duties as meditation in many cases upon particular subjects we deny that even true Christians have alwayes partiticular inspirations thereunto nor is there any necessity to assert them Now let us take notice how they refute the distinction of generall and particular inspirations First say they There are no generall inspirations as we have shewed already but that they have shewed no such thing is already made apparent Secondly supposing them yet they being but generall would not be a sufficient ground for the particular inward duties of waiting desiring but how prove they this No wise but meerly affirme it only they confound waiting desireing and meditating together wheras meditating is of a larger extent and sometimes yea oft times requireth a speciall inspiration Thirdly say they the Scriptures produced by the Qu. prove alike as to outward and inward duties To this we answer That as to some outward duties it is true as to others false as for example to be clear in all outward conversation is a continuall duty and therefore we can never want an influence therunto if we be faithfull but to preach and pray in the church or assembly with audible words is not a continuall duty nor yet a generall to all Christians and therefor it hath not alwayes an influence to assist therunto And here let the Reader note that by a generall influence or inspiration we mean only such an influence as serveth in generall for all ordinary actions that are to be generally performed in an acceptable manner as the same spirituall influence that sufficeth me to eat in faith fear and love sufficeth me also to plow or doe any other mechanicall work but the same doth not suffice me to preach or expound Scripture otherwise any ordinary Christian might doe so at any time which our adversaries will not acknowledge Now that preaching and praying in particular require a superadded spirituall influence and inspiration we prove thus If men may have an influence or inspiration of the Spirit to wait fear and love God and yet want an influence or inspiration to preach and pray vocally then the influence and inspiration to preach and pray vocally is a distinct superadded influence c But the first is true therfore the second The consequence of the first proposition is clear from that maxime quorum unum potest esse absque alio c. when of two things the one can be without the other the two are really distinguished The second proposition is proved 1. becaus all true Christians have an influence and inspiration to wait feare and love God but all true Christians have not an influence and inspiration to preach and pray vocally in the church this our adversaries can not deny 2. Even a true Gospell minister may at times want a door of utterance when in the time of this want he hath an influence or inspiration to wait fear and love God therefor these two are distinct The antecedent is clear in the case of Ezekiel chap. 3 15 16. who sat seven dayes with the elders having nothing to speake unto them from the Lord untill at the end of the seven dayes the word of the Lord came unto him And Ezra sat silent till the evening sacrifice and then he kneeled down and prayed Ezra 9 5. Also Paul desired the Colossians to pray for him that utterance might be given him which clearly imports that he had it not at all times although at all times he had an influence or inspiration to wait fear and love God And David prayed that God would open his mouth and his lips should shew forth his praise Isaiah said that God had given him the tongue of the learned c. Christ promised that he would give his Apostles a mouth and wisdome which all their adversaries should not be able to resist all this signifieth an influence of the Spirit to speake which was not generall to all nor permanent or perpetuall with them who had it as is clear in the case of David who declared that he was silent and held his tongue even from good untill the fire kindled in him and then he spake with his tongue Psal. 39 3. Yea what signifieth the coal wherewith Isaiah his mouth was touched but an inspiration or influence of life superadded unto that generall influence which he had before Now if our adversaries say this was given nnto those men in an extraordinary way as being Prophets and Apostles but is now ceased since the Apostles dayes To this we answer 1. This is a plain acknowledgment that generall influences common to all Christians are one thing and particular influences given to holy men to preach and pray vocally are another But 2 that all influences and inspirations or motions of the Spirit to enable ministers to preach and pray vocally are not ceased since the Apostles dayes is cleare from Rev. 11 3. And I will give unto my two witnesses and they shall prophesie and it is said that if any man hurt them fire proceedeth out of their mouth which must needs signifie a speciall influence of the Spirit given them to prophesie or preach which is not common to all Christians Also what are these gifts given unto ministers for the perfecting of the saincts but such speciall influences to enable them to preach which are not given to all yea do not the nationall preachers desire in their publick prayers some speciall assistance and help of the Spirit to carry them forth in their ministry which they have not before for if they had it before why do they seek it From all which it is manifest that as there are generall influences given to all and at all times so there are particular and speciall given only to some and but at some times Moreover that there is a greater influence of life required to vocall prayer when it is acceptable then unto some meer mentall prayer a thing expressely denyed by the Students pag. 100. § 16. is clear becaus all true and acceptable vocall prayer hath mentall prayer going along with it as its cause and spring and so when any man prayes vocally if his prayer be true and acceptable he prayeth also mentally and so he doth two things together whereas when he prayeth but mentally he doth but one thing Now common reason teacheth us that more strength is required to doe two things together then to doe but one of them And seing the vocall prayer hath not any life or vertue in it to reach unto Gods throne or yet unto the hearts of his people to quicken and refresh them but as it receiveth that life from the life that is in the mentall prayer it is clear that a greater measure is required to both then simply to the one Now although mentall prayer as to the disposition and frame of the soul at lest be alwayes in and with good Christians and hath alwayes some measure of life in it yet that measure is sometimes so weak and low that it can not
is to be observed that they think all is safe as to the minor and therefore they altogether passe it by Now although it is sufficient to invalidat the argument if the major be false yet we have somewhat of great moment to say to the minor that is enough to overturne any baptisme that they have for we put them to explaine who these are that all along since the Apostles have taught the doctrine which the Apostles taught for the words are lyable to divers senses If they mean the church of Rome and her bishops and teachers we altogether deny that they have taught the same doctrine which the Apostles taught and we suppose the Students if they follow their master I. M. will not affirme it And indeed for the same reason the best primitive Protestants denyed that the church of Rome in their day had any lawfulll ordination at all seing she continued not in the Apostles doctrine and faith as that famous Protestant Sadeell doth argue at great length lib. de legit voc min. where he affirmeth that the succession of faith is as the soul which gives life to the succession of the bishops as unto a body but that succession without this faith is a dead thing and unprofitable carcase Now the same reason doth militate as strongly against Water-baptism and that also called the supper upon our present adversaries principle that none have power to administer the one or the other but those who have a mediat outward call conveyed downe from the Apostles by a visible succession of ordained Bishops and Presbyters for we say There hath been no such visible succession nor visibly ordained Bishops and Presbyters who all along have had the true faith and taught the true doctrine of the Apostles therefore their ordination and power to administer the Sacraments is void and null And this is further confirmed by the authority of Cyprian who taught with great earnestnesse that the baptisme of all hereticks was void and no baptisme but so it is by our adversaries confession that the Church and bishops and teachers of Rome have been Hereticks for many hundred years before the reformation Therefore c. We say then the argument is fallacious as to the Minor supposing what is not to be supposed in their sense videlicet that either the teachers of the church of Rome or any other claiming a visible and mediat call from the Apostles times conveyed through a visible church unto them have thaught the doctrine which the Apostles taught a thing we altogether deny and it lyeth on them to prove But that Christ hath had some all along who have both believed and taught the doctrine of the Apostles and that his presence has been with them we acknowledge but we deny that these have been all along a visible church and teachers having a mediat call and ordination and in this we agree with the best Protestants for indeed the true church hath been hidd even as a few grains of corne among an exceeding great quantity of chaff and stubble and she who hath called her self the church by reason of her outward succession was not the true church though some of the true church lay hidden in her as corne is hid in a great quantity of chaff and that the church is properly to be placed in the alone graines of corne and not in the chaffe Sadeell doth also shew out of Augustine Epi. 48. Another fault wee find in the Students argument that supposeing Water-baptism had been commanded to the Apostles by Christ Matth. 28. which yet we altogether deny it insinuateth that it was as long to continue as Christs presence with his church for if teaching had continued though Baptism with water had discontinued as our adversaries grant that anointing with oile and miraculous curing the sick is discontinued yet the promise was ground enough to encourage them and if all be still binding that Christ commanded to his Apostles why go they not forth we mean the nationall teachers into all the world and teach the nations who do not so much as believe the Gospell historically If they say this was a command to the Apostles and not to them why are they so partiall as to take one part to them and reject another But we shall now come to a more particular examination of their Major we have told them that the Apostles baptized some with water out of a condescendency as Paul circumcised Timothy and not from that command Matth. 28. which saith nothing of Water-baptism Their first reason against this is they should have Baptized with water of their owne will and without any sufficient authority But we deny this consequence and they themselves have furnished us with a sufficient answer where they say Paul circumcised Timothy but not without a command for the Law of charity and other generall precepts obliged Paul so to doe though it was a thing indifferent of it selfe the same we say as to their baptising with water the Jewes having so great an esteeme of Water-baptism and thinking it necessary the Apostles used it although it was a thing indifferent of it selfe after Christs ascension and giving of the holy ghost the Law of charity and other generall precepts oblidging them but this proveth not that the Apostles had any command from Matth. 28. or any such command any where else that made Water-baptism of it selfe to be a necessary duty to the end of the world And wheras they querie will G. K. grant that it was once lively We answer yes under John yet it followeth not that it was to continue becaus John had no commission to the nations but only to the Jews and that the Apostles Baptized whole families and thousands if they so did will not prove that it was necessary of it selfe more then that Circumcision was and yet even then many thousands of believing Jewes were Zealous for Circumcision see Act. 21 20 21. yea many Bishops of Ierusalem were circumcised after this as Eusebius relats the reason therfor was that people were Zealous of Water-baptism because of John and therfor the Apostles condescended to it out of the law of charity Another question they make where is water baptism buried We answer where the other shaddowes are buried for it was but a shaddow and carnall ordinance Heb. 9 10. the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Again the true water baptism hath been out of use all the time of the Apostasie for the apostate church hath had no true baptism and so in that respect it hath been buried and being but a shaddow is not to be raised up again And it is observable that in the revelation wher it is prophesied of the returne and restoration of the church ther is not any thing mentioned of the restoring either Water-baptism or the use of bread and wine as signs c. And so their second reason is answered that Water-baptism is no more to be used out of condescendency to the weak then
use this Scripture for a repeale of it Their second charge against the Q. and to prove they are not led by the Spirit is becaus they assert a possibility of not sinning upon earth which they say is expresly contrary to the Scripture as first to Isaiah 64 6 we are all an unclean thing All our righteousness are as filthy raggs But they should have proven that the Prophet speakes here not only of the Legall righteousnesse of the Iewes but even of the righteousnesse wrought by Christ in the regenerate under the Gospell which they have not so much as attempted to do and therefore prove nothing yea the chiefest of their Divines as Calvin Musculus Corretus deny this place to be understood of the rightousnesse of the Saints under the gospell but only of the legall righteousnesse of the Iewes whom we leave them to refute or reconile themselves to and procced to their second argument from the words of the Prayer Forgive us our sins but men may pray for forgivenesse of sins past though they sin not daily and this is the thing in question likewise this argument drawn from these words doth militat no lesse against perfect justification then it doth against perfect sanctification as G. K. hath at more length in his Quakerism no Popery in answer to their master J. M. Pag. 41. They argue from the words of the Apostle Paul Rom. 7. 18. 20 c. To will is present with me c. but they should have proven that the Apostle wrote of his own present condition and not as personating the condition of others for the Apostle in the same 7 chap. ver 14. saith of himself but I am carnall sold under sin but who will say that the Apostle as to his own present condition was then carnall or if he was was there no spirituall men then or was he none of them But fourthly they urgee 1 Jo. 1 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selve c. and here they are offended R. B. should say this is conditionall like the 6 verse which they confesse is so for say they at the same rate he might alledge all the rest of the verses of the epistle to be conditionall but if it referre or allude particularly to the 6. ver the reason will hold as to it though not of the rest that both they and the rest of the verses of this chapter do allude to the fifth the supposition if so often repeated doth shew they are angry that R. B. should alledge WE here doth not include John more then the Apostle James 3. 9. with the tongue curse we men doth include James For first the Students will have James here included alledging it is spoken of excommunication and here they take occasion to upbraid R. B. with ignorance in ecclesiasticall discipline but surely they have been either dreaming or doting when they so wrot for hade they read the following verse they might have observed the Apostle condemning this cursing saying these things ought not so to be and we suppose they judge not their Ecclesiasticall discipline to be unlawfull but being it seems ashamed of this shift they give another interpretation which destroyeth their owne cause alledging James might have understood it of himselfe before his conversion while perhaps he was a curser Very well then let them give us a reason why the Apostle John might not also have understood If we say c. of himselfe also before his convesion but are not these thinkest thou Reader learned Divines who to evite the strength of a Scripture give it within the compasse of one page two contradictory expositions affirming them both and yet if the one be true the other must be false and then can shake them both off alledging they may render the word by way of interrogation and do we therefore curse men Are not these rare interpreters becaus the Apostle useth an interrogation elsewhere in this chapter therefor this may be so done also but what then becometh of their church discipline and other interpretation These must be shutt out of dores Are not these like to be stable preachers who give three different interpretations to one text if any one of which be true the other two can not be admitted It seems these young men think to make a quick trade of the Bible cauponari verbum Dei who can thus play fast loose with it at pleasure But to proceed they alledge Ecclesiast 7 20. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not this argument is built upon an errour of the translation it should be translated who may not sin qui non peccet so Iunius and Tremellius Vatablus the vulgar Latine and almost all the Interpreters have it and our English translation Psal. 119. ver 11. translateth the same Hebrew word so being in the same tense which is the second future I have hid thy word in my heart that I may not sinn against thee A second place Ja. 3. 2. In many things we offend all what then it followeth not thence that we offend at all times or we can never but offend which is the thing under debate but to conclude they confess we have other exceptions which themselves it seems take no notice of because they are solidly refuted by their Divines and therefore say the Stud. the Q. herein teach a doctrine contrary to the revelations of Gods Spirit in the Scriptures Answ. A quick way to dispatch controversies indeed if it could hold but at present it may serve to shew the St. folly not to refute our principles if their Divines have already done the business so solidly might not they have spared their labour which some of their own think had been their wisdome Their third instance against the Q. is pag. 74. their allowing of women to preach alledging it is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 34 35. Let your women keep silence c. and 1 Tim. 2. 12. Let the woman learn in silence c. Here to begin like themselves they say G. K. is too much addicted to women but they are dared if they can to produce any reall ground for this malitious insinuation G. K. besides the testimony of a good conscience hath the testimony of hundreds who have known his manner of life and conversation from his childhood to this day that it hath been honest and of good report so that he feareth not that the lying reports which the malice of his adversaries may raise can hurt him yet these are men that solemnely professe they have abstained from personall Criminations but seing they have belyed the Apostle Paul as is above observed G. K. may take it patiently to be treated at this rate by men of such circumstances but if they think to inferre it because G. K. doth plead for the liberty and priviledge of women they might as well plead that G. K. is too much addicted to a perfect holiness because he doth plead for
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
reproofs and exhortations to help on one another unto the sanctification of the most inferiour affections that are as it were the feet and that Christ pointeth at such a mystery is clear from ver 10. He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet Again they alleege that this act is put synecdochically for all other acts of humility but admitt that it be so this proves not that this particular act was not commanded when Christ instituted the breaking of bread at supper among other ends it had this also to signifie the unity of Christians and how they ought to love one another shall we therefore say it is synecdochically put for all acts of love but is not particularly commanded And indeed as washing of feet was in use in these hot countreyes before that Christ did wash his disciples feet and commanded it to them so was that in use the chief in the family to take bread and break it and give to every one saying take eat this was in use among the Jewes before Christ did so as divers historians relate particularly Paulus Ricius de coelesti agriculturâ Again wheras they say If he had commanded so some wold have observed it To this we answer some yea many did observe it as they grant Ambrose and the church of Millain did for if they used to doe so in the eastern countreyes where ther was need for it becaus the people ordinarily did goe barefoot the Christians in that countrey would use it the rather that Christ commanded it yea it doth appear that it was a most ordinary thing in the primitive times from Pauls words 1 Tim. 5 10. where it is numbered among other commanded duties if she hath washed the saincts feet If it be said that they used it but not as a Sacrament we answer wee read not of the word Sacrament in the Scripture it is enough that they used it and were commanded so to doe by Christ and it had a Spirituall signification as well as these things they call Sacraments It is needlesse for us to insist more on this particular so as to refute arguments of their owne making which are none of ours wherin they fight with their owne shaddow where wee leave them and proceed to the other particulars They tell us that the command to anoint the sick with oil carries a repeal in its bosome so we say doth Iohns Baptism with water as preparing the way to Christ who is now come and so wee may returne them theire axiome cessante fine legis cessat obligatio but that anointing with oil was only in order to miraculous cures they say it without giving any proofe Ja. 5 14. for although it were confessed that it were in order to outward healing or curing yet it is cleare from the text that it was not exclusive of all other things for it is not only promised that he shall be saved but if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him and this saving seems rather to be spirituall then the restoring the body to naturall health otherwise it being absolutely promised all sick persons in the church should have been alwayes restored to naturall health and so none should have died and we find anointing with oil joyned with prayer yea we are bidden pray one for another that we may be healed nor is this ceased but that by the prayers of the godly for one that is sick and bodily diseased it pleaseth God at times so to answer them that they are restored to health by the Lord and we dare our adversaries if they will deny this altogether and this is in a true sense miraculous yea instances of this kind have been even among the people called Q. and if it were altogether ceased according to the Students argument prayer at lest so as to pray to God to heal any sick person should cease also It is better therefore to say that anointing with oil is ceased as being but a figure Their repeal of the command to abstain from blood and things strangled is not sufficiently proved from 1 Cor. 10 25 for let any read the whole chapter and he shall find nothing said in it of blood or things strangled that was not the subject he was upon but things offered toidols which we read not that they used to strangle the sense is plain Whatsoever is sold in the shambles whether offered to idols or not that eat asking no question if it be offered to an idol or not Beside it is not usuall to sell flesh of beasts strangled in the shambles for they kill them otherwise then by strangling which is hurtfull to the meat and if selling of strangled flesh had been usuall it would have been no transgressing the Apostls rule if they had any doubt to have asked if it was strangled for many will not eat flesh that is strangled becaus it is not so good nourishment although they have no scruple of conscience yea the primitive Christians even in Tertullian's time as he showeth in his Apologie abstained from blood and things strangled wherein there was a great providence of God to clear them of that horrid falshood as if they did drink the blood of children By which it is clear they did not understand Pauls words 1 Cor. 10 25. to be any repeal It is therefore more safe to say that it being a part of the ceremoniall law it is repealed with the other figures The words of John He must increase but I must decrease Joh. 3 30. they will not have to be understood of Iohns baptism wherein they are not only contrary to many of their own church as could be showne but also to the Scripture it selfe for it is most clear that Iohn spake this with a particular relation to his baptism when they came to him and told him that Christ baptized c. on this he said that Christ was to increase meaning Christs baptisme not with water but with the holy ghost for Christ baptized none with water himselfe and he that is his baptisme must decrease not his true honour and virtue and the disciples he gathered was unto Christ but that Iohns baptisme was much practised proveth it no more a standing command then other things of the Law In the last place they alledge that Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be baptized out of necessity ariseing from a divine precept but their proofes are weak For 〈◊〉 we ought to doe all things in the name of the Lord when we eat or drink or journey but yet all things are not commanded but some left to our fredome 2. Peter in his sermon told Cornelius nothing of water-baptisme and when that after he spoke of it he did not tell him that he ought to doe it out of a necessity arising from a divine precept let them prove it if they can 3. whereas they alledge that Peter was accused by the disciples for administring water baptism to Cornelius from Acts. 11. it is a
is not objective which we altogether deny but as to this inward call we ask them if it hath not in it the nature of a command so that he who hath it is bound to obey it if they say not then a man may lawfully disobey it and resist it although it be of God if they say it is a command then it is objective for it is the nature of all reall and true commands to be objective Again if by disposition they mean the meer qualification that enables a man to be a preacher how can that be a call seing a man may be fit or able for an office that hath not a call thereunto being already in another office that he is fit for also So that they bew ray grosse ignorance in confounding the ability and the call which are distinct things And here they require of us to prove our immediate call by miracles or any extraordinary thing which can only be from God and so cannot agree to false teachers And it having been told them by R. B. that the Papists made the same objection against the first reformers they call this an impertinent pratling but for all the disparity they shew the impertinent pratling falls upon themselves They confesse the first reformers had an extraordinary call in respect of their heroick gifts yet they also had a mediat call They owned the holy Scriptures for their principall rule and preached no other Gospel c. To this we answer that all of them had a mediate call is a meer alledgance without any proofe yea the history of the reformation sheweth the contrary Again it is abundantly evident out of their owne writings that the most eminent of them did lay no weight upon that outward call which some of them had from the Popish church but did plead that seing the visible succession of the church and ministry was interrupted by the apostasie that they needed no outward call but did betake themselves to the extraordinary see for this Sadeell de legit vocatione ministrorum and when they used any argument of a mediate call it was but by way of arg ad hominem as now if any of us called Quakers hade ever had the mediate call from the nationall churches as some in England indeed had namely S. F. who was a Parish priest nor will it prove that the first reformers had an extraordinary call because they owned the Scriptures as their principall rule and preached no other Gospell otherwise all the nationall preachers now would have an extraordinary call because they pretend to owne the Scriptures as their principall rule and to preach no other Gospell yea we owne the Scriptures as much as the first reformers did and we do acknowledge them that they are the principall externall rule and to be preferred to all other outward writings and testimonies but we can not preferre them to the inward testimony and word of God in our hearts as neither did the most eminent of these called reformers but indeed preferred the inward testimony and word to the outward as is proved in the book called Quakerisme no Popery Now whatever proofe or evidence the first reformers could give of their exrtaordinary call the Quakers can give the same that which they mainly insisted on was the soundnesse of their doctrinee accompanyed with the holynesse of their life and good effect of their ministry whereby soules were converted unto God as Sadeel in the treatise above mentioned de legit voc Min. sheweth at length and let our adversaries disprove this evidence if they can which we say is as good an evidence to us as it was to them and though false teachers may pretend unto the same yet it can be proved that it doth not justly belong unto them As for Popery and Mahumetanism it can be proved that they are contrary to Scripture but our adversaries have not proved nor can that our doctrine is so and we are most willing to bring the matter to this issue we doubt not but to give better and stronger evidences from Scripture and reason to convince gainsayers in a rationall way then our adversaries can But that we make the efficacy of our doctrine taken precisely by it selfe and without being accompanied with the soundnesse of it c an evidence of our Call is a meer calumny of the Students Now let us see what they have to say for Their outward and mediate call They cite divers Scriptures to prove that the Apostles ordained Elders but doth this prove that their ordination which they derive from the apostate church of Rome is a true ordination and necessary Yea it is clear and confessed by the most judicious Protestants that true and lawfull ordination and succession hath not continued in the church since the Apostles dayes but hath suffered an interruption by the generall apostasie that as a flood overflowed the earth and that although God still preserved a church yet she had not a visible outward succession becaus she was not visible all along here selfe and before our adversaries can make the halfe of their argument good they must prove that not only a true church hath continued ever since the Apostles dayes but that she hath been visible having a true visible succession of visible teachers who were good and faithfull men all along to convey it downe to this day But to inferre that ordination hath continued becaus of the command if the command had been universall doth not follow seing many things commanded may be unpractised through unfaithfulnesse to the command Now it is certain that generally the visibly ordained bishops have not been faithfull men for many hundred years and so kept not to the substance of that true ordination that was in the Apostles times but lost it through unfaithfulnesse and set up a shaddowe in its roome the like may be said of other things And the ordination being once lost it can not be recovered again from a meer Scripture command otherwise all may pretend to a power to ordain for the Scripture doth not command one more then another yea we find no generall command in Scripture for ordination only that it was practised which we deny not and with it there was a spirituall gift of the holy Ghost conveyed which was the main and only thing that made the ordination and laying on of hands effectuall and without which it is but a shaddow as may be seen at this day in the Nationall church for who among them dare say that they either give or receive that spirituall gift of the holy Ghost which was then given and received therewith 1 Tim. 4 14. Their second argument is from Heb. 6. 1 2. whereby they would inferre that laying on of hands is a part of the foundation of Christianity but that Scripture saith no such thing for the doctrine of Baptismes and laying on of hands relates to the 3 ver as a thing that the Apostle intended to open and this said he will we doe
Students attestators and therefore since he judgeth himselfe as he declared abused in this effaire by them as wel as we we shall not take notice of what passed at that time betwixt him and us it being also his desire but betake our selves to this Theam as it is now proposed and urged by the Students wherein how miserably they are pained the very stating of their controversie shewes in which they have given away their cause 1. They say they speak only of reall heresies and not what others call so 2. they say they speak not of inward acts and meer exercises of the mind becaus it belongs neither to church nor magistrat to judge of hidden things To which we answer that since the Students acknowledge that both their Church and magistrat is lyable to errour yea and that neither of them are to be supposed infallible and therefore can not certainly and infallibly discerne what is heresie neither ought they to take upon them to punish for heresie and that de facto Protestant churches have thus erred their master Iohn Menzies and many of his brethren can bear witnesse who have cryed out against that for errour antichristianity and heresie causing men to be grievously persecuted for it which now they allow as Christian and Orthodox But we shall improve this more hereafter and now proceed to their arguments 1. They argue from Deut. 13 5. Exod. 22 20. Lev. 22. but the question is whether these commands given particularly to the Iewes belong to us for that of Lev. 22. is only concerning the Priests and Levits touching the holy things with their uncleannesse upon them and is wholly impertinent to this purpose for if these be obligatory upon us so will also many other as that a man may immediatly with his owne hand kill him that has killed his kinsman unlesse he get to the city of refuge seing there is no particular repeal of that more then of the former yea and that of Deut. 5 9. saith expressly that the brother husband or father of him that consenteth to serve other Gods shall kill him with his own hand which our adversaries will not deny to be murder and let them shew us where the one part of this command is repealed more then the other or how the one part is lawfull for us and the other unlawfull seing both were commanded and lawfull to the Iewes for their meer assertions as to this pag 126. are not to be regarded They are offended that Matth. 5 29. should be given for a repeal of this alledging that belongeth only to privat persons and not to magistrats else it should be unlawfull for Magistrats to punish transgressours c. Answ. The Consequence will not hold for we are not speaking of things civil but of things religious though it may be lawfull for them to resist evil in the one yet not in the other But that Christian magistrats are here included is easily proven If this belong to all Christians then it belongeth to all magistrats if they be Christians for to say that a Christian by becomeing a magistrat is dispensed of these obligations he is particularly tyed to as a Christian is most absurd yea if Christian magistrats be bound to suffer for righteousnesse sake then they are not to resist evil in matters of religion But the first is true for how could they enjoy the blessing of those that suffer for righteousnesse sake Matth. 5 10 11. if they still resisted At this rate none should suffer for Christ who could by any means shun it by killing those that make them suffer and who would then be those that suffer willingly and it seemes according to the Students if a man be a magistrate he ought not any more to suffer for Christ which is as much as to say that so soon as a man becomes a magistrate he ceases to be a Christian The great noise they make of the two dispensations of the Gospell mentioned by G. K. doth but manifest their owne weaknesse and folly for themselves will not deny but that wherever faith in Iesus Christ is professed and he owned as the Saviour and Son of God there is a dispensation of the Gospell as in the Greek Armenian Ethiopian yea and in their account in the Romish church also yet will they not deny but that dipensation is more legall and obscure then that themselves are under as having many ceremonies and shaddowes not necessary and so here is a twofold dispensation acknowledged by themselves seing they will not affirme that the use of all these ceremonies is absolutely sinfull in these churches who are not as yet convinced of it though it should be unlawfull for them to use them and seing the purest and most excellent dispensation of the Gospell is to be like unto Christ who resisted not evil though he was powerfull to doe it and that we are bound to be like him then there is a dispensation of the Gospell in which evil is not to be resisted But further if there be such a dispensation of the Gospell as men shall beat their swords into plough-shears and their spears into pruning hooks and not learne warre any more then there is a dispensation in which evil hall not be resisted the consequence can not be denyed the antecedent is the expresse words of the prophet Isaiah 2. 4. Besides this twofold dispensation is proved out of bishop Forbes of Aberdeen his exposition upon the Revelations where he affirmes that the two last chapters of the Revelation is understood of a church upon earth in which church it can not be supposed that evil should be resisted by an outward sword Pag. 121. They argue from Rom. 13. where the magistrat is not to bear the sword in vain Hence they conclude they ought to resist evil but this saith nothing as to matters of religion they shew as wel their malice as disingenuity here insinuating we denyed that place to belong to Magistrats now which we never did nor doe only G. K. said he would be glad to hear how they could prove that it did belong to magistrats now and indeed were we not other wayes perswaded of it their arguments could not in reason convince us which is that the Scripture is written for our cause and these epistles are to be received and obeyed by us but they have overturned all these themselves as is above observed where in their answer to the Apostls rules about womens praying and prophesying with their head covered they suppose rules given by the Apostle in his epistles of things that not only are not pertaining to us but even unlawfull and so unlesse they make us a clear distinction of these rules and that by some evident demonstration to argue from our duty to obey these commands signifies nothing But while they take up the paper to prove that which they can not say we ever denyed they most shamelessly omitt our chief answer to this which could they have replyed unto they would