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
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
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
it or that the Students are too much addicted to sin since they plead for the continuance of it for term of life They are little lesse then inraged that G. K should have alledged the testimony of Augustine and Bernard interpreting this place of the flesh and therefore they labour like men in a sweat for a whole page against this to no purpose the only reason of G. Ks. citing them being because some of their preachers cryed out against this allegory as a horrid abusive thing in some Q. to shew them it is none of the Q. coining but already used by men by themselves applauded and commended upon this they ask have not some of our Antagonists been observed to make a Welshmans hose of the first chapter of Genesis if they mean us let them prove we have so done as we have already proved they have used the Apostle James with their three faced interpretatian and again they ask have not some Q. been bold to aver that there was never any such reall tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evill if they have let them instance and prove by whom it was spoken and writ and then they shall have an answer As they proceed they give an egregious specimen of their folly alledging that if it did hold as G. K. affirms that women are not allowed to speak by permission then à fortiori it is unlawfull for them to speak by commandement Who but the Students would talk at this rate as if a commandment might not authorize a man to do that which a bare permission will not G. Ks. arguments drawn from their own allowing whores to speak and women to sing they call quibles because they can not answer which they reply to only by questions do they allow whores authoritative preaching affirming women may sing Very well whether it be authoritative or not whatsoever way they speak they keep not silence and so the Apostls words are not taken strictly and literally which gaines us the cause and shewes our doctrin is no more directly against the Apostls words then their own besides from this it followeth by the Students confession that women may as lawfully speak in the Church as the licentiat Students whom the Presbytery permits to speak in the Church before they are ordained they passe our chief objection very overly drawne from 1 Cor. 11. 5. where the Apostle gives direct rules how women should behave themselves in their publick praying and preaching alledging there are rules given in Scripture concerning things that were never lawfull but only permitted c. as of polygamie under the law but they should have remembred that these are rules given by the Apostle to the Christian Church of Corinth and seing the Students suppose that the Apostle gave directions to the Church of Corinth not only of things that belong not to them now but which are not lawfull for them a doctrine we question if their Masters will approve of or of the consequence of which themselves are aware it remains for them to prove that these two rules forbidding womens speaking belongs to us or is not of the number of these uselesse rules more then that other concerning the manner of their preaching So we hope this solution is impugned and desire they may be sure not to forget to bring us this reason when they write next SECTION FOURTH Concerning the necessity of immediat Revelations to the building up of true faith containing an answer to the Students second Section from pag. 78. to pag. 92. IN their stating the controversy they say these inward revelations are not subjective revelations or divine illuminations This is false for as we have above shewed one and the same illumination that is effective or subjective is also objective and the objective is effective Again they say the question is not if immediat objective revelations be possible or be sometimes made to some de facto This concession will overthrow much of all their own work for if they admitt that any person in our time hath immediate objective revelations admitt Peter or John their former argument will as much militate against this reall immediat objective revelation granted by them as against those which they do not grant seing pag. 7. at the letter A they say suppose that the spirit reveall the objects of faith immediatly none will deny that he is a rule or rather ruler to them who have him so A good concession but which quite undoes their own cause for now let us apply their former argument against this reall objective revelation granted by them as thus we ought not to believe that as the rule of faith of which there can be no evidence given but there can be no evidence in the world given of the Spirit that is in Peter and Iohn therefore c. Again if Peter John say they can give an evidence of the Spirit of God in them to wit their own declaration in life and power as also the immediat testimony of the Spirit or the Scriptures testimony let us apply in the last place their argument used against us and see if it will not be as good against Peter and John whom they grant de facto according to their hypothesis to have immediat objective revelation The argument is this that which as really agrees to Enthusiast Hereticks as to them can be no evidence but that evidence to wit their own declaration and saying that both they and their adversaries have the immediat testimony of the Spirit witnessing to the truth of it would as really agree to Enthusiast Hereticks therefore c. Yea not only might they thus argue against any mens haveing immediat objective revelation in our dayes but against the Prophets and Apostles having it seing the argument might every way be as strong against their having it as against our having it especially at such times as they wrought no outward miracles in the sight of the people to whom they were sent as oft they did not When the Lord sent Jonas to preach to the Ninivites he wrought no miracle in their sight Now let us put the Students in the Ninivites place and we shall find they could argue as stoutly and hardily against Jonas as now they can do against any Quaker they could tell him he could give no evidence of the Spirit of God in him giving any such message as for his declaration it would not suffice because his saying he had the Spirit would be as good a ground for any other Enthusiast Heretick But further these stout and hardy warriours could have used these same arguments against the Prophets when they wrought miracles for they could have alledged the miracles were not true miracles but false and such as may be done by the power of the devil and so if any could produce miracles now as there have been they would no more be believed then the unbelieving Jewes believed the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles For they
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
circumcision becaus both are long agoe buried and what is buried is deadly to be raised up again as Augustin taught Their third reason is built on a mistake that the God head of Christ or names of Father Son and holy ghost were a stumbling block to the believeing Iewes for of these only we are to be understood also that the Apostles used the words Father Son and holy ghost when they baptized can not be proved farre lesse used they the word Trinity which was not invented long after the Apostles dayes Their second argument that the baptisme commanded in Matth. 28 16. is with water resolves at last into this that it is God only and not man who baptises with the holy ghost becaus he is only the proper immediat efficient cause of baptism with the holy ghost but wee deny the consequence as weak and false for ther is nothing more usuall then to ascribe the effect unto the instrumentall cause as truly as unto the principall Paul was sent to turne or convert the Gentiles from darknesse to light and to open their eyes and yet God only was the proper and immediat efficient cause of this Many more examples could be given yea the same reason of the Students would militate against teaching for even outward teaching which is by the motion of the holy ghost hath a power and vertue in it wherof the men who teach are but the instrumentall conveyers that is only from God as the immediat efficient cause Another reason they give to make all sure as they say is that it is only Christ as he is God and mightier then Iohn who baptised with the holy ghost Matth. 3 11. where baptism with the holy ghost is peculiarly attributed to Christ. But this makes their matter nothing more sure for although that baptism with the holy ghost be peculiarly attributed to Christ as the principall cause yet it hindereth not that men are the instrumentall even as Christ said it is not ye that speak and yet they also spake as instruments It is true that John did not baptize with the holy ghost as the Apostles did or rather Christ through them becaus John had not so powerfull a ministry given him as the Apostles of whom Christ said that they should not only doe as great works as he but greater to wit by his power Again They argue that giveing and not granting that baptism with the holy Ghost could be administred by men yet it is not commanded here for the words then would be full of needlesse tautologies To this we answer that this doth not follow for suppose that by teaching and baptizing were meant one thing how usuall is it in Scripture to expresse one thing under divers names without any tautologie However we believe that by teaching and baptizing are meant two severall things both which require the speciall operation of the holy Spirit for a man through teaching by the concurrence of the holy ghost is first of all convinced of the truth and hath a ground laid in him to believe and then he is baptized with the holy ghost upon his believing and obeying in what he is convinced of nor is this to confound the command with the promise for the sense of it is this goe ye and baptize with the holy ghost instrumentally and I shall be with yow as the Principall cause to concurre and assist yow and thus there is no tautologie the command and the promise being in diverso genere id est in a different kind Their next argument to prove that Water-baptism is to continue to the end of the world is that God sent Iohn to baptize with water and Christ caused Iohn baptize him and commanded or caused his Apostles baptize with water and these commands were never formally repealed nor ceased of their owne nature Therfor But to this the Answer is easie for Iohns baptism was no part of the Gospel dispensation as serving onely to prepare the way to Christ and he was sent only to baptise the Jewes that Christ might be manifest to Israel Joh. 1 31. and it is called Iohns baptism in distinction from that of Christ for some were baptized with it who had not received the holy ghost and that Christ was baptized with water proveth not its continuance no more then that he was circumcised proveth the continuance of Circumcision that Christ commanded his disciples to baptize with water we find not and though it were it is but as at that time being under Johns dispensation but unlesse they can prove that Christ commanded to baptise all nations with water and that to the end of the world they gain nothing for what was commanded only as toward the Iewes doth not reach us gentiles and so we need seek no repeal there not having been any such command In their answering our retortion as touching washing the feet anointing the Sick with oil and abstaining from blood and things strangled They say 1. This retortion hath a damnable tendency for enthusiasts may arise and plead the same way against the most necessary truths c. We answer They have no ground from our retortion so to doe becaus these things above mentioned are but figures and such as have no inward or intrinsecall goodnesse or righteousnes in them as the other things have which are most necessarie 2. Wheras they say If these things had been commanded and never repealed it were better to admitt and observe them then to reject Baptism c. We answer if by repeal they mean a formall repeal we deny that it were better for all being but figurative things and such as the inward Law of God writt in our hearts which is the new covenant dispensation doth not require of us they cease of their owne nature and carry a virtuall repeal in their bosome although it be not formally expressed in the Scripture as to every particular for all the things of the ceremoniall Law are not one by one particularly repealed in the new Testament but together in one body for the Law it selfe being changed the things required by it if they have no other Law to require them doe cease 3. They say That Christ in washing his disciples feet did 2 things 1. To seal up to his disciples their part in him 2. He intended to leave them one example of humility and it is onely this second thing which he commanded to his disciples to wit that they should performe acts of humility one to another But wee misse their proofe there altogether that he only commanded this and not the washing one anothers feet in particular yea this glosse expressly gives the lye to Christ his owne words Joh. 13 14. ye also ought to wash one anothers feet where not only an act of humility is signified but an act of love and also by the outward washing of the outward feet is signified how we ought to contribute to wash one anothers feet in a spirituall sense that is to say by seasonable