other horrid things, yea that (which in the Students own esteem) is down right treason, being done by some of the chief of their Ministry, as commanded by the Scripture, doth against them. In conclusion they give a proverb used by Will. Dundas, in a book of his, as a further instance, which they call a bundle of ridi­culous and non-sensicall expressions. But will they deny but the Presby­terian Generall assembly of which W. Dundas so writs, was a mingle mangle of omni-gatherums, particularly that assembly that excommuni­cated and gave to the devil B. Spotswood, and these other called reverend Prelats of the Church the Students own, or let the Students tell us, [Page 19] whether in their esteem they deserve a better designation. Now that to use proverbs in things written even from the spirit of truth, is no incon­sistency, let them read Tit. 1. 12. evill beasts, slow bellyes, 2 Pet. 2. 22, the dog is returned, &c. and the sow to the puddle. But to procced, they offer to prove, the spirit in the Q. not to be the Spirit of God, becaus it teaches doctrines, contrary to the Scriptures. Their first instance of this, is, the Q. denying the necessity of the continuance of the use of Bread and Wine, as an Ordinance in the Church, which they alledge pag. 67. is commanded Matth. 26. 26. Mark. 14. 21. Luk. 22. 19. But the Students may look over these places, and find if they can any thing in the first two of Matth. and Mark like a command, but only a meer narrative of the matter of fact. in that of Luk, these words are added, do this in remembrance of me. They procced to prove that this is not ceased, of its own nature, carping at these words of R. B. (in his first answer to W. M. pag. 54, 55.) where he saith, the very institution intimats the abolishing thereof at Christs coming, insinuating as if he had mistaken himself, for his words (say they) allude to Pauls 1 Cor. 11. and not to Christs, but while they take a liberty to judge of his thoughts, they do but shew their own forwardness to mistake; for either these words of Christs in Luke above mentioned, do import, they should do that in remembrance of him untill he came, or they do not, if they do not, the Students give away their own cause. If they do, then he might allude to that, as being there included, though not expressed.

They urge, the coming of Christ mentioned, must be his coming to judge­ment, because these to whom Christ was come in Spirit do use it, but this proves not, that they then practiced it by way of necessary duty, more then their practicing other things, which our Adversaries themselves do acknowledge do not continue, nor are not binding. But they proceed pag. 69. to prove it commanded since, from the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. And to prove that this was not a meer narrative of a matter of fact (as we truly affirm) but a command, they affirm first. That he often gives the title of the Lords Supper to it, even as received by those Corinthians. For answer, the Students must needs be like themselves, and as they often be­lyed us, so they use the Apostle the same way, for not only in this Chapter or Epistle, but in all Pauls Epistles, these words (the Lords Supper are on­ly once mentioned, so not often. Secondly, vers 20. where he useth thei [...] words, thus, When ye come together therefore into one place, this is [...] to eat [Page 20] the Lords Supper, it is so far from making for them, that it makes clear­ly against them, for the Apostle clearly here asserts that the Corinthians in their useing of bread and wine did not eat the Lords Supper, he sayes not they did not eat it, as they ought. Secondly they urge, that the Apostle received of the Lord a com­mand to take, eat, do this. This is strongly alledged, And the Sy [...]iack coppy hath not in that 20. ver. nor els­where, these words the Lords Supper at all, but in lieu of it, when then ye meet together not as ye ought to do in the day of the Lord. but we deny it, and let them prove it, for proof, they give none, unless we may take an example for a proof in which they beg the question, for unless that alledged minion of the King should tell these citizens he came to, that he had received order to command them to obey the decree repeated by him, the example sayes nothing; but that the Apostle has signified any such thing to us we deny, & it remains for them to prove.

Thirdly, they alledge, that since the Apostle reproves them for abuses in the use of this, and to rectifie those, brings them back, to the institution, the duty of receiving it, may be much more concluded from the same institu­tion. Answer, this is their bare affirmation, the abuses committed in practicing a ceremony may be regulated by telling the proper rise, use and end of it, and yet the using it may not be an absolute duty, the Apostle sayes how those that observe dayes, ought to do it to the Lord, it will not therefore follow, that the observation of dayes, is a duty incumbent upon all, yea the Apostle in that place expresly asserts the contrary. Their fourth reason is yet more ridiculous, the Apostle insinuates that it is a duty, because of the first word FOR that which I have, &c. Who but the Stu­dents would argue at this rate? such kind of reasons serve to shew their folly not to confirm their opinions, as do these that follow with their old example of the Kings minion. In all which they miserably begg the question, taking for granted that it is a standing statut, which is the thing remains to them yet to prove. In the end of this page they desire to join the word OFTEN, which say they, evidenceth it was a practice to be con­tinued in. And here they insult, because that R. B. in answer to W. M. ar­guing thus from this word Often, did reply, that thence it would not fol­low, that as often as a man sins he oftends God, did import, we should sin often; here they say R. B. egregiously shows his folly and impiety, because they never did argue from the word OFTEN precisely, but their brother W. M. to whom he then answered, did precisely argue from it, whose express [Page 21] words in his pretended sober answer are pag. 92. it may be observed that the Corinthians were to be often in the use of it, because it is said, as often as yee eat, &c. So since he argued from the word often, his answer was proper, nor have they brought any thing to weaken it. And whereas they add, who will say, that ever sin was institutedly God? R. B. never said so, but yet, that weakens not his retortion, nor strengthens their ar­gument, from the word often as may appear in a thing truly instituted by God and yet lawfull, else as often as a man marrieth, he is bound to his wife might be said to import, that it were a duty incumbent upon men to marry, often or unlawfull to forbear. Their fifth reason is, because the Apostle prescribes the right method of usieng it, for they alledge, if it had been indifferent, he would have rather forbidden it as useless, &c. This is no argument, but their bare conjecture, in which they would be wiser then the Apostle, and we have answered it before, shewing the Apostle gives rules to rectifie the observation of dayes, which yet imports not a duty to observe them. Their last and chiefest reason is, as they say, the A­posils expresse command for it, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, the Students affirm, (and do but affirm) that to say, this is only a per­mission is a desperat shift, let us hear how they prove it. Let a man exa­mine himself, this is without doubt a command, therefore let him eat must be a command also, we deny this consequence, and it remains for them to prove it, and though this were enough in strictness, yet we shall give a reason of our deny all: because their proposition (whatever it may be do in some cases) holds not universally true, as to instance from an example or two, let a man marry [...] the Lord, and so let him mary. The first is a command here, but not the second, let a man speak in religious things as the oracle of God, and so let him speak. The first is a command, but not the second, many more might be named, which import only a conditio­nall command, not that there is a necessity upon all to marry, or upon all to preach, but if a man marry let him do it in the Lord, and if a man preach, let him do it as the Oracle of God. Also see a most plain example of this Rev. 22. 11. he that is filthy let him be filthy still, and he that is just, let him be just still, they are both in the imperative mood, yet the one is a duty, the other but a permission not morall and positive, but physicall and negative; so if a man partake of the ceremony of bread and wine, let him examine himself, seing then their proposition holds not universally true, it remains for them to prove that in this particular place it is so.

[Page 22] They bestow their 34. paragraph pag. 70, 71. to no purpose, in missing the controversy, for whatever we understand by the substance, which whoso enjoyeth needs not the shaddow. We do not deny but these that had the substance made use of the shaddow at times, for Paul purified him­self according to the Law of Moses, after he had been long an Apostle, but the question is, whether that oblige us now. This the Students have forgott to prove, and will do well to advert to it when they publish their next volumne, omitting needlesse homilies not to the purpose. And thus we hope the Reader may see, that the things we bring to prove this cere­mony is ceased, are not shaddowes; but rather, that what they bring to confirme it, is nothing but shaddowes.

Pag. 71. They go about to answer an argument used by R. B. against this ceremony, drawn from the Apostls words 1 Cor. 16: 16. in his first answer to W. M. p: 54. where he shews that since the bread is but one, which must needs be the inward; the outward must be ceased, and to this they answer, saying, the true & genuine sense of the place, is, to go [...] as they were dictating, & not disputing without adding any probatiou. But secondly they proceed, saying, that seing the one bread is the saints, though the Apostles were truely this one bread, yet Christ instituted his supper, without any contradiction, or making them not one bread. For answer, were that practice of Christ, of the nature they would have it, then should they say some thing, but while they suppose it so, and argu [...] from it, they do but begg the thing in controversie, for the Apost­les both then and after that time used many legall and typicall observa­tions, and yet they would argue ill, that would inferre from thence becaus they did so, and that without contradiction to their being Chri­stians and under the Gospel dispensation, we ought to do so too, as for that bread spoken by the Apostles in the 16 and 17 verses we acknowled­ge it to be the Spirituall bread, to wit, the Spirituall body of Christ, of which the saints feed, which makes them one, and is one with them as the Apostle himselfe wordeth it. ver. 17. Now what signifieth all this to prove that the outward bread is the one bread? Hear how the Students evince it but Thirdly wee say That the one bread spoken of ver. 17. is both the out­ward and the inward bread, yet but one Sacramentally, and is not this ra­rely well argued, we the Students say so: as to the reason afterwards insi­nuated as Christ saith of the bread that it is his body, they should have showne how it followes. Christ, as Protestants well argue against Papists, [Page 23] calls himself a door, a Rock, &c. what then? is Christ and a Rock one, Christ and a door one door? Let them shew us, if they can, in all the N. T. so much as one word of this sigment of a Sacramentall or symbolicall union. and wheras upon this occasion R. B. argued in his Truth cleared of Calum­nies Pag. 54. that if the outward bread were to be called the one bread, as signifying it, The sacrifices of the Law might be called one, with the one offering of Christ mentioned, Hebr. 10: 14 and so continued, This they say signifies nothing becaus these are abrogated: then untill they prove this continues by vertue of a Gospell command, which they have not as yet done, the same reason will hold against it.

To another Reason given of the discontinuance of this ceremony, from Gal. 2: 16. Let no man judg you in meats, or drinks, They say first, that then it had not been lawfull for the Apostle, to have reprehended the Corinthians for the abuses in this matter; This is a poor shift indeed, though they should not have been reprehended for laying it aside altogether, yet seing they used it as a religious duty, they might well be reprehended, if they did it not religiously. Secondly, They say, that then gluttony &c. ought not to be reproved, & that the Q. ere they misse to pull down Christs ordinance will make way for gluttony & drunkennesse. Answer, Here is but a silly malitious reflexion in stead of a reason, The Apostle is speaking here, as the St. themselves afterwards acknowledge, of meats & drinks used in religious acts, & if the proposition hold true in this respect, it will answer the end, & not of naturall eating &c. Thirdly, They say, It must only be understood of the Legall ceremonyes, becaus of the 14 verse, asking if the Lords supper was contrary unto us, or was nailed to the Crosse? what then? The Students are over hastie & should have looked to the 21 & 22. verses, Touch not, tast not, handle not, which all are to perish with the useing; & do not bread & wine which perish in the useing, & are therefore here included; as for the absurdity insinuated by them, how could that be nailed to the crosse, that was but instituted two dayes before? will they say that abstaining from things strangled, & from blood was nailed to the crosse which was commanded long after Christ was crucified? And yet some of their Divines (as they call them) use this Scripture for a repeale of it.

Their second charge against the Q. and to prove they are not led by the Spirit, is becaus they assert a possibility of not sinning upon earth which they say, is expresly contrary to the Scripture, as first to Isaiah 64: 6 we [Page 24] are all an unclean thing. All our righteousness are as filthy raggs. But they should have proven that the Prophet speakes here not only of the Legall righteousnesse of the Iewes, but even of the righteousnesse wrought by Christ in the regenerate under the Gospell, which they have not so much as attempted to do and therefore prove nothing, yea the chiefest of their Divines as Calvin, Musculus, Corretus deny this place to be understood of the rightousnesse of the Saints under the gospell, but only of the legall righteousnesse of the Iewes, whom we leave them to refute or reconile themselves to, and procced to their second argument, from the words of the Prayer, Forgive us our sins, but men may pray for forgivenesse of sins past, though they sin not daily, and this is the thing in question; like­wise this argument drawn from these words, doth militat no lesse against perfect justification, then it doth against perfect sanctification, as G. K. hath at more length in his Quakerism no Popery in answer to their master J. M. Pag. 41. They argue from the words of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 7. 18. 20 &c. To will is present with me &c. but they should have proven that the Apostle wrote of his own present condition, and not as person­ating the condition of others, for the Apostle in the same 7 chap. ver. 14. saith of himself, but I am carnall, sold under sin but who will say that the Apostle as to his own present condition was then carnall? or if he was, was there no spirituall men then? or was he none of them. But fourthly they urgee 1 Jo. 1: 8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive our selve &c. and here they are offended R. B. should say this is conditionall, like the 6 verse, which they confesse is so, for, say they, at the same rate he might alledge all the rest of the verses of the epistle to be conditionall, but if it referre, or allude particularly to the 6. ver. the reason will hold as to it, though not of the rest, that both they and the rest of the verses of this chapter do allude to the fifth, the supposition if so often repeated, doth shew, they are angry that R. B. should alledge WE here doth not in­clude John more, then the Apostle James 3. 9. with the tongue curse we men, doth include James. For first the Students will have James here in­cluded, alledging it is spoken of excommunication, and here they take occasion to upbraid R. B. with ignorance, in ecclesiasticall discipline, but surely they have been either dreaming or doting when they so wrot, for hade they read the following verse they might have observed the Apostle condemning this cursing, saying, these things ought not so to be, and we suppose they judge not their Ecclesiasticall discipline to be unlawfull; but [Page 25] being it seems ashamed of this shift, they give another interpretation which destroyeth their owne cause, alledging James might have understood it of himselfe, before his conversion, while perhaps he was a curser. Very well, then let them give us a reason, why the Apostle John might not also have understood If we say &c. of himselfe also before his convesion; but are not these, thinkest thou Reader, learned Divines, who to evite the strength of a Scripture, give it within the compasse of one page two con­tradictory expositions, affirming them both, and yet if the one be true, the other must be false; and then can shake them both off, alledging, they may render the word by way of interrogation, and do we therefore curse men? Are not these rare interpreters, becaus the Apostle useth an interrogation elsewhere in this chapter, therefor this may be so done also, but what then becometh of their church discipline and other interpretati­on? These must be shutt out of dores. Are not these like to be stable preachers, who give three different interpretations to one text; if any one of which be true, the other two can not be admitted? It seems these young men think to make a quick trade of the Bible, cauponari verbum Dei, who can thus play fast & loose with it at pleasure. But to proceed, they alledge Ecclesiast. 7: 20. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not; this argument is built upon an errour of the trans­lation; it should be translated, who may not sin, qui non peccet, so Iunius and Tremellius, Vatablus, the vulgar Latine, and almost all the Interpre­ters have it, and our English translation Psal. 119. ver. 11. translateth. the same Hebrew word so, being in the same tense, which is the second fu­ture: I have hid thy word in my heart, that I may not sinn against thee. A second place Ja. 3. 2. In many things we offend all, what then? it followeth not thence that we offend at all times, or we can never but offend, which is the thing under debate; but to conclude, they confess, we have other exceptions, which themselves, it seems, take no notice of, because, they are solidly refuted by their Divines, and therefore (say the Stud.) the Q. herein teach a doctrine contrary to the revelations of Gods Spirit in the Scriptures. Answ. A quick way to dispatch controversies indeed, if it could hold, but at present it may serve to shew the St. folly, not to refute our principles, if their Divines have already done the business so solidly, might not they have spared their labour, which some of their own think had been their wisdome.

Their third instance against the Q. is pag. 74. their allowing of women [Page 26] to preach, alledging it is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. Let your women keep silence, &c. and 1 Tim. 2. 12. Let the woman learn in silence, &c. Here to begin like themselves, they say G. K. is too much addicted to women, but they are dared if they can to produce any reall ground for this malitious insinuation G. K. besides the testimony of a good conscience hath the testimony of hundreds, who have known his manner of life and conversation from his childhood to this day, that it hath been honest and of good report, so that he feareth not, that the lying reports, which the malice of his adversaries may raise, can hurt him, yet these are men that solemnely professe they have abstained from personall Criminations, but seing they have belyed the Apostle Paul, as is above observed, G. K. may take it patiently to be treated at this rate by men of such circumstances, but if they think to inferre it, because G. K. doth plead for the liberty and priviledge of women, they might as well plead, that G. K. is too much ad­dicted to a perfect holiness, because he doth plead for it, or that the Stu­dents are too much addicted to sin, since they plead for the continuance of it for term of life. They are little lesse then inraged, that G. K should have alledged the testimony of Augustine and Bernard interpreting this place of the flesh, and therefore they labour like men in a sweat, for a whole page against this to no purpose, the only reason of G. Ks. citing them, being because some of their preachers cryed out against this alle­gory, as a horrid abusive thing in some Q. to shew them it, is none of the Q. coining, but already used by men by themselves applauded and com­mended, upon this they ask, have not some of our Antagonists been ob­served to make a Welshmans hose of the first chapter of Genesis, if they mean us, let them prove we have so done, as we have already proved, they have used the Apostle James with their three faced interpretatian, and again they ask, have not some Q. been bold to aver, that there was never any such reall tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evill, if they have, let them instance and prove by whom it was spoken, and writ and then they shall have an answer. As they proceed they give an egregious specimen of their folly, alledging, that if it did hold, (as G. K. affirms) that women are not allowed to speak by permission, then à fortiori, it is unlawfull for them to speak by commandement. Who but the Students would talk at this rate, as if a commandment might not authorize a man to do that, which a bare permission will not. G. Ks. arguments drawn from their own allowing whores to speak, and women to sing, they call quibles, because they can [Page 27] not answer, which they reply to only by questions, do they allow whores authoritative preaching, affirming women may sing? Very well, whether it be authoritative or not, whatsoever way they speak, they keep not si­lence, and so the Apostls words are not taken strictly, and literally, which gaines us the cause, and shewes our doctrin is no more directly against the Apostls words then their own, besides from this it followeth by the Stu­dents confession, that women may as lawfully speak in the Church, as the licentiat Students, whom the Presbytery permits to speak in the Church, before they are ordained, they passe our chief objection very overly, drawne from 1 Cor. 11. 5. where the Apostle gives direct rules how wo­men should behave themselves in their publick praying and preaching, alledging there are rules given in Scripture concerning things, that were ne­ver lawfull, but only permitted, &c. as of polygamie under the law, but they should have remembred that these are rules given by the Apostle, to the Christian Church of Corinth, and seing the Students suppose that the Apostle gave directions to the Church of Corinth not only of things that belong not to them now, but which are not lawfull for them (a doctrine we question if their Masters will approve of, or of the consequence of which themselves are aware) it remains for them to prove that these two rules forbidding womens speaking belongs to us, or is not of the number of these uselesse rules, more then that other concerning the manner of their preaching. So we hope this solution is impugned, and desire they may be sure not to forget to bring us this reason, when they write next.

SECTION FOURTH.

IN their stating the controversy, they say, these inward revelations are not subjective revelations, or divine illuminations. This is false, for as we have above shewed, one and the same illumination, that is effective or subjective is also objective, and the objective is effective. Again they say, the question is not, if immediat objective revelations be possible, or be sometimes made to some de facto. This concession will over­throw [Page 28] much of all their own work, for if they admitt that any person in our time hath immediate objective revelations, admitt Peter or John, their former argument will as much militate against this reall immediat objective revelation granted by them, as against those, which they do not grant, seing pag. 7. at the letter A, they say, suppose that the spirit reveall the objects of faith immediatly none will deny, that he is a rule, (or rather ruler) to them who have him so. A good concession, but which quite un­does their own cause, for now let us apply their former argument against this reall objective revelation granted by them, as thus, we ought not to believe that as the rule of faith, of which there can be no evidence given, but there can be no evidence in the world given of the Spirit that is in Peter and Iohn, therefore, &c. Again, if Peter & John say, they can give an evidence of the Spirit of God in them, to wit, their own declaration in life and power, as also the immediat testimony of the Spirit, or the Scriptures testimony, let us apply in the last place their argument used against us, and see if it will not be as good against Peter and John, whom they grant de facto (according to their hypothesis) to have immediat objective revela­tion. The argument is this, that which as really agrees to Enthusiast He­reticks, as to them, can be no evidence, but that evidence, to wit, their own declaration, and saying, that both they and their adversaries have the imme­diat testimony of the Spirit witnessing to the truth of it, would as really agree to Enthusiast Hereticks, therefore, &c. Yea not only might they thus argue against any mens haveing immediat objective revelation in our dayes, but against the Prophets and Apostles having it, seing the argu­ment might every way be as strong, against their having it, as against our having it, especially at such times, as they wrought no outward miracles in the sight of the people, to whom they were sent, as oft they did not. When the Lord sent Jonas to preach to the Ninivites, he wrought no miracle in their sight. Now let us put the Students in the Ninivites place, and we shall find they could argue as stoutly and hardily against Jonas, as now they can do against any Quaker, they could tell him, he could give no evidence of the Spirit of God in him, giving any such message, as for his declaration, it would not suffice, because his saying he had the Spirit would be as good a ground for any other Enthusiast Heretick. But further these stout and hardy warriours could have used these same arguments against the Prophets, when they wrought miracles, for they could have alledged the miracles were not true miracles, but false, and such as may [Page 29] be done by the power of the devil, and so if any could produce miracles now, (as there have been) they would no more be believed, then the un­believing Jewes believed the miracles wrought by Christ and his A­postles. For they still looked upon them to be deceivers. It is clear from Scripture that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, but that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discerne, the one from the other, without Gods immediat direction and teaching. And therefore the preaching of sound doctrine, accompanied with a holy life, is a better evidence of a true Prophet, then all outward miracles what­soever, as Christ said, by their fruits ye shall know them; he doth not say, by their miracles, but by their fruits. Now we are most willing to be tryed by this rule, if both our doctrine, and life and manner of con­versation, be not answerable to that of the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles, then let them say, we have not that spirit, which was in them. But if they can not make out this, they but fight as men beating the aire.

Pag. 80. They argue, that there is no substantiall living principle in man, that is the good seed, because then the evill seed or principle should also be substantiall. But this is absurd, therefore. That this is absurd, they argue, for then it should be created, by God, and so God should be the author of evill and sin, or it should be uncreated, and consequently God. To this we answer. The same argument militats as much and rather more against their own principle, for seing they hold sin, to be somewhat, (whether a substance, or an accident, is all one as to the argument) we argue by a re­tortion against themselves, either it is created, or uncreated, and so the same inconvenience would follow. But to answer directly, we say, sin considered in its formall reason, is rather a privation, then any reall being, as blindness or lameness in a mans body, or corruption in wine, or any o­ther liquor. But if they enquire about the subject of this privation, whe­ther it be a substance. We answer, it is, and it is clear from the Scriptures testimony, that as Christ rules in the Saints, so the devil rules in the wick­ed, and is in them, and as God hath his seed and birth in the Saints, so the devil hath his seed and birth in the wicked, which is of the devils nature. But if it be asked further, whether it is a substance, we answer first, with inquiring at them another question, and retorting the argument upon them, whether the devil is a substance, yea or nay? If yea, either he is created, or uncreated, if created, then God is the author of the devil; if un­created, [Page 30] then he should be God, their own consequence, which is blasphe­my. But 2. the true answer to both is that he who, is, now the devil was crea­ted of God a good Angel, but by his own voluntary fall, he hath reduced himself to be a devil not by any reall creation, but by a degeneration, and as is the devil himself so is his seed, a corrupted, degenerated principle from what it was originally before sin was, but if we take the seed of the devil distinctly, as distinct from himself, we do not say, it is any percipient principle, that seeth or knoweth, &c. for it is rather of the nature of a body, then of a percipient, intelligent spirit, and the Scripture calleth it a body, to wit, the body of death. But whether the seed of sin be a substance, or not, the Students argument is altogether impertinent to argue that be­cause the good seed is a substantiall living principle, &c. then the evill prin­ciple or seed should also be substantiall, living, &c. for the same reasons. We deny this Consequence, for there are greater reasons whereby to prove the one then the other. If they think to argue from the rule of con­traries, they think foolishly, for it would as much follow, that because a man is a substance, who seeth and heareth, &c. that therefore a mans blindness, and deafness, and lameness are also substances, and that blind­nesse seeth, deafnesse heareth, lamenesse walketh. Do they not know, the maxim in Logick that telleth them, substantia substantiae propriè non contrariatur. i. e. one substance properly is not contrary to another. But last of all we may more justly retort this blasphemous consequence upon many of their own church, who hold, that God stirreth up the devil and all wicked men unto all their wicked actions, by an irresistible motion or quality which he infuseth into them, commonly called, praedeterminatio physica. Is not this to make God the author of sin? As also many of them teach that Originall sin is a positive quality, infused into the souls of men at their creation. Concerning which positive quality, we thus argue, either it is crea­ted or uncreated, &c. and so the inconveniences of their argument will fall much more upon their own heads, for they cannot alledge that this posi­tive quality at its first creation was first good, and afterwards became changed into evill, because no quality can admit any such transmutation, as for example, whitnesse can never become blacknesse, nor sweetnesse bitternesse, nor streightnesse crookednesse, although a substance that is white, may loose its whitnesse, and may become black, and that which is sweet may become bitter, and that which is streight become crooked.

In the prosecution of their second argument, they bring their matter [Page 31] to this issue, that G. K. holds the seed it self to be contradistinct from the manifestation, becaus the manifestation is in the feed; but we deny the consequence, doe not they say, that the manifestation of Gods will is in the Scripture, and also that the Scripture it self is the manifestation of Gods will? That G. K. calleth the seed both a substance, and a mani­festation, is as reasonable as to say, there are outward manifestations of Gods goodnesse, power, and wisdome in the heavens, and earth; and yet the heavens and earth are the very outward manifestations them­selves. Are not our meat and drink and cloathing, naturall and outward manifestations of the goodnesse of God to us, and are not these things substances, and doth not God manifest his goodnesse also in them? What blind reasons are these, which those poore blind men bring forth against the truth? Again they argue, that this manifestation (which wee say is a substance) depends not â solo Deo, cannot exist without a subject, nay not without the understanding, to which it is made. All which they bare­ly assert, but do not offer to prove. Again they say, it is but a meer acti­on, and applicatio agentis ad passum. But how do they prove it? here they are as dumb as stones. Perhaps they think to prove it, because manifes­tation, is a nomen verbale, which commonly being derived from the active verb signifieth an action, but this is meerly to play in words, and not to dispute, for they may as well say, because the whole world is called the creation, (for Creation is an active verbale) therefore the whole world is a meer action, or applicatio agentis ad passum. We deny not, but the acti­on, or motion, which proceeds from the Spirit of God, may also be called a manifestation. But we say, the seed it self, is also a manifestation; and those inward heavenly refreshments which God ministers unto the souls of his Saints, are as reall substantiall spirituall manifestations of his good­nesse, as the outward earthly refreshments, to wit meat and drink, are reall substantiall naturall manifestations. Lastly, they query, if the mani­festation be a substance, whether is it one manifestation, or all the mani­festations? To this we answer, they that please to call the action, or mo­tion, (which proceeds from the Spirit of God, an an efficient cause) a ma­nifestation, may easily distingnish manifestation, as it is a principle, or quid permanens, or as it is an action, or quid transiens, now to apply, we say, the substantiall manifestations of God, inwardly to our souls are many, as they are quid permanens, and per modum principii, for as God nourish­eth our outward man, not with bread and drink once only, but often, [Page 32] and many are our outward refreshments, all which are substances, agreeing in this that they are manifestations and pledges of Gods bounty unto us, so doth he nourish our inward man, with spirituall bread and drink not once only, but often, giving us daily the supersubstantiall bread, as the words in the prayer may be translated, and have been by some learned men, and thus we have answered their last argument, in their §. 5. with­out recurring to any idea Platonica, a term they vainly bring in to their argument, to move people to laugh at their folly. And thus we hope it is apparent, that we have no need to retract our answers given in the dispute, as they vainly imagin.

It would be more labour and expence of time and paper, then the thing is worth, to answer them in all their pittifull ridiculous reasonings in these matters, in every particular. Therefore not to weary the Reader, nor mispend time, we shall set down some few clear distinct propositions, which shall clearly answer any seeming difficulties alledged by them in this whole Section, as in relation to Christ.

1. Proposition. The Word, or Son of God, hath the whole intire nature of Man, Spirit, Soul and Body united to him in the Heavens, and he is the same in substance, what he was upon earth, both in Spirit, soul, and body.

2. Christ in us, or the seed, is not a third spirituall nature, distinct from that which was in the man Christ Jesus, that was crucified according to the flesh at Jerusalem, for the same that is in us, was and is in him, and as it is in him, its the fulnesse or spring of the same in us, as the streame, nor is there any difference, but such as is betwixt the spring and the streame, which are one in their nature and substance.

3. We say that the same seed, and life, is in us, which was in him, and is in him, in the fulnesse, as water is in the spring, and in us as the streame, and this seed and spirituall nature which is both in him, and us doth belong to him, as he is the second Adam, or man Christ, therefore this seed being in us, the Man Christ is in us; not according to his whole manhood, but according unto that which is proper unto it, and yet with­out all division, as the naturall life is in all the members, but more princi­pally in the head, and heart, without any division, so this spirituall life and nature is both in Christ our head, and in us, by which he dwelleth in us, as the spirit of man doth in the body; and we eat and partake of his flesh.

[Page 33] 4. 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 Godhead 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.

5. Although the word or [...] should assume into union with it selfe not only two natures, but three, it should not make either two, or three Chists, but one, for they grant that the Word hath assumed two, to wit, the soul and body of the man Christ, and yet he is not two Christs, but one, even as the king is but one king, although he possesse three king­domes, for ad multiplicationem obliquorum non multiplicantur concreta, as your Logick teacheth.

6. The seed and spirituall body of Christ both in him, and in us be­longing to Christ, as he is the second Adam, is as really and immedi­atly united unto the word, as his outward body was, for the wholl man­hood of Christ was united to the Logos, and the Logos to it, and in it, therefore the sufferings of this seed and spirituall body of Christ in us, are as really his sufferings, as these He accomplished at Jerusalem.

7. This seed is not our soules, but is a medium betwixt God and us, and our union with God is but mediat through this, whereas the union of God with this is immediat, Therefor none of us are either Christ, or God, but God and Christ are in us.

8. Seing this seed and spiriuall nature of Christ is one, and the same, both in him, and in us, it is most unreasonable to argue, that there are as many Christs as men, as it is unreasonable to argue, that becaus the soul of man is in all his members, that therefore, as many members as many souls. The element of the aire is but one only element, although it fill the wholl universe, betwixt the stars and the earth. And the element of water, is but one, although it fill many channells.

9. Christ outwardly died but once, but inwardly he dieth in a spirituall and mysticall sense, as often as any crucifie him to themselves by their unfaithfulnesse, and disobedience, as the Scriptures declare.

10. As for the satisfaction of Christ without us, we own it against the Socinians, and that it was full and compleat in its kind, yet not so, as to exclude the reall worth of the work and sufferings of Christ in us, nor his present intercession: for if Christ his intercession without us in heaven, [Page 34] doth not derogate from his satisfaction, but doth fulfill it, no more doth: his intercession and sufferings in us.

11. The sufferings of Christ in men are voluntary, and yet without sin, as his sufferings at Jerusalem were voluntary and without sin, for as he joined not with them, who outwardly crucified him, in any Active way to coucurre with them or countenance them, so nor doth he inwardly joine with men to countenance or concurre with them, when they cru­cifie him, by their sins.

12. As there was no need that the Jewes should have crucified Christ outwardly, so as purposely to sin, that Christ might suffer for sin out­wardly, (although the prophecies of Christs sufferings and Gods fore­knowledge was certaine) so ther is no need that men should now sin to crucifie Christ inwardly, for if there be any difficulty in the one, it re­curres in the other much more. Now, either men sin, or sin not, If they sin, Christ suffers by it; If they sin not, he doth not suffer, (nor is it need­full that he suffer when men sin not) but all men have sinned, and Christ hath suffered for, and by the sins of all, both without and within.

13. Christ's outward sufferings at Jerusalem were necessary unto mens salvation, notwithstanding his inward sufferings, that he might be a compleat Saviour in all respects; for it behoved Christ not only to suf­fer in the members of his body, but also in the head, so that it is a most foolish and unreasonable consequence to argue, that becaus Christ suf­fereth in the members, therefore he needed not to suffer in the head: wheras the sufferings of Christ in the members are but a small part of what he suffered in the head, by being offered up once for all, yet a part they are, as serving to make up the integrall of his sufferings.

14. The doctrines of the incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurre­ction of Christ &c: are necessary every where to be preached, and being preached, to be believed and improved, as being of and belonging unto the integrall parts of Christianity and Christian religion; even as the armes and leggs are integrall parts of a man, without which, though it is possible that a man may be and live, yet he is not a compleat man as to all his parts, even so, though one may be a Christian, and partaker in part of Christianity, and in that state be accepted of God, as is clear in the case of Cornelius, without the expresse knowledge of the outward birth, suf­ferings: &c: of Christ, yet without the same he is not a compleat Christi­an, as wanting the knowledge of that which serveth to the perfection & accomplishment therof.

[Page 35] Before we close this particular, we can not omitt to take notice of two most horrible perversions, committed by the Students sect. 2. The one is pag. 83. where they alledge out of G. K. his book of Immed. Revel. pag. 7. that G. K. holds that when Christ suffers by mans sin, that he joines with man, which is a most abominable lye and perversion. The second perver­sion of the Students. which is no lesse abominable, is in pag. 79. of their book, where to cover their other perversion, they cite most falsely and perfidiously a place in G. K. book, where they bring him in, saying, [though it may be hurt and slain, by joining with the contrary seed, before it come to its perfect formation] and thus they would prove that according to G. K. Christ joines with man, when man sinneth. Now we beseech the Reader to look to pag. 7. in G. K. his book of Im: Revela, and he will find that the words of G. K. are thus, [Though till it come to its perfect forma­tion it can suffer hurt so farre as to be slain through man his joining unto the contrary seed and birth] Mark Reader G. K. saith through man his joining, but the Stuents, purposely to deceive the Reader, have left out the word man, that the Reader may understand it of Christ his joining; a thing never entered into G. K. his heart to think, farre lesse to write. This abo­minable perversion of the Students is enough to make all sober men ab­horre them, as wilfull and impudent lyars, for such a manifest and visible thing could not be done in ignorance. But are not these Students rare disputants, who thus argue against the Q. pag. 83. l. 5, 6. Either he (to wit Christ) suffereth within willingly, and so he sins, it being by the sins of man that he suffers and is crucified within. For by this argument it will fol­low not only that all the Martyrs when they suffered willingly, did sin, but also that Christ himself when he suffered willingly by the sins and wicked hands of the Jewes that crucified him outwardly, did sin, which is the high­est blasphemy, and naturally followes by the Students argument. But it seems these Students have no mind to suffer willingly for righteousnesse sake, seing they are men of such principles, that think, when any doth suffer willingly, he sins. We leave the Reader to judge whether such stuffe and worke of the Students be Quakerism canvassed, and a confutati­on of the Q. errours, or rather whether it be not a manifest betraying of the Truth, and declaring themselves guilty of highest blasphemy, lying and con­fusion; and whether these men who are guilty of such confusion them­selves, are fitt to accuse others as not writing perspicuously and clearly, as they doe G. K. for his book of Imm: Revela. pag. last of their preface. [Page 36] But G. K. doubteth not but that his book will be acknowledged to be clear and perspicuous, where it meets with men of a clear understaning, such as the Students (to be sure) are not.

As for those stories about J. N. they have been long agoe answered by our friends, who judged both him, and them that joined with him in that particular, as hee also judged and condemned himself, and was by the mercy of God reduced to a sober mind. As for that passage in Christo­pher Atkinsons book, wee can say nothing to it, unlesse wee saw the book which is in G. M. his custody (which showes that the Students have plowed with his heifer) who refused to let us have the use of it, to see whether the place was perverted, and wee did not know where to have it any where else, but it is in cumbent on them to prove whether C. A. or his book was owned really by the Q. for wee can prove hee was denyed by them, and if he denyed that Christ is man, wee deny him and his book both; for wee truely believe that Christ is both God and man.

In the prosecution of their second argument, Sect. 2. They take great paines to prove that heathens have the Law and book of Nature, and from exerciseing their reason and understanding naturally they may know many things, which wee doe not deny, and so they might have spared that la­bour. But wheras they alledge that there is nothing needfull to be known and believed by the heathens, but what the book of nature and their naturall understanding, and reason as men, can teach them, according to the Q. principle, and consequently the heathens need not these super­naturall revelations. This they affirme without any proofe. Wee shall give manifest Instances to the contrary, For the Q. say, All men need both to have and to know a supernaturall influence and work of the Spirit of God in order to their salvation. And this also our adversaries grant. Now the Heathens need a divine revelation to make this knowne to them. For the book of Nature or the meer natures of things being con­sidered can not teach men what is supernaturall, and so it can not teach men that in all their actings they are to have a supernaturall end, nor can it teach them, that they are to love, feare, serve and worship God, from a supernaturall principle of Gods grace, which are the greatest du­ties required of man, and if it can not teach men, and convince them of their greatest duties, it followeth, that it can not convince them of the great sins, that are contrarie unto those duties. Also Nature can not teach men the mystery of regeneration, (which yet is needfull to be knowne) [Page 73] for men who are but too much addicted to naturall reason, and searchings into the book of nature (but despise the divine and supernaturall illumi­nation of Christ in them) think regeneration a fiction, or unnecessary thing. Other instances could be given, but least they should call them the Q. errours, we shall forbear, contenting our selves with such as our adversaries acknowledge to be true. But 2. if it were granted that the book of Nature could in some sort discover all things necessary to salva­tion (without supernaturall light) which yet we deny, it doth not fol­low, that therfore divine, supernaturall objective revelation, is not ne­cessary, becaus the discovery that the book of nature and naturall reason gives to men of divine things, as of the power, wisdom, justice, goodnesse, love and mercy of God, is but dimm, weak, faint and barren, and is no more a proportionat object to the spirituall sensations of the soul, then a report of meat and drink and cloathing are a sutable or proportionat ob­ject to the tast; and feeling of the outward man; the souls of men need not only to be convinced that ther is a God, who is good, loving, mercifull, powerfull and just, but they need also in order to their salvation to have a feeling of his divine power, to see and tast that he is good, to handle that word of life, to know Christ in themselves, to have the love of God shed abroad in them, by the holy Spirit, which love is a sensible and per­ceptible object, and so is objective. For if the Scriptures be nota suffi­cient objective revelation of God, and the things of his kingdom, much lesse the book of nature, &c but the first is true, therefore the second is true also. Now that the Scriptures are not a sufficient objective revela­tion of God, &c. G K. hath proved at large in his book of Immed. Revela. and we need not produce any new arguments here, untill the Students, or their masters refute those already set downe in that book, only this we say in short, Nature and Scripture tell us that ther is a God, but they can neither give us a sense, sight, or tasting of him, or of his love, or of his Spirituall judgments, as these things are inwardly experienced, where God reveals them, Nature can not refresh, or comfort the soul, nor pour in wine and oil into it, when it is wounded with sin, and although it could tell that God can doe this, what comfort could that be to the soul, unlesse God himselfe doe it, and make the soul sensibile of his hand rea­ching unto it, the Spirituall things themselves that nature can not afford. Also nature cannot discover the Spirituall judgments of God in the soul, wherby he cleanseth it from sin, as by water and fire. Now as to the se­cond [Page 38] branch of their argument, that the Scriptures are a sufficient ob­jective revelation of all things necessary to salvation, this we altogether deny, as is said, for although the scripture is a full enough declaration of all doctrines and principles both essentiall and integrall of Christian reli­gion, yet the Scripture doth propose divine things and objects, but as a Card or Mappe doth a land and the fruits of it, to the outward eye. Now as this is not a sufficient objective proposall, because we need to see the Land it selfe, and to tast, and eat and drink of the fruit of it, so our souls need a more near and immediat discovery of God, then the Scripture, which is but a report of him, that he may feed and nourish us by his divi­ne manifestations; and here in the prosecution of this argument, they are at great paines to prove, that the Scriptures are given from God, which we deny not, although some of their proofes be weak, but wha­tever reasons can be brought to prove that the Scriptures are given from God, if the inward testimony of the Spirit of God, be not believed, and received, these reasons cannot beget any divine, saving faith, (wherof only wee speak) but a meer humane and naturall faith or conviction.

As to that place of Scripture 2 Cor. 4: 3, 4 if our gospell &c: that is, say they, the outward gospell, but doth Paul say so? Nay; Look the Greek text, and you will find the contrary, that the Gospell he spake of, was hidd in them that are lost, so the Greek. Therefore it was inward, and this Scripture they bring to prove, that the Scriprures have objective evidence and perspicuity in themselves, whereas Paul doth not say of the Scripture, but of the Gospell, which is the power of God. And whereas they query If a person may have immediat objective revelations, who hath not his mind wel disposed, and if so, what advantage would he have by them, which he might not have without them by the Scriptures? We answer, much every way, becaus the Scripture is not able to dispose his mind, as our adversaries grant, but these immediate objective revelations are also really effective, and have sufficient power and ability in them, to dispose his mind, if he do not resist them. Again, wheras they query, May a person be wel disposed who hath not such revelations? We answer; No: yet he may want some, and have other some, but if he may, yet there is need of such revelations, even as if a mans eye, or tast, were never so wel dispos­ed, he needeth the objects themselves; and as painted bread, or a dis­course of bread can not satisfie the naturall tast and appetite, no more can the Scripture words satisfie the tast and appetite of the soul. They cite [Page 39] 2 Tim. 3: 15, 16, 17. to prove that the Scriptures of Old and New Tes­tament are the principall, compleat; and infallible rule of faith and man­ners; but this place doth not say, that they are so, the Scripture we grant, but deny their consequence, which is merly begged without a proofe. They confesse pag. 90. that the Scriptures are not sufficient every way, so as to exclude the inward efficiency of the Spirit, and the concurrence of other causes. Very wel: Enough to overthrow their whole argument for among other causes, divine inspiration is a maine, for indeed the inward efficiency of the Spirit, is that objective revelation which we plead for, only they deny it to be objective, wheras we say, it is both effective and obje­ctive, as if a man should grant that the light and heat of the fire doth both enlighten us, and warme us but deny that either that light or heat of the fire is objective, to our discerning, or perceptible by themselves, which were ridiculous, and as ridiculous is their conceit of an influence of the Spirit that is meerly effective, and not objective. That the books of the old and new testament are called the Scripture, by way of eminency, we deny not, (although the name is given at times to other writings) nor doth this refute G. K. his translation of that Scripture 2 Tim. 3: 16. which is confirmed by the Syriack, which hath it thus, In Scripturâ enim quae per Spiritum scripta est, utilitas est ad doctrinam &c. i. e. For in the Scrip­ture which is written by the Spirit, there is profite. But their reason from the Conjunction [and] is both foolish and blasphemous, for if the words be rendered thus, All Scripture given by inspiration is and profitable, is no more non-sense then divers other places in the Scripture, where the Conjuction and seemeth to be redundant, as in that place Joh. 8: 25. where the Greek hath it thus [...] i. e. The beginning (or from the beginning) the same which and I speak unto you. Now if the Conjunction [and] render not this place non-sense, no more doth it ren­der that in Timothy; but the Students ignorance renders them rather blasphemers, and their arguments blasphemous against the words of Christ. Moreover the conjunction [...] may signifie a strong affirmation, (as to say, even, truely, indeed,) as both our English translation hath it, Joh. 8: 25. and Schrevelius in his Greek-Lexicon doth render it: and thus the words have good sense, All-Scripture (or writing) given by inspirati­on, is even (or indeed) profitable. And whereas, they say, none but a Q. or Jesuit would so interpret the place, they declare their malice and ignorance, for William Tindall that famous Protestant martyr in his translation of [Page 40] the Bible, for which the Papists burnt him, did tranilate it, as G. K. doth whom we think the Students dare not accuse as a Jesuit, that he was a Q in so farr as he held divers of our principles, condemned by the Students, we shall not deny. As for us we blesse the Lord our faith stands not on such a small nicity, as the want of an [is] or the redundahcy of an [and] let them look to that, whose faith knoweth no other foundation, but the letter. It doth nothing hurt our faith nor lessen the due esteeme of the Scripture to us, if peradventure an [is] hath been lost, or an [and] hath crept into the text since the originall coppies were lost. This we know and can prove that the Scripture can not profit any man to salva­tion without the illumination or inspiration of the Spirit, which is both effective and objective, and which our adversaries grant at least to be effecti­ve. And if they make one exception why may not wee make another; or if they say, the Spirit is necessary one way, why may not we say, it is necessare another way? But then the Scriptures, say they, would not be profitable at all in any manner or kind, we deny the consequence, for it is profitable, yea and necessary in genere objecti materialis, i. e. as the ma­teriall object in relation to all historicall truths, and divers other dogma­tical and doctrinall points, which perhaps we would not have knowne without the Scripture, although we had had the Spirit in as large a measure as men now have it. Again, the Scripture is profitable in genere objecti remoti & secundarii. i. e. by way of a remote and secondary object and rule, even as in relation to testimonies of life and experience, which may be knowne without the Scripture, yet the Scripture is a secondary confir­mation and help even in that case as a card or map of a land is unto a tra­veller, that travells through the land it selfe, and seeth the high wayes, who will not throw away his card, because he sees the land it selfe, but will both delight and profit himself to compare them both together. Other great and weighty uses wee could give, but these suffice to serve as instan­ces against their weak and sorry argumentation.

Their last argument is from Joh. 12: 48. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day; But how prove they that this is the letter of the Scripture, much of which was not then writ? And although this Word were not Christ himself, yet it may be an inward testimony spoken by Christ in mens hearts. Here they meerly begg and prove not. But 2. suppose it were the Scripture or written Law, as that cited by them Rom. 2: 12. it will only follow, that the Scripture is a secondary Law or [Page 41] rule, which we willingly grant, and that by it men who have the Scrip­tures shall be judged, but not by them only, for if the Gentiles who have not the written Law, shall be judged by the Law in the conscience, so shall these also who have both inward and outward be judged by both, and consequently their damnation shall be greater.

SECTION FIFTH.

IN their stating the controversie in this particular, they grossly prevaricate in divers things, as where they say, N. 2. the question is not only about duty on the matter, videlicet the act of prayers &c. as separated from the right manner, viz. sincerity and truth, wheras in­deed the question betwixt them and us, is about prayer, as separated from the right manner, viz. sincerity and truth. For they say, God requires men to pray, without any inspiration, or gracious influence of the spirit, so that such a prayer is an answering of the obligation to the duty upon the matter, although it be separated from the right manner, and accordingly they doe both require and allow men to pray, when they have no gracious influence, or motion therunto, telling them, that even such prayers are required, and that they doe better to give such prayers, as want sincerity unto God, then not to pray at all, seing such lifelesse and spiritlesse prayers have the matter of true prayer, although they want the right manner. Wheras we on the contrary affirm that lifelesse prayers have neither the right matter and substance, nor yet the right manner of prayer, and therfor are not at all required in Scripture. Yet we deny not but many times, when men want an influence of life to pray, they are still under the obligation, and at such 'times it is their sin not to pray, because they ought to have sutable influences to prayer, which would not be wanting if they were faithfull unto God, but when through un­faithfulnesse they want them, it doth not excuse them from being under the obligation, yet still when they want the helpe of the Spirit, they ought to pray by the Spirit, becaus they ought to have it. Even as when [Page 42] one man oweth unto another man a just debt, in money, the debter ought to pay the money, although he have no money to pay it with, for his want of the money doth not excuse him from the obligation to pay it; yet he ought to pay the debt only with money, or the equivalent of it, but if he should offer to pay it, with any thing, that is not money, nor moneys worth; as suppose with a few counters, this is no answering the obligation, either in the right matter, or manner, and so it is in the case in hand. Again, N. 8. They fall into the like prevarication, in al­ledging the question is not about a new heart, and spirituall principle of obe­dience, for they owne that as indispensably necessary for acceptable per­formance. But do not they say, that when men pray, without a new heart, they do in part answer the obligation? and do not they encourage them to pray, even the most wicked? This is denyed by the people called Quakers, and is a great part of the question. We say indeed wicked men ought to pray, but not remaining wicked, but that they ought to forsake their wickednesse, and have a new heart, and therewith to pray. More­over, whereas they say, the question is not about every performance, but about acceptable performance: Herein they most palpably contradict themselves N. 9. where they grant, that no act of worship can be ac­ceptably performed withot these influences, and they wel know that the Qu: say the same, the question then is not about acceptable performance seing both they and we grant, that no duty can be acceptably performed without the Spirit, so that if the Students had understood their matter, they would have said, the question is not about acceptable performance, but about simple performance, whether there be any obligation to performe duty, that is not acceptable, which they affirme and we deny: for indeed unacceptable performance is as good as no performance, but rather worse, as if under the Law, the Jewes had offered up a dogs neck in place of a sacrifice, it had been a greater sin, then not to offer at all. As it is a greater offence for a man to offer to pay his debt with counters or pen­nies made of slait-stone, then not to pay at all. Another grosse errour they committ, in alledging the question is about praeparatory motions, praevious in time, this is a lye, we challenge them to shew us any such thing in our books, we doe not require motions or influences of the Spirit, previous in time, (although they are oft given) it sufficeth that they are previous in order of nature; as the cause is previous unto the ef­fect, which is not alwayes in time, but in nature; but the question is in­deed, [Page 43] about the necessity of motions, to, and in the performance of duty so as the performance is to be in, by, through, and with the Spirit, which may wel be without a praeviousuesse in time, as to inward duty, at least, and if the outward can be simultaneous with the inward, it may also be as to the outward, but if it can not be so soone as the inward in some cases, the reason is not for want of the motion, but because the bodily organs can not so hastily answer the motion, as the mind it selfe can, and it sufficiently answereth the motion, that the mind answer it first, and then the bodily organs as soone as their nature can permitt. There is yet another great errour they committ in alledging, such a live­ly and spirituall disposition as being necessary in our sense, whereas we doe not lay it upon such a lively &c: as if we required such a degree of life, for the least measure of life that is but able to carry forth the soul in any living measure of performance, is sufficient, where the soul keepeth to the measure, and doth not exceed, or goe beyond it.

In the prosecution of their arguments, they are no lesse unhappy in the stating of the question; as will shortly appeare. Pag. 95. 67. they bring in R B. and A. Sk. denying their sequel, which they laboure to prove, (but how unsuccessfully, we shall see anon) becaus as angels and bruts agree in that they are both substances, so spirituall duties, and other duties agree in that they are both to be performed in the Spirit. But what then? Yet the difference is still great betwixt those duties that as to their matter are naturall and civill, and those which as to their very mat­ter are spirituall, as for example to eat, to plough, to pay a debt, are not spirituall as to their matter, but only as to their manner, and end, when acceptably performed, and therefore the matter of those duties, and whole substance of them may be, without any gracious motion of the Spirit, and in that case the performances themselves are really profitable in the creation among men, and consequently doe answer the obligati­on in part, but prayer, and thanksgiving &c: are duties wholly spirituall, both as to matter, or substance, and as to manner and end, so that whoso essayeth to doe any of them without the gracious motions of the Spirit, he leaveth not only the right manner, but the very matter and substance of the duty behind him, and bringeth the meer accidents along with him, which have no profit nor use to men, nor are any wise in the least part an answer of the obligation: and as to that Scripture cited by them, the plowing of the wicked is sin, Prov. 21: 4. they do not prove, [Page 44] that it is meant of outward plowing, the margin of our English hath it, the light of the wicked, and Arius Montanus rendreth it on the margine, cogitatio, the thought, that the plowing of the wicked is sin in respect of the manner, and lastend, we grant, but that the action materially consider­ed is sin, we altogether deny, even in a wicked man, for the outward mechanick and bodily act is good in its nature, and profitable, as also in so farr as it may be for the maintainance of his family, it is good, so that in respect of the matter, and subordinate end, there is no difference betwixt the plowing of a good man, and a wicked, whereas the prayer of a good man by the Spirit, and the prayer of a wicked man, without the Spirit, differ materially, in their very nature and substance, the good mans prayer by the Spirit is true and reall prayer, but the wicked mans prayer, is no true prayer at all, but a dead image of it, nor is the wicked man a true wor­shipper, for he only is a true worshipper according unto the expresse doctrine of Christ, who worships the Father in Spirit and in truth, whereas a wicked mans plowing is as reall, and true, and good as to the matter, and nature of the outward action, as that of the good. It doth not there­fore follow, that (according to the Q. principle) because a man is not to pray without the Spirit, that therefore he is not to plow without the Spi­rit, in respect of the matter, although in respect of the defect in the man­ner, and last end, which should be the glory of God, he sins when he plows, as when he prays, but yet not so much in the one, as in the other, for in the one both matter and manner are wrong, in the other not the matter, but manner, but if a man be faithfull to God, he may as certainly expect the divine assistance of the Spirit to help him to plow, as to pray, al­though that assistance to pray is greater, & of another manner then that to plow, as is obvious to any that hath spirituall experience. And whereas A. Sk. inferreth upon them, their going about the spirituall duties in a carnall manner, &c. this they call an impudent calumny but in this, the impudent calumny is their own, not his, for dare they deny but they are for going ab­out prayer, & praise (which are spirituall duties) without the motion of the Spirit, which is as much as to say, in a carnall manner? for what is not done by the Spirit, is done but in a carnall manner, and wheras they call, his second answer, a clear confession &c. yet they tell us nothing of it pag. 96. They are no lesse disingenuous, in alledging, that G. K. dissen­teth from R. B. and A. Sk (whom in their aiëry and frothy minds they call his pretended infallible brethren) for as G. K. requireth inspirations to [Page 45] the acceptable performance of other actions, so doth A. Sk. and R. B. yet we all say, wicked men may very lawfully goe about naturall and civill performances, as to plow, to eat, to pay debts, as they are mate­rially considered, without inspiration, and in so doing (although they fall short of acceptable performance, for defect of the right manner, and the last end) they sin lesse, then to omitt those actions, and indeed sin not at all, as to the nature and substance of them, as they doe, who pray without inspiration.

As for G. K. his distinction of Mandatory and permissory inspirations, it holds good, notwithstanding all their idle, foolish and impertinent cavilling at it; From the words of Paul that he essayed to goe to Bithy­nia, but the Spirit permitted him not; G. K. inferred by the rule of contra­ries, that the Spirit sometimes permitted him, To evade this, they are sorely pinched, in their Account of the dispute pag. 30. they grant his con­sequence, that Paul at sometimes had a permission, but they deny it to be an inspiration. But here in this new assault, they deny that any permission fel­loweth by the rule of Contraries, from Pauls words, alledging that he permitted him, and he permitted him not are not contraries. But G. K. did not alledge these to be contraries, for they are flatt contradictory, but these we say are contraries, the Spirit permitted not Paul to goe to Bithynia, therfore he permitted him to goe sometimes, to some places. This is a plaine inference, from the rule of contraries, by Contraries, we mean not contraries in the strict logicall sense, as when the contra­riety is betwixt two universalls, but opposits, which in the common way of speech are called contraries, and in the Logicall sense may be called, subcontraries, which doe inferre one another not to be true alwayes simul & sem [...]l, at one time, and place, but at divers times and places, &c. As for example, if there be a South, ther must be a North, if a time to come, ther is a time to be past, if some things be hott, and not cold, other things must be cold and not hott, and to use a more neare example to the matter in hand, if when a River is not permitted to runn, by reason of an exces­sive freezing that bindeth it up, at one time, it followeth that it is permitted to run at another time, when ther cometh a thaw, or yet to come nearer, If the wind do not permitt a shipp to saile south­ward, at one time, it doth permitt her at another time, to saill [Page 46] southward. We would not have insisted on such rudiments, had not the great ignorance of the Students occasioned it,

Pag. 97. They close their 9. §. most pitifully, after having failed to refute G. Ks. distinction of permissory and mandatory inspirations, they say, they leave it to be proved by G. K. that the simple permitting of him (meaning permission not joined with a command) hath been by inspirati­on. Here they shamefully desert their undetaking, which was to refute permissive inspirations, but when they faill to doe this, they put G. K. to prove them, wheras they ought to remember, that G. K. is not bound by the law of Dispute, to prove any thing, being a meer defendant, yea when he offered ex abundanti to prove something in the Dispute, they blamed him for so doeing, being but a defendant, and now they would have him leave Defendant, and become Opponent. This is a pitifull confutation of the Qu: principles, that when they fall short in their proofes against us, put us to prove our own principles, but seing they are so beggarly, as to begg from G. K. a proofe of this, he shall give it uuto them, and it is this. Admitt then, that according to the Students supposition, Paul was permitted to goe unto a certain place, without any command of God, and that Paul did this acceptably, or without sin, as to the thing it selfe, which they must needs acknowledge he might; it followes then by their own argument that he walked this journey in the Spirit, seing they themselves plead that men ought to walke in the Spirit, meaning outward walking, and seing they grant, that whatever act a man doth acceptably, he must doe it to the glory of God, and that a man can doe nothing to the glory of God, but as he doth it from a good principle, (yea the glory of God being a supernaturall end, must have a superna­turall principle) which is the Spirit of God, it manifestly followeth, that Paul his journeying by a permission was by inspiration, for whatever is done in the Spirit, is done by inspiration, inspiration both in the com­mon sense, and here particularly signifieing any gracious motion, influ­ence and assistance of the Spirit. In their answer to that other Scripture 1 Cor. 7: 6. compared with ver. 40. they fall into their old way of assert­ing barely without any proofe, they tell us, that the permission falls upon the thing spoken, and not upon the speaking it selfe. But how prove they it? Here they are quite dumb, and say nothing for proofe, and indeed it is as manifest as a thing can be, that the permission doth no lesse fall upon the speaking, then upon the thing spoken, and they doe most presumptu­ously [Page 47] contradict the Apostle, when they say, Paul was commanded to speake this, whereas Paul said expressly, he spake by permission, and not of commandment.

In the prosecution of their second argument, they bring in G. K. distin­guishing betwixt privative and positive permission, where they give the lye to their owne Accompt, which saith pag. 30. that G. K. distinguished permission into Positive and Negative, as indeed he did. Now Privative and Negative differ widely, for the want of sight in a stone, is not priva­tive (as in a man) but negative, and surely there is so little witt, or acumen in this argument of the Students, and their prosecution of it, that it proves them to be liker stones then men of reason and solidity,. And here they tell us, that G. K. (whom in their vain minds they call this great inspired Rabbi) was very unfortunat, in explaining this distin­ction, and assigning its ground, as may be seen in their Accompt: but alas! for them poor men, they have egregiously baffled themselves in that very matter in their Accompt, as is shewed in our answer thereunto. But behold what dull and heavy disputers these men are. If Positive per­mission were inspiration, say they, then a man might inspire us, for he might positively permitt us. This consequence is as dull and heavy as a stone, although the weight of it falls not upon us, but upon themselves to prove them altogether impertinent; for their argument proceeds upon a wrong supposition, that according to G. K. all positive permissions are inspirations, a thing G. K. never dreamed of, but only that some posi­tive permissions, to wit, those of God, are inspirations, as he by his Spirit doth permitt men, or allow them to doe or use some things, as when God said to Adan in the garden, of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat, save one; This was a positive permission; and also (if God spake this to him inwardly, as is most probable, and as Augustin supposeth) an inspiration; also when the Lord said unto Ezekiel cap. 4: 15. Lo, I have given thee cows dung for mans dung, this was a conde­scendece and positive permission, and also an inspiration. But the Stu­dents proceed still more and more to baffle themselves (in stead of baffl­ing the Qu.) and shew their ignorance and sottishnesse. For thus they argue, pag. 99. in prosecuting their third argument: every inspiration (say they) puts us out necessarily to the doeing of the thing inspired, and so commands us virtually. And upon this bare alledgance the whole super­structure of this argument stands, which yet is a manifest untruth, and [Page 48] suffereth many undenyable exceptions: for many times things inspired are not at all of the nature of things to be done, but are simply things to be believed, as when God inspired the Prophets with the knowledgs of things to come, which neither could nor ought to be done by them, and as when Daniel was inspired to know things, which he was so farre from being commanded to write, that he was forbidden Dan. 12: 4. Again some inspirations are meer inward consolations, and spirituall refresh­ments and renewings of strength only to enable us in generall to serve God, as meat and drink is unto the body, and that sometimes without words, and sometimes with words by way of promise, as when he spake to Noah Gen. cap. 9. from ver. 8. to ver. 18. where there is not any command given to Noah, but only promises, and yet Noah was in­spired by the Lord, as all the true Prophets were. And wheras they alledge that inspiration includs in its notion an insuperable putting and prompting out to the thing inspired, in all authors both sacred & profane, is meerly precarious, for sometimes indeed it signifieth to command, as where the inspiration is mandatory, but at other times it signifieth to comfort, refresh, quicken, influence and assist us, without any parti­cular command to any particular action, yet we acknowledge the nature of all divine inspirations in the children of God is to incline, lead, move, drawe and guid them up more and more into unity with God, and so unto a further degree of holiness, but not to determine them, unto all particu­lar actions, and thus also their fourth Instance is disproved, where they alledg that all inspirations of God determine us to one extream, which is false, if they mean an extream in the particular act; if they mean an extream in the generall, as to doe all in charity, and to the glory of God, we grant it, but this doth not militate against what we affirme. Their other two instances are but the former upon the matter, repeated in a tautologicall way for want of new matter, and are sufficiently an­swered above. And thus their silly and faint reasonings in this argument are answered without any necessity of G. K. his returning to his bagge for new distinctions, as they scornfully but foolishly insinuat.

Pag. 99. § 15. The Students tell us that G. K. finding himself beset with these inextricable difficulties, as it seems, misplaces this distinction in their Account, and gives in another distinction of Particular and Generall in­spirations, this is but their meer alleadgance, the distinction was right enough placed, as any may see by the nature and coherence of the account, [Page 49] nor did G. K. see any difficulty in their argument at all, as indeed there is none in it. But let us see how they refute this distinction of Generall and Particular inspirations or influences. First they say, he shall never be able to produce a ground for this distinction, out of Scripture. A learned refu­tation indeed! and like unto their old way, of puting us to prove what they can not disprove. May it not as wel suffice us to say, They shall never be able to produce a ground out of Scripture against it, and the ra [...]her since we are defendants. Secondly, That which is called a generall inspi­ration could not put us out to any particular thing, say they. Answer, If by puting us out they mean, determine us insuperably or irresistibly thereunto, we grant, but this is no absurdity. Thirdly, They would alwayes leave us undetermined. Answer, nor is this absurd, for in things that are per­missive and left to our freedom in the Lord to doe them, or not to doe them, we need not any thing to determine us, as to the particular act, but may determine our selves, being free agents, although as to the nature and kind of the act in generall, that it be in true love to God, and to his glory we are determined by the Lord.

Pag. 100. They are no lesse unsuccessfull in managing their other ar­gument, in comparing inward duties with outward, for, whereas they alledge for a proofe of their minor, that if we were not to go about inward duties without a previous sensible inspiration, there would be a progressus in infinitum. This hath beene sufficiently answered above in the dispute, that as to that inward duty of waiting, we can not suppose, that ever at any time an influence or inspiration can be wanting, and this we say still, we mean to true Christians, who are faithfull unto God, and do faith­fully improve his influences. As for others, if they want influences either to inward or outward duties, the cause is their unfaithfulnesse, and so the way to have them upon all occasions is to be faithfull to answer Gods call, who doth oft invite and call upon them, who are unfaithfull. But if they mean all inward duties, as meditation in many cases, upon par­ticular subjects, we deny that even true Christians have alwayes parti­ticular inspirations thereunto, nor is there any necessity to assert them.

Now let us take notice how they refute the distinction of generall and particular inspirations. First, say they, There are no generall inspirati­ons as we have shewed already, but that they have shewed no such thing is already made apparent. Secondly, supposing them, yet they being but generall, would not be a sufficient ground for the particular inward duties [Page 50] of waiting, desiring: but how prove they this? No wise, but meerly affirme it, only they confound waiting, desireing and meditating to­gether, wheras meditating is of a larger extent, and sometimes yea oft times requireth a speciall inspiration. Thirdly, say they, the Scri­ptures produced by the Qu. prove alike as to outward and inward duties: To this we answer, That as to some outward duties, it is true, as to others, false; as for example, to be clear in all outward conversation, is a continuall duty, and therefore we can never want an influence therunto, if we be faithfull, but to preach and pray in the church or assembly, with audible words, is not a continuall duty, nor yet a generall to all Christi­ans, and therefor it hath not alwayes an influence to assist therunto. And here let the Reader note, that by a generall influence, or inspiration, we mean only such an influence, as serveth in generall for all ordinary actions that are to be generally performed in an acceptable manner, as the same spirituall influence that sufficeth me to eat in faith, fear, and love, sufficeth me also to plow, or doe any other mechanicall work, but the same doth not suffice me to preach, or expound Scripture, other­wise any ordinary Christian might doe so at any time, which our adver­saries will not acknowledge. Now that preaching and praying in parti­cular, require a superadded spirituall influence and inspiration, we prove thus: If men may have an influence or inspiration of the Spirit, to wait, fear and love God, and yet want an influence or inspiration to preach, and pray vocally, then the influence and inspiration to preach, and pray vocally, is a distinct superadded influence &c: But the first is true, ther­fore the second. The consequence of the first proposition is clear from that maxime quorum unum potest esse absque alio &c. when of two things the one can be without the other, the two are really distinguished. The se­cond proposition is proved, 1. becaus all true Christians have an influ­ence and inspiration to wait, feare and love God, but all true Christi­ans have not an influence and inspiration to preach and pray vocally in the church, this our adversaries can not deny. 2. Even a true Gospell mi­nister may at times want a door of utterance, when in the time of this want he hath an influence or inspiration to wait, fear, and love God; therefor these two are distinct. The antecedent is clear in the case of Eze­kiel (chap. 3: 15, 16.) who sat seven dayes with the elders, having no­thing to speake unto them from the Lord, untill at the end of the seven dayes the word of the Lord came unto him. And Ezra sat silent till the [Page 51] evening sacrifice and then he kneeled down and prayed Ezra 9: 5. Also Paul desired the Colossians to pray for him, that utterance might be given him; which clearly imports, that he had it not at all times, although at all times he had an influence or inspiration to wait, fear, and love God. And David prayed that God would open his mouth, and his lips should shew forth his praise. Isaiah said, that God had given him the tongue of the learned &c. Christ promised that he would give his Apostles a mouth and wisdome which all their adversaries should not be able to resist: all this si­gnifieth an influence of the Spirit to speake, which was not generall to all, nor permanent or perpetuall with them who had it, as is clear in the case of David, who declared, that he was silent, and held his tongue even from good, untill the fire kindled in him, and then he spake with his tongue Psal. 39: 3. Yea what signifieth the coal wherewith Isaiah his mouth was touched, but an inspiration or influence of life, superadded unto that generall influence which he had before? Now if our adversaries say, this was given nnto those men in an extraordinary way, as being Prophets and Apostles, but is now ceased, since the Apostles dayes. To this we answer 1. This is a plain acknowledgment that generall influences com­mon to all Christians are one thing, and particular influences given to holy men to preach and pray vocally, are another. But 2, that all influ­ences and inspirations or motions of the Spirit to enable ministers to preach and pray vocally are not ceased since the Apostles dayes, is cleare from Rev. 11: 3. And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesie, and it is said that if any man hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, which must needs signifie a speciall influence of the Spirit given them to prophesie or preach, which is not common to all Chri­stians. Also what are these gifts given unto ministers for the perfecting of the saincts, but such speciall influences to enable them to preach, which are not given to all; yea do not the nationall preachers desire in their pu­blick prayers some speciall assistance and help of the Spirit, to carry them forth in their ministry, which they have not before, for if they had it be­fore, why do they seek it? From all which it is manifest, that as there are generall influences given to all, and at all times, so there are particular and speciall given only to some, and but at some times. Moreover, that there is a greater influence of life required to vocall prayer, when it is acceptable, then unto some meer mentall prayer (a thing expressely denyed by the Students pag. 100. § 16.) is clear, becaus all true and ac­ceptable [Page 52] vocall prayer, hath mentall prayer going along with it, as its cause and spring, and so when any man prayes vocally, (if his prayer be true and acceptable) he prayeth also mentally, and so he doth two things together, whereas when he prayeth but mentally he doth but one thing. Now common reason teacheth us that more strength is required to doe two things together, then to doe but one of them. And seing the vocall prayer hath not any life, or vertue in it, to reach unto Gods throne, or yet unto the hearts of his people, to quicken and refresh them, but as it receiveth that life, from the life that is in the mentall prayer, it is clear, that a greater measure is required to both, then simply to the one. Now although mentall prayer (as to the disposition and frame of the soul at lest) be alwayes in and with good Christians, and hath alwayes some measure of life in it, yet that measure is sometimes so weak and low, that it can not goe forth into the words, without hurt or prejudice, and at other times although it be able and strong, yet it will not answer the motion of mans will, so as to be drawne forth thereby, but it only abid­eth or goeth forth into the vocall prayer, according to the will of God, as he pleaseth to move it, therefore the free motion of the life it selfe, as it pleaseth God to bring it forth, is to be attended in all outward spirituall performances: But here let the Reader note, that we have said Uocall prayer requires more life then some mentall prayer, we do not say, then all; for some mentall prayer may be stronger then that which is a complex of mentall and vocall, as gathering the whole strength of the complex into that which is solely and intirely mentall, according unto that common saying, aboundantly confirmed by experience, vis unita fortior, united strength is the stronger, as when the beams of the sun are united into a small point, they have more force, then when they are diffused, and for this cause it is, that we are so much for mentall prayer, as knowing the great good of it in our experience. And from what is above said, it is clear that we need another influence wherewith to pray vocally, then to eat, plow, walk &c. becaus these naturall actions may be done sufficienty in a spirituall manner, by the help of that generall influence, which doth al­wayes attend good men, to feare and love God, for the principle of di­vine life, which is the living and powerfull word of God in mens hearts, is never idle, but is alwayes operative, and at work, especially more aboundantly in them who joyne with it, being as a most rich and living spring, that is continually flowing, and sending forth its streames, ac­cording [Page 53] to Joh. 4: 14. but to pray vocally requireth an influence of life to flow forth into the words, that it may in a liveing and powerfull way reach the hearers, but that plowing, eating, walking, &c. need no such emanating influence, is certain, and will be acknowledged by our adver­saries. But perhaps also they will deny, that any life or virtue doth flow forth into mentall praying and preaching, even when these duties are ac­ceptably performed. But this is contrary both to the certaine experience of many thousands, and also to the Scripturs testimony in many places.

I. It is contrary to the experience of many thousands, who can de­clare, (whereof we are some) that the declarations, testimonies, and words of the servants of God, in preaching and praying have a reall life and living vertue in them, whereby their souls are exceedingly refreshed, quickened, and strengthened, which life and living virtue is a thing as di­stinct from the bare outward words, which the naturall ear can hear, as wine is distinct from the vessell that carrieth it, therfor if another man, that hath not this Spirituall ability, should pronounce the same words, they have not any life or virtue at all: and that God had given this Spiri­tuall discerning to many before the people called Q. were raised up, is manifest, from divers in our owne nation, who cared not to hear men, who could speak never so good words, if they wanted life, and in that day, they could and did distinguish betwixt dead and living preachers, as also betwixt a living testimony and preaching, and a dry discourse, see for this the book called, The fulfilling of the Scriptures. And this was the ex­presse testimony of that Philosopher, who was converted by the means of a few words spoke by a certain old man, who was a Christian, at the Councill of Nice, out of the mouth that old man, (said he) there went forth a virtue, which I could not resist, these were his very words, as Lucas Osiander relats them in his Epitome of the Church history. Cent. 4. lin. 2. cap. 5.

II. It is contrary to the Scriptures testimony in many places, The mouth of the righteous is a well of life Prov. 10: 11. this must be understood in re­spect of the influence of life, that cometh out of his mouth, as water doth out of a well, and not barely in respect of the good words, which a wick­ed man may speak: according to this Christ said to his disciples, The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life, and as it was then, so it is now, for at this day he speaketh in his servants, and will to the end of the world, and it is he only, who hath the words of eternall life, which he speaketh in [Page 54] his servants, and as in the dayes of his flesh, he was said to speak with authority, or power and not as the scribes, and the people wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, all which import a liveing influence and vertue in the words of Christ, which the words of the Scribes and Pharisees had not, so it is at this day, for Christ doth as really speake by his Spirit, in his servants, as he did in his body of flesh, so that Paul said, he spak in him, and therefore his preaching was in de­monstrtion of the Spirit and power. And for this cause true Preachers and Prophets are called good trees, of which men gather good fruit, whereas bad men or evil trees, haveing no good fruit, although they have the Prophets and Apostles words, also they are compared, to wit, the false Prophets, to clouds without rain and wells without water, although they have good words, yet they have no rain nor water, their whole mini­stry is dry, and empty of life and virtue, but the true Prophets ministry is as a shower of rain, Deut. 32: 2. and sometimes it is compared unto fire, as it is said in the Psalme, he maketh his angels, or messengers, spi­rits, and his ministers a flamme of fire, and fire was said to goe out of the mouths of the two witnesses. Also the influences of life that go forth through the true prophets in their ministry are compared to golden oil, & the men are compared unto golden pipes, Zech. 4: 12. And therefore the Apostle Peter exhorted the ministers in his day to minister of the ability which God giveth, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God, so they ministred not only words, but grace; many other testimonies might be cited to prove this truth.

Another instance brought by the Students, is, that an haeretick for­bearing prayer a year or two, or his whole life time, may justifie himselfe by this doctrine. To this it was answered, that though he may pretend, yet he hath no just ground from our principle, for we believe that all men are bound to pray often unto God, yea daily, and that God doth in­wardly call and move all men often unto prayer, during the day of their visitation, and when that is expired, or when at any other time they want that inward call, or influence, through unfaithfulnesse, they are still bound, and if they pray not, they sin, becaus they ought to have an influence. But that our Account saith, All have not utterance to pray in words, is no excuse for hereticks, for they must needs acknowledge, as wel as we, that all have not utterance, who may be good Christians, se­ing some that are naturally dumb may be good Christians, and yet the [...] [Page 55] must confesse these have not utterance; also many good Christians, who have no naturall impediment, do want utterance in a spirituall way, to speak or pray vocally in the hearing of others, at some times, although we believe it is given at times to all that are faithfull, who have no na­turall defect, that they may pray vocally, or in the hearing of others: but how oft, it is more then we can determine, seing it is not revealed, but if any faile of this utterance, through unfaithfulnesie, their sin is nothing the lesse, if they omitt prayer. And thus their last two instances are also answered, for we do affirme with great freedome, that all who are faithfull to the Lord, never want sufficient inspiration, or influence to wait upon God, fear him, love him, desire his grace, and divers other inward duties. We say not all, for some inward duties, such as medita­tion on a particular subject or place of Scripture are not alwayes required, more then it is alwayes required to speak; but if they be unfaithfull, we deny not, but they may and will want them, and in that case, although they want inspirations and influences they are bound to pray, yet not without them, but with them, as a man that wanteth both money and goods to pay his debt, yet is bound to pay his debt, yet he must not, nor ought to pay it, without money, or goods, the example is clear, and the application is easy. As for that story they bring in concerning T. M. which, that their deceit may be the more hide, they do not posi­tively affirme, but only propose by way of question, have not Q. declar­ed to people &c. To which we answer, that we know not that any Qu. ever declared any such thing and we believe divers things in the story are utterly false. If T. M. or any other of our profession, having none in the family that can joyne with them in the true spirit of prayer, but are pro­fessed opposers of the Q. way, be not so frequently heard pray by them, is excusable by your oune way, who will not readily pray in our hearing when they have none to joyne with them, and indeed the want of that true unity on the part of those who are not of our faith, doth oft hinder our freedome, to pray in their hearing, (unlesse we have some of our faith, present to joyne with us) we may pray for them, as it pleaseth God to move us, in their hearing, but we can not so properly pray with them as not being in unity with them, where two or three (said Christ) agree together to seek any thing in my name, but let our adversaries if they can, shew us, where in the Scripture, it is commanded, for any man, to pray, in the hearing of others where all present have no agrement with him, yet [Page 56] we deny not, but that God upon some solemne occasion may move to such a thing, especially when a publick testimony is required, as in the case of Stephen, who prayed audibly in the hearing of others, all which were so far from having any agreement with him, that they were at that time stoneing him to death; Acts 7. Moreover we could easily, upon a more just ground retort the question upon your own Church members, how many of your owne church members were not only for a twelve moneth, but for many 12 moneths, never heard pray, and yet they passe among you for good Christians? It is wel knoune, that although ye hold family prayer, morning and evening to be a duty, and the want of it a great sin, that yet many thousand families in the nation, who be­long to your church, want it, and many whole families are so grossly ignorant, that none in the family can go about it, even in that naturall way, which ye plead for. As for us, it doth suffice unto us, that God heareth us in secret, although men do not so frequently hear us; yet we oune with all our hearts publick expressive prayer, as it is performed in Spirit and in truth, and all of us, have our share and testimony therein, as God moves thereunto, even those who are outwardly silent, as the [...] who speak, when as both agree together in one spirit, and with one heart and soul joyne together in the same.

SECTION SIXTH. of BAPTISM.

IN their stating the question, they say, the question is not, whe­ther Infants ought to be baptized, or who have the power of admini­string baptism; whereas indeed these two are a great part of the que­stion betwixt our adversarie and us, for as touching infant baptism R. B. his Thesis doth expressly say, it is a meer human tradition; and it: wel knowne that all the Quakers so called are of the same mind, and do not the Students undertake to confute ehe Q. principles, how is it then [Page 57] that they leave out so considerable a part of Quakerism, as they call it? Is this Quakerism canvassed, to pick and chase at some, and passe by others? Yea Infants-sprinkling with water on the forehead, is so consi­derable a part of the question betwixt them and us, that if that be disprov­ed, or if they can not prove that to be a Gospell institution, they fall short exceedingly, seing that is the only baptism, in use among them of the nationall Church. Again, it is so great a part of the question, who have the power of administring baptism, that by this, the controversie stands or falls, for one of our maine arguments against water-baptisme as remaining a duty, upon all Christians, is, that none are to be found that have the power to administer it; and the administration cannot be with a lawfull administrator, the question then really is, whether these who have no immediat call to administer water baptism, (as John had) have power to administer it. Again, whether these, who have no other medi­at call to baptize, but what they have by the church of Rome which is no true church, as the best Protestants affirme, have power to administer ba­ptisme, and this question is the more proper in this place, seing I. M. the Students master confesseth his and his brethrens call and ordination to be by the church of Rome, and that they have no other, but what is conveyed downe to them from the Apostles times by that apostate church. But let us now examine their arguments for water baptisme in generall: The first is, Baptisme with water is to continue in the church as long as Christs presence is to continue with his Apostles, and them who teach the doctrine that they taught: But Christs presence is to continue with his Apostles, and them who teach the doctrine that they taught, to the end of the world, Therefore &c. Where it is to be observed, that they think all is safe as to the minor, and therefore they altogether passe it by Now although it is sufficient to inva­lidat the argument, if the major be false, yet we have somewhat of great moment to say to the minor, that is enough to overturne any baptisme that they have; for we put them to explaine, who these are, that all along since the Apostles, have taught the doctrine, which the Apostles taught, for the words are lyable to divers senses. If they mean the church of Rome, and her bishops and teachers, we altogether deny that they have taught the same doctrine, which the Apostles taught, and we suppose the Students, if they follow their master I. M. will not affirme it. And in­deed for the same reason, the best primitive Protestants denyed that the church of Rome in their day had any lawfulll ordination at all, seing she [Page 58] continued not in the Apostles doctrine, and faith, as that famous Prote­stant Sadeell doth argue at great length, lib. de legit. voc. min. where ‘he affirmeth, that the succession of faith is as the soul, which gives life to the succession of the bishops as unto a body, but that succession without this faith, is a dead thing, and unprofitable carcase.’ Now the same reason doth militate as strongly against Water-baptism, and that also called the supper, upon our present adversaries principle, that none have power to administer the one or the other, but those who have a mediat outward call, conveyed downe from the Apostles, by a visible succession of or­dained Bishops and Presbyters, for we say, There hath been no such vi­sible succession, nor visibly ordained Bishops and Presbyters, who all along have had the true faith, and taught the true doctrine of the Apo­stles, therefore their ordination, and power to administer the Sacra­ments, is void and null. And this is further confirmed by the authority of Cyprian, who taught with great earnestnesse, that the baptisme of all hereticks was void, and no baptisme, but so it is, by our adversaries con­fession, that the Church and bishops, and teachers of Rome have been Hereticks for many hundred years, before the reformation, Therefore &c. We say then, the argument is fallacious, as to the Minor sup­posing what is not to be supposed in their sense, videlicet, that either the teachers of the church of Rome, or any other claiming a visible and mediat call, from the Apostles times conveyed through a visible church unto them, have thaught the doctrine, which the Apostles taught; a thing we altogether deny, and it lyeth on them to prove, But that Christ hath had some all along, who have both believed and taught the doctrine of the Apostles, and that his presence has been with them, we acknow­ledge, but we deny that these have been all along a visible church, and teachers having a mediat call and ordination, and in this we agree with the best Protestants, for indeed the true church hath been hidd, even as a few grains of corne among an exceeding great quantity of chaff, and stubble, and she who hath called her self the church, by reason of her out­ward succession, was not the true church, though some of the true church lay hidden in her, as corne is hid in a great quantity of chaff, and that the church is properly to be placed in the alone graines of corne, and not in the chaffe, Sadeell doth also shew out of Augustine, Epi. 48. Ano­ther fault wee find in the Students argument, that supposeing Water-baptism had been commanded to the Apostles, by Christ Matth. 28. [Page 59] (which yet we altogether deny) it insinuateth that it was as long to conti­nue as Christs presence, with his church, for if teaching had continued, though Baptism with water had discontinued (as our adversaries grant that anointing with oile, and miraculous curing the sick, is discontinued) yet the promise was ground enough to encourage them, and if all be still binding that Christ commanded to his Apostles, why go they not forth, (we mean the nationall teachers) into all the world, and teach the nati­ons, who do not so much as believe the Gospell historically: If they say, this was a command to the Apostles, and not to them, why are they so partiall as to take one part to them, and reject another? But we shall now come to a more particular examination of their Major, we have told them, that the Apostles baptized some with water, out of a condescendency, as Paul circumcised Timothy, and not from that command, Matth. 28. which saith nothing of Water-baptism; Their first reason against this, is, they should have Baptized with wa­ter of their owne will and without any sufficient authority. But we deny this consequence, and they themselves have furnished us with a sufficient answer, where they say Paul circumcised Timothy but not without a com­mand, for the Law of charity, and other generall precepts obliged Paul so to doe, though it was a thing indifferent of it selfe: the same we say, as to their baptising with water, the Jewes having so great an esteeme of Water-baptism, and thinking it necessary, the Apostles used it, although it was a thing indifferent of it selfe, after Christs ascension, and giving of the holy ghost, the Law of charity, and other generall precepts oblidging them, but this proveth not, that the Apostles had any command from Matth. 28. or any such command any where else, that made Water-baptism of it selfe, to be a necessary duty, to the end of the world. And wheras they querie, will G. K. grant, that it was once lively. We answer, yes un­der John, yet it followeth not that it was to continue, becaus John had no commission to the nations, but only to the Jews, and that the Apost­les Baptized whole families and thousands (if they so did) will not prove, that it was necessary of it selfe, more then that Circumcision was, and yet even then, many thousands of believing Jewes, were Zealous for Cir­cumcision, see Act. 21: 20, 21. yea many Bishops of Ierusalem were cir­cumcised after this, as Eusebius relats, the reason therfor was, that people were Zealous of Water-baptism, because of John, and therfor the Apostles condescended to it, out of the law of charity. Another question they [Page 60] make, where is water baptism buried? We answer, where the other shaddowes are buried, for it was but a shaddow, and carnall ordinance, Heb. 9: 10. the Greek word is [...]. Again the true water baptism hath been out of use all the time of the Apostasie, for the apostate church hath had no true baptism, and so in that respect it hath been buried, and being but a shaddow, is not to be raised up again, And it is observable, that in the revelation, wher it is prophesied; of the returne and restora­tion of the church, ther is not any thing mentioned of the restoring either Water-baptism, or the use of bread and wine, as signs, &c. And so their second reason is answered, that Water-baptism is no more to be used, out of condescendency to the weak, then circumcision, becaus both are long agoe buried, and what is buried is deadly to be raised up again, as Augu­stin taught. Their third reason is built on a mistake, that the God head of Christ, or names of Father, Son, and holy ghost were a stumbling block to the believeing Iewes, for of these only we are to be understood, also that the Apostles used the words Father Son, and holy ghost, when they baptized, can not be proved, farre lesse used they, the word Trinity; which was not invented long after the Apostles dayes: Their second ar­gument that the baptisme commanded in Matth. 28: 16. is with water, re­solves at last into this, that it is God only and not man, who baptises with the holy ghost, becaus he is only the proper, immediat efficient cause of bap­tism with the holy ghost, but wee deny the consequence as weak and fal­se, for ther is nothing more usuall then to ascribe the effect unto the in­strumentall cause, as truly as unto the principall, Paul was sent to turne or convert the Gentiles from darknesse to light, and to open their eyes, and yet God only was the proper and immediat efficient cause of this. Many more examples could be given, yea the same reason of the Students would militate against teaching, for even outward teaching, which is by the mo­tion of the holy ghost hath a power, and vertue in it, wherof the men who teach, are but the instrumentall conveyers, that is only from God, as the immediat efficient cause. Another reason they give to make all sure, as they say is, that it is only Christ, as he is God, and mightier, then Iohn, who baptised with the holy ghost, Matth. 3: 11. where baptism with the holy ghost is peculiarly attributed to Christ. But this makes their matter nothing more sure, for although that baptism with the holy ghost be pecu­liarly attributed to Christ as the principall cause, yet it hindereth not that men are the instrumentall, even as Christ said, it is not ye that speak, [Page 61] and yet they also spake as instruments. It is true, that John did not baptize with the holy ghost as the Apostles did, or rather Christ through them, becaus John had not so powerfull a ministry given him, as the Apostles, of whom Christ said, that they should not only doe as great works, as he, but greater, to wit, by his power. Again, They argue, that giveing and not granting, that baptism with the holy Ghost could be administred by men, yet it is not commanded here for the words then would be full of needlesse tautologies. To this we answer, that this doth not follow, for suppose that by teaching and baptizing were meant one thing; how usuall is it in Scripture to expresse one thing un­der divers names, without any tautologie? However we believe that by teaching and baptizing are meant two severall things, both which require the speciall operation of the holy Spirit, for a man through teaching, by the concurrence of the holy ghost is first of all convinced of the truth, and hath a ground laid in him to believe, and then he is baptized with the holy ghost, upon his believing and obeying in what he is convinced of; nor is this to confound the command with the promise, for the sense of it is this, goe ye and baptize with the holy ghost instrumentally, and I shall be with yow, as the Principall cause to concurre and assist yow, and thus there is no tautologie, the command and the promise being in diverso genere, id est, in a different kind.

Their next argument to prove, that Water-baptism is to continue to the end of the world, is, that God sent Iohn to baptize with water, and Christ caused Iohn baptize him and commanded or caused his Apostles baptize with water, and these commands were never formally repealed, nor ceased of their owne nature, Therfor. But to this the Answer is easie, for Iohns baptism, was no part of the Gospel dispensation, as serving onely to pre­pare the way to Christ, and he was sent only to baptise the Jewes, that Christ might be manifest to Israel, Joh. 1: 31. and it is called Iohns baptism in distinction from that of Christ, for some were baptized with it, who had not received the holy ghost, and that Christ was baptized with water, proveth not its continuance, no more then that he was circumcised, proveth the continuance of Circumcision: that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize with water, we find not, and though it were, it is but as at that time being under Johns dispensation, but unlesse they can prove that Christ commanded to baptise all nations with water, and that to the end of the world, [Page 62] they gain nothing, for what was commanded only as toward the Iewes, doth not reach us gentiles, and so we need seek no repeal, there not having been any such command.

In their answering our retortion, as touching washing the feet, anointing the Sick with oil, and abstaining from blood, and things strangled, They say, 1. This retortion hath a damnable tendency, for enthusiasts may arise and plead the same way against the most necessary truths, &c. We an­swer, They have no ground from our retortion so to doe, becaus, these things above mentioned are but figures, and such as have no inward, or intrinsecall goodnesse, or righteousnes in them, as the other things have, which are most necessarie. 2. Wheras they say, If these things had been commanded, and never repealed, it were better to admitt and observe them, then to reject Baptism, &c. We answer, if by repeal, they mean a for­mall repeal, we deny that it were better, for all being but figurative things, and such as the inward Law of God writt in our hearts, which is the new covenant dispensation, doth not require of us, they cease of their owne nature, and carry a virtuall repeal in their bosome, although it be not formally expressed in the Scripture, as to every particular, for all the things of the ceremoniall Law, are not one by one particularly repealed in the new Testament; but together in one body, for the Law it selfe being changed, the things required by it, if they have no other Law to require them, doe cease. 3. They say, That Christ in washing his dis­ciples feet did 2 things. 1. To seal up to his disciples their part in him. 2. He intended to leave them one example of humility, and it is onely this se­cond thing, which he commanded, to his disciples, to wit, that they should performe acts of humility, one to another. But wee misse their proofe there altogether, that he only commanded this, and not the washing one anothers feet in particular, yea this glosse expressly gives the lye to Christ his owne words Joh. 13: 14. ye also ought to wash one an­others feet, where not only an act of humility is signified, but an act of love, and also by the outward washing of the outward feet, is signified, how we ought to contribute to wash one anothers feet in a spirituall sense that is to say, by seasonable reproofs and exhortations to help on, one another, unto the sanctification of the most inferiour affections, that are as it were the feet: and that Christ pointeth at such a mystery, is clear, from ver. 10. He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet. Again they alleege, that this act is put synecdochically, for all other acts of humi­lity; [Page 63] but admitt, that it be so, this proves not, that this particular act was not commanded, when Christ instituted the breaking of bread, at sup­per; among other ends, it had this also, to signifie the unity of Christi­ans, and how they ought to love one another; shall we therefore say, it is synecdochically put for all acts of love, but is not particularly command­ed? And indeed as washing of feet was in use, in these hot countreyes, before that Christ did wash his disciples feet and commanded it to them, so was that in use, the chief in the family, to take bread and break it, and give to every one, saying, take, eat; this was in use among the Jewes, before Christ did so, as divers historians relate, particularly Paulus Ricius de coelesti agriculturâ. Again, wheras they say, If he had commanded so, some wold have observed it. To this we answer, some yea many did observe it, as they grant Ambrose and the church of Millain did, for if they used to doe so, in the eastern countreyes, where ther was need for it, becaus the people ordinarily did goe barefoot, the Christians in that countrey would use it the rather that Christ commanded it, yea it doth appear, that it was a most ordinary thing in the primitive times from Pauls words 1 Tim. 5: 10. where it is numbered among other commanded duties, if she hath washed the saincts feet. If it be said, that they used it, but not as a Sacrament, we answer, wee read not of the word Sacrament in the Scripture, it is enough that they used it, and were commanded so to doe by Christ, and it had a Spirituall signification, as well as these things they call Sacraments. It is needlesse for us to insist more on this particular, so as to refute arguments of their owne making, which are none of ours, wherin they fight with their owne shaddow, where wee leave them, and proceed to the other particulars. They tell us, that the command to anoint the sick with oil, carries a repeal in its bosome, so we say, doth Iohns Baptism with water, as preparing the way to Christ, who is now come, and so wee may returne them theire axiome cessante fine legis, cessat & obligatio, but that anointing with oil was only in order to miraculous cures, they say it, without giv­ing any proofe, Ja. 5: 14. for although it were confessed, that it were in order to outward healing or curing, yet it is cleare from the text, that it was not exclusive of all other things, for it is not only promised that he shall be saved, but if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him, and this saving seems rather to be spirituall, then the restoring the body to naturall health, otherwise it being absolutely promised, all sick persons [Page 64] in the church should have been alwayes restored to naturall health, and so none should have died, and we find anointing with oil joyned with prayer, yea we are bidden pray one for another, that we may be healed, nor is this ceased; but that by the prayers of the godly, for one that is sick, and bodily diseased, it pleaseth God at times, so to answer them, that they are restored to health by the Lord, and we dare our adversaries, if they will deny this altogether, and this is in a true sense miraculous, yea instances of this kind have been even among the people called Q. and if it were altogether ceased, according to the Students argument, prayer (at lest, so as to pray to God, to heal any sick person) should cease also. It is better therefore to say, that anointing with oil is ceased, as being but a figure. Their repeal of the command to abstain from blood and things stran­gled, is not sufficiently proved from 1 Cor. 10: 25, for let any read the whole chapter, and he shall find nothing said in it of blood, or things stran­gled, that was not the subject, he was upon, but things offered toidols, which we read not, that they used to strangle: the sense is plain, Whatso­ever is sold in the shambles (whether offered to idols, or not) that eat, asking no question, if it be offered to an idol, or not. Beside it is not us­uall to sell flesh of beasts strangled in the shambles, for they kill them otherwise then by strangling, which is hurtfull to the meat; and if selling of strangled flesh had been usuall, it would have been no transgressing the Apostls rule, if they had any doubt, to have asked if it was strangled, for many will not eat flesh that is strangled, becaus it is not so good nou­rishment, although they have no scruple of conscience; yea the primi­tive Christians even in Tertullian's time, as he showeth in his Apologie, abstained from blood and things strangled, wherein there was a great pro­vidence of God to clear them of that horrid falshood, as if they did drink the blood of children. By which it is clear, they did not understand Pauls words 1 Cor. 10: 25. to be any repeal. It is therefore more safe to say that it being a part of the ceremoniall law, it is repealed with the other figures.

The words of John, He must increase, but I must decrease. Joh. 3: 30. they will not have to be understood of Iohns baptism, wherein they are not only contrary to many of their own church, as could be showne, but also to the Scripture it selfe: for it is most clear, that Iohn spake this with a particular relation to his baptism, when they came to him, and told him that Christ baptized &c. on this he said, that Christ was to increase, [Page 65] meaning Christs baptisme, not with water, but with the holy ghost (for Christ baptized none with water himselfe) and he, that is, his baptisme must decrease, not his true honour and virtue; and the disciples he ga­thered, was unto Christ, but that Iohns baptisme was much practised, proveth it no more a standing command, then other things of the Law.

In the last place they alledge, that Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be baptized, out of necessity ariseing from a divine precept, but their proofes are weak. For [...] we ought to doe all things in the name of the Lord, when we eat, or drink, or journey, but yet all things are not commanded, but some left to our fredome. 2. Peter in his sermon told Cornelius nothing of water-baptisme, and when that after he spoke of it, he did not tell him, that he ought to doe it out of a necessity arising from a divine precept, let them prove it if they can. 3. whereas they al­ledge that Peter was accused by the disciples, for administring water ba­ptism to Cornelius, from Acts. 11. it is a manifest untruth, for there is no such thing either in their accusation, or his answer; as may be seen, if any will read the chapter; they accused him, for going in to them, and eating with them, and this was all the accusation, and though they had, the Students consequence doth not follow, for if the law of charity ob­liged him to baptize them, his refusall would have been a withstanding of God.

SECTION SEVENTH, of the MINISTRY,

In the first part of their section, they plead that a man, who is a hypo­crite, and gracelesse, may be a true and lawfull Pastor, yet they grant, that none ought to be admitted into the ministry, but such as ex judi­cio charitatis, id est, out of the judgment of charity, is to be esteemed truely pious, by which acknowledgment, they destroy with their owne hands any seeming strength, that lyes in their owne arguments, as will [Page 66] appear, by a particular examination of them. Their first reason is taken from many Iewish Priests and high Priests, and many Scribes, and Phari­sees in Christs time, who were ministers of Gods word, and yet who will say they were indued with sanct fiing grac? To which we answer, that they were ministers of Gods word, or of the Gospell, is denved, for they were but ministers of the Law, and legall performances, types, figures and shaddowes; and as that Legall dispensation was but imperfect, in respect of the Gospell, so the Priesthood and ministry of it, therefore both was to passe away; so that to argue from the Law to the Gospell, is not e­quall, more then to argue, that becaus the ministers of the Law were mi­nisters of the figures and types, that therefore the ministers of the Gospell, should be the same, yea we may draw an argument from the outward and Legall qualifications of the Priests, that none but truely holy should, or ought to be ministers under the Gospell; for as under the Law, none were to be Priests, but these who came of Levi, a figure of Christ; so under the Gospell, none are to be ministers, but who by a spirituall birth and nativity, are of Christ. And as under the Law, none that were lame and blind corporally, were to be Legall ministers, so under the Gospell, none that are lame and blind spiritually, are to be Gospell ministers, but all that want true holinesse, are lame and blind spiritually, therefore. Again, many of these Iewish Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, were openly and manifestly impious, especially in the time of Christ his being in the flesh, and could not be esteemed truely pious, in the judgment of charity, and so if the argument hold, it proves that men be admitted, and owned to be ministers of the Gospell, that are not pious in the judgment of chari­ty. The like may be said of Iudas, whom they take in their second argu­ment, to patronize a gracelesse ministry, for if Iudas was a devil from the beginning, certainly Christ did know him to be so, and therefore could not in the judgment of charity esteeme him to be truely pious, how could he then admitt him? But as for Judas, they alledge indeed that he was a devil from the beginning, but they have not proved it; it is said ex­pressly of him, that he fell from his ministry by transgression, we read not that he was degraded his office, any other way, but simply by his trans­gression, which was his betraying Christ. Again, it is written of him, let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein, and his Bishoprick let another take. Psal. 109. But they who plead for a grace [...]esse Minister, would put another in Judas habitation, and so would hold up a ministry [Page 67] of covetous men, as he was, who to satisfie their covetousnesse will betray Christ: for suppose, that a man have all other qualifications re­quisite, and yet be openly and notourly a wicked man, he may plead his right to be admitted, and if admitted to be continued to be a minister, what ground have his brethren, out of Scripture, to depose him, accor­ding to the Students argument, (which is indeed the generall argument of the clergie) [as they are called] seing he hath all the essentialls of a Mi­nister? if they say, Paul requireth that a Bishop, or Deacon be found blame­lesse, not covetous, but vigilant, sober &c: then it will follow, as much, that he that is not really pious, ought not to be admitted, as he that is not seemingly pious, for the Apostle doth not say, he must be seemingly so, but simply that he must be so, and indeed to expound all these qualifi­cations of a seeming, and no reall holinesse, is to mock the Scripture, for they might as wel say, that seeming holynesse only, and not reall, is re­quired indispensably of us, in order to salvation, for the Scripture as po­sitively requireth holynesse, unto the function of a Bishop, as it doth re­quire it unto salvation. There is yet another thing, which they have to prove, concerning Judas, viz, that Christ sent him to preach the Gospell. He sent him indeed to work miracles, heale the sick, and to say, The king­dom of God is at hand, that is to say, the Gospell dispensation is approach­ing; but that Judas was a minister of the Gospell, which is the power of God unto salvation, we require them to prove: for it was after his remov­all that Christ sent the Apostles to preach the Gospell. Their third reason is, that the efficacy of the words depends not upon the worthinesse of the preachers 1 Cor. 3: 7. We grant the Antecedent, but deny the Conse­quence, for although it depend not upon the worthinesse of the Preacher, yet it may and doth require holynesse, as a qualification indispensably ne­cessary in him, even as they grant themselves, that none are justified, without faith, yet they deny that the efficacy of justification depends upon the worthynesse of him that believeth, and the efficacy of good wine de­pends not upon the worthynesse of the vessell, that bears it, yet none will put good wine in a leaky vessell, or unfit, and indeed as unfit as a leaky, unclean vessel is to receive good wine, a gracelesse man is as unfit to receive the dispensation of the Gospell, which is compared to new wine in the Scripture, and said Christ, no man putteth new wine into old bottles, for indeed the ministration of the Gospell, is a ministration of life and grace, and none can minister that which they have not. Their [Page 68] fourth argument depends upon a proposition, which they lay downe, and offer to prove, but fall short in, viz, that they can not know who have true grace, this we deny, for if they would believe in the Light, wherewith Christ hath enlightened them, they should receive the Anointing, and by it their eyes should be opened to know, who are gracious, and who not. But let us see how they prove it. 1. Say they, we can not know it immedi­atly, that is granted. 2. Nor can we know it by their outward works, unless it be out of the judgment of charity, which may deceive us, for all the works which a godly man can doe, may likewise be performed as to the outward, by hypocrits. To this we answer, If by outward works, they mean such as come under the outward observation of the meer outward and bodily senses we grant; but there are works, which are the fruits of the Spirit, which, although they remaine in the souls of holy men, yet send forth a savour of that life and Spirit, or spirituall principle, that is the root of them, through the outward words and conversation, which can and doe reach unto the spirituall senses of others, where they are, and this savour and manifestation of life can no hypocrite have, but it is an infallible evi­dence of sanctification in measure where it is, and where the sanctification is greatest the savour or manifestation of life is there greatest also, accor­ding unto this, Paul said, we are a good savour, &c. and Paul said of the Corinthians, that they were the epistle of Christ. John said of the Saints that the name of God, and of the Lamb, shall be in their foreheads. Many other testimonies could be brought to prove this, we shall only add that of Christ, he that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. So here is an evidence, that no hypocrite can have Now what are these rivers, but the influences of the Spirit, and seing they are said to flow out, they may be discerned by others. It is true the naturall senses can not discerne them, but the Spirituall senses can, and seing the students grant spirituall senses, if they grant them to be true and reall, they must grant also Spirituall sensible objects, which may be as certainly apprehended, and discerned by our spirituall senses, although the objects themselves be without us, as naturall objects without us may be apprehended by the na­turall senses. 3. Nor can we know it, say they, by revelation, but how prove they it? They only suppose they have proved already, that thereis no such thing, but how weak and impertinent their proofes are, is above shewed. But here note, that by revelation, is sufficiently understood the revelation or discovery, which the fruits of the Spirit, or Spirituall [Page 69] life give forth in holy men one to another, for as the savour of some sweet oyntement is a sufficient revelation of it, to the sense of the na­turall smell, so the Spirituall savour of the Spirituall oyntment, is such to the Spirituall smell. Lastly, wheras they say, the gift of dis­cerning Spirits, was never common to all. This wee deny, nor doth that Scripture cited by them prove it 1 Cor: 12, 10. Otherwise they might as wel say, that faith was not common to all true Christians, becaus it is said, to another, faith, but as by [faith] here must be un­derstood some extraordinary degree of faith, or the faith of miracles, so the discerning must be some extraordinary degree, or as in relation to miracles, seing there were Spirits of Devils that wrought false mi­racles, and such a discerning as to that, we doe not plead for, as com­mon to all, but that a discerning of Spirits, so farre as to discerne be­twixt them who were godly and wicked, and who were ministers of the Spirit, and who not, was common unto all, we prove, becaus it is promised as a generall priviledge, Mal 3: 18. Then shall ye re­turn and discern between the righteous and the wicked, &c. Again, all are commanded to try the Spirits, 1 Joh 4: 1. Therefore all have a measure of discerning whereby to try them, otherwise they were required to doe an impossible thing, which is absurd, If it be said He giveth a rule, whereby to try them, viz. every Spirit that confes­seth that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God, ver. 2. To this we answer, the rule is one thing, the discerning is another, and differ, as the object, and the eye; Now the eye is as much required to see, as the object, Therefore all need a Spirituall eye, to apply the rule in a suteable manner, so as to know, who doe truly con­fesse Christ come in the flesh, for John can not mean a bare verball confession, becaus Antichrist himselfe may have that, therfore he meaneth a true living confession in life and power, which no hypo­crite can have. Having thus answered all their arguments we shall conclude this particular with one argument against them, one part of which is their owne confession. They who can be certainly known and discerned, to be impious and unholy, ought not to be admit­ted into the ministry. But impious and unholy men can be cer­tainly knowne to be impious and unholy, Therfore they ought not, &c. The first proposition is proved and sufficiently confirmed from their owne confession, that none ought to be admitted, but [Page 70] who in the judgment of charity are to be esteemed truely pious, therfore they who can not be so estemed ought not to be admitted, but if they be certainly knowne to be impious, they can not be so esteemed, therefore &c. the assumption is proved above, partly by arguments, and partly by the refutation of what they have said against it.

In the second part they dispute aginst an immediat enthusiastick call, (as they call it) by way of inspiration, being necessary, and for the necessity of a mediate and outward call; and becaus we plead for the blessed inspi­ration of the Spirit of God, they call us Enthusiasticall impostors, and if the Apostles themselves and primitive Christians were now living, they would give them the same name: for we plead for no other inspiration, but that which was given unto those holy men. But seing they use the word Enthusiasme so much, in a way of reproach, it is fit, that it be open­ed, let them tell us then, if they mean any other thing by it, then true divine inspiration, if they mean another, it concerns us not, for we plead for no other, but if they mean that, (as the word properly signifies, be­ing derived from a word, that signifies, God within, as the best Greek dictionaries shew) they should not reproach us with that, which was the glory of the primitive Christians, and by which the Scriptures were writ, to wit, divine inspiration. And here they tell us of an inward call, which consists in the disposition of the soul, but they will not have it to be an in­spiration, but if by this disposition, they mean any spirituall or superna­turall gift, they must needs acknowledge that it is an inspiration, at least in the generall sense, for how can it be spirituall, unlesse it be inspired, is not every good thing, that is spiritually good, from the Spirit? Surely the nationall confession of faith, published in Knoxes time doth expressly say, that faith is the Inspiration of God: but if they say, they deny not subjective but objective inspiration, we put them to prove this unnaturall division, and separation; as if there were any inspiration in mens soules, that is not objective, which we altogether deny, but as to this inward call, we ask them, if it hath not in it the nature of a command, so that he who hath it, is bound to obey it: if they say, not, then a man may law­fully disobey it, and resist it, although it be of God: if they say, it is a com­mand, then it is objective, for it is the nature of all reall and true com­mands to be objective. Again, if by disposition, they mean, the meer qualification that enables a man to be a preacher, how can that be a call, seing a man may be fit or able for an office, that hath not a call thereunto, [Page 71] being already in another office, that he is fit for also. So that they bew ray grosse ignorance, in confounding the ability, and the call, which are di­stinct things. And here they require of us to prove our immediate call by miracles, or any extraordinary thing, which can only be from God, and so cannot agree to false teachers. And it having been told them by R. B. that the Papists made the same objection against the first reformers, they call this an impertinent pratling, but for all the disparity, they shew, the impertinent pratling falls upon themselves. They confesse the first re­formers had an extraordinary call, in respect of their heroick gifts, yet they also had a mediat call, They owned the holy Scriptures for their principall rule, and preached no other Gospel, &c. To this we answer, that all of them had a mediate call, is a meer alledgance without any proofe, yea the history of the reformation sheweth the contrary. Again, it is abundantly evident out of their owne writings, that the most eminent of them did lay no weight upon that outward call, which some of them had, from the Popish church, but did plead, that seing the visible succes­sion of the church, and ministry was interrupted by the apostasie that they needed no outward call, but did betake themselves to the extraor­dinary: see for this Sadeell de legit: vocatione ministrorum, and when they used any argument of a mediate call, it was but by way of arg. ad hominem, as now if any of us called Quakers hade ever had the mediate call, from the nationall churches, as some in England indeed had, na­mely S. F. who was a Parish priest, nor will it prove, that the first refor­mers had an extraordinary call, because they owned the Scriptures as their principall rule, and preached no other Gospell, otherwise all the natio­nall preachers now would have an extraordinary call, because they pre­tend to owne the Scriptures as their principall rule, and to preach no o­ther Gospell, yea we owne the Scriptures as much as the first reformers did, and we do acknowledge them, that they are the principall externall rule, and to be preferred to all other outward writings and testimonies, but we can not preferre them, to the inward testimony and word of God in our hearts, as neither did the most eminent of these, called reformers, but indeed preferred the inward testimony and word to the outward, as is proved in the book called Quakerisme no Popery. Now whatever proofe or evidence the first reformers could give of their exrtaordinary call, the Quakers can give the same: that, which they mainly insisted on, was the soundnesse of their doctrinee, accompanyed with the holynesse of their [Page 72] life and good effect of their ministry, whereby soules were converted un­to God, as Sadeel in the treatise above mentioned de legit. voc. Min. sheweth at length, and let our adversaries disprove this evidence, if they can, which we say is as good an evidence to us, as it was to them, and though false teachers may pretend unto the same, yet it can be proved, that it doth not justly belong unto them. As for Popery and Mahumeta­nism, it can be proved, that they are contrary to Scripture, but our ad­versaries have not proved, nor can, that our doctrine is so, and we are most willing to bring the matter to this issue, we doubt not but to give better and stronger evidences from Scripture and reason to convince gainsayers in a rationall way, then our adversaries can. But that we make the efficacy of our doctrine, taken precisely by it selfe, and without being accompanied with the soundnesse of it &c: an evidence of our Call, is a meer calumny of the Students.

Now let us see, what they have to say for Their outward and mediate call. They cite divers Scriptures to prove, that the Apostles ordained Elders but doth this prove, that their ordination, which they derive from the apo­state church of Rome, is a true ordination, and necessary? Yea it is clear, and confessed by the most judicious Protestants, that true and lawfull or­dination, and succession hath not continued in the church, since the Apo­stles dayes, but hath suffered an interruption by the generall apostasie, that as a flood overflowed the earth, and that although God still preserv­ed a church, yet she had not a visible outward succession, becaus she was not visible all along here selfe, and before our adversaries can make the halfe of their argument good, they must prove, that not only a true church hath continued ever since the Apostles dayes, but that she hath been visible, having a true visible succession of visible teachers, who were good and faithfull men, all along to convey it downe to this day. But to inferre that ordination hath continued, becaus of the command (if the command had been universall) doth not follow, seing many things com­manded, may be unpractised, through unfaithfulnesse, to the command. Now it is certain, that generally the visibly ordained bishops have not been faithfull men for many hundred years, and so kept not to the sub­stance of that true ordination, that was in the Apostles times, but lost it, through unfaithfulnesse, and set up a shaddowe in its roome, the like may be said of other things. And the ordination being once lost, it can not be recovered again, from a meer Scripture command, otherwise all may [Page 73] pretend to a power to ordain, for the Scripture doth not command one more then another, yea we find no generall command in Scripture for ordination, only that it was practised, which we deny not, and with it there was a spirituall gift of the holy Ghost conveyed, which was the main and only thing that made the ordination and laying on of hands effectuall, and without which it is but a shaddow, as may be seen at this day in the Nationall church, for who among them dare say, that they either give or receive that spirituall gift of the holy Ghost, which was then given and re­ceived therewith? 1 Tim. 4: 14. Their second argument is from Heb. 6. 1, 2. whereby they would inferre, that laying on of hands is a part of the foundation of Christianity, but that Scripture saith no such thing, for the doctrine of Baptismes, and laying on of hands relates to the 3 ver. as a thing that the Apostle intended to open, and this (said he) will we doe, if God permit, whereas he had laid the foundation already, therefore the doctrine of the laying on ofhands belongs not to the fouudation, but to the superstructure, but however, it doth not follow, that laying on of hands it selfe is a thing to continue, for he speaks of it, but as of a do­ctrine, as that of Baptismes, which we confesse doth continue, as the do­ctrine of the figures, types, ceremonies and sacrifices doth continue to this day: and the Apostle opened them largely in that Epistle, yet the figures themselves were not to continue. Besides, how do they prove that this laying on of hands is ordination, and not that used in confirmation? Here they miserably stick, only they alledge it is ceased among many, and is not so necessary, but how prove they, that it is not as necessary? Shew us, where it is repealed, more then the other, seing it was as generally pra­ctised, yea and more, for many received it, that were not preachers nor el­ders.

In the last place, they plead, that Preachers should have a miantain­ance, which we deny not, if they need it, but may not men be Preachers, who need no supply from others? but many have where­with to be hospitable unto others, without taking, farre lasse forceing others to give them: the maintainance then that we are against, is 1. A superfluous and unnecessary mantainance. 2. A forced main­tainance. 3. Such a maintainance as Preachers agree with, and contract for. 4. A taking it from them, who are not worthy. 5. A taking it from them, who do not acknowledge them to be true Preachers. Now none of all the Scriptures or reasons brought by them, prove any [Page 74] such maintainance, nor do we read that ever the Apostles received it, or that they received any tithes, which was the maintainance of the Law, and not of the Gospell. and that the people ought to contract with preach­ers, will not follow, becaus they are bound in charity to supply their wants, for we are bound in charity to supply the wants of the poor, ac­cording to our ability, yet it doth not follow, that we are to contract with them, or that they can force it from us. As for the words of Christ, free­ly give, as they import, that they were not to make sale of the Gospell, so also that they were not to force, or compell men to give them, any­thing as a recompense for preaching the same, for how can we give freely, that which we force others to recompense us for? And here they cry out upon the Q. as a sacrilegious crew, for denying such unlawfull maintain­tainance, as the Priests generally have. it seemes the young men are greatly concerned, they love so wel the wages of unrighteousnesse, for against no other thing do we contend. Againe, they alledge, that we belye them, in saying, they think that the preaching of the Gospell can be sold for any earthly wages; the reason they give is weak, for although there is a vast disproportion and inequality in worth betwixt the same, yet a thing may be sold for lesse then the worth of it, yea when the worth is infinitly great­er, for did not Judas sell Christ for thirty pieces of silver, and do not they plead that greedy and covetous men ought to be received, and payed, un­till divested, and are not such guilty of simony, and selling of preach­ing, which they confesse themselves? therefore the Q. in this do not be­lye them. Yea do they not wel know that it is a most ordinary thing in young men (and it is wel if some of these be not guilty of the same) to goe unto patrons, and offer them money for presentations unto parish churches, then which we know no greater simony used in the church of Rome? And as for the hospitality of Preachers, it is also required in Dea­cons, and all good Christians, will it therefore follow, that all good Chri­stians must have set stipends, or if Christians are to work with their hands, that they may have wherewith to be hospitable, why may not preachers also? They cite Paul, telling that he had power to forbear working, but they know that Paul was an Apostle, and claimed that power, not as an ordinary preacher, but as an Apostle, like unto the other Apostles, marke these words, for as touching the Apostles, they had that power, becaus of a more universall charge incumbent upon them, then ordinary pastors, so that they could not so attend to work with their hands, as [Page 75] others could, and yet even Paul wrought with his hands, which is more, then any of the Nationall teachers will doe, to spare the receiving from them who are not able. And it is to be observed, how the nationall teach­ers plead stoutly, for their forbearing of working, from the power of the Apostles, but when we tell them, that the Apostles travelled from one nation to another, and took great paines to plant the Gospell in many places, and hazarded their lives to preach it among the heathens; they answer, that is not required of them: so they would take the Apostles to patronise them, in forbearing working, and taking maintainance, but not in being at such paines and jeopardies for the Gospells sake, as the Apo­stles, which is not equall. Also when we tell them, the Apostles preach­ed ly inspiration, and had an immediat call from heaven, they tell us, that is ceased now: but why tell they not that the power to forbear work­ing is ceased also? Surely the continuing of inspirations, and immediat calls to the Ministry seemeth a more needfull thing, then their stipends.

SECTION EIGHTH. of LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE,

After that the Students have laboured what they can to overturne the Quakers, they betake them to Persecution as their last refuge, thinking if they can but prevaill here and get the Magistrats to cut off the Q. as blasphemers and traitours (for such they have desi­gned them in their title page) they will be eased of the troublesome task of disputing any more with them. And here, not to be unlike themselves, they begin with a lye, saying, they had a dispute concerning this with the Q. the 1. of Iun 1675. whereas one of them, to wit I. L. was not present, and the other two proposed not one argument in that matter, but what [Page 76] was spoken, was by another, who being earnestly desired by them to concurre in the Accompt of it with them, utterly refused; as judging, neither he, nor they could give a true account of it, and absolutely dis­charging to meddle with that in their book, which yet they are not ashamed falsely to ascribe to themselves, which that young man upon sight of their book from one of us, declared to be a lye, asserting what is above written in this matter, before severall witnesses of their owne pro­fession, particularly P. D. one of the Students attestators; and therefore since he judgeth himselfe, as he declared, abused in this effaire by them, as wel as we, we shall not take notice of what passed at that time betwixt him and us, (it being also his desire) but betake our selves to this Theam, as it is now proposed and urged by the Students, wherein how miserably they are pained, the very stating of their controversie shewes, in which they have given away their cause. 1. They say, they speak only of reall he­resies, and not what others call so. 2. they say, they speak not of inward acts and meer exercises of the mind, becaus it belongs neither to church, nor magistrat, to judge of hidden things. To which we answer, that since the Students acknowledge that both their Church and magistrat is lyable to errour, yea and that neither of them, are to be supposed infallible, and therefore can not certainly and infallibly discerne what is heresie, neither ought they to take upon them to punish for heresie; and that de facto Protestant churches have thus erred, their master, Iohn Menzies and many of his brethren, can bear witnesse, who have cryed out against that for errour, antichristianity and heresie, causing men to be grievously persecuted for it, which now they allow as Christian and Orthodox. But we shall improve this more hereafter, and now proceed to their argu­ments. 1. They argue from Deut. 13: 5. Exod. 22: 20. Lev. 22. but the question is, whether these commands given particularly to the Iewes, belong to us (for that of Lev. 22. is only concerning the Priests and Le­vits, touching the holy things, with their uncleannesse upon them, and is wholly impertinent to this purpose) for if these be obligatory upon us, so will also many other, as that a man may immediatly with his owne hand kill him, that has killed his kinsman, unlesse he get to the city of re­fuge, seing there is no particular repeal of that, more then of the former, yea and that of Deut. 5: 9. saith expressly that the brother, husband or fa­ther of him that consenteth to serve other Gods, shall kill him with his own hand, which our adversaries will not deny to be murder, and let them [Page 77] shew us where the one part of this command is repealed more, then the other, or how the one part is lawfull for us, and the other unlawfull, seing both were commanded and lawfull to the Iewes: for their meer assertions as to this pag: 126. are not to be regarded. They are offended that Matth. 5: 29. should be given for a repeal of this, alledging that be­longeth only to privat persons, and not to magistrats, else it should be unlaw­full for Magistrats to punish transgressours &c. Answ. The Consequence will not hold, for we are not speaking of things civil, but of things religi­ous, though it may be lawfull for them, to resist evil in the one, yet not in the other. But that Christian magistrats are here included is easily prov­en. If this belong to all Christians, then it belongeth to all magistrats if they be Christians; for to say, that a Christian by becomeing a magistrat, is dispensed, of these obligations he is particularly tyed to, as a Christian, is most absurd, yea if Christian magistrats be bound to suffer for righteous­nesse sake, then they are not to resist evil in matters of religion, But the first is true, for how could they enjoy the blessing of those that suffer for righteousnesse sake Matth. 5: 10, 11. if they still resisted? At this rate none should suffer for Christ, who could by any means shun it, by kill­ing those that make them suffer, and who would then be those that suf­fer willingly? and it seemes according to the Students, if a man be a ma­gistrate, he ought not any more to suffer for Christ, which is as much as to say, that so soon as a man becomes a magistrate, he ceases to be a Chri­stian.

The great noise they make of the two dispensations of the Gospell, mentioned by G. K. doth but manifest their owne weaknesse and folly, for themselves will not deny but that wherever faith in Iesus Christ is pro­fessed, and he owned as the Saviour, and Son of God, there is a dispensati­on of the Gospell, as in the Greek, Armenian, Ethiopian, yea (and in their account) in the Romish church also, yet will they not deny but that di­pensation is more legall and obscure,, then that themselves are under, as having many ceremonies and shaddowes not necessary, and so here is a twofold dispensation acknowledged by themselves, seing they will not af­firme that the use of all these ceremonies is absolutely sinfull in these churches, who are not as yet convinced of it, though it should be unlaw­full for them to use them; and seing the purest and most excellent dispen­sation of the Gospell is to be like unto Christ, who resisted not evil, though he was powerfull to doe it, and that we are bound to be like him, then [Page 78] there is a dispensation of the Gospell, in which evil is not to be resisted. But further, if there be such a dispensation of the Gospell, as men shall beat their swords into plough-shears, and their spears into pruning hooks, and not learne warre any more, then there is a dispensation, in which evil hall not be resisted, the consequence can not be denyed; the antecedent is the expresse words of the prophet Isaiah 2. 4. Besides, this twofold dispen­sation is proved out of bishop Forbes of Aberdeen his exposition upon the Revelations, where he affirmes that the two last chapters of the Revela­tion, is understood of a church upon earth, in which church it can not be supposed that evil should be resisted by an outward sword.

Pag. 121. They argue from Rom. 13. where the magistrat is not to bear the sword in vain. Hence they conclude, they ought to resist evil, but this saith nothing as to matters of religion; they shew as wel their malice, as disingenuity here, insinuating, we denyed that place to belong to Magi­strats now, which we never did, nor doe; only G. K. said, he would be glad to hear how they could prove that it did belong to magistrats now, and indeed were we not other wayes perswaded of it, their arguments could not in reason convince us, which is, that the Scripture is written for our cause, and these epistles are to be received and obeyed by us, but they have overturned all these themselves (as is above observed) where in their answer to the Apostls rules, about womens praying and prophesy­ing with their head covered; they suppose rules given by the Apostle in his epistles, of things, that not only are not pertaining to us, but even un­lawfull, and so unlesse they make us a clear distinction of these rules, and that by some evident demonstration, to argue from our duty to obey these commands, signifies nothing. But while they take up the paper to prove, that which they can not say we ever denyed, they most shameless­ly omitt our chief answer to this, which could they have replyed unto, they would not have dropped thus. And therefore we shall returne it upon them, that they may not forget it, when they writ next. That of the 13 Rom. can not be understood of the magistrats punishing men for matters of Conscience, because, it being written to the church of Rome, to shew them, their duty towards their present magistrate, which was Nero that cruell and persecuting Emperour, and then it would follow, that Nero had had a lawfull power, and authority, to punish even Chri­stians for errours in matters of religion, though himselfe was a professed infidel, and seing the magistrate is to exert his power, according to his [Page 79] knowledge, it would follow that Nero exercised a lawfull power in caus­ing kill the Apostles, and persecute the Christians, which will make that horrid crime very slender, seing it was no more according to the Stud. but the exerciseing that lawfull authority, he had received from God, ac­cording to his knowledge.

Pag. 122. They build an airy triumph upon their owne mistak, alledg­ing, that since their magistrats are not under that pure dispensation, it is lawfull for them to resist evil, and so that of Matth. is not a repeal to them. But they have here either wilfully, or ignorantly forgotten the other branch of the distinction, for granting their Magistrats may (as we deny not) and that lawfully resist evill in Civil matters, yet not in matters of Conscience, and this is that, which was incumbent upon them to have proven. But it may be worth the Readers paines specially to notice their reasonings in this 122. p. in answer to that objection given in by us, from the parable of the tares Matth. 13. where the servants are expressly forbid­den to pluck them up. Here they play fast and loose to purpose, and to facilitate their own work, make no difficulty to fasten contradictions upon Christ himselfe. 1. They say, It is clearly repealed, becaus murtherers, witches, traitours are tares, as wel as hereticks, and if the one were to be eximed, so would the other. Is not this the way to argue against Christ, and to charge contradictions upon him, not upon us? wherein they fasten an absurdity upon him, who gave this command, or else they must acknowledge, that by these tares are to be understood some sort of evil doers, with whom the magistrats, are not to meddle. But since the Stu­dents say, this is repealed, they must confesse it sometimes stood in vi­gour, it being once commanded, we would willingly be informed then of them, (and they may remember it, when they write next) how long this command stood, and to whom it belonged, since it had its rise from Christ, and was none of the old covenant precepts, or if it be one of these uselesse Gospell commands they dreame of, which it is unlawfull for us to obey. But to goe on, they say, that ly the tares is to be understood, be­masked hypocrits, who being scarce discernable from the wheat, are there­fore not to be meddled with. Very wel then, where the magistrate can not discerne heresies, according to themselves, he is not to punish: and then what comes of that authority was acknowledged Nero had, from Rom. 13 who was as uncapable to discerne hereticks as hypocrits? And then seing as before is said, they are not to judge of hidden things, experience hath [Page 80] aboundantly shewne, how much the true discerning of heresie is both uncer­taine, and difficult even to Protestant magistrats, who have called that wheat to day, which they have called tares to morrow, and therefore ought according to this rule, to forbear medling in such matters.

Their second argument pag. 123. drawne from Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2: 14. which is parallel with it, is before answered. Afterwards they goe about to play the Polititians, shewing both here, and in the following pag. how the publick peace is disturbed, by suffering of sundry Religions, and this they reckon so certain, that they conclude it is known by all, that are but indifferently versed in histories &c. Now if this conclusion hold true, it is impossible either for France, Germany, Holland or Zwitser­land to be in peace, without either the Papists rise up, and cutt the Pro­testants throats, or the Protestants theirs, and who but such as the Stu­dents can be ignorant that after much blood-shed and contention, who should oppresse and destroy each other, they have learned by sad expe­rience, that it is safest, and most conducible to the peace, and contributs most to the publick benefit, not to meddle with each others consciences, notwithstanding that these pitifull States-men can prattle to the contra­ry, who have shewne themselves in this to be very indifferently versed in history.

But they proceed affirming, that since the Magistrat is keeper of both tables, to whom is entrusted not only the care of mens bodies, but souls, he ought to punish not only for evil, but also for religious offences. If all this were confessed, would it follow that he were to punish Religious, as Civil offences by a Civil censure? Surely nay, no more then he must punish Civile offences, by an Ecclesiastick censure. Now it remains for them to prove that offences in things purely conscientious should among Chri­stians be punished by the externall sword, which they have not as yet done, and let it be here observed, that not withstanding all their clamours for the Magistrats priviledge, and that the Q. detract from him, that all the power, dignity and honour they put upon him, is to be the Clergies burrow, for as they allow him not authority to judge who are Hereticks, and who not, but he must only serve to be their executioner, and persecut such as they find prejudiciall to their interest, for though they will have it to be lawfull for Preachers, such as their Bishops, to be Magistrats, as Chan­cellour, Counseller, Iudge, &c. Yet no Magistrat, nay the King himself must take upon him to be a Preacher, (though we could never see any thing [Page 81] in all the New Testament, making this unlawfull, yea and David and Solomon in the Old, who were not of the tribe of Levi, were both Pro­phets and Preachers, and pen-men of the Scripture.) This trick even the Protestant Clergy have learned from their father the Pope, who shewed the Clergy long ago, the way to make themselves Princes and Iudges, but to be sure to shut out the Magistrate from meddling with their function. So it may be easily seen here, whether the Q. or the Students be greatest friends to the Magistrate. Lastly, They conclude, that since those that broach heresy, do evil, and that the Magistrate is the executer of God's wrath upon him that doeth, or acteth outwardly evil, without any restriction &c. it is not lawfull for us to add a restriction, where the Spirit of God hath put none.

Who can but admire the impudency of these Students, which doe that, which in the following line they affirme is unlawfull, by adding [outward­ly] which is a restriction? For the words in the text are not [outwardly evil] but evil, which being taken without any restriction, comprehends inward as wel as outward acts of evil. Seing then they put a restriction, (though to their own selfe-condemnation, they confesse it to be unlaw­full) which they are forced to doe, else hypocrites would be comprehend­ed, whom they confesse to be tares, that are not to be meddled with. We that judge it no wise unlawfull (becaus without other clear texts be con­tradicted, there must be here a restriction) may restrict it to things civil and morall, excluding matters of worship and difference in opinion, for the reasons often before mentioned. Their 3. argument wholly misses the matter, which is the practice of many princes, even approved of God, in coercing Idolatries &c: for since all the examples, they give, are of the kings of Judah and Israël under the, Law it nowise meets the present controversie, which is concerning the power of Christian Magistrats under the Gospell.

Lastly, They argue that the Prophets of the Old Testament, have pro­phesied that it should be the office of Christian Magistrats to coërce false pro­phets, for which they alledge Deut. 18: 20. he that shall speak in the name of other Gods shall die. Very wel, he saith not, shall be put to death in a judiciall way. It is said, The soul that sinneth shall die, it will not therefore follow, that every soul that sinneth, shall be killed by the Magistrate. But though it be understood of putting to death, it reacheth not the case, we being under the Gospell, not under the Law, where also it was not [Page 82] lawfull so to doe for different opinions and interpretations of the Law, but onely for rejecting the true God, and his Law, and introducing new and strange Gods Their other proofe is from Zech. 13: 1, 2, &c: where it is said, that the fathers and the mothers of the false Prophets shall say unto them, Thou shalt not live, and thrust them through, when they pro­phesy. This is so farre from being taken literally, that the Students dare not take it so themselves, else the father and and the mother might doe the businesse without troubling the magistrate, and afterwards the text speaks of those, who were not to live, of their having wounds in their hands and being alive, which shewes the understanding here is to be spirituall, and seing the Students do not understand it literally, of the persons to whom the text ascribes this coërcing, and that there is not the least word of a magistrate in the place, for them, to affirme, that it is not to be un­derstood of the magistrate, is but miserably to begg the question. They begin their 8. Sect. pag. 126. affirming that Quakerism tends to Anarchie and confusion and treason, alledging, we would pull down the Magistrate, if we could, and set up our own spirituall Magistrates, as Iohn of Leyden &c. For this malitious insinuation they give no reason, but such an one as destroyes it, to wit, our giving in [Resist not evil, pluck not up the tares] as repeals of some lawes in the Old Test. Now let men of reason, judge, whether treason be the tendency of these mens principles, that affirme, evil is not to be resisted; or how these can doe violence to the Magistrate without contradicting their principles, and then it can not be the tenden­cy of them: and wheras they conclude, saying, That Quakerism, as they conceive, beyond all doubt, tends to Anarchie, confusion of state and trea­son. Their conceptions are very false, in this matter, and we may upon farr better grounds retort this upon the Students Confraternity, the Clergy, who through their ambition and turbulency did from the pulpits blow the trumpet of all the late confusion, and treason, in the civil warrs, and shew themselves exact disciples of Iohn. of Leyden, acting his pranks upon the stage of Great Britaine, a charge, they have not to lay to the Quakers.

Their next effort is to prove, we deny the necessity of Professing Chri­stianity, becaus we believe those not bound to believe the history of Christ, from whom God hath necessarily withheld the knowledge of it, for they confesse that wee believe these obliged to believe them, to whom they are re­vealed. But they must here also act like themselves, in makeing that a horrible crime in us, which their owne chiefe doctors affirme, who [Page 83] being pressed by the Arminians with this argument [That which every man is bound to believe is true. But every man is bound to believe that Christ died for them, therfor it is true] They deny the Minor plainly affirming that those that have not heard of Christ, are not bound to belie­ve he died for them, so according to the Students themselves, are guilty of denying the necessity of professing Christianity as well as we. But fur­ther they say, wee are guilty of this, becaus we set up a new Christ in every man, that is borne, and growes up, unto a perfect substantiall birth, as their first charge in this matter hitts at their owne Doctors, so this second is common with us to the Apostle Paul (for the Students dispute like blind men striking at random, that heed not, what they hit) seing the Apostle calls Christ within, of which we speak, the hope of glory, which is neither a new Christ, nor yet another then he that died at Ierusalem who did tra­vell that he might be brought forth in the [...]alatians, and calls him, the new man, borne in, and put on by others. So if in this the Apostle did not deny the outward sufferings of Christ, neither doe we; unlesse the Stu­dents can shew, how our doctrine differs from his, or contradicts it, which they have not yet attempted to doe. As for that question of I. Penington. How can outward blood cleanse? we referre them to his owne book in defence of that expression, as quarrelled by J. Hicks, called the flesh and blood of Christ, of which there were divers printed coppies at Aber­deen, befor the Students book was put to the presse.