William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay.

William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay.

Table of contents

Title page

The Preface TO THE READER.

WILLIAM MICHEL Unmasqued; OR The Staggering Instabillity of the pretended Stable Christian Discovered, his Omissions observed, and Weakness Unvailed, &c.

Post-script.

[Page]

WILLIAM MICHEL Unmasqued; OR The Staggering Instabillity of the pretended Stable Christian Discovered, his Omissions observed, and Weakness Unvailed, &c.

THAT which first presents it self to my View is W. M. his Epistle directed to me, and the Quakers in and about Aberdeen, which he prefixes as his Considerations upon my Preface, but that which is the substantial part of it, he hath left unanswered, for my Preface was to shew the Method of the Priests of Aberdeens Procedure against the Quakers, giving account of most if not all the papers had past betwixt them, and also how by their Instigation some of us had been Imprisoned; particularly the falseness of G. Meldrum his way with us, first in Pulpit to accuse us as Hereticks, and then in private to desire to know of us our Principles, but all this he hath wholly waved, it seemes he either could not or would not, defend his own, nor his Brethrens double dealing with us: As to what he mentions I take notice,

First, Of his denying that any in or about Aberdeen hath reproached the Quakers, as Demented, Distracted, or bodily posessed: Checking me for taking things upon Trust. Well, it sufficeth me that they are ashamed of such falshoods, though if need be, I can instance that I had ground to say so.

[Page] Secondly I take notice how that not being willing wholly to clear us, he saith some of us in England have given ground to be so charged by their extraordinaryly Trembling, &c. but it is strange W. M. should so far forget himself as to accompt this a ground to charge People as Demented, &c. seeing there was a season wherein himself acknowledged, he seldome or never went to the Pulpit without sensible Trembling, which if he dare to deny I offer to prove by undeniable Testimonies. As to what he adds of Womens going naked in the Streets, and some offering to raise the Dead, alledging for proof Samuell Clerk, the Newcastle Ministers, Pagets Herisography. I Answer, as these calumnies have been particularly answered by our Friends in England, so they signifi no more against us being Writ by our declared Enemies, then Cochloeus lies against Luther, particularly that he assayed to cast out Devils, or what the Popish Authors Writes of Calvine, that he made a Living Man counterfeit himself Dead that so he might raise him, and that Beza was Stigmatised for Sodomie: and much more of this kind.

Thirdly, The thing I observe is his Comparing us to John of Leyden, and Ignatious Loyola, and that because they Preached in the Streets, cried down wearing of Rings, and other superfluities as we doe, were against needless Salutations, spoke much of Mortification, and pretended to or expected Immediate Revelation; but our resembling them in these things, which the Apostles of Christ commanded, and practised, will not prove the Jesuits our Grandfathers, (as W. M. terms it) more then their being found in them, will prove them the Grand-children of the Apostles, we must not forsake doing good because hypocrites seem to do so, nor forbear to Preach the Gospel because Judas did it, but as for the other practises of John a Leyden, and Ignatius Loyola's followers the Jesuits, to wit, their cutting down all that would not be of their way, their assuming outward Power, their seeking to overturn Kingdoms, their Preaching up War and Blood: the Principles and Practices of W. M. this Brethren do declare, how much more they resemble them then the Quakers, who from the Pulpit blew the Trumpet of all the late Troubles, Seditions, and civil Dissentions, which have proved so bloody and monstrous to the Inhabitants of this poor Island. And many of them have now turned their backs upon that Cause, which they hunted out others to fight for: and [Page] some, to wit, W. N and his Brethren at Aberdeen can find out Jesuittical distinctions, and Mental Revelations, whereby (notwithstanding they swore against all detestable Newtrality) they can make a shift to Preach under Bishops, dispence with the Doxologie, forbear Lecturing, and several other parts of the Directorian Discipline, as W. M. has done at the Bishops order, and yet keep a reserve for Presbitery in case it come againe in fashion.

Forthly, I take notice of the Impertinency of W. M. his bringing in this story of Ignatus Loyola, upon my saying some Professors in Aberdeen, found that savour of Life in the Quakers Testimony, which formerly had stired among others who were come to a great decay; now because it was Obvious, I intended by these Professors who were come to a decay W. M. and some others of his Brethren who pretended to be for Independancy in that day, but now were turned with the times, knowing how much it would reflect upon him to harp on this string, he runs away and sayes, these others are Ignatus Loyola, and thereupon makes the Comparrison above mentioned, which Impertinent Digression is abundantly manifest.

Fiftly, I take notice of his charging us as rather Reproachers of others then Reproached, because of the plain Language we use against him and his Brethren, aledging we will not find Christ and his Apostles use the like to such as Professed Christianity, for a reproof of his Ignorance in the Scriptures let him read Rom. 16. 18. Phil. 3. 2. 1 Tim. 1. 19, 20. ib. chap. 4. 1, 2, 3, &c. ib. chap. 6. ver. 3, 4. 2 Tim. 2. 17. Tit. 1. 10, 11. 2 Pet. 2. 1, 2, 3. 1 Joh. 2. 18, 19. &c. his adding that they shew earnestness of desire that Souls may be saved, and willingness to promote that designe, saith nothing except this desire and willingness proceed from the right ground, Papists are as zealous in their earnestness and willingness as they, and doe no less Profess subjection to the Gospel, owning Christ to be the Messiah, and yet Calvine spared not to term them impuri Canes, filthy Dogs, Innumerable are the expressions of this kind used by the zealous Luther against them.

Sixtly, I take notice of his cautions to me, wherein he chargeth me of Pride, Passion, Censoriousness, Folly, contrariety to the Word of God, Ignorance, and Indeavouring to Promote the Popish Intrest: but had he truly minded my good in his Cautions, he should have Produced some Reasons to prove me guilty of these Crimes, he concludes us Proud for separating from them in Burial Places, [Page] and so condemns the French Protestants for doing the like from Papists: he falsly chargeth us with placing Religion in forbearing Ribands, keeping on the Hat, and saying, Thou and Thee, and thereupon concluds me Ignorant of true Conversion, while his Ignorance of us hath made him thus Calumniatious: he concludes us advancers of the Popish Interest, because we decry their Ministery and Churches, while he borrows this very argument from the Papists, who used, it against the first Reformers, aledging that their crying down the Church of Rome, was a joyning hand with the Turks, who did the same, though then the first Reformers were no Turks though they agreed with them in denying the Church of Rome neither are we Romanists though with those of Rome we condemn them, especially considering that it is because of their too great Affinity with Papists that we do so.

Seventhly, I take notice of his confessing he never intends to tell the World the Scriptures we use, aledging we abuse them, but if he could have proved we did so, it would have tended more to our disadvantage, and whereas he sayes he resolves to Write no more, I confess it will be his Wisdom except he speak to better purpose, it is a very apparent subterfuge to cover his Resolutions of not prosecuting farther this Debate, by aledging it will prove endless, and compairing us to Scoulds who will have the last word, which in reason can have no place in this matter, seeing being challenged by me of many great Omissions, he freely acknowledged he had not, nor did not intend to answer me fully, and what he had writ was but some Animadversions which I have indeed found true, having allowed some time as he desired to read them, though it very hardly deserves to be so much regarded.

As to his Epistle, if he had as really affected Retirement as he pretends he does, he should have done well to have appeared in Publick with some more solid stuff, he hath herein almost onely shewed his Ingenuite, in that he acknowledgeth himself amongst the weakest of our Opposers, comparing his Work but to a small quantity of Water, brought to quench a House one Fire, we have indeed found it of less force then many that have come before it, to Smother or Drownd that Truth which God has Revealed among us. In the end of his Epistle, he would wilingly have the Reader believe he is an upholder of the Protestant Interest, against our endeavours to overthrow it, but to how little purpose may, as it occurs be manifested.

[Page] After he has made an intire Ommission of what is particularly directed by me to him in my 8. and 9. pages (as not being able to Vindicate himself) he enters upon the matter of Salutation, undertaking in his first Section, to prove such as are used by gestures, wherein I observe.

First, his most manifest Omission of the first part of mine concerning this thing Page. 9. and 10. where I charge him with Dis-ingenuity in wrong Subsuming of our words, which he shufleth over with this general, That after the Quakers rate I have Saluted him with Reproach.

Secondly, he having expressed my Argument against their manner of Salutations, viz. that being it is the Expression or Signification of our Worship to God, it ought not, nor cannot be given to the creature without Idolatrie, he maketh there unto no direct answer, but instead of one frames a distinction of Worship in Civil and Sacred, the first he sayth may be given to men, but the 2d. to God only, aledging this distinction to be founded on Scripture, Luke. 14. 10. Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. Now these words ought to be translated thou shalt have glory, praise or renown, and therefore in the Latine it is, Et erit tibi gloria, for so the Greek word Doxa Signifies, which W. M. will not show me to Signifie Adoratio, or Worship: its therefore but a poor Argument that has no better bottom then this manifest mistake of the Translation. For other proof he hath none, neither for his Distinction, nor former Assertion.

Thirdly, I observe his Instancing of the practises of Abraham, Lot, Joseph, Jacob, adding that though they be not to be followed in all things, yet in such they may as are not else were Reprehended nor Prohibited. For Answer, let him look unto Rev. 22. 9. where the Angel refused it, and seeing I suppose he may have so much Charity for this beloved Disciple, as to Judge he was not Tempted with Idolatry, especially in a season wherein God was Revealing such pretious things unto him: he may observe how this Holy Man was a stranger to this unscriptural distinction, of Civil and Religious Worship.

Fourthly, I observe his endeavours to shift Affinity with Popery but he hath no waydisproved the parity in that wherein I compared them, viz. the Papist distingish the Worship they give to God, and that they give to their Images onely in the Intention, and nor in [Page] the outward Signification, and ye distingish the Worship ye give to men and that ye give to God, onely in the Intention, and not in the outward Signification, for ye bow and take off your Hats to the worst of men as well as to God, and therefore ye agree, in so far as both has nothing but their Simple Intention, to plead the difference whereunto nothing is ansewred: He concludes his Section saying, I seem to Justifie Moses his doing Obeysauce, to his Father in Law; adding, what is Obeysance but civil Reverence by bowing the Body; this is a fit conclusion to close up such a silly Section, for after he has laboured long in vain, he Concluds, thus begging the thing in question. And if Moses bowed himself as I said in my last, that makes nothing against us. His second Section is to prove Salutations by words, which might have been spared until he had proved how and where we deny them, but because he had somthing to say from Scripture for this, which we deny not, but own as much as himself, he would have it in that he might seem with some credit to bring in his Inference, which is that bowing of the Body and expressing our Affection by words, is agreeable to Scripture: the Latter Part of this concerns not us as being not denied, and for the first, of bowing, it signifies nothing, until it be brought in with some more pressing Premisses, in this Section he acknowledges that takeing of the Hat is without any Scripture Warrant, and from Arguments passes here to Entreaties, Begging that it may not be Quarrelled at, but seeing the taking of it off or uncovering of our Heads is that which the Aopstle requires, as a signe of Subjection in our Worship towards God, 1 Cor. 11. 4, 7. we Resolve to keep it to Him, and not to give it to man wherein if he will solve our Scruple, according to Scripture we may be the more easily Induced to answer his desire; it is to be Observed that notwith-standing of this, we are not against outward Signification of Honour, though in the end of this Section he fasly would be Insinuating the contrary.

He hath here Subjoyned a third Section, which he termeth an Answer to my Objection, and which in Reason should have some relation to Salutations as being under this Head, though indeed it hath none at all, but is a meer Cavil at some of my words upon another Subject, concerning the single Language, where Page. 11. I confess with him that the Kingdom of God Consists not in words, adding that it seems Inconsistent with his Principles, seeing the Gospel according to him, is but words, yea the Scripture it self (I mean [Page] that which ye have of it, to wit, the Letter) Now this Parenthesis he hath Dis-ingeniously omitted, and thereupon goes about to explaine their meaning of the Scripture and the Gospel, alledging if we be for another, we may justly be accounted Subverters of the Christian Religion, but such shallow Critisims brought in beside the Purpose, whereas other things more Material, are either wholly Omitted or scurvily shifted over, will easily appear to the Impartial and Juditious Reader.

In his second Head, concerning our using Thou and Thee, which is the singular number to one Person, I observe.

First, how he hath given away his own Cause, by confessing that Luke. 22. 31. is not understood of one exclusivly, of others, and therefore no wonder if Christ used the Plural Number, seeing as W. M. confesses he Intended to speak to all the Apostles. As for that expression of Bildads, Jobs Friend (granting both the Transcription and Translation to be true) shall this one Expression overturn the Universal practice of Christ and the whole Saints in Scripture, or let him tell us plainly, whither these words and Practices of Jobs Friends which are Recorded, be for to be our Rule so as we ought to Immitate and follow them? especially where they contradict or differ from the Practice of Christ and his Apostles, but to follow this so frequent Practice of the Saints is with W. M. to be Proud, knowing nothing but doting about Questions and Strife of Words, for so he misapplyes 1 Tim. 6. 4. and to his own Confusion uses it himself, in the end of his Epistle to the Reader, where he has these Words, I am thy Servant, and thereby hath Condemned himself as one of those Ignorant, Proud, Boasters he speaks of, &c.

Secondly, The second thing I observe, that he produceth not one Argument against our Practice in this thing, but his own groundless, yea lying Imaginations and Conjectures, aledging he is of the mind, that if the Translators had not kept to the Rigor of Construction, but Translated Atach, and so not thou (which is the true Signification) but you we had kept our old tone though his disdainful Insinuation of our Ignorance be here apparent, yet experience might have taught him and his Brethren, that even where the Translators have favored them with their escapes, the Quakers have both had Hebrew and Greek enough to find them out, it is also here to be observed how easily W. M. can dispence with mistakes, even willful ones, in the Translators when they make for his purpose, [Page] thereby in effect (for all his pretences of Exalting the Scripture and making it his Rule) he signifies his desire not so much to Square his Practices to the Scripture, as by twining it like a Nose of Wax to make it Squar to them.

He Superscribeth his third Head, an undertaking to prove that our departing from them is not to be Justified by their departing from Papists, wherein is to be observed his manifest Omissions, which the Reader will see by comparing the 12, 13, and 14 Pages of my last with this his third Head.

Next I Observe the weakness of his Arguing in what he hath mentioned, wherein he concludes, That because we grant we had a measure of Integritie while among them, that therefore it was begot by their Ordinances so called, but doth not the same recurr in the Case of the Primitive Protestants, or will he say that all of them were void of any measure of Integritie, while they were among the Papists? Moreover whereas he Objects, that though God visited some among Papists, it was not by Popish Traditions, aledging Luther had the benefit of the coppy of a Latin Bible, whereby he was Instructed; for Answer, the same recurrs in our Case, for whatever advantages Luther had either by the use of the Bible or otherways, had not we the same?

And therefore in the Third place is to be Observed that he hath altered the State of the Question, aledging it to be Incumbent upon me, to prove that they were Converted by the Popish Traditions, which is a willful mistake, for the Question (as may be seen in the Pages above-mentioned) was whether God might not countenance us with a regard to that measure of Integrity he hath begot in our Hearts, though we were indeed wrong as to our walking with them in their Way; and this I did Illustrate by the example of the Disciples of Cornelius and of Luther, who though he came but Gradually to his Discoveries, yet was Countenanced in the first as well as last steps, yea notwithstanding of his erring grosly in the matter of Transubstantion, all this he hath wholly Omitted, closing up this Head by endeavouring to draw from my words a reflection upon P. L. as if I accounted an Objection coming from him, weak, but it is ill Inferred to conclude P. L. from thence a feeble Person, for though P. L. as well as I, might reckon it weak comparatively in respect of others more strong, yet he might Judge it strong enough for such faint Disputers as W. M. or his Brethren at Aberdeen [Page] to Answer: as that which he reckoned would put the Quakers to a great Nonplus, he proposed in his Dialogue upon this occasion a Query, Viz. Wehther it was safe to lean to the Guidance of that Light, which one while saies This is the Way of God walk in it, another while, Come out of it, for it is Babylon? To which, beside the general Answer above-mentioned, I shew him how easily it might be Retorted upon most of all the National Ministry of Scotland, who now are gainsaying, and contradicting that which they had formerly pleaded for as the Cause and Work of God, even then as this their Changableness cannot be ascribed to the Scripture, which they pretend to be their Rule, neither will any mans Instabillity who pretends to be giuded by the Light, prove the Light ought not to be followed, this, because he felt might touch him and his Brethren to near therefore he hath wholly Omitted it.

His fourth Head is concerning the Light, containing five Sections, from Page 9. to the 25. wherein is to be observed.

First, how he has gone from the State of the Question, as it is in his Dialogue Pag. 5. where he denies Christ to be in the Wicked or Unconverted in any other manner, then as he is in the very Bruits and unsensible Creatures, but now he grants Christ to be in such as to common Operations, and Page 22. he sayes, That the Light is in all men, and that Christ is in all men, in so far as his Light is in all men, and thus he overthrowes his chief Argument used against us; in his Dialogue Page the 5. where he sayes, That Christ is in none but in such with whom He is in Union, for here he grants Christs Light to be in all men, even such as are not in Union with him, adding that where the Light of Christ is, there is Christ the Donator of it, which is all we say; so then the Controversie is no more, if Christ or his Light be in all men.

But after what manner He is in them, and whether this Light be Saving yea or nay?

And here in the 2d. place I Observe his shameless Dis-ingenuity and Omission, in saying, It remains for me to prove that this Light in all is Saving, whereby he would make the Reader believe, that I had never offered to prove this, for clearing of which I desire he may look into Page the 23. of my last where from Rom. 5. 8. Joh. 3. 16, 19. Heb. 2. Tit. 2. 11. Col. 1. 23. I did prove that the Universal Grace of God given to all men is Saving in its Nature, and in order to Save, and now though no Rules of Strict Debate could require me to proceed further, yet I shall go on to Examine the [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] Question as he hath now Stated it, Viz: That such as are not in Union with Christ have not saving Grace; To prove this he produceth some Scriptures, where such as have Saving Grace and Light are said to be in Union with Christ, which is not in the least denied: But the Question is, whether all that have saving Light are in Union with Christ which he hath not so much as offered to prove, and therefore it is here to be Observed how he hath not so much as mentioned, far less medled with my Arguments, proving Saving Light and Grace to be in men before they be Converted or in Union with Christ, shewing, He must needs be in them before He be in Union with them, that He may work the Faith by which He may be united unto them, seeing, without Him, the Scripture saith, we can do nothing Joh. 15. 5. as it is more Amply contained in Page 15. of my last. Page 14. he seems to take some notice of an Example brought by me to shew that Saving Grace Presupposes not Conversion, it is from the Instance of a Plaister, and a Wound; the being healed of a Wound Presuposeth a Plaister, but the Application of the Plaister Presuposeth not the being healed; this he Rejects as not to the Purpose, because as he saith, who have Saving Grace are in part healed, cured of the Reigning Power of Sin, but for this he brings no Proof, nor hath not shown us where in the Comparison Answereth not after the Like Manner. In the same Page he addeth, That the difference betwixt having of Saving Grace, and being in a State of Grace, is but the Figment of the Quakers own Brain, without giving any cause for it, either from Scripture or Reason, but onely he sayeth so; these are his most Frequent and Inforcing Arguments against us; Of this nature is his arguing Page 11. Reckoning it as a great Absurdity flowing from our Doctrine, that it would Import Christ in some measure to be in the Americans, because He bears Testimony in them against Iniquity, but to prove this to be absurd, he produceth no Reason, and if we may beleive the Apostle Paul he tells us, That a Manifestation of the Spirit is given every one to profit withall, 1 Cor. 12. 7. So this Every one Includes the Americans.

The second Absurdity which he seeks to Infer from this hath no better bottom, that then it might be said that Christ is Revealed to Devils, and that we do the Heathens small favour in puting them but in the same case with such, for the Revelation of Christ to man before the Day of their Visitation be Expired, and to such [Page] after they have Sin'd it out, is far different as may appear by Luk. 17. Likewise W. M. hath forgot how easily this Argument may be Retorted upon himself, for it is not Questioned but Devils have enough of outward knowledg, even such as is gathered from Scripture, and that which W. M. accounts the great Priviledge of Christians, doth it therefore follow that Christians are in no better condition then Devils.

And thus is Answered another of his profuse Assertions Page 12. That if Pagans have Saving Light, their State should be as good as the State of real Christians; for it is one thing to have Saving Light, and another to harken to, and receive it, else according to his owne Argument the State of Devils should be as good as the State of real Christians.

He adds, Where Saving Illumination is, there is Saving Faith, because there is a Concatination betwixt these Graces of the Spirit.

Ans. There is Grace given in order to Save, where Faith doth not follow upon it; which is evident by the Parrable of the Seeds, Ma. 13. 3. it was the same Seed was sown in the Stony and Thorny Ground that was sown in the good Ground, and yet it onely brought forth Fruit there; the Light enlighteneth every man; He came unto His own, and they received Him not: but it was onely to as many as received Him that He gave Power to become the Sons of God.

And, wheras he Objecteth, That where we are desired to beleive in the Light, it is understood of Christs Person, else it would Import a beliefe in a Creature.

I Answer, He that believeth in the Light believeth in Christ, for where the Light of Christ is, as saith W. M. himself (Page 22.) there is Christ himself.

In the same Page he further adds, That if Pagans have saving Light, then there is no Spiritual benefit accrues to Christians by the Scriptures and Gospel: But he hath not heard us contra-distingish this Light from the Gospel, we say expresly it is the Gospel, according to Col. 1. 23. where the Apostle sayth, That the Gospel, whereof he was a Minister, was Preached to every Creature; This Scripture mentioned by me in my last he hath wholly Omited, nor is this arguing of his concerning the bad Tendency of our Principle, but a reiterate Clamour of what is already Answered in Page 16. of my last, where I shew him we distingish betwixt things absolutly needful [Page] and things very profitable, and how they Admit of this Distinction themselves; As also how these bad Consequences of Rendring the Gospel and Preaching useless, doth far more follow from their Doctrine of absolute Predestination, all which he hath also Omitted; Now such are far likelier then we to reprove David his Praying for more Understanding, and that he might keep the Precepts of God, for being Predestinate to Life he could not miss of it, and how can such but reckon it folly for him to Pray that he might keep the Precepts, whose Principles Oblidges them to believe they can never be made able to keep them.

Page 13. To say that men are Brutish in their Knowledg because they turn their Backs upon the Light, he reckons a Begging of the Question, as having no proof at all, whereas it is particularly Intimated 1 Joh. 1. 5, 6, 7. where the cause of mens Walking in Darkness is said to be their not Walking in the Light, though it be Pastors, mentioned in that 10. of Jer. 19. that are said to be Brutish, yet he cannot be Induced to name them. It is easie to prove (though he Insinnuate the contrary) that what in Scripture is called Darkness, hath Saving Light, seeing it is expresly mentioned that the Light shineth in the Darkness, but the Darkness Comprehended it not. And this was Saving, being Christ who is the Saviour, Joh. 1. 5.

Nor doth his supposed Contradiction follow from this, as if men could be Spiritually Dead, and not Spiritually Dead, in respect they have this in them which is Saving, for though it be in them yet it is not of them, he that beliveth in me, saith Christ, though he be dead, yet shall he live, Joh. 11. 25. If Life be not in them as their Permanent condition, yet they may have some touches of it, and the Principle of Life is Permanent even in those that are Spiritually, Dead though many times as a Spark covered under the Ashes; he addeth further, That according to us, such who are the Children of Darkness may be called the Children of Light, because a Child of Light is as much as one in whom there is Saving Light and Grace, Citing for Proof, Luk. 16. 8. the words are, For the children of this world are wiser in their generation then the children of Light, but he offereth from this to Infer, That such who are indeed the Children of Darkness, because of their Disobedience to the Saving Light and Grace of Truth that is in them: he has not offered so much as to mention.

Pag. 13. He confesseth with me, That the Light in some may be [Page] Darkness, but speaks not one word of what Light I mention may be so; Page 17. of mine onely adds, That we will do well to exhort our Dsciples to take heed of our Light, not to it; But we desire not People to take heed to our Light or their Light as he terms it, but to the Light wherwith Christ-Jesus hath Enlightened them, and in this there is no danger; he greatly declares his Ignorance, in Alledging our way of bidding People heed the Light within, is not Warranted by Scripture, for God is light, 1 Joh. 1. 3. is he not in us, Act. 17. 27, 28. Must we not then there take heed unto Him, or is not that Light to be taken heed unto, which shineth in our hearts to give us the knowledg of the glory of God? 2 Cor. 4. 6. And is not the Word of God Light, which the Apostle sayeth expresly is not far off, neither above us, below us, nor without us, but nigh, even in our mouthes and in our hearts, Rom. 10. 8. Deut. 30. 14. Moreover W. M. himself Confesseth, That the Light of Christ is in Wicked Men, and if so, let him tell us plainly if men ought not to take heed to the Light of Christ where it is, how hath Darkness Blinded him in this Matter.

Page 14. He repeats my words falsly, Alledging I say, The Light is Darkness to them that Reject it, instead of, is as Darkness, For I said plainly, the Light of Christ is not, nor cannot be Darkness, otherwayes then as the Day of the Lord in Scripture is called Darkness, this he hath Omitted.

Page 15. Having sought but Ineffectually to overturn my Assertion, where I say, some may have Saving Light and Grace, who after a certain manner may be said not to have the Spirit, Viz. as not bringing forth the Fruits of it: Averring, That unless I can Prove, that the Spirit calls upon all in Order to Conversion, I cannot conclude that all have the Spirit. Ans. As the one is easily proved so is the other safely concluded, these are the plain words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. 7. A manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withall: Now it were not profitable unto them, if it did not strive with them in Order to Convert them. That other Scripture Joh. 16. 8. he passes over, Alledging I should Prove the World there to be understood of all and every one: though in Reason it might suffice for answer, that there is nothing brought by him to shew why the word World here is not taken in its Geunine and Common Acceptation, yet the Apostle solves this Scruple in the following verse, of sin, because they believe not in me: [Page] Then, if there, all unbelievers be included, is not that all and every one in the World, for of the Saints, there is not here any question.

In his Second Section, Page 16. he beginneth with Omitting my Concession of the Benefit and Advantages that accrue to those that Believe, by the outward Knowledg of Christ, and mentioneth nothing of the State of the Question, which was, Whether any might be Saved without this outward Knowledg? and to shew that some might I gave him the Instance of Deaf People and Children, to which he returneth nothing, but takes up the Paper to Prove, That the Greek Preposition [...], is somtimes Translated, among, which is not denied, yet I shall find him twenty to one where it is rendered in, and can no wayes be said to be among, the Question is, whether in this place 1 Cor. 2. 2. it be In or Among? the Reason Alledged by him proves it no wayes to be Among, to wit, that it would have been the Apostles Grief not his Joy, to know that the Light of Truth was born down among them; This was the Apostles Joy that the Corrinthians come to be sensible how they had Crucified Christ in them, that so looking upon, and takeing heed to Him whom they had Peirced, they might come to be Healed by Him.

Page 17. He slightly passes over that expression of Paul, 2 Cor. 5. 16. where he sayth, Henceforth know we Christ no more after the flesh but after the spirit, adduced by me to show that Paul prefered a Spiritual Knowledg of Christ to all other, as if the Apostle were here onely condemning earthly thoughts of Christ, as if, as King of Isarael, he should begin a Temporal Kingdom, but for this Exposition we have onely the bare Authority of his own naked Assertion.

Page 18. For want of a true Spiritual Understanding Concerning what I mean by the Inward Blood of Christ, he bringeth forth his own malitious guessings.

The first is, That I seem to Incline to Justifie that which hath been charged upon some of my Brethren, to wit, That we are not such Fools, as to hope to be Saved by that Jesus that died at Jerusalem; As he hath no ground to Suspect such a thing from my words, so there was never any ground for such a charge against any, owned of that People.

The 2d. is, That Perhaps I Intend, that Christ, as man, dwells in us, there can none truly charge us with such grosness, as to Assert the Manhood, or Weshel, that walked at Jerusalem is in us, but if any of us have said, that Christ as man dwells in us, they have said no [Page] more then the express words of Scripture, 1 Pet. 3. 3, 4. Let your adorning be the hidden man of the heart, Eph. 4. 24. That ye put on the new man: now what is this new man but Christ Jesus, and therfore saith the Scripture, Rom. 13. 14. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. Gal. 3. 27. As many as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; and this is Christ which the Apostle travelled that He might be formed in the Galatians, Gal. 4. 19. And whereof he Admonnisheth the Corinthians, that they should know Him in them, else they were reprobates, 2 Cor. 13. 5. If it be hard for W. M. to take up the meaning of these things, let him acknowledge his Ignorance in the Holy Scriptures, whose Language this is.

In his 3 Section, Page 19. He begins by offering to Prove, our Principles have a tendancy to Introduce Paganism, and to Contradict him, he reckons an Impertinency, but his Ridiculous Vanity herein will appear, by looking unto Page 24. of my last, neither bringeth he any Arguments to Prove this, but such whereby he might conclude the same against the Apostle Paul; The Quakers saith he, Spakes of a Light within, to which who take heed need no Teacher, and the Apostle speaks of a Knowledg or Light, under the new Covenant, where there is no need of a Teacher, Heb. 8. 10, 11. so if the tendency of the Apostles words be not to Introduce Paganisme, neither are ours, and because that W. M. finds that notwithstanding of this we dispise not Teaching, but are led even by that Light, to hear and to recieve the Ministry of them whom God sends, he concludes that herein we are Inconsistent: adding, That some of us have been heard to say, That we only Taught to bring People off from other Thachers to mind the Light within, that then they will need none, which he concludes, would quickly make them like such among whom the name of Christ is not in Remembrance, but he might as well seek to Infer the like hazard, and Contradiction from the plain words of the Apostle, 1 Joh. 2. 27. Ye have an anoynting, and ye need not that any man teach you, but as the same anoynting teacheth you of all things, and yet in the mean time was Teaching them.

As for that Story mentioned by him, Of a certain Dying Man in Aberdeen whom two Quakers pressed so much to mind Christ within, It inferreth nothing for his Purpose, for that Dying Person had Abundance of the outward Knowledg of Christ, and they needed not Preach that to him which he knew, therefore was he sensible of [Page] the seasonableness of their Advice, saying (as I am certainly Informed by one of the two) how good a thing would it be for an old dying man like me, to know that Christ within which ye speak of,

He bringeth not any thing of weight in his 4. Section as reply to that which is contained in the 22. Page of my last, where I shew we do no ways confound the Light-giver with the Light, or enlightning given: the Reason Alledged here is, because we call that Light Jesus Christ wherewith all men are Enlightened, which implyeth no more his Consequence then that usual expression, that it is the Sun by which we are outwardly Enlightened, implyes any confounding of the Sun with the Beams,

Whereas in his last he said, There was a certain Light in all men, and that as the Remianders of Gods Image in him since the Fall; in the end of Page 24. he explaines to be the Light of Reason and Understanding, and thereby makes the Resaon of man all one with Christ and the Spirit, which Page 10. and 22. he granted to be in Wicked Men, as to common Opperations.

After that he laboreth much in this 5 Section, to Prove, That man Retaineth some Good since the Fall, he Instanceth nothing but the Soul, which he saith, is Good and Pretious, and of great Excellency, and Worth, and Retaines a Similitude to the Image of God, as being Spiritual and Immortal, where it is observeable; That he grants the Souls of Wicked and Unconverted men to be of great Worth and Excellency, and yet he denies the Works of the Pure Spirit of God to be of any Worth or Excellency, and that because the Soul has a share in them: if so be the Souls of Wicked Men are conform'd to the Image of God, because they are Spiritual and Immortal, then are Divels also conform to the Image of God, for they are also Spiritual and Immortal in the same sence that the Souls of Wicked Men are.

Lastly, I desire the Reader may here Observe, how he hath entirly Omited that part of Page 23. of mine where I shew how and in what sence the Light is to be understood or called the Light of Nature, and of what Nature, therein clearing us from the Aspertion of Pelaganisme, by which Omission it may appear how willing these men are to Caluminate us, and apt to pass by that which tends to our Vindication.

Page 25. Head 5. Sect. 1. He alledgeth, We vilifie the Scriptures, [Page] and that because we confess, That the end of our meeting is not to read them, but to wait on God, adding, that therefore we make an opposition betwixt Reading the Scriptures, and waiting on God; But as this conclusion hath no Proof, so it is most Inconsequential, as if nothing could be distingished except it were Opposite: according to which he might Argue, that because Preaching and Praying are not all one, therefore they are Opposite: that some have been Countenanced of God in Reading the Scriptures is not denied by us, and therefore the bringing of it forth against us, is wholly Impertinent.

And whereas he avers, That Reading of the Scripture is the meanes of having the Word of God to dwell richly in us, alluding to Coll. 3. 16. he should have first proved the Word there mentioned to be the Scripture, before he had been so hasty to draw his Conclusion.

His Alledging some passages, where Christ and others spoke upon some words of Scripture, saith nothing to the purpose, for as I confessed it was sometimes used by them, so I told him it was also frequent among us; but the Question is, whether their setled Custom of speaking upon a Text be according to Scripture? and thereupon I shew him how Christ and his Apostles did Preach without it, as Christ, Mat. 5. and in many other places: And Paul to the Athenians, but this of Paul mentioned by me in my last he hath left unanswered.

And in Answer to 1 Cor. 14. 29, 30, 31. For ye may all prophecy one by one, &c. He saith, This will not conduce to keep up the Successive talking of Quakers, Alledging it to be Ristricted to the Prophets, which he sayes, It will be hard to prove our Preachers to be. Adding, That it maketh not against their Way, because Ministers speak among them two or three. Here though in relation to us he Restricts this place to the Prophets, yet in relation to himself he doth it not, else he must prove their Ministers, that so speak, to be Prophets, as he desires me to do our Preachers; Now this he cannot, since he sayes Peremptorly, Page 97. That such a thing is ceased, and therefore this may shew how he twinds and wrests the Scripture, to make it Answer his Corrupt ends, it is a manifest shift to avert the strength of this place, where the Order of the Church which is quite contrary to theirs, is expresly mentioned. To run to the matter of Womens Speaking, thereby to make a Digression to a new Debate, which hath been largly defended by us, and paticularly by Margret. [Page] Fell. in a Book never yet answered, and as to the place Alledged we have often shown how it cannot be understood, in a Ridged Litteral sence, else it would contradict the same Apostle, 1 Cor. 11 5. where he Proposeth to Women the Method and Manner of their behaviour, in their publick Preaching and Praying; the Promise was, that the Daughters as well as the Sons should Prophesie, Joel. 2. 28 Act. 2. 17.

As a 2d. Reason of our villifying the Scriptures he adds, and that by way of derition, They will not have the Scripture called their Masters Letter (No Forsooth) their Masters Letter is writ in their Hearts, &c. Ans. Here his Malice hath not only led him Foolishly to Deride us, but the Apostle, yea God himself: for the Law of God is our Masters Letter, and this is in our Hearts if we be under the New Covenant, Heb. 8. 10. I will put my law in their minds, and write them in their hearts, and ver. 11. they shall not need every man to teach their neighbour, for they shall all know me, &c. His Argument taken from Christs writing to the seven Churches of Asia, makes nothing against us, except he will be so Ridiculous to aver, that these Churches had no Rule nor Knowledg of their Masters will, before they received that Writting, which if they had, it was not there onely, and this was that Incumbent to be proved, for which that example was brought, for the Testimony of Christ through his Servants, whether by Word or Writ is Dearly Owned by us, as hath often been declared.

With the like Impudence he Concluds, That we bend our strength to Evacuate the Authority of the Scriptures, and confirm Negligent Atheists, in their Contemptuous slighting of them, because we Speak of walking, or doing our Work by the Immediate Councel of God; But he might as well babble against the Beloved Disciple 1 Joh. 2. 24. Ye have received an anointing and ye need not that any man should teach you, and yet was then teaching them himself without Contradiction, as for that Scripture, Joh. 12. 24, 48. which he desires us to read, we find not how in the least they strike against our Principle, for as it is without doubt to us, that the words which Christ spake will stand in Judgment against him and his Brethren, because while in words they pretend to Exalt it, both in Principle and Practice they Villifie and deny it.

As a 3d. Reason he Alledges, We Prefer our Silent Waiting to the Reading of Scriptures, as if we must first come to this, ere we can [Page] know the Scripture aright, adding that this waiting is defined by us, to be a silent posture of the Heart, without thinking good or evil.

Answ. These thoughts which we say ought to be excluded from waiting, are mans own thoughts, not such as the Spirit of God furnisheth him with, and it is great Ignorance to say that without this we can use the Scriptures aright, seeing the things of God knoweth no man save the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2. 11. As for his own Imaginations which he Subjoines concerning our waiting they signifie nothing, because Alledged without any proof, we deny not but that Faith Hope and Charity is exercised in waiting, yet not without such thoughts as proceed from the Spirit of God and whereas he finds we clear our selves of this Calumnie, of being Vilifiers of the Scripture, by showing how much it is our desire to try Doctrines by them: he alledgeth, We have herein been suspected of Jugling; the proof is, R. Farmer saith so. but R. Farmers saying and W. M's. saying is all one in this matter, neither of them are to be trusted without proof: Now the Reason because we say that the Scriptures are not the Saints Rule of knowing God and Living to him, but this is just to beg the thing in Question.

That Story mentioned by him of a Quakers telling a certain Woman in Aberdeen, that she might as well read a Lattin Book as the Bible, doth no waies prove that we ate against trying of Doctrins by the Scripture, seeing the Quaker he speaks of, might have had good reason to look upon that supposed Religious Woman, as one alienated from that Spiritual Key of David which can alone truly open the Scriptures, and so might well tell her, she would do well first to come to that, else her Reading might be so far from profiting her, that she might come to Wrest them to her own Destruction, 2 Pet. 3. 16.

Sect. 2. Page 30. he begins with acknowledging, That something may be accounted the Declaration of ones Mind, which is not his word, though Page 12. of his Dialouge, he could not but smile at it as Irrational.

To prove the Scriptures to be truly and properly called the Word of God he subjoyneth, That the Precepts of the Scripture were uttered and spoke of God, but in Answ. to this I shew him Pag. 26. of my last, that the Properties peculiar to the Word cannot be spoken of the Scripture, but of the Inward and Living Word, to which he replys nothing, onely tells there is a twofould, Word a [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] Co-essentiall, Co-eternal Word, and a Spiritual Word; the Temporal expressed Word, or the Word written in time; but seeing he pretends to be pleading for the Scripture, he should have used the Language of it, and not such strange Antescriptural expressions which are not to be found in all the Bible: Where doth he read of a Spiritual Temporal expressed Word? a part of my Argument shewing that these Scriptures, Hos. 1. 1. Joel. 1. 1 Esa. 38. 4. are understood of that Word from which the Scriptures are given forth; he hath but mentioned, not answered; for I told him, Pag. 26. of my last, that where it is said, The Spirit of God came upon such a one, or to such a one, that therefore the Scripture is the Spirit, and so as do the Socinians, call the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, the Spirit, denying the necessity of any other Spirit, this he hath wholly Omited: and indeed he seemes prety much to incline to the Socinians in this matter, for he sayes, That the Scripture is the Sword of the Spirit, and that because Christ in his conflict with Satan said, it was written; but had this been Christs onely Sword, we must conclude the Devil to have had the same, for he said also, it is written; and according to this Doctrine who hath a Bible in his pocket, wanteth not the Sword of the Spirit, which favoureth of that Popish foppery, that the sign of the Cross puts away Devils; but experience teacheth us both these Opinions to be alike Ridiculous.

Upon this occasion in his Dialogue, Page 13. he asserted, That it is all one to say the Scripture saith, and God saith; and whereas, in Answer to this, I told him, that they might be said to be one because of their Agreement, yet were no more one then the Sun Beam and the Shadow is one though they agree together, because he knew not what to reply to this, he mentions a part of these words of mine, and Subjoyns by way of Answer to them, that they tend to advance humane Writings, and equal them with the Scripture, when they agree with what God sayeth: which as it is a manifest shift, and no reply, so it is a notable Impertinency, to say, there is any hazard of advancing such Writings as truly agree with what God sayeth, for upon what other account are the Scriptures to be esteemed?

Page. 32. to prove that word mentioned Mark. 7. which he Phancies are said to be made void, is not the Living Word, but the outward Precept of the Scripture, he sayes, It is plainly held forth to be so without any further Probation.

[Page] He addeth, Page 34. That it seems we think they set up the Scriptures as an Idoll, instead of that from which they come; asking, If we did ever hear them call it the Eternal Son of God, that Saviour who died, &c.

Answer. Though we have not heard you term the Scripture, yet it is not without Reason, we say, ye set them up in Christs stead; for I have a Letter under one of the present National Teachers hand, wherein he sayes, The Scriptures are the alone means of Salvation; yea, the alone Way Truth and Life, and that none can be saved without them.

And I have heard another call the Greek Testament, The onely foundation. Now being these are the peculiar Properties of Christ, have we not reason to say, that such as ascribe them to the Scriptures, puts the Scriptures in Christs stead, though W. M. be pleased to term it unworthy dealing.

Sect. 2 Pag. 35. he sayes, It is not dificult to prove that the Law and Testimony mentioned, Deut. 8. 20. was not an inward Law: The reason Alledged is, Because the Prophet opposes what is written as no Light, if it agree not to the Law and Testimony; But what then, doth this prove the Testimony here not to be inward? He adds, That let People pretend what they will to a Law within, if it agree not with the Scripture Word, there is no Light in them; and that the outward Law gets the name of the Testimony; but granting him all this, it doth not in the least follow, that the Law and Testimony; there mentioned was not inward; It is more Observeably strange here then in any other place, with what shameless confidence, he asserts his own bare Assertions instead of Arguments.

After the like manner without answering a word of what I infer, Pag. 27. of mine against him and his Brethren from Joh. 7. 49.

He concludes, That Scripture fits us better then them, because of our known rash censuring; upon which supposition of his own, he condemnes us as like to Pharisees without more adoe: still also by way of reply to me, he sayes, It is not probable that Christ checked the Lawyer in saying, How readest thou? Luk. 10. 26. not offering to add any further probation, and as for what he subjoyneth, Pag. 7 That Christ used the Scripture about Divorcement, and in the matter of the Sabbath; it doth no wayes prove them to be the only Rule, for, as is said, we are willing to try Doctrins by them.

[Page] Pag. 37. He sayeth, It is false to affirm that the Divine Authority of the Scriptures, cannot be prov'd other-wayes then by the Spirits inward Testimony: adding, There are other Arguments whereby it can solidly and convincingly be proved; and for this he instanceth one which he sayes, is excellently improved by R. Baxter; what then, because W. M. thinks that Argument of R. Baxter will prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit, must we therefore be of the same mind? I doubt very much if R. Baxter think so much himself; Now W. M. his deceit is very Remarkable, in quoteing some words of John Calvin, where he sayes, If he were to deal with Arguments, he could produce many to prove the Laws came from God, for that I never Imagined these Arguments could convincingly, prove the Scriptures Authority without the Spirit, (which is the thing in debate) it appears in the very following words, Lib. Inst. 1. Cap. 7. Sect. 4. But if we will well look to our Consciences, that they be not troubled with doubts, and stick not at every scruple, it is requisite the Perswasion whereof we have spoken, be taken higher then humane Judgment or Conjecture, Viz. the secret Testimony of the Holy Spirit. And a little after in direct opposition, to wit his words, he adds, This word shall not obtain Faith in the Hearts of men if it be not Sealed by the Inward Testimony of the Spirit; It is necessary then, saith he, that the Saints Spirit which spake by the mouth of the Prophets, enter in our Hearts, and touch them Livingly, to perswade us, that the Prophets have faithfully delivered that which was Commanded them from on high; and a little after, This then is a perswasion which requires no reasons: And again, This is a Perswasion which cannot be Begotten but by a heavenly Revelation.

And in the beginning of the next Chapter he adds, If we have not this certainly higher, and more firme then all humane Judgment, in vain is the Authority of the Scriptures proved by Arguments. This doth abundantly shew how contrary W. M. is to Calvin in this matter; and not to him alone; but to the whole Reformed Churches of France, who in their confession of Faith agreed upon by the first National Synod they ever had at Paris, Anno, 1559. say thus, Art: 4. We know these Books to be Canonique, not so much by the common consent of the Church, as by the Inward Testimony and perswasion of the Holy Spirit; and whereas he adviseth me to read Calvin his 6th. Chap. but that it would prove to long a Digression, [Page] I could easily shew, that we are no such contemners of the Scripture as those he there speaks to: And what if he contradict the Truth which we, and himself else where acknowledges, I make use of his Testimony against W. M. and his Brethren, even as he did the Testimony of Augustin, Gregory, and others of the Fathers, against those of Rome, whom nevertheless he spared not to reject sometimes. Read Inst. lib. 1. cap. 11. Sect. 5 lib. cap. Sect. 4. and in many other places, thus also is added that which he adds about Passur, whose Translation he sayes, We follow in one thing, but not in another, for we are not bound to follow him further then he follows the Truth; Nor doth W. M. here produce any argument to prove that these words, Joh. 5. 39. should be, Search the scriptures, and not ye Search the scriptures, but his own bare assertion, adding That Christ did not check them, when he saith in them, ye think to have eternal life, whereas the very following words clearly Import a reproof, Ye will not come to me that ye might have life; He says not, seek for Life in the Scriptures, ye do well to think to find it there, but thus, Ye think to have eternal life in the scriptures, but will not come to me that ye might have life.

He ends this Section, asking, Seeing I grant the Scriptures are profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, &c. Why I deny them to be a perfect Rule? but I never denyed them, and I told him also, they were thus profitable, not to every man, but to the man of God, i e. he that's led by the Spirit of God; Now to this he replys nothing, onely tells me, The man of God is most commonly understood of the Ministers of Christ Jesus, which though I should grant him, what he either can or would Infer from it; against my Argument he hath left unmentioned.

Sect. 3. Pag. 40. He alledgeth, The voice and Testimony of the Father, which Christ speaks of to the Jewes, not to have been inward, desiring the reader to look to the place: and thereupon he cites Joh 5. 36. where Christ speaks of his Miracles as a greater witness then that of John, but his deceit is here abundantly manifest, for the place mentioned by me was, 1 Joh 5. 10. For this is the witness of God, which he testified of his Son, he tha [...] believeth in the Son of God, hath the witness in himself; Now, this he hath wholly omited, and mentioned another in the stead of it, which makes nothing to the purpose, I deny not but the Miracles were a greater witness then that of John; but then, will it therefore follow that the inward [Page] Testimony of the Father is not greater also; this was the matter in question. After the like manner he concludeth the voice spoken of, John 5. 37. Is not inward, but outward, citing for Proof, Mat. 3. 27. 2 Pet. 1. 17, 18. the one is the voice heard at Christs being Baptized, the other at his being Transfigured: But what way he seeks to Infer from thence, that the Voice of the Father here spoken of by Christ to the Jewes, was not inward but outward, he hath left unmentioned.

Likewise, the Exposition he adds upon this place, as if Christ were onely here reproving the Ignorance of the Jewes, whose Predecessors had heard so much of God, it would be the better received, that it had some other bottom then his own meer assertion.

Page 14. He confesseth, That where we are desired to try the Spirits, there is no mention of trying them by the Scripture: And to my Question, asking if there be any surer way of trying of Spirits, then by the Spirit of God? he returneth no reply, but another Question; Viz.

Whether there be any surer way then that for which the Bereans were commended?

I Answer, Yes, by the Spirit, Peter could never have discerned Ananias and Saphira by the Scripture, and yet did it by the Spirit; To say (as he does) That this was a matter of Fact and not of Doctrine, and that it was extraordinary, is a meer silly shift, for it was onely by the Spirit of God; which is so ordinary to Christians, that none can be truly one without it, Rom. 8. 9. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; And if this Spirit can discern the secret hypocrisie of the Heart, in matters of Fact, far more the Errors, and mistake of the Understanding, in matters of Judgment, which all grant to be more Obvious.

And though I never aver'd, that John excluded all external Rules, by pointing to the anointing, so his assertion to say: That the anointing directeth us to the Law, and to the Testimony, as supposing it to be outward, is but to beg the thing in question already refuted.

Page 43. As he affirmeth, That mans being deluded proceeds not from the Scripture, but their own blindness, so he acknowledges, That falling in Delusion, proceeds not from the Spirit, but from the tricks and deceits of Satan, and thereby he hath clearly confessed, what is asserted by me Page 30. and not answered: And whereas he adds, [Page] That leaning to the Spirit, and for sakeing the Scripture, provokes God to give men up to strong delusions, which he Illustrateth by the example of one I. Gilpen once a Quaker, who by harkening to a voice within, was put upon Mischievous and Detestable Practices.

I Answ. He hath not proved that we forsake the Scripture, nor will one mans being deceived, by harkening to a voice within, prove the Spirit not to be a certain Rule, more then as himself ackowledges, The Pharisees having the Scripture in such high esteem, and accounting them their Rule, will prove their delusion proceeded from them; that Story of Gilpens was largly answered about 5. years agoe by E. B. and C. A. who have laid open his Deceit and Wickedness, neither can any of these Rediculous Pranks, (granting the matter to be true) which he pretended to doe by a voice within, while appearing to be among us, prove the insufficiency of that Light we Preach, or the hazard of following it, more then his Beastly Drunkness and open Prophanity, naturally known in the Garison of Carlile, where he was a Souldier, proves he was led by the Scripture, which it is like he then pretended, was his Rule unto these wicked practices, which were the best fruits of that Repentance, W. M. seems so much to congratulate in him: Such filthy Dross whom God purgeth out from among us, are fittest persons to be Proselited by him and his Brethren: and truly we are well rid of them, and can heartily spare such unto them; They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us 1 Joh. 2. 16.

Pag. 43. He sayes, That though the Scripture be sufficient for discovering of Delusions, and ending of differencs, in genere objecti, yet the Spirit is necessary, in genere causae affectivae: Now this necessity of the Spirit he saith himself, Is that we may be right discerners, for removeing our natural depravedness; and now granting the Scripture were sufficient in this manner, will it therefore follow that the Spirit within is not the Rule; which was the thing to prove in this Section, in so far as he acknowledges this necessity of the Spirits work, he hath yeilded to the Truth; yet it is observable, how in contradiction to the Truth he overturns it all again.

Pag. 47. 48. Where he expresly pleads, For Preaching upon, and using the Scriptures, without the joynt Concurrance of the Spirit; alledging, I have no ground to say they ought not so to do, then consider [Page] first he said, The Spirit was necessary to Remove the depravedness of our nature that we might be discerners, but now he sayes, we ought to use the Scripture without the Spirit, though our nature be depraved, yea though we be in no capacity to make a right discerning, and here he hath notably manifested his affinity with the Jesuits, Arminians, Socinians, Pelagians, and Semipelagians, in saying, How many cold hearts have been Rubbed and Chaffed unto Spiritual hear, by reading and talking of the Scripture; For is not this to set nature a work, and to grant a capacity in man to beget Spiritual heat without the joynt Concurrence of the Spirit; and this is alltogether agreeable to that known Maxim of the Semipelagians, facienti quod in se est, deus non denegat gratiam, God will not deny him Grace that doth what in him lies. And hereby the Intelligent Reader may perceive, how much nearer a kin our Adversaries are to these Errors then we, notwithstanding they so falsly and frequently brand us with them, in their Pulpits and elswhere, as also that it is meerely constraint when they are hardly put to it, that they now and then, and that in contradiction to themselves, let a word or two drop concerning a necessary Work of the Spirit.

Sect. 4. Pag. 45. He alledgeth, There is no convincing People by this Rul [...]f the Spirit within, because each way may pretend to the guidence of his Spirit, and so both remain obstinate: adding, That according to them the Scripture is the rule which lieth patent to both parties; and though it do not actually convince the stuborn, yet there is enough in it to satisfie any Inqusitive Adversary.

Answ. And is not that Spirit sufficen to satisfie any Inquisitive Adversary, that's willing to be undeceived, which searcheth all things, even the deep things of God: There is no inconvenience can be pressed from making the Spirit a Rule or Guide, but the same recurs by making the Scripture one; for is it not laid claim unto by Persons quite different in Judgment, yea both sometimes to one verse, and will have it speak opposite to the other, if it be said, that Scripture being compared explaines it self; has not such as have so compared, been found uncessantly to jangle even in their comparing of it. And this W. M. cannot deny, but this hath been because, one or both parties hath been estranged from the true Testimony of the Spirit: What is then the Ultimate Recorse that can onely resolve all doubts even concerning the meaning of the Scripture, but the certain Testimony of the Spirit? for if the [Page] Scriptures be onely certain because they came from the Spirit of God; then the Testimony of the Spirit must be more certain then they, according to the received Maxim of the Schools, Propter quod unumquodque est, tale id ipsum magis est tale, That which makes a thing certain must be more certain then it; and this arguing against the certainty of the Spirit, checks not onely at the certainty of the Saints Faith now, from the Light within, and the assurance of knowledg, but at the Faith and Knowledg, which all the Saints and holy Prophets had; not onely before the Scripture was writ, but even in their writing of them. We are in no greater hazard to be deceived now, then they were then, therefore the Apostle notably reproves such Pratlers against this certainty, 1 Joh. 4. 6. We are of God, he that knoweth God heareth us, he that is not of God heareth not us: hereby know we the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of error.

Page. 48. He asks, Why I complain for his improving Esa. 59. 21. But mentions not one word of that part of Pag. 32. of mine, wherein I shew him how this Scripture made against him, as holding forth Gods putting words in mens mouthes which they deny, as a thing ceased; This the Reader by looking to the place may observe, that the Lord there Promises his Spirit and Word shall continue to direct his People, is not denied.

In his Dialogue, Pag. 16. He sayes, That the Scriptures cannot be said to be a dead Letter, because they are called killing, and whereas I told him, Pag. 31. of my answer, That as dead things do kill if fed upon, so if men feed upon the Letter of the Scripture, without the Spirit which is the Life they will kill: he shifts a reply to this, telling me, The Scripture is called killing, as being the Ministration of the Law, which threatens Death against the sinner; What then doth it therefore follow that they are not dead, and deadly to such as feed upon them, without the Spirit which giveth Life; it is an apparent Mallitious Passion, to add, That the drinking in of the Lifeless Poysonous Opinions, of the Quakers, will prove hurtfull to the Soul; seeing he bringeth not the least shadow of proof for it. I observe, that he Intitleth this Section, The Quakers way Inefectual to convince an Opposer; And yet how is it, that he and his Brethren are so affraid that it spread, and are daily so much crying out and clamouring against it as dangerous, intreating and beseeching People to beware of us, and comparing our words and writings to Poyson, as that which is so ready to gain ground; I say how [Page] comes it that they are so pressing in their importunate, and often reiterate Pulpit-exhortations, to the Magistrates, to Suppress, Imprison us, and break up our Meetings, as such against whom their labours will prove altogether fruitless and ineffectual, if not assisted by the external Sword.

Sect. 5. Pag. 49. He undertakes to compare us with Papists, as having learned our Language about Scripture from them, but herein he hath notably manifested, both his self contradiction and Ignorance; He alledgeth, We agree with Papists, in that we say if the delusion be strong in the Heart, it will twine the Scriptures to make them seem for it; and in that we say they are dead, and occasion Sects, and Janglings, (wherunto we allwayes add, because the Spirit is wanting;) And yet in this sence he fully grants it himsef, Pag. 43. saying, It is granted, that deluded Souls do wrest the Scriptures, &c. He concluds us one with Papists, for saying there was a rule before the Scriptures, and yet grants it himself, Page. 46. in confessing the Scripture was not a Rule to such Saints as lived before it was writ, such then had some Rule before the Scriptures; thus far as to his self contradictions: As to his Ignorance can there be any thing more sottish, to compare us with Papist for our preferring and calling the light within, as that which onely makes the outward dispensation of the Gospel profitable, and for our saying, that the Spirit is both our Teacher and our Coppy, according to which if we walk, we may profit without going forth for a coppy, seeing it is known, none to be more enemies to these Doctrines then Papists; and if we deny the Scripture to be the principal and compleat rule of faith, that proves us no wayes to agree with Papists: except we all agreed with them concerning what is the rule of faith, wherein we differ wider from Papists, then our opposers; therefore that sentence of Tertulian Viz. That Christ is allwayes Crucified, betwixt two Thieves, is Impertinently objected by W. M. against us, and if the Lord will it may in due time be made appear to publick view that it far better suits our adversaries.

He looks upon it as a great absurdity, Pag. 51. To deny the more sure word of prophecie, mentioned, 2 Pet. 1. 19. to be the Scripture: Alledging, I should have confuted the Apostle who expounds it so, vers. 20. But before he had been so peremptory in his conclusion, he should have first proved that the Apostle mentions these words, by way of exposition to the former, seeing he thinks himself so secure [Page] here why did he omit to answer that part of Page 31. of mine, where I told him, That seeing the Scriptures have all their sureness from the Spirit, they cannot be more sure then it; for to say that Scripture is more sure as to us, being a standing Record, then a Transient voice from heaven which may be mistaken or forgotten, answers nothing; seeing that more sure word we speak of, is not a Transient voice, but that Word of God which is allwayes with us, nigh us, in our hearts, if we be willing to hear it and regard it: and can far less be either forgotten or mistaken then Scripture, for it speaks plain, home, and neer, even to such somtimes who would willingly both mistake and forget it, Heb. 4. 12.

Though I could freely refer his 6 Head, concerning Justification, to be compared by the Juditious Reader, with that which is contained from Page 32. of my last, to Pag. 44. As being a confused mass, which needs no further refutation, yet because he makes a great noise, here I shall subjoyn these few observations a little to unvail him in this matter.

And in His first Section from Pag. 52. to 58. I observe, how hastily he passes over the Charges laid by me to his door, Pag. 23. which because he cannot clear himself of, therefore he hath not lesure to answer.

Secondly, I observe, how after he repeats my words, Of our sence of Justification, which the Reader may see at length, Pag. 33. of my first, he can say nothing against them, but onely I seem to Insinuate, they had no need of inward Righteousness; It appears his guilt has made him so jealous in this thing, as if I had been reproaching him, where I onely gave an account of my own belief; his accusing or suspecting me of Fraud or Cheating, signifies nothing, except he produce some reason for it.

In order to discover this, he proposeth, What may be the sence of the word Justifie in Scripture, as it imports the sinners Justification before God; which he determinatly affirms, Onely to be a pronouncing or accounting a man Righteous, and not a making him so; citing for proof, Pro. 17. 15. Though Justifie in someplaces may be so understood, as in this, which indeed, hath no relation to the sinners Justification before God; yet where it hath such a relation, it may be understood otherwayes, Viz. a makeing a man just, as in that notable expression of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 6 11. But ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified, &c. For if Justifie here were not [Page] to make men Righteous, but onely to impute them or account them so, then Washing, and Sanctifying, were not real but only imputative also, and at this rate the Corinthians could not be esteemed truly washed of their sins, which the Apostle mentions in the former verse, such as Stealing, Drunkness, Covetousness, but onely thought or imputed so, and this were to make the Christian Religion a cloak for all wickedness, as if men were not by it truly cleansed of these evils, but on the contrary fostered in them: In these places also, Justification was taken in relation to inward righteousness, Rom, 8. 30. Whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified, Rev. 22. 11. Qui Justus est, Justificetur adhuc, for so the Greek and Latine hath it, which being rightly Translated, is, He that is just let him be justified still; It is to be observed, that I deny not, but the word Justifie, is sometimes taken in Scripture for pronouncing men just, though he fasly seems to insinuate the contrary.

Thirdly, I observe his alledging, That our speaking of being Justified by Christ revealed in us, is a falling in with the Popish sence of Justification, adding, That our more full agreement with them, doth appear, in that wherein I say we differ from them, but here his shameless disingenuity is manifest, in that he hath not answered at all Page 34. 35. of my last, as to that wherein I shew our disagreement with Papists; And how this manner of Justification by the indwelling of Christ is denyed by them, and particularly disputed against by Bellarmine: For to prove our supposed Affinity with Papists, and imagined opposition to Protestants, he formeth a Question, Viz.

What is that, which causeth a man to stand pardoned and so Just before God, and for which he is pronounced Righteous? adding, That the Papists have herein, recourse to infused Righteousness, but Protestants to the imputed Righteousness of Christ, namely the Satisfaction and Merit of His death.

But here is to be observed, how confusedly he hath tumbled things together that ought to be distinguished, whereby he may the more securely lurk under them, though Originally the cause of both be the infinite Love of God, in which Christ was given, [Page] who offered up himself a most sweet and satisfactory Sacrifice, as the Ransom, the Atonement, the Propitiation for our sins; But as to our being Justified, it is by Christ and his Spirit, as he comes in our hearts truly and really to make us Righteous; which because we are thus made, therefore are we accounted so of him, as the Apostle plainly intimats in the 1 Cor. 6. 11. That it is by the Spirit of God we are Justified, nor is this any conivance with Papists, who as is abovesaid deny Justification in this manner; and it is but to befool children and simple ignorants, that he covers himself so much with the general term of Protestants, as if our Doctrine were generally denied by all such, seeing many and that very Famous Protestants, have been of our mind, and have eagerly pleaded for this real Righteousness, as to Justification against his sence of it; particularly, Ossinder one of the first and most Renowned Reformers of Germany, who not without ground, avered Luther to be of this Judgment.

And Melancton, in the Apology of the Augustinian Confession, saith, To be Justified in Scripture, not onely signifieth to be pronounced Just, but to be made Just or Regenerate; Johannes, Brentius, and Cheminitus, admit also of the same signification; so Epinus, and Bucenus include, in Justification, not onely forgiveness of sins, but Regeneration, and Righteousness, wrought in us: And Borheus, sive Cellanus, a Germane Protestant, and professor of Theology at Basil; In the Imputation, saith he, by which Christ is ascribed, and imputed to believers for Righteousness, both the merit of His Blood, and the holy Spirit given unto us by the vertue of his merits, is equally included; and thus saith he, we shall consider wholly Christ proposed to us unto Salvation, and not a part of him; lib. in Gen. Pag. 162. again, Pag. 169. he saith, In our Justification Christ is considered, who Breatheth and Liveth in us; Viz. Put on by us through his Spirit. And Pag. 181. he saith, The form of our Justification is the Divine Righteousness, whereby we are formed Just, and Good; this is Jesus Christ, who is esteemed our Righteousness, partly by the forgiveness of sins, partly by the Restauration and Renovation to Integrity, lost by the fall of the first Adam; He being put on by us, as the new and heavenly Adam, of which the Apostle, Ye have put on Christ, put him on I say, as a form; i. e. the Wisdom Righteousness and Life of God. And, Pareus de, just. Cont. Bellar. lib. 2. cap. 7. Pag. 469. We, saith he, neither ever spoke nor [Page] thought the Righteousness of Christ to be imputed to us, that by it we were and might be named formally Righteous, as we have oft now shewed; for surely that should no less fight with reason, then if one quite absolved in Judgment, should say, he were formally Righteous by the mercy of the Judge. These are the plain and positive expressions of several famous Protestants; though W. M. reckons G. Keith's words, mentioned by him Page 5. 5. as Popish, which are nothing different from these: And of late, R. Baxter (whom W. M. Page 37. termes, A Juditious Servant of God) holdeth this Doctrine throughout, in his Book termed, Aphorisims of Justification; who Page 80. saith, That some Ignorant Wretches, gnash their teeth at this Doctrine, as if it were flat Popery; not understanding the nature of the Righteousness, of the new Covenant; which is all out of Christ in our selves, though wrought by the power of the Spirit of Christ. Page 195. He saith, How this differeth from the Papist he need not tell any Scollar who have read their writings; hereby the Inteligent Reader may observe how ridiculous, if not malitious, W. M. is, in making such a noise; as if we were in this matter, either going with Papists or opposing Protestants.

In his second, Section, Pag. 58. Though he would be making a great bussle, of our speaking of Justification by works, yet in the very entry, he cannot deny but he is for it; According to the true sence and meaning of the Spirit: And therefore it remains to prove, that ours is not so.

His alledging from some words of Samuel Fisher, Where he speaks of works having merit, sayeth nothing, for the question recurrs concerning the signification of the word Merit, which we use in a qualified sence; for we say that works are no other wayes Meritorious, then as they are rewarded, Merit and reward being relative terms, as I told him, in my last, to which he returneth no answer: And thus is solved, Sam. Fishers using of that argument, mentioned by him, Page 60 (to whom he foolishly supposes, I cannot reconcile my self; without being of a higher strain then for a reward of Merit) to wit, That as Condemnation, is the reward of evil works; so Eternal Salvation, and consequently Justification, is the reward of good works. Now, Merit in a quallified sence, doth not import an absolute desert, according to strict Justice, as on our part, but a sutableness, agreableness, or congruity, according to these Scriptures, Mat. 3. 8. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, [Page] the Greek word is [...], which signifieth Moritorious, or Worthy, and the same Greek word is used in these other Scriptures, 1 Thes. 2. 12. Walk worthy of God, 2 Thes. 1. 5. That ye may be counted Worthy of the Kingdom of God. And thus R. Baxter speaketh of Merit, in the Book above mentioned, Page 90. in a large sence, saith he, As promise is an obligation, and the thing promised is called debt, so the performers of the conditions are called Worthy, and their performance Merit; Though properly; it is all of Grace, and not of debt.

Moreover, whereas Augustine, Bernard, and others of the Fathers, uses the word Merit, in this qualified sence, W. M. and his Brethren can give it the right hand, but where we use it; notwithstanding, we tell them the simplicity of our meaning, we must be upbraided with Popery.

It is here, observeable, How he turns it to my reproach, That I seem to draw neer, in the least, to any of the moderate sort of Papists; And yet as to things, wherein I charged him of affinity with them, he returneth no solid answer, but sayes, I must not be credited; Yea, he plainly, not onely drawes neer, but fully acknowledges his agreement with them. Saying, They hold some things common with the Orthodox.

His third, and fourth Section, containeth not any thing of a solid reply, to that which is writ from Page 36. to 44. of my last, which the Reader by comparing them may easily observe, He begins alledging, That Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 2. 19. must exclude all works, even the Works of Christ in us; And that because, the Apostle must be supposed, to exclude either evil or good Works, not evil, therefore good; And consequently, the Works of Christ in us. But as I told him in my last, some Works may be good materially, which proceeding not from the Spirit of God, but mans own Spirit, are therefore excluded; And thus the case of Abraham doth not answer, who though a godly-man, was capable sometimes, to have done Works from his own Spirit.

It is here observeable, How he seeks to shift, that which I inforce upon him, from Tit. 3. 5. Alledging, He mentioned it in opposition to Justification by Works; as the meritorious cause thereof; But of this, there was not one word: Where he cites in his Dialogue, Pag. 20. nor doth he answer any thing, for that which I infer from this Scripture, showing Page 37. of my last, to which I refer the Reader, [Page] he having wholly omitted it, that by this Scripture, where the Apostle sayes, According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, the Apostle includes good works as to Justification; now all this he shuffles over, as Insulting Triumphing words; And yet notwith-standing, he himself insults here, as though he had found us guilty of Popery, though what we say in this matter, be no other then what is clearly asserted, by these famous Protestants above mentioned; and more particularly by R. Baxter, in his Book aforesaid, from Pag. 185. to the end, where he sayes, That we are Justified by Works, in the same kind of causality as by Faith, Viz. as causae sine quibus non, conditions, or quallifications of the new Covenant, requisite on our part, in order to Justification; showing, How the Apostle Paul, in the places above mentioned, excludes onely the Works of the Law from Justification, and never at all the Works of the Gospel as they are the conditions of the new Covenant; and there he refutes W. M's. exposition upon Isa. 2. 12. As if our Justification, were onely Justified by Works, or we declared Just by them before men, And seeing W. M. hath declared he hath so good an esteem of R. Baxter I refer him to read, how he is refuted by him, as being to large to be here inserted.

Pag. 65. 66. To overturn that which is said by me, concerning the Faith, Knowledg, and Obedience of the Saints, Pag. 38. 39. of mine; But his Impertinency will be more then manifest, if the Reader do but look unto the place, for I shew him how faith was not alwayes attended with doubting, by the example of Abraham; And therefore his example of the Light and the Air is foolish, for faith and doubt, are not onely distinct but opposite, and not mixt as is the Air and Light; and a little Gold may be perfect, and unmixed with dross, so may little faith be perfect in its measure without doubting; And though the knowledge and obedience of the Saints, be not such as there can nothing be added unto, or answerable to the infinite Love of God, yet, that doth not prove them in what they are to be defined.

His Answer, to that Scripture brought by me, 1 Joh. 3. 9. He that's born of God sinneth not, is most Impious and Antichristian, as if the words imported onely, He maketh not a trade of sinning, for accordingly he might argue, that where it is said, Commit no Adultery, do not Steal, Murder, &c. it is onely understood, that we ought not to make a trade of these sins, but yet might practice them now and then.

[Page] Page 67. He addeth, That (as the Prophet Esa. 64. 6. saith) not all our righteousness which is of thy working in us, is as filthy rages; so neither as we say, all our righteousness, which we, even the best of Saints can perform, of and from themselves, are as filthy rags, from thence infering; That because of this general term all, even the Righteousness of Christ in us, ought to be accounted as filthy rags, but for this he bringeth no proof; and as the Prophet saith All, so he saith Our, which implyes it to be different from the Righteousness of Christ: As he proceeds in the same Page, he is highly confused, first he sayes, It ought not to make us ashamed, that our Righteousness (understanding that which Christ works in us) are as filthy rags, and then he saith, That they are a special Ornament to the Soul, making it, in Beauty to resemble God: And again, to get ground he sayth, That as so, Imperfection cleaveth to the very Grace of God here, absolute blasphemy; Can there be any thing more confused and contradictory then to say, That which is defiled, as filthy rags, is a special Ornament to the Soul, or makes it in Beauty to resemble God.

In Answer, to Pag. 40. 41. He replies nothing, only grants, That the Saints in heaven are cleansed but not on earth, which instead of reply, is a meer begging the thing in question. He closeth up this Section to prove, The Righteousness of the Saints is defiled, with his old instance, of clean water passing thorow an unclean pipe, alledging it, By me not to be weakned, though I do no wayes answer what I said against it Page 41. to wit, That Spiritual Water, is not like outward Water, which an unclean pipe can defile, but is like the Fire, and Light, which though it touch unclean things cannot be defiled, because every thing of the Spirit is undefilable as is the Spirit; And whereas he desires me, To instruct him of an outward Water, which is not capable of defilement, I refer him to a more diligent study in his Physicks, of which it seemes he is very ignorant, and that he may not have reason to think this a shift, let him read the Essayes of the Virtuosi in France; And those termed the Royal Society at London, and he will find such a thing both practicable and practiced.

He begins his fourth Section Pag. 70. with a gross piece of dis-ingenuity, in mentioning a part of my words, where I say, Justification is taken for making a man righteous, and then it is all one with Sanctification, thereupon alledging, I confound Justification, [Page] and Sanctification; whereas he omits the very former sentence wherein I say, Justification is also taken, as Gods Judging men unto Eternal Life, but this deceit, the Reader may at more length observe, by looking to Page 41. of my last; And in that he adds, Men are not made Righteous by an inward Righteousness, he doth greatly declare his ignorance, for if men can really be made Righteous, without Righteousness be really in them, by that which is wholly in another, then they might as well be really made holy without any inward holyness, and this were rather to confound that which God distingisheth, and to alter the Scripture sence of the word Justifie: He alledgeth; That Phil. 3. 8. disclaimes the Righteousness of Christ, but brings no proof for it, and as to his Comentaries, he must advert, he is not in the Pulpit, and must bring nothing here without probation: And whereas I shew, That this argument from the 2 Cor. 5. 12. is most absurd and impious, because accordingly it would follow, that as Christ was made sin for us, who of himself knew no sin, no not in the least, so we may be made righteous before God, though we have no Holiness, no Faith, no good thing wrought in us, he terms this an impudent wresting of his words, alledging, That the strength of of his argument lieth in that; As our sins are inherent in us, and imputed to Christ, so his Righteousness is inherent in him and imputed to us, but he doth not show me, how this in the least solves the consequence above deduced, which followeth as before; And as for that excellent gloss, which he sayes, A certaine one put on these words, it would appear the more such, that it had some shadow of proof for it, it is with a fools consequence that he calleth; This which I shew was deduceable from his words, my Inference, charging me with it, as if I were, Impious and absurd, to imagin that God should except one as Righteous in his sight, and yet his Person remain abhored as an unholy sinner; did I ever assert any such thing, or can there be any thing more ridiculous, then for him to dream I imagine that to be true, which I reprove in him as false, absurd and impious, in the like manner he condemns me as impious, for insinuateing, that they are against inward holiness seeing as he sayes, They profess that without holiness none can see God, it is true, they say so sometimes, and therein often contradict themselves, as is above remarked, yet seeing they look not upon it, as any wayes necessary to Justification, and terms the best of it, but as filthy rags, their seeming to plead [Page] for it doth but bewray their ignorance and confusion: Now whereas to prove that works of the pure Spirit of God, are not all as filthy rags, I did inquire of him, if the Apostles did sin in writing the Scriptures?

He Answers, First, That it was a singular extraordinary thing, and so supposeth they might have been preserved.

Secondly, He demands, What were the hazard to aver, that they were wanting in that which they ought to have had?

As to the First, it is but an evasion without proof, what singular and extraordinary thing is in some of Pauls Epistles, which are concerning his outward occasions; and if the last be admitted as I find he fears, I find he will be forced to do, it overturns his example of clean water passing through an unclean pipe, or else he must acknowledg the Scriptures are defiled, because they come through the Apostles, whom his Principles obliges him to believe, not to have been perfect.

In his Seventh Head, Pag. 74. He summarily passes over, and that by large omissions, what is contained in the 44, 45, 46, and 47 Pages of my last, which if the Reader do but review, he may easily discover that silly shift which he useth; To wit, that he means to be thrifty of his Paper, in answering the Quakers self-advancing words, seeing he is such a good manager of his Paper, he might have bestowed some of that he has lavished, in the large Capital Titles of his many Heads and Sections, to show the Impertinency or vanity of my words, and then he might have been the better credited, after he has omited my answer, wherein I clear the Quakers from that calumny, of exalting themselves; showing they do therein no more then all other professions have done, and do do.

He adds, with a great exclamation, Oh, it is intollerable Pride to villifie all the Saints and Servants of God in the World, and to shut them out from being of Christs stock! a strange inference, according to which we must conclude, that because Luke called Theopilus [...], or most good, that therefore there was none good but he, W. M. will do well to go back to the Grammer Schoole, and there learn the natures of degrees of Comparison, and when he has instructed himself there, he may next look over his Logicks, and there he will find that Majus & minus, non variat speciem, i. e. less or more of a thing changeth not its nature or kind; I suppose he will not deny but there are several sorts of Christians, who though they do [Page] all profess Christianity, yet are more or less pure in their Doctrine, Discipline, or Practice, is it not upon this score, that the Calvenist hath seperated from the Lutheran, and the Presbyter from the Episcopalian; Certainly W. M. himself lookt upon Independancy, as more pure then Presbytery, when he seperated with the Congregationists at Aberdeen, and Communicated apart with them; and yet his practice now showeth that he doth not exclude, even, Episcopacy from Christs stock, though his Independant and Presbyterian Brethren, do look upon it, if not within the walls, at least, in the Suburbs of Rome. Neither is this Clamuny against us as if we trusted in our selves that we were Righteous, and despised others, (for so he misapplieth the parable, Luk. 18. 9.) any other then the same which those of Rome used against the first Reformers, to wit, they were Proud, and Boasters, as if all the World had been in darkness before them; Or as if they were Wiser; then all the Doctors, and Fathers of the Church, seeking to inovate the order thereof, which had been confirmed, by the Unanimous consent of so many Generations.

It is observable, How here, as in other places, he is so ready to lay claim to the Protestant Churches, alledging, That in disdain I call them their flocks, which is utterly fals, I speak of their Hocks as inferiour to the People called Quakers, in point of mortification; But that I intended thereby the Protestant Churches, is but his groundless conjecture; I let him understand I look not upon their flocks as deserving the name of Protestants, and that because of their shameless degenerating from such as were first so called, among whom as I freely confess, there were several of a heavenly, and spiritual conversation; So I look upon W. M. and his Brethrens laying claim unto them, but as the Jewes, boasting of Abraham as their Father. After the same disingenious manner he concludes, That the Persons he spoke of in his Dialouge, as having such not able Enjoyments of, and Communion with God, were from Quakerism, &c. But answers not a word of Page 46. of mine, where I shew, that those Professors agreed with us, in many of these things wherein, W. M. And his Brethren oppose us, but particularly, in the matter of the Spirits immediate teaching, it is then likly they would have been far from us, especially considering, that several who have received and owned the Quakers Testimony at Aberdeen, are such who were the most-Intimate Friends, even in Spiritual [Page] Matters with these Professors, whereas W. M. and some other of his Brethren, who walked also among them that are not come to own the Qaukers, are degenerated and gone back unto that which all of them acknowledged to be Antichristian; for which their gross backsliding and degenerating, (to use rightly his own misaplied instance) it is without doubt these Professors, would have lookt-upon him and his Brethren as Monstrous, and abhored their treacherous, Time-serving, Turnings with the greatest detestation.

Head 8. Page 77. He avers us to be guilty of equivocating, and that because we say we are for Baptism, and yet are against Baptism with water; The reason alledged is, because Baptism, is commonly understood of Baptism with water, and therefore to understand it otherwayes, he concluds, is to speak lies in hipocrisie, &c. But this conclusion, is founded upon a supposition denyed by us, and therefore it is a meer begging of the thing in question, for since we deny that common, because corrupt, acceptation of the word Baptism and gives it the true one (as in its place shall be shown) therefore we are not obliged to put another meaning upon it, then we are perswaded it ought to be understood; But this calumny against us, as equivocaters or liars, W. M. hath also borrowed from the Papist, who used to upbraid the Protestans, for saying they were for, or of the Catholick Church, because the Papist will have the Church of Rome only to be the Catholick Church, but the Protestants denied her to be so, and therefore would not call her so, even as we deny the sprinkling with water to be Baptism, and therefore will not account it that which it is not, but reserve the name; to that which truly is the thing, according to the Scriptures.

The like may be said of the Lords Supper, I mean that which is so called.

Head 9. Pag. 78. Because he can produce nothing against my concession of singing of Psalms, he suspects I mean not honestly, and that because none of his spies whom he sends to our Meetings, have had occasion to be witnesses to our practice in this thing, which sayes just nothing: Why might not, W. M. his intelligencers fail him in this as well as his brothers David Lial did, in telling him, That there was not one word spoken among the Quakers at their Meeting, the 3 of the 11 Month 1670. Which though a manifest untruth in matter of fact, he spared not to bring forth in his Chaire [Page] of verity, upbraiding the Magistrats as if God had miraculously sent an Officer, to stop or Impede our Worship, though they had refused to do it. The story of I. Nailor, which he subjoynes, any may observe to be meerly brought in to render us odious, and fill up the paper, though indeed it tends no wayes to our disadvantage, he being in that thing, and at that time, alltogether denied by us, and hath since in print freely acknowledged his fall in that hour of Temptation, of whose sincere Repentance, and true return to the fellowship of the Truth, we have had many evident tokens, whereas were we to retort, we could find a thousand to one among your Church members, many whereof are daily knit up for Thieving, Murder, &c. and some burnt for Wichcraft, without the least sence of true Repentance.

For to vindicate their manner of singing with a mixt Multitude, he alledgeth, That all men, yea all the Earth are called to praise God; and though all be called to do so, yet there are things absolutly needful previous to this duty, and granting their want of praising to be sinful, yet the way to prevent this evil is to come first to that, wherein they may be in a capacity to do it acceptably, therefore saith the Apostle, I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also, 1 Cor. 14. 15. where he speaks of singing he alwayes subjoynes the instrument, wherewith it is altogether needful that we take it, and that the same may be urged in the case of Praying without any absurdity, in its place shall be shown; He sayes, It is no more a lie to use words in singing which sute not our condition, such as (I water my Couch with tears; My heart is not haughty) then to read them; but there is a great difference betwixt reading and singing, in reading we but relate the conditions and actions of others, as wholly distinct and extrinsick from our selves, but in singing we do really adress our selves to God as in Prayer, and it is no less a lie to sing to God words that sute not our condition then to pray with them. The Saints in Scripture used such expressions as did sute the present posture of their hearts, in their Spiritual Songs. See, Luk. 1. 46. and 2. 29. he shall not find me in the whole Bible, where they borrowed or sealed the expressions of others experience, which no wayes suted their own condition, this is a meer humane invention which has its original from the Romish Vespers and Mattins, and from no other foundation.

Head, 10. Concerning Baptism, Page 81. He alledgeth, That [Page] John distingisheth not the matter of his Baptism from Christ, but only his work; but his proof for this overthrowes himself, for since, as he sayes truly, John could onely administer Baptism with water, but Christ with the Spirit; this sheweth them to have differed in the matter, for without doubt John could administer the matter of his own Baptism, and whereas I told him they differed in the end because the one pointed to the other, even as the shadow pointed to the substance, in stead of replying to this, he tells me, That the Scripture speaking of Johns Baptism, calls it the Baptism of Repentance, intimating its end was to signifie and Seal remission of sins, which likewise is the end of Christs Baptism; As this no-wayes answers my argument, so it makes nothing to the purpose, for it is one thing to signifie Repentance, and remission of sins, and far another to know, and possess it, which is the end and constant fruit of Christs Baptism, Gal. 3. 27. As many of you (saith the Apostle) as have been baptized unto Christ, have put on Christ: And therefore it may be observed, that without any proof he concludes, that Johns Baptism and Christs agree both in the matter and end.

Pag. 82. As a reply to Act. 19. 2 cited by me to show that they differed in substance, he sayeth, The meaning is not that they were ignorant of the Person of the holy Ghost, contrary to the very express Scripture words, We have not so much as heard if there be any holy ghost. He saith further, That the Apostles did not anew baptize such Persons, that had been baptized with the Baptism of John, in direct contradiction to the Scripture words, ver. 5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the holy Ghost came upon them, now vers 3. she weth; That they were baptized unto Johns Baptism before, so let him clear himself here of giving the Scripture the lie if he can.

Section, 2. Pag. 83. To prove the perpetuity of water Baptism he begins with that often answered argument of the Apostles practice, adding, That though Christ, Mat. 28. doth not mention Baptism with water, so neither with the Spirit, alledging, That thus the one may be excluded as well as the other.

Answ. Seeing Christ commanded them to baptize, it cannot be denied but it was with his own Baptism, which is that of the Spirit; He adds, That if Baptism of the Spirit were intended, it would infer a needless Tautology in the command of Christ, as being all one [Page] with these words; Go Teach.

Answ. Teaching, and making men holy and Righteous, are different things, for he will grant that he and his Brethren have been teaching People, these several years, and yet he will have much adoe to prove all their Church-members are really made Righteous and Holy, why then doth he account these two one reckoning it a Tautology to express them severally; A little after he insinuates, and that most falsly, that I deny Peters commanding Cornelius to be baptized, concealing my express words, Page 50. which are these, And though it be said, ver. 28. that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Christ, yet it holds forth no command from Christ, onely the thing being agreed upon that it might be done, he bid do it, this he hath left un-answered; And whereas he adds, That doing things in the name of Christ is as much as his command, he bringeth no proof for giving, but not granting, it did hold so, Mat. 18. 20. in the case of meeting, that will not prove it is allways so taken. To evict my objection, against any determinate Commission the Apostles had of Baptizing with water, because Paul said, he was not sent to Baptize but to Preach, he returns, That if he had no Commission, he would have Baptized none, but he Baptized some, which would have been of self-will.

Answ. He might object the same as to Circumcision, that because the Apostle Circumcised Timothy, therefore he had a Commission for it, he would not have done it of self-will; His inference from, Hos. 6. 6. For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, as if from thence, Paul were sent principally to Baptize and not to Preach, as God there required onely principally Mercy, not excluding Sacrifice, is most ridiculous and inconsequential, nor is there any reason produced to show the party, the Apostles were Commissioned to Baptize as principally as to Preach, go Preach and Baptize are knit together; but the question is, Whether this be a Baptism with water which remains yet unproven? And therefore his additions to the Scripture is no wayes Justified, as if Paul had been sent to Baptize with water, but not principally.

Pag. 86. He undertaketh to prove that, Mat. 28. 19. is meant of water-Baptism and not of the Spirits-Baptism, the reason alledged there, Because the Baptism there mentioned is the action of the Apostles, and that to Baptize with the Spirit is peculiar to Christ, adding, That it would be a confounding of the Duty commanded, with the [Page] Promise of the blessing annexed to it; from thence he concludes, That Baptism with water is to continue to the end of the world.

Answ. The reasons prove nothing, and might militate the same way against Teaching, which is also there commanded as the action of the Apostles, and though it be pecuilar to Christ to teach by the Spirit, that did not hinder them to do it; further, the very Apostles by laying on of hands did administer the holy Spirit, and so Baptize with the Spirit, Act. 10. 44. 19. 6. And this is no confounding of the Promise with the duty, for therein was the Promise and Blessing fullfiled that they did it efectually, and therefore from hence he had no ground to conclude the perpetuity of water-Baptism; Moreover whereas he cited in his Dialogue, Pag. 39. Act. 2. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 21. Act. 22 16. Eph. 5. 26. Gal. 3. 27. as holding forth the excellent uses of water-Baptism, though I shew him Pag. 5. of mine, that these Scriptures are onely aplicable to Baptism with the Spirit and not to sprinkling with water: When Pag. 87. he comes to reply againe, he offers not in the least to prove that they are aplicable to Baptism with water, which is the thing in Question; but tells me, That those Scriptures strike against the Popish opus operatum, quid inde? what then, doth it therefore follow that they are aplicable to sprinkling with water, who is so blind as not to see through such silly subterfugies? He addeth, That I proceed upon a wrong supposition, as if they thought Baptism with water were of it self effectual to cleanse the Soul.

Answ. I never proceeded upon such a supposition, that which I proceed upon is this, That they should call or account sprinkling with water, the Baptism of Christ, whereas the Scripture declares it not to be so, 2 Pet. 3. 21. Baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, &c. And also ascribe such Scriptures to sprinkling with water, as are onely applicable to the Baptism of the Spirit, now this as is said above, he hath left unanswered.

Pag. 88. He saith, That the one Baptism spoken of, Eph. 4. 5. cannot be called the substance, and Baptism with water the shadow, because they are the same thing but this is pittifully to beg the thing in question: And thus W. Ms. Arguments about Baptism runs round; Baptism with water is the one Baptism, because the one Baptism is commanded by Christ, and the one Baptism is Baptism with water, because Baptism with water is commanded by Christ; he wholly passes by that part of Page 52. of mine, where I shew [Page] how absurd and antescriptural their manner of baptizing is, and thereby he comes the more easily to his conclusion in this matter.

Head, 11. Concerning the Supper, Pag. 88. 89. He begin, confessing, That Christs instituting of the Supper doth not prove its continuance, and here he carps at my speaking of it with this addition, (The Lords Supper so called) asking, Why I give it not that name the Scripture gives it.

Answ. It is to be observed, that where I speak of it thus, Page 52. of my last, that it is in my entry upon this matter, addressing my self to him, my words are, Thou comest to prove that the Lords Supper, so called, &c. where I intended not that which was Instituted by Christ, and had its season in the Church, but that which they call so, but really is not so, though they seek from this to draw a warrant for it; and whereas I shew him that by breaking of bread, Act. 2. 42. is meant their ordinary eating; His Answer is, That their eating is not ordinary, but Scramental; and the Text speaketh not of daily eating, but a continuing daily in the Temple, and that the Syriack exposition expounds it of the Eucharist, but it is in vain, he thinks by his Imaginations to overturn the plain words of Scripture, Act. 2. 46. And they continuing daily in the Temple with one accord, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart; can there be any thing more plain, then that their breaking of bread here was their ordinary eating, and as for his talk of Sacramental eating, where doth he read of such a phrase in all the Bible? It is ill argued to say, I am ignorant of the way of some Protestant Churches, who uses breaking of bread once a fortnight, or once a month, because I say, their doing of it once or twice a year is not according to the example of such as of old used it. Pag. 90. He adds, That though this eating, Act. 2. 46. be conjoyned with this, that they sould their possessions, &c. yet we are to follow them in the one and not in the other, because the one was to continue and not the other, but for this he bringeth no proof save his own bare assertion. After the like manner, Pag. 91. He sayeth, That though abstaining from blood and things strangled be commanded, yet the Apostle Paul repeats it extending Christian Liberty, to whatsoever is sould in the shambles; but according to this he might argue, That though abstaining from Circumcission be there commanded, yet Pauls Circumcising of Timothy might now warrant it; And whereas he asketh, If Paul Circumcised [Page] any other, what if he had not, Church history tells us that many yeares after several Bishops of Jerusalem were Circumcised, it will not therefore follow that was a repealing of the Apostles determination by the holy Ghost, or that we should continue in the use of Circumcission. He addeth, That Washing of one anothers feet which was expresly commanded, was not that we might practice it, but only to teach us humillity; for this he adds no proof, it is onely his own conjecture; upon all which I desire the Reader to observe, how W. M. can find shifts to evict those above-said which are expresly commanded by Christ and his Apostles, and yet make such a great noise of our forbearing water-Baptism and the external Supper, which are not more particularly pressed; as also how we can say far more against the perpetuity of these last, then they against the former, and yet they clamor against us, as if so much as to call the constant use of them in question, were to despise the Ordinances of Christ, &c. He asketh, What clearer command there can be then these words, let a man examin himself and so let him eat? But this question does not at all prove these words to imply a command: His folly is observeable, Pag. 92. Where he desires, 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, &c. a rare argument indeed, by which he might conclude, that to say as often as a man sins he offends God, did import we should sin often.

It is badly inferred, That this thing ought to continue by Divine Authority, because the Apostle sayes, 1 Cor. 11. 23. That which I received of the Lord, have I delivered unto you, seeing the very following words declare it, to have been the account of the matter of fact which he so received.

Sect. 1. Pag. 93. He slimly passes what is contained, Pag. 54. of mine, alledging, I let off my great Guns, but make a noise without any spoyl. The Reader by comparing these Pages together, will easily observe his lurking in this particular.

To my Question, What the one bread is spoken of, 1 Cor. 10. 15, 16. If it be the outward or the inward?

He Answers, It is both the inward and the outward, and yet but one, in respect of the Sacramental Union, which is between the sign and the thing signified; Now to this I answered, in the end of Pag. 54. of my last, that it cannot be called one, because of the agreement betwixt the signe and the thing signified, else by the same Inference [Page] one might plead for the continuance of all the Sacrifices and Offerings, and say they are all one with the one Offering mentioned, Heb. 10. 14. because they signified that one Offering; And whereas, W. M. reckons this a pittiful evasion, saying, Any one may see a Non sequitur in it, it would have become him better to have proved this by reason, then by his owne bare assertion, though any may observe this to be his constant course when other Arguments fail him. As he proceeds to prove the continuance of this practice, he sayes, It cannot be denied there was once a command for it, and there is no repeal of it, but the same recurs in washing one-anothers feet and anointing the sick with Oyl, Jam. 5. 14. which were as expressly commanded and never repealed, and yet W. M. can easily find a gloss to evict these, rechoning it a small matter to forbear them, he addeth, That coming of Christ, till which, the Apostles were injoyned to be in the use of the outward Supper, must be meant of his outward comming so many years after, because such to whom Christ was come in the Spirit were found in the practice of it; but this proves no more its continuance, necessitate Precepti, as he wordeth it, then the Circumcising and being Circumcised under the Gospel, will prove Circumcission to be binding upon us: He concludes saying, That surely we are great enemies to our Souls that oppose this Ordinance; But answereth not one word of Page 56. where I shew how great reason we have to forsake it, as also the many abuses where with they have corrupted it; it suffiseth him to say, That it is meeter to pass it by then to reply unto it, for part of it being about the quallifications of Persons, W. M. is loth to tell his Judgment, least he should harp upon the old Independant controversy; it is dangerous to touch this string, especially while he injoyes his hire under the shadow of Episcopacy.

Head, 12. Concerning the Ministry, Pag. 96. He hath nothing to say against my affirming, that the Quakers own the Ministry of the Word: Pag. 97. speaking of Eph. 4. 11. where Paul saith, Christ gave some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers; He saith, The first three are Extraordinary and Tempory, the last two Ordinary and Perpetual, for this he brings no Proof at all, but that frequent Argument, his own bare Assertion; And whereas I tould him, Pag. 58. of mine, That the former three were not ceased, citing for Proof Calvin, who, Inst. lib. 4. cap 3. avers, That in his day God raised up Apostles, and Evangelists; to this he [Page] answers not one word: As he goes on he repeats my words, where I say, That though we own the Ministry not to be common, yet that doth not hinder but that any may speak, as the Saints are met together, according to 1 Cor. 14. 31. asking, How I can make out that? In that place is meant an ordinary Office, though it might suffice for answer, to ask what reason W. M. hath to frame here his distinction of Ordinary and Extraordinary, yet it is obvious, that the Apostle is here presenting the ordinary order of the Church, he needed not present an order to extraordinary Offices, for such as are extraordinarily sent, are also instructed how to go about their Office, and not limited to set Rules, else it were not extraordinary. Pag. 98. He goeth about to prove this distinction of Mediate and Immediate asking, If the Prophets and Apostles, were not called imediatly? And if Timothie was not set apart to the work (imediatly) by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery? What then? as the Apostles being called by the Lord did not hinder them from receiving the approbation and Testimony of the Brethren, yea laying on of hands, as did Paul, who without doubt was as imediatly sent as any of the rest, Act. 9. 17. So Timothes having the hands of the Presbytery laid on him, doth not prove he wanted an inward imediate call in himself; it is without any proof at all what he subjoynes, That Paul saying he was an Apostle, not by man, doth oppose himself to Ordinary Ministers; He adds, That seeing I say, That those who come Preaching the Gospel, not in speach onely, but also in Power, and in the holy Ghost, and in the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit, give sufficient proof that they are called of God; he thinks I should have favorable thoughts of Protestant Ministers, who have given such proofs of their Call.

Answ. He should have tould me what these Protestant Ministers are, whom he sayes we impiously censure, or by what Rule he or his Brethren, would be laying such claim to be Protestant Ministers, so as to exclude the Quakers from being such.

Pag. 99. Though he quarrel me for saying, that with Papists he pleads for Miracles, he is so far from vindicating himself from this charge, that he giveth again new ground for it, saying, That such as assert an imediate call, ought to give tokens of it by Miracles, &c. adding, That though John did no Miracles, yet his call was attended with extraordinary things at his Conception and Birth; Now this was the very objection, which the Papists made against the first [Page] Reformers, to whom Luther and Calvin replyed, That though they had an imediate call, yet there was no need of Miracles, and this objection of W. M. is no other then that which almost in totidem verbis, in as many words was objected to Beza, at the conference of Poizy in France, by Claudius Dispensus Doctor of the Sarbone, who urged this very argument, of John the Baptist, confirming his call by the Testimony of Maláchy, &c. Alledging, That they ought to confirm there call by Miracles; to whom these are Beza, his express words, Hist. Eccles. of France, Pag. 581. And as to what dispence, thou Alledge, that extraordinary Vocation is allways aproved by Miracles, or by the Testimony of the Prophets, I deny that it is allwayes so verified, but if we must come to Miracles, do you not think that the changing of the Life, the fruit which is seen to proceed from this Doctrine in our time by Persons so contemptable, and so much persecuted by the greatnest of the world, are not sufficient Miracles, as said the Apostle to the Corinthians, that they were the Seals of his Apostleship: So the rational Reader may observe, that notwithstanding of W. Ms. so often laying claim to the Protestant Churches, and Protestant Ministry, and crying out against us as opposers of them, he so directly makes use of Popish arguments against us and how we defend our selves, by no other but the very same answers the Protestants gave unto the Papists; yea of late, W. Rett present Preacher of Dandy, in his Book against Papists, printed but the last year at Aberdeen, doth plead, That Miracles are not needful, instancing, that John the Baptist did none; And so W. M. though he compare us to the Jesuites in his Epistle, is so far one with them himself, that if his evasion may be esteemed of worth, whereby he seeks to overturn this example of John when brought by us, he will rather furnish the Jesuites with it to fight against his Brother W. Rett, or rather borrow it out of their atillery, whereby they fight against Protestants, then miss to have a hit at the Quakers, may we not truely apply the instance in his Epistle to himself, that he is sailing in one boat with Papists, though his face seems to look a verse from them.

Pag. 100 He saith, Whatever inward call the Elders mentioned Tit. 1. 5. Act. 14. 23. had, yet they had not an imediate call, which is by the imediate command and voyce of God without the intervention of men, but for this he adds no proof at all; nor is there any Inconsistancy betwixt being imediatly called by command from God, and [Page] afterwards being aproved of men, or that being aproved and set apart by man excludes having an imediate call from God.

Sect. 1. Pag. 101. He sayes, That Eph. 4. 13. is a pregnant and pertinent proof for the continuance of the Ministry, which I never denied; But this doth not answer my saying, that it is impertinent as to them who deny perfection, seeing that place sayes, the Ministry is for the perfecting of the Saints; now to this he answers nothing, but that it cannot be gathered that this perfection is on Earth, which is but his own assertion, yea by himself there after overthrown, saying, That the Ministry is given that we may press after an absolute full Perfection even of degrees; for it is folly to press after this if there be no hopes of attaining it: He wholly passes by my objections against their Ministry, Pag. 59. especially, in that they make not the Grace of God, a necessary quallification to the esse or being of a Preacher, without so much as making any mention of it, where I also show, how contrary it is to the order delivered by the Apostles in Scripture; Therefore his conclusion is false, to say we cast off such a Ministry, seeing he was not able to prove theirs to be such, else he would not have wholy past in silence, my reasons shewing it not to be so.

His Thirteenth Head, Pag. 102. Is concerning the Sabbath or first day of the weeks being so, as to which I desire the Reader first to take notice, that as we believe the Apostles and primitive Christians did meet this day to worship God, so we as following their example do the like, and forbear working, or useing our lawful occasions upon that day as much as our Adversaries; so that the debate is onely, whether there be any inherent Holiness in this Day more then in another, or if there be any positive command for it from Scripture? Particularly, if the fourth command bind us to the observation of it? And here W. M. notwith-standing of his great pretences to the Protestant Churches, doth wholly disagree from them in this thing, who are of our mind as to it; the generality of all the Protestants both in Germany, France, and else where out of this Illand, do look upon the supposed morrallity of the first day of the week as altogether ridiculous, which may be seen in Calvin upon the fourth command, lib. inst. 2. cap. 8. Sect. 34. where he explains the signification of it as we do, Viz. Typifiing a Spiritual Rest, wherein leaving our own works the Spirit of God may work in us; he there refuts W. Ms. notion as a Jewish [Page] Opinion, saying, Some false Doctors have abused ignorant People with it, adding as we do, That the Apostle Paul reproves such superstitions, likewise he plainly asserts, That the keeping of the first day is onely for conveniency, and to preserve order in the Church, that the Saints might have a fit time set apart to meet together to Worship; which we also say, hence doth appear the folly of that impertinent story mentioned by him, Pag. 105. seeking to infer, That we agree with Papist, in takeing away the fourth Command as they have done the second, for by this he might conclude the first and chiefest Reformers guilty of Popery, whereas himself agrees with papists both against the Protestants abroad, & us, in pleading for this imaginary holiness of the first day of the week, which in his Dialogue he sought to prove because Christ did rise upon it; but to my answer showing he might from thence infer the rest of the Popish holydaies, of His Birth, Ascention, Conception, &c. he replies not one word, he summarly passes over what is said by me concerning this thing, Page. 59, 60, 61, and 62, which the Reader by looking unto may observe; He aledgeth, The fourth command speaketh not precisly of the Seventh day, in order from the Creation, and that the beginning and ending of it, mentions the Sabbath day and not the Seventh, quid inde? &c. What then? is not the middle of the command as observable? which saith expressly, But the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, there God himself expounds the Sabbath to be the Seventh day, and W. M. must not think we will reject this exposition to accept of his proofless glosses: My argument drawn from Coll. 2. 16, 17. Let no man judge you in respect of a holy day or Sabbath dayes, and Rom. 14. 6. which sheweth all dayes to be alike and Gal. 4 10, 11. Ye observe dayes, and months, times, and years; He answereth, aledging. These reprove not morral dayes, but ceremonial, adding, That the fourth command binds to this, and therefore it cannot be more abrogate then any of the rest of the ten commands but this is no proof at all, onely a meer begging the question, he should have more convincingly proved that the fourth command binds to the observation of this day; Now the Apostle in these places sayeth not, I am afraid of you because ye observe ceremonial dayes: W. M. hath no bottom for this distinction, he confesseth that Christ, Mat. 24. 20. speaketh nothing of the first day of the week, and therefore overthrowes the inference he makes in his Dialogue from it, and what I further add to show the folly of this inference [Page] from the Scripture; He hath wholly omited which the Reader may see, Pag. 59, 60. of my last.

Pag. 106. He sayes, Oh! the conscientious keeping of the Sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shall be admitted to this Rest, viz. the rest of the Lamb. But seeing these words are without any proof, they are only like to have credit with such silly superstitious Bigots, as Calvin in the place above mentioned reproves, and not with any solid serious Christians.

Sect. 2. Pag. 107. To prove, that the first day of the week is set apart for the service of God, by Divine Authority, he citeth, Rev. 1. 10. I was in the Spirit on the Lords day; but whereas I told him this did no way prove that day to be the first day of the week, because the day of the Lord, or the Lords day in Scripture, is not limited to any particular day.

He answers, That these two ought not to be confounded, for all dayes wherein the Lord executeth judgement, are dayes of the Lord; but the Lords day, mentioned, Rev. 1. is but one. For this he bringeth no proof but his own meer assertion: As Ignatius calling the first day of the week, The Queen of dayes, doth not prove that Lords day, spoken of by John, to be the first day, so if Ignatius had been of this mind, and had esteemed of it above other dayes, that makes nothing against us; we know this Superstition was creeping into the Church before Ignatius's time, therefore the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians, Gal. 4. 10, 11.

To prove this day spoken of by John to be the first day of the week, he saith, Christ appeared to his Disciples, declared himself to be the Son of God, upon the first day of the week; That it is supposed that was the day the Spirit was poured forth: And that Beza, in an ancient Greek Manuscript, did find the first day of the week called the Lords day. But all this doth not in the least prove the matter in question, except this may suffice for proof, W. M. thinks this will infer the day of the Lord, spoken of by John, to be the first day of the week, therefore it is so. There may be Superstition-enough found in old Greek Manuseripts; It is near fourteen hundred years since the Eastern and Western Churches were like to split about the observation of Easter, and yet Protestants with good reason look upon that Controversie as both Superstitious and frivolous.

Now giving, but not granting this day spoken of by John, were the first day of the week, How doth he prove from this, that the [Page] first day of the week is come to Christians in place of the Jewish Sabbath, or that it stands as an obligation upon them, as a part of the moral Law whereunto we are bound by the forth Command, which though it be the cheif thing in debate remaines yet unproved; seeing then he has had very few proofs for these his supposed Ordinances but such as are onely bottomed upon his own affirmations, the Juditious Reader may judge it is with out ground he concludes here that we deny the Ordinances of Christ and not the inventions of men.

His fourteenth Head, Pag. 109 Is concerning Original sin so called, which the Reader by comparing with Pag. 62, 63, 64, and 65. of mine, will see that he makes no reall, but a meer counterfeit shew of answer; and I desire the Reader first to observe, That neither here nor in his Dialogue, he doth not so much as offer to prove that this phrase Original sin, is to be found in Scripture; and for all his pretences to make the Scripture his rule, he hath no ground from this, but from Popish Tradi ion.

Secondly, That we grant a reall Seed of sin, derived from Sathan which Adams Posterity is liable to; But we say, none become guilty of this before God nutill they close with this evill Seed, and in them who close with it, it becomes an Origine or Fountain of evill thoughts, desires, words and actions:

And as by granting all capeable of receiving this real Seed of sin we differ from the Socinians, and Pelagians; So by saying it is not the Childrens sin until they do close with it: We agree with Zuinglius a famous Protestant, who for this very Doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent, in the Art. of the Fifth Ses. Cons. Trent, lib. 2. Pag. 208. The acts of which Council, not onely against us, but against this famous founder of the Protestant Churches in Zuitserland, is that which W. M. is here vindicating.

Thirdly, I desire the Reader may observe, That the thing he pleads for is, that Infants are really guilty before God, that Infants are guilty before God simply for Adams sin; And that some of them who die in their Infancy, and never actually sin in their own Persons, do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish: Now whither this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God, I leave the Christian Reader to judge. I shall examine the reasons he brings for it, his cheif argument for this in his Dialogue Pag. 47. was, That because Children die, citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death, now I shew him, Pag, 64. of mine, how that made nothing, [Page] because natural Death of the Saints is not the wages of sin; for their sins are forgiven them, &c. this he hath not so much as mentioned, far less answered; And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth, Trees and Herbs were sinners, because they received great decay by Adams sin; He slightly passes it over, aledging, It will not therefore follow, that all mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners; Now this is no answer but a meer shift, and the thing I intended against his assertion, doth very naturally follow from my argument; thus, If as W. M. sayes. Infants be guilty of Adams Sin, because they are subject to diseases and Death, then the Beasts who are subject to the like, and the Earth, Herbs and Trees, who have received their decay are sinners before God; but this is absurd, therefore the other, let him answer this the next time more effectually.

The first proof he brings here is, 1 Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, adding, This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly; But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof; though, That which is born of the flesh be flesh, he showeth us not how it followeth thence, that Infants are guilty of Adams Sin; after the like manner he concludes this his doctrine from, Job. 14. 4. Psal. 5. 5. But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing, so he brings no reason to make his consequences deduceable from them; after the like proof-less manner he aledgeth, Rom. 5. 14. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners; Now, though the matter in question be, Whether these many were made sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons? He doth not so much as offer to prove it; in the like manner, though David said his Mother conceived him in sin, he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence, that David was guilty of sin before he actually sinned; and here I observe how he asserts, That men are guilty of the sin of their immoderate Parents, contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18. 20. The Son shall not bare the iniquity of the Father: To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth, Rom. 5. 12. aledging these words; For that all have sinned, includes Infants, but I shew him this includes not Infants, because the Apostle clears it in the next verse, saying, Sin is not imputed where there is no law, and that there being no Law to Infants, they cannot be guilty of sin; To this he replies, There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind, and stood as a publik Person, Therefore Children had a Law in him; But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof, and it cannot be received, as being direct [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] contrary to the Scripture above mentioned, The Son shall not bare the Fathers iniquity; He aledgeth, That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned not after the similitude of Adams Transgression are Infants, but after his usual manner bringeth not the least proof for it: the, 1 Cor. 15. 22. cited by him, is so far from makeing any thing for his purpose, that it maketh directly against him, which any that have the least grain of true understanding may perceive; the words are, As in Adam all died, even so in Christ, all are made alive; for here all are said to die in Adam, even as all are said to be made alive in Christ; now as none are made alive in Christ until they actually receive, and joyne with his Righteousness, so none die in Adam until they actually receive, and joyn with his unrighteousness, &c. He maketh a deal a do Pag. 110, 111. about the Greek [...], wherein though it were easie to refute him, were it not needless to fill up paper with Gramatical Criticismes; for giving, but not granting the words might be Translated, in Adam all have sinned, it will not from thence follow that Infants are guilty before they actually sin, seeing all are said to die, or have sinned in Adam, even as all are said to be made alive in Christ; and yet none are said to be so, until they actually receive his Righteousness as is above demonstrated.

Pag. 113. He aledgeth, Though it be said that the Kingdom of God is of little Children, yet some Infants are not saved, because they are not of the Kingdome of Grace; But for this he bringeth no proof at all: And I here take notice, That he acknowledges, that God Sanctifies and Regenerats some Infants, and thereby he notably conradicts his second Sect. concerning the Light. And Pag. 29. of his Dialogue, where he condems it, as a dangerous errour in us, to say any can be saved without the outward knowledg of Christ, of which Infants are not capable to prove, That some Infants perish, even eternally, He aledgeth, The burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, citing Jude. 7. But his wresting this Scripture is very manifest, for the reason Jude gives of their suffering vengance, was, because they gave themselves up to Fornication, and went after strange flesh; Now of this Infants were not capable, of whom therefore Jude. speaks not one word. He terms Impudent or else Ignorant, for bringing, Mat. 1. 22. against them, aledging, It is an uniust charge, to say they plead for a Salvation in their sins; and yet he has the Impudence immediatly to aver it himself, saying, They are but in part [Page] delivered or saved in this Life; do they not then dream of Salvation while in part they remain in their sins? Compare, Math. 1. 21. with 1 Joh. 1. 7. Christ is said to cleanse us from all iniquity, not a part of it: It is a bad inference drawn from my assertion, that Children are not guilty of sin, to say that therefore they need not a Saviour; I told him in my last, Christ was truely a Saviour unto them in that he kept them from sinning, as one that's kept from faling in a ditch is as truely saved as he that's taken out of one: It is altogether Inconsequential to infer from this, That Christ died to save the holy Angels from sin, because they are not suffered to fall into it, for Christ is said onely to have died for Adams Posterity, of which number Infants are, but not Angels. It is likewise without reason, that he compares us to Pelagians, as if we took from Christ the name Jesus, seeing it has been shown we own him to be Jesus, or Saviour to all, even to Infants.

He beginneth his fifteenth Head, Concerning the perseverance of the Saints, Pag. 115. Aledging, That in saying the Quakers hold not a falling away from Regeneration, I seek to hide my self; Because G. Keith sayes, That Saints may fall away from saving Grace; asking, if Saints be Regenerate.

Answ. Though all that be fully Regenerate are Saints, yet some may be called Saints who are not fully Regenerate.

Pag. 116. He aledgeth, It is in vain to assert this falling away; because it is said, Some who believed afterwards fell away, and some make shipwrack of the Faith; and some who tasted of the good word of God, and the powers of the life to come, &c. Because they use to distingish betwixt seeming counterfeit Grace, and sound saving Grace.

Answ. Can there be any more palpable wresting of Scripture? For if so be, that Faith which they had were not real, they were not to be blamed for falling away from it, it were their mercy to make shipwrack of that which was counterfeit: The Apostle speaks positively, Heb. 6. 4. of the capacity of such to fall away, who were once enlightned, who have tasted of the heavenly gift, yea, who were partakers of the holy ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God; and the powers of the world to come; he sayeth not they seemed to be so: Nay the very context sheweth the contrary, saying, It is imposible to renew such again to repentance; Now had this been all in appearance, the Apostle needed not to speak of renewing them [Page] again to repentance, or say, they crucifie the Son of God afresh, seeing if so, they had never been penitent and been allways Crucifiers of Christ; whereas in answer to Phil. 1. 6. I tould him it might be supposed that Paul was as confident that God would perfect the work in himself as in any other, and yet he supposes the contrary where he sayes, Least preaching the gospel to others, I my self become a castaway; to this he replieth nothing, but citeth another Scripture, Jer. 32. 29. I will give them one heart that they may fear me for ever; though God give them this, that they may fear him yet such may abuse the gift of God, and so run out of his fear, he gives to all his Grace, and yet it is said, that some turn it unto wantonness, Jud. 4. He jeereth at my answer to Peter, saying, A goodly reply forsooth, as if he had said, if the Saints fall from Faith they must fall, but he might spare his insulting, until he had found some way to answer my words, which are, That those that abide not in the Power of God through Faith, must fall away; for he might as well Scoff at all the conditional Promises of the Gospel, such as, He that continueth stedfast to the end shall obtain the crown: To say that Faith and the Power of God concurs to prevent the Saints faling away, answers nothing, for so long as these concur, we do not deny it, and though they be allways willing to concur, yet it is clear that some who have believed, not counterfetily but really have departed from the power and so fallen away as is above shown.

Pag. 117. Upon the words of, Jer. 32. 40. He sayes, It proves the perseverance or impossibillity of faling away, because it is said, God put his fear in their hearts for this end, That they might not depart from him, what then, that doth not prove that they cannot depart from him, Christ came to his own for this end, that he might save them; and yet it is said they received him not, Joh. 1. 11. He sayes, I make short work of these Scriptures, Joh. 10. 27, 28. Joh. 13. 1. 1 Joh. 2. 19. because I say, they speak of those who were come to a through Regeneration, which he sayes is without proof; But the Reader by looking unto them will find they cannot be understood otherways, then of such as are throughly Regenerate, and it appears he was sensible of this, having produced nothing to the contrary, and whereas he adds, That if those who are throughly Regenerate were onely to persevere, then this were the priviledge of Saints in heaven, and not in earth, who never come to be so; there can be nothing more rediculus, then this manner of arguing, seeing that [Page] question whether the Saints can be perfectly Regenerate on Earth is as much in debate as the other? That objection of his, as if from this Doctrine it might follow one were a Child of God to day, and a Child of the Devil to morrow, I answered in my last. Pag. 66. to which he returneth no answer, and therefore it is disingenuity in him to bring it forth here again; and whereas in Pag. 66, 67. of my last I shew him how he contradicted himself in this matter, by granting some of the Quakers to have been truly converted, and yet now to condemn them as Apostates; he is so far from reconciling it, that he avers it a new in plain terms saying, Pag. 118. That some of them have felt a gratious opperation on their hearts; and Pag. 9. He cannot but think That some of them were savingly wrought upon, and yet adds, That it is clear that they have Apostatised from the Truth; Now to reconcile this he hath nothing to say, But he trusts the Lord will convince them.

Answ. As some of them, to whom he and his Brethren were forced to give the Testimony of gratious Persons, have already departed this Life not onely not shrinking from, but even Testifying to these Truths he calls error, so others whom they have also accounted gratious, having been at deaths door have asserted the same Truth and rejoyced in it, which suffiseth to overturn his vain confidence, and truly such a groundless hope is but a poor shift to reconcile so palpable a contradiction; whereby while in words they condem this Doctrine of the capacity of mans falling away from Grace, yet as to the experience of some particulars they are forced to acknowledg it, for fear they should fall in greater Inconveniences of granting some among the Quakers to be choice Saints.

His Sixteenth Head, Pag. 119. Is to prove the danger of Quakerisme, as he terms it, but that his folly may appeare in this particular, I desire the Reader first to observe our Principle which he concludes so hazardous, even as repeated by himself Pag. 121. Viz. That a man cannot, nor ought not to Pray without the Spirits motion; and to say none can Pray without it, hath no bad tendency, because all such Prayers as are performed without the help of the Spirit, are Abomination, not true Prayers, but hypocritical and deceitful; Now he cannot deny this, and therefore grants it to be true, yea saith plainly in the next Page, That Prayer without the Spirit is Abomination, And whereas he adds, That forbearing of Prayer is also Abomination, we do not deny it, but freely confess, that forbearing [Page] of Prayer in the wicked is sinful, but the way to prevent this, is not to commit a second evill, Viz. to Pray without the Spirit, they ought first to come to the Spirit, that thereby they may Pray acceptably, according to that of Paul, Rom. 8. 26. Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should Pray for as we ought: but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us with groans that cannot be uttered, 1 Cor. 14. 15. I will pray with the Spirit; which being brought by me in my last, he hath wholly omitted so much muchasto mention, far less to answer: And though omiting of Prayer be sinful, yet to bid a man Pray without the Spirit, is as much as to desire a man to see without opening his eyes: This thing may appeare by a familar example, thus, suppose a servant turn slugard, and sleep while he should be about his Masters work, if when he is raised out of his bed he should run naked to it, without taking along those Tools or Instruments which are absolutly needful for the doing of it, what will he profit either himself or his Master? Yea he will but hinder the work more: Even so the wicked, as they ought to Pray, so they ought first to come to the Spirit, whereby they may do it to the glory of God, and their own Souls good. Now though this be so undeniable that he cannot gainsay it, yet in contradiction to the Truth and his own Concessions, he goes about to cavil against it, aledging, It might take off men as well from their necessary works, because the ploughing of the wicked is sin; and that also it might follow from this, That Children should not honour their Parents, and Husbands love their Wives, but when they have a motion of the Spirit for it.

Answ. This objection hath no weight to overturn the Truth, for there is a great difference betwixt these things that relate to the worship of God, and what relates to outward things, either concerning our selves or our neighbours; The worship of God is a Spiritual thing relating to himself, which we are commanded to perform in the Spirit, and God doth offer us his Spirit for the performance of it; And because it is that which is meerly relative betwixt God and the Soul, he doth not accept of it but as so offered, we cannot Pray as we ought saith the Apostle, But the Spirit helpeth, &c. Now though these other things would no doubt be the more acceptable to God, and more frequently accompanied with his blessing, that they were done in the sence of his fear, and in the drawings of his Spirit, yet they are materially good in themselves, answering [Page] really their end to them unto whom they immediatly relate without it, but it is not so of Prayer, which as it immediately relates to God, so W. M. himself confesseth without the Spirit to be Abomination: Thus is also solved his supposition, Pag. 1 124. That if a wicked man contract guilt he may provoke the Lord to withdraw the motions of the Spirit, and then his not Praying is not sin, for I have asserted, that the not Praying of the wicked is sinful, and this doth not lull People in a sinful security; on the contrary they are like rather to be lulled in such a security by being told they may be set about Prayer when they please, whereby they foster themselves in a groundless hope, because of their now and then repeating their words of Prayer, neither expecting nor looking for the Spirits assistance, whereby instead of advancing in Grace and Righteousness, they do but reiterate Abominations, and so aggrevate their own guilt: And whereas here he is forced to acknowledg, that motives of the Spirit will not be wanting to the Saints to Pray when they are at the gates of Death, or in danger of present Drownding; He asks me, What shall the wicked do in this case? Shall they not follow the advice which Peter gave to Simon Magus, Act. 8. 22. pray God, if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee; but here he minceth the Apostles words which are; Repent therefore of thy wickedness, and pray, &c. here the Apostle puts repentance before Prayer, it shall not be denied, but when the wicked have repented of their wickedness, the Spirit will not be wanting to assist them to Pray. It is therefore to little purpose, That Pag. 120. and 121. He pleads For craving a Blessing when we use the creatures of God, calling the neglect of it a phrophane custome; for we do not deny it, and condemn a prophane neglect of it as much as themselves; And as Christ had the Spirit without and above measure, having all wayes a ready access to the Father, so we are glad and willing at such occasions to express words, if we find the Spirit assisting us so to do, yea we reckon that we ought not to use the creatures, without our hearts be in some measure retired to the sence of Gods presence, and stayed in his fear, whereby we may secretly breath for a Blessing, for to speak audible words is not essential, and therefore it is apparently malitious for him to say, That when we are not stayed in Gods fear, we have liberty and freedom to full to m [...]at my words had no such Importance, though he seeks [...] them, and yet can wholly omit much of Pag. 67. of mine where I [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] shew their abuses in this matter, how they mock God in it and provoke him to withdraw his Blessing; And whereas he sayes, One of us confessed, That he had not called together nor Prayed in his family for a twelve-month past; He should have produced the persons name, that we might have inquired concerning it, and therefore until he so do, we can lay no stress upon it but reject it as false, especially considering, that W. M. being particularly challenged upon this refuseth absolutly to do it, nor durst he aver he had any better ground for it then hear-say: Upon this ocasion he asks, If Abraham must not keep up Religion in his family because an Ishmael is in it, but this maketh nothing against us, for none of us that are Masters of Families, have forborn to keep up the worship of God, though enemies of Truth have been in it, whom we have not barred from being present; And for whom we have not been wanting to Pray, though we cannot joyn with them in their Prayers, as W. M. adviseth us, until first they repent of their wickedness: This was the method of Peters advice to Simon Magus, first to repent and then to Pray, as is above shewed.

Sect. Pag. 125. He sayes, Quakerisme tend; to make Mortification of sin useless, and to me, asking, Whether Mortification be useless where the end of it (which is Perfection) is atained? He answereth, That Perfection is toofold, comparative and absolute, and seeing we are for an absolute Perfection, there is no use for Mortification.

Answ. There can none come to this absolute Perfection, (as he terms it) but by Mortification of sin, and even such as are so Perfect while on earth, do constantly use Mortification to keep down sin, least it rise again, and to resist the Temptations of the enemy, wherewith even such as be Perfect are daily assaulted. He aledgeth, I Triumph before the Victory, in quarreling him for saying, That a sinless Perfection wounds the very vitals of Religion; But his silly subterfuge in this place may easily be discovered: I asked him in my last, that seeing he sayes so, Whether the vitals of Religion consisted in sinning or not sinning? Adding, That if it consist in sinning they that sin most are most Religious, but if it consist in not sinning, then to plead for such a thing as attainable, hurts not the vitals of Religion; to this he answereth, That the vitals of Religion consist in the means appointed of God: Who seeth not this to be a meer evasion; Why did he not give a direct answer? But that he could not, without either denying his former Antichristian expression, or [Page] else faling into palpable groseness; And whereas he adds, That these means are Repentance, Mortification, Believing, application of the Blood of Christ; though it be no answer to my question, I deny not, but that Religion consists in these things; but I suppose he will not say that they are sinning: It is not in the least absurd, that one who hath attained to Perfection may practice these duties; Man though he have attained to Perfection cannot too much repent of his former wickedness, and therefore it is without ground that he aledgeth, That I shift, and cannot deny but the forbearance of these duties flow as a consequence from our Principle, nor is my saying, that they who come to Perfection, witness the true use of these things any shift at all, though he be pleased to term it so without any proof, after his wonted manner, according to which he addeth, That under the pretence of Perfection we take men off from the practice of these duties, and so strike at Christianity in the vitals of it; which though it fall of it self as being a meer assertion, yet the contrary is above abundantly shown; He saith, He doth not contradict himself in inferring a sinless man to be sinful; He affirmed onely the Quakers conceitedly sinless men to be sinful, who discover much sin in their pride, passion, bitterness, railing accusations, adding, If such say they have no sin they are but liars, and the truth is not in them.

Answ. There was no such addition in his Dialogue as conceitedly sinless, but absolutly, He said, Bring me to the man that is sinless, and therefore his contradiction remains: Moreover let him name that Quaker if he can, that tould him he was Perfectly free from all sin, and yet was guilty of those crimes he speaks of, else he can deduce nothing from his own false supposition.

Pag. 127. To prove the Saints continuance allwayes in sin, he desires to remark that, 1 Joh. 18 It is even such, who have heard, seen and handled of the word of God &c. Who sayeth, If we have no sin we are liars; And here indeed is to be observed his detestable Impudence in adding to the Scripture words, citing vers. 7. which he repeats thus, We who are cleansed from the guilt of sin, whereas there is no such word as Guilt in that place, but onely, We are cleansed from all sin, which imports a cleansing from the filth; Mark these words vers. 9. From all unrighteousness; now when the Guilt is onely taken away and the filth remaineth, as W. M. falsly supposes, they could not be said to be cleansed from all unrighteousness; for [Page] it is an improper speech to say we are cleansed from Guilt, it is from the filth we are cleansed, and the Guilt is forgiven us; Therefore saith the Apostle, vers. 9. first, He is faithful to forgive us, and next he adds, To cleanse us from all unrighteousness; nor will Johns saying, If we say we have no sin, import John himself to be of that number, more then the Apostle James spaking of the Tongue Jam. 3. 9. saying, There-with curse we men who are made after the similitude of God; will prove James to have been of these cursers. Now in answer to me showing that Scripture 1 Job. 1. 8. is conditional else it would contradict what followes, vers. 9. chap. 24. and chap. 3, 9. He returneth no answer but his own assertions; He saith, The 9. vers speaketh of forgiveness, but it also adds cleansing as is above observed. He saith, That 1 Joh. 2, 4. Is understood of a sincere not absolute keeping of the Commands of God, but for this he brings no proof at all; He saith, That Joh. 3. 9. Whosoever is born of God sinneth not, is meant of sinning unto death, from which the child of God is secured, The reason he gives of this gloss is, because the Apostle, ch. 5. v. 16. speaketh, of a sin unto death, which Sin W. M. supposeth to be that the Apostle means, He that's born of God cannot commit: but to prove this supposition we have nothing but his own meer assertion: Reader, These are the best and strongest arguments he hath to prove his Doctrines.

His Seventeenth Head, Pag. 128. Is to shew his Doctrines, not to be acceptable to the wicked, and his Eighteenth Head, Pag. 131. Is to prove ours to be so, But he is so pittifully ridiculous in this matter, that such as have the least measure of understanding, and are unprejudiced, cannot but see his weakness: Yet that he may be left altogether without a cover, I shall answer his objections, and leave the unbiassed Reader as he desires to judge, which Principles in their nature have most tendency to strike at or foster wickedness: To prove that it is not acceptable to the wicked to hear they must alwayes sin, He sayes, Some are so conceited of their honesty that they cannot be convineed of their sins, And that Mortification of sin is distastful to them; But how he makes this to answer the other is not tould us, if hypocrites love not to hear of their sins, it doth not therefore follow, that pleading for a constant continuance in sin, is not acceptable to the wicked, they may be the easier induced to acknowledg their sins, that they hear it tould them for sound and solid Doctrine, that they may be reputed good Saints and Christians [Page] though they alwayes remain in them, to prove that their Doctrine of imputative Righteousness, and of Election and Reprobation, is not pleasing to the wicked, He sayes, Some wicked men scof at them, what then, so some wicked men scof at the folly of Machumetanism, will it therefore follow their Doctrine is good? The question is, Whether their Doctrine of mens being altogether reputed Righteous in the sight of God, by a Righteousness altogether without them, and mens being elected to Life from all Eternity, without any respect to their deeds be not more acceptable to the wicked, then to tell them they must seek to be Justified by the Righteousness of God wrought in them? And as they are joyned to the elect Seed Christ Jesus, born again and brought forth in them which worketh out all iniquity and unrighteousness in them. Now this he hath not in the least offered to answer: After the like manner, Whereas I shew it is more acceptable to the wicked to hear that the outward Letter is the Rule, which they can bend and twin, then the inward which cannot be so twisted, He sayes, Some wicked men could wish there were no such outward rule, and that some understand not what is intended by Gods immediate speaking, but hate the Ministery of the word, both which answers make nothing to the purpose; What though wicked men hate the Scripture and the Ministry, doth it therefore follow that it is not more acceptable to them to hear; this is their only rule which they can twin as they please, then the inward which cannot be twined as the Scriptures may, nor bribed as the Ministry of men. He confesses, They allow of Laces, Ribbons, Gold Rings, &c. and other superfluities, And therefore cannot deny, but that their Doctrine therein is acceptable to the wicked; His shift is here, That People ought not to exceed their rank and quallity, aledging, The Apostle onely condems this, 1 Tim. 2. 9. But that his detestable wresting of the Scripture may be manifest I shall cite the Apostles words: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamfastness and sobriety; not with broydred hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly aray; is there any word here that they should only not exceed their rank; who cannot but abeminate his abusing of Scripture. And whereas he says, He thinks they should be sparing of lawful games and recreations, it seemes their deeds sute not their thoughts in this matter, or else it must be accounted a sparingness with him, not onely to spend much of the day in Field sports, but even largely of the night in Carding, [Page] &c. For so to my certain knowledg, some of his Brethren in the Priesthood, of the Synod of Aberd en, are found doing and justifying themselves in it. As to the Sabbath, he offereth not in the least to answer, That wherein I shew it was acceptable to the wicked, according to the same rate; In answer to my assertion, That the wicked love well to hear that they may be members of the Church without having infallible evidence of Holyness; He asketh, If all the Members of the Quakers Church have so, adding, That our raw conceited proselytes, are so ignorant and yet so confident, That sober men suspect them to be in a fools Paradice; First, as this is a meer shift and no reply, to disprove the Principle aforesaid to be acceptable to the wicked, so likewise if his Spirit had not been in a raw conceited posture, filled both with ignorance and confidence, he had not suffered himself so far to fall in a fools Paradice, as to imagine this his meer proofeless Calumny, with many more his groundless assertions would have any weight with sober men, not being backed with any argument: He addeth, Their Doctrine, once in Grace and ever in Grace, hath no tendency to please the wicked, because such never had Grace, and therefore have no ground to think that belongeth unto them; But seeing he himself confesseth, That such as had true Grace, may fall both unto detestable practices, and Blasphemous or Erronious Principles, may not such then foster themselves in these evils, by saying, That since they once had true Grace they can never totally fall from it: That part of Page 72. of mine, where I shew by example how the wicked living among them, and being their Church Members, and also opposing and vilisiing us did declare their Principles to be more acceptable to the wicked then ours, he hath wholly waved, it seems he knew of no shift how to shufle by this, and therefore found it fittest altogether to omit it.

Head 18. Pag. 131. He saith, The Quakers Religion is exceeding suitable to carnal hearts, and thereupon he instanceth some particulars saying, They are pleasing to the wicked, without offering any reason; The Reader upon the particular debate of these matters in their places, will observe how he was necessitated to bottom this conclusion of these Principles being sutable to carnal hearts, upon the meer credit of his own affirmation, and therefore it is no wonder he adds, That he is wearied raking in this dunghil; It is high time for him to leave of trampling in such miry stuff as is the whole bulk of his Book, and no doubt a dunghil is a very fit term for such a [Page] durty product, as is these drossy dregs of his dark understanding; I charged him in the end of mine for lying to God, for that in the Prayer, he endeth his Dialogue with, he useth these words, Follow with thy blessing, That which We have been about, which now he is so far from clearing himself of, that he now acknowledges it was onely a supposed conference, And therefore it was a lie, yea a mocking of God, to desire him to accompany a meer supposition with his blessing; as for his expressing pitty towards the seduced and wishing God to reclaim them, it was not for that I challenged him, but for his desiring God to accompany with his blessing a meer Chymaera, which never was, and therefore his best shift for this is, What is it that some men will not carp at especially the Quakers, of whom he addeth, a pious Minister hath said, That their Religion consists in railing; and then he goes on and tels some terms, wherewith that Person sayes, The Quakers have named the Ministers of Christ.

Answ. First, The Testimony of his supposed pious Minister is no more to be recieved in this case then W. M. his own, and to say the Quakers gave these names he mentions to the Ministers of Christ, is to take for granted the thing in debate, for the Quakers deny them to be such: And is just one as if a Papist should say, Luther and his assotiates Religion consisted in railling, because they called (as to the Papists) their holy Mother the Church of Rome a Srumpet, a Whore, the Mother of fornications, Babilon, &c. and all her devote Clergy no better then Balls Priests, filthy Dogs, blind Giuds, Liars, Dissemblers, &c. and all these other denominations W. M. men ions the Quakers give his Brethren; dare he deny but there are some of his Fraternity guilty of all these terms, And what knoweth he but the Quakers have applied them aright; it is manifest enough, some of these terms are too applicable to them all, such as blind Guids, Persecutors: It is here observeable, That among all these denominations he aledges, the Quakers give him and his Brethren, he hath omitted the two, both most frequently used against them by the Quakers, and most universally deserved by his fellow Priests, Viz. Hirelings and Time-servers; It seems he feared every Reader would have found them applicable: Herein do we find our selves Justified both before God and good men, that we have nameed them no otherwayes then as their Guilt deserved, and that we have no enmity nor hatred at any mans Person, nor have desired to [Page] harme it, wheras while they plead forbearance for themselves, that we should not speak the truth plainly to them, and of them, terming our so doing Railing and Reviling, yet they are not ashamed to speak all manner of evil falsly against us, Railing at us without a cause; And not onely so, but stiring up so far as they can the Magistrate, to cause us to be beat, imprisoned, and persecuted, both in our Bodies, Estates, and Libertys; by offering to banish us out of our Native Contryes: Yea and cut us off if they could from the face of the Earth. Let the unprejudiced Judge who showes forth here most meekness or most wrath.

§

§

[Page] [Page] William Michel UNMASQUED:

OR, The Staggering Instability of the pretended Stable Christian Discovered, his Omissions observed, and weakness unvailed.

In his late faint and feeble Animadversions by way of Reply to a Book Intituled TRUTH cleared of CALUMNIES.

Wherein The Integrity of the Quakers Doctrine is the second time Justified, and Cleared from the Reiterate, Clamorous but Causeless Calumnies of this Cavilling Cetechist.

By ROBERT BARCLAY.

John 16. 2. They will put you out of their Synagogues, yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think he doth God good service.

1 John 4. 4. Ye are of God little Children, because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the World.

3 John 10. Wherefore if I come, I will remember his deeds (which he doth) prating against us with malitious words.

Printed in the Year, 1672.

[Page]

The Preface TO THE READER.

[Page]

READER,

HAving seriously perused W. M. his late Animadversions upon my Book, I find my Judgement of it, though a party concerned, to jump with that which is the sence of several juditious persons, who neither own nor walk in that Profession I am in; and therefore can the less he suspected of partiallity, viz: that they coutain nothing of a solid or satisfactory reply; for though he seemes to take notice of all the particulars mentioned, yet he omits in many, more then the half of what is said by me concerning them, and against that which he doth mention in my name, his most frequent Arguments [Page] are without any Proof; having no other bottom but his owne Judgement, thoughts and conjectures, whereby it seemes, forgetting or mistaking his work, he playes the Catechist rather then the Disputant. This put me to some stand, whether it was fit to give him any Reply; though truly such as will be at the paines to compare his with my last, will need little further, yet knowing how many are apt to take things upon trust, and to receive Misrepresentations concerning us, who are a People so generally Reproached, I found it expedient to Write this succinct Reply, which may lead the Reader to a narrow observation of the invalidity of W. M. his work against us, and may present in short his most Obvious Omissions, his most manifest Contradictions, unvail his Disingenuity, lay open his Weakness, and shew his Unstabillity, especially so far as he has deserved; most of these Arguments he used in his Dialogue, as not being able further to mantaine them, and discover how faintly such new ones as he, doth now bring forth, millitate aginst us. Let it not startle thee that so smal [Page] a bulk as this is should answer his, for thou mayst perceive several pages of his taken up in the Cappital Letters of the contents of his many heads and subdivided Sections, which makes it not unlike the City Mindus whereof the Antients spoke, whose Gates were so disproportionable in greatness to the quantity of the Towne, that a certain Philosopher is said to have advised the Citizens to shut them, least the City should flee out at them. We may ver well so far extend the parallel, as to aver, That the Contained in no ways answers to the Contents; there is a deal of more Heads, then either Heart or Horns, several Sections but small Substance, and a great shew of Method, but very little Matter. I confess I might have far more enlarged this Duply, had I taken notice of all the Impertinencies which herein comes under my observation, but that the more Juditious, and Intelligent would ascribe these things not so much to the cause as his weakness who managed it. I desire to contend for Truth and not for Victory, knowing, though I were so minded, the [Page] Triumph should be but small the I could gain from so Inconsiderable an Antagonist, therefore Reader, I shal wish thee for the Truths sake (that thou may be found truly owning it, and not somthing else in stead of it) seriously to Read and peruse these papers, with such as relate unto them: And may that Spirit of Truth which teacheth all things, so direct thy Understanding, as thou may discern what Doctrine is truly and really most according to the holy Scriptures which thou art hartily invited in this matter to search and peruse, By a well-wisher of thy soul and of all Men.

R. B.

Urie, the 24th of the 10th Moneth commonly called December, 1671.

Post-script.

VVHereas W. M. in his fifth Head concerning the Scriptures, and in his twelfth Head, Pag. 96. concerning the Ministry, aledgeth, That these words of the Apostle Paul mentioned by me, 1 Cor. 14. 30. Ye may all Prophecy one by one; Is restricted to Prophets &c. not for the common order of the Church: Adding, That except we could prove all our Teachers to be Prophets, we ought not to lay claime to that Scripture: I would desire him to answer his Brother Samuel Rutherfords (Professor of Devinity at St. Andrews, So called; who in his Book intitled, The due Right of Presbytery, Page 466, 467.) eight arguments, wherein he hath proved it to be of Pastors, &c. not of extraordinary Prophets, and thereby hath saved me that labour.

This coming to my hands after the other was committed to the Press, was the cause of its not being inserted in the due place.

THE END.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay.

Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690.

Edition statement

1672

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A30907

ID [STC]

Wing B742

ID [STC]

ESTC R37062

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

16199162

ID [OCLC]

ocm 16199162

ID [VID]

105055

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A30907)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 105055)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 1085:24)

Source

— William Michel unmasqued, or, The staggering instability of the pretended stable Christian discovered his omissions observed, and weakness unvailed : in his late faint and feeble animadversions by way of reply to a book intituled Truth cleared of calumnies : wherein the integrity of the Quakers doctrine is the second time justified and cleared from the reiterate, clamorous but causeless calumnies of this cavilling cetechist [sic] / by Robert Barclay., Barclay, Robert, 1648-1690..

Extent

[6], 66 p.

[s.n.],. [Aberdeen?] printed :: 1672.. (Place of publication suggested by Wing.) (Barclay's Truth cleared of calumnies was in reply to William Mitchell's A dialogue between a Quaker and a stable Christian. Mitchell replied with A sober answere to an angry pamphlet. Cf. NUC pre-1956 imprints.) (Error in paging: p. 64 misprinted 94.) (Reproduction of original in the Bodleian Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.