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 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. 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 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
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 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 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 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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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 Concerning the necessity of immediat Revelations to the building up of true faith containing an answer to the Students second Section from pag. 78. to pag. 92. 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 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 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