manifest it self to be the true religion if it met with a well disposed intellect for to use your own similitude an honest man may have ground enough to shew a distinction betwixt him and a knave albeit a fool cannot discern it so the true religion may have ground enough to prove it self true which the false religion hath not though an infidell or Heretick whose foolish mind is darkened Rom. 1. 21. cannot take it up That the evidence of the spirit cannot be assigned but to the well disposed understandig This they call a pitifull subterfuge alledging that then this evidence can only be assigned to such as are of the Q. mind but not to others and that any Heretick in the world may deny evidences upon the same account Now let the judicious Reader determine whether if this answer be a pitifull subterfuge the Students with the same breath do not declare their Masters to the Jesuit to be the same And when they write next let them shew the difference which they have not yet done In answer to this Retortion they alledge pag. 67. That R. B. said their master â—o M would not assign the Iesuit a ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion and therefore say they R. Bs. practices agree exactly with the Iusuits Moralls and gives an egregious specimen of his Iesucticall honesâ—y which makes us suspect him to be a Iesuited emissary This is a 〈…〉 disproved by their own account where pag. 8. upon this occsion They confess R. B. said only that their master desired the Iesuit to prove that the Protestant Religion had no ground for it Will they deny this let them read the very first four lines of their masters first answer to the Jesuits paper pag. 3. and they will find he put the Jesuit to prove his Minor which was that the Protestant Religion had no such ground As it doth not therefore follow that I. M assigned not afterwards a ground so neither will R. B. his repeating this infer that he said he did not assign such a ground Yea in contradiction to themselves pag. 60. They acknowledge he told their master named the Scripture as a ground c. So it is manifest they have given here a specimen of their Iesuiticall honesty and because they could not answer they forged lyes to fill up the paper and things not to the purpose as pag. 57. where offering to reply to this retortion they say But for answer it is well known R. B. was brought up in a Popish Colledge it is thought by many that he is a Iesuited emissary c. Is not this a pungent answer Reader R. B. was educated in a popish colledge ergo say the Students our answer is not that which the Iesuit used against our master It seems the Students are offended that R. B. hath forsaken popery or otherwise their charging him with his education must be very impertinent as indeed it is no less foolish then if we should upbraid Luther Calvin and all the first Reformers as Papists for being so educated and though it is no wonder their folly and malice led them into this impertinency yet it might have been expected that their gratitude to the Bishop of Edinburgh who was pleased to permitt their book to be printed might have hindered them from this folly seing he was educated in the same Popish Colledge R. B. was and owes some of his Philosophy to it wheras R. B. learned only there a litle grammar and came thence in his 15 Year but the Bishop was there professing popery in his more mature age So if this reflect any thing upon R. B. it will much more against the Bishop which they will do well to clear and be sure not to omitt when they write next or else acknowledge their impertinency herein It seems they wanted strength of reason to evite the retortion which makes them thus rove offering also to prove that their master did assigne a ground which was never denyed and that he was defendent so was R. B. also what is that to the purpose unlesse to make the retortion the stronger and show they cannot get by it but pag. 60. They say that wheras the Iesuit pressed their master that hereticks did say their Religion was conforme to the Scripture as well as he and so the Scripture was no peculiar ground for him more then for hereticks They say their master answered That it was not a pretended but reall conformity unto the Scripture that demonstrats a true Religion c. and upon this they inquire what followes alledging they argued from being as good and not pretending and so fall a railling saying that the light of our Consciences is ecclipsed by a new found light and that we misrepresent them malitiously This railing is for want of better reasoning but seing they are so blind as not to see whether they will see it or not wee shall tell them and wee hope let the Reader see what followes here from Jo. Meinzies the Students master saith to the Jesuit it is not enough that hereticks say the Scripture is a ground for their Religion unlesse it really be so and that other Hereticks saying so doth not inferre that it is as litle a ground for his owne to witt J. Ms. Religion Very well The Quakers tell the Students That it is not enough that hereticks declare they have the Spirit unlesse it be really so and their saying they have it while they have it not doth not inferre that our saying we have it is as litle a ground for us Who but such as are as childish as the Students will affirme there is here any difference But further they confound most ignor antly the Internall testimony of the spirit with the declaration of having the spirit which are two different things It was incumbent upon them to have proven that the internall testimony of the spirit is as good an evidence for Hereticks as for us which they have not offered to do next they have not proved that the declaration of Hereticks is as good as ours neither can they unless they can prove ours to be false which they neither have nor can do But they have egregiously falne in that in convenience they would fix upon us pag. 58. 59. where in answering R. Bs. retortion shewing them that if mens being deceived contradicting themselves or one another who say the spirit is the rule did infer the spirit not to be a certain rule then mens being deceived contradicting themselves and one another who say the Scripture is the rule would the same way infer that the Scripture is not the rule Here they are miserably put to it and therefore not ashamed to deny that they plead not against the spirits being a rule for these Causes The contrary for which is known to all that are acquainted with these controversies for example let them read their so much applauded W. Mitchell his Dialogue and his sober answer so called
kind because the objective evidence of the spirit is a self evidence and primary the objective evidence of the Scripture is but derived and secondary In their answer to G. K. his retortion from the practice of Christ who though his own immediat testimony was to be received referred them unto the testimony of the Scriptures They most miserably betake themselves to their old trade of affirming things without any proof and yet on the proof of these things the whole stresse of their answer lyeth as 1. They say the Iews rejected only the outward immediat testimony of Christ. However dare they say but that the outward immediat testimony of Christ was to be believed and yet he referred them unto the testimony of the Scriptures 2. They say they have no such testimony themselves as the inward objective testimony of the spirit 3. They say according to Christ the Scriptures were the rule meaning the primary rule and so they set the Scripture above Christ his own immediat outward testimony a most gross disorder All which we reject as meer affirmations without any proof Their insinuation that G. K. acteth the part of a cunning sophist when he spoke these words repeated by them pag. 4. is no less without any reall proof for it is a truth that no Scripture truth can be savingly believed but by the illumination of the spirit which is objective In paragraph 28. they think to evade G. K. his argument that we have inspiration because all men have it that then Papists Mahumetans Pagans and men bodily possessed have inspiration which we do affirm viz. that these have it so far as to convince them and is sufficient to be a law of condemnation and render them without excuse for their sin and this all men have not only within their day but after their day of visitation is expired But as to their imposed glosses and senses which they say their divines have already vindicated on these Scriptures cited by G. K. for universall grace and inspiration as they refer us to their Divines so we refer them to our friends and our books where their silly and weak reasons are answered against this gospell truth As for the word EVERY we acknowledge it is not taken alwayes universally but seing it is taken so most frequently it lieth on them to prove that it is otherwise taken in the places cited Before we close the answer to this subsection we propose further unto the Reader these two Considerations 1. That when we say inward divine revelations in the seed are self evident we do not mean it alwayes in respect of the materiall objects of things revealed but in respect of the formall object or revelation it self 2. Although we affirm that the illumination and influence of the spirit in mens hearts is both effective and objective yet we do not affirm that they are two distinct things but one and the same thing under different respects so that we do not plead for another influence then that which in words they seem to grant but we say it is a more excellent thing then they acknowledge it to be as being in it self perceptible and having a self evidence whereas they will have it only a medium incognitum a thing altogether undiscernible and inevident of it self so as to convince or satisfie the understanding that it is of God And thus according to our adversaries sense and upon their principle this inward illumination of the spirit may be said to be fallacious for want of evidence seing according to their own argument that which hath not a sufficient evidence is fallacious But whereas the Students in their account grant in words that the soul hath spirituall sensations and that the work of grace may be felt this confession destroyeth their wholl superstructure for if the work of grace can be felt or is perceptible then it is objective for whatever is perceptible is objective ad seing they grant that the soul hath spirituall sensations we ask them what are the objects of the sensations Are they only words and letters or things such as God himself in his heavenly refreshings waterings and bedewings if the first it is most unreasonable for it would make the spirituall senses to fall short of the naturall seing the naturall senses reach beyond words to naturall things themselves if the second they must needs with us acknowledge inward objective revelations for by them we understand no other thing but as God and the things of His Kingdom are felt in us by way of object SECTION SECOND Where the Students chief argument against the spirits being the rule is proved to be one upon the matter with that the Jesuit Dempster used against their Master I. M. and the same way answered and their weak endeavours to evite it examined and refuted THere hath enough been said heretofore to demonstrat the fallacies in the form of their arguments in which also it resembled the Iesuits which to avoid repetition we shall now omit Their medium against us is that we cannot give an evidence of our being led by the spirit but that which may be as good an evidence for Hereticks for thus they word it in their account alledging we wronged them in saying they used the words which Hereticks may pretend to yet abstracting from this false charge we shall take is as they now express it being indeed equivalent To prove that it may be as good an evidence for hereticks they make I. L. argue thus other Hereticks declare and say they have the Spirit of God teaching them as well as you Therefore if your saying you were so taught were a sufficient evidence c. Then their declaring c. Now let the Reader judge whether this argument amounts to any thing more then that that is not a sufficient evidence to the Q. which other Hereticks may pretend to Thus the Students dispute against the Q. let us hear how the Jesuit disputes against I. M. their Master Pap. Lucifâ—g pag. 3. after the Jesuit hath repeated his argument he adds May it please the answerer of this syllogism to remember that the ground or principle which he shall produce to prove the truth of his religion must have this property that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a false religion as the grounds and principles that one produceth to prove that he is an honest man must have this property that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a knave to be an honest man c. Let the judicious Reader consider whether there be any materiall difference betwixt these two argumentations But to proceed and shew that their arguments are no better then the Jesuits against their Master and our answers no worse then their Masters against the Jesuit we shall place them together I. M. answereth the Iesuit thus pag. 5. of his Pap. Lucifugus Our Answer to the Students as themselves acknowledge st pag. 59. â—s The true religion hath sufficient grounds in it self to
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
differ widely for the want of sight in a stone is not privative as in a man but negative and surely there is so little witt or acumen in this argument of the Students and their prosecution of it that it proves them to be liker stones then men of reason and solidity And here they tell us that G. K. whom in their vain minds they call this great inspired Rabbi was very unfortunat in explaining this distinction and assigning its ground as may be seen in their Accompt but alas for them poor men they have egregiously baffled themselves in that very matter in their Accompt as is shewed in our answer thereunto But behold what dull and heavy disputers these men are If Positive permission were inspiration say they then a man might inspire us for he might positively permitt us This consequence is as dull and heavy as a stone although the weight of it falls not upon us but upon themselves to prove them altogether impertinent for their argument proceeds upon a wrong supposition that according to G. K. all positive permissions are inspirations a thing G. K. never dreamed of but only that some positive permissions to wit those of God are inspirations as he by his Spirit doth permitt men or allow them to doe or use some things as when God said to Adan in the garden of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat save one This was a positive permission and also if God spake this to him inwardly as is most probable and as Augustin supposeth an inspiration also when the Lord said unto Ezekiel cap. 4 15. Lo I have given thee cows dung for mans dung this was a condescendece and positive permission and also an inspiration But the Students proceed still more and more to baffle themselves in stead of baffling the Qu. and shew their ignorance and sottishnesse For thus they argue pag. 99. in prosecuting their third argument every inspiration say they puts us out necessarily to the doeing of the thing inspired and so commands us virtually And upon this bare alledgance the whole superstructure of this argument stands which yet is a manifest untruth and suffereth many undenyable exceptions for many times things inspired are not at all of the nature of things to be done but are simply things to be believed as when God inspired the Prophets with the knowledgs of things to come which neither could nor ought to be done by them and as when Daniel was inspired to know things which he was so farre from being commanded to write that he was forbidden Dan. 12 4. Again some inspirations are meer inward consolations and spirituall refreshments and renewings of strength only to enable us in generall to serve God as meat and drink is unto the body and that sometimes without words and sometimes with words by way of promise as when he spake to Noah Gen. cap. 9. from ver 8. to ver 18. where there is not any command given to Noah but only promises and yet Noah was inspired by the Lord as all the true Prophets were And wheras they alledge that inspiration includs in its notion an insuperable putting and prompting out to the thing inspired in all authors both sacred profane is meerly precarious for sometimes indeed it signifieth to command as where the inspiration is mandatory but at other times it signifieth to comfort refresh quicken influence and assist us without any particular command to any particular action yet we acknowledge the nature of all divine inspirations in the children of God is to incline lead move drawe and guid them up more and more into unity with God and so unto a further degree of holiness but not to determine them unto all particular actions and thus also their fourth Instance is disproved where they alledg that all inspirations of God determine us to one extream which is false if they mean an extream in the particular act if they mean an extream in the generall as to doe all in charity and to the glory of God we grant it but this doth not militate against what we affirme Their other two instances are but the former upon the matter repeated in a tautologicall way for want of new matter and are sufficiently answered above And thus their silly and faint reasonings in this argument are answered without any necessity of G. K. his returning to his bagge for new distinctions as they scornfully but foolishly insinuat Pag. 99. § 15. The Students tell us that G. K. finding himself beset with these inextricable difficulties as it seems misplaces this distinction in their Account and gives in another distinction of Particular and Generall inspirations this is but their meer alleadgance the distinction was right enough placed as any may see by the nature and coherence of the account nor did G. K. see any difficulty in their argument at all as indeed there is none in it But let us see how they refute this distinction of Generall and Particular inspirations or influences First they say he shall never be able to produce a ground for this distinction out of Scripture A learned refutation indeed and like unto their old way of puting us to prove what they can not disprove May it not as wel suffice us to say They shall never be able to produce a ground out of Scripture against it and the raâ—her since we are defendants Secondly That which is called a generall inspiration could not put us out to any particular thing say they Answer If by puting us out they mean determine us insuperably or irresistibly thereunto we grant but this is no absurdity Thirdly They would alwayes leave us undetermined Answer nor is this absurd for in things that are permissive and left to our freedom in the Lord to doe them or not to doe them we need not any thing to determine us as to the particular act but may determine our selves being free agents although as to the nature and kind of the act in generall that it be in true love to God and to his glory we are determined by the Lord. Pag. 100. They are no lesse unsuccessfull in managing their other argument in comparing inward duties with outward for whereas they alledge for a proofe of their minor that if we were not to go about inward duties without a previous sensible inspiration there would be a progressus in infinitum This hath beene sufficiently answered above in the dispute that as to that inward duty of waiting we can not suppose that ever at any time an influence or inspiration can be wanting and this we say still we mean to true Christians who are faithfull unto God and do faithfully improve his influences As for others if they want influences either to inward or outward duties the cause is their unfaithfulnesse and so the way to have them upon all occasions is to be faithfull to answer Gods call who doth oft invite and call upon them who are unfaithfull But if they mean all inward
goe forth into the words without hurt or prejudice and at other times although it be able and strong yet it will not answer the motion of mans will so as to be drawne forth thereby but it only abideth or goeth forth into the vocall prayer according to the will of God as he pleaseth to move it therefore the free motion of the life it selfe as it pleaseth God to bring it forth is to be attended in all outward spirituall performances But here let the Reader note that we have said Uocall prayer requires more life then some mentall prayer we do not say then all for some mentall prayer may be stronger then that which is a complex of mentall and vocall as gathering the whole strength of the complex into that which is solely and intirely mentall according unto that common saying aboundantly confirmed by experience vis unita fortior united strength is the stronger as when the beams of the sun are united into a small point they have more force then when they are diffused and for this cause it is that we are so much for mentall prayer as knowing the great good of it in our experience And from what is above said it is clear that we need another influence wherewith to pray vocally then to eat plow walk c. becaus these naturall actions may be done sufficienty in a spirituall manner by the help of that generall influence which doth alwayes attend good men to feare and love God for the principle of divine life which is the living and powerfull word of God in mens hearts is never idle but is alwayes operative and at work especially more aboundantly in them who joyne with it being as a most rich and living spring that is continually flowing and sending forth its streames according to Joh. 4 14. but to pray vocally requireth an influence of life to flow forth into the words that it may in a liveing and powerfull way reach the hearers but that plowing eating walking c. need no such emanating influence is certain and will be acknowledged by our adversaries But perhaps also they will deny that any life or virtue doth flow forth into mentall praying and preaching even when these duties are acceptably performed But this is contrary both to the certaine experience of many thousands and also to the Scripturs testimony in many places I. It is contrary to the experience of many thousands who can declare whereof we are some that the declarations testimonies and words of the servants of God in preaching and praying have a reall life and living vertue in them whereby their souls are exceedingly refreshed quickened and strengthened which life and living virtue is a thing as distinct from the bare outward words which the naturall ear can hear as wine is distinct from the vessell that carrieth it therfor if another man that hath not this Spirituall ability should pronounce the same words they have not any life or virtue at all and that God had given this Spirituall discerning to many before the people called Q. were raised up is manifest from divers in our owne nation who cared not to hear men who could speak never so good words if they wanted life and in that day they could and did distinguish betwixt dead and living preachers as also betwixt a living testimony and preaching and a dry discourse see for this the book called The fulfilling of the Scriptures And this was the expresse testimony of that Philosopher who was converted by the means of a few words spoke by a certain old man who was a Christian at the Councill of Nice out of the mouth that old man said he there went forth a virtue which I could not resist these were his very words as Lucas Osiander relats them in his Epitome of the Church history Cent. 4. lin 2. cap. 5. II. It is contrary to the Scriptures testimony in many places The mouth of the righteous is a well of life Prov. 10 11. this must be understood in respect of the influence of life that cometh out of his mouth as water doth out of a well and not barely in respect of the good words which a wicked man may speak according to this Christ said to his disciples The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life and as it was then so it is now for at this day he speaketh in his servants and will to the end of the world and it is he only who hath the words of eternall life which he speaketh in his servants and as in the dayes of his flesh he was said to speak with authority or power and not as the scribes and the people wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth all which import a liveing influence and vertue in the words of Christ which the words of the Scribes and Pharisees had not so it is at this day for Christ doth as really speake by his Spirit in his servants as he did in his body of flesh so that Paul said he spak in him and therefore his preaching was in demonstrtion of the Spirit and power And for this cause true Preachers and Prophets are called good trees of which men gather good fruit whereas bad men or evil trees haveing no good fruit although they have the Prophets and Apostles words also they are compared to wit the false Prophets to clouds without rain and wells without water although they have good words yet they have no rain nor water their whole ministry is dry and empty of life and virtue but the true Prophets ministry is as a shower of rain Deut. 32 2. and sometimes it is compared unto fire as it is said in the Psalme he maketh his angels or messengers spirits and his ministers a flamme of fire and fire was said to goe out of the mouths of the two witnesses Also the influences of life that go forth through the true prophets in their ministry are compared to golden oil the men are compared unto golden pipes Zech. 4 12. And therefore the Apostle Peter exhorted the ministers in his day to minister of the ability which God giveth as good stewards of the manifold grace of God so they ministred not only words but grace many other testimonies might be cited to prove this truth Another instance brought by the Students is that an haeretick forbearing prayer a year or two or his whole life time may justifie himselfe by this doctrine To this it was answered that though he may pretend yet he hath no just ground from our principle for we believe that all men are bound to pray often unto God yea daily and that God doth inwardly call and move all men often unto prayer during the day of their visitation and when that is expired or when at any other time they want that inward call or influence through unfaithfulnesse they are still bound and if they pray not they sin becaus they ought to have an influence But that our Account saith