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
and teachers seing prophets and teachers teach both from the spirit The first is answered at large in the end of G. Ks. book of Immediat revelation To the second we answer that by prophets in the strickest sense are meant those who prophecy of things to come as Agapus was by teachers they who instruct the people in doctrine and this is a manifest difference although in the large and common sense prophecying and preaching are one thing Their seaventh argument they pretend to build on that Scripture Jud. 19. but it is easily answered that men in one sense may be said not to have the spirit and in another to have it even as a rich man who improveth not his money both hath and hath it not in divers senses according to which Christ said from him that hath not shall be taken away that which he hath And whereas R. B. doth grant that they whose day of visitation is come to an end have not the spirit so much as to invite and call them unto God here they insult as if all were granted they seek but they are greatly deceived for though he grant that some have not the spirit to call and invite them yet he granteth not that they have not the spirit to reprove them for even the devils and damned souls of men and women sin against the Spirit of God witnessing against them in their hearts which is in them a law of condemnation as David said if I go down into hell thou art there yea do we not read not only that God spak unto Cain a most wicked man but also unto Sathan Job 1. which speaking of God to Sathan we suppose the Students will not say was by an outward voyce and consequently it was internall But we ask them if all wicked Professors of Christianity should burn the Bible and destroy all outward rules and means of knowledge should they by this means cease to sin because they should have no rule or should they be excused from gospell duties because they have no rule by this supposition according to the Students to require them In their second subsection they spend both their strength and paper in labouring to prove some things which we no wise deny as the sequel of their Major § 14. but in the proofe of their Minor where the whole stress lyeth they utterly faill in both its branches as we shall briefly shew As to the first they argue thus they know no such inward objective evidence of inward revelations of the spirit in themselves therefore they have none such We deny the consequence they see it not nor know it because they will not their prejudice against the truth doth blind them and indispose their understanding yea might not the unbelieving Jews have reasoned the same way against Christ when he was outwardly present with them we do not know him to be Christ Therefore he is not Christ. Again whereas they querie in a scoffing way can a thing that is self evident be hidd from the whole world except a few Illuminado's We answer if it were hidd from the whole world except a few in comparison of others it is no more then what the Scripture saith that the whole world lieth in wickedness their wickedness blindeth them that they do not see the light that is in them yet we could instance many who are not Quakers so called both Christians and Gentils who have acknowledged the evidence and certainty of divine inspiration in all men as the surest ground of knowledge but we need not digress into this here we have enough besides to stop their mouths For do not they say that the Scriptures have a self-evidence and yet are not the Scriptures and the truths declared in them hidd from the greatest part of the world The Mahumetans reject both Old and New Testament and the Jews the New although they read them and yet according to our adversaries they have self evidence so that it is evident the same argument is as much against the Scripture as the Light within in point of self evidence and indeed much more seing many who deny the self evidence of the Scirptures even heathens have a knowledge of the self evidence of divine inspiration as Socrases Plato Plotinus Phocyllides Seneca and many others And here in the close being sensible of their weakness after they have laboured to prove the negative they tell us that seing the negative is theirs they are not bound to prove it and so would roll it over on us to prove the affirmative against their own law which would have us to be meer defendents As to the maxime Affirmanti incumbit probatio it doth not help them for they have affirmed a negative and have been at great pains to prove it But all in vain And why may we not put them to prove their Minor being a negative as well as their master I. M. put the Jesuit Dempster to prove his Minor which John Meinzies affirmed to be negative In their prosecution of the second branch they affirm that the Q. cannot give any sufficient evidence of their revelations This we deny and put them to prove it but how shamefully they fail here is apparent for instead of proving of what they affirm they put us to prove the contradictory and so contrary to their own Law would urge us to be impugners and defenders at one time a silly trick they learned from the Baptists in their dispute at London as indeed the Students argument about an evidence is the same upon the matter with that which the Baptists used against us at London long before them and which the Iesuit used against I. M. long before them both So that we may see what sort of patrons the Students here follow But it is well to be observed that when they seek an evidence from us they tell us pag. 57. They mean not an evidence which will actually and de facto convince a pertinacious adversary but an objective evidence or clearness in the thing it self which is apta nata fitt of its own nature to convince and will really convince the well disposed Very well this their plain concession destroyeth their whole building for seing they press upon us by way of Dilemma either we have the Spirit of God or we have it not which is I. L. his argument We may very lawfully by his own example press him and his fellow Students with the like argument either they have a well disposed mind or they have not If they say they have not then they confess they are a pertinacious adversary and so not capable to be convinced of our evidence and surely it were great folly in us to seek to convince them of the truth of a thing who are not in a capacity to be convinced If they say they have a well disposed mind then let them prove it to us or give us an evidence of it seing by their own rule Affirmanti incumbit probatio Who is so weak
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
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
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