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
that doth not see that they are intangled in the same difficulty they would urge upon us yea into a far greater for they can not so much as pretend to any objective evidence whereby to convince us that they are well disposed seing they altogether deny such a thing If they answer that they are not bound to say either the affirmative or negative but require of us to prove the negative who seeth not that we have the same to reply unto them when they urge us either the Q. have the spirit or they have not that we are not bound to say either the affirmative or negative for although to have and not to have are contradictory yet to say that we have the spirit and that we have not the spirit are not contradictory being both affirmative and indeed when we assert things only in thesi we do not say either that we have or have not the spirit but this we say and we are able to prove from Scripture that all good Christians have the Spirit of God immediately to teach and guide them into all truth and all men have it so far as either to justify or condemn them By this we stand and are able to defend it through the help of God as consisting both with Scripture and sound reason and testimonies of Ancients But if they think with their little craft to bring us down from the Thesis to the Hypothesis they must know the same will bring them down to it also for seing it is a truth acknowledged both by them and us that all true Christians and children of God have the Spirit of God working in them at lest as an efficient cause from this we urge them thus either they have the Spirit of God working in them as an efficient cause or they have not If they say they have not they confess they are not true Christians or children of God which we suppose they will be loath to say if they say they have the Spirit of God as an efficient cause of faith working in them and subjectively inlightening them let them prove it or give us an evidence of it Who doth not see that poor men they are taken in their own snare we know all rationall and sober men will acknowledge that we are not bound to receive their affirmations without proofe more then they are bound to receive ours nor indeed so much we being as the case stands but defendents As touching their answer to R. B. his retortions about an evidence 〈◊〉 shall be examined in the next section In pag. 60. they tell that we assign them at last some shaddows of evidences namely first our own declaration 2. the Scriptures 3. the immediat testimony of the Spirit But that these are not shaddows will appear to the judicious and well disposed if they consider these two things 1. That by our declaration we mean not a bare verball declaration having no virtue or manifestation of life in it for we confess such might be as good a ground for a heretick in way of evidence but by our declaration we mean such a declaration as doth really proceed from the spirit of God in us and is therefore a living declaration having a manifestaaion of life in it and with it and which is not only in words of life or living words uttered through us from the spirit of life but also in works of life or living works which are the fruits of the spirit as said Christ by their fruits shall ye know them Now such a declaration can no Heretick have however he may pretend to it If our adversaries say that we only pretend to such a thing We answer them with their own rule Affirmanti incumbit probatio i. e. The affirmer ought to prove Let them prove us only to be pretenders which yet they have not done nor can do and indeed such a declaration from the Spirit of God in the Apostles as when John said we are of God c. was an evidence that no heretick could justly pretend to 2. it is a most unjust and unreasonable thing to require of us any other evidence of our having the spirit then that which every true Christian may and ought to give seing we pretend to no other spirit but that which every true Christian hath nor to any revelations but these which are the priviledges of all true Christians nor to any doctrines which are not conform to the Scriptures of Truth as we are ready to prove and as G K. hath already shewed in his book Immediat Revelation which neither the Students nor their Masters have given us any refutation of Now have not all good Christians these three evidences for them and we can prove by the help of the Lord that they are as applicable to us as to any upon earth and here note that when we say the Scripture is the best outward evidence that can be given we mean it not as a particular evidence but as a generall common to all good Christians for we grant that the Scripture cannot prove that any particular man hath the Spirit of God in such a way as true Christians have it but it proves in generall that all true Christians have it yea and all men to convince them at least In pag. 61 62. They reject the Scriptures testimony as an evidence to us because according to us the Scriptures testimony hath no evidence without the Spirit In answer to which we say But it hath an evidence with the spirit his inward evidence going along with it which inward evidence we say doth go along with it sufficiently to convince every well disposed intellect And this we can prove from the Scriptures testimony Nor is this to commit an unlawfull circle as they foolishly alledge which is but an old threed-bare alledgance of Papists against the Protestants as Turnbull alledged on Paraeus that he proved the spirit by the Scripture and the Scripture by the Spirit Some Protestants in our dayes do miserably seek to extricat themselves of that circle that they know the spirit by the Scriptures objectively and they know the Scriptures by the spirit effectively and so indeed they get free of the circle as not being in eodem genere i. e. in the same kind But they affirm a gross untruth that the spirits influence is only effective and ex parte subjecti whereas we know it is objective and can prove both from Scripture and primitive Protestants see G. K. his book of immediat Revelation and Quakerism no popery Where the same is at length proved But we have a most clear way to extricat our selves of that circle imposed on us by Papists and these Students to wit that we know the Scriptures testimony by the spirit tanquam à priori as we know the effect by the cause and we know the Spirits testimony by the Scriptures tanquam à posteriori as we know the cause by the effect and so both are objective and yet in a divers
be out of the judgment of charity which may deceive us for all the works which a godly man can doe may likewise be performed as to the outward by hypocrits To this we answer If by outward works they mean such as come under the outward observation of the meer outward and bodily senses we grant but there are works which are the fruits of the Spirit which although they remaine in the souls of holy men yet send forth a savour of that life and Spirit or spirituall principle that is the root of them through the outward words and conversation which can and doe reach unto the spirituall senses of others where they are and this savour and manifestation of life can no hypocrite have but it is an infallible evidence of sanctification in measure where it is and where the sanctification is greatest the savour or manifestation of life is there greatest also according unto this Paul said we are a good savour c. and Paul said of the Corinthians that they were the epistle of Christ. John said of the Saints that the name of God and of the Lamb shall be in their foreheads Many other testimonies could be brought to prove this we shall only add that of Christ he that believeth in me out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water So here is an evidence that no hypocrite can have Now what are these rivers but the influences of the Spirit and seing they are said to flow out they may be discerned by others It is true the naturall senses can not discerne them but the Spirituall senses can and seing the students grant spirituall senses if they grant them to be true and reall they must grant also Spirituall sensible objects which may be as certainly apprehended and discerned by our spirituall senses although the objects themselves be without us as naturall objects without us may be apprehended by the naturall senses 3. Nor can we know it say they by revelation but how prove they it They only suppose they have proved already that thereis no such thing but how weak and impertinent their proofes are is above shewed But here note that by revelation is sufficiently understood the revelation or discovery which the fruits of the Spirit or Spirituall life give forth in holy men one to another for as the savour of some sweet oyntement is a sufficient revelation of it to the sense of the naturall smell so the Spirituall savour of the Spirituall oyntment is such to the Spirituall smell Lastly wheras they say the gift of discerning Spirits was never common to all This wee deny nor doth that Scripture cited by them prove it 1 Cor 12 10. Otherwise they might as wel say that faith was not common to all true Christians becaus it is said to another faith but as by faith here must be understood some extraordinary degree of faith or the faith of miracles so the discerning must be some extraordinary degree or as in relation to miracles seing there were Spirits of Devils that wrought false miracles and such a discerning as to that we doe not plead for as common to all but that a discerning of Spirits so farre as to discerne betwixt them who were godly and wicked and who were ministers of the Spirit and who not was common unto all we prove becaus it is promised as a generall priviledge Mal 3 18. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked c. Again all are commanded to try the Spirits 1 Joh 4 1. Therefore all have a measure of discerning whereby to try them otherwise they were required to doe an impossible thing which is absurd If it be said He giveth a rule whereby to try them viz. every Spirit that confesseth that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God ver 2. To this we answer the rule is one thing the discerning is another and differ as the object and the eye Now the eye is as much required to see as the object Therefore all need a Spirituall eye to apply the rule in a suteable manner so as to know who doe truly confesse Christ come in the flesh for John can not mean a bare verball confession becaus Antichrist himselfe may have that therfore he meaneth a true living confession in life and power which no hypocrite can have Having thus answered all their arguments we shall conclude this particular with one argument against them one part of which is their owne confession They who can be certainly known and discerned to be impious and unholy ought not to be admitted into the ministry But impious and unholy men can be certainly knowne to be impious and unholy Therfore they ought not c. The first proposition is proved and sufficiently confirmed from their owne confession that none ought to be admitted but who in the judgment of charity are to be esteemed truely pious therfore they who can not be so estemed ought not to be admitted but if they be certainly knowne to be impious they can not be so esteemed therefore c. the assumption is proved above partly by arguments and partly by the refutation of what they have said against it In the second part they dispute aginst an immediat enthusiastick call as they call it by way of inspiration being necessary and for the necessity of a mediate and outward call and becaus we plead for the blessed inspiration of the Spirit of God they call us Enthusiasticall impostors and if the Apostles themselves and primitive Christians were now living they would give them the same name for we plead for no other inspiration but that which was given unto those holy men But seing they use the word Enthusiasme so much in a way of reproach it is fit that it be opened let them tell us then if they mean any other thing by it then true divine inspiration if they mean another it concerns us not for we plead for no other but if they mean that as the word properly signifies being derived from a word that signifies God within as the best Greek dictionaries shew they should not reproach us with that which was the glory of the primitive Christians and by which the Scriptures were writ to wit divine inspiration And here they tell us of an inward call which consists in the disposition of the soul but they will not have it to be an inspiration but if by this disposition they mean any spirituall or supernaturall gift they must needs acknowledge that it is an inspiration at least in the generall sense for how can it be spirituall unlesse it be inspired is not every good thing that is spiritually good from the Spirit Surely the nationall confession of faith published in Knoxes time doth expressly say that faith is the Inspiration of God but if they say they deny not subjective but objective inspiration we put them to prove this unnaturall division and separation as if there were any inspiration in mens soules that
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
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
where he makes this the chief cause yea themselves for the same reason within two pages to wit pag. 60. and 61. plead against the teaching of the spirit affirming that because the Georgians Familists and pretended Saints as Francis and Loyola c. pretended the inward teaching of the spirit and had an outward show of godliness therefore the spirits teaching to deny ungodliness is as good an evidence for them as for the Q. Who but the Students would run themselves into such miserable condictions but to give the Reader an evident demonstration of the Students gift of contradicting themselves take one here in their own words they say this above mentioned retortion doth not meet their argument why do we conclude that the spirit is not the rule of faith because they cannot give an evidence which will actually convince that they are led by the spirit no such thing compare this with 1. Ls. medium of his second argument where he undertaketh to prove that the spirit is not the rule of faith as it is expressed by themselves because there can be no evidence given of it in the world but if they think to creep out here that there may be evidences given though not such as do actually convince because of the want of subjective evidence or disposition of the mind as they afterwards add and that we can give no evidence of this last sort it remains then for them to prove that their minds are well disposed seing they are the Opponents and we the meer Defendents and that the evidences assigned by us or such as are not manifest even to the well disposed and yet to go round pag. 59. paragraph 19. They account this of the well disposed mina ridiculous though it was the best answer their Master could give the Iesuit in the like case as above is shown but thou may perhaps judge Reader that these that are so nice and scrupulous in receiving evidences from others would give some very solid ones for their own rule when pressed the same way to give us an evidence that they have the Scripture to be their rule from God and that they have the true sense of it Take then notice of them here Reader and see how satisfactory their answer is Now say the Students pag. 59. The solution is easy for they who make the Scripture their principall rule are either our Churches or they are Sects dissenting from us If the first have not our divines frequently proved both from the intrinsick characters of Divinity that appear in the Scriptures themselves and also from the outward motives of credibility that we have these Scripturall revelations from God and have they not often assigned sufficient objective evidences and proofs of the senses of the Scriptures taught by our churches as to every point controverted by us and all Sects whatsoever so that dissenters remain unconvinced for want of subjective evidence and disposition of mind and really ought to believe us teaching such senses of Scripture c. Is not this rarely wel solved do the Students give any better evidence for all this then their own declaration and is not this according to themselves as good for other Hereticks as for them is it not strange with what confidence they should print such stuff Besides as to the first part of it it is manifestly false for Calvin the chiefest of their Divines hath in plain words asserted That all the objective evidences motives of credibility are not sufficient to establish the Conscience in the beliefe of the Scripturs certainly that therunto is necessary the secret and inward testimony of the Spirit yea that the same Spirit that was in the Prophets and Apostles enter into the heart c. So say all the publick confessions of the Protestants abroad and seing of this according to the Students ther can be no objective evidences in the world given then neither can there of the Scripture which they confesse is their rule So the Reader may see that their work is like the vipers brood that destroyeth it selfe tends to overturne the certainty of all Christian religion landing in Scepticisme which becaus they can not shun they end their section in vaine boasting railing saying pag. 77. they provoke all the Papists Qu. of the world to argue against them so if they can Here are high words indeed but seing they are so busy in boasting we accept the Challenge offer us to prove before as publick an auditory as the last Dispute was that their arguments against the Q. are no better then the Iesuits against their master And here to conclude they adde Let the Reader therfore judge whether railing Robin shewes forth more of an asses then of a vipers nature where he brands our argument with the black mark of Popery Well! wee leave to the Readers judgment who also may judge if this be not railing and if the Students who talk at this rate be to be trusted in their Preface saying that they have abstained from all personall criminations and have not rendered evil for evil and what may be thought of men that are not ashamed thus to belye themselves SECTION THIRD Wherin the Students arguments concerning the Supper and against Perfection and Womens speaking are considered and answered contained in their subsection 3. from pag. 66. of their book to pag. 78. FIrst They say They might argue that the Q. have not revelations from the Spirit becaus of their mad impious practices and then they turne this assertiou into a question asking have not the Q. committed such practices saying they were commanded by the Spirit And for this they referre the Reader to severall bookes writ against the Q. by their declared adversaries which signifie nothing unlesse they will prove that these men spake Truth which they neither have nor can do and so are no more valued by us then Cochleus lyes against Luther But to confirme this They place at large a citation out of H. More whom they say the Q. have reported to be a Quaker This is a false calumny which they are dared to prove That H. More hath in a letter to G. K. owned some of the Q. principles is true as particularly that of immediat objective Revelation called by them the head of the Monster and that the seed is a substance which they count one of the Q. grand errours As for that citation of H. More he wrot it upon trust and was not an eye-witness of these things and it recurrs upon him and them to prove the things true The story there mentioned of I. N. seing it was at that very time disowned by the Q. and since condemned by himself militats nothing against us no more then other horrid things yea that which in the Students own esteem is down right treason being done by some of the chief of their Ministry as commanded by the Scripture doth against them In conclusion they give a proverb used by Will Dundas
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
still looked upon them to be deceivers It is clear from Scripture that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles but that they shall so counterfeit the true that it will be hard to discerne the one from the other without Gods immediat direction and teaching And therefore the preaching of sound doctrine accompanied with a holy life is a better evidence of a true Prophet then all outward miracles whatsoever as Christ said by their fruits ye shall know them he doth not say by their miracles but by their fruits Now we are most willing to be tryed by this rule if both our doctrine and life and manner of conversation be not answerable to that of the Prophets Christ and the Apostles then let them say we have not that spirit which was in them But if they can not make out this they but fight as men beating the aire Pag. 80. They argue that there is no substantiall living principle in man that is the good seed because then the evill seed or principle should also be substantiall But this is absurd therefore That this is absurd they argue for then it should be created by God and so God should be the author of evill and sin or it should be uncreated and consequently God To this we answer The same argument militats as much and rather more against their own principle for seing they hold sin to be somewhat whether a substance or an accident is all one as to the argument we argue by a retortion against themselves either it is created or uncreated and so the same inconvenience would follow But to answer directly we say sin considered in its formall reason is rather a privation then any reall being as blindness or lameness in a mans body or corruption in wine or any other liquor But if they enquire about the subject of this privation whether it be a substance We answer it is and it is clear from the Scriptures testimony that as Christ rules in the Saints so the devil rules in the wicked and is in them and as God hath his seed and birth in the Saints so the devil hath his seed and birth in the wicked which is of the devils nature But if it be asked further whether it is a substance we answer first with inquiring at them another question and retorting the argument upon them whether the devil is a substance yea or nay If yea either he is created or uncreated if created then God is the author of the devil if uncreated then he should be God their own consequence which is blasphemy But 2. the true answer to both is that he who is now the devil was created of God a good Angel but by his own voluntary fall he hath reduced himself to be a devil not by any reall creation but by a degeneration and as is the devil himself so is his seed a corrupted degenerated principle from what it was originally before sin was but if we take the seed of the devil distinctly as distinct from himself we do not say it is any percipient principle that seeth or knoweth c. for it is rather of the nature of a body then of a percipient intelligent spirit and the Scripture calleth it a body to wit the body of death But whether the seed of sin be a substance or not the Students argument is altogether impertinent to argue that because the good seed is a substantiall living principle c. then the evill principle or seed should also be substantiall living c. for the same reasons We deny this Consequence for there are greater reasons whereby to prove the one then the other If they think to argue from the rule of contraries they think foolishly for it would as much follow that because a man is a substance who seeth and heareth c. that therefore a mans blindness and deafness and lameness are also substances and that blindnesse seeth deafnesse heareth lamenesse walketh Do they not know the maxim in Logick that telleth them substantia substantiae propriè non contrariatur i. e. one substance properly is not contrary to another But last of all we may more justly retort this blasphemous consequence upon many of their own church who hold that God stirreth up the devil and all wicked men unto all their wicked actions by an irresistible motion or quality which he infuseth into them commonly called praedeterminatio physica Is not this to make God the author of sin As also many of them teach that Originall sin is a positive quality infused into the souls of men at their creation Concerning which positive quality we thus argue either it is created or uncreated c. and so the inconveniences of their argument will fall much more upon their own heads for they cannot alledge that this positive quality at its first creation was first good and afterwards became changed into evill because no quality can admit any such transmutation as for example whitnesse can never become blacknesse nor sweetnesse bitternesse nor streightnesse crookednesse although a substance that is white may loose its whitnesse and may become black and that which is sweet may become bitter and that which is streight become crooked In the prosecution of their second argument they bring their matter to this issue that G. K. holds the seed it self to be contradistinct from the manifestation becaus the manifestation is in the feed but we deny the consequence doe not they say that the manifestation of Gods will is in the Scripture and also that the Scripture it self is the manifestation of Gods will That G. K. calleth the seed both a substance and a manifestation is as reasonable as to say there are outward manifestations of Gods goodnesse power and wisdome in the heavens and earth and yet the heavens and earth are the very outward manifestations themselves Are not our meat and drink and cloathing naturall and outward manifestations of the goodnesse of God to us and are not these things substances and doth not God manifest his goodnesse also in them What blind reasons are these which those poore blind men bring forth against the truth Again they argue that this manifestation which wee say is a substance depends not â solo Deo cannot exist without a subject nay not without the understanding to which it is made All which they barely assert but do not offer to prove Again they say it is but a meer action and applicatio agentis ad passum But how do they prove it here they are as dumb as stones Perhaps they think to prove it because manifestation is a nomen verbale which commonly being derived from the active verb signifieth an action but this is meerly to play in words and not to dispute for they may as well say because the whole world is called the creation for Creation is an active verbale therefore the whole world is a meer action or applicatio agentis ad passum We deny not but the action or motion
which proceeds from the Spirit of God may also be called a manifestation But we say the seed it self is also a manifestation and those inward heavenly refreshments which God ministers unto the souls of his Saints are as reall substantiall spirituall manifestations of his goodnesse as the outward earthly refreshments to wit meat and drink are reall substantiall naturall manifestations Lastly they query if the manifestation be a substance whether is it one manifestation or all the manifestations To this we answer they that please to call the action or motion which proceeds from the Spirit of God an an efficient cause a manifestation may easily distingnish manifestation as it is a principle or quid permanens or as it is an action or quid transiens now to apply we say the substantiall manifestations of God inwardly to our souls are many as they are quid permanens and per modum principii for as God nourisheth our outward man not with bread and drink once only but often and many are our outward refreshments all which are substances agreeing in this that they are manifestations and pledges of Gods bounty unto us so doth he nourish our inward man with spirituall bread and drink not once only but often giving us daily the supersubstantiall bread as the words in the prayer may be translated and have been by some learned men and thus we have answered their last argument in their § 5. without recurring to any idea Platonica a term they vainly bring in to their argument to move people to laugh at their folly And thus we hope it is apparent that we have no need to retract our answers given in the dispute as they vainly imagin It would be more labour and expence of time and paper then the thing is worth to answer them in all their pittifull ridiculous reasonings in these matters in every particular Therefore not to weary the Reader nor mispend time we shall set down some few clear distinct propositions which shall clearly answer any seeming difficulties alledged by them in this whole Section as in relation to Christ. 1. Proposition The Word or Son of God hath the whole intire nature of Man Spirit Soul and Body united to him in the Heavens and he is the same in substance what he was upon earth both in Spirit soul and body 2. Christ in us or the seed is not a third spirituall nature distinct from that which was in the man Christ Jesus that was crucified according to the flesh at Jerusalem for the same that is in us was and is in him and as it is in him it s the fulnesse or spring of the same in us as the streame nor is there any difference but such as is betwixt the spring and the streame which are one in their nature and substance 3. We say that the same seed and life is in us which was in him and is in him in the fulnesse as water is in the spring and in us as the streame and this seed and spirituall nature which is both in him and us doth belong to him as he is the second Adam or man Christ therefore this seed being in us the Man Christ is in us not according to his whole manhood but according unto that which is proper unto it and yet without all division as the naturall life is in all the members but more principally in the head and heart without any division so this spirituall life and nature is both in Christ our head and in us by which he dwelleth in us as the spirit of man doth in the body and we eat and partake of his flesh 4. But if they argue that at least Christ hath three natures in himself we say Their own principle will conclude that as much as ours for the Godhead is one nature the nature of the soul is a second and the nature of the body is the third and our adversaries themselves teach that as God is three persons in one nature so Christ is three natures in one person 5. Although the word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should assume into union with it selfe not only two natures but three it should not make either two or three Chists but one for they grant that the Word hath assumed two to wit the soul and body of the man Christ and yet he is not two Christs but one even as the king is but one king although he possesse three kingdomes for ad multiplicationem obliquorum non multiplicantur concreta as your Logick teacheth 6. The seed and spirituall body of Christ both in him and in us belonging to Christ as he is the second Adam is as really and immediatly united unto the word as his outward body was for the wholl manhood of Christ was united to the Logos and the Logos to it and in it therefore the sufferings of this seed and spirituall body of Christ in us are as really his sufferings as these He accomplished at Jerusalem 7. This seed is not our soules but is a medium betwixt God and us and our union with God is but mediat through this whereas the union of God with this is immediat Therefor none of us are either Christ or God but God and Christ are in us 8. Seing this seed and spiriuall nature of Christ is one and the same both in him and in us it is most unreasonable to argue that there are as many Christs as men as it is unreasonable to argue that becaus the soul of man is in all his members that therefore as many members as many souls The element of the aire is but one only element although it fill the wholl universe betwixt the stars and the earth And the element of water is but one although it fill many channells 9. Christ outwardly died but once but inwardly he dieth in a spirituall and mysticall sense as often as any crucifie him to themselves by their unfaithfulnesse and disobedience as the Scriptures declare 10. As for the satisfaction of Christ without us we own it against the Socinians and that it was full and compleat in its kind yet not so as to exclude the reall worth of the work and sufferings of Christ in us nor his present intercession for if Christ his intercession without us in heaven doth not derogate from his satisfaction but doth fulfill it no more doth his intercession and sufferings in us 11. The sufferings of Christ in men are voluntary and yet without sin as his sufferings at Jerusalem were voluntary and without sin for as he joined not with them who outwardly crucified him in any Active way to coucurre with them or countenance them so nor doth he inwardly joine with men to countenance or concurre with them when they crucifie him by their sins 12. As there was no need that the Jewes should have crucified Christ outwardly so as purposely to sin that Christ might suffer for sin outwardly although the prophecies of Christs sufferings and Gods foreknowledge was certaine
or perceptible by themselves which were ridiculous and as ridiculous is their conceit of an influence of the Spirit that is meerly effective and not objective That the books of the old and new testament are called the Scripture by way of eminency we deny not although the name is given at times to other writings nor doth this refute G. K. his translation of that Scripture 2 Tim. 3 16. which is confirmed by the Syriack which hath it thus In Scripturâ enim quae per Spiritum scripta est utilitas est ad doctrinam c. i. e. For in the Scripture which is written by the Spirit there is profite But their reason from the Conjunction and is both foolish and blasphemous for if the words be rendered thus All Scripture given by inspiration is and profitable is no more non-sense then divers other places in the Scripture where the Conjuction and seemeth to be redundant as in that place Joh. 8 25. where the Greek hath it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The beginning or from the beginning the same which and I speak unto you Now if the Conjunction and render not this place non-sense no more doth it render that in Timothy but the Students ignorance renders them rather blasphemers and their arguments blasphemous against the words of Christ. Moreover the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signifie a strong affirmation as to say even truely indeed as both our English translation hath it Joh. 8 25. and Schrevelius in his Greek-Lexicon doth render it and thus the words have good sense All-Scripture or writing given by inspiration is even or indeed profitable And whereas they say none but a Q. or Jesuit would so interpret the place they declare their malice and ignorance for William Tindall that famous Protestant martyr in his translation of the Bible for which the Papists burnt him did tranilate it as G. K. doth whom we think the Students dare not accuse as a Jesuit that he was a Q in so farr as he held divers of our principles condemned by the Students we shall not deny As for us we blesse the Lord our faith stands not on such a small nicity as the want of an is or the redundahcy of an and let them look to that whose faith knoweth no other foundation but the letter It doth nothing hurt our faith nor lessen the due esteeme of the Scripture to us if peradventure an is hath been lost or an and hath crept into the text since the originall coppies were lost This we know and can prove that the Scripture can not profit any man to salvation without the illumination or inspiration of the Spirit which is both effective and objective and which our adversaries grant at least to be effective And if they make one exception why may not wee make another or if they say the Spirit is necessary one way why may not we say it is necessare another way But then the Scriptures say they would not be profitable at all in any manner or kind we deny the consequence for it is profitable yea and necessary in genere objecti materialis i. e. as the materiall object in relation to all historicall truths and divers other dogmatical and doctrinall points which perhaps we would not have knowne without the Scripture although we had had the Spirit in as large a measure as men now have it Again the Scripture is profitable in genere objecti remoti secundarii i. e. by way of a remote and secondary object and rule even as in relation to testimonies of life and experience which may be knowne without the Scripture yet the Scripture is a secondary confirmation and help even in that case as a card or map of a land is unto a traveller that travells through the land it selfe and seeth the high wayes who will not throw away his card because he sees the land it selfe but will both delight and profit himself to compare them both together Other great and weighty uses wee could give but these suffice to serve as instances against their weak and sorry argumentation Their last argument is from Joh. 12 48. The word that I have spoken the same shall judge him in the last day But how prove they that this is the letter of the Scripture much of which was not then writ And although this Word were not Christ himself yet it may be an inward testimony spoken by Christ in mens hearts Here they meerly begg and prove not But 2. suppose it were the Scripture or written Law as that cited by them Rom. 2 12. it will only follow that the Scripture is a secondary Law or rule which we willingly grant and that by it men who have the Scriptures shall be judged but not by them only for if the Gentiles who have not the written Law shall be judged by the Law in the conscience so shall these also who have both inward and outward be judged by both and consequently their damnation shall be greater SECTION FIFTH Of worship being an Answer unto their third Section concerning inspirations to duty IN their stating the controversie in this particular they grossly prevaricate in divers things as where they say N. 2. the question is not only about duty on the matter videlicet the act of prayers c. as separated from the right manner viz. sincerity and truth wheras indeed the question betwixt them and us is about prayer as separated from the right manner viz. sincerity and truth For they say God requires men to pray without any inspiration or gracious influence of the spirit so that such a prayer is an answering of the obligation to the duty upon the matter although it be separated from the right manner and accordingly they doe both require and allow men to pray when they have no gracious influence or motion therunto telling them that even such prayers are required and that they doe better to give such prayers as want sincerity unto God then not to pray at all seing such lifelesse and spiritlesse prayers have the matter of true prayer although they want the right manner Wheras we on the contrary affirm that lifelesse prayers have neither the right matter and substance nor yet the right manner of prayer and therfor are not at all required in Scripture Yet we deny not but many times when men want an influence of life to pray they are still under the obligation and at such ' times it is their sin not to pray because they ought to have sutable influences to prayer which would not be wanting if they were faithfull unto God but when through unfaithfulnesse they want them it doth not excuse them from being under the obligation yet still when they want the helpe of the Spirit they ought to pray by the Spirit becaus they ought to have it Even as when one man oweth unto another man a just debt in money the debter ought to pay the money although he have no money to
not have dropped thus And therefore we shall returne it upon them that they may not forget it when they writ next That of the 13 Rom. can not be understood of the magistrats punishing men for matters of Conscience because it being written to the church of Rome to shew them their duty towards their present magistrate which was Nero that cruell and persecuting Emperour and then it would follow that Nero had had a lawfull power and authority to punish even Christians for errours in matters of religion though himselfe was a professed infidel and seing the magistrate is to exert his power according to his knowledge it would follow that Nero exercised a lawfull power in causing kill the Apostles and persecute the Christians which will make that horrid crime very slender seing it was no more according to the Stud. but the exerciseing that lawfull authority he had received from God according to his knowledge Pag. 122. They build an airy triumph upon their owne mistak alledging that since their magistrats are not under that pure dispensation it is lawfull for them to resist evil and so that of Matth. is not a repeal to them But they have here either wilfully or ignorantly forgotten the other branch of the distinction for granting their Magistrats may as we deny not and that lawfully resist evill in Civil matters yet not in matters of Conscience and this is that which was incumbent upon them to have proven But it may be worth the Readers paines specially to notice their reasonings in this 122. p. in answer to that objection given in by us from the parable of the tares Matth. 13. where the servants are expressly forbidden to pluck them up Here they play fast and loose to purpose and to facilitate their own work make no difficulty to fasten contradictions upon Christ himselfe 1. They say It is clearly repealed becaus murtherers witches traitours are tares as wel as hereticks and if the one were to be eximed so would the other Is not this the way to argue against Christ and to charge contradictions upon him not upon us wherein they fasten an absurdity upon him who gave this command or else they must acknowledge that by these tares are to be understood some sort of evil doers with whom the magistrats are not to meddle But since the Students say this is repealed they must confesse it sometimes stood in vigour it being once commanded we would willingly be informed then of them and they may remember it when they write next how long this command stood and to whom it belonged since it had its rise from Christ and was none of the old covenant precepts or if it be one of these uselesse Gospell commands they dreame of which it is unlawfull for us to obey But to goe on they say that ly the tares is to be understood bemasked hypocrits who being scarce discernable from the wheat are therefore not to be meddled with Very wel then where the magistrate can not discerne heresies according to themselves he is not to punish and then what comes of that authority was acknowledged Nero had from Rom. 13 who was as uncapable to discerne hereticks as hypocrits And then seing as before is said they are not to judge of hidden things experience hath aboundantly shewne how much the true discerning of heresie is both uncertaine and difficult even to Protestant magistrats who have called that wheat to day which they have called tares to morrow and therefore ought according to this rule to forbear medling in such matters Their second argument pag. 123. drawne from Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2 14. which is parallel with it is before answered Afterwards they goe about to play the Polititians shewing both here and in the following pag. how the publick peace is disturbed by suffering of sundry Religions and this they reckon so certain that they conclude it is known by all that are but indifferently versed in histories c. Now if this conclusion hold true it is impossible either for France Germany Holland or Zwitserland to be in peace without either the Papists rise up and cutt the Protestants throats or the Protestants theirs and who but such as the Students can be ignorant that after much blood-shed and contention who should oppresse and destroy each other they have learned by sad experience that it is safest and most conducible to the peace and contributs most to the publick benefit not to meddle with each others consciences notwithstanding that these pitifull States-men can prattle to the contrary who have shewne themselves in this to be very indifferently versed in history But they proceed affirming that since the Magistrat is keeper of both tables to whom is entrusted not only the care of mens bodies but souls he ought to punish not only for evil but also for religious offences If all this were confessed would it follow that he were to punish Religious as Civil offences by a Civil censure Surely nay no more then he must punish Civile offences by an Ecclesiastick censure Now it remains for them to prove that offences in things purely conscientious should among Christians be punished by the externall sword which they have not as yet done and let it be here observed that not withstanding all their clamours for the Magistrats priviledge and that the Q. detract from him that all the power dignity and honour they put upon him is to be the Clergies burrow for as they allow him not authority to judge who are Hereticks and who not but he must only serve to be their executioner and persecut such as they find prejudiciall to their interest for though they will have it to be lawfull for Preachers such as their Bishops to be Magistrats as Chancellour Counseller Iudge c. Yet no Magistrat nay the King himself must take upon him to be a Preacher though we could never see any thing in all the New Testament making this unlawfull yea and David and Solomon in the Old who were not of the tribe of Levi were both Prophets and Preachers and pen-men of the Scripture This trick even the Protestant Clergy have learned from their father the Pope who shewed the Clergy long ago the way to make themselves Princes and Iudges but to be sure to shut out the Magistrate from meddling with their function So it may be easily seen here whether the Q. or the Students be greatest friends to the Magistrate Lastly They conclude that since those that broach heresy do evil and that the Magistrate is the executer of God's wrath upon him that doeth or acteth outwardly evil without any restriction c. it is not lawfull for us to add a restriction where the Spirit of God hath put none Who can but admire the impudency of these Students which doe that which in the following line they affirme is unlawfull by adding outwardly which is a restriction For the words in the text are not outwardly evil but evil which being taken without any