both against the Protestants abroad and us in pleading for this imaginary holiness of the first day of the week which in his Dialogue he sought to prove because Christ did rise upon it but to my Answer shewing he might from thence infer the rest of the Popish Holy-days of his Birth Ascension Conception c. he replies not one word He summarily passes over what is said by me concerning this thing pag. 38 39 40 and 42. which the Reader by looking unto may observe He alledgeth The fourth Command speaketh not precisely of the Seventh day in order from the Creation and that the beginning and ending of it mentions the Sabbath-day and not the Seventh Quid inde c. What then Is not the middle of the Command as observable which saith expresly But the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord There God himself expounds the Sabbath to be the Seventh day And W.M. must not think we will reject this Exposition to accept of his proofless Glosses My Argument drawn from Col. 2.16 17. Let no man judge you in respect of an Holy-day or Sabbath-days and Rom. 14.6 which sheweth all days to be alike and Gal. 4.10 11. Ye observe days and months All Days alike times and years He answereth alledging These reprove not Moral days but Ceremonial adding That the fourth Command binds to this and therefore it cannot be more abrogate than any of the rest of the Ten Commands But this is no proof at all only a meer begging the question he should have more convincingly proved that the fourth Command binds to the Observation of this Day Now the Apostle in these places saith not I am afraid of you because ye observe Ceremonial days W. M. hath no bottom for this distinction He confesseth that Christ Matth. 24.20 speaketh nothing of the first day of the week and therefore overthrows the Inference he makes in his Dialogue from it And what I further add to shew the folly of this Inference from the Scripture he hath wholly omitted which the Reader may see pag. 38 39. of my last Page 106. He says O! the conscientious keeping of the Sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shall be admitted to this Rest viz. the Rest of the Lamb. But seeing these words are without any proof they are only like to have credit with such silly superstitious Bigots as Calvin in the place above-mentioned reproves and not with any solid serious Christians Sect. 2. page 107. To prove that the First Day of the Week is set apart for the Service of God The Lord's Day not limited to a particular Day by Divine Authority he citeth Rev. 1.10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day but whereas I told him this did no way prove that Day to be the First Day of the Week because the Day of the Lord or the Lord's day in Scripture is not limited to any particular Day He answers That these two ought not to be confounded for all days wherein the Lord executeth Judgment are days of the Lord but the Lord's day mentioned Rev. 1. is but one For this he bringeth no proof but his own meer Assertion As Ignatius calling the First day of the week The Queen of days doth not prove that Lord's day spoken of by John to be the first day so if Ignatius had been of this mind and had esteemed of it above other days that makes nothing against us we know this Superstition was creeping into the Church before Ignatius's time therefore the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians Gal. 4.10 11. To prove this Day spoken of by John to be the First Day of the Week he saith Christ appeared to his Disciples declared himself to be the Son of God upon the First Day of the Week That it is supposed that was the day the Spirit was poured forth And that Beza in an antient Greek Manuscript did find the First Day of the Week called the Lord's Day But all this doth not in the least prove the matter in question except this may suffice for proof W.M. thinks this will infer the Day of the Lord spoken of by John to be the First Day of the Week Therefore it is so There may be Superstition enough found in old Greek Manuscripts Superstitious Observing of days the Inventions of Men. It is near fourteen hundred years since the Eastern and Western Churches were like to split about the Observation of Easter and yet Protestants with good reason look upon that Controversy as both Superstitious and Frivolous Now giving but not granting this Day spoken of by John were the First Day of the Week How doth he prove from this that the First Day of the Week is come to Christians in place of the Jewish Sabbath or that it stands as an Obligation upon them as a part of the Moral Law whereunto we are bound by the fourth Command First Day of the Week Which though it be the chief thing in debate remains yet unproved Seeing then he has had very few proofs for these his supposed Ordinances but such as are only bottomed upon his own Affirmations the Judicious Reader may judge it is without ground he concludes here that we deny the Ordinances of Christ and not the Inventions of Men. His fourteenth Head Original Sin not grounded in Scripture page 109. is concerning Original Sin so called which the Reader by comparing with pag. 40 41 42 and 65. of mine will see that he makes no Real but a meer Counterfeit shew of Answer And I desire the Reader first to observe That neither here nor in his Dialogue he doth not so much as offer to prove that this phrase Original Sin is to be found in Scripture and for all his pretences to make the Scripture his Rule he hath no ground from this but from Popish Tradition Secondly That we grant a real Seed of Sin derived from Satan Our Sense of it which Adam's Posterity is liable to But we say none become guilty of this before God until they close with this evil Seed and in them who close with it it becomes an Origin or Fountain of evil thoughts desires words and actions And as by granting all capable of receiving this real Seed of Sin we differ from the Socinians and Pelagians So by saying It is not the Childrens Sin until they do close with it We agree with Zuinglius a famous Protestant who for this very Doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent in the Art of the Fifth Ses. Conf. Trent lib. 2 pag. 208. The Acts of which Council not only against us but against this famous Founder of the Protestant Churches in Zuitserland is that which W.M. is here Vindicating Thirdly I desire the Reader may observe That the thing he pleads for is That Infants are really guilty before God That Infants are guilty before God simply for Adam's Sin and that some of them who die in their Infancy Whether Infants are guilty before the
omitted In Chap. 21. Sect. 7. where they say That the Sabbath from the Resurrection of Christ was changed into the First Day of the Week which in Scripture say they is called the Lord's Day and is to be continued to the End of the World as the Christians Sabbath In which they assert Three Things First That the First Day of the Week is come in place of the Seventh for a Sabbath To prove which they alledge 1 Cor. 16. 1 2. Now concerning the Collection for the Saints as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia even so do ye Vpon the First Day of the Week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him that there be no Gathering when I come Acts 20.7 The Divines Non-sensical Proofs That the First day of the Week is instead of the Sabbath And upon the First Day of the Week when the Disciples came together to break Bread Paul preached to them ready to depart on the Morrow and continued his Speech until Midnight That these Proofs Assert not the things expresly we need not I suppose dispute Now to say that because Paul desires the Corinthians to lay something by them in store that day or because he brake Bread continued his Speech until Midnight therefore the First Day of the Week is come in place of the Sabbath is a Consequence more remarkable for its Sottishness than to be credited for its Soundness Indeed to make so solemn an Article of Faith as these Men would have the Morality of the First Day of the Week to be would need a more positive and express Authority The Text doth clearly enough tell the Reason of the Disciples Meeting so frequently and of Paul's preaching so long because he was ready to depart to Morrow it speaks not a word of its being Sabbath Their Second Assertion That the First Day of the Week is therefore called the Lord 's Day Is drawn yet more strangely from that of Rev. 1.10 The Lord's Day I was in the Spirit on the Lord 's Day and heard behind me a great Voice as of a Trumpet Whereas no particular Day of the Week is mentioned So for them to say John meaned the First Day of the Week hath no more Proof but their own bare Assertion For their Third Assertion That it is to be continued to the End of the World as the Christians Sabbath They that alledge these Scriptures Exod. 20.8 10 11. Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it Holy but the Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God in it thou shalt not do any Work The Sabbath-Day thou nor thy Son nor thy Daughter thy Man-Servant nor thy Maid-Servant nor thy Cattle nor thy Stranger which is within thy Gates for in Six Days the Lord made Heaven and Earth the Sea and all that in them is and rested the Seventh Day wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath Day and hallowed it Isaiah 56.2 4 6 7. Matth. 5.17 18. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil For verily I say unto you Till Heaven and Earth pass one Jot or one Tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled If they prove any thing they must needs prove the continuance of the Seventh Day seeing in all the Law there is no mention made of the First Day of the Week being a Sabbath The Seventh Day If these may be reckoned good and sound Consequences I know no Absurdities so great no Heresies so damnable no Superstitions so ridiculous but may be cloathed with the Authority of Scripture In their Twenty Seventh Chapter in the 1 2 3. Sections they speak at large of the Definition and Nature of Sacraments but in all the Scriptures they bring there is not one Word of Sacraments The Truth is there was a good Reason for this Omission for such a thing is not to be found in all the Bible The word Sacrament not to be found in all the Bible For them to alledge that the thing signified is to be found in Scripture though that be also a begging of the Question will not excuse such who elsewhere aver The Whole Counsel of God is contained in the Scripture to forsake and reject the Tenour thereof and scrape out of the Rubbish of the Romish Tradition for that which is reckoned by themselves so substantial a part of their Faith In their Fourth Section they assert two things First That there are Two only Sacraments under the Gospel Secondly That these two are Baptism and the Supper To prove which they alledge Matth. 28.19 Go ye therefore and Teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 11.20 23. When ye come together therefore into one place this is not to eat the Lord 's Supper for I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same Night in which he was betrayed took Bread 1 Cor. 4.1 Let a Man so account of us as of the Ministers of Christ and Stewards of the Mysteries of God Heb. 5.4 4. And no Man taketh this Honour to himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron Now granting there were such a thing as Sacraments to be solemnly performed all that these Scriptures will prove is That these Two were appointed to be performed But that there are only Two or that these are they which is the thing asserted and incumbent to be proved there is not the least Shadow of Proof alledged For according to their own Definition of a Sacrament in the larger Catechism where they say The parts of a Sacrament are two the one an outward and sensible Sign used according to Christ's own appointment the other an inward and spiritual Grace thereby signified both the Washing of one another's Feet and the Anointing of the Sick with Oil doth answer to it and many other Things So that the Probation of a Sacrament at all or of their being Two Seven yea or Seventy is all alike easie seeing neither Name nor Number is to be found in the Scripture they being the meer Conceits and Inventions of Men. And yet it is marvellous to see with how great Confidence some Men do assert the Scripture to be their Rule while they build up so considerable Parts of their Doctrine without the least Scripture-Foundation Thus I thought fit to pitch upon these Three viz. the Scriptures Sabbath and Sacraments because these be Three of the main things for which we the Quakers are chiefly cried out against and accused as believing Erroneously concerning them Now what we believe concerning these things and how agreeable our Testimony herein is to the Scriptures is heretofore sufficiently demonstrated Also how little Scripture-Proof these have for their Contrary Assertions to us in these things notwithstanding of their great Pretences to Scripture will
be great Peace True Peace with God but we have not come by it after such a way as thou dost falsly and rashly judge as by neglecting the Worship of God and stopping the mouth of Conscience but by being turned to that living Word and Law of God in our hearts by loving it and cleaving to it yea by receiving the reproofs and chastisements of God through it and submitting to the Judgment of it when it hath been as a hammer and as a sword and as a fire in us breaking in pieces and destroying all that false unsound Peace we had created to our selves in the day of our alienation from the light of God in us And unto Peace we are come through great tribulation of Soul even such as thou art a stranger unto being ignorant both of the one and the other and so hast therein shewed thy folly in judging what thou knowest not And as for woful security we know not where it more abounds than among hypocritical Professors The Whore's Peace who with the Whore in the Proverbs offer up their Sacrifices of Morning and Evening Prayers and thereby create a Peace to themselves though they let their hearts go a whoring after their Lusts all the day Did not the Pharisees pray much outwardly and were much in other outward practices of Devotion and so created a false peace and esteem unto themselves And can you deny but that there are many such among you who make up a false peace to themselves by leaning upon their outward performances Now what if I should charge this upon your Principle would'st thou think it fair dealing Thirdly Page 52. Thou say'st Doth not that Opinion tend to Atheism which rendreth mortification of sin even in this life useless c. Answ. Here thou dealest dis-ingenuously Is Mortification of sin useless where the end of it is attained And is not perfection the end of mortification Again thou say'st The Opinion of a sinless perfection wounds the very vitals of Religion Answ. Who could have expected that one that pretends to Religion would have been so brazen-faced as to put such an Expression in print What is the end of true Religion The end of true Religion to lead out of sin but to lead out of sin Do the vitals of Religion consist in sinning or in not sinning If it consist in sinning then they that sin most are most religious But if it consist in not sinning and keeping the Commandments of God without sin then to plead for such a thing as attainable hurteth not the vitals of Religion What! cannot the Saints live better without sin than with it Yea surely they can live well without that which is a burden and as Death unto their life they whose life is in sin cannot live but in sin but the Saints life is not in sin but in righteousness And thy consequences are vain and foolish As 1. That men need not pray for pardon of sin 2. That they need not the Blood of Christ to cleanse them from sin 3. That they need not Repentance For we grant that All have sinned and so need those things by which they may attain unto perfection and who witness perfection are come to witness the true use of these things and as the Blood of Christ cleanseth from all the sin so it preserveth clean and such have received the forgiveness of their sins being turned from them unto righteousness which is the fulfilling of Repentance And whereas thou say'st Bring me to the particular person that is sinless and I shall apply to him that of the Apostle 1 John 1.8 Thou shewest openly thy confusion for by thy applying to him that of the Apostle wouldst thou infer a sinless man to be a sinning man That is a contradiction but though we should bring a man to thee that is made free from sin by the power of God thou couldst no more judge of him than a blind man can judge of Colours And as to 1 John 1.8 it is a plain case If we say we have no sin and have fellowship with him and yet walk in darkness as verse 6. then we deceive our selves So it is Conditional otherwise it would contradict what follows Verse 9. and Chap. 2.4 and Chap. 3.6 9. As to that of the Sabbath it is answered above Page 53. Your Religion say'st thou will be welcome to the worst and wickedest of men for you will please them exceedingly in crying down of Ordinances the observation of the Sabbath and private and family Prayer c. Answ. We cry down no Ordinance of God but your hypocritical ways and we know no worse men than those Hypocrites whom we are so far from pleasing Crying down Hypocrisie pleases not the Hypocrite in crying down their hypocritical Prayers and Performances that they frâ—t and gnash at us with their Teeth and if they could get their will would tear us in pieces for witnessing against those things And they are very blind who see not that the denying of those things in shadow and bare formality and establishing them in the power and substance can no ways be acceptable to the Wicked but most unpleasing to Hypocrites who can perform the one but not the other But now let us examine whether your Principles or ours be most acceptable to the wicked and hypocrites 1. Wicked men and Hypocrites love well to hear Hypocrites and wicked mens Principles of the Priests that they can never be free from their sins in this life and that they must always sin 2. They love well to hear to be justified by Christ without them and his Righteousness without but not by him and his Righteousness within them 3. They love well to hear that the words without them are the only Rule which they can wrest according to their own corrupt Inclinations but they love not to hear that the Word and Light of God within is to be their Rule which they cannot wrest nor bend 4. They love well to hear that they may use the fashions and customs of this World bow and cringe and give and receive the Honour of this World 5. They love to hear they may use Sports and Games and Plays 6. To wear Laces and Ribbons and Gold Rings and other superfluity 7. They love well to hear that men must not expect to hear God immediately being such as those who said Let not God speak unto us 8. They love well to hear that Water-baptism and giving of Bread and Wine are the Ordinances of God and the true Baptism and Supper for then they think they are Christians if they partake of these outward things and they are mad against us who call them shadows And as for their Observation of that called the Sabbath we find none more plead for it than profane light men and women for they can easily dispense to hear a man talk for an hour or two and then have all the rest of the day to spend in idleness vain communication
judged it unlawful to Eat flesh c saith If they eat doubting they eat their own Damnation Now it is manifest for all this that either the doing or forbearing of this was to another that placed no Conscience in it of no moment so I say he that Eateth that which in his Conscience he is perswaded is not lawful for him to Eat doth Eat his own Damnation so he also that placeth Conscience in Eating bread and wine as a Religious Act if he do it Vnprepared and without that due Respect wherein such Acts should be gone about he Eateth and Drinketh his own Damnation not discerning the Lord's Body i. e. not minding what he doth to wit with a special Respect to the Lord and by way of a special Commemoration of the Death of Christ. § VI. I having now sufficiently shewen what the True Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is how it is partaken of and how it has no necessary Relation to that Ceremony of bread and wine used by Christ with his Disciples it is fit now to consider the Nature and Constitution of that Ceremony for as to the proper Vse of it we have had occasion to speak of before whether it be a standing Ordinance in the Church of Christ obligatory upon all II. Whether this Ceremony be a necessary Part of the New Covenant and Obligatory or indeed whether it be any necessary part of the Worship of the New Covenant-dispensation or hath any better or more binding Foundation than several other Ceremonies appointed and practised about the same time which the most of our Opposers acknowledge to be ceased and now no ways binding upon Christians We find this Ceremony only mentioned in Scripture in four places to wit Matthew Mark and Luke and by Paul to the Corinthians If any would infer any thing from the frequency of the mentioning of it that will add nothing for it being a matter of Fact is therefore mentioned by the Evangelists and there are other things lets Memorable as often yea oftner mentioned Matthew and Mark give only an Account of the matter of Fact Mat. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.23 without any Precept to do so afterwards simply declaring that Jesus at that time did desire them to Eat of the Bread and Drink of the Cup To which Luke adds these words This do in Remembrance of me If we consider this Action of Christ with his Apostles there will appear nothing singular in it for a Foundation to such a strange Superstructure as many in their Airy Imaginations have sought to build upon it for both Matthew and Mark press it as an Act done by him as he was Eating Matthew saith And as they were Eating The breaking of Bread was no singular thing but a Custom to Jews P. Riccius and Mark And as they did Eat Jesus took bread c. Now this Act was no singular thing neither any solemn Institution of a Gospel-Ordinance because it was a Constant Custom among the Jews as Paulus Riccius observes at length in his Celestial Agriculture That when they did Eat the Pass-over the Master of the Family did take Bread and bless it and breaking it gave of it to the rest and likewise taking Wine did the same so that there can nothing further appear in this than that Jesus Christ who fulfilled all Righteousness and also observed the Jewish Feasts and Customs used this also among his Disciples only that as in most other things he laboured to draw their Minds to a further thing so in the use of this he takes occasion to put them in mind of his Death and Sufferings which were shortly to be which he did the oftner Inculcate unto them for that they were Averse from believing it And as for that Expression of Luke What it is To do this in Remembrance of Christ Do this in Remembrance of me it will amount to no more than being the last time that Christ did Eat with his Disciples he desired them that in their Eating and Drinking they might have regard to him and by the Remembring of that opportunity be the more stirred up to follow him diligently through Sufferings and Death c. But what man of Reason laying aside the Prejudice of Education and the Influence of Tradition will say that this Account of the Matter of Fact given by Matthew and Mark or this Expression of Luke to do that in Remembrance of him will amount to these Consequences which the generality of Christians have sought to draw from it as calling it Augustissimum Eucharistiae Sacramentum Venerabile Altaris Sacramentum The Principal Seal of the Covenant of Grace by which all the Benefits of Christ's Death are sealed to Believers and such like things But to give a further Evidence how these Consequences have not any bottom from the Practice of that Ceremony nor from the words following Do this c. let us consider another of the like Nature as it is at length expressed by John c. 13. v. 3 4 8 13 14 15. Jesus riseth from Supper and laid aside his Garments and took a Towel and girded himself After that he poured Water into a Bason and began to Wash the Disciples Feet and to wipe them with the Towel wherewith he was girded Peter saith unto him Thou shalt never Wash my Feet Jesus answered him If I Wash thee not thou hast no part with me Christ's Washing of Feet and its Manner related So after he had Washed their Feet he said Know ye what I have done to you If I then your Lord and Master have Washed your Feet ye also ought to Wash one anothers Feet For I have given you an Example that ye should do as I have done to you As to which let it be observed that John relates this Passage to have been done at the same time with the other of breaking Bread both being done the Night of the Pass-over after Supper If we regard the Narration of this and the Circumstances attending it it was done with far more Solemnity and prescribed far more punctually and particularly than the former It is said only As he was Eating he took Bread Compar'd with the Breaking of Bread so that this would seem to be but an Occasional business But here he rose up he laid by his garments he girded himself he poured out the Water he Washed their Feet he wiped them with the Towel He did this to all of them which are Circumstances surely far more observable than those noted in the other The former was a Practice common among the Jews used by all Masters of Families upon that occasion but this as to the Manner and Person acting it to wit for the Master to rise up and Wash the Feet of his Servants and Disciples was more singular and observable In the breaking of Bread and giving of Wine it is not pleaded by our Adversaries nor yet mentioned in the Text that he particularly put
them into the hands of all but breaking it and blessing it gave it the nearest and so they from hand to hand But here it is mentioned that he Washed not the Feet of one or two but of many He saith not in the former that if they do not eat of that Bread and drink of that Wine they shall be prejudiced by it but here he saith expresly to Peter that if he Wash not him he hath no part with him which being spoken upon Peter's Refusing to let him Wash his Feet would seem to Import no less than not the Continuance only but even the Necessity of this Ceremony In the former he saith as it were passingly Do this in Remembrance of me but here he sitteth down again he desires them to consider what he hath done tells them positively that as he hath done to them so ought they to do to one another The Washing one anothers Feet was left as an Example and yet again he redoubles that Precept by telling them he has given them an Example that they should do so likewise If we respect the Nature of the thing it hath as much in it as either Baptism or the breaking of Bread seeing it is an outward Element of a cleansing Nature applied to the outward man by the Command and the Example of Christ to signify an inward purifying I would willingly propose this seriously to men that will be pleased to make use of that Reason and Vnderstanding that God hath given them and not be Imposed upon nor Abused by the Custom or Tradition of others Whether this Ceremony if we respect either the Time that it was Appointed in or the Circumstances wherewith it was performed or the Command enjoining the use of it hath not as much to Recommend it for a standing Ordinance of the Gospel as either Water-baptism or Bread and Wine or any other of that kind I wonder then what Reason the Papists can give why they have not numbered it among their Sacraments except meerly Voluntas Ecclesiae Traditio Patrum But if they say That it is used among them Object in that the Pope and some other Persons among them use to do it Once a year to some poor people I would willingly know what Reason they have Answ. why this should not be extended to All as well as that of the Eucharist as they term it or whence it appears from the Text that Do this in remembrance of me should be interpreted that the Bread and Wine were every day to be taken by all Priests or the Bread every day or every week by the people and that that other Command of Christ Ye ought to do as I have done to you c. is only to be understood of the Pope or some other persons to be done only to a few and that once a Year Surely there can be no other Reason for this difference assigned from the Text. The Protestants use not the Washing of Feet And as to Protestants who use not this Ceremony at all if they will but open their Eyes they may see how that by Custom and Tradition they are abused in this matter as were their Fathers in divers Popish Traditions For if we look into the plain Scripture what can be thence inferred to urge the one which may not be likewise pleaded for the other or for laying aside the one which may not be likewise said against the Continuance of the other If they say That the former of Washing the Feet was only a Ceremony What have they whence they can shew that this breaking of bread is more If they say That the former was only a Sign of Humility and Purifying What have they to prove that this was more If they say The one was only for a Time and was no Evangelical Ordinance What hath this to make it such that the other wanted Surely there is no way of Reason to evite this neither can any thing be alledged that the one should Cease and not the other or the one Continue and not the other but the meer Opinion of the Affirmers which by Custom Education and Tradition hath begotten in the hearts of people a greater Reverence for and Esteem of the one than the other which if it had fall'n out to be as much recommended to us by Tradition would no doubt have been as tenaciously pleaded for as having no less Foundation in the Scripture But since the former to wit the Washing of one anothers Feet is justly laid aside as not binding upon Christians so ought also the other for the same Reason § VII Bur I strange that those that are so clamarous for this Ceremony The breaking of Bread not used now in the same Manner as Christ did and stick so much to it take liberty to dispense with the Manner or Method that Christ did it in since none that ever I could hear of who now do it use it in the same way that he did it Christ did it at Supper while they were Eating but they do it in the Morning only by it self What Rule walk they by in this Change If it be said These are but Circumstances and not the Matter and if the Matter be kept to Object the alteration of Circumstances is but of small moment Answ. What if it should be said the Whole is but a Circumstance which fell out at that time when Christ did Eat the Passover For if we have regard to that which alone can be pleaded for an Institution viz. these words Do this in Remembrance of me it doth as properly relate to the Manner as Matter For how may or can they Evince in Reason that these Words Do this only signifie Eat Bread and drink Wine but it is no matter when ye eat nor how ye eat it and not as ye have seen me eat at Supper with you who take Bread and break it and give it you and take the Cup and bless it and give it you so do ye likewise And seeing Christ makes no distinction in those words Do this it cannot be judged in Reason but to relate to the whole Which if it do all those that at present use this Ceremony among Christians have not yet obeyed this Precept nor fulfilled this Institution for all their Clamors concerning it Object If it be said That the Time and Manner of doing it by Christ was but Accidentally as being after the Jewish Passover which was at Supper Answ. Besides that it may be answered and easily proved That the Whole was Accidental as being the Practice of a Jewish Ceremony as is above observed May it not the same way be urged that the Drinking of Wine was Accidental as being the Natural Product of that Country and so be pleaded that in those Countries where Wine doth not grow as in our Nation of Scotland we may make use of Beer or Ale in the use of this Ceremony The breaking of Bread was a Jewish Ceremony or Bread made
of Drums Standards and other military Attire And lastly because we could not hold our Doors Windows and Shops close for Conscience sake upon such Days as Fasts and Prayers were appointed for to desire a blessing upon and success for the Arms of that Kingdom or Common Wealth under which we live neither give thanks for the Victories acquired by the effusion of much blood By which forcing of the Conscience they would have constrained our Brethren living in divers Kingdoms at War together to have implored our God for contrary and contradictory things and consequently impossible for it is impossible that two Parties fighting together should both obtain the Victory And because we cannot concur with them in this Confusion therefore are we subiect to Persecution Yea and others who with us do witness that the use of Arms is unlawful to Christians do look a-squint upon us But which of us two do most faithfully observe this testimony against Arms Either they who at certain times at the Magistrates order do close up their Shops and Houses and meet in their Assembly praying for the prosperity of their Arms or giving thanks for some Victory or other whereby they make themselves like to those that approve Wars and Fighting Or we which cannot do these things for the same cause of Conscience lest we should destroy by our Works what we establish in Words We shall leave to the judgment of all prudent men Fifthly They object Object That Christ Luke 22.36 speaking to his Disciples commands them that he that then had not a Sword should sell his Coat and buy a Sword Therefore say they Arms are lawful I answer Some indeed understand this of the Outward Sword Answ. nevertheless regarding only that occasion otherwise judging that Christians are prohibited Wars under the Gospel Among which is Ambrose who upon this place speaks thus 0 Lord Why commandest thou me to buy a Sword who forbid'st me to smite with it Why commandest thou me to have it whom thou prohibitest to draw it Vnless perhaps a Defence be prepared not a necessary Revenge and that I may seem to have been able to Revenge but that I would not For the Law forbids me to smite again Peter offered Two Swords And therefore perhaps he said to Peter offering two Swords It is enough as if it had been lawful until the Gospel time that in the Law there might be a Learning of Equity but in the Gospel a perfection of goodness Others judge Christ to have spoken here Mystically and not according to the Letter as Origen upon Matth. 19. saying If any looking to the Letter and not understanding the Will of the Words shall sell his bodily Garment and buy a Sword taking the words of Christ contrary to his will he shall Perish But concerning which Sword he speaks is not proper here to mention And truly when we consider the answer of the Disciples Master behold here are two Swords understanding it of outward Swords and again Christ's answer It is enough it seems that Christ would not that the rest who had not Swords for they had only two Swords should sell their Coats and buy an outward Sword Who can think that matters standing thus he should have said Two was enough But however it is sufficient that the use of Arms is unlawful under the Gospel Sixthly they object Object That the Scriptures and old Fathers so called did only prohibit private Revenge not the use of Arms for the defence of our Country Body Wives Children and Goods when the Magistrate commands it seeing the Magistrates ought to be obeyed Therefore albeit it be not lawful for private men to do it of themselves nevertheless they are bound to do it by the Command of the Magistrate I answer If the Magistrate be truly a Christian Answ. or desires to be so he ought himself in the first place to Obey the Command of his Master saying Love your Enemies c. and then he could not Command us to kill them But if he be not a true Christian Christian Magistrates to obey the Command of their Master Christ. then ought we to obey our Lord and King Jesus Christ to whom he ought also to obey For in the Kingdom of Christ all ought to submit to his Laws from the highest to the lowest that is from the King to the Beggar and from Caesar to the Clown But alas where shall we find such an Obedience O deplorable Fall Concerning which Ludov. Viv. writes well lib. de con vit Christ. sub Turc by relation of Fredericus Sylvius Disc. de Revol Belg. p. 85. The Prince entred into the Church not as a true and plain Christian which had indeed been most happy and desirable but he brought in with him his Nobility Lud. Vives against Arms. his Honors his ARMS his Ensigns his Triumphs his Haughtiness his Pride his Superciliousness that is He came into the house of Christ accompanied with the Devil and which could no ways be done he would have joyned two Houses and two Cities together God's and the Devil 's which could not more be done than Rome and Constantinople which are distant by so long a Tract both of Sea and Land What Communion saith Paul is there betwixt Christ and Belial Their Zeal cooled by degrees their Faith decreased their whole Piety degenerated instead whereof we make now use of Shadows and Images and as he saith I would we could but retain these Thus far Vives But lastly as to what relates to this thing since nothing seems more contrary to man's nature and seeing of all things the defence of ones Self seems most tolerable as it is most hard to men so it is the most perfect part of the Christian Religion as that wherein the Denial of Self and Intire Confidence in God doth most appear and therefore Christ and his Apostles left us hereof a most perfect Example As to what relates to the present Magistrates of the Christian World Concerning the present Magistrates of the Christian World albeit we deny them not altogether the name of Christians because of the publick Profession they make of Christ's Name yet we may boldly affirm that they are far from the perfection of the Christian Religion Because in the state in which they are as in many places before I have largely observed they have not come to the pure Dispensation of the Gospel And therefore while they are in that condition we shall not say that War undertaken upon a just Occasion is altogether unlawful to them For even as Circumcision and the other Ceremonies were for a season permitted to the Jews not because they were either necessary or of themselves or lawful at that time after the Resurrection of Christ but because that Spirit was not yet raised up in them whereby they could be delivered from such Rudiments So the present Confessors of the Christian name who are yet in the mixture and not in the patient suffering Spirit
their Worship can easily be stopped 455. the Practice of the Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants of Holland doth shew how void they are of Christian Love and Charity 691 Reprobation see also Redemption What absolute Reprobation is described 319. its Doctrine is horrible impious and Blasphemous 319.323 325. it is also so called by Lucas Osiander 328. it is a new Doctrine Augustin laid the first foundation thereof which Dominicus Calvin and the Synod of Doâ—t maintained 320.328.329 also Luther whom not-withstanding the Lutherans afterwards deserted 328 329. It is injurious to God and makes him the Author of sin proved by the Sayings of Calvin Beza Zanchius Paraeus Martin Zuinglius and Piscator 320 321. It makes the Preaching of the Gospel a meer Mock and Illusion 322. It makes the coming of Christ and his propitiatory Sacrifice to have been a Testimony of God's Wrath 322 323. It is injurious to Mankind and makes his Condition worse than the Condition of Devils Beasts Jews under Pharaoh and the same which the Poets applyed to Tantalus 323 324. Who espouse the precise Decree of Reprobation declare themselves Strangers to the Universal Love of God 694 695. the precise Decree of Reprobation is inconsistent with the Universal Love of God 694. the Presbyterian Doctrine of Reprobation makes God the Author of Sin 777. the same Doctrine makes the Gospel a meer mock 778. it is injurious to Christ's propitiatory Sacrifice ibid. it puts Devils in a better condition than Men 779 Resurrection 159 160 172. Revelation God always manifested himself by the Revelations of the Spirit 268 275 376 293. they are made several ways 268. they have been always the formal object of faith and so remain 269 276 284 and that not only Subjectively but also Objectively 284 287. they are simply necessary unto true faith 269 288 294. they are not uncertain 294 296. yea it is horrible Sacriledge to accuse them of uncertainty 283. The Examples of the Anabaptists of Munster do not a whit weaken this Doctrine 288 291 292 294. they can never contradict the Holy Scripture nor sound Reason 269 292 305 306. they are evident and clear of them selves nor need they anothers Testimony 269.293.294 they are the only sure certain and unmoveable foundation of all Christian faith 294 295. Carnal Christians Judge them nothing necessary yea they are hissed out by the most part of Men 269. of old none were esteemed Christians save those that had the Spirit of Christ but now a days he is termed an Heretick who affirms that he is led by it 269 270. The Testimony of some concerning the necessity of these Revelations 270 272 283 284. by whose and what desires they have been brought out of use 330. Divine Revelations the priviledge of all true Christians 607. the inward efficiency of the Spirit is that objective Revelation pleaded for 632. no true Revelation can contradict the Scripture 743. how and after what manner these Revelations were the object of the Saints faith of old 744. of the necessity of immediate Revelation to the building up of true faith 623 632. the distinction of subjective and objective Revelation unnatural 658. it is in the Power of God to Reveal himself when how and so long as he pleaseth 750. what Revelations are contrary to the Scriptures are to be rejected 752. Heer Paets his Argument against immediate Revelations discussed 894. Revelations seem to carnal Christians nothing necessary yea some are apt to flout at them as Ridiculous 269. immediate Revelations and Teaching of the Spirit asserted 28. Revenge see War 555 556 Rogers W. Rogers his Letter shewing his Satisfaction with R. B's Sense and meaning in his Book of Government 247 Rule of Faith and Manners see Scripture Concerning the Rule and Guide of Christians 116 161. whatever Difficulties happen in saying the Spirit is the Christian's Rule whereby to be ordered in Life and Conversation the same will occur in saying The Scripture is the Rule 591 592 Rustick The poor Rustick's Answer given to the proud Prelate 414. he brought a Philosopher to the Christian Faith 423 424. S. Sabbath 443. the outward Sabbath abolished together with the New-moons and other Feasts of the Jews 38. Sabbath or Rest is not an outward Day 38 40 Sacraments of their Number Nature c. how much Contention there hath been and that the Word Sacrament is not found in Scripture but borrowed from the Heathens 476 492. its Definition will agree to many other things 475. whether they confer Grace 513. the most Wicked may both minister and partake of these outward Elementary things called Sacraments as the most holy and sincere 704 855 864 Salvation Without the Church there is no Salvation 404. Salvation not only supposed but concluded possible to all men 700. the Lutherans Calvinists and Arminians hold that there can be no Salvation without the explicit Knowledge of Christ and Benefit of the Scriptures 692. those that hold this Opinion cannot justly pretend to Universal Love 693. Salvation chiefly depends upon the Inward Work of Grace 802. the want of outward Preaching doth not destroy the possibility of Salvation 80 Salutations 531 874. see Titles Samaria The Woman of Samaria 501 Sanctification see Justification Saxony The Elector of Saxony of the Scandal he gave to the Reformation by being present at the Mass 471 Schism 188 222.188 Sceptick 423 471. School Without the School of Christ nothing is learned but meer Talk and Shadow of Knowledg 270 272. Whether publick Schools be necessary 423 Schools and Universities 885. Sciences 834 838 Scriptures of Truth whence they proceeded and what they contain 295. they are a Declaration of the Fountain and not the Fountain it self 296. they are not to be esteemed the adequate Primary Rule of Faith Manners but a Secondary Subordinate to the Spirit and why 296 309 416. their certainty is only known by the Spirit 296 297 405. they testify that the Spirit is given to the Saints for a Guide 296 303 304 306 308. their Authority depends not upon the Church or Council nor upon their intrinsick Vertue but upon the Spirit nor is it subjected to the corrupt Reason of Men but to the Spirit 296 304. the Testimonies of Calvin the French Churches the Synod of Dort and the Divines of Great Britain at Westminster concerning this thing 296 297. the Contentions of those that seek the certainty of the Scriptures from something else than the Spirit 296 297. divers Opinions of the Fathers so called concerning some Books 296 298. concerning the taking away and the corruption of some places the Translation Transcription and various Lections of the Hebrew Character and of the Greek Books The Interpretation of the Septuagint concerning the Hebrew Books and of admitting or rejecting some Books 302 304. of their difficulty in their Explanation 305. Augustin's Judgment concerning the Authors of the Canonick Books and concerning the Transcription and Interpretation 303. the use of them is very profitable and comfortable