QUAKERISM CONFIRMED, OR A vindication of the chief Doctrines and Principles of the people called QUAKERS from the arguments and objections of the Students of divinity (so called) of ABERDEEN in their book entitled QUAKERISM CONVASSED, 
By 


ROBERT BARCLAY,  
and  
GEORGE KEITH.      
2 Tim. 3: 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest to all men etc.  
Printed in the Year. 1676.   

Friendly Reader  
Had we not more regarded the interest of the Truth, for whose sake we can shun no abasement, than the significancy of those, with whom we have this rencounter, we should have rather choosed to be silent, then answer them, they being of so small reputation among their own, that neither teachers nor people will hold themselves accountable for any of their positions, and seem zealous to have it believed they would not bestow time to read it, nor yet hold themselves obliged to approve it. However since we certainly know that in the second part of their book (to which this reply is) they have scraped together most of the chief arguments used against us, and borrowed not a little from G. Ms. manuscripts, (with whose work, that yet appears not, we have been these seven years menaced) which, like the materials of a building managed by unskilful workmen, though they be by them very confusedly put together, yet being the chief things can be said against us, we have throughly handled, for the Readers satisfaction, which may be serviceable to the Truth, without respect to the insignificancy of those against whom it is written. As for the first part of their book, we have also answered it, but distinct from this, it consisting of many particularityes of matters of fact, which perhaps might have proved tedious to many Readers that may be this be edified, and think it of no great consequence, that the Students are proved liars, which even many of their own party think is not any spot in their religion, so little are they looked upon among their own, yet those that are curious may also have that first part. As for this second part, wherein our principles are handled, we judge we deal with the Clergy in general, however they seek to shift it, and hide themselves, since their book is licenced by the bishop of Edinburgh, and he being challenged, said, he did it not without a recommendation from Aberdeen. So that no man of reason, can deny but they are accountable for the errors, and impertinencies which we have herein observed, which we leave, Reader, to thy serious examination, remaining.  
Thy Friends R. B. G. K.   


The CONTENTS.  
SECTION 1. Concerning immediate Revelation. Pag. 1.  
SECTION 2. The Students argument against the Spirits being the rule▪ proved one with the jesuit Dempsters. 12  
SECTION 3. Concerning the supper, perfection, and women's speaking. 18  
SECTION 4. Concerning the necessity of immediate Revelations to the building up of true faith. 27  
SECTION 5. Concerning Worship. 41  
SECTION 6. Concerning Baptism. 56  
SECTION 7. Concerning the Ministry. 65  
SECTION 8. Concerning Liberty of Conscience. 75  
The CONCLUSION. Wherein their observations upon R. B. his Offer, and their last Section of the Q. revilings, as they term them, are examined. 83    

QUAKERISM CONFIRMED,  

SECTION FIRST.  
Concerning immediate Revelation, wherein the Second part of the Students book from Pag. 44. to Pag. 66. is Answered,  
IN their first section, they allege, we do wickedly put many indignities upon the holy Scriptures, and that we monopolise the Spirit to ourselves, which are gross lies, but that they are against the Spirit, is no malicious accusation, but a thruth as will appear to any true discerner: Their comparing us, when we plead for the Spirit, to them, who cried the Temple, the Themple, is unequal and profane, they that cried the Temple, the Temple, rejected the Spirit of God, and relied too much on the Temple, and outward privileges, but dare they blame any for relying too much on the Spirit of God? Again, in their first subjection they commit a gross deceit in which they follow G. M. their master, who (useth the same in his manuscript to us) in alleging, they are more for the Spirit than we, because they affirm, that the efficacy of the Spirit is insuperable. For we do affirm, that the efficacy of the Spirit is in a true sense insuperable, as namely where the mind is well disposed, See R. B. his thesis, where he useth the word insuperably, but that the Spirit doth insuperably move, or irrestibly force the ill disposed minds of all in whom it operats is false, and contrary to scripture, which saith, that some resist the Spirit, yea and is contrary to the experience of all, who are acquainted with the Spirits workings, that know, that the Spirit many times worketh so gently, that his operation may be resisted, therefore said the Apostle, Quench not the Spirit. Now that doctrine which is contrary both to Scripture, and experience is not for the spirit, but against it. Again, how are they more for the spirit than we, seeing they affirm the Spirits influence is but only effective, as having no evidence in itself, sufficiently to demonstrat that it is of God; we say, it hath, as being both effective and objective. 2. They say, the influence of the spirit is only given to some; we say, to all. 3. They say, it is so weak, that it can bring none to a perfect freedom from sin in this life, though never so much improved; we say, it can, yea. 4. They say commonly, the influence of the spirit cannot keep the best Saint one moment from sin, we say, it can keep them for whole days, yea always, if they improve it, as well as they can. 5. They say, a Man may and aught to pray without the spirit, which we deny, and so we leave it to the judicious, if here they do not commit a gross deceit. Lastly, in their stating the question, they accuse us falsely, as if we did hold, that all men ought to judge, and examine all the material objects of faith and Articles of religion by inward revelations, as if all men were bound to an impossibility, all men have not all the material objects of faith propounded unto them, for some of the material objects of faith are merely accidental unto all men's salvation, as to believe that Abraham begat Isaak, and Isaak jacob, etc. others although not accidental, yet are but integral parts, and not essential of Christian religion, such as the outward history of Christ, etc. and so by this distinction divers of these arguments are answered, without more ado, especially the first two, where they spend much paper fight with their own shadow, telling us, that the heathens have no revelations, showing the birth, passion, resurrection, etc. of jesus Christ, which we do grant, for the belief of such things is only necessary to them, to whom they are propounded, and the Scriptures alleged by them, at most prove no more, it were a needless labour and not worth the pains to answer particularly to all their impertinencies, follies, and blasphemies, which they obtrude upon us as arguments, and in the issue, their last probations resolve into mere assertions, as much denied by us, as the things they undertake to refute, therefore upon each section or subsection we shall, but take notice, what their arguments resolve into at last, and as there is occasion, set down some propositions that may serve as a key to open the Readers way, through all these heaps of confusion and blasphemy, wherewith they fill their pages. As for the Scriptures brought by them Arg. 1. as Isa. 9 2. Matth. 4. 16. Psal. 147. 19 20. These prove not, that they had no light, for the light shineth in darkness Joh. 1. and Prov. 29. 18. doth not import that people have wanted vision from the beginning, but that for some time, they may want it, to wit, when their day of visitation is over, which we deny not. And whereas they tell us that the Greek particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often to be translated among, and therefore so to be Col. 1. 26. and other places alleged by us; we deny this consequence. And that they say, the Apostle is speaking of the outward preaching of Christ Col. 1. 26. is their bare assertion without any proof. Also in their first argument they allege a gross untruth upon G. K. as if he did hold in his book of Immediate revelation, pag. 11. that the Jews generally under the Law had no immediate revelation in the Seed, let the place be read and it will clear G. K. where he distinguisheth a twofold sort of revelation in the seed, according to a twofold condition of the seed, the first sort of revelation is more hid and obscure, the seed not being completely form, but as under ground. The second is more manifest and clear, so as with open face to behold the glory of God. The first sort of revelation is given universally unto all both Jews and Gentiles, but the second is only given to the Saints, in whom the seed is completely form and brought forth. As to their Queries we answer that Conscience and Reason are distinguished from the saving light of Christ in all men, & the revelation thereof, as a natural and supernatural principle are distinguished, and it was the natural, which Pelagius did exalt too much, as our adversaries also do, who affirm that men may be lawful preachers without being renewed by the supernatural principle of Gods saving light and Grace.  
In the prosecution of their second argument. 1. They deny the inward blood and sufferings of Christ, referring us to their proof afterwards, which we shall in its place examine. 2. They allege that we hold an heavenly and spiritual nature in Christ, which is distinct from the Godhead on the one hand, and from the Manhood on the other, which they call a third nature in Christ. But this their alledgance is false, for that heavenly and spiritual nature is not a third thing distinct from both the Godhead and Manhood of Christ, as shall be afterwards shown. 3. They allege that the Apostle doth not speak of any inward hearing or word, but of the outward. The Contrary is manifest from the Apostles own words in the same chapter, the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart. Nor is their reason valid to prove it, for the words vers. 14, 15. are not arguments made by Paul, but objections adduced by him, which he afterwards answereth, and this is usual with Paul in this Epistle. As to their question, wherein consists the nature and essence of faith? we say, it is a receiving of Christ, laying hold upon him, according to whatsoever revelation he makes of himself in men's hearts, which is in some greater, in others less, but in all is in some degree.  
In their third argument they undertake to prove that according to us the Scriptures are not necessary secundum quid, or profitable, but all in vain, as for their example, as they know examples prove not, so is it vain and impertinent, for we never compared the Scriptures to a mutilated and dim copy, they are a clear and perfect copy as to all essentials and necessaries of Christian religion: but they are not the original; and seeing we have answered them so many questions, let them answer us this one. Are not all these divinity books and Commentaries on the Scripture made by men not divinely inspired, as a mutilated and dim copy in comparison of the Scripture, and whether is the Scripture or these books more perfect? if they say the Scripture is more perfect, then what need they the mutilated and dim copy of these divinity books, or what profit can they have, by them, which they cannot have rather by the Scripture? Again, here they confound the material and formal object of faith, as if we did hold that inward revelation without Scripture did propound unto us the material objects of faith, which is false, for there are many of the material objects, which are only propounded by the Scripture, to wit, such as the historical part of the Scripture, and in this respect, we do not plead that inward revelation is the material object, but the formal.  
In their fourth argument, they are so blind as not to take notice how we can give the same answer that they give, concerning the Law, that we who are under grace and obedience to the inward Law, are dead as to the condemning power, but not as to the commanding power thereof. But that it is not the letter or any outward testimony of the Law that doth so powerfully convince a man's conscience, as of other sins, so of covetousness, as the Spirit of God doth in his inward convictions and smitings upon the conscience, is clear from the experience of all these, who have known and passed through the state, which the Apostle spoke of, when he said, I was alive without the Law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Yea what law is that of the mind, whereof he makes mention Rom. 8. but an inward Law, by which the knowledge of sin comes, and through which both the knowledge, and remembrance of sin sticks more closely to the soul then through any outward law it can? and did not Christ say, that the spirit should convince the world of sin? yea how many of those called Heathens, who had not any outward law, have declared that inward concupiscence was a sin? As for their malicious accusation against us, of our lust and covetousness, we reject as not worth the noticing, seeing they assert it without any colour of proof, but it seems they have learned that wicked and devilish maxim calumni are audacter aliquid adhaerebit. i e. calumniat boldly that something may stick.  
Their fifth argument is answered in the first as being a branch thereof.  
Their sixth argument is built upon a false supposition, that according to our principle, all would be prophets, and that no difference could be assigned betwixt prophets, and pastors and teachers, seeing prophets and teachers teach, both from the spirit. The first is answered at large in the end of G. Ks. book of Immediate 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 prophesying 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 spoke unto Cain a most wicked man, but also unto Satan Job. 1. which speaking of God to Satan, we suppose the Students will not say, was by an outward voice, and consequently it was internal. 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 gospel 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 proof of their Minor, where the whole stress lieth, they utterly fail in both its branches, as we shall briefly show. 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 query in a scoffing way, can a thing that is self evident be hid from the whole world except a few Illuminadoes? We answer, if it were hid from the whole world, except a few in comparison of others, it is no more than 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 Gentiles 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 hid from the greatest part of the world? The mahometans 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, seeing 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 seeing 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 mere defendants. As to the maxim, 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 jesuit 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 itself which is apta nata, fit of its own nature to convince, and will really convince the well disposed. Very well! this their plain concession destroyeth their whole building, for seeing 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, than 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, seeing by their own rule, Affirmanti incumbit probatio. Who is so weak that doth not see that they are entangled 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, seeing 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 seeing 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 enlightening 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 rational and sober men will acknowledge that we are not bound to receive their affirmations without proof, more than they are bound to receive ours, nor indeed so much, we being as the case stands, but defendants.  
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 shadows of evidences, namely first, our own declaration. 2. the Scriptures. 3. the immediate testimony of the Spirit. But that these are not shadows, will appear to the judicious and well disposed, if they consider these two things 1. That by our declaration we mean not a bare verbal declaration, having no virtue or manifestation of life in it, for we confess, such might be as good a ground for a heretic 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 Heretic 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, etc. was an evidence that no heretic 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 aught to give, seeing we pretend to no other spirit, but that which every true Christian hath, nor to any revelations, but these, which are the privileges 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 showed in his book Immediate 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 general 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 general, 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 unlawful circle, as they foolishly allege, which is but an old threadbare alledgance of Papists against the Protestants, as Turnbull alleged on Paraeus, that he proved the spirit by the Scripture, and the Scripture by the Spirit. Some Protestants in our days 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 immediate Revelation, and Quakerism no popery. Where the same is at length proved. But we have a most clear way to extricat ourselves 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 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 immediate 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 stress of their answer lieth, as 1. They say, the jews rejected only the outward immediate testimony of Christ. However dare they say, but that the outward immediate 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 immediate outward testimony, a most gross disorder. All which we reject as mere 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 real 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, mahometans, 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 universal 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 gospel truth. As for the word EVERY we acknowledge it is not taken always universally, but seeing 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 always in respect of the material objects, of things revealed, but in respect of the formal object, or revelation itself. 2. Although we affirm that the illumination and influence of the spirit, in men's 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 than they acknowledge it to be, as being in itself perceptible and having a self evidence, whereas they will have it only a medium incognitum, a thing altogether undiscernible and inevident of itself, so as to convince or satisfy 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, seeing 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 spiritual sensations and that the work of grace may be felt, this confession destroyeth their whole superstructure; for if the work of grace can be felt or is perceptible than it is objective, for whatever is perceptible is objective, ad seeing they grant that the soul hath spiritual 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 refresh, waterings and bedewings, if the first, it is most unreasonable, for it would make the spiritual senses to fall short of the natural, seeing the natural senses reach beyond words to natural 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 jesuits, 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 Heretics, for thus they word it in their account, alleging we wronged them, in saying, they used the words, which Heretics 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 heretics, they make I. L. argue thus, other Heretics 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, etc. Then their declaring, etc. 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 Heretics may pretend to. Thus the Students dispute against the Q. let us hear how the Jesuit disputes against I. M. their Master Pap. Lucif●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. etc. Let the judicious Reader consider whether there be any material difference betwixt these two argumentations. But to proceed and show that their arguments are no better than the Jesuits against their Master, and our answers no worse, than their Masters against the Jesuit; we shall place them together, I. M. answereth the jesuit thus pag. 5. of his Pap. Lucifugus. Our Answer to the Students as themselves acknowledgest pag. 59 ●s. The true religion hath sufficient grounds in itself, to manifest itself 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 show a distinction betwixt him and a knave, albeit a fool cannot discern it, so the true religion may have ground enough to prove itself true (which the false religion hath not) though an infidel or Heretic 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 pitiful subterfuge, alleging that then this evidence can only be assigned to such, as are of the Q. mind, but not to others, and that any Heretic in the world may deny evidences upon the same account. Now let the judicious Reader, determine whether if this answer be a pitiful 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 show the difference, which they have not yet done.  
In answer to this Retortion, they allege pag. 67. That R. B. said their master, ●o. M would not assign the jesuit a ground, to prove the truth of the Protestant Religion, and therefore, say they, R. Bs. practices agree exactly with the jusuits' Morals, and gives an egregious specimen of his jesucticall honesty, which makes us suspect him to be a jesuited 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 jesuit 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, etc. So it is manifest they have given here a specimen of their jesuitical honesty, and because they could not answer, they forged lies 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 College, & it is thought by many that he is a jesuited emissary, etc. Is not this a pungent answer? Reader, R. B. was educated in a popish college; ergo, say the Students, our answer is not that which the jesuit 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 permit their book to be printed, might have hindered them from this folly, seeing he was educated in the same Popish College R. B. was, and owes some of his Philosophy to it, whereas R. B. learned only there a little 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 omit, 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 assign a ground, which was never denied and that he was defendant, so was R. B. also. what is that to the purpose, unless to make the retortion the stronger, and show they cannot get by it? but pag. 60. They say, that whereas the jesuit pressed their master that heretics did say, their Religion was conform to the Scripture, as well as he, and so the Scripture was no peculiar ground for him, more than for heretics. They say their master answered, That it was not a pretended, but real conformity unto the Scripture, that demonstrats a true Religion, etc. and upon this they inquire, what follows, alleging they argued from being as good and not pretending, and so fall a railing, saying, that the light of our Consciences is eclipsed by a new found light, and that we misrepresent them maliciously. This railing is for want of better reasoning, but seeing they are so blind as not to see, whether they will see it or not, we shall tell them, and, we hope, let the Reader see, what follows here from. Jo. Meinzies the Students master saith to the Jesuit, it is not enough that heretics say the Scripture is a ground for their Religion, unless it really be so, and that other Heretics saying so doth not infer, that it is as little a ground for his own (to wit J. Ms.) Religion. Very well! The Quakers tell the Students, That it is not enough that heretics declare they have the Spirit, unless it be really so, and their saying, they have it, while they have it not, doth not infer, that our saying we have it, is as little a ground for us. Who but such as are as childish as the Students, will affirm, there is here any difference? But further, they confound most ignor antly the Internal 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 internal testimony of the spirit is as good an evidence for Heretics, as for us, which they have not offered to do; next, they have not proved that the declaration of Heretics 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 fall'n in that in convenience, they would fix upon us, pag. 58. 59 where in answering R. Bs. retortion, showing them, that if men's being deceived, contradicting themselves, or one another, who say the spirit is the rule, did infer the spirit not to be a certain rule, than men's 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, 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 
* But besides, will not their Masters answer above mentioned meet well with them here, that since these sects and saints, did as both they and the Q. confess but pretend to the spirit, that because they did but pretend therefore the Q. do but pretend also, no more then because some heretics do pretend their religion is conform to the Scripture, therefore I. M. doth so too.  because the Georgians, Familists and pretended Saints as Francis and Loyola, etc. 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, seeing they are the Opponents, and we the mere Defendants, 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 jesuit 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 principal rule are either our Churches, or they are Sects dissenting from us. If the first, have not our divines frequently proved both from the intrinsic characters of Divinity that appear in the Scriptures themselves, and also from the outward motives of credibility, that we have these scriptural 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 aught to believe us teaching such senses of Scripture, etc. Is not this rarely well solved? do the Students give any better evidence for all this, than their own declaration, and is not this (according to themselves) as good for other Heretics 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 belief of the Scriptures certainly, & that thereunto 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 etc. So say all the public confessions of the Protestants abroad, and seeing of this according to the Students there can be no objective evidences in the world given, than neither can there of the Scripture, which they confess is their rule. So the Reader may see that their work is like the viper's brood, that destroyeth itself; & tends to overturn the certainty of all Christian religion, landing in Scepticism, which because they can not shun, they end their section in vain 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 seeing they are so busy in boasting we accept the Challenge & offer us to prove before as public an auditory, as the last Dispute was, that their arguments against the Q. are no better than the jesuits against their master. And here to conclude, they add, Let the Reader therefore judge, whether railing Robin shows forth more of an asses then of a viper's nature, where he brands our argument with the black mark of Popery. Well! we leave to the Readers judgement, 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 personal criminations, and have not rendered evil for evil, and what may be thought of men that are not ashamed thus to belie themselves.   

SECTION THIRD.  
Wherein the Students arguments concerning the Supper, and against Perfection, and women's 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, because of their mad & impious practices, and then they turn this assertiou into a question, ask, have not the Q. committed such practices, saying they were commanded by the Spirit? And for this they refer the Reader to several books writ against the Q. by their declared adversaries: which signify nothing unless they will prove that these men spoke Truth, which they neither have, nor can do, and so are no more valued by us, than Cochleus lies against Luther. But to confirm 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 immediate 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 errors. As for that citation of H. More, he wrote 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. seeing it was at that very time disowned by the Q. and since condemned by himself; militats nothing against us, no more than 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 nonsensicall expressions. But will they deny but the Presbyterian General 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 Prelates 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. evil beasts, slow bellies, 2 Pet. 2. 22, the dog is returned, etc. 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, because 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 allege 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 mere 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 Christ's coming, insinuating as if he had mistaken himself, for his words (say they) allude to Paul's 1 Cor. 11. and not to Christ's, but while they take a liberty to judge of his thoughts, they do but show their own forwardness to mistake; for either these words of Christ's in Luke above mentioned, do import, they should do that in remembrance of him until he came, or they do not, if they do not, the Students give away their own cause. If they do, than 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 practised it by way of necessary duty, more than their practising 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 mere 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 belied us, so they use the Apostle the same way, for not only in this Chapter or Epistle, but in all Paul's Epistles, these words (the Lord's Supper are only once mentioned, so not often. Secondly, verse 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 says 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 alleged, 
And the Sy●iack copy hath not in that 20. ver. nor elsewhere, these words the Lords Supper at all, but in lieu of it, when then ye meet together not as ye ought to do in the day of the Lord.  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 alleged 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 says nothing; but that the Apostle has signified any such thing to us we deny, & it remains for them to prove.  
Thirdly, they allege, that since the Apostle reproves them for abuses in the use of this, and to rectify 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 practising 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 says how those that observe days, aught to do it to the Lord, it will not therefore follow, that the observation of days, is a duty incumbent upon all, yea the Apostle in that place expressly 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, etc. Who but the Students would argue at this rate? such kind of reasons serve to show their folly not to confirm their opinions, as do these that follow with their old example of the King's minion. In all which they miserably beg 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 ye eat, etc. 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 lawful, 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 unlawful to forbear. Their fifth reason is, because the Apostle prescribes the right method of usieng it, for they allege, if it had been indifferent, he would have rather forbidden it as useless, etc. This is no argument, but their bare conjecture, in which they would be wiser than the Apostle, and we have answered it before, showing the Apostle gives rules to rectify the observation of days, which yet imports not a duty to observe them. Their last and chiefest reason is, as they say, the Aposils express command for it, let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, the Students affirm, (and do but affirm) that to say, this is only a permission is a desperate shift, let us hear how they prove it. Let a man examine himself, this is without doubt a command, therefore let him eat must be a command also, we deny this consequence, and it remains for them to prove it, and though this were enough in strictness, yet we shall give a reason of our deny all: because their proposition (whatever it may be do in some cases) holds not universally true, as to instance from an example or two, let a man marry 〈◊〉 the Lord, and so let him marry. The first is a command here, but not the second, let a man speak in religious things as the oracle of God, and so let him speak. The first is a command, but not the second, many more might be named, which import only a conditional command, not that there is a necessity upon all to marry, or upon all to preach, but if a man marry let him do it in the Lord, and if a man preach, let him do it as the Oracle of God. Also see a most plain example of this Rev. 22. 11. he that is filthy let him be filthy still, and he that is just, let him be just still, they are both in the imperative mood, yet the one is a duty, the other but a permission not moral and positive, but physical and negative; so if a man partake of the ceremony of bread and wine, let him examine himself, seeing then their proposition holds not universally true, it remains for them to prove that in this particular place it is so.  
They bestow their 34. paragraph pag. 70, 71. to no purpose, in missing the controversy, for whatever we understand by the substance, which whoso enjoyeth needs not the shadow. We do not deny but these that had the substance made use of the shadow at times, for Paul purified himself according to the Law of Moses, after he had been long an Apostle, but the question is, whether that oblige us now. This the Students have forgot to prove, and will do well to advert to it when they publish their next volume, omitting needless homilies not to the purpose. And thus we hope the Reader may see, that the things we bring to prove this ceremony is ceased, are not shadows; but rather, that what they bring to confirm it, is nothing but shadows.  
Pag. 71. They go about to answer an argument used by R. B. against this ceremony, drawn from the Apostls words 1 Cor. 16: 16. in his first answer to W. M. p: 54. where he shows that since the bread is but one, which must needs be the inward; the outward must be ceased, and to this they answer, saying, the true & genuine sense of the place, is, to go 〈◊〉 as they were dictating, & not disputing without adding any probatiou. But secondly they proceed, saying, that seeing the one bread is the saints, though the Apostles were truly this one bread, yet Christ instituted his supper, without any contradiction, or making them not one bread. For answer, were that practice of Christ, of the nature they would have it, than should they say some thing, but while they suppose it so, and argu● from it, they do but beg the thing in controversy, for the Apostles both then and after that time used many legal and typical observations, and yet they would argue ill, that would infer from thence because they did so, and that without contradiction to their being Christians and under the Gospel dispensation, we ought to do so too, as for that bread spoken by the Apostles in the 16 and 17 verses we acknowledge it to be the Spiritual bread, to wit, the Spiritual body of Christ, of which the saints feed, which makes them one, and is one with them as the Apostle himself wordeth it. ver. 17. Now what signifieth all this to prove that the outward bread is the one bread? Hear how the Students evince it but Thirdly we say That the one bread spoken of ver. 17. is both the outward and the inward bread, yet but one Sacramentally, and is not this rarely well argued, we the Students say so: as to the reason afterwards insinuated as Christ saith of the bread that it is his body, they should have shown how it follows. Christ, as Protestants well argue against Papists, calls himself a door, a Rock, etc. what then? is Christ and a Rock one, Christ and a door one door? Let them show us, if they can, in all the N. T. so much as one word of this sigment of a Sacramental or symbolical union. and whereas upon this occasion R. B. argued in his Truth cleared of Calumnies Pag. 54. that if the outward bread were to be called the one bread, as signifying it, The sacrifices of the Law might be called one, with the one offering of Christ mentioned, Hebr. 10: 14 and so continued, This they say signifies nothing because these are abrogated: then until they prove this continues by virtue of a Gospel's command, which they have not as yet done, the same reason will hold against it.  
To another Reason given of the discontinuance of this ceremony, from Gal. 2: 16. Let no man judge you in meats, or drinks, They say first, that then it had not been lawful for the Apostle, to have reprehended the Corinthians for the abuses in this matter; This is a poor shift indeed, though they should not have been reprehended for laying it aside altogether, yet seeing they used it as a religious duty, they might well be reprehended, if they did it not religiously. Secondly, They say, that then gluttony etc. ought not to be reproved, & that the Q. ere they miss to pull down Christ's ordinance will make way for gluttony & drunkenness. Answer, Here is but a silly malicious reflection in stead of a reason, The Apostle is speaking here, as the St. themselves afterwards acknowledge, of meats & drinks used in religious acts, & if the proposition hold true in this respect, it will answer the end, & not of natural eating etc. Thirdly, They say, It must only be understood of the Legal ceremonies, because of the 14 verse, ask if the Lord's supper was contrary unto us, or was nailed to the Cross? what then? The Students are over hasty & should have looked to the 21 & 22. verses, Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish with the useing; & do not bread & wine which perish in the useing, & are therefore here included; as for the absurdity insinuated by them, how could that be nailed to the cross, that was but instituted two days before? will they say that abstaining from things strangled, & from blood was nailed to the cross which was commanded long after Christ was crucified? And yet some of their Divines (as they call them) use this Scripture for a repeal of it.  
Their second charge against the Q. and to prove they are not led by the Spirit, is because they assert a possibility of not sinning upon earth which they say, is expressly contrary to the Scripture, as first to Isaiah 64: 6 we are all an unclean thing. All our righteousness are as filthy rags. But they should have proven that the Prophet speaks here not only of the Legal righteousness of the jews, but even of the righteousness wrought by Christ in the regenerate under the Gospel, 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 righteousness of the Saints under the gospel, but only of the legal righteousness of the jews, 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 forgiveness 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 less against perfect justification, than 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 etc. To will is present with me etc. 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 carnal, sold under sin but who will say that the Apostle as to his own present condition was then carnal? or if he was, was there no spiritual 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 self etc. and here they are offended R. B. should say this is conditional, like the 6 verse, which they confess is so, for, say they, at the same rate he might allege all the rest of the verses of the epistle to be conditional, but if it refer, 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 show, they are angry that R. B. should allege WE here doth not include John more, than the Apostle James 3. 9 with the tongue curse we men, doth include James. For first the Students will have James here included, alleging it is spoken of excommunication, and here they take occasion to upbraid R. B. with ignorance, in ecclesiastical discipline, but surely they have been either dreaming or doting when they so wrote, for had 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 Ecclesiastical discipline to be unlawful; but being it seems ashamed of this shift, they give another interpretation which destroyeth their own cause, alleging James might have understood it of himself, 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 etc. of himself 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 compass 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, alleging, they may render the word by way of interrogation, and do we therefore curse men? Are not these rare interpreters, because the Apostle useth an interrogation elsewhere in this chapter, therefore this may be so done also, but what then becometh of their church discipline and other interpretation? These must be shut out of doors. 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 & lose with it at pleasure. But to proceed, they allege Ecclesiast. 7: 20. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good, and sinneth not; this argument is built upon an error of the translation; it should be translated, who may not sin, qui non peccet, so junius and Tremellius, Vatablus, the vulgar Latin, 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 sin 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 God's Spirit in the Scriptures. Answ. A quick way to dispatch controversies indeed, if it could hold, but at present it may serve to show 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 wisdom.  
Their third instance against the Q. is pag. 74. their allowing of women to preach, alleging it is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 34, 35. Let your women keep silence, etc. and 1 Tim. 2. 12. Let the woman learn in silence, etc. 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 real ground for this malicious 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 solemnly profess they have abstained from personal Criminations, but seeing they have belied 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 infer it, because G. K. doth plead for the liberty and privilege of women, they might as well plead, that G. K. is too much addicted to a perfect holiness, because he doth plead for 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 less than enraged, that G. K should have alleged 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 cried out against this allegory, as a horrid abusive thing in some Q. to show 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 real tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 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, alleging, that if it did hold, (as G. K. affirms) that women are not allowed to speak by permission, then à fortiori, it is unlawful for them to speak by commandment. Who but the Students would talk at this rate, as if a commandment might not authorise 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 gains us the cause, and shows our doctrine 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 pass our chief objection very overly, drawn from 1 Cor. 11. 5. where the Apostle gives direct rules how women should behave themselves in their public praying and preaching, alleging there are rules given in Scripture concerning things, that were never lawful, but only permitted, etc. as of polygamy under the law, but they should have remembered that these are rules given by the Apostle, to the Christian Church of Corinth, and seeing 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 lawful 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 women's speaking belongs to us, or is not of the number of these useless rules, more than 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 immediate 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 showed, 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 immediate 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 admit that any person in our time hath immediate objective revelations, admit Peter or John, their former argument will as much militate against this real immediate objective revelation granted by them, as against those, which they do not grant, seeing pag. 7. at the letter A, they say, suppose that the spirit reveall the objects of faith immediately 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 real 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 john, therefore, etc. 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 immediate 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 immediate objective revelation. The argument is this, that which as really agrees to Enthusiast Heretics, 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 immediate testimony of the Spirit witnessing to the truth of it, would as really agree to Enthusiast Heretics, therefore, etc. Yea not only might they thus argue against any men's having immediate objective revelation in our days, but against the Prophets and Apostles having it, seeing 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 Ionas 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 Ionas, 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 Heretic. But further these stout and hardy warriors could have used these same arguments against the Prophets, when they wrought miracles, for they could have alleged 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, than the unbelieving Jews believed the miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles. For they still looked upon them to be deceivers. It is clear from Scripture that Antichrist shall be permitted to work false miracles, but that they shall so counterfeit the true, that it will be hard to discern, the one from the other, without God's immediate direction and teaching. And therefore the preaching of sound doctrine, accompanied with a holy life, is a better evidence of a true Prophet, than all outward miracles whatsoever, as Christ said, by their fruits ye shall know them; he doth not say, by their miracles, but by their fruits. Now we are most willing to be tried by this rule, if both our doctrine, and life and manner of conversation, be not answerable to that of the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles, then let them say, we have not that spirit, which was in them. But if they can not make out this, they but fight as men beating the air.  
Pag. 80. They argue, that there is no substantial living principle in man, that is the good seed, because then the evil seed or principle should also be substantial. But this is absurd, therefore. That this is absurd, they argue, for than it should be created, by God, and so God should be the author of evil and sin, or it should be uncreated, and consequently God. To this we answer. The same argument militats as much and rather more against their own principle, for seeing they hold sin, to be somewhat, (whether a substance, or an accident, is all one as to the argument) we argue by a retortion against themselves, either it is created, or uncreated, and so the same inconvenience would follow. But to answer directly, we say, sin considered in its formal reason, is rather a privation, than any real being, as blindness or lameness in a man's body, or corruption in wine, or any other liquor. But if they inquire about the subject of this privation, whether it be a substance. We answer, it is, and it is clear from the Scriptures testimony, that as Christ rules in the Saints, so the devil rules in the wicked, and is in them, and as God hath his seed and birth in the Saints, so the devil hath his seed and birth in the wicked, which is of the devil's nature. But if it be asked further, whether it is a substance, we answer first, with enquiring at them another question, and retorting the argument upon them, whether the devil is a substance, yea or nay? If yea, either he is created, or uncreated, if created, than God is the author of the devil; if uncreated, than he should be God, their own consequence, which is blasphemy. But 2. the true answer to both is that he who, is, now the devil was created of God a good Angel, but by his own voluntary fall, he hath reduced himself to be a devil not by any real creation, but by a degeneration, and as is the devil himself so is his seed, a corrupted, degenerated principle from what it was originally before sin was, but if we take the seed of the devil distinctly, as distinct from himself, we do not say, it is any percipient principle, that seeth or knoweth, etc. for it is rather of the nature of a body, then of a percipient, intelligent spirit, and the Scripture calleth it a body, to wit, the body of death. But whether the seed of sin be a substance, or not, the Students argument is altogether impertinent to argue that because the good seed is a substantial living principle, etc. then the evil principle or seed should also be substantial, living, etc. for the same reasons. We deny this Consequence, for there are greater reasons whereby to prove the one than the other. If they think to argue from the rule of contraries, they think foolishly, for it would as much follow, that because a man is a substance, who seeth and heareth, etc. that therefore a man's blindness, and deafness, and lameness are also substances, and that blindness seeth, deafness heareth, lameness walketh. Do they not know, the maxim in Logic that telleth them, substantia substantiae propriè non contrariatur. i e. one substance properly is not contrary to another. But last of all we may more justly retort this blasphemous consequence upon many of their own church, who hold, that God stirreth up the devil and all wicked men unto all their wicked actions, by an irresistible motion or quality which he infuseth into them, commonly called, praedeterminatio physica. Is not this to make God the author of sin? As also many of them teach that Original sin is a positive quality, infused into the souls of men at their creation. Concerning which positive quality, we thus argue, either it is created or uncreated, etc. and so the inconveniences of their argument will fall much more upon their own heads, for they cannot allege that this positive quality at its first creation was first good, and afterwards became changed into evil, because no quality can admit any such transmutation, as for example, whiteness can never become blackness, nor sweetness bitterness, nor straightness crookedness, although a substance that is white, may lose its whiteness, and may become black, and that which is sweet may become bitter, and that which is straight become crooked.  
In the prosecution of their second argument, they bring their matter to this issue, that G. K. holds the seed itself to be contradistinct from the manifestation, because the manifestation is in the seed; but we deny the consequence, do not they say, that the manifestation of Gods will is in the Scripture, and also that the Scripture itself is the manifestation of Gods will? That G. K. calleth the seed both a substance, and a manifestation, is as reasonable as to say, there are outward manifestations of God's goodness, power, and wisdom in the heavens, and earth; and yet the heavens and earth are the very outward manifestations themselves. Are not our meat and drink and clothing, natural and outward manifestations of the goodness of God to us, and are not these things substances, and doth not God manifest his goodness also in them? What blind reasons are these, which those poor blind men bring forth against the truth? Again they argue, that this manifestation (which we say is a substance) depends not â solo Deo, cannot exist without a subject, nay not without the understanding, to which it is made. All which they barely assert, but do not offer to prove. Again they say, it is but a mere action, and applicatio agentis ad passum. But how do they prove it? here they are as dumb as stones. Perhaps they think to prove it, because manifestation, is a nomen verbale, which commonly being derived from the active verb signifieth an action, but this is merely to play in words, and not to dispute, for they may as well say, because the whole world is called the creation, (for Creation is an active verbale) therefore the whole world is a mere action, or applicatio agentis ad passum. We deny not, but the action, or motion, which proceeds from the Spirit of God, may also be called a manifestation. But we say, the seed itself, is also a manifestation; and those inward heavenly refreshments which God ministers unto the souls of his Saints, are as real substantial spiritual manifestations of his goodness, as the outward earthly refreshments, to wit meat and drink, are real substantial natural manifestations. Lastly, they query, if the manifestation be a substance, whether is it one manifestation, or all the manifestations? To this we answer, they that please to call the action, or motion, (which proceeds from the Spirit of God, an an efficient cause) a manifestation, may easily distingnish manifestation, as it is a principle, or quid permanens, or as it is an action, or quid transiens, now to apply, we say, the substantial manifestations of God, inwardly to our souls are many, as they are quid permanens, and per modum principii, for as God nourisheth our outward man, not with bread and drink once only, but often, and many are our outward refreshments, all which are substances, agreeing in this that they are manifestations and pledges of God's bounty unto us, so doth he nourish our inward man, with spiritual bread and drink not once only, but often, giving us daily the supersubstantial bread, as the words in the prayer may be translated, and have been by some learned men, and thus we have answered their last argument, in their §. 5. without recurring to any idea Platonica, a term they vainly bring in to their argument, to move people to laugh at their folly. And thus we hope it is apparent, that we have no need to retract our answers given in the dispute, as they vainly imagine.  
It would be more labour and expense of time and paper, than the thing is worth, to answer them in all their pitiful ridiculous reasonings in these matters, in every particular. Therefore not to weary the Reader, nor misspend time, we shall set down some few clear distinct propositions, which shall clearly answer any seeming difficulties alleged by them in this whole Section, as in relation to Christ.  
1. Proposition. The Word, or Son of God, hath the whole entire nature of Man, Spirit, Soul and Body united to him in the Heavens, and he is the same in substance, what he was upon earth, both in Spirit, soul, and body.  
2. Christ in us, or the seed, is not a third spiritual nature, distinct from that which was in the man Christ Jesus, that was crucified according to the flesh at Jerusalem, for the same that is in us, was and is in him, and as it is in him, it's the fullness or spring of the same in us, as the stream, nor is there any difference, but such as is betwixt the spring and the stream, which are one in their nature and substance.  
3. We say that the same seed, and life, is in us, which was in him, and is in him, in the fullness, as water is in the spring, and in us as the stream, and this seed and spiritual nature which is both in him, and us doth belong to him, as he is the second Adam, or man Christ, therefore this seed being in us, the Man Christ is in us; not according to his whole manhood, but according unto that which is proper unto it, and yet without all division, as the natural life is in all the members, but more principally in the head, and heart, without any division, so this spiritual life and nature is both in Christ our head, and in us, by which he dwelleth in us, as the spirit of man doth in the body; and we eat and partake of his flesh.  
4. But if they argue that at least Christ hath three natures in himself, we say, Their own principle will conclude that as much as ours, for the Godhead is one nature, the nature of the soul, is a second, and the nature of the body is the third, and our adversaries themselves teach that as God is three persons in one nature, so Christ is three natures in one person.  
5. Although the word or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should assume into union with itself not only two natures, but three, it should not make either two, or three Chists, but one, for they grant that the Word hath assumed two, to wit, the soul and body of the man Christ, and yet he is not two Christ's, but one, even as the king is but one king, although he possess three kingdoms, for ad multiplicationem obliquorum non multiplicantur concreta, as your Logic teacheth.  
6. The seed and spiritual body of Christ both in him, and in us belonging to Christ, as he is the second Adam, is as really and immediately united unto the word, as his outward body was, for the whole manhood of Christ was united to the Logos, and the Logos to it, and in it, therefore the sufferings of this seed and spiritual body of Christ in us, are as really his sufferings, as these He accomplished at Jerusalem.  
7. This seed is not our souls, but is a medium betwixt God and us, and our union with God is but mediate through this, whereas the union of God with this is immediate, therefore none of us are either Christ, or God, but God and Christ are in us.  
8. Seeing this seed and spirival nature of Christ is one, and the same, both in him, and in us, it is most unreasonable to argue, that there are as many Christ's as men, as it is unreasonable to argue, that because the soul of man is in all his members, that therefore, as many members as many souls. The element of the air is but one only element, although it fill the whole universe, betwixt the stars and the earth. And the element of water, is but one, although it fill many channels.  
9 Christ outwardly died but once, but inwardly he dieth in a spiritual and mystical sense, as often as any crucify him to themselves by their unfaithfulness, and disobedience, as the Scriptures declare.  
10. As for the satisfaction of Christ without us, we own it against the Socinians, and that it was full and complete in its kind, yet not so, as to exclude the real worth of the work and sufferings of Christ in us, nor his present intercession: for if Christ his intercession without us in heaven, doth not derogate from his satisfaction, but doth fulfil it, no more doth: his intercession and sufferings in us.  
11. The sufferings of Christ in men are voluntary, and yet without sin, as his sufferings at Jerusalem were voluntary and without sin, for as he joined not with them, who outwardly crucified him, in any Active way to coucurre with them or countenance them, so nor doth he inwardly join with men to countenance or concur with them, when they crucify him, by their sins.  
12. As there was no need that the Jews should have crucified Christ outwardly, so as purposely to sin, that Christ might suffer for sin outwardly, (although the prophecies of Christ's sufferings and Gods foreknowledge was certain) so there is no need that men should now sin to crucify Christ inwardly, for if there be any difficulty in the one, it recurres in the other much more. Now, either men sin, or sin not, If they sin, Christ suffers by it; If they sin not, he doth not suffer, (nor is it needful that he suffer when men sin not) but all men have sinned, and Christ hath suffered for, and by the sins of all, both without and within.  
13. Christ's outward sufferings at Jerusalem were necessary unto men's salvation, notwithstanding his inward sufferings, that he might be a complete Saviour in all respects; for it behoved Christ not only to suffer in the members of his body, but also in the head, so that it is a most foolish and unreasonable consequence to argue, that because Christ suffereth in the members, therefore he needed not to suffer in the head: whereas the sufferings of Christ in the members are but a small part of what he suffered in the head, by being offered up once for all, yet a part they are, as serving to make up the integral of his sufferings.  
14. The doctrines of the incarnation, sufferings, death, and resurrection of Christ &c: are necessary every where to be preached, and being preached, to be believed and improved, as being of and belonging unto the integral parts of Christianity and Christian religion; even as the arms and legs are integral parts of a man, without which, though it is possible that a man may be and live, yet he is not a complete man as to all his parts, even so, though one may be a Christian, and partaker in part of Christianity, and in that state be accepted of God, as is clear in the case of Cornelius, without the express knowledge of the outward birth, sufferings: &c: of Christ, yet without the same he is not a complete Christian, as wanting the knowledge of that which serveth to the perfection & accomplishment thereof.  
Before we close this particular, we can not omit to take notice of two most horrible perversions, committed by the Students sect. 2. The one is pag. 83. where they allege out of G. K. his book of Immed. Revel. pag. 7. that G. K. holds that when Christ suffers by man's sin, that he joins with man, which is a most abominable lie and perversion. The second perversion of the Students. which is no less abominable, is in pag. 79. of their book, where to cover their other perversion, they cite most falsely and perfidiously a place in G. K. book, where they bring him in, saying, [though it may be hurt and slain, by joining with the contrary seed, before it come to its perfect formation] and thus they would prove that according to G. K. Christ joins with man, when man sinneth. Now we beseech the Reader to look to pag. 7. in G. K. his book of In: Revela, and he will find that the words of G. K. are thus, [Though till it come to its perfect formation it can suffer hurt so far as to be slain through man his joining unto the contrary seed and birth] Mark Reader G. K. saith through man his joining, but the Stuents, purposely to deceive the Reader, have left out the word man, that the Reader may understand it of Christ his joining; a thing never entered into G. K. his heart to think, far less to write. This abominable perversion of the Students is enough to make all sober men abhor them, as wilful and impudent liars, for such a manifest and visible thing could not be done in ignorance. But are not these Students rare disputants, who thus argue against the Q. pag. 83. l. 5, 6. Either he (to wit Christ) suffereth within willingly, and so he sins, it being by the sins of man that he suffers and is crucified within. For by this argument it will follow not only that all the Martyrs when they suffered willingly, did sin, but also that Christ himself when he suffered willingly by the sins and wicked hands of the Jews that crucified him outwardly, did sin, which is the highest blasphemy, and naturally follows by the Students argument. But it seems these Students have no mind to suffer willingly for righteousness sake, seeing they are men of such principles, that think, when any doth suffer willingly, he sins. We leave the Reader to judge whether such stuff and work of the Students be Quakerism canvassed, and a confutation of the Q. errors, or rather whether it be not a manifest betraying of the Truth, and declaring themselves guilty of highest blasphemy, lying and confusion; and whether these men who are guilty of such confusion themselves, are fit to accuse others as not writing perspicuously and clearly, as they do G. K. for his book of Imm: Revela. pag. last of their preface. But G. K. doubteth not but that his book will be acknowledged to be clear and perspicuous, where it meets with men of a clear understanding, such as the Students (to be sure) are not.  
As for those stories about J. N. they have been long ago answered by our friends, who judged both him, and them that joined with him in that particular, as he also judged and condemned himself, and was by the mercy of God reduced to a sober mind. As for that passage in Christopher atkinson's book, we can say nothing to it, unless we saw the book which is in G. M. his custody (which shows that the Students have ploughed with his heifer) who refused to let us have the use of it, to see whether the place was perverted, and we did not know where to have it any where else, but it is in cumbent on them to prove whether C. A. or his book was owned really by the Q. for we can prove he was denied by them, and if he denied that Christ is man, we deny him and his book both; for we truly believe that Christ is both God and man.  
In the prosecution of their second argument, Sect. 2. They take great pains to prove that heathens have the Law and book of Nature, and from exerciseing their reason and understanding naturally they may know many things, which we do not deny, and so they might have spared that labour. But whereas they allege that there is nothing needful to be known and believed by the heathens, but what the book of nature and their natural understanding, and reason as men, can teach them, according to the Q. principle, and consequently the heathens need not these supernatural revelations. This they affirm without any proof. We shall give manifest Instances to the contrary, For the Q. say, All men need both to have and to know a supernatural influence and work of the Spirit of God in order to their salvation. And this also our adversaries grant. Now the Heathens need a divine revelation to make this known to them. For the book of Nature or the mere natures of things being considered can not teach men what is supernatural, and so it can not teach men that in all their actings they are to have a supernatural end, nor can it teach them, that they are to love, fear, serve and worship God, from a supernatural principle of God's 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 contrary unto those duties. Also Nature can not teach men the mystery of regeneration, (which yet is needful to be known) for men who are but too much addicted to natural reason, and search into the book of nature (but despise the divine and supernatural illumination of Christ in them) think regeneration a fiction, or unnecessary thing. Other instances could be given, but lest they should call them the Q. errors, we shall forbear, contenting ourselves 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 supernatural light) which yet we deny, it doth not follow, that therefore divine, supernatural objective revelation, is not necessary, because the discovery that the book of nature and natural reason gives to men of divine things, as of the power, wisdom, justice, goodness, love and mercy of God, is but dim, weak, faint and barren, and is no more a proportionat object to the spiritual sensations of the soul, than a report of meat and drink and clothing are a suitable or proportionat object to the taste; and feeling of the outward man; the souls of men need not only to be convinced that there is a God, who is good, loving, merciful, powerful and just, but they need also in order to their salvation to have a feeling of his divine power, to see and taste 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 less 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, etc. G K. hath proved at large in his book of Immed. Revela. and we need not produce any new arguments here, until the Students, or their masters refute those already set down in that book, only this we say in short, Nature and Scripture tell us that there is a God, but they can neither give us a sense, sight, or tasting of him, or of his love, or of his Spiritual judgements, 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 do this, what comfort could that be to the soul, unless God himself do it, and make the soul sensibile of his hand reaching unto it, the Spiritual things themselves that nature can not afford. Also nature cannot discover the Spiritual judgements of God in the soul, whereby 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 essential and integral of Christian religion, yet the Scripture doth propose divine things and objects, but as a Card or Map doth a land and the fruits of it, to the outward eye. Now as this is not a sufficient objective proposal, because we need to see the Land itself, and to taste, and eat and drink of the fruit of it, so our souls need a more near and immediate discovery of God, than 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 pains to prove, that the Scriptures are given from God, which we deny not, although some of their proofs 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, (whereof only we speak) but a mere humane and natural faith or conviction.  
As to that place of Scripture 2 Cor. 4: 3, 4 if our gospel &c: that is, say they, the outward gospel, but doth Paul say so? Nay; Look the Greek text, and you will find the contrary, that the Gospel he spoke of, was hid 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 Gospel, which is the power of God. And whereas they query If a person may have immediate objective revelations, who hath not his mind well 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, because 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, whereas they query, May a person be well 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 man's eye, or taste, were never so well disposed, he needeth the objects themselves; and as painted bread, or a discourse of bread can not satisfy the natural taste and appetite, no more can the Scripture words satisfy the taste 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 principal, complete; 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 proof. They confess 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 well: Enough to overthrow their whole argument for among other causes, divine inspiration is a main, for indeed the inward efficiency of the Spirit, is that objective revelation which we plead for, only they deny it to be objective, whereas 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 warm us but deny that either that light or heat of the fire is objective, to our discerning, or perceptible by themselves, which were ridiculous, and as ridiculous is their conceit of an influence of the Spirit that is merely effective, and not objective. That the books of the old and new testament are called the Scripture, by way of eminency, we deny not, (although the name is given at times to other writings) nor doth this refute G. K. his translation of that Scripture 2 Tim. 3: 16. which is confirmed by the Syriack, which hath it thus, In Scripturâ enim quae per Spiritum scripta est, utilitas est ad doctrinam etc. i. e. For in the Scripture which is written by the Spirit, there is profit. But their reason from the Conjunction [and] is both foolish and blasphemous, for if the words be rendered thus, All Scripture given by inspiration is and profitable, is no more nonsense then divers other places in the Scripture, where the Conjunction and seemeth to be redundant, as in that place Joh. 8: 25. where the Greek hath it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. The beginning (or from the beginning) the same which and I speak unto you. Now if the Conjunction [and] render not this place nonsense, no more doth it render that in Timothy; but the Students ignorance renders them rather blasphemers, and their arguments blasphemous against the words of Christ. Moreover the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may signify a strong affirmation, (as to say, even, truly, indeed,) as both our English translation hath it, Joh. 8: 25. and Schrevelius in his Greek-Lexicon doth render it: and thus the words have good sense, All-Scripture (or writing) given by inspiration, is even (or indeed) profitable. And whereas, they say, none but a Q. or Jesuit would so interpret the place, they declare their malice and ignorance, for William tindal that famous Protestant martyr in his translation of the Bible, for which the Papists burned him, did tranilate it, as G. K. doth whom we think the Students dare not accuse as a Jesuit, that he was a Q in so far as he held divers of our principles, condemned by the Students, we shall not deny. As for us we bless the Lord our faith stands not on such a small nicety, as the want of an [is] or the redundahcy of an [and] let them look to that, whose faith knoweth no other foundation, but the letter. It doth nothing hurt our faith nor lessen the due esteem of the Scripture to us, if peradventure an [is] hath been lost, or an [and] hath crept into the text since the original copies were lost. This we know and can prove that the Scripture can not profit any man to salvation without the illumination or inspiration of the Spirit, which is both effective and objective, and which our adversaries grant at least to be effective. And if they make one exception why may not we make another; or if they say, the Spirit is necessary one way, why may not we say, it is necessare another way? But then the Scriptures, say they, would not be profitable at all in any manner or kind, we deny the consequence, for it is profitable, yea and necessary in genere objecti materialis, i. e. as the material object in relation to all historical truths, and divers other dogmatical and doctrinal points, which perhaps we would not have known without the Scripture, although we had had the Spirit in as large a measure as men now have it. Again, the Scripture is profitable in genere objecti remoti & secundarii. i e. by way of a remote and secondary object and rule, even as in relation to testimonies of life and experience, which may be known without the Scripture, yet the Scripture is a secondary confirmation and help even in that case as a card or map of a land is unto a traveller, that travels through the land itself, and seeth the high ways, who will not throw away his card, because he sees the land itself, but will both delight and profit himself to compare them both together. Other great and weighty uses we could give, but these suffice to serve as instances against their weak and sorry argumentation.  
Their last argument is from Joh. 12: 48. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day; But how prove they that this is the letter of the Scripture, much of which was not then writ? And although this Word were not Christ himself, yet it may be an inward testimony spoken by Christ in men's hearts. Here they merely beg and prove not. But 2. suppose it were the Scripture or written Law, as that cited by them Rom. 2: 12. it will only follow, that the Scripture is a secondary Law or rule, which we willingly grant, and that by it men who have the Scriptures shall be judged, but not by them only, for if the Gentiles who have not the written Law, shall be judged by the Law in the conscience, so shall these also who have both inward and outward be judged by both, and consequently their damnation shall be greater.   

SECTION FIFTH.  
Of worship being an Answer unto their third Section concerning inspirations to duty.  
IN their stating the controversy in this particular, they grossly prevaricate in divers things, as where they say, N. 2. the question is not only about duty on the matter, videlicet the act of prayers etc. as separated from the right manner, viz. sincerity and truth, whereas indeed the question betwixt them and us, is about prayer, as separated from the right manner, viz. sincerity and truth. For they say, God requires men to pray, without any inspiration, or gracious influence of the spirit, so that such a prayer is an answering of the obligation to the duty upon the matter, although it be separated from the right manner, and accordingly they do both require and allow men to pray, when they have no gracious influence, or motion thereunto, telling them, that even such prayers are required, and that they do better to give such prayers, as want sincerity unto God, than not to pray at all, seeing such lifeless and spiritless prayers have the matter of true prayer, although they want the right manner. Whereas we on the contrary affirm that lifeless prayers have neither the right matter and substance, nor yet the right manner of prayer, and therefore are not at all required in Scripture. Yet we deny not but many times, when men want an influence of life to pray, they are still under the obligation, and at such ' times it is their sin not to pray, because they ought to have suitable influences to prayer, which would not be wanting if they were faithful unto God, but when through unfaithfulness they want them, it doth not excuse them from being under the obligation, yet still when they want the help of the Spirit, they ought to pray by the Spirit, because they ought to have it. Even as when one man oweth unto another man a just debt, in money, the debtor ought to pay the money, although he have no money to pay it with, for his want of the money doth not excuse him from the obligation to pay it; yet he ought to pay the debt only with money, or the equivalent of it, but if he should offer to pay it, with any thing, that is not money, nor moneys worth; as suppose with a few counters, this is no answering the obligation, either in the right matter, or manner, and so it is in the case in hand. Again, N. 8. They fall into the like prevarication, in alleging the question is not about a new heart, and spiritual principle of obedience, for they own 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 denied 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 wickedness, 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 well know that the Qu: say the same, the question than is not about acceptable performance seeing 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 perform duty, that is not acceptable, which they affirm and we deny: for indeed unacceptable performance is as good as no performance, but rather worse, as if under the Law, the Jews had offered up a dog's neck in place of a sacrifice, it had been a greater sin, than 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, than not to pay at all. Another gross error they commit, in alleging the question is about praeparatory motions, praevious in time, this is a lie, we challenge them to show us any such thing in our books, we do 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 always 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 well 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 soon 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 itself can, and it sufficiently answereth the motion, that the mind answer it first, and then the bodily organs as soon as their nature can permit. There is yet another great error they commit in alleging, such a lively and spiritual disposition as being necessary in our sense, whereas we do 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 go beyond it.  
In the prosecution of their arguments, they are no less unhappy in the stating of the question; as will shortly appear. Pag. 95. 67. they bring in R B. and A. Sk. denying their sequel, which they labour to prove, (but how unsuccessfully, we shall see anon) because as angels and bruts agree in that they are both substances, so spiritual 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 natural and civil, and those which as to their very matter are spiritual, as for example to eat, to plough, to pay a debt, are not spiritual 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 do answer the obligation in part, but prayer, and thanksgiving &c: are duties wholly spiritual, both as to matter, or substance, and as to manner and end, so that whoso essayeth to do 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 mere 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 ploughing of the wicked is sin, Prov. 21: 4. they do not prove, that it is meant of outward ploughing, the margin of our English hath it, the light of the wicked, and Arius Montanus rendereth it on the margin, cogitatio, the thought, that the ploughing 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 mechanic and bodily act is good in its nature, and profitable, as also in so far as it may be for the maintenance of his family, it is good, so that in respect of the matter, and subordinate end, there is no difference betwixt the ploughing 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 man's prayer by the Spirit is true and real prayer, but the wicked man's 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 express doctrine of Christ, who worships the Father in Spirit and in truth, whereas a wicked man's ploughing is as real, 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 the glory of God, he sins when he ploughs, as when he prays, but yet not so much in the one, as in the other, for in the one both matter and manner are wrong, in the other not the matter, but manner, but if a man be faithful to God, he may as certainly expect the divine assistance of the Spirit to help him to plow, as to pray, although that assistance to pray is greater, & of another manner then that to plow, as is obvious to any that hath spiritual experience. And whereas A. Sk. inferreth upon them, their going about the spiritual duties in a carnal manner, etc. this they call an impudent calumny but in this, the impudent calumny is their own, not his, for dare they deny but they are for going about prayer, & praise (which are spiritual duties) without the motion of the Spirit, which is as much as to say, in a carnal manner? for what is not done by the Spirit, is done but in a carnal manner, and whereas they call, his second answer, a clear confession etc. yet they tell us nothing of it pag. 96. They are no less disingenuous, in alleging, that G. K. dissenteth from R. B. and A. Sk (whom in their aiëry and frothy minds they call his pretended infallible brethren) for as G. K. requireth inspirations to the acceptable performance of other actions, so doth A. Sk. and R. B. yet we all say, wicked men may very lawfully go about natural and civil performances, as to plow, to eat, to pay debts, as they are materially considered, without inspiration, and in so doing (although they fall short of acceptable performance, for defect of the right manner, and the last end) they sin less, then to omit those actions, and indeed sin not at all, as to the nature and substance of them, as they do, who pray without inspiration.  
As for G. K. his distinction of Mandatory and permissory inspirations, it holds good, notwithstanding all their idle, foolish and impertinent cavilling at it; From the words of Paul that he essayed to go to Bythinia, but the Spirit permitted him not; G. K. inferred by the rule of contraries, that the Spirit sometimes permitted him, To evade this, they are sorely pinched, in their Account of the dispute pag. 30. they grant his consequence, that Paul at sometimes had a permission, but they deny it to be an inspiration. But here in this new assault, they deny that any permission felloweth by the rule of Contraries, from Paul's words, alleging that he permitted him, and he permitted him not are not contraries. But G. K. did not allege these to be contraries, for they are flat contradictory, but these we say are contraries, the Spirit permitted not Paul to go to Bythinia, therefore he permitted him to go sometimes, to some places. This is a plain inference, from the rule of contraries, by Contraries, we mean not contraries in the strict logical sense, as when the contrariety is betwixt two universals, but opposites, which in the common way of speech are called contraries, and in the Logical sense may be called, subcontraries, which do infer one another not to be true always simul & sem●l, at one time, and place, but at divers times and places, etc. As for example, if there be a South, there must be a North, if a time to come, there is a time to be past, if some things be hit, and not cold, other things must be cold and not hit, and to use a more near example to the matter in hand, if when a River is not permitted to run, by reason of an excessive freezing that bindeth it up, at one time, it followeth that it is permitted to run at another time, when there cometh a thaw, or yet to come nearer, If the wind do not permit a ship to sail southward, at one time, it doth permit her at another time, to sail southward. We would not have insisted on such rudiments, had not the great ignorance of the Students occasioned it,  
Pag. 97. They close their 9 §. most pitifully, after having failed to refute G. Ks. distinction of permissory and mandatory inspirations, they say, they leave it to be proved by G. K. that the simple permitting of him (meaning permission not joined with a command) hath been by inspiration. Here they shamefully desert their undetaking, which was to refute permissive inspirations, but when they fail to do this, they put G. K. to prove them, whereas they ought to remember, that G. K. is not bound by the law of Dispute, to prove any thing, being a mere defendant, yea when he offered ex abundanti to prove something in the Dispute, they blamed him for so doing, being but a defendant, and now they would have him leave Defendant, and become Opponent. This is a pitiful confutation of the Qu: principles, that when they fall short in their proofs against us, put us to prove our own principles, but seeing they are so beggarly, as to beg from G. K. a proof of this, he shall give it vuto them, and it is this. Admit then, that according to the Students supposition, Paul was permitted to go unto a certain place, without any command of God, and that Paul did this acceptably, or without sin, as to the thing itself, which they must needs acknowledge he might; it follows then by their own argument that he walked this journey in the Spirit, seeing they themselves plead that men ought to walk in the Spirit, meaning outward walking, and seeing they grant, that whatever act a man doth acceptably, he must do it to the glory of God, and that a man can do nothing to the glory of God, but as he doth it from a good principle, (yea the glory of God being a supernatural end, must have a supernatural principle) which is the Spirit of God, it manifestly followeth, that Paul his journeying by a permission was by inspiration, for whatever is done in the Spirit, is done by inspiration, inspiration both in the common sense, and here particularly signifying any gracious motion, influence and assistance of the Spirit. In their answer to that other Scripture 1 Cor. 7: 6. compared with ver. 40. they fall into their old way of asserting barely without any proof, they tell us, that the permission falls upon the thing spoken, and not upon the speaking itself. But how prove they it? Here they are quite dumb, and say nothing for proof, and indeed it is as manifest as a thing can be, that the permission doth no less fall upon the speaking, then upon the thing spoken, and they do most presumptuously contradict the Apostle, when they say, Paul was commanded to speak this, whereas Paul said expressly, he spoke by permission, and not of commandment.  
In the prosecution of their second argument, they bring in G. K. distinguishing betwixt privative and positive permission, where they give the lie to their own Account, which saith pag. 30. that G. K. distinguished permission into Positive and Negative, as indeed he did. Now Privative and Negative differ widely, for the want of sight in a stone, is not privative (as in a man) but negative, and surely there is so little wit, or acumen in this argument of the Students, and their prosecution of it, that it proves them to be liker stones than men of reason and solidity,. And here they tell us, that G. K. (whom in their vain minds they call this great inspired Rabbi) was very unfortunat, in explaining this distinction, and assigning its ground, as may be seen in their Account: but alas! for them poor men, they have egregiously baffled themselves in that very matter in their Account, as is showed in our answer thereunto. But behold what dull and heavy disputers these men are. If Positive permission were inspiration, say they, than a man might inspire us, for he might positively permit us. This consequence is as dull and heavy as a stone, although the weight of it falls not upon us, but upon themselves to prove them altogether impertinent; for their argument proceeds upon a wrong supposition, that according to G. K. all positive permissions are inspirations, a thing G. K. never dreamt of, but only that some positive permissions, to wit, those of God, are inspirations, as he by his Spirit doth permit men, or allow them to do or use some things, as when God said to Adan in the garden, of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat, save one; This was a positive permission; and also (if God spoke this to him inwardly, as is most probable, and as Augustin supposeth) an inspiration; also when the Lord said unto Ezekiel cap. 4: 15. Lo, I have given thee cows dung for man's dung, this was a condescendece and positive permission, and also an inspiration. But the Students proceed still more and more to baffle themselves (in stead of baffling the Qu.) and show their ignorance and sottishness. For thus they argue, pag. 99 in prosecuting their third argument: every inspiration (say they) puts us out necessarily to the doing of the thing inspired, and so commands us virtually. And upon this bare alledgance the whole superstructure of this argument stands, which yet is a manifest untruth, and suffereth many undeniable exceptions: for many times things inspired are not at all of the nature of things to be done, but are simply things to be believed, as when God inspired the Prophets with the knowledgs of things to come, which neither could nor ought to be done by them, and as when Daniel was inspired to know things, which he was so far from being commanded to write, that he was forbidden Dan. 12: 4. Again some inspirations are mere inward consolations, and spiritual refreshments and renewings of strength only to enable us in general to serve God, as meat and drink is unto the body, and that sometimes without words, and sometimes with words by way of promise, as when he spoke to Noah Gen. cap. 9 from ver. 8. to ver. 18. where there is not any command given to Noah, but only promises, and yet Noah was inspired by the Lord, as all the true Prophets were. And whereas they allege that inspiration includs in its notion an insuperable putting and prompting out to the thing inspired, in all authors both sacred & profane, is merely precarious, for sometimes indeed it signifieth to command, as where the inspiration is mandatory, but at other times it signifieth to comfort, refresh, quicken, influence and assist us, without any particular command to any particular action, yet we acknowledge the nature of all divine inspirations in the children of God is to incline, lead, move, draw and guide them up more and more into unity with God, and so unto a further degree of holiness, but not to determine them, unto all particular actions, and thus also their fourth Instance is disproved, where they allege that all inspirations of God determine us to one extreme, which is false, if they mean an extreme in the particular act; if they mean an extreme in the general, as to do all in charity, and to the glory of God, we grant it, but this doth not militate against what we affirm. Their other two instances are but the former upon the matter, repeated in a tautological way for want of new matter, and are sufficiently answered above. And thus their silly and faint reasonings in this argument are answered without any necessity of G. K. his returning to his bag for new distinctions, as they scornfully but foolishly insinuat.  
Pag. 99 § 15. The Students tell us that G. K. finding himself beset with these inextricable difficulties, as it seems, misplaces this distinction in their Account, and gives in another distinction of Particular and General inspirations, this is but their mere alleadgance, the distinction was right enough placed, as any may see by the nature and coherence of the account, nor did G. K. see any difficulty in their argument at all, as indeed there is none in it. But let us see how they refute this distinction of General and Particular inspirations or influences. First they say, he shall never be able to produce a ground for this distinction, out of Scripture. A learned refutation indeed! and like unto their old way, of putting us to prove what they can not disprove. May it not as well suffice us to say, They shall never be able to produce a ground out of Scripture against it, and the ra●her since we are defendants. Secondly, That which is called a general inspiration could not put us out to any particular thing, say they. Answer, If by putting us out they mean, determine us insuperably or irresistibly thereunto, we grant, but this is no absurdity. Thirdly, They would always leave us undetermined. Answer, nor is this absurd, for in things that are permissive and left to our freedom in the Lord to do them, or not to do them, we need not any thing to determine us, as to the particular act, but may determine ourselves, being free agents, although as to the nature and kind of the act in general, that it be in true love to God, and to his glory we are determined by the Lord.  
Pag. 100 They are no less unsuccessful in managing their other argument, in comparing inward duties with outward, for, whereas they allege for a proof of their minor, that if we were not to go about inward duties without a previous sensible inspiration, there would be a progressus in infinitum. This hath been sufficiently answered above in the dispute, that as to that inward duty of waiting, we can not suppose, that ever at any time an influence or inspiration can be wanting, and this we say still, we mean to true Christians, who are faithful unto God, and do faithfully improve his influences. As for others, if they want influences either to inward or outward duties, the cause is their unfaithfulness, and so the way to have them upon all occasions is to be faithful to answer Gods call, who doth oft invite and call upon them, who are unfaithful. But if they mean all inward duties, as meditation in many cases, upon particular subjects, we deny that even true Christians have always partiticular inspirations thereunto, nor is there any necessity to assert them.  
Now let us take notice how they refute the distinction of general and particular inspirations. First, say they, There are no general inspirations as we have showed already, but that they have showed no such thing is already made apparent. Secondly, supposing them, yet they being but general, would not be a sufficient ground for the particular inward duties of waiting, desiring: but how prove they this? No wise, but merely affirm it, only they confound waiting, desiring and meditating together, whereas meditating is of a larger extent, and sometimes yea oft times requireth a special 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 continual duty, and therefore we can never want an influence thereunto, if we be faithful, but to preach and pray in the church or assembly, with audible words, is not a continual duty, nor yet a general to all Christians, and therefore it hath not always an influence to assist thereunto. And here let the Reader note, that by a general influence, or inspiration, we mean only such an influence, as serveth in general for all ordinary actions that are to be generally performed in an acceptable manner, as the same spiritual influence that sufficeth me to eat in faith, fear, and love, sufficeth me also to plow, or do any other mechanical work, but the same doth not suffice me to preach, or expound Scripture, otherwise any ordinary Christian might do so at any time, which our adversaries will not acknowledge. Now that preaching and praying in particular, require a superadded spiritual 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, than the influence and inspiration to preach, and pray vocally, is a distinct superadded influence &c: But the first is true, therefore the second. The consequence of the first proposition is clear from that maxim quorum unum potest esse absque alio etc. when of two things the one can be without the other, the two are really distinguished. The second proposition is proved, 1. because all true Christians have an influence and inspiration to wait, fear 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 Gospel's 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; therefore these two are distinct. The antecedent is clear in the case of Ezekiel (chap. 3: 15, 16.) who sat seven days with the elders, having nothing to speak unto them from the Lord, until at the end of the seven days 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 show forth his praise. Isaiah said, that God had given him the tongue of the learned etc. Christ promised that he would give his Apostles a mouth and wisdom which all their adversaries should not be able to resist: all this signifieth an influence of the Spirit to speak, which was not general to all, nor permanent or perpetual 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, until the fire kindled in him, and then he spoke 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 general 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 days. To this we answer 1. This is a plain acknowledgement that general 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 days, is clear from Rev. 11: 3. And I will give unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy, and it is said that if any man hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, which must needs signify a special influence of the Spirit given them to prophesy or preach, which is not common to all Christians. Also what are these gifts given unto ministers for the perfecting of the saints, but such special influences to enable them to preach, which are not given to all; yea do not the national preachers desire in their public prayers some special 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 general influences given to all, and at all times, so there are particular and special given only to some, and but at some times. Moreover, that there is a greater influence of life required to vocal prayer, when it is acceptable, then unto some mere mental prayer (a thing expressly denied by the Students pag. 100 § 16.) is clear, because all true and acceptable vocal prayer, hath mental prayer going along with it, as its cause and spring, and so when any man prays 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 do two things together, then to do but one of them. And seeing the vocal prayer hath not any life, or virtue in it, to reach unto God's 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 mental prayer, it is clear, that a greater measure is required to both, then simply to the one. Now although mental prayer (as to the disposition and frame of the soul at least) be always in and with good Christians, and hath always some measure of life in it, yet that measure is sometimes so weak and low, that it can not go forth into the words, without hurt or prejudice, and at other times although it be able and strong, yet it will not answer the motion of man's will, so as to be drawn forth thereby, but it only abideth or goeth forth into the vocal prayer, according to the will of God, as he pleaseth to move it, therefore the free motion of the life itself, as it pleaseth God to bring it forth, is to be attended in all outward spiritual performances: But here let the Reader note, that we have said Uocall prayer requires more life than some mental prayer, we do not say, then all; for some mental prayer may be stronger than that which is a complex of mental and vocal, as gathering the whole strength of the complex into that which is solely and entirely mental, according unto that common saying, abundantly confirmed by experience, vis unita fortior, united strength is the stronger, as when the beams of the sun are united into a small point, they have more force, then when they are diffused, and for this cause it is, that we are so much for mental prayer, as knowing the great good of it in our experience. And from what is above said, it is clear that we need another influence wherewith to pray vocally, then to eat, plough, walk &c. because these natural actions may be done sufficienty in a spiritual manner, by the help of that general influence, which doth always attend good men, to fear and love God, for the principle of divine life, which is the living and powerful word of God in men's hearts, is never idle, but is always operative, and at work, especially more abundantly in them who join with it, being as a most rich and living spring, that is continually flowing, and sending forth its streams, according to Joh. 4: 14. but to pray vocally requireth an influence of life to flow forth into the words, that it may in a living and powerful way reach the hearers, but that ploughing, eating, walking, etc. need no such emanating influence, is certain, and will be acknowledged by our adversaries. But perhaps also they will deny, that any life or virtue doth flow forth into mental praying and preaching, even when these duties are acceptably performed. But this is contrary both to the certain experience of many thousands, and also to the Scriptures testimony in many places.  
I. It is contrary to the experience of many thousands, who can declare, (whereof we are some) that the declarations, testimonies, and words of the servants of God, in preaching and praying have a real life and living virtue in them, whereby their souls are exceedingly refreshed, quickened, and strengthened, which life and living virtue is a thing as distinct from the bare outward words, which the natural ear can hear, as wine is distinct from the vessel that carrieth it, therefore if another man, that hath not this Spiritual ability, should pronounce the same words, they have not any life or virtue at all: and that God had given this Spiritual discerning to many before the people called Q. were raised up, is manifest, from divers in our own nation, who cared not to hear men, who could speak never so good words, if they wanted life, and in that day, they could and did distinguish betwixt dead and living preachers, as also betwixt a living testimony and preaching, and a dry discourse, see for this the book called, The fulfilling of the Scriptures. And this was the express testimony of that Philosopher, who was converted by the means of a few words spoke by a certain old man, who was a Christian, at the Council of Nice, out of the mouth that old man, (said he) there went forth a virtue, which I could not resist, these were his very words, as Lucas Osiander relats them in his Epitome of the Church history. Cent. 4. lin. 2. cap. 5.  
II. It is contrary to the Scriptures testimony in many places, The mouth of the righteous is a well of life Prov. 10: 11. this must be understood in respect of the influence of life, that cometh out of his mouth, as water doth out of a well, and not barely in respect of the good words, which a wicked man may speak: according to this Christ said to his disciples, The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life, and as it was then, so it is now, for at this day he speaketh in his servants, and will to the end of the world, and it is he only, who hath the words of eternal life, which he speaketh in his servants, and as in the days of his flesh, he was said to speak with authority, or power and not as the scribes, and the people wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth, all which import a living influence and virtue in the words of Christ, which the words of the Scribes and Pharisees had not, so it is at this day, for Christ doth as really speak by his Spirit, in his servants, as he did in his body of flesh, so that Paul said, he spoke in him, and therefore his preaching was in demonstrtion of the Spirit and power. And for this cause true Preachers and Prophets are called good trees, of which men gather good fruit, whereas bad men or evil trees, having no good fruit, although they have the Prophets and Apostles words, also they are compared, to wit, the false Prophets, to clouds without rain and wells without water, although they have good words, yet they have no rain nor water, their whole ministry is dry, and empty of life and virtue, but the true Prophet's ministry is as a shower of rain, Deut. 32: 2. and sometimes it is compared unto fire, as it is said in the Psalm, he maketh his angels, or messengers, spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire, and fire was said to go out of the mouths of the two witnesses. Also the influences of life that go forth through the true prophets in their ministry are compared to golden oil, & the men are compared unto golden pipes, Zech. 4: 12. And therefore the Apostle Peter exhorted the ministers in his day to minister of the ability which God giveth, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God, so they ministered not only words, but grace; many other testimonies might be cited to prove this truth.  
Another instance brought by the Students, is, that an haeretick forbearing prayer a year or two, or his whole life time, may justify himself by this doctrine. To this it was answered, that though he may pretend, yet he hath no just ground from our principle, for we believe that all men are bound to pray often unto God, yea daily, and that God doth inwardly call and move all men often unto prayer, during the day of their visitation, and when that is expired, or when at any other time they want that inward call, or influence, through unfaithfulness, they are still bound, and if they pray not, they sin, because they ought to have an influence. But that our Account saith, All have not utterance to pray in words, is no excuse for heretics, for they must needs acknowledge, as well as we, that all have not utterance, who may be good Christians, seeing some that are naturally dumb may be good Christians, and yet the● must confess these have not utterance; also many good Christians, who have no natural impediment, do want utterance in a spiritual 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 faithful, who have no natural defect, that they may pray vocally, or in the hearing of others: but how oft, it is more than we can determine, seeing it is not revealed, but if any fail of this utterance, through unfaithfulnesie, their sin is nothing the less, if they omit prayer. And thus their last two instances are also answered, for we do affirm with great freedom, that all who are faithful 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 always required, more than it is always required to speak; but if they be unfaithful, 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 aught 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 affirm, but only propose by way of question, have not Q. declared to people etc. 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 join 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 own way, who will not readily pray in our hearing when they have none to join 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 freedom, to pray in their hearing, (unless we have some of our faith, present to join 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, show us, where in the Scripture, it is commanded, for any man, to pray, in the hearing of others where all present have no agreement with him, yet we deny not, but that God upon some solemn occasion may move to such a thing, especially when a public 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 own church members were not only for a twelve month, but for many 12 months, never heard pray, and yet they pass among you for good Christians? It is well 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 natural 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 public 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 the●● who speak, when as both agree together in one spirit, and with one heart and soul join together in the same.   

SECTION six. 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 baptised, or who have the power of administering baptism; whereas indeed these two are a great part of the question betwixt our adversary and us, for as touching infant baptism R. B. his Thesis doth expressly say, it is a mere human tradition; and it: well known 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 pass 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 Gospel's institution, they fall short exceedingly, seeing that is the only baptism, in use among them of the national Church. Again, it is so great a part of the question, who have the power of administering baptism, that by this, the controversy stands or falls, for one of our main arguments against water-baptism 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 lawful administrator, the question then really is, whether these who have no immediate call to administer water baptism, (as John had) have power to administer it. Again, whether these, who have no other mediate call to baptise, but what they have by the church of Rome which is no true church, as the best Protestants affirm, have power to administer baptism, and this question is the more proper in this place, seeing I. M. the Students master confesseth his and his brethren's call and ordination to be by the church of Rome, and that they have no other, but what is conveyed down to them from the Apostles times by that apostate church. But let us now examine their arguments for water baptism in general: The first is, Baptism with water is to continue in the church as long as Christ's presence is to continue with his Apostles, and them who teach the doctrine that they taught: But Christ's presence is to continue with his Apostles, and them who teach the doctrine that they taught, to the end of the world, Therefore etc. Where it is to be observed, that they think all is safe as to the minor, and therefore they altogether pass 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 overturn any baptism that they have; for we put them to explain, who these are, that all along since the Apostles, have taught the doctrine, which the Apostles taught, for the words are liable 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 affirm it. And indeed for the same reason, the best primitive Protestants denied that the church of Rome in their day had any lawfulll ordination at all, seeing 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 mediate outward call, conveyed down 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 earnestness, that the baptism of all heretics was void, and no baptism, but so it is, by our adversaries confession, that the Church and bishops, and teachers of Rome have been Heretics for many hundred years, before the reformation, Therefore etc. 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 mediate call, from the Apostles times conveyed through a visible church unto them, have thought the doctrine, which the Apostles taught; a thing we altogether deny, and it lieth 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 mediate call and ordination, and in this we agree with the best Protestants, for indeed the true church hath been hid, even as a few grains of corn among an exceeding great quantity of chaff, and stubble, and she who hath called herself the church, by reason of her outward succession, was not the true church, though some of the true church lay hidden in her, as corn is hid in a great quantity of chaff, and that the church is properly to be placed in the alone grains of corn, and not in the chaff, Sadeell doth also show out of Augustine, Epi. 48. Another fault we 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 Christ's presence, with his church, for if teaching had continued, though Baptism with water had discontinued (as our adversaries grant that anointing with oil, 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 national teachers) into all the world, and teach the nations, who do not so much as believe the Gospel historically: If they say, this was a command to the Apostles, and not to them, why are they so partial 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 baptised 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 Baptised with water of their own 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 general precepts obliged Paul so to do, though it was a thing indifferent of itself: the same we say, as to their baptising with water, the Jews having so great an esteem of Water-baptism, and thinking it necessary, the Apostles used it, although it was a thing indifferent of itself, after Christ's ascension, and giving of the holy ghost, the Law of charity, and other general precepts obliging 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 itself, to be a necessary duty, to the end of the world. And whereas they query, will G. K. grant, that it was once lively. We answer, yes under John, yet it followeth not that it was to continue, because John had no commission to the nations, but only to the Jews, and that the Apostles Baptised whole families and thousands (if they so did) will not prove, that it was necessary of itself, more than that Circumcision was, and yet even then, many thousands of believing Jews, were Zealous for Circumcision, see Act. 21: 20, 21. yea many Bishops of jerusalem were circumcised after this, as Eusebius relats, the reason therefore was, that people were Zealous of Water-baptism, because of John, and therefore 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 shadows are buried, for it was but a shadow, and carnal ordinance, Heb. 9: 10. the Greek word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Again the true water baptism hath been out of use all the time of the Apostasy, for the apostate church hath had no true baptism, and so in that respect it hath been buried, and being but a shadow, is not to be raised up again, And it is observable, that in the revelation, where it is prophesied; of the return and restoration of the church, there is not any thing mentioned of the restoring either Water-baptism, or the use of bread and wine, as signs, etc. And so their second reason is answered, that Water-baptism is no more to be used, out of condescendency to the weak, than circumcision, because both are long ago 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 believing jews, for of these only we are to be understood, also that the Apostles used the words Father Son, and holy ghost, when they baptised, can not be proved, far less used they, the word Trinity; which was not invented long after the Apostles days: Their second argument that the baptism 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, because he is only the proper, immediate efficient cause of baptism with the holy ghost, but we deny the consequence as weak and false, for there is nothing more usual then to ascribe the effect unto the instrumental cause, as truly as unto the principal, Paul was sent to turn or convert the Gentiles from darkness to light, and to open their eyes, and yet God only was the proper and immediate 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 virtue in it, whereof the men who teach, are but the instrumental conveyors, that is only from God, as the immediate 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, than john, 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 principal cause, yet it hindereth not that men are the instrumental, even as Christ said, it is not ye that speak, and yet they also spoke as instruments. It is true, that John did not baptise with the holy ghost as the Apostles did, or rather Christ through them, because John had not so powerful a ministry given him, as the Apostles, of whom Christ said, that they should not only do as great works, as he, but greater, to wit, by his power. Again, They argue, that giving and not granting, that baptism with the holy Ghost could be administered by men, yet it is not commanded here for the words than would be full of needless tautologies. To this we answer, that this doth not follow, for suppose that by teaching and baptising were meant one thing; how usual is it in Scripture to express one thing under divers names, without any tautology? However we believe that by teaching and baptising are meant two several things, both which require the special 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 baptised 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, go ye and baptise with the holy ghost instrumentally, and I shall be with you, as the Principal cause to concur and assist you, and thus there is no tautology, 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 john to baptise with water, and Christ caused john baptise him and commanded or caused his Apostles baptise with water, and these commands were never formally repealed, nor ceased of their own nature, Therefore. But to this the Answer is easy, for john's baptism, was no part of the Gospel dispensation, as serving only to prepare the way to Christ, and he was sent only to baptise the Jews, that Christ might be manifest to Israel, Joh. 1: 31. and it is called john's baptism in distinction from that of Christ, for some were baptised with it, who had not received the holy ghost, and that Christ was baptised with water, proveth not its continuance, no more than that he was circumcised, proveth the continuance of Circumcision: that Christ commanded his disciples to baptise with water, we find not, and though it were, it is but as at that time being under John's dispensation, but unless 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 jews, 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, etc. We answer, They have no ground from our retortion so to do, because, these things above mentioned are but figures, and such as have no inward, or intrinsical goodness, or righteousness in them, as the other things have, which are most necessary. 2. Whereas they say, If these things had been commanded, and never repealed, it were better to admit and observe them, then to reject Baptism, etc. We answer, if by repeal, they mean a formal repeal, we deny that it were better, for all being but figurative things, and such as the inward Law of God writ in our hearts, which is the new covenant dispensation, doth not require of us, they cease of their own nature, and carry a virtual repeal in their bosom, although it be not formally expressed in the Scripture, as to every particular, for all the things of the ceremonial Law, are not one by one particularly repealed in the new Testament; but together in one body, for the Law itself being changed, the things required by it, if they have no other Law to require them, do 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 only this second thing, which he commanded, to his disciples, to wit, that they should perform acts of humility, one to another. But we miss their proof there altogether, that he only commanded this, and not the washing one another's feet in particular, yea this gloss expressly gives the lie to Christ his own words Joh. 13: 14. ye also aught to wash one another's 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 another's feet in a spiritual sense that is to say, by seasonable reproofs and exhortations to help on, one another, unto the sanctification of the most inferior 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 admit, 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 signify 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 countries, 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 Jews, before Christ did so, as divers historians relate, particularly Paulus Ricius de coelesti agriculturâ. Again, whereas they say, If he had commanded so, some would have observed it. To this we answer, some yea many did observe it, as they grant Ambrose and the church of Milan did, for if they used to do so, in the eastern countries, where there was need for it, because the people ordinarily did go barefoot, the Christians in that country 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 Paul's words 1 Tim. 5: 10. where it is numbered among other commanded duties, if she hath washed the saints feet. If it be said, that they used it, but not as a Sacrament, we answer, we read not of the word Sacrament in the Scripture, it is enough that they used it, and were commanded so to do by Christ, and it had a Spiritual signification, as well as these things they call Sacraments. It is needless for us to insist more on this particular, so as to refute arguments of their own making, which are none of ours, wherein they fight with their own shadow, where we 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 bosom, so we say, doth john's Baptism with water, as preparing the way to Christ, who is now come, and so we may return them their axiom cessante fine legis, cessat & obligatio, but that anointing with oil was only in order to miraculous cures, they say it, without giving any proof, Ja. 5: 14. for although it were confessed, that it were in order to outward healing or curing, yet it is clear 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 spiritual, than the restoring the body to natural health, otherwise it being absolutely promised, all sick persons in the church should have been always restored to natural health, and so none should have died, and we find anointing with oil joined 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 least, 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, ask no question, if it be offered to an idol, or not. Beside it is not usual to sell flesh of beasts strangled in the shambles, for they kill them otherwise then by strangling, which is hurtful to the meat; and if selling of strangled flesh had been usual, 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, because 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 Apology, abstained from blood and things strangled, wherein there was a great providence of God to clear them of that horrid falsehood, as if they did drink the blood of children. By which it is clear, they did not understand Paul's words 1 Cor. 10: 25. to be any repeal. It is therefore more safe to say that it being a part of the ceremonial 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 john's baptism, wherein they are not only contrary to many of their own church, as could be shown, but also to the Scripture itself: for it is most clear, that john spoke this with a particular relation to his baptism, when they came to him, and told him that Christ baptised etc. on this he said, that Christ was to increase, meaning Christ's baptism, not with water, but with the holy ghost (for Christ baptised none with water himself) and he, that is, his baptism must decrease, not his true honour and virtue; and the disciples he gathered, was unto Christ, but that john's baptism was much practised, proveth it no more a standing command, than other things of the Law.  
In the last place they allege, that Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be baptised, out of necessity ariseing from a divine precept, but their proofs are weak. For 〈◊〉 we ought to do 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 freedom. 2. Peter in his sermon told Cornelius nothing of water-baptism, and when that after he spoke of it, he did not tell him, that he ought to do it out of a necessity arising from a divine precept, let them prove it if they can. 3. whereas they allege that Peter was accused by the disciples, for administering water baptism to Cornelius, from Acts. 11. it is a manifest untruth, for there is no such thing either in their accusation, or his answer; as may be seen, if any will read the chapter; they accused him, for going in to them, and eating with them, and this was all the accusation, and though they had, the Students consequence doth not follow, for if the law of charity obliged him to baptise them, his refusal would have been a withstanding of God.   

SECTION SEVENTH, of the MINISTRY,  
Being an Answer to their fifth Section Concerning the MINISTRY.  
In the first part of their section, they plead that a man, who is a hypocrite, and graceless, may be a true and lawful Pastor, yet they grant, that none ought to be admitted into the ministry, but such as ex judicio charitatis, id est, out of the judgement of charity, is to be esteemed truly pious, by which acknowledgement, they destroy with their own hands any seeming strength, that lies in their own arguments, as will appear, by a particular examination of them. Their first reason is taken from many jewish Priests and high Priests, and many Scribes, and Pharisees in Christ's time, who were ministers of God's word, and yet who will say they were endued with sanct fiing grac? To which we answer, that they were ministers of God's word, or of the Gospel, is denved, for they were but ministers of the Law, and legal performances, types, figures and shadows; and as that Legal dispensation was but imperfect, in respect of the Gospel, so the Priesthood and ministry of it, therefore both was to pass away; so that to argue from the Law to the Gospel, is not equal, more than to argue, that because the ministers of the Law were ministers of the figures and types, that therefore the ministers of the Gospel, should be the same, yea we may draw an argument from the outward and Legal qualifications of the Priests, that none but truly holy should, or aught to be ministers under the Gospel; for as under the Law, none were to be Priests, but these who came of Levi, a figure of Christ; so under the Gospel, none are to be ministers, but who by a spiritual birth and nativity, are of Christ. And as under the Law, none that were lame and blind corporally, were to be Legal ministers, so under the Gospel, none that are lame and blind spiritually, are to be Gospel ministers, but all that want true holiness, are lame and blind spiritually, therefore. Again, many of these jewish Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, were openly and manifestly impious, especially in the time of Christ his being in the flesh, and could not be esteemed truly pious, in the judgement of charity, and so if the argument hold, it proves that men be admitted, and owned to be ministers of the Gospel, that are not pious in the judgement of charity. The like may be said of judas, whom they take in their second argument, to patronise a graceless ministry, for if judas was a devil from the beginning, certainly Christ did know him to be so, and therefore could not in the judgement of charity esteem him to be truly pious, how could he then admit him? But as for Judas, they allege indeed that he was a devil from the beginning, but they have not proved it; it is said expressly of him, that he fell from his ministry by transgression, we read not that he was degraded his office, any other way, but simply by his transgression, which was his betraying Christ. Again, it is written of him, let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein, and his Bishopric let another take. Psal. 109. But they who plead for a graceless Minister, would put another in Judas habitation, and so would hold up a ministry of covetous men, as he was, who to satisfy their covetousness will betray Christ: for suppose, that a man have all other qualifications requisite, and yet be openly and notourly a wicked man, he may plead his right to be admitted, and if admitted to be continued to be a minister, what ground have his brethren, out of Scripture, to depose him, according to the Students argument, (which is indeed the general argument of the clergy) [as they are called] seeing he hath all the essentials of a Minister? if they say, Paul requireth that a Bishop, or Deacon be found blameless, not covetous, but vigilant, sober &c: than it will follow, as much, that he that is not really pious, ought not to be admitted, as he that is not seemingly pious, for the Apostle doth not say, he must be seemingly so, but simply that he must be so, and indeed to expound all these qualifications of a seeming, and no real holiness, is to mock the Scripture, for they might as well say, that seeming holiness only, and not real, is required indispensably of us, in order to salvation, for the Scripture as positively requireth holiness, unto the function of a Bishop, as it doth require it unto salvation. There is yet another thing, which they have to prove, concerning Judas, viz, that Christ sent him to preach the Gospel. He sent him indeed to work miracles, heal the sick, and to say, The kingdom of God is at hand, that is to say, the Gospel's dispensation is approaching; but that Judas was a minister of the Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation, we require them to prove: for it was after his removal that Christ sent the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Their third reason is, that the efficacy of the words depends not upon the worthiness of the preachers 1 Cor. 3: 7. We grant the Antecedent, but deny the Consequence, for although it depend not upon the worthiness of the Preacher, yet it may and doth require holiness, as a qualification indispensably necessary in him, even as they grant themselves, that none are justified, without faith, yet they deny that the efficacy of justification depends upon the worthiness of him that believeth, and the efficacy of good wine depends not upon the worthiness of the vessel, that bears it, yet none will put good wine in a leaky vessel, or unfit, and indeed as unfit as a leaky, unclean vessel is to receive good wine, a graceless man is as unfit to receive the dispensation of the Gospel, which is compared to new wine in the Scripture, and said Christ, no man putteth new wine into old bottles, for indeed the ministration of the Gospel, is a ministration of life and grace, and none can minister that which they have not. Their fourth argument depends upon a proposition, which they lay down, and offer to prove, but fall short in, viz, that they can not know who have true grace, this we deny, for if they would believe in the Light, wherewith Christ hath enlightened them, they should receive the Anointing, and by it their eyes should be opened to know, who are gracious, and who not. But let us see how they prove it. 1. Say they, we can not know it immediately, that is granted. 2. Nor can we know it by their outward works, unless it be out of the judgement of charity, which may deceive us, for all the works which a godly man can do, may likewise be performed as to the outward, by hypocrites. To this we answer, If by outward works, they mean such as come under the outward observation of the mere outward and bodily senses we grant; but there are works, which are the fruits of the Spirit, which, although they remain in the souls of holy men, yet send forth a savour of that life and Spirit, or spiritual principle, that is the root of them, through the outward words and conversation, which can and do reach unto the spiritual senses of others, where they are, and this savour and manifestation of life can no hypocrite have, but it is an infallible evidence of sanctification in measure where it is, and where the sanctification is greatest the savour or manifestation of life is there greatest also, according unto this, Paul said, we are a good savour, etc. and Paul said of the Corinthians, that they were the epistle of Christ. John said of the Saints that the name of God, and of the Lamb, shall be in their foreheads. Many other testimonies could be brought to prove this, we shall only add that of Christ, he that believeth in me, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. So here is an evidence, that no hypocrite can have Now what are these rivers, but the influences of the Spirit, and seeing they are said to flow out, they may be discerned by others. It is true the natural senses can not discern them, but the Spiritual senses can, and seeing the students grant spiritual senses, if they grant them to be true and real, they must grant also Spiritual sensible objects, which may be as certainly apprehended, and discerned by our spiritual senses, although the objects themselves be without us, as natural objects without us may be apprehended by the natural senses. 3. Nor can we know it, say they, by revelation, but how prove they it? They only suppose they have proved already, that thereiss no such thing, but how weak and impertinent their proofs are, is above showed. But here note, that by revelation, is sufficiently understood the revelation or discovery, which the fruits of the Spirit, or Spiritual life give forth in holy men one to another, for as the savour of some sweet ointment is a sufficient revelation of it, to the sense of the natural smell, so the Spiritual savour of the Spiritual ointment, is such to the Spiritual smell. Lastly, whereas they say, the gift of discerning Spirits, was never common to all. This we deny, nor doth that Scripture cited by them prove it 1 Cor: 12, 10. Otherwise they might as well say, that faith was not common to all true Christians, because it is said, to another, faith, but as by [faith] here must be understood some extraordinary degree of faith, or the faith of miracles, so the discerning must be some extraordinary degree, or as in relation to miracles, seeing there were Spirits of Devils that wrought false miracles, and such a discerning as to that, we do not plead for, as common to all, but that a discerning of Spirits, so far as to discern betwixt them who were godly and wicked, and who were ministers of the Spirit, and who not, was common unto all, we prove, because it is promised as a general privilege, Mal 3: 18. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, etc. Again, all are commanded to try the Spirits, 1 Joh 4: 1. Therefore all have a measure of discerning whereby to try them, otherwise they were required to do an impossible thing, which is absurd, If it be said He giveth a rule, whereby to try them, viz. every Spirit that confesseth that jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God, ver. 2. To this we answer, the rule is one thing, the discerning is another, and differ, as the object, and the eye; Now the eye is as much required to see, as the object, Therefore all need a Spiritual eye, to apply the rule in a suitable manner, so as to know, who do truly confess Christ come in the flesh, for John can not mean a bare verbal confession, because Antichrist himself may have that, therefore he meaneth a true living confession in life and power, which no hypocrite can have. Having thus answered all their arguments we shall conclude this particular with one argument against them, one part of which is their own confession. They who can be certainly known and discerned, to be impious and unholy, ought not to be admitted into the ministry. But impious and unholy men can be certainly known to be impious and unholy, Therefore they ought not, etc. The first proposition is proved and sufficiently confirmed from their own confession, that none ought to be admitted, but who in the judgement of charity are to be esteemed truly pious, therefore they who can not be so esteemed ought not to be admitted, but if they be certainly known to be impious, they can not be so esteemed, therefore &c. the assumption is proved above, partly by arguments, and partly by the refutation of what they have said against it.  
In the second part they dispute against an immediate enthusiastic call, (as they call it) by way of inspiration, being necessary, and for the necessity of a mediate and outward call; and because we plead for the blessed inspiration of the Spirit of God, they call us enthusiastical impostors, and if the Apostles themselves and primitive Christians were now living, they would give them the same name: for we plead for no other inspiration, but that which was given unto those holy men. But seeing they use the word Enthusiasm so much, in a way of reproach, it is fit, that it be opened, let them tell us then, if they mean any other thing by it, then true divine inspiration, if they mean another, it concerns us not, for we plead for no other, but if they mean that, (as the word properly signifies, being derived from a word, that signifies, God within, as the best Greek dictionaries show) they should not reproach us with that, which was the glory of the primitive Christians, and by which the Scriptures were writ, to wit, divine inspiration. And here they tell us of an inward call, which consists in the disposition of the soul, but they will not have it to be an inspiration, but if by this disposition, they mean any spiritual or supernatural gift, they must needs acknowledge that it is an inspiration, at least in the general sense, for how can it be spiritual, unless it be inspired, is not every good thing, that is spiritually good, from the Spirit? Surely the national confession of faith, published in Knox's time doth expressly say, that faith is the Inspiration of God: but if they say, they deny not subjective but objective inspiration, we put them to prove this unnatural division, and separation; as if there were any inspiration in men's souls, that 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, than a man may lawfully disobey it, and resist it, although it be of God: if they say, it is a command, than it is objective, for it is the nature of all real and true commands to be objective. Again, if by disposition, they mean, the mere qualification that enables a man to be a preacher, how can that be a call, seeing 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 gross 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 prattling, but for all the disparity, they show, the impertinent prattling falls upon themselves. They confess the first reformers had an extraordinary call, in respect of their heroic gifts, yet they also had a mediate call, They owned the holy Scriptures for their principal rule, and preached no other Gospel, etc. To this we answer, that all of them had a mediate call, is a mere alledgance without any proof, yea the history of the reformation showeth the contrary. Again, it is abundantly evident out of their own 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 seeing the visible succession of the church, and ministry was interrupted by the apostasy 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 had ever had the mediate call, from the national 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 principal rule, and preached no other Gospel, otherwise all the national preachers now would have an extraordinary call, because they pretend to own the Scriptures as their principal rule, and to preach no other Gospel, yea we own the Scriptures as much as the first reformers did, and we do acknowledge them, that they are the principal external rule, and to be preferred to all other outward writings and testimonies, but we can not prefer 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 Quakerism no Popery. Now whatever proof 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 soundness of their doctrinee, accompanied with the holiness of their life and good effect of their ministry, whereby souls were converted unto God, as Sadeel in the treatise above mentioned de legit. voc. Min. showeth 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 rational way, than our adversaries can. But that we make the efficacy of our doctrine, taken precisely by itself, and without being accompanied with the soundness of it &c: an evidence of our Call, is a mere 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 lawful ordination, and succession hath not continued in the church, since the Apostles days, but hath suffered an interruption by the general apostasy, that as a flood overflowed the earth, and that although God still preserved a church, yet she had not a visible outward succession, because she was not visible all along here selfe, and before our adversaries can make the half of their argument good, they must prove, that not only a true church hath continued ever since the Apostles days, but that she hath been visible, having a true visible succession of visible teachers, who were good and faithful men, all along to convey it down to this day. But to infer that ordination hath continued, because of the command (if the command had been universal) doth not follow, seeing many things commanded, may be unpractised, through unfaithfulness, to the command. Now it is certain, that generally the visibly ordained bishops have not been faithful 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 unfaithfulness, and set up a shadow in its room, the like may be said of other things. And the ordination being once lost, it can not be recovered again, from a mere Scripture command, otherwise all may pretend to a power to ordain, for the Scripture doth not command one more than another, yea we find no general command in Scripture for ordination, only that it was practised, which we deny not, and with it there was a spiritual gift of the holy Ghost conveyed, which was the main and only thing that made the ordination and laying on of hands effectual, and without which it is but a shadow, as may be seen at this day in the national church, for who among them dare say, that they either give or receive that spiritual 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 infer, that laying on of hands is a part of the foundation of Christianity, but that Scripture saith no such thing, for the doctrine of Baptisms, 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 do, if God permit, whereas he had laid the foundation already, therefore the doctrine of the laying on ofhands belongs not to the fowdation, but to the superstructure, but however, it doth not follow, that laying on of hands itself is a thing to continue, for he speaks of it, but as of a doctrine, as that of Baptisms, which we confess doth continue, as the doctrine of the figures, types, ceremonies and sacrifices doth continue to this day: and the Apostle opened them largely in that Epistle, yet the figures themselves were not to continue. Besides, how do they prove that this laying on of hands is ordination, and not that used in confirmation? Here they miserably stick, only they allege it is ceased among many, and is not so necessary, but how prove they, that it is not as necessary? Show us, where it is repealed, more than the other, seeing it was as generally practised, yea and more, for many received it, that were not preachers nor elders.  
In the last place, they plead, that Preachers should have a miantainance, which we deny not, if they need it, but may not men be Preachers, who need no supply from others? but many have wherewith to be hospitable unto others, without taking, far lass forcing others to give them: the maintenance then that we are against, is 1. A superfluous and unnecessary mantainance. 2. A forced maintenance. 3. Such a maintenance as Preachers agree with, and contract for. 4. A taking it from them, who are not worthy. 5. A taking it from them, who do not acknowledge them to be true Preachers. Now none of all the Scriptures or reasons brought by them, prove any such maintenance, nor do we read that ever the Apostles received it, or that they received any tithes, which was the maintenance of the Law, and not of the Gospel. and that the people ought to contract with preachers, will not follow, because they are bound in charity to supply their wants, for we are bound in charity to supply the wants of the poor, according to our ability, yet it doth not follow, that we are to contract with them, or that they can force it from us. As for the words of Christ, freely give, as they import, that they were not to make sale of the Gospel, so also that they were not to force, or compel men to give them, anything as a recompense for preaching the same, for how can we give freely, that which we force others to recompense us for? And here they cry out upon the Q. as a sacrilegious crew, for denying such unlawful maintaintainance, as the Priests generally have. it seems the young men are greatly concerned, they love so well the wages of unrighteousness, for against no other thing do we contend. Again, they allege, that we belie them, in saying, they think that the preaching of the Gospel can be sold for any earthly wages; the reason they give is weak, for although there is a vast disproportion and inequality in worth betwixt the same, yet a thing may be sold for less than the worth of it, yea when the worth is infinitely greater, for did not Judas sell Christ for thirty pieces of silver, and do not they plead that greedy and covetous men ought to be received, and paid, until divested, and are not such guilty of simony, and selling of preaching, which they confess themselves? therefore the Q. in this do not belie them. Yea do they not well know that it is a most ordinary thing in young men (and it is well if some of these be not guilty of the same) to go unto patrons, and offer them money for presentations unto parish churches, than which we know no greater simony used in the church of Rome? And as for the hospitality of Preachers, it is also required in Deacons, and all good Christians, will it therefore follow, that all good Christians must have set stipends, or if Christians are to work with their hands, that they may have wherewith to be hospitable, why may not preachers also? They cite Paul, telling that he had power to forbear working, but they know that Paul was an Apostle, and claimed that power, not as an ordinary preacher, but as an Apostle, like unto the other Apostles, mark these words, for as touching the Apostles, they had that power, because of a more universal charge incumbent upon them, then ordinary pastors, so that they could not so attend to work with their hands, as others could, and yet even Paul wrought with his hands, which is more, than any of the national teachers will do, to spare the receiving from them who are not able. And it is to be observed, how the national teachers plead stoutly, for their forbearing of working, from the power of the Apostles, but when we tell them, that the Apostles traveled from one nation to another, and took great pains to plant the Gospel in many places, and hazarded their lives to preach it among the heathens; they answer, that is not required of them: so they would take the Apostles to patronise them, in forbearing working, and taking maintenance, but not in being at such pains and jeopardies for the Gospels' sake, as the Apostles, which is not equal. Also when we tell them, the Apostles preached lie inspiration, and had an immediate call from heaven, they tell us, that is ceased now: but why tell they not that the power to forbear working is ceased also? Surely the continuing of inspirations, and immediate calls to the Ministry seemeth a more needful thing, than their stipends.   

SECTION EIGHTH. of LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE,  
Wherein the Students sixth Section concerning the Civil Magistrate his power in punishing of heretics, And also what they say in their eighth Section concerning the tendency of Quakerism to Anarchy and treason, and denying the necessity of Christianity, is considered and answered.  
After that the Students have laboured what they can to overturn the Quakers, they betake them to Persecution as their last refuge, thinking if they can but prevaill here and get the Magistrates to cut off the Q. as blasphemers and traitors (for such they have designed them in their title page) they will be eased of the troublesome task of disputing any more with them. And here, not to be unlike themselves, they begin with a lie, saying, they had a dispute concerning this with the Q. the 1. of jun 1675. whereas one of them, to wit I. L. was not present, and the other two proposed not one argument in that matter, but what was spoken, was by another, who being earnestly desired by them to concur in the Account of it with them, utterly refused; as judging, neither he, nor they could give a true account of it, and absolutely discharging to meddle with that in their book, which yet they are not ashamed falsely to ascribe to themselves, which that young man upon sight of their book from one of us, declared to be a lie, asserting what is above written in this matter, before several witnesses of their own profession, particularly P. D. one of the Students attestators; and therefore since he judgeth himself, as he declared, abused in this effaire by them, as well as we, we shall not take notice of what passed at that time betwixt him and us, (it being also his desire) but betake ourselves to this Theme, as it is now proposed and urged by the Students, wherein how miserably they are pained, the very stating of their controversy shows, in which they have given away their cause. 1. They say, they speak only of real heresies, and not what others call so. 2. they say, they speak not of inward acts and mere exercises of the mind, because it belongs neither to church, nor magistrate, to judge of hidden things. To which we answer, that since the Students acknowledge that both their Church and magistrate is liable to error, yea and that neither of them, are to be supposed infallible, and therefore can not certainly and infallibly discern what is heresy, neither ought they to take upon them to punish for heresy; and that de facto Protestant churches have thus erred, their master, john Menzies and many of his brethren, can bear witness, who have cried out against that for error, antichristianity and heresy, 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. Leu. 22. but the question is, whether these commands given particularly to the jews, belong to us (for that of Leu. 22. is only concerning the Priests and Levits, touching the holy things, with their uncleanness 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 immediately with his own hand kill him, that has killed his kinsman, unless he get to the city of refuge, seeing there is no particular repeal of that, more than 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 show us where the one part of this command is repealed more, than the other, or how the one part is lawful for us, and the other unlawful, seeing both were commanded and lawful to the jews: for their mere 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, alleging that belongeth only to private persons, and not to magistrates, else it should be unlawful for Magistrates to punish transgressors etc. Answ. The Consequence will not hold, for we are not speaking of things civil, but of things religious, though it may be lawful for them, to resist evil in the one, yet not in the other. But that Christian magistrates are here included is easily proven. If this belong to all Christians, than it belongeth to all magistrates if they be Christians; for to say, that a Christian by becomeing a magistrate, is dispensed, of these obligations he is particularly tied to, as a Christian, is most absurd, yea if Christian magistrates be bound to suffer for righteousness sake, than 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 righteousness sake Matth. 5: 10, 11. if they still resisted? At this rate none should suffer for Christ, who could by any means eat it, by killing those that make them suffer, and who would then be those that suffer willingly? and it seems 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 Gospel, mentioned by G. K. doth but manifest their own weakness and folly, for themselves will not deny but that wherever faith in jesus Christ is professed, and he owned as the Saviour, and Son of God, there is a dispensation of the Gospel, 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 legal and obscure,, then that themselves are under, as having many ceremonies and shadows not necessary, and so here is a twofold dispensation acknowledged by themselves, seeing they will not affirm that the use of all these ceremonies is absolutely sinful in these churches, who are not as yet convinced of it, though it should be unlawful for them to use them; and seeing the purest and most excellent dispensation of the Gospel is to be like unto Christ, who resisted not evil, though he was powerful to do it, and that we are bound to be like him, than there is a dispensation of the Gospel, in which evil is not to be resisted. But further, if there be such a dispensation of the Gospel, as men shall beat their swords into plough-shears, and their spears into pruning hooks, and not learn war any more, than there is a dispensation, in which evil hall not be resisted, the consequence can not be denied; the antecedent is the express 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 affirms 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 magistrate 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 show as well their malice, as disingenuity here, insinuating, we denied that place to belong to Magistrates now, which we never did, nor do; only G. K. said, he would be glad to hear how they could prove that it did belong to magistrates now, and indeed were we not other ways persuaded 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 women's 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 unlawful, and so unless 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 denied, they most shamelessly omit our chief answer to this, which could they have replied unto, they would not have dropped thus. And therefore we shall return it upon them, that they may not forget it, when they writ next. That of the 13 Rom. can not be understood of the magistrates punishing men for matters of Conscience, because, it being written to the church of Rome, to show them, their duty towards their present magistrate, which was Nero that cruel and persecuting Emperor, and then it would follow, that Nero had had a lawful power, and authority, to punish even Christians for errors in matters of religion, though himself was a professed infidel, and seeing the magistrate is to exert his power, according to his knowledge, it would follow that Nero exercised a lawful power in causing kill the Apostles, and persecute the Christians, which will make that horrid crime very slender, seeing it was no more according to the Stud. but the exerciseing that lawful authority, he had received from God, according to his knowledge.  
Pag. 122. They build an airy triumph upon their own mistake, alleging, that since their magistrates are not under that pure dispensation, it is lawful 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 Magistrates may (as we deny not) and that lawfully resist evil 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 pains 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 himself. 1. They say, It is clearly repealed, because murderers, witches, traitors are tares, as well as heretics, 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 magistrates, are not to meddle. But since the Students say, this is repealed, they must confess 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 useless Gospel commands they dream of, which it is unlawful for us to obey. But to go on, they say, that lie the tares is to be understood, bemasked hypocrites, who being scarce discernible from the wheat, are therefore not to be meddled with. Very well then, where the magistrate can not discern heresies, according to themselves, he is not to punish: and than what comes of that authority was acknowledged Nero had, from Rom. 13 who was as uncapable to discern heretics as hypocrites? And then seeing as before is said, they are not to judge of hidden things, experience hath abundantly shown, how much the true discerning of heresy is both uncertain, and difficult even to Protestant magistrates, who have called that wheat to day, which they have called tares to morrow, and therefore aught according to this rule, to forbear meddling in such matters.  
Their second argument pag. 123. drawn from Rom. 13. and 1 Pet. 2: 14. which is parallel with it, is before answered. Afterwards they go about to play the Politicians, showing both here, and in the following pag. how the public 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 etc. 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 cut the Protestants throats, or the Protestants theirs, and who but such as the Students can be ignorant that after much bloodshed and contention, who should oppress 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 public benefit, not to meddle with each others consciences, notwithstanding that these pitiful Statesmen can prattle to the contrary, who have shown themselves in this to be very indifferently versed in history.  
But they proceed affirming, that since the Magistrate is keeper of both tables, to whom is entrusted not only the care of men's 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 than he must punish civil offences, by an Ecclesiastic censure. Now it remains for them to prove that offences in things purely conscientious should among Christians be punished by the external sword, which they have not as yet done, and let it be here observed, that not withstanding all their clamours for the Magistrates privilege, 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 Heretics, and who not, but he must only serve to be their executioner, and persecut such as they find prejudicial to their interest, for though they will have it to be lawful for Preachers, such as their Bishops, to be Magistrates, as Chancellor, Counsellor, judge, etc. Yet no Magistrate, 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 unlawful, yea and David and Solomon in the Old, who were not of the tribe of Levi, were both Prophets and Preachers, and penmen of the Scripture.) This trick even the Protestant Clergy have learned from their father the Pope, who showed the Clergy long ago, the way to make themselves Princes and judges, 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 doth, or acteth outwardly evil, without any restriction etc. it is not lawful for us to add a restriction, where the Spirit of God hath put none.  
Who can but admire the impudence of these Students, which do that, which in the following line they affirm is unlawful, by adding [outwardly] which is a restriction? For the words in the text are not [outwardly evil] but evil, which being taken without any restriction, comprehends inward as well as outward acts of evil. Seeing then they put a restriction, (though to their own selfe-condemnation, they confess it to be unlawful) which they are forced to do, else hypocrites would be comprehended, whom they confess to be tares, that are not to be meddled with. We that judge it no wise unlawful (because without other clear texts be contradicted, there must be here a restriction) may restrict it to things civil and moral, excluding matters of worship and difference in opinion, for the reasons often before mentioned. Their 3. argument wholly misses the matter, which is the practice of many princes, even approved of God, in coercing Idolatries &c: for since all the examples, they give, are of the kings of Judah and Israël under the, Law it nowise meets the present controversy, which is concerning the power of Christian Magistrates under the Gospel.  
Lastly, They argue that the Prophets of the Old Testament, have prophesied that it should be the office of Christian Magistrates to coërce false prophets, for which they allege Deut. 18: 20. he that shall speak in the name of other Gods shall die. Very well, he saith not, shall be put to death in a judicial way. It is said, The soul that sinneth shall die, it will not therefore follow, that every soul that sinneth, shall be killed by the Magistrate. But though it be understood of putting to death, it reacheth not the case, we being under the Gospel, not under the Law, where also it was not lawful so to do for different opinions and interpretations of the Law, but only for rejecting the true God, and his Law, and introducing new and strange Gods Their other proof is from Zech. 13: 1, 2, &c: where it is said, that the fathers and the mothers of the false Prophets shall say unto them, Thou shalt not live, and thrust them through, when they prophecy. This is so far from being taken literally, that the Students dare not take it so themselves, else the father and and the mother might do the business without troubling the magistrate, and afterwards the text speaks of those, who were not to live, of their having wounds in their hands and being alive, which shows the understanding here is to be spiritual, and seeing the Students do not understand it literally, of the persons to whom the text ascribes this coërcing, and that there is not the least word of a magistrate in the place, for them, to affirm, that it is not to be understood of the magistrate, is but miserably to beg the question. They begin their 8. Sect. pag. 126. affirming that Quakerism tends to Anarchy and confusion and treason, alleging, we would pull down the Magistrate, if we could, and set up our own spiritual Magistrates, as john of Leyden etc. For this malicious insinuation they give no reason, but such an one as destroys it, to wit, our giving in [Resist not evil, pluck not up the tares] as repeals of some laws in the Old Test. Now let men of reason, judge, whether treason be the tendency of these men's principles, that affirm, evil is not to be resisted; or how these can do violence to the Magistrate without contradicting their principles, and then it can not be the tendency of them: and whereas they conclude, saying, That Quakerism, as they conceive, beyond all doubt, tends to Anarchy, confusion of state and treason. Their conceptions are very false, in this matter, and we may upon far better grounds retort this upon the Students Confraternity, the Clergy, who through their ambition and turbulence did from the pulpits blow the trumpet of all the late confusion, and treason, in the civil wars, and show themselves exact disciples of john. of Leyden, acting his pranks upon the stage of Great Britain, a charge, they have not to lay to the Quakers.  
Their next effort is to prove, we deny the necessity of Professing Christianity, because we believe those not bound to believe the history of Christ, from whom God hath necessarily withheld the knowledge of it, for they confess that we believe these obliged to believe them, to whom they are revealed. But they must here also act like themselves, in making that a horrible crime in us, which their own chief doctors affirm, who being pressed by the Arminians with this argument [That which every man is bound to believe is true. But every man is bound to believe that Christ died for them, therefore it is true] They deny the Minor plainly affirming that those that have not heard of Christ, are not bound to believe he died for them, so according to the Students themselves, are guilty of denying the necessity of professing Christianity as well as we. But further they say, we are guilty of this, because we set up a new Christ in every man, that is borne, and grows up, unto a perfect substantial birth, as their first charge in this matter hits at their own Doctors, so this second is common with us to the Apostle Paul (for the Students dispute like blind men striking at random, that heed not, what they hit) seeing the Apostle calls Christ within, of which we speak, the hope of glory, which is neither a new Christ, nor yet another than he that died at jerusalem who did travel that he might be brought forth in the ●alatians, and calls him, the new man, borne in, and put on by others. So if in this the Apostle did not deny the outward sufferings of Christ, neither do we; unless the Students can show, how our doctrine differs from his, or contradicts it, which they have not yet attempted to do. As for that question of I. Penington. How can outward blood cleanse? we refer them to his own book in defence of that expression, as quarrelled by J. Hicks, called the flesh and blood of Christ, of which there were divers printed copies at Aberdeen, before the Students book was put to the press.   

The CONCLUSION.  
Wherein their observations upon R. B. his Offer, and their last Section of the Q. revilings, as they term them, are examined.  
IN the end of the account of our dispute, I renewed an offer to the preachers of Aberdeen, as being the persons, we were principally concerned withal, giving the reasons therefore, and showing the good effects, that might proceed therefrom, as in the same offer may be seen; at this the Stud. seem to have gone mad, and fret and fume, like persons possessed, alleging, I betake myself to railing as my last refuge; but whether there be any railing in that Offer, is left to the judicious Reader to examine. The Students notwithstanding their clamours, give not one instance of it, but whether they have any better reason to answer it withal, then railing, let the Reader judge. For upon this occasion, pag. 127. 128. they call me vain and arrogant, like a very Thraso, ignorant and foolish, one whose weakness and ignorance is renowned, a bold barkr, but a soft biter. These are the modest young men, that profess to be against railing, that say in their Preface, they have abstained from personal criminations, and have not rendered evil for evil, and with this their unreasonable railling they mix in a company of lies, as that insinuation, as if the Theses had been written by G. K. which is a false calumny, they are dared to prove: Like unto which is what follows, that I provoked all Europe, sought dispute indivers places from any who would without distinction, upon the account of this printed provocation, boasted and gloried that I had got no dispute; which contain as many lies almost as words, for which, they offer not the least proof. Afterwards as an instance of my cowardliness and vain boasting; they say, I with G. K. stead, and deserted a dispute appointed betwixt us and R. G. my uncle, at the Cross of Elgin, which is utterly false; neither G. K. nor I ever spoke with R. G. about such a matter, nor made any appointment with him: yea R. G. hath under his hand declared, that being by a friend of his desired, he refused to debate with us, in relation to these Theses, nor was there any such appointment ever made known to us: So the Reader may see whether these credible witnesses, that attested their Account, be any better here then those credible informers, from whom they had this great untruth. As they proceed, they give themselves the lie, for after many needless words, of which it is hard to make sense, they conclude that this late engagement (meaning the dispute with themselves) is a fulfilling of the offer in the end of the English Theses, notwithstanding they subscribed the Articles, whereof the first expressly bears, that it is abstract from it.  
But first they say, The Ministers are not concerned to meet with the Qu. because, the report of the victory is already gone upon their side, who are but young men, and cannot do so well as their ministers who are more learned, and grave; and yet a little after, that they may not omit here to give themselves the lie, they say, that such a dispute would be a means to stumble the weak, harden the fallen, and dishonour God, rather than the contrary. What confusion is here! they are but young men, and their Masters more learned, grave and able, their dispute (if they be to be believed) has done good, established many inclining to Quakerism, and yet their Ministers disputing would be a mean to stumble the weak etc. They conclude that we are not to be sought after, because we are goats and wolves and not strayed sheep; we could produce enough under their Master's hands to contradict this, if it were worth the pains. They fill up the rest of the Sect with alleging that public disputs are against the Law, upbraiding me as a rebel for offering one, alleging that it is not lawful for Protestants neither in the Turkish nor Popish dominions to offer to dispute against the public religion authorized by the Magistrate, though they may privately call it in question, and dislwade from it: whereby they openly condemn as rebels, the Apostles and primitive Christians, yea and the primitive Protestants, as by many instances both at home, and abroad, could be shown: and whereas they say, we profess to oppose their religion, and not Papists, it is another falsehood, for some of us of late years, have lost their lives, and others deeply suffered, for opposing Popery at Rome itself, a task, the Students so long as they can sit at ease, and buy a benefice at home, will as unwillingly undertake, as another dispute with the Qu.  
They begin their last Sect. most impudently, alleging, that they have passed by, as much as they could, personal criminations: how great a lie this is, the Reader by what is above said, will observe, They are angry we should allege, that their Masters had put arguments into their mouths, though we can show them, of the closest of them in manuscripts sent by them to us; and to disprove this, they say, they faithfully declare it to be lies. But what men of faith they are is above shown: let it be lest to the Reader to judge whether they be more to be trusted; in saying, the arguments they brought; were their own, then when they say, they had a dispute with the Q. the 1. of june 1675, though one of them was altogether absent; and the other two were but mere hearers: what reason is there, they should be believed in saying, the arguments they used were their own, though perhaps they only repeated them, as when they positively affirmed that they disputed with us, though they were mere auditors? And to this they add another great lie, saying, that the Q. affirmed in their Contra-remonstrance that this is G. Ms. work under their cover, whereas the words are, It is strange, that they, (to wit, the Stud.) should undertake so hastily, what he has been so long adviseing, unless this be his work under their cover; but a supposition is not a positive assertion: It is not said, this is his work, as the Stud. have perverted it, who are so accustomed to lie, that such kind of perversions pass with them, but for small escapes. They are offended W. M. should be called a Catechist, (though the Bishop their Ordinary is not pleased he should have a higher designation, and themselves can not deny it) and whereas they say, This is done exceeding maliciously, for he officiated at the foresaid place for a short space, and long before the publishing of their pamphlet: they would do well to show wherein the malice of this lieth, and to examine whether he did not exercise that office longer than he has done any time; but it is their custom to speak at random.  
They cry out against our saying, we were informed, that their master had gone to the B. to desire him to complain to the Council, etc. alleging that though we say, we are informed, yet they insinuate it is a lie, of our making. Because it is usual for us that are damnable Heretics, to spread a false report ourselves, and then say, we heard it. Let them instance any report, if they can, raised up by us, for which we cannot give them Authors of their own Religion, whereas the most part of their reports against us, have no authors but our enemies. But for answer, let them know, that the same was told to R. B. by G. M. and I. S. two chief Citizens of their own Profession, the last of which, constrained him to stand upon the street until he should tell it him, And whereas they add, that if they would follow our footsteps they could cast many horrid things in our teeth, Answ. it is one thing to receive information against a people, and report things as true, spoken or written by their professed enemies, as the Students do in their citations out of Clerks examples, Hicks and Faldo: and another to report things spoken by members of their own Church, who if they have belied them, let them reckon that among themselves. Lastly, They accuse me, as having impudently aspersed their Professor I. M. with seurrilous revilings, and malicious calumnies, of which, they are so impudent, as not to give one instance, and are thereto dared, when they write next, to name them, or instance one calumny or scurrilous reviling, wherewith I asperse him, or else be accounted impudent liars, whereas they say these calumnies we borrowed from the spiteful jesuits, and like vipers, spouted them out. Again, they declare their folly, The Jesuit accused him of treason, as the Students, following his example, do us, but so not I, who only minded him, that seeing he who says the Scripture is his Rule, has been deceived, in pretending the Scripture said, that which now he confesses to be an error. If the Spirit were to be rejected from being the rule, because men pretending to it, have been deceived: so should the Scripture also, in which instances, if he or they dare say, I have calumniated him, let them name wherein. And I shall prove all I have asserted in that affair, and that without recurring to the Jesuits testimony, having my information from better hands. And to augment their lies, they say, It tends to his advantage; to be calumniated by such as the Quakers: They have not proved that we have calumniated him, and we may justly retort. That he may rather be troubled and shamed to find himself so fawningly flattered and commended by such as the Stud▪ like the Philosopher of old, that was troubled when spoken well of by a profligat person.  
Lastly, They go about to Apologise for the long time, their book hath been a coming out because of their difficulties at the press, which difficulties were not such as we meet with; to have their papers surprised and stopped, as they sought to do ours. But because they could not persuade a Printer to be so foolish, as to print them, without due payment, but it is like, the contriving and patching it together, hath been as great a cause of let, since when it was out, and came from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, and after we had bought one entire book at Edinburgh, They kept it up at Aberdeen several weeks, adviseing and consulting about it, and upon notice of some gross contradictions in it, which we had observed to some of their own way, They caused the Printer there to patch two pages to it, to help them, by which; they have but rendered their weakness more obvious. For whereas to solve that gross contradiction before observed by us, of their making us speak in their Account, one after another, and yet saying, the Auditors can testify, that we are liars, and never spoke so, They say, their meaning is not, that we did not speak, one after another. What means the word never then? This Apology amounts to no more, but that the Students intended not to contradict themselves, and instead of bettering themselves by this addition, they have given away their cause, for whereas they before make a great clamour against G. K. for asserting permissive inspirations, as if it had been some great absurdity, themselves here affirm the same thing, saying, The Apostle by these words, it is good for a man not to touch a woman, doth not command but only permit, (he himself neverth elesse being inspired by the Spirit of God so to do) is not this then a permissive inspiration? So that these things will but make their folly manifest, as also their further frivolous Apologies in that additional advertisement, which to the truly judicious doth not cover but rather discover their weakness.  
Seing it may fall out that this tract may arrive at the hands of many who perhaps may not see those sheets in which we have disproved the Students calumnies and lies in matter of fact, as in Relation to the dispute we had with them, we thought fit here also to insert the certificate of four Students present at the dispute, and since come among us, three of which were at that time actual Students of Philosophy in the University, and the other had been in the class with one of the disputants.  
R. B.  
We under-subscribers late Students of Philosophy from the university of Aberdeen being present at the Dispute do faithfully declare that the Students have grossly belved the Qu. in their Account, making them speak that which they spoke not and also sorging arguments and answers not mentioned upon the place. And though we had no intention at that time to own the people called Cue yet we dare not but declare that their Answers and behaviour had no small influence upon us, to make us in love with their way, and to search after it more diligently: as also the Students arguments and lightness did not a little tend to make us disgust them and their principles, and albeit that inward peace and satisfaction of mind, which we enjoy in the Truth we now profess with that despised and injured people, doth make us bless the day, in which it pleased God to bring us among them; yet we are not a little confirmed in the belief of this reproached testimony and witnesses, that we find the strongest arguments their Adversaries have against them, are lies and calumnies, And this we testify for the Truth, whom the Truth hath taught not to lie.  
ROBERT sandiland's. JAMES ALEXANDER.  
And I also declare, who (being a Student at that time, in the old town College) was present at the Dispute, and heard the same with attention, that the Students have grossly belied the Q. in many things in their account, and although that since, it hath pleased God to join me unto that people, yet at that time I had no mind to be of their way, However when I saw their account I did approve it, as ingenuous, as now also I do, and disapprove the Students as false in many things.  
ALEXANDER SEATONE.  
And I likewise (being a Student in the new town College) at that time, was present at the Dispute and do declare, that the Students folly and lightness had no small influence upon me, to search more narrowly into the way of that people, which it pleased the Lord to bless unto me, so that the eyes of my understanding came to be opened, and I came fully to be convinced of the truth of their principles and way, to which now by the mercy and goodness of the Lord, I am joined, and do find, by comparing the two Accounts together, that the Students have wronged the people called Quakers in divers things, as the Students self contradictions do sufficiently show.  
ALEXANDER PATERSO●●.