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
QUAKERISM CONFIRMED OR A vindication of the chief Doctrines and Principles of the people called QVAKERS from the arguments and objections of the Students of divinity so called of ABERDEEN in their book entituled QUAKERISM CONVASSED By ROBERT BARCLAY and GEORGE KEITH 2 Tim. 3 9. But they shall proceed no further for their folly shall be manifest to all men c. Printed in the Year 1676. Friendly Reader Had we not more regarded the interest of the Truth for whose sake we can shun no abasement then the significancy of those with whom we have this rencountre we should have rather chused to be silent then answer them they being of so small reputation among their own that neither teachers nor people will hold themselves accomptable for any of their positions and seeme zealous to have it believed they would not bestow time to read it nor yet hold themselves obliged to approve it However since we certainly know that in the second part of their book to which this reply is they have scraped together most of the chief arguments used against us and borrowed not a little from G. Ms. manuscripts with whose work that yet appears not we have been these seven years menaced which like the materialls of a building managed by unskilfull workmen though they be by them very confusedly put together yet being the chief things can be said against us we have throughly handled for the Readers satisfaction which may be serviceable to the Truth without respect to the insignificancy of those against whom it is written As for the first part of their book we have also answered it but distinct from this it consisting of many particularityes of matters of fact which perhaps might have proved taedious to many Readers that may be this be edified and think it of no great consequence that the Students are proved lyars which even many of their own party think is not any spot in their religion so litle are they looked upon among their own yet those that are curious may also have that first part As for this second part wherein our principles are handled we iudge we deal with the Clergy in generall however they seek to shift it and hide themselvs since their book is licenced by the bishop of Edinburgh and he being challenged said he did it not without a recommendation from Aberdeen So that no man of reason can deny but they are accountable for the errours and impertinencies which we have herein observed which we leave Reader to thy serious examination remaining Thy Friends R. B. G. K. The CONTENTS SECTION 1. Concerning immediat Revelation Pag. 1. SECTION 2. The Students argument against the Spirits being the rule proved one with the Iesuit Dempsters 12 SECTION 3. Concerning the supper perfection and Womens speaking 18 SECTION 4. Concerning the necessity of immediat Revelations to the building up of true faith 27 SECTION 5. Concerning Worship 41 SECTION 6. Concerning Baptism 56 SECTION 7. Concerning the Ministry 65 SECTION 8. Concerning Liberty of Conscience 75 The CONCLUSION Wherin their observations upon R. B. his Offer and their last Section of the Q. Revileings as they terme them are examined 83 QUAKERISM CONFIRMED SECTION FIRST Concerning immediate Revelation wherin the Second part of the Students book from Pag. 44. to Pag. 66. is Answered IN their first section they alledge we doe wickedly put many indignities upon the holy Scriptures and that we monopolise the Spirit to our selves which are grosse lyes but that they are against the Spirit is no malicious accusation but a thruth as will appear to any true discerner Their comparing us when wee plead for the Spirit to them who cryed the Temple the Themple is unequall and profane they that cryed the Temple the Temple rejected the Spirit of God and relyed too much on the Temple and outward priviledges but dare they blame any for relying too much on the Spirit of God Again in their first subjection they committ a grosse deceit in which they follow G. M. their master who useth the same in his manuscript to us in alleadging they are more for the Spirit then we becaus they affirme that the efficacy of the Spirit is insuperable For wee doe affirme that the efficacy of the Spirit is in a true sense insuperable as namely wher the mind is well disposed See R. B. his thesis wher he useth the word insuperably but that the Spirit doth insuperably move or irrestibly force the ill disposed minds of all in whom it operats is false and contrary to scripture which saith that some resist the Spirit yea and is contrary to the experience of all who are acquainted with the Spirits workings that know that the Spirit many tymes worketh so gently that his operation may be resisted therfore said the Apostle Quench not the Spirit Now that doctrine which is contrary both to Scripture and experience is not for the spirit but against it Again how are they more for the spirit then we seing they affirm the Spirits influence is but only effective as having no evidence in it self sufficiently to demonstrat that it is of God we say it hath as being both effective and objective 2. They say the influence of the spirit is only given to some we say to all 3. They say it is so weak that it can bring none to a perfect freedom from sin in this life though never so much improved we say it can yea 4. They say commonly the influence of the spirit cannot keep the best Saint one moment from sin we say it can keep them for whole dayes yea alwayes if they improve it as well as they can 5. They say a Man may and ought to pray without the spirit which we deny and so we leave it to the judicious if here they do not commit a gross deceit Lastly in their stating the question they accuse us falsely as if we did hold that all men ought to judge and examine all the materiall objects of faith and Articles of religion by inward revelations as if all men were bound to an impossibility all men have not all the materiall objects of faith propounded unto them for some of the materiall objects of faith are meerly accidentall unto all mens salvation as to believe that Abraham begat Isaak and Isaak Iacob c. others although not accidentall yet are but integrall parts and not essentiall of Christian religion such as the outward history of Christ c. and so by this distinction divers of these arguments are answered without more ado especially the first two where they spend much paper fighting with their own shaddow telling us that the heathens have no revelations shewing the birth passion resurrection c. of Iesus Christ which we do grant for the belief of such things is only necessary to them to whom they are propounded and the Scriptures alledged by them at most prove no more it were a needless labour and not worth the pains to answer particularly to all
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
All have not utterance to pray in words is no excuse for hereticks for they must needs acknowledge as wel as we that all have not utterance who may be good Christians seing some that are naturally dumb may be good Christians and yet theâ— must confesse these have not utterance also many good Christians who have no naturall impediment do want utterance in a spirituall way to speak or pray vocally in the hearing of others at some times although we believe it is given at times to all that are faithfull who have no naturall defect that they may pray vocally or in the hearing of others but how oft it is more then we can determine seing it is not revealed but if any faile of this utterance through unfaithfulnesie their sin is nothing the lesse if they omitt prayer And thus their last two instances are also answered for we do affirme with great freedome that all who are faithfull to the Lord never want sufficient inspiration or influence to wait upon God fear him love him desire his grace and divers other inward duties We say not all for some inward duties such as meditation on a particular subject or place of Scripture are not alwayes required more then it is alwayes required to speak but if they be unfaithfull we deny not but they may and will want them and in that case although they want inspirations and influences they are bound to pray yet not without them but with them as a man that wanteth both money and goods to pay his debt yet is bound to pay his debt yet he must not nor ought to pay it without money or goods the example is clear and the application is easy As for that story they bring in concerning T. M. which that their deceit may be the more hide they do not positively affirme but only propose by way of question have not Q. declared to people c. To which we answer that we know not that any Qu. ever declared any such thing and we believe divers things in the story are utterly false If T. M. or any other of our profession having none in the family that can joyne with them in the true spirit of prayer but are professed opposers of the Q. way be not so frequently heard pray by them is excusable by your oune way who will not readily pray in our hearing when they have none to joyne with them and indeed the want of that true unity on the part of those who are not of our faith doth oft hinder our freedome to pray in their hearing unlesse we have some of our faith present to joyne with us we may pray for them as it pleaseth God to move us in their hearing but we can not so properly pray with them as not being in unity with them where two or three said Christ agree together to seek any thing in my name but let our adversaries if they can shew us where in the Scripture it is commanded for any man to pray in the hearing of others where all present have no agrement with him yet we deny not but that God upon some solemne occasion may move to such a thing especially when a publick testimony is required as in the case of Stephen who prayed audibly in the hearing of others all which were so far from having any agreement with him that they were at that time stoneing him to death Acts 7. Moreover we could easily upon a more just ground retort the question upon your own Church members how many of your owne church members were not only for a twelve moneth but for many 12 moneths never heard pray and yet they passe among you for good Christians It is wel knoune that although ye hold family prayer morning and evening to be a duty and the want of it a great sin that yet many thousand families in the nation who belong to your church want it and many whole families are so grossly ignorant that none in the family can go about it even in that naturall way which ye plead for As for us it doth suffice unto us that God heareth us in secret although men do not so frequently hear us yet we oune with all our hearts publick expressive prayer as it is performed in Spirit and in truth and all of us have our share and testimony therein as God moves thereunto even those who are outwardly silent as theâ—â— who speak when as both agree together in one spirit and with one heart and soul joyne together in the same SECTION SIXTH of BAPTISM Wherein their fourth Section concerning water Baptism is answered IN their stating the question they say the question is not whether Infants ought to be baptized or who have the power of administring baptism whereas indeed these two are a great part of the question betwixt our adversarie and us for as touching infant baptism R. B. his Thesis doth expressly say it is a meer human tradition and it wel knowne that all the Quakers so called are of the same mind and do not the Students undertake to confute ehe Q. principles how is it then that they leave out so considerable a part of Quakerism as they call it Is this Quakerism canvassed to pick and chase at some and passe by others Yea Infants-sprinkling with water on the forehead is so considerable a part of the question betwixt them and us that if that be disproved or if they can not prove that to be a Gospell institution they fall short exceedingly seing that is the only baptism in use among them of the nationall Church Again it is so great a part of the question who have the power of administring baptism that by this the controversie stands or falls for one of our maine arguments against water-baptisme as remaining a duty upon all Christians is that none are to be found that have the power to administer it and the administration cannot be with a lawfull administrator the question then really is whether these who have no immediat call to administer water baptism as John had have power to administer it Again whether these who have no other mediat call to baptize but what they have by the church of Rome which is no true church as the best Protestants affirme have power to administer baptisme and this question is the more proper in this place seing I. M. the Students master confesseth his and his brethrens call and ordination to be by the church of Rome and that they have no other but what is conveyed downe to them from the Apostles times by that apostate church But let us now examine their arguments for water baptisme in generall The first is Baptisme with water is to continue in the church as long as Christs presence is to continue with his Apostles and them who teach the doctrine that they taught But Christs presence is to continue with his Apostles and them who teach the doctrine that they taught to the end of the world Therefore c. Where it
restriction comprehends inward as wel as outward acts of evil Seing then they put a restriction though to their own selfe-condemnation they confesse it to be unlawfull which they are forced to doe else hypocrites would be comprehended whom they confesse to be tares that are not to be meddled with We that judge it no wise unlawfull becaus without other clear texts be contradicted there must be here a restriction may restrict it to things civil and morall excluding matters of worship and difference in opinion for the reasons often before mentioned Their 3. argument wholly misses the matter which is the practice of many princes even approved of God in coercing Idolatries c for since all the examples they give are of the kings of Judah and Israël under the Law it nowise meets the present controversie which is concerning the power of Christian Magistrats under the Gospell Lastly They argue that the Prophets of the Old Testament have prophesied that it should be the office of Christian Magistrats to coërce false prophets for which they alledge Deut. 18 20. he that shall speak in the name of other Gods shall die Very wel he saith not shall be put to death in a judiciall way It is said The soul that sinneth shall die it will not therefore follow that every soul that sinneth shall be killed by the Magistrate But though it be understood of putting to death it reacheth not the case we being under the Gospell not under the Law where also it was not lawfull so to doe for different opinions and interpretations of the Law but onely for rejecting the true God and his Law and introducing new and strange Gods Their other proofe is from Zech. 13 1 2 c where it is said that the fathers and the mothers of the false Prophets shall say unto them Thou shalt not live and thrust them through when they prophesy This is so farre from being taken literally that the Students dare not take it so themselves else the father and and the mother might doe the businesse without troubling the magistrate and afterwards the text speaks of those who were not to live of their having wounds in their hands and being alive which shewes the understanding here is to be spirituall and seing the Students do not understand it literally of the persons to whom the text ascribes this coërcing and that there is not the least word of a magistrate in the place for them to affirme that it is not to be understood of the magistrate is but miserably to begg the question They begin their 8. Sect. pag. 126. affirming that Quakerism tends to Anarchie and confusion and treason alledging we would pull down the Magistrate if we could and set up our own spirituall Magistrates as Iohn of Leyden c. For this malitious insinuation they give no reason but such an one as destroyes it to wit our giving in Resist not evil pluck not up the tares as repeals of some lawes in the Old Test. Now let men of reason judge whether treason be the tendency of these mens principles that affirme evil is not to be resisted or how these can doe violence to the Magistrate without contradicting their principles and then it can not be the tendency of them and wheras they conclude saying That Quakerism as they conceive beyond all doubt tends to Anarchie confusion of state and treason Their conceptions are very false in this matter and we may upon farr better grounds retort this upon the Students Confraternity the Clergy who through their ambition and turbulency did from the pulpits blow the trumpet of all the late confusion and treason in the civil warrs and shew themselves exact disciples of Iohn of Leyden acting his pranks upon the stage of Great Britaine a charge they have not to lay to the Quakers Their next effort is to prove we deny the necessity of Professing Christianity becaus we believe those not bound to believe the history of Christ from whom God hath necessarily withheld the knowledge of it for they confesse that wee believe these obliged to believe them to whom they are revealed But they must here also act like themselves in makeing that a horrible crime in us which their owne chiefe doctors affirme who being pressed by the Arminians with this argument That which every man is bound to believe is true But every man is bound to believe that Christ died for them therfor it is true They deny the Minor plainly affirming that those that have not heard of Christ are not bound to believe he died for them so according to the Students themselves are guilty of denying the necessity of professing Christianity as well as we But further they say wee are guilty of this becaus we set up a new Christ in every man that is borne and growes up unto a perfect substantiall birth as their first charge in this matter hitts at their owne Doctors so this second is common with us to the Apostle Paul for the Students dispute like blind men striking at random that heed not what they hit seing the Apostle calls Christ within of which we speak the hope of glory which is neither a new Christ nor yet another then he that died at Ierusalem who did travell that he might be brought forth in the â—alatians and calls him the new man borne in and put on by others So if in this the Apostle did not deny the outward sufferings of Christ neither doe we unlesse the Students can shew how our doctrine differs from his or contradicts it which they have not yet attempted to doe As for that question of I. Penington How can outward blood cleanse we referre them to his owne book in defence of that expression as quarrelled by J. Hicks called the flesh and blood of Christ of which there were divers printed coppies at Aberdeen befor the Students book was put to the presse The CONCLUSION Wherin their observations upon R. B. his Offer and their last Section of the Q. Revileings as they term them are examined IN the end of the account of our dispute I renewed an offer to the preachers of Aberdeen as being the persons we were principally concerned withall giving the reasons therfore and shewing the good effects that might proceed therefrom as in the same offer may be seen at this the Stud. seeme to have gone mad and fret and fume like persons possessed alledging I betake my selfe to railing as my last refuge but whether there be any railing in that Offer is left to the judicious Reader to examine The Students notwithstanding their clamours give not one instance of it but whether they have any better reason to answer it withall then railing let the Reader judge For upon this occasion pag. 127. 128. they call me vaine and arrogant like a very Thraso ignorant and foolish one whose weakenesse and ignorance is renowned a bold barkr but a soft biter These are the modest young men that professe to be against railing that
is not objective which we altogether deny but as to this inward call we ask them if it hath not in it the nature of a command so that he who hath it is bound to obey it if they say not then a man may lawfully disobey it and resist it although it be of God if they say it is a command then it is objective for it is the nature of all reall and true commands to be objective Again if by disposition they mean the meer qualification that enables a man to be a preacher how can that be a call seing a man may be fit or able for an office that hath not a call thereunto 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
if God permit whereas he had laid the foundation already therefore the doctrine of the laying on ofhands belongs not to the fouudation but to the superstructure but however it doth not follow that laying on of hands it selfe is a thing to continue for he speaks of it but as of a doctrine as that of Baptismes which we confesse doth continue as the doctrine of the figures types ceremonies and sacrifices doth continue to this day and the Apostle opened them largely in that Epistle yet the figures themselves were not to continue Besides how do they prove that this laying on of hands is ordination and not that used in confirmation Here they miserably stick only they alledge it is ceased among many and is not so necessary but how prove they that it is not as necessary Shew us where it is repealed more then the other seing it was as generally practised yea and more for many received it that were not preachers nor elders In the last place they plead that Preachers should have a miantainance which we deny not if they need it but may not men be Preachers who need no supply from others but many have wherewith to be hospitable unto others without taking farre lasse forceing others to give them the maintainance then that we are against is 1. A superfluous and unnecessary mantainance 2. A forced maintainance 3. Such a maintainance as Preachers agree with and contract for 4. A taking it from them who are not worthy 5. A taking it from them who do not acknowledge them to be true Preachers Now none of all the Scriptures or reasons brought by them prove any such maintainance nor do we read that ever the Apostles received it or that they received any tithes which was the maintainance of the Law and not of the Gospell and that the people ought to contract with preachers will not follow becaus they are bound in charity to supply their wants for we are bound in charity to supply the wants of the poor according to our ability yet it doth not follow that we are to contract with them or that they can force it from us As for the words of Christ freely give as they import that they were not to make sale of the Gospell so also that they were not to force or compell men to give them anything as a recompense for preaching the same for how can we give freely that which we force others to recompense us for And here they cry out upon the Q. as a sacrilegious crew for denying such unlawfull maintaintainance as the Priests generally have it seemes the young men are greatly concerned they love so wel the wages of unrighteousnesse for against no other thing do we contend Againe they alledge that we belye them in saying they think that the preaching of the Gospell can be sold for any earthly wages the reason they give is weak for although there is a vast disproportion and inequality in worth betwixt the same yet a thing may be sold for lesse then the worth of it yea when the worth is infinitly greater for did not Judas sell Christ for thirty pieces of silver and do not they plead that greedy and covetous men ought to be received and payed untill divested and are not such guilty of simony and selling of preaching which they confesse themselves therefore the Q. in this do not belye them Yea do they not wel know that it is a most ordinary thing in young men and it is wel if some of these be not guilty of the same to goe unto patrons and offer them money for presentations unto parish churches then which we know no greater simony used in the church of Rome And as for the hospitality of Preachers it is also required in Deacons and all good Christians will it therefore follow that all good Christians must have set stipends or if Christians are to work with their hands that they may have wherewith to be hospitable why may not preachers also They cite Paul telling that he had power to forbear working but they know that Paul was an Apostle and claimed that power not as an ordinary preacher but as an Apostle like unto the other Apostles marke these words for as touching the Apostles they had that power becaus of a more universall charge incumbent upon them then ordinary pastors so that they could not so attend to work with their hands as others could and yet even Paul wrought with his hands which is more then any of the Nationall teachers will doe to spare the receiving from them who are not able And it is to be observed how the nationall teachers plead stoutly for their forbearing of working from the power of the Apostles but when we tell them that the Apostles travelled from one nation to another and took great paines to plant the Gospell in many places and hazarded their lives to preach it among the heathens they answer that is not required of them so they would take the Apostles to patronise them in forbearing working and taking maintainance but not in being at such paines and jeopardies for the Gospells sake as the Apostles which is not equall Also when we tell them the Apostles preached ly inspiration and had an immediat call from heaven they tell us that is ceased now but why tell they not that the power to forbear working is ceased also Surely the continuing of inspirations and immediat calls to the Ministry seemeth a more needfull thing then their stipends SECTION EIGHTH of LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE Wherein the Students sixth Section concerning the Civil Magistrate his power in punishing of hereticks And also what they say in their eighth Section concerning the tendency of Quakerism to Anarchie and treason and denying the necessity of Christianity is considered and answered After that the Students have laboured what they can to overturne the Quakers they betake them to Persecution as their last refuge thinking if they can but prevaill here and get the Magistrats to cut off the Q. as blasphemers and traitours for such they have designed them in their title page they will be eased of the troublesome task of disputing any more with them And here not to be unlike themselves they begin with a lye saying they had a dispute concerning this with the Q. the 1. of Iun 1675. whereas one of them to wit I. L. was not present and the other two proposed not one argument in that matter but what was spoken was by another who being earnestly desired by them to concurre in the Accompt of it with them utterly refused as judging neither he nor they could give a true account of it and absolutely discharging to meddle with that in their book which yet they are not ashamed falsely to ascribe to themselves which that young man upon sight of their book from one of us declared to be a lye asserting what is above written in this matter before severall witnesses of their owne profession particularly P. D. one of the