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 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 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
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 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 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 Where the Students chief argument against the spirits being the rule is proved to be one upon the matter with that the Jesuit Dempster used against their Master I. M. and the same way answered and their weak endeavours to evite it examined and refuted 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. Lucifâ—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 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 I. M. answereth the Iesuit thus pag. 5. of his Pap. Lucifugus Our Answer to the Students as themselves acknowledge st pag. 59. â—s The true religion hath sufficient grounds in it self to
manifest it self to be the true religion if it met with a well disposed intellect for to use your own similitude an honest man may have ground enough to shew a distinction betwixt him and a knave albeit a fool cannot discern it so the true religion may have ground enough to prove it self true which the false religion hath not though an infidell or Heretick whose foolish mind is darkened Rom. 1. 21. cannot take it up That the evidence of the spirit cannot be assigned but to the well disposed understandig This they call a pitifull subterfuge alledging that then this evidence can only be assigned to such as are of the Q. mind but not to others and that any Heretick in the world may deny evidences upon the same account Now let the judicious Reader determine whether if this answer be a pitifull subterfuge the Students with the same breath do not declare their Masters to the Jesuit to be the same 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 â—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 honesâ—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 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 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
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 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 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