kind because the objective evidence of the spirit is a self evidence and primary the objective evidence of the Scripture is but derived and secondary In their answer to G. K. his retortion from the practice of Christ who though his own immediat testimony was to be received referred them unto the testimony of the Scriptures They most miserably betake themselves to their old trade of affirming things without any proof and yet on the proof of these things the whole stresse of their answer lyeth as 1. They say the Iews rejected only the outward immediat testimony of Christ. However dare they say but that the outward immediat testimony of Christ was to be believed and yet he referred them unto the testimony of the Scriptures 2. They say they have no such testimony themselves as the inward objective testimony of the spirit 3. They say according to Christ the Scriptures were the rule meaning the primary rule and so they set the Scripture above Christ his own immediat outward testimony a most gross disorder All which we reject as meer affirmations without any proof Their insinuation that G. K. acteth the part of a cunning sophist when he spoke these words repeated by them pag. 4. is no less without any reall proof for it is a truth that no Scripture truth can be savingly believed but by the illumination of the spirit which is objective In paragraph 28. they think to evade G. K. his argument that we have inspiration because all men have it that then Papists Mahumetans Pagans and men bodily possessed have inspiration which we do affirm viz. that these have it so far as to convince them and is sufficient to be a law of condemnation and render them without excuse for their sin and this all men have not only within their day but after their day of visitation is expired But as to their imposed glosses and senses which they say their divines have already vindicated on these Scriptures cited by G. K. for universall grace and inspiration as they refer us to their Divines so we refer them to our friends and our books where their silly and weak reasons are answered against this gospell truth As for the word EVERY we acknowledge it is not taken alwayes universally but seing it is taken so most frequently it lieth on them to prove that it is otherwise taken in the places cited Before we close the answer to this subsection we propose further unto the Reader these two Considerations 1. That when we say inward divine revelations in the seed are self evident we do not mean it alwayes in respect of the materiall objects of things revealed but in respect of the formall object or revelation it self 2. Although we affirm that the illumination and influence of the spirit in mens hearts is both effective and objective yet we do not affirm that they are two distinct things but one and the same thing under different respects so that we do not plead for another influence then that which in words they seem to grant but we say it is a more excellent thing then they acknowledge it to be as being in it self perceptible and having a self evidence whereas they will have it only a medium incognitum a thing altogether undiscernible and inevident of it self so as to convince or satisfie the understanding that it is of God And thus according to our adversaries sense and upon their principle this inward illumination of the spirit may be said to be fallacious for want of evidence seing according to their own argument that which hath not a sufficient evidence is fallacious But whereas the Students in their account grant in words that the soul hath spirituall sensations and that the work of grace may be felt this confession destroyeth their wholl superstructure for if the work of grace can be felt or is perceptible then it is objective for whatever is perceptible is objective ad seing they grant that the soul hath spirituall sensations we ask them what are the objects of the sensations Are they only words and letters or things such as God himself in his heavenly refreshings waterings and bedewings if the first it is most unreasonable for it would make the spirituall senses to fall short of the naturall seing the naturall senses reach beyond words to naturall things themselves if the second they must needs with us acknowledge inward objective revelations for by them we understand no other thing but as God and the things of His Kingdom are felt in us by way of object SECTION SECOND Where the Students chief argument against the spirits being the rule is proved to be one upon the matter with that the Jesuit Dempster used against their Master I. M. and the same way answered and their weak endeavours to evite it examined and refuted THere hath enough been said heretofore to demonstrat the fallacies in the form of their arguments in which also it resembled the Iesuits which to avoid repetition we shall now omit Their medium against us is that we cannot give an evidence of our being led by the spirit but that which may be as good an evidence for Hereticks for thus they word it in their account alledging we wronged them in saying they used the words which Hereticks may pretend to yet abstracting from this false charge we shall take is as they now express it being indeed equivalent To prove that it may be as good an evidence for hereticks they make I. L. argue thus other Hereticks declare and say they have the Spirit of God teaching them as well as you Therefore if your saying you were so taught were a sufficient evidence c. Then their declaring c. Now let the Reader judge whether this argument amounts to any thing more then that that is not a sufficient evidence to the Q. which other Hereticks may pretend to Thus the Students dispute against the Q. let us hear how the Jesuit disputes against I. M. their Master Pap. Lucifâ—g pag. 3. after the Jesuit hath repeated his argument he adds May it please the answerer of this syllogism to remember that the ground or principle which he shall produce to prove the truth of his religion must have this property that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a false religion as the grounds and principles that one produceth to prove that he is an honest man must have this property that it cannot serve nor be assumed to prove a knave to be an honest man c. Let the judicious Reader consider whether there be any materiall difference betwixt these two argumentations But to proceed and shew that their arguments are no better then the Jesuits against their Master and our answers no worse then their Masters against the Jesuit we shall place them together I. M. answereth the Iesuit thus pag. 5. of his Pap. Lucifugus Our Answer to the Students as themselves acknowledge st pag. 59. â—s The true religion hath sufficient grounds in it self to
manifest it self to be the true religion if it met with a well disposed intellect for to use your own similitude an honest man may have ground enough to shew a distinction betwixt him and a knave albeit a fool cannot discern it so the true religion may have ground enough to prove it self true which the false religion hath not though an infidell or Heretick whose foolish mind is darkened Rom. 1. 21. cannot take it up That the evidence of the spirit cannot be assigned but to the well disposed understandig This they call a pitifull subterfuge alledging that then this evidence can only be assigned to such as are of the Q. mind but not to others and that any Heretick in the world may deny evidences upon the same account Now let the judicious Reader determine whether if this answer be a pitifull subterfuge the Students with the same breath do not declare their Masters to the Jesuit to be the same And when they write next let them shew the difference which they have not yet done In answer to this Retortion they alledge pag. 67. That R. B. said their master â—o M would not assign the Iesuit a ground to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion and therefore say they R. Bs. practices agree exactly with the Iusuits Moralls and gives an egregious specimen of his Iesucticall honesâ—y which makes us suspect him to be a Iesuited emissary This is a 〈…〉 disproved by their own account where pag. 8. upon this occsion They confess R. B. said only that their master desired the Iesuit to prove that the Protestant Religion had no ground for it Will they deny this let them read the very first four lines of their masters first answer to the Jesuits paper pag. 3. and they will find he put the Jesuit to prove his Minor which was that the Protestant Religion had no such ground As it doth not therefore follow that I. M assigned not afterwards a ground so neither will R. B. his repeating this infer that he said he did not assign such a ground Yea in contradiction to themselves pag. 60. They acknowledge he told their master named the Scripture as a ground c. So it is manifest they have given here a specimen of their Iesuiticall honesty and because they could not answer they forged lyes to fill up the paper and things not to the purpose as pag. 57. where offering to reply to this retortion they say But for answer it is well known R. B. was brought up in a Popish Colledge it is thought by many that he is a Iesuited emissary c. Is not this a pungent answer Reader R. B. was educated in a popish colledge ergo say the Students our answer is not that which the Iesuit used against our master It seems the Students are offended that R. B. hath forsaken popery or otherwise their charging him with his education must be very impertinent as indeed it is no less foolish then if we should upbraid Luther Calvin and all the first Reformers as Papists for being so educated and though it is no wonder their folly and malice led them into this impertinency yet it might have been expected that their gratitude to the Bishop of Edinburgh who was pleased to permitt their book to be printed might have hindered them from this folly seing he was educated in the same Popish Colledge R. B. was and owes some of his Philosophy to it wheras R. B. learned only there a litle grammar and came thence in his 15 Year but the Bishop was there professing popery in his more mature age So if this reflect any thing upon R. B. it will much more against the Bishop which they will do well to clear and be sure not to omitt when they write next or else acknowledge their impertinency herein It seems they wanted strength of reason to evite the retortion which makes them thus rove offering also to prove that their master did assigne a ground which was never denyed and that he was defendent so was R. B. also what is that to the purpose unlesse to make the retortion the stronger and show they cannot get by it but pag. 60. They say that wheras the Iesuit pressed their master that hereticks did say their Religion was conforme to the Scripture as well as he and so the Scripture was no peculiar ground for him more then for hereticks They say their master answered That it was not a pretended but reall conformity unto the Scripture that demonstrats a true Religion c. and upon this they inquire what followes alledging they argued from being as good and not pretending and so fall a railling saying that the light of our Consciences is ecclipsed by a new found light and that we misrepresent them malitiously This railing is for want of better reasoning but seing they are so blind as not to see whether they will see it or not wee shall tell them and wee hope let the Reader see what followes here from Jo. Meinzies the Students master saith to the Jesuit it is not enough that hereticks say the Scripture is a ground for their Religion unlesse it really be so and that other Hereticks saying so doth not inferre that it is as litle a ground for his owne to witt J. Ms. Religion Very well The Quakers tell the Students That it is not enough that hereticks declare they have the Spirit unlesse it be really so and their saying they have it while they have it not doth not inferre that our saying we have it is as litle a ground for us Who but such as are as childish as the Students will affirme there is here any difference But further they confound most ignor antly the Internall testimony of the spirit with the declaration of having the spirit which are two different things It was incumbent upon them to have proven that the internall testimony of the spirit is as good an evidence for Hereticks as for us which they have not offered to do next they have not proved that the declaration of Hereticks is as good as ours neither can they unless they can prove ours to be false which they neither have nor can do But they have egregiously falne in that in convenience they would fix upon us pag. 58. 59. where in answering R. Bs. retortion shewing them that if mens being deceived contradicting themselves or one another who say the spirit is the rule did infer the spirit not to be a certain rule then mens being deceived contradicting themselves and one another who say the Scripture is the rule would the same way infer that the Scripture is not the rule Here they are miserably put to it and therefore not ashamed to deny that they plead not against the spirits being a rule for these Causes The contrary for which is known to all that are acquainted with these controversies for example let them read their so much applauded W. Mitchell his Dialogue and his sober answer so called
have a supernaturall end nor can it teach them that they are to love feare serve and worship God from a supernaturall principle of Gods grace which are the greatest duties required of man and if it can not teach men and convince them of their greatest duties it followeth that it can not convince them of the great sins that are contrarie unto those duties Also Nature can not teach men the mystery of regeneration which yet is needfull to be knowne for men who are but too much addicted to naturall reason and searchings into the book of nature but despise the divine and supernaturall illumination of Christ in them think regeneration a fiction or unnecessary thing Other instances could be given but least they should call them the Q. errours we shall forbear contenting our selves with such as our adversaries acknowledge to be true But 2. if it were granted that the book of Nature could in some sort discover all things necessary to salvation without supernaturall light which yet we deny it doth not follow that therfore divine supernaturall objective revelation is not necessary becaus the discovery that the book of nature and naturall reason gives to men of divine things as of the power wisdom justice goodnesse love and mercy of God is but dimm weak faint and barren and is no more a proportionat object to the spirituall sensations of the soul then a report of meat and drink and cloathing are a sutable or proportionat object to the tast and feeling of the outward man the souls of men need not only to be convinced that ther is a God who is good loving mercifull powerfull and just but they need also in order to their salvation to have a feeling of his divine power to see and tast that he is good to handle that word of life to know Christ in themselves to have the love of God shed abroad in them by the holy Spirit which love is a sensible and perceptible object and so is objective For if the Scriptures be nota sufficient objective revelation of God and the things of his kingdom much lesse the book of nature c but the first is true therefore the second is true also Now that the Scriptures are not a sufficient objective revelation of God c. G K. hath proved at large in his book of Immed Revela and we need not produce any new arguments here untill the Students or their masters refute those already set downe in that book only this we say in short Nature and Scripture tell us that ther is a God but they can neither give us a sense sight or tasting of him or of his love or of his Spirituall judgments as these things are inwardly experienced where God reveals them Nature can not refresh or comfort the soul nor pour in wine and oil into it when it is wounded with sin and although it could tell that God can doe this what comfort could that be to the soul unlesse God himselfe doe it and make the soul sensibile of his hand reaching unto it the Spirituall things themselves that nature can not afford Also nature cannot discover the Spirituall judgments of God in the soul wherby he cleanseth it from sin as by water and fire Now as to the second branch of their argument that the Scriptures are a sufficient objective revelation of all things necessary to salvation this we altogether deny as is said for although the scripture is a full enough declaration of all doctrines and principles both essentiall and integrall of Christian religion yet the Scripture doth propose divine things and objects but as a Card or Mappe doth a land and the fruits of it to the outward eye Now as this is not a sufficient objective proposall because we need to see the Land it selfe and to tast and eat and drink of the fruit of it so our souls need a more near and immediat discovery of God then the Scripture which is but a report of him that he may feed and nourish us by his divine manifestations and here in the prosecution of this argument they are at great paines to prove that the Scriptures are given from God which we deny not although some of their proofes be weak but whatever reasons can be brought to prove that the Scriptures are given from God if the inward testimony of the Spirit of God be not believed and received these reasons cannot beget any divine saving faith wherof only wee speak but a meer humane and naturall faith or conviction As to that place of Scripture 2 Cor. 4 3 4 if our gospell c that is say they the outward gospell but doth Paul say so Nay Look the Greek text and you will find the contrary that the Gospell he spake of was hidd in them that are lost so the Greek Therefore it was inward and this Scripture they bring to prove that the Scriprures have objective evidence and perspicuity in themselves whereas Paul doth not say of the Scripture but of the Gospell which is the power of God And whereas they query If a person may have immediat objective revelations who hath not his mind wel disposed and if so what advantage would he have by them which he might not have without them by the Scriptures We answer much every way becaus the Scripture is not able to dispose his mind as our adversaries grant but these immediate objective revelations are also really effective and have sufficient power and ability in them to dispose his mind if he do not resist them Again wheras they query May a person be wel disposed who hath not such revelations We answer No yet he may want some and have other some but if he may yet there is need of such revelations even as if a mans eye or tast were never so wel disposed he needeth the objects themselves and as painted bread or a discourse of bread can not satisfie the naturall tast and appetite no more can the Scripture words satisfie the tast and appetite of the soul. They cite 2 Tim. 3 15 16 17. to prove that the Scriptures of Old and New Testament are the principall compleat and infallible rule of faith and manners but this place doth not say that they are so the Scripture we grant but deny their consequence which is merly begged without a proofe They confesse pag. 90. that the Scriptures are not sufficient every way so as to exclude the inward efficiency of the Spirit and the concurrence of other causes Very wel Enough to overthrow their whole argument for among other causes divine inspiration is a maine for indeed the inward efficiency of the Spirit is that objective revelation which we plead for only they deny it to be objective wheras we say it is both effective and objective as if a man should grant that the light and heat of the fire doth both enlighten us and warme us but deny that either that light or heat of the fire is objective to our discerning
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
not have dropped thus And therefore we shall returne it upon them that they may not forget it when they writ next That of the 13 Rom. can not be understood of the magistrats punishing men for matters of Conscience because it being written to the church of Rome to shew them their duty towards their present magistrate which was Nero that cruell and persecuting Emperour and then it would follow that Nero had had a lawfull power and authority to punish even Christians for errours in matters of religion though himselfe was a professed infidel and seing the magistrate is to exert his power according to his knowledge it would follow that Nero exercised a lawfull power in causing kill the Apostles and persecute the Christians which will make that horrid crime very slender seing it was no more according to the Stud. but the exerciseing that lawfull authority he had received from God according to his knowledge Pag. 122. They build an airy triumph upon their owne mistak alledging that since their magistrats are not under that pure dispensation it is lawfull for them to resist evil and so that of Matth. is not a repeal to them But they have here either wilfully or ignorantly forgotten the other branch of the distinction for granting their Magistrats may as we deny not and that lawfully resist evill in Civil matters yet not in matters of Conscience and this is that which was incumbent upon them to have proven But it may be worth the Readers paines specially to notice their reasonings in this 122. p. in answer to that objection given in by us from the parable of the tares Matth. 13. where the servants are expressly forbidden to pluck them up Here they play fast and loose to purpose and to facilitate their own work make no difficulty to fasten contradictions upon Christ himselfe 1. They say It is clearly repealed becaus murtherers witches traitours are tares as wel as hereticks and if the one were to be eximed so would the other Is not this the way to argue against Christ and to charge contradictions upon him not upon us wherein they fasten an absurdity upon him who gave this command or else they must acknowledge that by these tares are to be understood some sort of evil doers with whom the magistrats are not to meddle But since the Students say this is repealed they must confesse it sometimes stood in vigour it being once commanded we would willingly be informed then of them and they may remember it when they write next how long this command stood and to whom it belonged since it had its rise from Christ and was none of the old covenant precepts or if it be one of these uselesse Gospell commands they dreame of which it is unlawfull for us to obey But to goe on they say that ly the tares is to be understood bemasked hypocrits who being scarce discernable from the wheat are therefore not to be meddled with Very wel then where the magistrate can not discerne heresies according to themselves he is not to punish and then what comes of that authority was acknowledged Nero had from Rom. 13 who was as uncapable to discerne hereticks as hypocrits And then seing as before is said they are not to judge of hidden things experience hath aboundantly shewne how much the true discerning of heresie is both uncertaine and difficult even to Protestant magistrats who have called that wheat to day which they have called tares to morrow and therefore ought according to this rule to forbear medling in such matters Their second argument pag. 123. drawne from Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2 14. which is parallel with it is before answered Afterwards they goe about to play the Polititians shewing both here and in the following pag. how the publick peace is disturbed by suffering of sundry Religions and this they reckon so certain that they conclude it is known by all that are but indifferently versed in histories c. Now if this conclusion hold true it is impossible either for France Germany Holland or Zwitserland to be in peace without either the Papists rise up and cutt the Protestants throats or the Protestants theirs and who but such as the Students can be ignorant that after much blood-shed and contention who should oppresse and destroy each other they have learned by sad experience that it is safest and most conducible to the peace and contributs most to the publick benefit not to meddle with each others consciences notwithstanding that these pitifull States-men can prattle to the contrary who have shewne themselves in this to be very indifferently versed in history But they proceed affirming that since the Magistrat is keeper of both tables to whom is entrusted not only the care of mens bodies but souls he ought to punish not only for evil but also for religious offences If all this were confessed would it follow that he were to punish Religious as Civil offences by a Civil censure Surely nay no more then he must punish Civile offences by an Ecclesiastick censure Now it remains for them to prove that offences in things purely conscientious should among Christians be punished by the externall sword which they have not as yet done and let it be here observed that not withstanding all their clamours for the Magistrats priviledge and that the Q. detract from him that all the power dignity and honour they put upon him is to be the Clergies burrow for as they allow him not authority to judge who are Hereticks and who not but he must only serve to be their executioner and persecut such as they find prejudiciall to their interest for though they will have it to be lawfull for Preachers such as their Bishops to be Magistrats as Chancellour Counseller Iudge c. Yet no Magistrat nay the King himself must take upon him to be a Preacher though we could never see any thing in all the New Testament making this unlawfull yea and David and Solomon in the Old who were not of the tribe of Levi were both Prophets and Preachers and pen-men of the Scripture This trick even the Protestant Clergy have learned from their father the Pope who shewed the Clergy long ago the way to make themselves Princes and Iudges but to be sure to shut out the Magistrate from meddling with their function So it may be easily seen here whether the Q. or the Students be greatest friends to the Magistrate Lastly They conclude that since those that broach heresy do evil and that the Magistrate is the executer of God's wrath upon him that doeth or acteth outwardly evil without any restriction c. it is not lawfull for us to add a restriction where the Spirit of God hath put none Who can but admire the impudency of these Students which doe that which in the following line they affirme is unlawfull by adding outwardly which is a restriction For the words in the text are not outwardly evil but evil which being taken without any