pay it with for his want of the money doth not excuse him from the obligation to pay it yet he ought to pay the debt only with money or the equivalent of it but if he should offer to pay it with any thing that is not money nor moneys worth as suppose with a few counters this is no answering the obligation either in the right matter or manner and so it is in the case in hand Again N. 8. They fall into the like prevarication in alledging the question is not about a new heart and spirituall principle of obedience for they owne that as indispensably necessary for acceptable performance But do not they say that when men pray without a new heart they do in part answer the obligation and do not they encourage them to pray even the most wicked This is denyed by the people called Quakers and is a great part of the question We say indeed wicked men ought to pray but not remaining wicked but that they ought to forsake their wickednesse and have a new heart and therewith to pray Moreover whereas they say the question is not about every performance but about acceptable performance Herein they most palpably contradict themselves N. 9. where they grant that no act of worship can be acceptably performed withot these influences and they wel know that the Qu say the same the question then is not about acceptable performance seing both they and we grant that no duty can be acceptably performed without the Spirit so that if the Students had understood their matter they would have said the question is not about acceptable performance but about simple performance whether there be any obligation to performe duty that is not acceptable which they affirme and we deny for indeed unacceptable performance is as good as no performance but rather worse as if under the Law the Jewes had offered up a dogs neck in place of a sacrifice it had been a greater sin then not to offer at all As it is a greater offence for a man to offer to pay his debt with counters or pennies made of slait-stone then not to pay at all Another grosse errour they committ in alledging the question is about praeparatory motions praevious in time this is a lye we challenge them to shew us any such thing in our books we doe not require motions or influences of the Spirit previous in time although they are oft given it sufficeth that they are previous in order of nature as the cause is previous unto the effect which is not alwayes in time but in nature but the question is indeed about the necessity of motions to and in the performance of duty so as the performance is to be in by through and with the Spirit which may wel be without a praeviousuesse in time as to inward duty at least and if the outward can be simultaneous with the inward it may also be as to the outward but if it can not be so soone as the inward in some cases the reason is not for want of the motion but because the bodily organs can not so hastily answer the motion as the mind it selfe can and it sufficiently answereth the motion that the mind answer it first and then the bodily organs as soone as their nature can permitt There is yet another great errour they committ in alledging such a lively and spirituall disposition as being necessary in our sense whereas we doe not lay it upon such a lively c as if we required such a degree of life for the least measure of life that is but able to carry forth the soul in any living measure of performance is sufficient where the soul keepeth to the measure and doth not exceed or goe beyond it In the prosecution of their arguments they are no lesse unhappy in the stating of the question as will shortly appeare Pag. 95. 67. they bring in R B. and A. Sk. denying their sequel which they laboure to prove but how unsuccessfully we shall see anon becaus as angels and bruts agree in that they are both substances so spirituall duties and other duties agree in that they are both to be performed in the Spirit But what then Yet the difference is still great betwixt those duties that as to their matter are naturall and civill and those which as to their very matter are spirituall as for example to eat to plough to pay a debt are not spirituall as to their matter but only as to their manner and end when acceptably performed and therefore the matter of those duties and whole substance of them may be without any gracious motion of the Spirit and in that case the performances themselves are really profitable in the creation among men and consequently doe answer the obligation in part but prayer and thanksgiving c are duties wholly spirituall both as to matter or substance and as to manner and end so that whoso essayeth to doe any of them without the gracious motions of the Spirit he leaveth not only the right manner but the very matter and substance of the duty behind him and bringeth the meer accidents along with him which have no profit nor use to men nor are any wise in the least part an answer of the obligation and as to that Scripture cited by them the plowing of the wicked is sin Prov. 21 4. they do not prove that it is meant of outward plowing the margin of our English hath it the light of the wicked and Arius Montanus rendreth it on the margine cogitatio the thought that the plowing of the wicked is sin in respect of the manner and lastend we grant but that the action materially considered is sin we altogether deny even in a wicked man for the outward mechanick and bodily act is good in its nature and profitable as also in so farr as it may be for the maintainance of his family it is good so that in respect of the matter and subordinate end there is no difference betwixt the plowing of a good man and a wicked whereas the prayer of a good man by the Spirit and the prayer of a wicked man without the Spirit differ materially in their very nature and substance the good mans prayer by the Spirit is true and reall prayer but the wicked mans prayer is no true prayer at all but a dead image of it nor is the wicked man a true worshipper for he only is a true worshipper according unto the expresse doctrine of Christ who worships the Father in Spirit and in truth whereas a wicked mans plowing is as reall and true and good as to the matter and nature of the outward action as that of the good It doth not therefore follow that according to the Q. principle because a man is not to pray without the Spirit that therefore he is not to plow without the Spirit in respect of the matter although in respect of the defect in the manner and last end which should be
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
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
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
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
All have not utterance to pray in words is no excuse for hereticks for they must needs acknowledge as wel as we that all have not utterance who may be good Christians seing some that are naturally dumb may be good Christians and yet theâ— must confesse these have not utterance also many good Christians who have no naturall impediment do want utterance in a spirituall way to speak or pray vocally in the hearing of others at some times although we believe it is given at times to all that are faithfull who have no naturall defect that they may pray vocally or in the hearing of others but how oft it is more then we can determine seing it is not revealed but if any faile of this utterance through unfaithfulnesie their sin is nothing the lesse if they omitt prayer And thus their last two instances are also answered for we do affirme with great freedome that all who are faithfull to the Lord never want sufficient inspiration or influence to wait upon God fear him love him desire his grace and divers other inward duties We say not all for some inward duties such as meditation on a particular subject or place of Scripture are not alwayes required more then it is alwayes required to speak but if they be unfaithfull we deny not but they may and will want them and in that case although they want inspirations and influences they are bound to pray yet not without them but with them as a man that wanteth both money and goods to pay his debt yet is bound to pay his debt yet he must not nor ought to pay it without money or goods the example is clear and the application is easy As for that story they bring in concerning T. M. which that their deceit may be the more hide they do not positively affirme but only propose by way of question have not Q. declared to people c. To which we answer that we know not that any Qu. ever declared any such thing and we believe divers things in the story are utterly false If T. M. or any other of our profession having none in the family that can joyne with them in the true spirit of prayer but are professed opposers of the Q. way be not so frequently heard pray by them is excusable by your oune way who will not readily pray in our hearing when they have none to joyne with them and indeed the want of that true unity on the part of those who are not of our faith doth oft hinder our freedome to pray in their hearing unlesse we have some of our faith present to joyne with us we may pray for them as it pleaseth God to move us in their hearing but we can not so properly pray with them as not being in unity with them where two or three said Christ agree together to seek any thing in my name but let our adversaries if they can shew us where in the Scripture it is commanded for any man to pray in the hearing of others where all present have no agrement with him yet we deny not but that God upon some solemne occasion may move to such a thing especially when a publick testimony is required as in the case of Stephen who prayed audibly in the hearing of others all which were so far from having any agreement with him that they were at that time stoneing him to death Acts 7. Moreover we could easily upon a more just ground retort the question upon your own Church members how many of your owne church members were not only for a twelve moneth but for many 12 moneths never heard pray and yet they passe among you for good Christians It is wel knoune that although ye hold family prayer morning and evening to be a duty and the want of it a great sin that yet many thousand families in the nation who belong to your church want it and many whole families are so grossly ignorant that none in the family can go about it even in that naturall way which ye plead for As for us it doth suffice unto us that God heareth us in secret although men do not so frequently hear us yet we oune with all our hearts publick expressive prayer as it is performed in Spirit and in truth and all of us have our share and testimony therein as God moves thereunto even those who are outwardly silent as theâ—â— who speak when as both agree together in one spirit and with one heart and soul joyne together in the same SECTION SIXTH of BAPTISM Wherein their fourth Section concerning water Baptism is answered IN their stating the question they say the question is not whether Infants ought to be baptized or who have the power of administring baptism whereas indeed these two are a great part of the question betwixt our adversarie and us for as touching infant baptism R. B. his Thesis doth expressly say it is a meer human tradition and it wel knowne that all the Quakers so called are of the same mind and do not the Students undertake to confute ehe Q. principles how is it then that they leave out so considerable a part of Quakerism as they call it Is this Quakerism canvassed to pick and chase at some and passe by others Yea Infants-sprinkling with water on the forehead is so considerable a part of the question betwixt them and us that if that be disproved or if they can not prove that to be a Gospell institution they fall short exceedingly seing that is the only baptism in use among them of the nationall Church Again it is so great a part of the question who have the power of administring baptism that by this the controversie stands or falls for one of our maine arguments against water-baptisme as remaining a duty upon all Christians is that none are to be found that have the power to administer it and the administration cannot be with a lawfull administrator the question then really is whether these who have no immediat call to administer water baptism as John had have power to administer it Again whether these who have no other mediat call to baptize but what they have by the church of Rome which is no true church as the best Protestants affirme have power to administer baptisme and this question is the more proper in this place seing I. M. the Students master confesseth his and his brethrens call and ordination to be by the church of Rome and that they have no other but what is conveyed downe to them from the Apostles times by that apostate church But let us now examine their arguments for water baptisme in generall The first is Baptisme with water is to continue in the church as long as Christs presence is to continue with his Apostles and them who teach the doctrine that they taught But Christs presence is to continue with his Apostles and them who teach the doctrine that they taught to the end of the world Therefore c. Where it
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