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
imports not a duty to observe them Their last and chiefest reason is as they say the Aposils expresse command for it let a man examine himself and so let him eat the Students affirm and do but affirm that to say this is only a permission is a desperat shift let us hear how they prove it Let a man examine himself this is without doubt a command therefore let him eat must be a command also we deny this consequence and it remains for them to prove it and though this were enough in strictness yet we shall give a reason of our deny all because their proposition whatever it may be do in some cases holds not universally true as to instance from an example or two let a man marry 〈◊〉 the Lord and so let him mary The first is a command here but not the second let a man speak in religious things as the oracle of God and so let him speak The first is a command but not the second many more might be named which import only a conditionall command not that there is a necessity upon all to marry or upon all to preach but if a man marry let him do it in the Lord and if a man preach let him do it as the Oracle of God Also see a most plain example of this Rev. 22. 11. he that is filthy let him be filthy still and he that is just let him be just still they are both in the imperative mood yet the one is a duty the other but a permission not morall and positive but physicall and negative so if a man partake of the ceremony of bread and wine let him examine himself seing then their proposition holds not universally true it remains for them to prove that in this particular place it is so They bestow their 34. paragraph pag. 70 71. to no purpose in missing the controversy for whatever we understand by the substance which whoso enjoyeth needs not the shaddow We do not deny but these that had the substance made use of the shaddow at times for Paul purified himself according to the Law of Moses after he had been long an Apostle but the question is whether that oblige us now This the Students have forgott to prove and will do well to advert to it when they publish their next volumne omitting needlesse homilies not to the purpose And thus we hope the Reader may see that the things we bring to prove this ceremony is ceased are not shaddowes but rather that what they bring to confirme it is nothing but shaddowes Pag. 71. They go about to answer an argument used by R. B. against this ceremony drawn from the Apostls words 1 Cor. 16 16. in his first answer to W. M. p 54. where he shews that since the bread is but one which must needs be the inward the outward must be ceased and to this they answer saying the true genuine sense of the place is to go 〈◊〉 as they were dictating not disputing without adding any probatiou But secondly they proceed saying that seing the one bread is the saints though the Apostles were truely this one bread yet Christ instituted his supper without any contradiction or making them not one bread For answer were that practice of Christ of the nature they would have it then should they say some thing but while they suppose it so and argu◠from it they do but begg the thing in controversie for the Apostles both then and after that time used many legall and typicall observations and yet they would argue ill that would inferre from thence becaus they did so and that without contradiction to their being Christians and under the Gospel dispensation we ought to do so too as for that bread spoken by the Apostles in the 16 and 17 verses we acknowledge it to be the Spirituall bread to wit the Spirituall body of Christ of which the saints feed which makes them one and is one with them as the Apostle himselfe wordeth it ver 17. Now what signifieth all this to prove that the outward bread is the one bread Hear how the Students evince it but Thirdly wee say That the one bread spoken of ver 17. is both the outward and the inward bread yet but one Sacramentally and is not this rarely well argued we the Students say so as to the reason afterwards insinuated as Christ saith of the bread that it is his body they should have showne how it followes Christ as Protestants well argue against Papists calls himself a door a Rock c. what then is Christ and a Rock one Christ and a door one door Let them shew us if they can in all the N. T. so much as one word of this sigment of a Sacramentall or symbolicall union and wheras upon this occasion R. B. argued in his Truth cleared of Calumnies Pag. 54. that if the outward bread were to be called the one bread as signifying it The sacrifices of the Law might be called one with the one offering of Christ mentioned Hebr. 10 14 and so continued This they say signifies nothing becaus these are abrogated then untill they prove this continues by vertue of a Gospell command which they have not as yet done the same reason will hold against it To another Reason given of the discontinuance of this ceremony from Gal. 2 16. Let no man judg you in meats or drinks They say first that then it had not been lawfull for the Apostle to have reprehended the Corinthians for the abuses in this matter This is a poor shift indeed though they should not have been reprehended for laying it aside altogether yet seing they used it as a religious duty they might well be reprehended if they did it not religiously Secondly They say that then gluttony c. ought not to be reproved that the Q. ere they misse to pull down Christs ordinance will make way for gluttony drunkennesse Answer Here is but a silly malitious reflexion in stead of a reason The Apostle is speaking here as the St. themselves afterwards acknowledge of meats drinks used in religious acts if the proposition hold true in this respect it will answer the end not of naturall eating c. Thirdly They say It must only be understood of the Legall ceremonyes becaus of the 14 verse asking if the Lords supper was contrary unto us or was nailed to the Crosse what then The Students are over hastie should have looked to the 21 22. verses Touch not tast not handle not which all are to perish with the useing do not bread wine which perish in the useing are therefore here included as for the absurdity insinuated by them how could that be nailed to the crosse that was but instituted two dayes before will they say that abstaining from things strangled from blood was nailed to the crosse which was commanded long after Christ was crucified And yet some of their Divines as they call them
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
Students attestators and therefore since he judgeth himselfe as he declared abused in this effaire by them as wel as we we shall not take notice of what passed at that time betwixt him and us it being also his desire but betake our selves to this Theam as it is now proposed and urged by the Students wherein how miserably they are pained the very stating of their controversie shewes in which they have given away their cause 1. They say they speak only of reall heresies and not what others call so 2. they say they speak not of inward acts and meer exercises of the mind becaus it belongs neither to church nor magistrat to judge of hidden things To which we answer that since the Students acknowledge that both their Church and magistrat is lyable to errour yea and that neither of them are to be supposed infallible and therefore can not certainly and infallibly discerne what is heresie neither ought they to take upon them to punish for heresie and that de facto Protestant churches have thus erred their master Iohn Menzies and many of his brethren can bear witnesse who have cryed out against that for errour antichristianity and heresie causing men to be grievously persecuted for it which now they allow as Christian and Orthodox But we shall improve this more hereafter and now proceed to their arguments 1. They argue from Deut. 13 5. Exod. 22 20. Lev. 22. but the question is whether these commands given particularly to the Iewes belong to us for that of Lev. 22. is only concerning the Priests and Levits touching the holy things with their uncleannesse upon them and is wholly impertinent to this purpose for if these be obligatory upon us so will also many other as that a man may immediatly with his owne hand kill him that has killed his kinsman unlesse he get to the city of refuge seing there is no particular repeal of that more then of the former yea and that of Deut. 5 9. saith expressly that the brother husband or father of him that consenteth to serve other Gods shall kill him with his own hand which our adversaries will not deny to be murder and let them shew us where the one part of this command is repealed more then the other or how the one part is lawfull for us and the other unlawfull seing both were commanded and lawfull to the Iewes for their meer assertions as to this pag 126. are not to be regarded They are offended that Matth. 5 29. should be given for a repeal of this alledging that belongeth only to privat persons and not to magistrats else it should be unlawfull for Magistrats to punish transgressours c. Answ. The Consequence will not hold for we are not speaking of things civil but of things religious though it may be lawfull for them to resist evil in the one yet not in the other But that Christian magistrats are here included is easily proven If this belong to all Christians then it belongeth to all magistrats if they be Christians for to say that a Christian by becomeing a magistrat is dispensed of these obligations he is particularly tyed to as a Christian is most absurd yea if Christian magistrats be bound to suffer for righteousnesse sake then they are not to resist evil in matters of religion But the first is true for how could they enjoy the blessing of those that suffer for righteousnesse sake Matth. 5 10 11. if they still resisted At this rate none should suffer for Christ who could by any means shun it by killing those that make them suffer and who would then be those that suffer willingly and it seemes according to the Students if a man be a magistrate he ought not any more to suffer for Christ which is as much as to say that so soon as a man becomes a magistrate he ceases to be a Christian The great noise they make of the two dispensations of the Gospell mentioned by G. K. doth but manifest their owne weaknesse and folly for themselves will not deny but that wherever faith in Iesus Christ is professed and he owned as the Saviour and Son of God there is a dispensation of the Gospell as in the Greek Armenian Ethiopian yea and in their account in the Romish church also yet will they not deny but that dipensation is more legall and obscure then that themselves are under as having many ceremonies and shaddowes not necessary and so here is a twofold dispensation acknowledged by themselves seing they will not affirme that the use of all these ceremonies is absolutely sinfull in these churches who are not as yet convinced of it though it should be unlawfull for them to use them and seing the purest and most excellent dispensation of the Gospell is to be like unto Christ who resisted not evil though he was powerfull to doe it and that we are bound to be like him then there is a dispensation of the Gospell in which evil is not to be resisted But further if there be such a dispensation of the Gospell as men shall beat their swords into plough-shears and their spears into pruning hooks and not learne warre any more then there is a dispensation in which evil hall not be resisted the consequence can not be denyed the antecedent is the expresse words of the prophet Isaiah 2. 4. Besides this twofold dispensation is proved out of bishop Forbes of Aberdeen his exposition upon the Revelations where he affirmes that the two last chapters of the Revelation is understood of a church upon earth in which church it can not be supposed that evil should be resisted by an outward sword Pag. 121. They argue from Rom. 13. where the magistrat is not to bear the sword in vain Hence they conclude they ought to resist evil but this saith nothing as to matters of religion they shew as wel their malice as disingenuity here insinuating we denyed that place to belong to Magistrats now which we never did nor doe only G. K. said he would be glad to hear how they could prove that it did belong to magistrats now and indeed were we not other wayes perswaded of it their arguments could not in reason convince us which is that the Scripture is written for our cause and these epistles are to be received and obeyed by us but they have overturned all these themselves as is above observed where in their answer to the Apostls rules about womens praying and prophesying with their head covered they suppose rules given by the Apostle in his epistles of things that not only are not pertaining to us but even unlawfull and so unlesse they make us a clear distinction of these rules and that by some evident demonstration to argue from our duty to obey these commands signifies nothing But while they take up the paper to prove that which they can not say we ever denyed they most shamelessly omitt our chief answer to this which could they have replyed unto they would