A Further DISCOVERY of that Generation of men called QVAKERS: By way of Reply to an Answer of James Nayler to the Perfect Pharisee.

Wherein is more fully layd open their Blasphe­mies, notorious Equivocations, Lyings, wrestings of the Scripture, Raylings, and other dete­stable Principles and Practises.

And the Booke called, The Perfect Pharisee, is convincingly cleared from James Naylers false Aspersions; with many difficult Scriptures (by him wrested) opened.

Published for the building up of the perseverance of the Saints, till they come to the end of their Faith, even the salvation of their soules.

Mat. 16.18. Ʋpon this Rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevaile against it.

Rev. 2.23. Ʋnto you I say, and unto as many as have not this Doctrine, and which have not knowne the depths of Satan, as they speake, I will put upon you none other burden: But that which you have already, hold fast till I come.

Gateside, Printed by S. B. 1654.

Christian Reader.

S [...]nce our Publishing of the Perfect Pharisee, as we finde we blesse God it hath been prosperous, to the no small satisfaction and establishing of his people, who with an humble and sober spi­rit, have been willing to try the spirits whether they be of God. So we see it hath provoked the spirits of those Quakers, to more obstinacy, bitternesse, and rayling, As in the powring out of the fourth Vio [...], Men were scorched with great heat, and blas­phemed the Name of God, and repented not to give him glory. Now, though truely we must professe, with Reverend Mr. Eaton, Writing concerning the same people, in his Epistle to his Booke called, The Quakers confuted, That we cannot apprehend that there is any hope of convincing these per­sons of the error of their way, so farre are they under the very power of the spirit of delusion, and professed enmity to the Ordinances of Christ Jesus our Lord: Yet, for the fur­ther securing, and fuller satisfying of the people of God, we are induced to Answer this Reply of Iames Nayler, for the clearer manifesting of the wickednesse and folly of these men, and their Principles: And though it cost us new revilings, and more bitter cursings from this People which we fully expect: Yet what are we, and our Names, though troddon under foot so Iesus Christ may have the glory, and his people the advantage of our standing for the truth.

But that thou mayest know the nature of their Answer, thus it is; We charge them to hold seventeen Blasphemous and Hereticall Doctrines, besides their other principles and practises, in our Booke expressed, and what he sayes to them; we have given thee a short account in the Draught subjoyned to our Epistle, Wherein thou wilt easily see with what full proofe we have testified those things concerning them, though the tongues of these [...] accustomed to [Page 4] nothing more, then to rayle, doe so confidently charge lyes upon us: But we are sure and confident in the Lord, that we have spoken that of them, which will (if not already, as it doth to all impartiall Readers) fully, undeniably, and convincingly appeare to be truth, if thou reade the clearenesse of the evidence of this ensuing Treatise.

Reader, If thou hast Read our former Booke, thou wilt finde our Arguments and assertions against the blasphemous Doctrines of these men, fully strengthened by plentifull variety of evident, plaine, convincing Scriptures; to which thou wilt finde Iames Nayler in his Reply, answering not one word. Certainly, the de­monstration of the spirit of God, either hath convincingly silenced him, and stopp'd his mouth (for how ready is he to catch at any trifling appearance of advantage?) or what canst thou, or any man imagine of him, but that Scripture is nothing to him, nor his soule under any obedience unto, or conscience of the truth of God? either of which, What a miserable and deplorable state of soule, doth it speake, when men can stand out in their blaspemies against the light of Conscience?

It shall be our worke in this ensuing Treatise, in following Iames Nayler in his Reply, to answer all such Scriptures as he impertinently and injuriously wrests, and to cleare the truths of God from their being misapplyed to his horrid Principles. By which, and other occasionall passages in this Booke, thou wilt find a more full and plaine manifestation of these men, and discovery of the mystery of iniquity working in them. Consider what thou Readest, and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

  • Tho. Weld.
  • Rich. Prideaux,
  • Sam. Hammond.
  • Will. Cole.
  • Will. Durant.

A short Draught of James Naylers Answer to the Booke called, The Perfect Pharisee.
Quakers Positions.

1. EQuality with God. This we proved by six Evidences. He denyes but two of them, which yet we shall prove un­der the hand of witnesses, and his very Answers doe amount to an asserting of it.

2. No distinction of Persons in the God-head. This is denyed by them; but we shall by further testimony cleare it to be theirs.

3. That the soule is a part of the Divine Essence. This he ex­cepteth not against, nor takes any notice of our Arguments, but is full of bitter Rayling.

4. That Christ is in every man, and in the Reprobates held under corruption. This is confessed clearely, though seemingly denyed; onely one expression is shuffled, which is yet proved by testimony under hand.

5. That Christ was but a Figure, and Example. This is de­nyed by him, and miserably shuffled; yet we evidently prove it, even by their owne Bookes; and other testimony.

6. That men are not justified by that Righteousnesse which Christ in his owne Person fulfilled, without us. This is not de­nyed, though so wicked a Doctrine, but a new asserted, and no tittle of an answer to our Arguments.

7. That men are justified by that Righteousnesse which Christ within them enables to performe. This we proved by six evident testimonies, two of which Nayler onely shuffles in; but we shall cleare them, and answers nothing to plaine [...]cripture against them.

8. That God and Man cannot be wholly reconciled, till he be brought to the state of the first Adam, and able in h [...] o [...]ne power to stand perfect. This he denyes, but we prove from his owne words it clearely is, and must be his [...]eaning.

9. He that commits sin, and is not perfectly holy, can never enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, unlesse there be a Purgatory. This he denyes to be so in his Booke, and rayleth, as if we charged a lye upon him; but we shall further cleare it, though in his owne answer he partly confesseth it.

10. No reall Saint but he that is perfectly holy, &c. This he confesseth, and answers onely by rayling, but takes no notice of the Scriptures, against that Principle.

11. Every man hath a light within him sufficient to guide him to salvation, without the help of outward light. He confesseth all, but answers nothing.

12. No need of outward teaching, &c. He denyes one testi­mony of ten, which yet is true; but confesseth the Doctrine, and falls a rayling.

13. Scriptures not the Word of God, but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them. This he denyeth not: we proved it by five testimonies. He answers by one Scripture grossely perverted; and two others ignorantly applyed, but gives no answer to many Scripture arguments against it.

14, Spirits not to be tryed by Scripture. This we proved by three testimonies, none of which, nor the Position is denyed; but goes about to prove it, and falls a rayling.

15. No sence, meaning or exposition to be given, or studying of Scripture. This we proved in foure testimonies; he confes­seth, goes about to prove it; but answers not a word to four­teen evident Scriptures, but falls a rayling grossely.

16. They cry downe Baptisme, and the Lords Supper, as types and shadowes. For this we gave foure proofes, which he denyed not, and we further prove it. He shuffles from Baptisme in generall to the businesse of Infant Baptisme, and falls a rayling.

17. No mediate cull to the Ministry. Denies not the Proof, but falls miserably a rayling, as if he would powr out his gall upon us.

As for the rest of his Reply, to what we charged upon them as their Principles and Practises, there is such palpable shuf­flings, such miserable weakenesse, and such horrible rayling as that we should not have medled with it at all; but that we be­leeve it is the designe of God to lay more and more open the spi­rits of these men.

THis Booke, pretending to Answer us is thus subscribed, By one whom the World calls Iames Nayler.About man being cal­led by names gi­ven them by their Parents. We are [...]ot a little jealous that there lyes a mystery of iniquity in that very stile and expression. For first, God himselfe (whom to thinke to follow any sinfull expression or custome, were no lesse then blasphemous) calls men by their Names of distinction given by Men. Gen. 22.11. God said unto him, Abraham. Hannah cal­led her sonne Samuel. 1 Sam. 1.20. She called his name Sa­muel, &c. and afterwards when the Lord appeared to him to call him out to the worke of the Priest-hood, chap. 3.4. and 6. and 8. verses, The Lord called Samuel, and called him againe so the second and third time; here its evident, that God himselfe calls him by the Name that his Mother gave him. Acts 9.4. there Iesus Christ from Heaven calls him Saul, Saul, a Name given him before his conversion. Christ when upon Earth, calls his Disciples by the Names given them at their Circumcision; as Philip, Iohn, Simon sonne of Ionas &c. The Apostles doe so constantly, as Festus, Agrippa, Gaius, Aristarchus, &c. and this without such a mysterious preamble, as one wh [...] the World calls Festus, Agrippa. &c. You see how these pretend [...]r to Scripture, depart from Scripture, as if they would include God and Christ under the carnall observations of the World, or else teach them to speake.

2. It is apparant, That these very men doe constantly call themselves by these Names, as Iames Nayler doth in an Epistle at the end of Farneworths Booke; George Fox in a Pamphlet lately Printed; and the very men of their Generation call them so, without any such preamble.

The myste­ry of [...]e [...] [...]ri­ting t [...]em­selve (such w [...]o the World c [...]ll so and so).3. But shall we tell you where the mystery lyes? We are sa­tisfied, that this expression is meerly to cloake their pretence to an equality with God. Our reason is evident: For in this very Answer of Naylers, pag, 4. where he relates Fo [...]es his evad [...]ng of the charge against him, that he said, He was equall with God▪ Nayler thus hints, that Fox being asked, whether he spake this of George Fox as he was a creature? To this he answered, I deny George Fox, he is dust, and must be dust; but I and my Father are one. Is not this as plaine as the Sunne, that he therefore de­nyes [Page 8] George Fox, that he may deny his being a creature, one that must returne to dust, that so he may set up and assert his onenesse with God. Compare but this with that usuall expression of theirs in their Books, Whose name in the flesh is James Nayler: Whose name in the flesh is Iohn Audland, &c. and it will be more ap­parent. But more of this you have in our Answer to their Reply to the first Article.

In the Epistle in the said Answer Written by A. P. he calls us,About the word Priest the Priests of the North, a word on purpose given us to our reproach. Surely their pretended meeknesse, should have taught them other expressions; though truely we finde, and the Reader may, even in this their answer, finde more cursed rayling, then we receive from the worst of men; yet, our suffering in that kinde from them also, is not small. But A. P. might know, that every Priest was to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sinne, and that we waite not upon any such worke; and that the Gospel knowes no Chiefe Priest, but the Lord Iesus, who is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek; not any Priests at all properly, but the Saints, metaphorically [...]lled a Royall Priest-hood: and shall the stile of the Lord Ies [...] and his Saints be a reproach in the mouthes of Quakers?

He goes on, and tells the world, That we [...] all strangers to that sort of people called Quakers, except one. A. P. (who is none of the least of that sort of people) cannot but know, that he is too well knowne to all of us. Secondly, Three of these five also have had cause to know many more of them, as M. Tay­lour, Iohn Audland, Stubbs, Holmes, Atkinson, Hedgshon, Ayry, &c. and others from whom we suffered disturbance in our pub­lique Ministry; and some of these also, are pretenders to be eminently sent forth. Thirdly, Though all of us were stran­gers to their persons, yet are we not strangers to them in their writings, and so, if it be possible to know them by their Papers (which they industriously scatter up and downe) we know them fully. But whither tends this aspersion, that they are strangers to all of us, save one; but to make the world beleeve that we have taken up these things against them by report? But we hope, the Reader by this time, understands the nakednesse of the slander, and the subtilty of A. P.

W. C.As for that evidence which one of us gives concerning their principles and practises, which A. P. under the name of Re­ports, would insinuate into the people, as if they were lyes; the Reader shall observe, that the most of these evidences, are not at all contradicted by Nayler in his Answer, but passed over, which we take as confessed by him; others onely evaded, which yet shall appeare to the Reader in the ensuing answer, to be ei­ther such things, as he was an eye or eare witnesse of, or shall be fully confirmed by undeniable testimony. A. P. goes on, and tells the Reader, that in this answer, What is truth is owned, and what is false is denied; truely, he could not, in so few words, have spoken more untruely to prepossesse the Reader: but we beg the Reader, as to that, to suspend his judgement, till he have fully read the ensuing Discourse, wherein, whether any thing have been charged on them that is false, and whether Nayler have done faithfully in owning what is truth, will ap­peare at large.

In the Preface of James Nayler to his answer, he tells you,The Man of sin, and his [...]ork­ings in the last times Revealed. That Christ now appearing in his Saints, to discover the man of sinne, with all his deceits and deceiveable workings; now all the powers of darkenesse are gathered against him, Gog and Magog. As for those deceits and deceiveable workings, truely these blasphemous Doctrines of these men, with their Diabolicall de­lusions and quakings, will make it appeare where the man of sin is now working. To open this, we shall stay the Reader a little.

Agreement betwixt Pa­pists and Quakers.1. It is as claere as the noone day, 2 Thes. 2. chapter. Rev. 12.3. Rev. 13. Rev. that the Papall Apostacy and state is The Antichrist, so often Prophesied of in Scripture. Now it is as plain [...] that the very distinguishing Doctrines and practises of these men are such, as are the maine principles of that man of sinne in opposition to Jesus Christ.

Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif. cap. 7.1. The Papists deny the imputed righteousnesse of Christ for justification, and in scorne and derision, call it, A putative Righteousnesse.

Quak.These also from the same spirit, deny the imputed Righteous­nesse of Christ for justification: And Nayler himselfe, before the whole Court at Appleby, discoursing with W. C. about ju­stification by righteousnesse of Christ imputed; not onely de­nyed [Page 10] it, but in a sleighting way ended his discourse thereabout, with this language, That which is without, is without; So George Fox affirmed, That he that is borne of God is justified by Christ alone, without imputation, Sauls Errand, pag. 12.

Papist Bell. l. 2. de justif. cap. 3.2. The Papists in their controversies with us, doe positively affirme, that justification is by inherent Righteousnesse. Hence Bellermine, Stapleton, &c. with the rest doe positively affirme, that [...], is onely justum facere per inherentem justitiam, that to justifie, is onely to make righteous by inherent righ­teousnesse.

Quak.So these men doe as confidently affirme, that they are onely justified by inherent righteousnesse, or that righteousnesse with­in, which Christ within them enableth them to performe. See our proofe Perfect Pharisee, pag. 10.

Papist Bell. de ju [...]tif l. 4. c. 11. 12. 13. 143. The Papists againe doe confidently conclude, that a man may perfectly keep the whole Law; Hence their neglect of the righteousnesse of Christ, their workes of supererogation, and the like.

QuakSo the Quakers, their great assertion as a challenge to all, is, that e [...]ery Saint is perfect: that it is p [...]ssible to be perfectly holy, and without sinne Perfect obedience to the Law of God is their great Principle, which they confidently cry up more then any.

Papist Bell. l. 3. de verbo Dei. c 4.4. The Papists affirme, that the Scriptures, or the Written Word of God, are not the supreame Iudge of sp rits

QuakSo these people, that the spirits are not to be c [...]yed by Scripture. So A. P. in the Booke he but forth called Severall Papers, p 19. The Wo [...]lds touchstone is without them and they try the spirit by the letter, &c. but the Saints touchstone is within. So that though they agree not what shall be, yet both of them consent in denying the Scripture to be the judge of spirits.

Papist5 The Papists call the Scripture, a [...] ad letter, a nose of wax, a sc [...]bbard without a sword. Co [...]erus in Euchir. pag. 44 Pig­hius, lib. 1. cap. 4. So Melchior Canus sayes, It is most certaine, the Written Word is onely for Babes, and is no way necessary for those that are grow [...]e; as is more fu l Melchior Canus, defens. each fid. contra confess Wor [...]berg cap. 36.

Quak.So these men also not onely c [...]y downe the necessity of the written word, see the perfect Pharisee, pag. 20. but also call it, [Page 11] a dead letter, a carnall letter, that they are but a declaration of them that spake it. So Melchior Canus againe saith, the Gospel is not the Scripture; as Farnworth in his Booke Discovery of Faith, scoffes at our saying, the foure Bookes of Matthew, Marke, Luke and John are the Gospel, pag. 1 [...].

Papist6. The great argument by which the Papists doe goe about to establish the truth of their way, is Immediate revelations, and pretended miracles; the want of which, they upbrayd the Protestant Ministers, and charge us to be no Church

QuakSo the Quakers doe in their pretence to an immediate call, and their supposed miracle of quaking. So A. P. the Word of the Lord came to me saying. So Audland, the Word of the Lord came to me: but of that more hereafter.

Papist7. The Papists doe place much of their holinesse in their Eastings, beggerly apparell and forsaking the World, as they call it, as their l [...]ing mewed up in convents, and cloysters, their wan­dring up and downe as Hermits, and begging Fryers, &c.

Quak.So these men is knowne to place abundance of their holi­nesse in Fasting, beggarly apparell, wandring up and downe the World, &c. we might adde much more; but here you may see how the man of sinne in these men in their compliance with the principles and practises of the Romish way, breaks out in his deceit and deceive [...]ble workings.

2. He is a st [...]anger in the Booke of God, as to the discovery of Antichrist,The spirit of errour the spirit of Anti-Christ. who doth not observe the spirit of God mightily unvailing Antichrist by the revealing of the spirit of errour in him; for 1 Iohn. 2.18. there it plainly appeares, that horrid er­rors are of that affinity with the Antichrist, that when he would describe that man of sinne in the last time he calls the Heretiques by that very name, Now are there many Antichrists, whereby we know it is the last time, &c. Now besides those which we have named, the Reader will easily observe such a masse and heape of Arminian, Socinian, Familisticall errors in their Do­ctrines layd downe in the Perfect Pharisee, that he may c [...]earely observe where the spirit of Antichrist works in all deceivea­blenesse in this last time.

3. Lastly, It is the Saints bulwarke against the Papists, while they call for our miracles, that the spirit of God clearely [Page 12] holds forth, that the comming of the man of sinne is after the working of Satan, with all power and signes, and lying won­ders, 2 Thes. 2.9. So Rev. 16.13. the three uncleane spirits, ver. 14. are the spirits of Devils working miracles, to gather to­gether, &c. Now this further evidenceth the spirit of the man of sinne, acting in them, and their way. As for his Gog and Magog, Rev. 20.8. to which Naylor compares our Books, being set forth against that generation: truely we cannot but smile at the weakenesse of the man, for who knows not that Gog and Magog referrs to the time of the Jews conversion, when God will plucke up the Kingdome of the Turkes and Saracens, and is to be after the expiring of the thousand yeares, as that chapter is exceeding cleare.

Reader, we entreat thy pardon for this digression, though ttuely, when we came to consider, that his expression of the man of sinne, our spirits could not but strike in with this call of pro­vidence, to lay naked that mistery of Babilonish iniquity which worketh in these men.

Difference in judge­ment about discipline, no breach of a joynt appearance against the methods of Satan.In the next place, thou wilt finde him (that he may compare us with Herod and Pilat conspiring against Christ) thus charging us, These sive formerly could scarce agree in any thing, no not in that which they call the worship of God, &c.

First, A. P. accuseth us, to have taken up the things we wrote against the Quakers by report, whereas he sayes, that peo­ple was not knowne to any of us, except one; let him now tell us whether Iames Nayler takes not up things by report, who we beleeve, never saw the Face of foure of those five, whom he so boldly chargeth.

2. But is it true, that we can feares agree in any thing? This is a charge, we wonder he hath such a brazen forehead, to rayse against us. Doe we not all agree? and is not our reall a­greement knowne in all the Doctrines of the Gospel? As for matters of discipline, we doe really confesse there is some diffe­rence in judgement amongst us. But first, Doth this make us like Herod and Pilat, who hated the very principles of the Gospel, and (as Nayler sayes) could not agree in any thing. Se­condly, Paul and Peter had their difference in point of judge­ment as to Circumcision, Gal. 2.14. So thirdly, Paul and Bar­nabas [Page 13] had their difference, in another case, Acts. 15.39. But fourthly, That rule of the Apostle, we hope shall be our rule, Phil. 3.16. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded, &c. Never­thelesse whereto we have already attained, let us minde the same thing, let us walke by the same rule. Fifthly, And as the Apostles abovesaid, notwithstanding their particular differences, even in judgement; yet agreed to oppose the enemies of Christ, and the grosse Heresies then springing up: so by the assistance of our God, we have been enabled cordially and industriously, to agree in promoting the worke of the Gospel; and we are confident in the Lord shall further be. But doth not, this savour of abun­dance of malice, when he sayes, they could not agree in any thing, no not in the worship of God? &c. Could we not agree in the worship of God? or doth he know what the worship of God is? or what difference is betwixt worship and discipline? surely if he had, his conscience must checke him, for charging such a lye upon us. But this it seems A. P. doth report, and James Nayler will report it.

Further, he goes on, and tells the Reader, We are not afraid to speake evill of their forsaking the world, the pride and lusts of it; and these (he saies) we call, a sinfull neglect of their Families, triviall observations, and bely the Apostle, saying, he calls them rudiments of the World. Reader, that thou mayst see the wilfull (and we are afraid) malitious mistake of the man; we shall give thee our owne words as they are in our Epistle, thus, There is indeed something which pretends to holinesse in this generation of men: as the meannesse of their apparell, sometimes more then ordinary abstinence, their forsaking the World (though to a sinfull neglect of their Families and Callings) and many triviall observan­ces, which the Apostle calls, The rudiments of the world. Col. 2.23. Now,

1. In this the Reader may clearely see, our willingnesse to speake the fairliest that we in conscience could of the wayes of these men, for we say, that these things there named, do indeed pretend to holinesse, and have a shew of humility, they are out owne words; so farre were we (as he would charge us) from speaking evill of any thing that doth but looke like a com­mand of Christ.

2. He most grossely chargeth us, that we speake evill of, Forsaking the World, the pride and lusts of it, and that this we call, a sinfull neglect of their Families, and triviall observances, when as its as cleare as if it were written with a Sun-beame, that we doe no such thing. For, Is there any one tittle in these our words, concerning their forsaking the pride and lust of the world? we h [...]pe we have so much of the dread of God upon our soules, as that it shall not enter into our hearts, to set a Pen to Paper, to pleade for the lusts and pride of the world. But what wickednesse is this, to foyst those falshoods into our Epi­stle, which we never spoke.

3. It is a sinfull neglect of their families and callings which we speake aga [...]nst,Sinfulnesse or neglect of Ca [...]l [...]gs & families. (for this we know to be a sinne) but we speak not against a forsaking of the world in its proper Gospel-sence, we say that they doe sinfully neglect their Callings, thats apparent in their constant wandrings up and downe, Fox and Nayler themselves are two evident examples of it. And for the sinfulnesse of so doing, we referre you to these Scriptures, 1 Tim. 5.8. If any provide not for his owne, and especially for those of his owne house, he hath denyed the Faith, and is worse then an In­fidell. 2 Thes. 3.10. We commanded, that if any would not worke, neither should he eate: For we heare there are some amongst you walking disorderly, working not at all. 1 Cor. 7.20. Let every man abide in the same Calling wherein he was called, art thou called being a servant, care not for it, &c. ver. 24. Let every man in the calling wherein he was called, therein abide with God. How doth this reprove their practise and prove the sinfulnesse of their neglect of their Callings.Object. But if they should say, That the Apostles left their Callings and followed Christ. Answer. It is true, the Messias had his Disciples following him. But first, Paul after the Ascension of Christ, doth leave a standing rule in the Scriptures for Christians to abide in their callings; Com­mands the aged Women that were Beleevers, that they be keepers at home, Tit. 2.5. Reproves the lightnesse of the younge [...] Wid­dowes, When they wax wanton against Christ, they learne to be idle, wandring about from house to house; and not onely idle, but tatlers also, and busie-bodies, speaking things which they ought not, as 1 Tim. 5.11.13. [The very Picture and patterne of the Women-Quakers.]

2. Before they left their callings in the world, its evident they had an immediate call from Christ. Marke 1.17. Jesus said unto them, Come yee after me, &c. where he immediately calls Simon and Andrew; James and John, calls also Philip. See John 1.43. and Matthew from the receit of Custome. Mat. 9.9. We know these men will pretend to the same immediate call; but we have fully answered in the perfect Pharisee p. 45. 46, to the vanity of that pretence.

3. They were called forth to an Office and publique worke in the Ministry, which was not a neglect of their Callings, but a changing of them. Now th [...]s publique worke of Ministry, these men will not sure pretend they are called to, for they doe cry downe all Churches, and Ministeriall imployment, as to out­ward teaching, as wholly needlesse.

4. And lastly, Paul after this reproves Christians for leaving their callings, 2 Thes. 3.10. 1 Tim. 5.13. which had not been if their example had been binding.

The nature of forsa­king t [...]e wo [...]l rightly stated.4. As to a right forsaking of the world according to the mind of Christ, we must againe say, It lyes not in a Monkish changing of apparell, not wearing of a band, and giving over to labour in their callings, it lyes in no such thing; but it emi­nently consists, in these two things.

1. A crucifying of affections to the world, so that the soule sits loose as to all the possessions and comforts of it, and can see so much in Iesus Christ as to satisfie it selfe, by which we are preserved in an holy indifferency as to the things o this world, and can freely submit to the Lord, as to any providences in things below. And so we can affirme, that a man may forsake the world, and yet enjoy his possessions in it. Abraham, Ia­cob, Nebemiah, David &c. men all of vast possessions, and yet true forsakers of the world. Were not those beleeve [...]ich, whom the Apostle chargeth, 1 Tim. 6.18. that they be ready to distribute, &c. but their forsaking of the world, was in this, that they be not high minded, nor trust in uncertaine riches; not in their leaving their Families and callings; but that 1 Cor. 7.29.30 31. Let them that have Wives, be as though they had none; they that rejoyce, as though they rejoyced not; they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use the world, as [Page 16] not abusing it; for the fashion of this World passeth away.

2. It consists in a willingnesse of spirit to part with these things when thereunto called; which is in case of competition betwixt Christ and our enjoyments; in reference whereto, the Saints have need to sit downe before-hand and reckon this, the charge of the Gospel may cost them one day their dearest com­forts, as it costs us the scandals and reproaches of our Persons as this day from these Quakers. See this Mat. 10.37. He that loveth father and mother more then me, is not worthy of me.

And the case being thus opened, if any shall nourish their idlenesse, under a pretence of forsaking the World; we dare freely tell them, that they make the Scriptures a slave unto their lusts, and walke contrary to the plaine rules of it.

5. Lastly, there is another false charge layd upon us, as that we doe call the forsaking of the World, pride and lusts, a triviall observance, the rudiments of the World, and will-worship. We have shewed already, that we spoke not a syllable in that Epistle of the pride and lusts of the World, (that foysted in by Iames Nayler) We now adde, that it is as malitious a scandall; to say, we c [...]ll forsaking of the world, a triviall observance, &c. The quakers beggerly elements The Reader may see we speake of their triviall observances as of another businesse, things distinct from that of forsaking of the world: And because he would so palpably wrest our words, we shall tell him what those triviall observances of theirs are; such as these, their not saluting, not putting off a Hat before a Magistrate, their thouing every man, not calling men Masters, ana such like; like those of the Apostle, Col. 2.21. of touch not, taste not, handle not: Now as such as these, as to a soules placing his holinesse and religion in them, we dare boldly call, Beggarly elements, and the rudiments of the world; so we yet againe say, that he that shall place so much of his perfection in such triviall observances as these, he walkes indeed in a shew of wisedome, in humility, and will worship, and neglecting the body, (not in any honour) to the satisfying of the flesh, that is, to the satisfying of the fleshly principle of Legall righteous­nesse, puffed up and fed with such acts of will-worship.

Having thus traduced us, he begins to cry up his owne fol­lowers, for their obedience to the commands of Christ. We [Page 17] wonder how they can so much as pretend to obedience to the command of Christ,The diso­bedience to the commands of Christ, and the Ordi­nances. when it is evident, that the whole gene­ration of them, will not submit to his righteousnesse, establishing a righteousnesse fulfilled in themselve: Nay, tis their great work, to deny his righteousnesse fulfilled in his Person to be imputed to us for justification; As also, they deny many other truths, with a full opposition to Gospel-Ordinances, Prayer, Supper, Baptisme, Church-Government, Ministry: whom can he perswade that such as these are brought up to obedience to the commands of Christ?

VVho are the perse­cutors be­twixt us and them discoveredLastly, In the conclusion of his Preface he tells you, that they are persecuted by us: In which accusation, we shall ap­peale to the Reader. Whether they be the persecuters of him that is borne after the spirit, or we? For first, It is evidently knowne, that while we are carrying on the worke of the Gospel in our respective Congregations peaceably; some of them have come no lesse then threescore miles to revile us, and smite us with the tongue of bitter reproaches, in publique Congregati­ons, nay, even in the time of exercise, to the great hindering of the seed of the Word, which questionlesse is the designe of Satan in those their confusions. And are we the persecuters?

2. If causing such tumults, and their such bitter slanders of us in the time of worship, have brought them at any time within the compasse of Law, we must tell them, that that was a suffering as evill doers; and no persecution, if it be a sinne to breake the Peace and traduce and take away the good names of others. Yet even in such cases also, they may remember, how many of the were discharged the Towne, without Im­prisonment? and such as were Imprisoned, how soon relea­sed?

3. If reproaching with the tongue be persecution (for what else was Ishmaels persecuting of Isaac, to which that texts re­late Gal. 4. what was it Gen. 21.9. but Ishmael mocking Isaac?) we may say, we have had as large measure thereof from this people, as might fill pages to set downe in particular.

4. If our B [...]oke be the persecution, Pauls zeale against wicked principles and unlawfull practises may as well be called persecution, as our pleading for the truth of Christ against op­posers, [Page 18] we being set for the confirmation and defence of the Gospel.

We now proceed to take notice of his answers to the Posi­tions they have asserted; the first is,

Position 1. Their Equality with God.

Excep. 1 TO the first Proofe, that George Fox affirmed, He was equall with God. Iames Nayler answers, and sayes, that it is false that George Fox did say, that George Fox was equall with God.

Reply. Let the Reader take notice, that Nayler in his reply, doth not deny our proofe at all, when we say, that George Fox said these words, I am equall with God; he doth not except against this at all.

2. Naylers further reply plainely doth evidence it also; where he confesseth that George Fox, when he was asked, Whe­ther he was equall with God, said, I deny George Fox, he is dust, &c. but I and my Father are one. VVhere he clearely asserts his onenesse with God, as to equality, (for that was the question the Justices put to him.) So that our proofe against him stands cleare by his owne confession.

Now the strength of Naylers answer lyes in this evasion, which we doubt not but any that have their eyes open, will dis­cover to be the subtilty of the Serpent, viz. he doth not deny that George Fox said, He was equall with God; but denyes that he said that George Fox was equall with God; where Nayler makes Fox to distinguish ignorantly, and make a difference be­twixt George Fox, and himselfe, so that though George Fox is not equall with God; yet he that is called George Fox is equall with God. Now to this blasphemous evasion, we thus answer.

1. If George Fox for his blasphemy, be turned into Hell; what will become of him? that is what will become of that person that is called by the name of George Fox?

2. Is not the name alwayes given for the distinguishing of the person; yea, even when they are in a blessed state, transla­ted from corruption. Mat. 17.3. there appe [...]red Moses and Elias talking with him; they were Moses and Elias still, though in a state of glory. So that the person is understood and di­stinguished by the name; and therefore by the name George Fox, must be understood in our Booke, the person distinguished by that name; we were never so childish as to thinke, that a [Page 19] bare name, without its relation to the person distinguished by [...]it, any should cry up to an equality with God; we speake of the person understood by George Fox. Such cobweb answers, and childish evasions, may satisfie such deluded spirits as Nay­ler; but we cannot but in the feare of the Lord cry out, Oh! the plotted blasphemy of these men.

3. Did ever any of the Saints of God in the old or new Te­stament distinguish in this way? Did not Paul say, Paul a servant of Iesus Christ, not saying, I deny Paul, Paul is dust, and must to dust, but I am a servant of Jesus Christ? what un­scripturall and ridiculous language is this?

4. Hence you may see, it was not without reason, that we were jealous of a mystery of iniquity lying under these di­stinctions, betwixt George Fox, and himselfe; and in these words, one whom the World calls James Nayler; and in Francis Howgill his paper, called A woe to Kendall, one whom the World calls, F. H.

5. The very evasion that Nayler useth, is a very great de­monstration to us, that George Fox asserted he was equall with God. For Nayler confesseth he was present when George Fox was asked whether he spoke this of George Fox as he was a creature. Now here is a cleare confession, that George Fox did say, He was equall with God, thats confessed he spoke this; onely the question was about the sence of these words, and whe­ther he spoke them of himselfe as a creature. What ever the person were that asked Fox that question, we would leave this upon his conscience, what apprehensions he had of Fox? For by the necessary, and infallible rules of reason, there is nothing that hath a being, but either a creature, or a Creator; and if Fox have an other consideration (as that question clearely im­plyes) besides that as a creature, it must necessarily, be as a Creator, and so his equality with God is asserted. Well, tis con­fessed he spoke these words. 2. In this answer he denies George Fox as a creature; the meaning therof as given in answer to that que­stion, must be this, that George Fox as a creature denyes to be equall with God; but that he, as under some other consideration is equall with God, he denyes not; nay asserts it, when he sayes, I and my Father are one.

6. We cannot but presse it upon the Reader, that in the [...]e debates, about equality with God, it had been easie for Nayl [...]r or Fox, to have declared their totall inequality with God, and not so to have deluded the people in such fond distinctions as I am equall with God, and yet George Fox is not equall with God; nay, this debate certainly, was an eminent call to th [...]m to disclaime it, if this wretched principle had not filled their hearts; yet in stead of our ingenious denying of this blasphe­my, their whole worke is falsely to assert it under the cloake of subtle and unscripturall, nay, blasphemous distinctions and eva­sions.

Iohn 10.13. opened.Now for the Scriptures he so blasphemously abuseth, they are these two. First Iohn 10.30. I and my Father are one; this Scripture, that it is properly and incommunicably spoken of Christ, God and Man, and cannot be applyed to any meere creature, we shall thus make evident. The Person there spoken of is first in the 9. ver. the Doore. I am the Doore, by me if any enter in, he shall be saved. Is George Fox the doore? 2. That Person spoken of affirmes, ver 18. that he hath power to lay downe his life of himselfe, and power to take it up againe. Hath George Fox that power? 3. In ver. 26. He saith to the Jewes, Ye cannot beleeve, because ye are not of my Sheep. Dare George Fox say so? The reason why men doe not beleeve, is it because George Fox hath not elected them from Eternity. 4. That Person there spoken of faith, ver. 27.28. My Sheep heare my voyce and I give unto them eternall life; neither shall any man plucke them out of my hands. Is it not blasphemy for Fox to as­sert these things of him else? 5. He also saith, My Father that gave them me, is greater then all, ver. 29. Did the Father give the Elect to George Fox? Now ver. 30. this Person of whom these things are spoken, it is, who is one with the Father. And you may as well ascribe the other five considerations to George Fox, or any meere creature, as this, that he and the Father are one. But oh! the greatnesse of his ignorance of God, of Christ, of Scripture, of himselfe, which is the cause of such most wretched blasphemies.

1 Cor 6.17. opened.This next Scripture is, 1 Cor, 6.17. He that is joyned unto the Lord is one spirit. The designe of the Apostle there, being [Page 21] to dehort from Fornication, upon the account of that union that is betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot, ver. 16 they are one body: for two, saith he, shall be one flesh, doth adde a further reason to the Saints, he that is joyned to the Lord is one spirit. V. 15. Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an Harlot, God forbid? Now that this Text doth not hold forth a Beleevers equality with God, will thus appeare. For first, The strength of the Apostles argument in this place, is by the membership of a Beleever to Christ, to prove the exceeding sinfulnesse of taking a member of Christ, and making it a member of an Harlot: all the union it holds forth betwixt us and Christ, is onely as we are members of the Lord Jesus. Now the membership of a Beleever with Christ, is nothing to prove his equality with God. For first, The implantation of a Belee­ver into Christ being by Faith in his death, and Faith it selfe being a finite grace, can no way bring the soule into an inf [...]nite equality 2. Besides, Paul after membership by Faith in Christ, yet complained of a body of sinne, which utterly disclaimes all equality with God.

2. The nature of this union speaks no physicall onenesse; for as there is no physicall onenesse betwixt the Fornicator and the Harlot, neither are they physically one body, though so ca led, out of a relative respect so neither is there any such physicall onenesse betwixt Beleevers and Christ. And without the soules physicall oneness [...] with God, there can be no equality betwixt it and God; nay, if Christ were not essentially one with the Fa­ther, neither could he be equall with the Father.

Having thus seen the full meaning of these Scriptures, we beleeve (Read [...]r [...] thou wilt wonder how the Justices could heare the Scriptures so bla [...]phemously abused, and yet be satis­fied, as Nayler pretends, they understanding his affirming his equality with God, of the spirit of Christ in him. For, did they thinke, that the spirit did essentially dwell in Fox? how then came they to be satisfied, when Fox attributes that to himselfe, which is the spirits property? or, how comes he to be the same essentially with the spirit of God? or, did they conceive, the spirit in Fox, to be the graces or fruits of the spirit? how then could they be satisfied, it so; in as much as those fruits of the [Page 20] [...] [Page 21] [...] [Page 22] spirit are in their best capacity, but a new creature, and so in no way equall with God? But were they all satisfied? How then was it, that Mr. Sawry, a Member of the late Parliament, and as unprepossessed as any of the Justices then present, was so fully satisfied, that Fox was really, and by confession guilty of those blasphemous words, that he said he was equall with God, that he openly declared against him in the presence of them all, and urged the Iustices, that Fox was clearely guilty of that blasphe­my by his owne confession before them all. Now for what he addes, concerning Dr. Marshall his Oath, That one of the Iusti­ces, who was present at Lancaster, when Fox spoke these words, did openly there witnesse against Marshals false Oath in the hearing of the open Court. Let the Reader know,

W. C.1. Tis true that Iustice did so, in the hearing of one of us; but did it in such a way, with his head hanging downe, and a low voyce, that spake clearely enough to observant hearers, he had more will to accuse him, then either confidence or reason. 2. That Iustice was Coll. Benson, tis true, he was at Lancaster, and tis as true, he was a Quaker long since, and before that time, and had made it his worke to ride up and downe about that bu­sinesse, to get Fox discharged from his blasphemy; and what such a partiall evidence is, to gaine-say the Doctors Oath, let the Reader judge, 3. Besides, the Dr. swore it, and so did Mr. Altham; but Coll. Benson onely whispered it, or said it at the utmost. 4. It was fully evidenced after in Lancaster, before the whole Country 5. But to discharge our selves, and to cleare up the truth beyond all denyall, we have here given you the testimony of the said Dr. Marshall and Mr. Altham sent to us, and dated at Lancaster, Ian. 19. 1653.

George Fox said, That he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified, are one, and they are equall.

George Fox being asked, Whether he was equall with God? answered thus, I am equall with God.

The truth of these two Articles against George Fox, we have already witnessed by deposing our Oaths before the Magistrate at severall times, and still witnesse, though now our testimony [Page 23] be not so necessary as formerly, since the observant Reader may discerne, what we witnesse more generally held out in their owne Books, perticularly in the Booke entituled, Sauls Errand to Damas­cus, pag. 8. line. 8. See also their answers, pag. 5. 6. and 10.

  • William Marshall.
  • Michaell Altham.

Excep. 2 Thus we have you see, fully cleared our first testimony And for the second, That Nayler said. He was as holy, just, and good as God: against which, Nayler thus excepts, It is an untruth, and was never spoken by me n [...]r ever did it enter into my thoughts; but is a lye, raysed up by the father of lyes, the Devill, and ven­ted by his servants, to make the truth odious, and so goes on, de­nying that ever Will. Baldwinson heard him say so, &c. We thus answer.

Reply 1 Surely this man thinkes by his rage to darken the truth of this testimony: but that thou mayst againe acquit us, and see that Iames Nayler makes no conscience of lyes; as we have given thee the testimonies of Dr. Marshall, and Mr. Altham for the former; so we here give thee a large account of the proofe of this horrible blasphemy under the hand of Will. Baldwinson.


YOu Writ to me to certifie you of some Words that I heard from Iames Nayler and Richard Farnsworth, as they call themselves amongst us. I my selfe went to George Bateman his house in Underbarrow, called the Crag, and there was a great deale of people come in to the house, and Nayler and Farnsworth sitting beyond a Table upon a Bench; and there Nayler speaking, and teaching Perfection, and to be attaind to in this life, and to be without sin; this teaching so did trouble me, as being contrary to the Word of God, that I stood up before the Table and spoke these words, Friends, doe you hold that a man may attaine to [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 24] that height of perfection in this life to be as perfect, as pure, as holy and just as God himselfe? And they joyntly replyed, Yea, and they were so. And one in the house spake and said, My question was not to the purpose? And I answered and said, But it was, because I knew no such thing by my selfe. And after these words, they began to teach, that every man had a light within him, if hearkened to, would teach, guide and save him: And I replyed againe and said, how is it that our Saviour Christ sayes, There is no man comes to me, except my father which sent me draw him; before God and Christ draw, where is my light? and to this they spoke not one word; so I went home from amongst them, But the day of the Moneth, nor the Moneth I set not downe, I not fearing the danger of this Heresie. All these words were spoken in the same house in the night time.

Will. Baldwinson.

We doe testifie this to be Will. Baldwinsons owne testimony.

  • Tho: Walker.
  • John Myriell.
  • John Wallace.

2. Here thou hast our innocency vindicated; and now what reason hath Nayler to call us the servants of the Devill, and venters of lyes? when as thou seest his deniall of that testi­mony, is but the backing of his owne blasphemy with a notori­ous lye, which must needs fly in in his face, if he have any sparke of conscience left in him.

3. This full testimony gives a further discovery of their Po­sitions we formerly layd downe; as first, Their asserting perfe­ction in this life, and to be without sinne, As also secondly, Not onely Nayler, but Farnsworth also affirmed, he was as holy, just, and good as God for so saith Will. Baldwinson, they joyntly replyed, Yea, and they were so. Thirdly, That every man hath a light within him, if harkned to, will teach, guide and save him.

Thus we can blesse the Lord that our being forced by Nay­ler his charging us with lyes, to vindicate the truth hath been an occasion to discover the blasphemies of these men more ap­parantly and convincingly unto all.

But we wonder how they dare deny these things? or why Nayler should stand disputing against these testimonies? when their being equall with God is fully layd downe in Foxes owne words in Print; See Sauls Errand to Damascus, pag. 8. and line 8. He that hath the same spirit that raysed up Iesus Christ, is equall with God. And againe thus, line 11. &c, As Iesus Christ which is the mystery, hath passed before, so the same spirit takes upon it the same seed, and is the same where it is made manifest. Where it is clearely his designe to shew, that there is the same hypostaticall union betwixt the spirit and our nature, where the spirit dwels, as was betwixt the Divine nature, and the Humane in the Lord Jesus.

Excep. 3 To our proofe, that George Fox affirmed, He was the Judge of the World. Nayler denieth it not, but replyes, by justifying that expression; And tells us, we are grossely ignorant of Christ, and rayles at us exceedingly. For this he quotes 1. Cor. 6.2.3. Know you not that the Saints shall judge the World. Hence he abuseth the Scripture to inferre, that George Fox is the Judge of the World.

Reply. 1 Cor. 6.2. opened.For the opening of this Scripture, know first, That the Father hath committed all judgement to the Sonne, Iohn 5 22. Acts 17.31. God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the World in righteousnesse by that Man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given an assurance unto all men, in that he hath raysed him from the dead. Where you see plainely, the Father hath emi­nently apointed Jesus Christ alone, that man to be the Iudge of the World. How then comes George Fox to be Iudge of the World? for the Scripture doth but hold forth One to be the Iudge of the World, even the Lord Iesus, whom the Father hath therefore furnished with all necessary qualifications, viz. of infinite power, infinite knowledge, infinite presence, things absolutely necessary for the Iudge of the World, 1 Cor. 15. [...]5. Againe, It is one thing to Iudge the world, and much another thing to be the Iudge of it; there is very much difference be­twixt these two: but George Fox must be, either the judge, o [...] none it seems. 3. It is not said, the Saints doe judge the world, (that's proper to the Lord Iesus) but tis said, they shall judge the world, they shall judge Angels, the Apostles kept very [Page 26] strictly and closely to the expression of the future, clearely hold­ing forth, that he means of their judging of the world at the end thereof, and the resurrection of the dead, according to that of Christ concerning the Apostles in the day of judgement, Mat. 19.28. Verily I say unto you▪ that you which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Sonne of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. We shall not need to speake of the man­ner of their judging, as Iustices at the Bench, by subscription, or assent to the righteous proceedings of the Lord Iesus at that day.

And is it not still apparant to be a blasphemy for Fox to say, he is the judge of the world? And can the abusing of this Scri­ture help him? And what reason hath Nayler to charge us with grosse ignorance, and rayle upon us upon this account; but we have layd this open enough to any Reader. Onely this we shall adde, in Sauls Errand to Damascus, pag. 6. it is obje­cted against Fox, that he professed himselfe to be, the Eternall judge of the world; not onely the judge, but the Eternall judge; and this he doth not at all deny, but blasphemously goeth about to justifie it. This is suitable to that which one of these Qua­kers lately wrote to an eminent Officer in the Army, who told it himselfe to one of us, viz. Looke to the light within thee which cannot sinne, whereby thou wil [...] judge and determine God­like.

His next justification of that title, is bottom'd upon that 1 Cor. 2.15.1 Cor. 2.15. opened. The spirituall man judgeth all things. To which we answer, that he that is acquainted with the Originall, will easily perceive that the word judgeth in the 15. ver. is the same with that in the 14. ver which is rendred discerned [...], ver. 15. [...], so that the meaning of the expression is no more, but the spirituall man discerneth all things; All things, viz. [...], the spirituall mysteries of the Gospel: this is evident, that these all things are [...], for the Apostle is speaking of the Mysteries of the Gospel, ver. 7. the wisedome of God in a mystery; he is speaking of such things, ver. 9. which God hath prepared for the [...] that love him; and ver. 11. the things of God. ver. 12. the things freely given to [Page 27] us of God; ver. 13. things spoken of, such things as are ver. 16. the minde of Christ; So that Nayler is wide to seek when he ap­plyes this as he doth: the spirituall man tis true, doth discerne the mysteries of the Gospel and minde of Iesus Christ; these things of the Kingdome of God are not knowne to the man, or Princes of this VVorld: but what is this, to prove this? therefore it is lawfull for George Fox to say, he is the Iudge of the World. Did ever Paul, or any of the Apostles conclude from their spirit of discerning that they were the [...]udges of the World? Will a discerning of the mysteries of the Gospel, rayse up men to sit in Christs Throne, and to judge, and condemne, and pronounce irrevocable sentence against others, (as the pra­ctice of some of the Quakers is?) That spirit of discerning is there onely attributed to the spirituall man, as to the mysteries of the Gospel; Will a discerning of Gospel mysteries, prove a power to discerne the fi [...]al state and condition of soules, what i [...] shall be to all eternity? Is there not a large ignorance of their owne hearts, even in such as have a large measure in Knowledge of Gospel Doctrines? And is not this the Prerogative of God, to search the hearts? Ier. 17.10. Ioh. 1.25. And is discerning & judging all one? 1 Tim. 5.24. Some mens sins are open before hand; yea, God doth now fully discerne and know the states of soules; yet the judging of the world speaks more then a bare act of Knowledge and discerning. For there is a time, when that God that knoweth the thoughts of mens hearts, yet doth not exe­cute this sentence of judgement upon their soules; Eccles. 8.11. Rev. 6.10. How long, O Lord, &c. dost thou not judge, &c. but God hath the day of his wrath, and of the revelation of his righteous judgement, Rom. 2.5. So that he that shall consider how farre short discerning doth fall of this sort of judging, how farre short discerning of Doctrines doth fall of either judging or discerning the future and finall state of soules; how evidently this Scripture is wrested to lift up sinfull creatures into a blasphemous arrogancy of the very Attributes and Office of Christ, will easily see, how sinfully Nayler hath done to serve the Antichristian pride of Fox, who, as God 2 Thes. 2.4 will needs fit in the Temple of God, and shew himselfe that he is God.

Excep. 4 To our Proofe further, That George Fox was called by one of those Quakers, the Sonne of God. Nayler sayes, You that are offended that one shall witnesse the Sonne of God, shew that you are ignorant of the new birth, &c. 1 Iohn 3.1.2. Behold, &c. that we should be called the Sons of God. Now blush for sh [...]me that you should be Ministers of the Letter, and are ignorant [...]f it. Thus farre he.

Reply. How Christ the Sonne of God: how the Saints are Sonnes.That Iesus Christ is onely the Sonne of God essentially, and according to Scripture expression emphatically and distinguish­ingly called the Sonne of God is very cleare; Mat. 16.16. Si­mon Peter answered and said, thou art Chr [...]st the Sonne of the li­ving God. This is that [...]amous confession of Peter which Christ said, Fl [...]sh and blood had not revealed to him, which is in that express [...]on raysed up to such a pitch, that it is impossible it should be meant in the o [...]dinary notion of the Sons of God, as when applyed to regenera [...]e persons, as is plaine by these two eminent expr [...]ssions of flesh and Blood hath not revealed this unto thee; and upon this confession (not upon Peters per­son) ver. 18. Ʋpon this Rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of Hel [...] shall not prevaile against it. Consonant to this is that, upon the miracle wrought by Christ, Mat. 14.33. they in the Ship, worshipped and said, of a truth thou art the Sonne of God. Can George Fox testifie his be [...]ng the Sonne of God by such a miracle? Nay, Heb. 1.5 you have a challenge for the distinguish [...]ng Sonne-ship of Ch [...]ist; Ʋnto which of the Angels said he at any time, thou art my Sonne, this day have I begotten thee. ver. 8 But unto the Sonne he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. Here you have his Sonne ship vindicated from being communic [...]b [...]e even to the very Angels; though in other places called, the Sonnes of God, Iob 1.6. Iob. 38.7. when the Sonnes of God shouted for joy. Thus we have proved the essentiall Sonne-ship of Chr [...]st, and how that expression, the Sonne of God is emphatically and distinguishingly given to him, so as not to be communicable to the best of creatures. For the creatures of God, when any of them are called the Sonnes of God, it is upon one of these two accounts. 1. Either of Creation, Luke 3.38. Adam i [...] called, the Sonne of God. 2. Or of Adoption, Gal. 4.5. to redeeme them that were under the Law, [Page 29] that they might receive the adoption of Sonnes. We know what the adoption of Sonne-ship of Beleevers is, and doe blesse God that this manner of love is given us, that we should be called the Sonnes of God, 1 John 3.1. But first, Either hence to ap­propriate Christ his incommunicable title of being by eternall generation the Sonne of God. Or secondly, from that adopti­on, to assert an equality with God, we can account no lesse then blasphemy. Now let the Reader know, that the reason why we produced that expression of George Fox being called the Sonne of God by one of that way, was to prove their con­ceipts, of an equality with God. Had Nayler confessed that his looking upon Fox, &c. as son by adoption, doth not carry him up to l [...]o [...]e upon them as equall with God, we should n [...]t ha [...]e troubled the Reader further as to this particular: but in stead of confessing, he goes about to prove what the other had asserted; so that we hav [...] reason still to see [...]hat name of Sonne but made a cl [...]ake to usher in Foxes his in ruding into, being distingui [...]hingly and emphatically called the Son [...]e of God, and being ( [...]cc [...]ding to his owne wo ds) equall with the Father. But if they will sti l play with the Phrase of the Sonne of God; yet the understanding Reader will ob [...]erve, that that expr [...]ssi­on, was but one of the six Proofes we gave, that th [...]y had asser­ted an equality with God, three of which are already evident b [...]yond ex [...]eption.

There are two more deep and pertinent pro [...]fes against them as to this▪ One is. That their usuall expression is th t hey can see mens hearts; questionlesse, this is Gods in ommunicable Attribute, Jer. 17.10. I the Lord se [...]rch [...]he hearts. The other is an expression us [...]d by Nayler, himselfe to o [...]e of us to this purpose, How God should reve le any thing to him, [...]l e, viz. Nayler, not know it. As if God knew nothing, but Nay­ler knew it. Oh the h rriblenesse of such exp [...]essio [...] the Rea­der may wonder with what patience we can wr [...]te such thin [...]s. Yet these two so fully speaking to prove that they assert an equality with God, Nayler wholly passeth over, though him­se [...]fe w [...]s the a [...]ertor of one of them.

So that it still stands fully evident against them, that they doe assert an eq [...]ality with God.

Reader, If thou wondre [...] at the length of our answer to this particular, truely the dread of the great God hath been here in upon our soules, and we thinke no time or paines too much to vindicate the honour of our dread Lord, and his Sonne Jesus Christ, remembring that his glory he will not give to any other.

Position 2. That there is no distinction of Persons in the God-head.

Except. Against our proofe, for this Nayler objects, That such a Po­sition is not in Sauls Errand to Damascus; and sayes, we have not any proofe for what we here accuse of.

Reply 1 That George Fox in Sauls Errand to Damascus. pag. 12. be­ing asked, Whether there be one individuall God, destinguished into Father, Sonne, and holy Ghost. Answered, It was but a bu­sie minde so to aske, &c. (so little respect he hath to that saving mystery of the Trinity) this that Booke will witnesse. And that we had reason to inferre this Position to be a principle of their way, will thus appeare.

1. If Nayler had taken notice of our Booke, he might have considered these words immediately following, With other assertions of the same kinde, knowne to some of us. Now had he considered this, he might have seen, that we did not gather that this denying of the Persons, &c. was their Principle, onely from what Fox layes downe in Sauls Errand to Damascus, pag. 12. but from that of Fox, together with other assertions of the same kinde, knowne to some of us: We know it to be ther Princi­ple, by comparing that expression of Fox, with what our selves did know from others of them; those truths compared, were our proofe of that assertion, as the Reader will presently ful­ly see.

2. Had we had no other ground, but that expression of Foxes, when he sayes, Its a busie minde to enquire, &c. this had been enough? For certainely, if Fox thinke it to be a busie minde to enquire it, its cleare, he doth not beleeve it him­selfe, as he would not have it to be a matter of any others Faith.

3. But thirdly, Doth he say, we have not any proofe for [Page 31] what we here accuse of? Let both him, and all men know, that we have not charged that assertion on them, without sufficient evidence. Tomlinson, an eminent man in that way, in his Book called, A Word of Reproofe to the Priests, pag. 4. line 20. boldly affirmes, the spirit to be no other but Christ himselfe in flesh. Is not this to deny the Trinity, and take away the distinction of Persons in the God-head? 2. One of us doth know, this was the Principle of Mr. Taylour, Coll. Benson &c. and so it was not asserted without reason, and their owne spirits and consciences will beare me witnesse.W.C. 3. A godly Minister in Westmoreland wrote to us, that one of his charge being perverted to become a Quaker, affirmed, that there was one God b [...]t no such thing as a distinction of Persons in the God-head; and spoke many words passionately against it.

And now whether there is not just cause to charge them with maintaining this blasphemy, will be fully manifest; and how un [...]ighteously Nayler hath so reviled us upon this account. But we leave him to the Lord to rebuke.

Position 3. That the soule is a part of the Divine Essence.

Excep. To that we layd downe as to the proofe and confutation of this; Nayler onely replyes, What the soule is you know not, who live in the fall, and are vaine contenders and pleaders for sinne; and so goes on grossely rayling.

Reply. For the proofe the e set downe, let the Reader observe that he doth not in the least deny it, though it be a blasphemous Principle.W. C. And one of us doth still affirme that he was an eare witnesse of it. Secondly, Here we might very well ex­pect, that sith he could not deny our proofe, he sh [...]uld answer to our confutation of that blasphemy. Against which we have given six reasons, but instead thereof he falls a rayling, as if a Rabshakehs spirit were divine Rhetoricke. And what sayes he? He sayes, We know not what a soule is, and that we pleade for sinne, &c. and seeke gaine from our quar [...]ers &c. This is h [...]s an­swer to our arguments. We shall not trouble the Read [...] with answering their scandals, and reviling [...] b [...]t s [...] the e [...]ample of Christ before our eyes, 1 Pet 2.23. who wh [...]n he was reviled, re­viled not againe.

Position 4. That Christ is in every man; and in the re­probates he is held under corruption.

Excep. 1 To this Nayler answers thus, When will you cease to adde your lyes to slander withall?

Reply. We admire how the man can have so much impudence to charge lyes upon us. When as first, within six lines Nayler him­selfe confesseth, that he said, That if an Indian were there, he should witnesse against him, viz. W. C. for affirming, that Christ did not dwell in the Indians that never heard the Gospel. For the said W. C. did he not thinke the conscience of Iames Nayler feared, durst appeale to himselfe, whether that discourse was not about every mans having a light within them, and that light to be Christ, so that he cannot but remember, that he affirmed Christ to be a light within the very Indians. Secondly, Nay fur­ther, lines 16. 17. Nayler most ignorantly reasons, that Christ is in the most vile in the World, else he cannot judge them. Cer­tainely had the man any sparke of conscience or ingenuity left, he durst not in the same page, and with the same breath, deny and affirme the same Doctrine.

Excep. 2 But oh! thou full of all subtilty; Did I say, that Christ in the reprobates is held under corruption? let all that were there be witnesse against thee.

Reply. 1. In our proofe there is no such thing layd to Naylers charge. For that Position of theirs as we layd it, consisteth of two parts; and Nayler might clearely have seen, that he is brought onely as a proofe to the first part of it, viz. That Christ is in every man; for all he is charged with, is, that he extended the in-dwellings of Christ to Indians; and therefore it shares but of the fulnesse of his gall, thus to poure it out without cause. The proofe of the second part, viz. that Christ in the repro­bates is held under corruption, we layd downe in our second proofe, in a Letter of Iohn Audlands to Edward Briggs, which Letter Nayler doth not deny. For having told him, he was damned; yet he also tells him, that he crucifieth Christ within him, &c. What is this, but to affirme Christ under corruption? But to make this further cleare, this Nayler himselfe in Edward Briggs his house used this expression, Father, rayse up thy [Page 33] owne Sonne from under bondage, as we have it from his testimo­ny under his hand in a certificate dated Ian, 14. 1653. And to put it yet out of all possibility of denyall, that the jugling of these men may further yet appeare in denying their owne Principles; We give you a part of a dispute betwixt M. Sander­son a Minister of the Gospel, and severall Quakers at Peirce­bridge, Decemb. 12. 1653. attested by the subscriptions of ten severall persons, part of which concerning the thing in questi­on, we have given you word for word.

Quaker. Is not Christ the true light in every man? speake.

Mr. Sand. Where Christ is, he rules as a King, but in all he doth not so exercise his Government. Therefore &c.

Quaker. In some, he is kept under corruption, and this I witnesse, he is subdued in me; this I pawne my salvation upon.

Mr. Sand. Its Blasphemy to say that a finite corruption should keep under an infinite Christ, this is to make corruption stronger then Christ.

Quaker. Well, if a man obey the light within him, he will be happy, &c.

How undenyably doth this convince this man of his faithlesse and perfidious dealings, in seeking most unworthily to shuffle off a Principle so fully owned by them,Heb. 6.4.6 opened & vindicated. viz. that Christ in the re­probates is held under corruption, yea, notwithstanding his so confident denyall of this principle; yet Nayler immediately forgets himselfe, and falls to proving of it in justification of Audlands Letter, from Heb. 6.4 6. that its impossible to re­new them againe to repentance, sith they crucifie to themselves the Sonne of God afresh, and put him to an open shame; whence he would prove, that Christ Jesus is in the reprobates, because they crucifie afresh the Sonne of God.

1. Let the Reader ob [...]erve, it is not said, they crucifie the Sonne of God in themselves but to themselves. How then doth this Text speake any thing to the upholding of his er­rour?

2. Those the Apostle writes to were Hebrews, the Iewes; such as were of that people that crucified and put to death the Lord of life. Now, as it doth not follow, that because they [Page 34] crucified him upon the Crosse, therefore he was in them; so neither doth it follow, that Iesus Christ is in reprobates and apostates, because they crucifie him afresh unto themselves. This is enough to shew, that though Apostates doe crucifie the Sonne of God to themselves; yet it no way followes, that Jesus Christ is in every man, and in the reprobates is under bondage. And for as much as it is affirmed, that those Apostates there spoken of, are included under an impossibility of salvation it must ne­cessarily follow, that if Nayler will suppose that Christ doth dwell in those, then he must affirme that Christ doth dwell in those whose sins are unpardonable, that have fin'd a sin against the holy Ghost.

Excep. 3 There are yet these things objected to justifie this Principle, Iohn 1.9. this is that true light that lightneth every man that cometh into the world.

Iohn 1.9. opened.For the opening of this Scripture, you are to know, that Iohn is speaking here of the Eternall Word, In the beginning was the Word, all things were made by him, &c. so that his designe is to manifest the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Creation of the world by him; in which Creation, he enlightneth every man that comes into the world; He was in the world, and the world was made by him; these being the words immediately following that expression of enlightning every man &c. Its cleare as can be, that that light is that which was implanted in the soules in the first Creation. Now that this light which in the first Crea­tion was implanted in the soule, and so is in every man that comes into the world, is 1 Neither Christ. 2. Nor a Know­ledge of Christ as Mediator. 3. Nor is a light sufficient to bring to Gospel salvation, we shall fully cleare, and so discover how miserably this Text is wrested by them.

L [...]ght in all m [...] not Christ in all men.1. That that light there spoken of, which is implanted in the soule in the first Creation, is not Christ, wi [...]l thus appeare. First, Its a light Created by Christ in the soule, and so cannot be Christ himselfe unlesse they will blasphemously affirme Christ to create himselfe. 2 For this light with which he en­li [...]n [...]th the soule, most either be by creation, or by hypostati­call union, viz. by the dwelling [...] of the Divinity of Christ in every man, as he was personally in the humane nature, when [Page 35] the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst as; which how horrid a blasphemy were it to assert, and how loathsome would it be to any that knowes but the first Principles of the Gospel. And here we must againe tell Iames Nayler of his wicked blas­phemy, in affirming, that Christ as Man dwells in him, which though we proved against him in the Booke he pretends to an­swer; yet he wholly passeth that over in silence without a tittle of exception, which we cannot but interpret, as his con­fession, that it is his Principle,

Light in all gives yet no know­ledge of a Me [...]iator.2. That that light, which by Christ in the creating of the world is implanted the soule, is not a Knowledge of Christ as Mediator, we shall thus evidence.

1. First, This was the light of the first covenant, viz. a co­venant of workes, which did not a [...] all hold forth or make out a Mediator, for it was that light which was given forth in the first creation, in which Adam stood onely under a covenant of workes, neither needed a Mediator before his fall; upon which fall▪ the first light of a Mediator broake out in a promise, The Seed of the Woman shall breake the Serpents head, as in Gen. 3.15 [...] ver.

2. The knowledge of Christ as Mediator, the Scripture parely holds forth, as a matter of meer Revelation given forth by God in the second covenant, and not implanted in the soule in its first creation. Mat. 13.11. to you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdme of Heaven, but to them it is not given. If Christ doe enlighten every man in the Knowledge of him­selfe as a Mediator, how then comes this Scripture to speake so distinguishingly? to you it is given, to them it is not given; which exception of Christ, doth clearely deny the quakers uni­versality, that its given to all. To thi [...] is parallell that of Christ to Peter, when by the Fathers peculiar revelation, he under­stood Iesus to be Christ. Mat. 16.17. Blessed art thou Simon bar Iona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee, but my Father, where he cleares Peters Knowledge of Christ as Mediator, not to be from any principle of light cr [...]ated or na­turall Knowledge, but from a peculiar revelation f om the Fa­ther, and pronounceth him blessed upon the account of that di­stinguishing discovery. How fully doth that place of Paul for [Page 36] ever dash any pretence to a power to know Christ as a Media­tor by that naturall light which is in every man that comes in­to the world. 1 Cor. 2.14. the naturall man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishnesse unto him, nei­ther can he know them, for they are discerned spiritually. There the Apostle gives the reason why no light implanted in our natures in the creation, can discerne the things of the spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned; where he makes an opposition betwixt naturall and spirituall light, and puts an impossibility upon discovering Christ by the light of Nature. We may adde that, ver. 9.10. Eye hath not seene, Eare hath not heard, neither hath it entred into the heart of man to conceive, &c. but God hath revealed them unto us by his spirit.

3. That that light which by Christ in the creating of the world is implanted in the soule, is not a knowledge of Christ as a Mediator, will appeare by undenyable examples; for there are multitudes of men and women, without contradiction never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator, though it must be confessed, they had a rationall or naturall light. Those thou­sands of Saints that went over into new England, fully experi­enced it, that there is not the least hint of a Christ implanted in those Indians, one of us having often conversed amongst them, can also fully witnesse it; as is more fully also evident by the confessions of many of them in Print, who have been converted by the Ministry of Mr. Eliot, of which we spake in the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 19.

But may not these Scriptures fully confound these mens pervertings of that Scripture. Reade Psal. 143.19 He shewd his Word unto Iacob, his statutes and judgements unto Israel; he hath not dealt so with any people, and as for his judgements they have not knowne them Psal. 79.6. Powre out thy wrath vpon the Heathen that have not knowne thee. Col. 1.26. the disponsation of God is given to fulfill the Word of God, even that mystery which hath been hid from ages and generations. But let Paul de­termine the contrary, to whose judgement we shall desire to stand, 2 Thes. 3.2. All men have not Faith.

Light in all not suffici­ent to save3. That this light which by Christ in creating of the world is implanted in man, is not sufficient to bring to a Gospel sal­vation, [Page 37] is also plaine from what we have convincingly proved, that this naturall light may be in thousands that never knew the Lord Iesus as a Mediator: and Iohn 17.3. this is life eter­nall, to know thee the very God, and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent. So that there is an utter insufficiency and incapacity in this light to bring to salvation. So that though A. P. hath lately expressed his abhorring the distinction betwixt naturall and spirituall light; yet our Lord Iesus and the Apostles are so full in it, that they are of more authority with us, then the novell opinion of A. P.

Thus you see this Scripture fully vindicated from their wrest­ings; for hence it is apparent, that though Iesus Christ (by whom the Father made the world, Heb. 1.2.) in his creation of man did enlighten, and create a principle of light, and naturall reason, and understanding in the soule (which we have proved is eminently there understood) yet this proves nothing for the Quakers, that either therefore every man that hath a reasonable soule Christ dwells in him, or that he knowes Christ, or that his naturall light can possibly suffice to bring to Gospel sal­vation.

Excep 4 Naylers next defence is this ridiculous argument, If Christ be not in the most vile in the world, &c, how shall he judge every one according to their thoughts, as well as according to what they doe? must he proceed as carnall Iudges doe, by proofe, or confessi­on, and no further?

Reply. We need say no more to shew the simplicity of this argu­ment, then to aske them these questions; Doth the Scripture say, that Christ is in the Devills, and yet he sees, and knowes, and judgeth them? Or doth the Scripture say, that the damned in Hell Christ is in them? Nay but doth not Scripture speake in this language. Christ in you the hope of glory, Col 1 27. so that Scripture speaking of Christ in you, speaks of him, as being the hope of glory where he dwells: And is Christ in De­vils and damned soules the hope of glory? For ge [...]er the Quakers nor we are in this controversie at all disposin [...] con­cerning the abiquity of the Divine Nature, by reason of which he is above all, and through all, and [...] all. But of Christ in us, in that sense the Gospel useth the expression, [Page 38] viz. as a saving light and principle, the hope of glory.

2. How ridiculous is it from Christs knowing all things, to inferre, that he dwells in all? can he not know things unlesse he dwell in them? Doth he not know the inward motions of Brutes, Horses, Fishes? &c. and is it Scripture Language from thence to inferre his dwelling in them? Oh! the vainenesse and frothinesse of such a spirit; and how are these men given up to blasphemy. We shall conclude with that of David, Psal. 11.4. The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lords throne is in Heaven: his eyes behold, his eye-lids try the children of men.

He hath another argument, that Christ dwells in the Saints; which we know, in its Gospel sense; but not in Naylers, that Christ as man dwells in them: but how absurdly and un-scriptu­rally doth this conclusion follow, therefore Christ doth dwell in all.

Thus you see our proofes fully confirmed, his lyes confuted, his perverted Scriptures cleared and answered, and the folly of his arguments fully opened, though he hath not answered one of our arguments, and many Scriptures against that Doctrine.

Position 5. That Christ in the Flesh, with all he did and suffered therein, was but a Figure, and no­thing but an Example.

Excep. 1 O deceitfull spirits, &c. are those words expressely found in Sauls Errand to Damascus, as you say they are, let that Booke be witnesse against you, and your lying slanders to all that reade it.

Reply. Surely this man pretends neither to conscience, nor modesty, that doth challenge us here for a lye for saying, that Doctrine was expressely found in Sauls Errand. He that shal [...] but looke upon that Booke, pag. 2. pag 8. pag. 14. shall begin to know the impudence of Iames Nayler, pag. 2. 9. line last, in the schedule annaxed to the Lancashire Petition to the Councell of State, you have this charge, Richard Hubbethorn wrote, that Christs comming in the Flesh, was but a Figure. Now, are we lyars in affirming those words are expressely found there? Nay, further, in pag. 8. where Hubbethorne answers to that charge, we will give you his owne words, Christ in his people is the sub­stance of all figures, types and shadowes, fulfilling them in them; [Page 39] but as he is held forth in the Scripture-letter without them, and in the flesh without them, he is their example or figure, which is both one, that the same things might be fulfilled in them, that was in Christ Iesus. Could a man have spoken more plainely to affirme what we asserted of him? And doe we adde our owne imaginations to make them odious; when we say, according to their principle, those things that are held forth of Christ with­out us (as Hubbethorn sayes) must be acted over againe within us; and so Christ must be borne of the Virgin in us, and Iudas, and Herod, and Pilate must be in us to betray and crucifie him. Is not this the plaine assertion of Hubbethorn? the same thi [...]gs must be fulfilled in us that was in Christ Iesus, as he was held forth in the Scripture-letter, and in the flesh without us. And this we also proved by an assertion of George Bateman. pag. 29. to which Nayler answers nothing.

But further, it shall yet appeare, that its cleare in Sauls Er­rand to Dam [...]scus, pag. 14. where George Fox express [...]y sayes, Christ his flesh is a figure, for every one passeth thr [...]ugh the same way that Christ did, who comes to know Christ in the flesh.

What a seared conscience must this man need [...] have that when this Doctrine is expressely found in those evid [...]nt pl [...]ces in that Booke, yet hath the impudence, against the light of conscience, to say, Let that Booke he wi [...]nesse agai [...]st y [...]u, and your lying slanders herein to all that reade it. But both you and we shall both learne what th [...]s man and his way i [...].

Excep. 2 You say, this was written in a Letter which N [...]yler w [...]ote to one in Lancashire, viz. That [...]e that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem, should be deceived; which [...]s a m [...]st [...] by untruth &c and so he goes on [...]a [...]ling.

Reply. 1. It is acknowledged tha [...] that Letter which had this Doctrine in it, that Chri [...]t was but a figure, was not Naylers Let­ter, in which that other passage is, we mistooke N [...]yle [...] for Hubbethorne and that it was in a Letter from Hu [...]betho [...]e written to one in Lancashire. Take this ensuing Testimony of Mr. Moore, a godly Minister in Lancashire.

RIchard Hubbethorne wrot [...], that the c [...]mmi [...]g of Ch [...]st i [...] the fl [...]sh, is but a figure, or an [...]ol [...]ing [...] in [...] and [Page 40] actions amongst men, those things that he will truely, spiritually, and really doe in the spirits of his people at his second comming. This but being objected against him, as denying the Lord that bought us. He replyed in another Letter, Thou dost not under­stand what I meant by that expression, &c. These words being often objected to the Quakers, and particularly to George Fox, though some of them made an answer to the but, yet none of them deny it in these parts that I can heare of. These Letters were sent to Henry Holme, and are now in my hands.

William Moore.

Thus you have our confession of our mistake, onely of the Name, you see the truth of the thing convincingly evidenced.

But that it is a filthy untruth that Nayler wrote such a Letter in which were those words, He that expects to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem, should be deceived; we answer.

First, Nayler may know that we doe onely affirme, that Do­ctor Marshall did object this against him at Applehy, and Ma­ster Iaques, Minister of Bolton in Lancashire, sent his promise that he would make it appeare. Had Nayler denyed that either of these two were true, he might have charged us with a false­hood; but this he doth not, he dare not doe. 2. Though Nayler doe so cry out against this as a slander, yet he that considers this their Principle, that Christ with all he did in the flesh is but a figure (which is proved to be their principle beyond excepti­on) will wonder why Nayler should looke upon this as a slander, when it is the necessary consequence of that wicked Doctrine; for if Christ were but a Figure, I should no more expect to be saved by him, then by the figures and types of th [...] Law. But because the man so loudly cryes out against this as being a fil­thy untruth that ever he wrote such a Letter (though he deny not what we say, that this was objected against him by D. Mar­shall, and that M. Iaques engaged to justifie it) yet we have af­fixed M. Iaques Testimony to satisfie the world of our cleare­nesse from the scandals and wicked reproaches of Nayler, and this sent is under his Hand and Scale.

JAmes Nayler in a Lettor which he writ to Henry Holme, gave out this expression, If thou expect to be saved by him that dyed at Ierusalem, thou art deceived.

Hoc unum test. John Jaques.

Excep. 3 There is but one thing more in Naylers answer, whereby he shuffles this Position, and that evasion is this, We doe owne and confesse that Iesus Christ in the flesh is a figure or example; as if figure and example were all one. To which we answer.

Reply. Iesus Christ not a Figure.1. We challenge Iames Nayler to shew one tittle of Scri­pture wherein Iesus Christ is called a Figure. The first Adam is called a Figure, Rom. 5.14. the Tabernacle called a Figure, Heb. 9.9. but Iesus Christ is never called a Figure; and there­fore it is a sinfull shuffle of Iames Nayler thus to confound an Example and Figure.

2. If he be a Figure, we againe affirme, he must typifie some thing; but we referre you to our Booke (as to Christ not being a Figure, or onely an example) where we have layd downe ma­ny Scriptures and arguments, to which he answers nothing, Perfect Pharisee, pag. 8. 9.

Position 6. That men are not justified by that righte­ousnesse of Christ, which he in his owne Person did fulfill, without us.

Reader, thou wilt see in our Booke we had foure proofes for this; three of which Nayler denyeth not; and for the fourth we referre thee to Mr. Iaque [...] testimony: so that as to the truth of the assertion we must take it for granted especially considering what George Fox saith, in Sauls Errand to Damascus, pag. 12. He that is borne of God is iustified by Christ alone without impu­tation. This gives us to understand the meaning of Naylers answer to that Position thus;

Except That righteousnesse Christ hath performed without me, was not my justification, &c. untill Christ appeared in me, &c. and ap­peared [Page 42] in me my righteousnesse, sanctification, justification, and redemption, &c.

Reply. Fox deny­ing impu­ted righte­ousnesse in plaine tearmes.1. Let but the Reader compare this of Iames Nayler, with that expressi [...]n of George Fox viz. he is justified by that alone without imputation; and that of Authory Hodgson viz I be­leeve to be saved, not by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to me, but by the righteousnesse of Christ inherent in me, which he doth not deny, he w [...]ll learne the meaning of Naylers wor [...]s to be clearly this that Christ in a man is the matter of his just fica­tion; so that though he labour to colour over the businesse in this answer, by saying, Christ was not his justification, till he ap­peared in him; yet comparing his answer with these testimo­nies, it will appeare to be downe-right equivocation and shuf­fling.

Question betwixt Quakers & u [...]concer­ning the matter of justification, but the time.2. For Nayler cannot but know, that the question is not at all concerning the time when Iesus Christ becomes actual y my justification, but concerning what is the matter of our justification whether the righteousnesse which Christ in his Person did performe, or the holinesse which he worketh in us, be the matter of our justification when we are justified? Now notstithstanding Naylers shuffling its cleare their sense is that whensoever the soule is justified (for we speake not of the time) the matter of its justification is not that righteousnesse which Iesus Christ in his owne Per on did performe without us. N yler himselfe at Appleby in discourse asserted, He was justified by Christ in him; and being there told by one of us, that justification is an act of God for Christs sake absolving me from the guilt of sinne not done in me, but without me in the Court of Heaven. Nayler said nothing to this but, that which is wi hout is without. See Mr. Higginsons Booke, pag. 78.

Further proof that Christs righteous­nes is the matter of our justifi­cation.Now that the righteousnesse of Christ performed without us, is the matter of our justification whensoever we are justified, hesides what we have layd downe undeniably from the Scri­ptures in the Perfect Pharisce, pag. 10. will further appeare by these testimonies, Rom 3.24. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Iesus Christ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, &c. Isay 53. He was wounded for our transgressions, and through his stripes we are healed. Ver. 5.6. [Page 43] he layd on him the iniquities of us all, ver. 11. he shall beare their iniquities: where Christs merit or righteousnesse, is the reason of the non-imputation of sinne to the soule. But what need we adde more in a case, which is so full a Principle of the Gospel. But of this enough, we shall adde more in the next Position. As for reckoning Drunkards and Swearers to have as much right to what Christ did and suffered at Ierusalem, as we, we looke upon it as one of his reviling fits and passions, and leave him to the Lord to rebuke him. But this is all the an­swer he gives to the many Scriptures against his Doctrine layd downe by us.

Position 7. That men are justified by that Righteousnesse, which Christ wi [...]hin us enahled us to performe, or (which is in effect, and some of them have expressed) by inherent holinesse.

We proved this to be their Doctrine by fix testimonies. None of which are denyed; onely he quarrels at one expression in one of them, viz. the third, which Nayler layes downe, viz. We are not reconciled to God, till we be perfectly holy, and able to stand so in our owne power; he quarrels at the last clause of this, of which we shall give you an account in the next Position, whether it properly is to be referred: but the first branch of it, viz. we are not reconciled to God, till we be perfectly holy, this he denyeth not, but asserts againe in his answer thus, No im­perfect thing can be reconciled to God; so that the charge stands cleare against them, notwithstanding the heresie of the Tenet, and the loud out-cryes of Nayler, as if we slandered him.

And to put it further out of question, we shall adde these be­sides Naylers confession in the present answer.New proof that qua­kers justifi­cution is by inhe­rent righ­teousnesse Iohn W [...]lkinson of Hutton in the hearing of Mr. T W. Minister at Kendall, and Mr. G. affirmed, that the light within men would not onely dis­cover sinne, but also redeeme from it, and justifie. Capt. Robert Lucas of Kellot in Lancashire, attesteth under hand, that Ro­bert Wither said, that men are saved by the workes of Christ, which he worketh in them, and maketh them to worke. [...] Cham affirmed to Mr. T. and Mr. Gr. that holy and [...] walking with God, was a Saints covering from the wrath of [...] [Page 44] so that this Principle stands cleare, notwithstanding his eva­sions.

Excep 1 He chargeth us with wresting truth to slander, by saying, that his affirming, that the light within men will bring to fe [...]re God, and so leade to iustification, doth hold forth justification by inherent righteousnesse.

Reply 1 To this we answer, that it is evident to as it is the sense of his words: for let any sober spirited Christian consider his words, the light within, by bringing a man to exercise a pure conscience in the feare of God towards God and man in up­rightnesse, will so leade up to justification and peace: what doth this but plainely speake, that we are justified by obedi­ence to this light in the exercise of a good conscience towards God and man: for, saith he, it doth so leade to justificati­on &c.

Excep. 2 But what saith he againe, that no imperfect th [...]ng can be re­conciled to God is plaine in Scripture. This he layes downe to prove (if it would serve) the truth of that Position, that no are justified by i [...]herent righteousnesse.

Reply. Justificati­on consistent vvith the Saints infirmities.We answer, That Paul was reconciled to God is plaine and that he was justified which are the same Rom. 5.1.9 10.11. but that Paul was imperfect, when yet he was [...]e [...]nciled to God, Rom. 7. will abundantly evidence He that [...]yes I am carnall, and sold under sinne. ver. 14 was not he t [...]en imper­fect? What I doe, I allow not; what I would that I doe not; but what I hate, that doe I, ver. 15. he that was in this condi­tion, was he not imperfect? He that had a Law i [...] his mem­bers warring against the Law of his minde, and leading him i [...]to captivity to the Law of sinne, ver. 23. was not he imperfect? He that in the sense of his body of death, cryed out. Wretched man that I am &c. was not he imperfect? How ignorant doth Nayler discover himselfe to be of the conditions of the Saints of God. Was not Peter imperfect, when he cursed and denyed his Master, Mat. 26.72. but that then he was in a justified state, we know none that ever questioned. But this grosse fancy of his owne perfections, and ignorance of the mistery of justification, runs him upon such bold assertions and despe­rate rocke: as these. What an uncomfortable Doctrine had [Page 45] this been to Paul, when he was complaining of the body af his sinne, to have told him, therefore he was not justified, nor re­conciled to God? with what a glorious Gospel spirit would Paul have challenged such a man as he doth Angels, Principalities, and Powers, Rom. 8.37.38. It is God that justifieth, who shall condemne me? It is Christ that died; fetching out a pardon and justification from the blood of Iesus, notwithstanding his owne imperfection in the worke of holinesse.

Excep 3 To your Position, of being justified by our owne workes, we deny, for it is he that worketh in us to will, and to doe, &c. and herein we deny selfe-workes &c.

Reply. Ce [...]e [...]t of Papists and qu [...]ke [...]s a­bout justi­fication.This is the old thread bare sh [...]f [...]lle of the Papists, when they are prest by the Protestants, and their justification by workes or inherent holinesse is confuted by Scripture; they constant­ly answer as Nayler doth: they deny their being justified by their owne workes which flow from a Princip e o [...] their owne power; but say, that the workes by which they are justified are such as flow from grace, or the workings of God within their soules. They say that by the first,Bell. de ju­stif. l. 1. c. 19 ne hominem justificare p [...]sse men cannot be justified; but, per opera qua ex fide Christi & gratiâ fluunt homines justificari, by the workes which flow from Christ. All this while both Papists and Quakers all [...] ju­stification by inherent holinesse, not by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed, onely they pretend it is not by their owne power. The full confutation of which Pop [...]sh and Anti-christi­an Doctrine we have layd downe in the Perfect Pharisee at large. pag. 11. and to which Nayler, according to his wonted presumptuous confidence, answers nothing.

Position 8. That God and man cannot be wholly reconciled, till he brought into the state of the first Adam, and able in his owne power to stand perfect.

Excep. 1 Nayler first excepts against this assertion, that the Booke shall witnesse against us, and sayes, mans being able to stand in his owne power, was never spoken by him nor thought by him; and sayes, that though the word be twice repeated to stand in Gods power, yet they are not ashamed to wrest it to their owne power, &c.

Reply 1 1. To this we answer, that the Booke which he saith shall witnesse against us, hath not so much as once the words, to stand in Gods power, though Nayler say, those words are twice re­peated; for the quaere is in these words, Whether God created Man and Woman perfect without sinne, and able in his power to have stood, if they had not forsaken his power, and consented to the wisedome of the Serpent?

The nature of the power of the first Adam considered2. From these words, We considering the nature of the state of the fi st Adam, to which Nayler sayes, man must be brought be­fore he be reconciled could not but gather, that standing in mens owne power, must be the sense of those words. Our rea­son is plaine: For, That power which Adam had to stand in his state of perfection, was given to him as the Prodigals porti­on into his owne hand; but the power that the Saints now are to stand by is a power in the hand of the Lord Iesus, given to him as a feoffee in trust: for in this lyes the difference of the power in the sons of men in the first and second Adam: our standing in the second Adam being by a power and support in the hands and dispose of the Lord Iesus, by reason of which it is alone, that none can plucke us out of the Fathers hands, Ioh. 10. And the standing of the first Adam being by that portion of power which was intrusted in his owne hands, without any promise of assistance or perseverance from God. So that it is apparent, that when Nayler saies, Man must be brought into the state of the first Adam before he be reconciled; he must meane, he must be able to stand in his owne power, without any en­gagement of support from God, for tha [...] was undeniably the state of Adams power. Let Nayler shew us a tittle out of Scripture, where Adam had any thing of promise or assistance for his standing, more then the power he had in his own hands, which was his owne power.

3. If yet Nayler will shuffle, that this is not one of the Doctrines of the Quakers, we shall further convincingly cleare it from the very words of George Fox, in a Booke entituled, To all that would know the way to the Kingdome, pag. 10. he pro­fanely, and like a perfect Atheist, scoffes at the grace of God, saying thus, And to you that tempt God, and say, Lord give us a sight of our sins, &c. this light within you lets you see it, so [Page 47] you need not tempt God to give you a sight of your sins, Foxes hor­rible [...]eer­ing at the gra [...]e of God. for ye know enough &c. and give over tempting of God to give you a sight of your sins. And to all yee that say, God give us grace, and we shall refraine from our sins, there yee have got a tempting custo­mary word, for the free grace of God hath appeared unto all men, &c.

Hence thou seest Fox most wretchedly asserting these two things.

1. That to pray for sight of sinne, and for power from sinne, is a tempting of God. 2. That to pray for light and power for the discovery of sinne, and refraining from it, are needlesse: for so he saith, yee need not tempt God to give you a sight of sinne, and cease from saying, God give us grace for the grace of God hath appeared to all men: so that he plainely affirmes, that all men have both a light and power also, that they need not be beholding to God to give them, nor to aske them of him; for he addes the reason, Why you need not aske it of God, for you have a light within you and you know enough, &c.

Begging of l [...]ght and power the Saints dutyWhat a wretched Principle is this and how c [...]trary to plaine Scripture? If any man lack Wisedome let him ask [...] it of God? Iames 1.5. where the Apostle bids the poore creature to beg wisedome of God, though Fox scoffe at it. Open tha [...] my eyes, that I may see, Psal 119.18 Give me understanding [...] 34.31.32. Surely it is meet to be s [...]d unto God, that which I see not, teach thou me. 1 Peter. 5.10 where Peter prayer the God of all grace m [...]ke you pe fect, stab [...] sh strengthen, settle [...], Ephes. 3 14.16, for this cause I bow my k [...]e [...]s [...] the Fathe [...] [...] our Lord Iesus, that he would grant you to be strengthned [...] might by his spirit Every good, and every perfect gif [...], [...] downe from above from the Father of lights, Iames 1. [...]er 17 Now here you may see the practice of the Sain s, and the wickednesse of Foxes profane jeering at the grace of God, with sending men to thei [...] owne light and power in oppositi [...] to the grace of God: and how all the lyes that Nayler chargeth on us, while he denyes this Position doe fully fall up [...] his owne head, while it is as confiden [...]ly affe [...]ted by the g [...] [...] Master of this Babylonish mystery.

The second exception is this, You that say, that Adam [...] the [Page 48] state of innocency was under a covenant of workes, make it appear [...] to all that know Adams state, that you never knew it; for the Law, wherein is the covenant of workes, was added after &c.

Reply. Adam in innocence under a co­venant of vvorkes.What we have said at large about Adams being under a co­venant of workes, and how much better a state the Saints are in by interest in Christ, then the soule of the first Adem was, the Reader way finde at large in the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 12. 13. to which he hath answered nothing, as his manner is; but we shall further adde.

First, Adam was under a covenant of living by doing, or by obedience to the Law, which is plainely a covenant of works: who knowes not this? In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely dye, Gen, 2.17.

2. Adam was under such a Covenant as had no Mediator, upon his breach of the command, there was none by that Co­venant to enterpose betwixt him and death; which is a distin­guishing consideration betwixt the two Covenants made with the first and second Adam.

3. And for Naylers reason, He was not under the Cove­nant of Workes, because the Law was given after; we may laugh at his ignorance. Was the Law never knowne, before it was written upon Tables of stone? Did God make Adam a rationall creature wholly ignorant of his will? Doth the ingraving of the Law in Tables of stone inferre, that Adam had not the engraving of that Law upon his heart, or that he was not under the command or covenant of that Law? but that we have proved from those expresse words of covenant, in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely dye.

We know not whether to thinke the ignorance of this man, or his impudence greater, in answering nothing to what we have fully layd downe against his Doctrines.

Position 9. That no man that commits sin, or that is not per­fectly holy, can ever enter into the Kingdome of Hea­ven, unlesse there be a Purgatory.

Excep. 1 Nayler thus excepts, There is not a word to that purpose, as you have set downe.

Reply. This is strange? Doth not he confesse there is this Quaere in it? Whether any imperfect one shall enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, yea, or no? and if not, then how shall one dying in sinne; and where shall he be made perfect and cleane, seeing the tree must lye as it falls? and whether you owne a Purgatory, yea, or no? this he confesseth to be his words. And is there not a word (as he chargeth us) there to that purpose?

[...] qu [...]r [...]es [...] to a [...] us.2. But the Reader must know, that what he there in that Booke layes downe by way of quaery, must be looked upon as his positive assertions, as thou wilt see by the adjoyning quae­ries in the same page, where challenging those that are so much offended at perfection, he puts these quaeries. 1. Whether any imperfect one committing sinne be the Im [...]ge of God, yea or no? where a man may plainely see, he meanes such an one is not the Image of God. 2. Whether any can witnesse the worke of Redemption compleat in them by Christ, while they commit sinne? where it is evident he intends the negative. So in this quaere, to resolve it into a proposition; we appeale to his conscience, or the judicious Reader, that whilest he puts [...]his quaere as a chal­lenge to those that deny perfection in this life. Whether any im­perfect and uncleave one that lives in sinne, shall enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, yea or no? and if not, how shall one dying in sinne? and where shall he be made perfect and cl [...]ane, seeing the tree must lye as it falls? and whether you owne a Purgatory, or no? we dare appeale to them, we say, if it runne not thus by way of assertion. That no uncleane or imperfect man can en­ter into the Kingdome of Heaven, unlesse there be a Purga­tory to wash away his sins that dyes imperfect.

And now thou wilt see how unjustly this man rayles with open mouth, as if we were the most wicked lyars in the world, when the assertion is so evidently his owne, and will so appeare to any that hath but halfe an eye of common understanding

Excep. 2 He tells us, They charge me to say, that no man that hath sin­ned can enter into the Kingdome, and as though I owned a Pur­gatory.

Reply. N [...]y [...]e [...]s shuffling. Hath sinned, what a miserable shuffle is this, and what a pit­tifull conscience hath this man? thy owne eyes Reader will in­forme thee, that we have not such a tittle in our Booke▪ we [Page 50] charge him to say, No man that doth commit sinne, and is not per­fectly holy, can enter into the Kingdome; but who chargeth him to have said, that no man that hath sinned, &c. For charging him as if he owned a Purgatory its like the former; surely the man was put to a pinch, when he falls a doubling and shuf­fling so apparently. We say this must be his argument, Either there must be a Purgatory to wash away the sinne of him that dyes imperfect, or else he can never enter into the Kingdome of God. It seems Nayler knowes no other way, but a Purgatory to wash away his sinne that dyes imperfect. But we looke upon that clause, as the absurdity which Nayler thinks to run us upon, if we will pleade, that a man may dye imperfect and yet be saved, then we must owne a Purgatory; And so because he knew no other way to wash away mens sins,Quakers Popery. but either by perfect holinesse here, or by a Purgatory, we found him out a medium, even the blood of the Lord Iesus, which cleanseth the soule (otherwise as to its personall actings, very guilty) from all sinne.

Excep. 3 Against this he objects that Text, 1 Iohn 1.7. Doth it say any are cleansed from sinne while they personally act sinne? or the quite contrary?

Reply. Naylers jugling vvith Scri­pture.How falsely doth Nayler deale with the Scripture, and imi­tate the Father of lyes; when Satan tempted Christ, Mat 4 6, to cast himselfe downe from the Temple, he takes that of Scripture that would be thought serve his purpose, and leaves out the rest; as may be seene by comparing it with Psal. 91.11.12. Just so deales Nayler with the Scripture and us, leaving out from that Scripture that which immediately followes, If we say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us; which would fully have made out the mystery of per­fect justification consisting with imperfect sanctification; its spoken of Saints, that are actually cleansed by the blood of Christ, and yet are told there is no truth in them; they make God a lyar, if they say we have no sinne. That Text beyond exception also, Rom. 4.5. To him that worketh not, but belee­veth in him that justifieth the ungodly &c. he is silent unto, according to his custome.

Position 10. No reall Saint but he that is perfect, and per­fectly holy in this life, and doth not sinne.

Our severall proofes, that this is their Principle, are not de­nyed; but we are reviled for manifesting this to be an errour from Scripture, though he hath not answered one of the many Scriptures we gave against this Doctrine.

Excep. 1 The first reviling is this, It soems there can be no greater offence to you, then to cry downe sinne, and to grow up to perfe­ction, &c. you pleade for continuance in sinne and imperfection, &c. you pleade for the Devills Kingdome, putting cleansing from sinne and perfection farre off till after death, &c.

Reply. Deniall of perfection, in this life is no pleading for sin.1. Reader,If thou hast read our Booke of the Perfect Pha­risee, thou wilt see, we fore-saw this language from them; where we told thee, we expect (from their former usage in this kinde) they will charge us with pleading for sinne, pag. 16.17. where we shewd, that discovering the imperfections of the best Saints, lest they should live upon their owne righteousnesse was no pleading for sin: and this we proved from the practice of Christ, (discovering the imperfection of the Churches) of the Spir [...]t, rehearsing the faults of the Saints; of Paul crying out, of the body of his death. So that to discover it, is not to pleade for it, unlesse you will blaspheme the holy One of Israel. Had Nayler considered these Texts, he might have spared the labour to re­peate againe a cavill so fully answered; but he answers no­thing,

2. But yet to make it more cleare, that to say, perfection in holinesse cannot be attain'd in this life, is not to pleade for sinne and for the Devills Kingdome: Consider first, The King­dome of the Devill is not pleaded for there, where there is a pressing of a continuall wrastling and strugling in the power of Jesus Christ against it, which pressing is our constant pra­ctice to our people. For though it is plaine from Scripture, that in the utmost attainements of the people of God, still they see but in a glasse, darkely, 1 Cor. 13. and have not attain'd per­fection, Psal. 3.12. yet it is their duty to struggle and wrastle against the body of their death and to presse towards the marke, Phil. 3.14. Againe, doth the Physitian meeting with a Patient [Page 52] in a consumption,Telling a conceited perfectio­nist of sin, is to deale faithfully vvith his soule. who strongly conceives that he is in per [...] health, though the Physitian demonstrate it, that there [...] such and such decayes in his vitall parts, doth he by declaring this, pleade for his sickenesse? or rather by this means pleade for his use of effectuall means for his recovery? For, the whole no [...] not a Physitian, but they that are sicke: And Jesus Christ cam [...] not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Nay, will not all say rather, that the Physitian is more faithfull to the sick [...] man, then he is to himselfe? and more an enemy to, and pleader against the sicknesse, then the man is that conceits h [...] is sound and perfect? This is the very case betwixt us and Nay­ler. Nayler sayes, he is perfect; the Quakers say, they are per­fect, and without sinne; we pleade and say, he is not perfect nay, he cannot be perfect, while there is such a body of de [...] in him, and such a plague of sinne running in his heart; we tell him, that he that saith he hath no sinne, is a ly [...]r, deceiv [...] himselfe, and m [...]kes God a lyar, and so doe pleade with him (not as he malitiously would scandalize us, to lye still in th [...] state, content to have the body of his death worke his [...] but to goe out to the blood of Jesus Christ for cure, that [...] quities may be pardoned, to fetch strength from the [...] of Christ, not from his light within him, against the bub [...] [...] up of corruptions in the heart, and presse towards the [...] Whether now pleade for sinne, Nayler or we? he that wi [...] [...] heare of the Saints being sicke, or under any spirituall imp [...] fection, or we, that demonstrate their sinne from Scripture that so they may seeke after the healings of the blood [...] Jesus.

The spirit convincing of sin, doth not p [...]e for sinne.3. What is the designe of the discovery, and convictions [...] the sinnes of men by the spirit of the living God? Is it [...] pleade for sinne? that singular office of the spirit, Iohn 16. [...] he shall convince the world of sinne; when God doth set o [...] secret sins, the secret sinnes of Saints before their eyes is it [...] set up the Kingdome of the Devill? What blasphemy m [...] Nayler bring upon himself? or is it not evidently to pull do [...] the throne of Satan, and the power of sinne, which never weakened in the soule, till it be discovered and never [...]gt more securely and effectually, then in the heart of him that [Page 53] secure, and confident he is compleat and perfect, and sayes Rev. 3.17. I am rich, and increased with goods, and stand in need of nothing, when he knowes not he is miserable, poore, blinde, and naked.

Pleading for perfe­ction here, is a plead­ing for sin, proved in seven par­ticulars.4. We shall adde no more but this, that pleading for this, that any of the sons of men are perfectly holy, and doe not sin, (which is the designe of Nayler) is really to pleade for sinne, and to set up and strengthen the barrs of the Kingdome of Satan.

1. That soule will never struggle after a better state, which lives in a conceit of his perfection here, Rom. 8.24. hope that is seene, is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? how doth this strengthen the Kingdome of darkenesse? contrary to Phil Rom. 8, 23. 2 Cor. 5.2.3. Phil. 1.21.22.

2. This is to cast a needlesnesse upon the pretious blood of Iesus, tis a tr [...]mpling under foot the blood by which we are justified, our propitia ion being through Faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. What needs this fountain for sinne and uncleannesse, Zach. 13.1. where there is no sinne? What n [...]ed of a Saviour, where there is no sinne? the whole need no Physi ian, Mat. 9.12. and what a wickednesse is this, to make the blood of Christ in vain? and what is it, but as Nayler saith, [...]o co [...]t the blood of the Lord Iesus as a common thing? Gal. 3.22.

3. Will such a soule ever goe out to pardoning promises? and how doth Satan by such a Doctrine as this, at once destroy the necessity of the blood and of the promises of Jesus Christ, such as these, Isay 1.18. though your sinnes be as Scarlet, &c. Isay 43.25. I am he that blotteth out transgressions. Heb. 8.12. Your sinnes and iniquities I will remember no more. Is not this evident from the practice of Qu [...]kers, both in their speaking and writing? they never send these soules whom they call dam­ned to the pardoning promises and blood of Christ; but to their owne light to save them. What need of the promises of par­don, when I have no sinne? and was it not the Pharisees sin, Mat. 15.6. Marke 7.13 to make the command of God of none effect? and is it not much more the Quakers s [...]n, to make voyd the promises? Rom. 3.3. Rom. 4.14. So Heb. [...].2.3. If the Word spoken by Angels [...]as steadfast, &c. how shall we escape, if [Page 54] we neglect the Word, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord.

4. Is not this also, this fancy of perfection, the great root of that great sinne against the Gospel, of selfe-righteousnesse? which the Apostle so much declares against, Rom. 9.31.32. Rom, 10.2.3. Gal. 5.4. for such is the remaining pride that is in every one, that if they have any thing to glory in, they will set it up, as their Idoll in their hearts.

5. How can sinne be mourned over, and mortified, when nei­ther owned nor discovered. We finde blessed Paul, a Saint, of another Principle then James Nayler pretends to, he, good man, complaines of an imperfect state, 1 Cor. 13.12. I see but in part, he mourns over the body of his death. Rom. 7.24. Oh! wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me? But how shall we expect this from such as hide their eyes from their bo­some sinnes? there can be no sense of an unseen, an unfelt, an unacknowledged sinne. What is the reason why so little mourning and mortifying? is it not blindnesse, and want of discerning sinne in the exceeding sinfulnesse of it in mens hearts.

6. This is to take away the end of Christs convincing men of sinne, which is that free grace may superabound, Rom. 5.20. What made Paul to cry out of the exceeding abundance of grace, 1 Tim. 1.15. but the exceedingnesse of his sinnes? I am the chiefe of sinners. David, though a man after Gods owne heart, yet the sight of his great sins, after he was in a justifi­ed state, this is that which makes him cry out to the multitude of Gods tender mercies for pardon. Psal. 51.1. according to thy loving kindnesse, according to the multitude of thy tender mer­cies, blot out my transgressions, &c. How shall a Quaker see any glory in pardoning grace, as to its dayly coverings of their weaknesses, when they say, they are perfect, and doe not sinne at all.

The qua­kers sinnes discovered notwith­standing their pre­tence and pleading for perfe­ction.7. This fancy of their perfections, is the hiding from their poore deluded soules of those sinnes, which they are evidently under the power of, in the eyes of any spirituall observer. For though they cry up their owne perfections, yet who knows not the sinfulnesse of their selfe-righteousnesse, of their many blasphe­mies, [Page 55] Heresies, denying the Lord that bought them, raylings, pride, lying, reproaching of the pretious Ordinances of the living God, and Messengers of Jesus? Alas, what observant eye doth not reade these evidently in their bookes, writings, words, be­haviours? Now who knowes not, if Scripture be true, these are wofull corruptions, and damning sinnes? And shall their fancy of perfection be a covering to such abominations as these? No, no; the Prophet Isaiah will tell them otherwise, Isa. 28.20. the bed is shorter then that a may can stretch himselfe on it, and the covering narrower then that he can wrap himselfe in it. Nay, their very pleading they are perfect, convinceth them of sin; For Job a man of excellency and holines, beyond any of them, saith, chap. 9.20.21. If I justifie my selfe, my owne mouth shall condemne me; if I say I am perfect, it shall also prove me per­verse; though I were perfect, yet would I not know my soule. But such broken reeds will one day peirce their hands, when the King of terrours shall arrest the body, and the sorrowes of death shall compasse them about, then their perfection will ap­peare to be a dreame. Oh! that Nayler would thinke of that of Bellarmine, who had long disputed for a perfection of holi­nesse; but when he came to dye, then he came to see some­what of the raggs of his owne righteousnesse, and cryed out, Lord have mercy on me, not according to my workings, but ac­cording to thy mercies in Jesus Christ. Reader, if God ever open these mens eyes, they will then see the need of the blood of Christ, when the flames of wrath shall be burning up their straw and stubble: but if the spirit of slumber shall keep them in blindnesse and in bondage still, that they cannot see and will not owne their imperfection; yet when Christ shall co [...]e in flaming fire, how shall their righteousnesse shrivell together as a scrowle, and be like stubble before the flame? then will the vanity of that Quakers expressions be layd open, That holy and close walking with God, is a Saints covering fr [...]m the wr [...] [...] God. Oh! let the Reader, Psal, 2.12. Kisse the Sonne lest he be angry; when his wrath is kindled [...]t a little blessed are all they that trust in him.

EAs to this matter of perfection, the summe of the rest of his answer is to pleade for perfection here from these considerations. [Page 56] That this is the end of Christs comming, to present us perfect that not one jot or tittle of the Law must passe, till all be ful­filled Rom. 8.3.4. That God sent his Sonne, that the righte­ousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us, and to dispute against perfection here, is to make the commands of Christ, and endeavours of the Saints, of none effect.

Reply. 1 Iohn 3.8. opened. How Christ destroyes the vvorks of the de­vill.1. As for the first, that Christ destroyes the worke of the De­vill, 1 Iohn. 3.8. and to this end was made manifest. We an­swer, 1, Christ destroyed the workes of the Devill for his peo­ple, upon the Crosse. Col. 2.14.15, and having spoyled Princi­palities and Powers, he made a shew of them openly tryumphing over them in it. Heb. 2.14. Christ himselfe tooke part of flesh and blood, that by death he might destroy him that had the power of death, viz. the Devill, Doe we then by denying perfection of inherent holinesse in this life, make voyd the end of Christs comming, thus to destroy the workes of the Devill? nay, we establish it; for by discovering of imperfection, we send them to glory alone in Christ crucified, Gal. 6.14.2. Christ de­stroyes the workes of the Devill in his people also; and this is the constant carrying on of mortification in their hearts, with his owne spirit whereby he takes away the doimnion and raigne of sinne. Rom. 6.14. As in Paul, who though he had the spirit of Christ, and the dominion of sinne removed, and Christ dayly destroying the workes of the Devill in him; yet still he had a Law in his members, warring against the Law of his minde, Rom, 7.23. yet there was the spirit lusting against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit. Thus Christ exerciseth his conquering power in the conflicts of his Saints. Now though sinne in Paul where not wholly removed, or destroyed at present, yet did not Christ lose this end of his being made manifest. For first, as he had it in part in his dayly conque­ring. So secondly, he will have it in fulnesse, in his owne ap­pointed time, when the soule shall see him face to face, then that which is in part shall be done away, and not till then; as is cleare, 1 Cor. 13.9.10. 3. There are ends of Christs being made manifest, which are not voyd, because they are not fulfilled in this world, such as, the putting of the Saints into the pos­session of his fulnesse of glory, the putting of all his enemies [Page 57] under his feet, &c. so that perfection in holinesse being one of these things, that are reserved for a state of glory, we doe not destroy the end of Christs comming, when we pleade he shall attaine this end in his owne appointed time; and though the most holy here are full of many infirmities, yet the day shall be when the workes of Satan shall be destroyed in them altogether, in the time appointed by the Father: the Quakers may as well say, because the Saints are not now in glory, therefore Christ hath lost his end in dying. What we have said to this, both in Christs satisfying for soules, whereby he presents them perfect as to justification, as also his destroying at death the whole body of sinne, when they enter into a perfect state of glory, will shew the vanity of his second plea; for though we be not per­fectly holy in our selves in this life, yet we are perfect as to ju­stification, and compleat in him, Col. 2.10. and though the Saints be not compleatly holy at present; yet the day is com­ming when they shall, even the time appointed by him that dyed for it, and purposeth to present us spotlesse at his com­ming; so that Christ loseth not the end of his comming.

Mat. 5.28. opened.As to his third, that Mat. 5.18. not one j [...]t or tittle of the Law shall passe till all be fulfilled; which he brings to prove perfection in the Saints, thus; First. It is evident that he that is there spoken of in v. 17. as fulfilling the Law is, the Lord Iesus. I came to fulfill it; and that was solely and alone the worke of Christ, both as he was the accomplishment of Prophesies, in the Law or Booke of Scripture, as he was the substance of all shad­dowes in the Law ceremoniall; and as he in Person, did exact­ly as Mediator performe all the duties of the Law Morall, that so by his obedience, many might be made righteous. What, is this to prove perfection in the Saints, because Christ fulfilled all righteousnesse.

2. But the naturall and proper sense of this Text is clearely another businesse; Christ is speaking here, that the Law, or the word of command and prophesies shall stand good and sure; the word here is interpreted in the repetition of them, Luke 16.17. not one jot shall fall; so here, [...]. not one tittle shall passe from the Law, it shall stand good and entire in it selfe: Christ is not speaking as if the Law should be compleatly fulfilled and [Page 58] obeyed by us; it shall stand in its force and authority, notwith­standing that I am come; yet I came not to destroy it, but to continue it in its truth, entirenesse and authority: like that Rom. 3.31. Doe we then make voyd the Law through Faith? nay, we establish it. And that Isay 40.48. repeated 1 Peter 1.25 the grasse withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth, but the Word of the Lord abideth for ever. And what a non sensicall reason is this, to prove that the Saints are perfect here, and doe perfectly fulfill the Law, because the Law shall not lose a tittle of its authority and entirenesse?

Rom. 8.4. opened.3. His third plea to prove the perfection of holinesse in this life is, Rom. 8.4. that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us. To which we answer. First, The Apostle here ver. 1. is speaking of justification, there is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus. Ver. 3. he layes downe whence that freedome from condemnation flowes, and tells you, that what the Law could not doe, in that it was weake through the flesh, God sending his owne Sonne in the likenesse of sinfull flesh, for sin, (viz. by a sacrifice for sinne, or to satisfie for sinne) condemned sinne in the flesh▪ that is, when man could not be justified by reason that sinfull flesh could not satisfie the Law, God sent his Sonne to satisfie for sinne, that so the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled in us. So that though we personally can­not, and could not performe it; yet, through our union with Christ, being dead with Christ, Col. 2.20. quickned with him, Ephes. 2.5. we have his righteousnesse fulfilled in us. Thou wilt fullier understand that this place is meant of the righteousnesse of Christ satisfying and fulfilling the righteousnesse of the Law and so made ours by our union with him, if thou consi­der these observations,

1. It is no where said in all the Booke of God, that the righ­teousnesse of the Law is fulfilled in this life in any Saint, as to inherent holinesse; nay the contrary is here asserted ver. 3. the Law was weake through Faith. As also, Rom. 3.20. that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law &c. 2. It is Beza's note, that the righteousnesse of the Law might be fulfilled, [...], in us; not [...], not of us, or by us. 3. Is not this to goe about to confirme justification by inherent holinesse, [Page 59] against which you have had such undenyable proofe. 4. What is this, but to build up the old Popish notion of justification by inherent holinesse. 5. If any shall thinke that latter expressi­on (who walkes not after the flesh, but after the spirit) shall tye this, fulfilling of the Law in us to sanctification, we referre him to the first verse, where the same words are used; and yet they are onely layd downe as a description of the Persons to whom there is no condemnation; as they are layd downe also as a de­scription of these persons that enjoy the fruite of that glorious worke of Christ fulfilling the Law, and satisfying it. So that this Text onely holds forth the satisfaction of the Law by Iesus Christ to be made really ours by our union with him, as fully as if it had been performed in our owne persons. But as to justification by inherent holinesse, or perfection of it in this life, we have fully proved the contrary.

Lastly, He tells us we looked upon it as a strange thing, that Farnesworth should say, No uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of Heaven. When as, that which we say, is no such thing, but a challenging of Farnsworth his ignorance of the Gospel, that he can see no consistency with these two, A Saint cannot be perfect here; And no uncleane thing can enter into the Kingdome of God. Is this to count the Scripture a strange thing? or is it not Farnsworths grosse ignorance, that he knows no way of entring into glory, unlesse he be perfect before he dye? Is he not grossely ignorant of the maine mistery of ju­stification by the blood of Christ? May not a man be in part, uncleane, by reason of the imperfection of his present holines and yet pure and spotlesse too, as to justification, by reason of the imputation of the obedience of him, who is the Lord our righteousnesse. This Reader, is their great Idoll and Diana, and therefore thou wilt pardon our tediousnesse, and clearely see how blinde these men are as to Gospel righteousnesse.

Position 11. That every man in the world hath a light within him sufficient to guide him to salvation, without the help of any outward light or discovery.

In his answer to this Position, he denyes none of our proofs; but addes his further profession of the same Principle, in these [Page 60] words; All the World shall witnesse against you, that they have a light that lets them see when they sinne, which if they did minde, and obey would leade out of sinne unto Christ &c.

Except. The maine part of his answer is by way of rayling; all that he speaks to make good this Position is, that Christ is the true light, and that he enlightneth every man, and that where he is, there need no outward discovery.

Reply. For the first, that Christ is the true light, is confessed on all hands; but that Iesus Christ is in every man, or gives a saving light to every man, we utterly deny: and we have plentifully proved in our answer to the fourth Position. The first Text he proves it by, is, Iohn 1.9. He is the true light that lightneth every one. We have fully opened this Text in our answer to the fourth Position, and convincingly shewed, it is not meant at all of any Gospel saving light, where we desire the Reader to sa­tisfie himselfe at large.Io. 8.12. opened. For his second, Iohn 8.12. I am the light of the World, he that followes me shall not walke in darke­nesse. This proves not that Christ doth give a saving light to the whole world; no more then that Text, 1 Iohn 2.2 doth prove that the whole world shall have the benefit of Christs propitiation. Secondly, the words immediately following, might satisfie Nayler, that he is thus a saving light onely to them that follow him, who are Beleevers, drawne by the power of the spirit of God. Cant. 1.4. No man comes to me except the Father draw me. Iohn 6.44.45. Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father commeth to me: So that Christ is onely the light of those that have learned of the Father, and have been drawne by the Father, and follow him. Here is a cleare re­striction of Christs being a light, onely to Beleevers, to them that follow him &c.Io. 1.4.5 opened. The third Scripture, Iohn 1.4 5. the light shined in darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not; is cleare against him. For the Phrase of the light shined in darkenesse, imports onely, that Jesus Christ was Preached to them, Christ came amongst them, and Iohn Preached him to them. Ver. 29. Behold the Lambe of God, &c. yet they were in darkenesse, for want of light they could not so much as discover him, nor receive him; so farre were they from knowing Christ, or the world from having Christ a light in them all, that they [Page 61] could not apprehend him, when he was Preached openly to them. His fourth Text is, Iohn 3.19. this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, is as full against Nayler, as the former: for it speaks this, that Jesus Christ is the true light, was Preached to the World and discovered to them, when he had before been a mistery, hid from Ages and Generations, Col. 1, 28. yet they would not beleeve him, but loved to continue in that darkenesse, or ignorance of Christ, which is in all by nature.

Now for the third branch of his answer, that where this light of Christ is, there need no outward discovery. We answer, 1. We have abundantly proved, that Jesus Christ is not in all, in out answer to his reply to the fourth Position. 2. We have also proved, That Iesus Christ neither is in all, nor doth he enlighten all, by giving every man a knowledge of the Gospel; this we have done at large in the same place. 3. We have fully proved, that all men in the world doe need an outward light or disco­very, and that it is the way of Christ his making knowne him­selfe by outward discovery, and Preaching the Gospel, in the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 18.19, in six arguments, to which Nayler answer nothing.Necessity of outward reaching, further proved. All that he brings for it de novo, in his an­swer, is onely his bare word, without either argument or text; so that we need to say no more. Yet, ex abundanti, we shal adde. First, It was the wisedome of the Father to have the Gospel Preached to every creature, and therefore did he send men forth to publish it, Marke 16.15. Mat. 28.19.30.

2. It pleased the Father to owne Preaching of the Gospel, with the conversion of soules. Acts 2.41. 1 Cor. 1.21. I [...] pleased God by the foolishnesse of Preaching, to save them that be­leeve

3. It pleased the Lord Iesus, when he was ascended up to Heaven, to give officers for the perfecting of the Saints. Ephes, 4.11.12. for the edifying of the body of Christ.

4. It pleased him also to establish this as an everlasting Ordinance to continue till the end of all things, Mat. 28 last. Ephes. 4, 15. He that hath any sense of the wisedome of God, and submission to it, will not dare to say with Nayler, that every man hath a light within him, sufficient without the help of [Page 62] any outward discovery, or to charge folly in doing all this upon him, whose wisedome is admired, infinite, and acteth nothing needlessely, and in vaine? But what dare not these men doe, who dare lift up themselves in their blasphemous pride, to be as pure as God,

2 Pet. 1.19. opence & vindicated.There is one Scripture, 2 Peter 1.19. which is not brought by Nayler by way of proofe, but is most ignorantly wrested by him, to this their Idoll, of light within. We hinted how little the man had of any knowledge of Scripture, by his so blinde, and pittifull abusing this Text, in that former Booke, Perfect Pharisee, p. 19. We see he is yet as confident as he was; we shall onely say, that which is there called, the sure Word of Pro­phesie, 2 Peter 1.19. is that word of Prophesie, which in old time holy men of God spake, &c, v. 21. and to this he bids them take heed, viz. to the Doctrine of the Prophets; where Peter doth not send them to the light within them, but to the Bookes and Words of the Prophets, as Christ sends the Iewes to the same Scriptures, Iohn 3.39, Nay, the Text is so farre from hinting any light within, that the Apostle tells you, these words of the Prophets were [...], a more sure Word then the voyce that came from Heaven, ver, 17. Thus the man hath still the weakenesse to produce Scripture, that fully destroyes his owne Principle.

We shall adde no more, but from these words of Naylers, Where this light of Christ is, there needs no outward discovery, wish the Reader to observe, That it is not onely the Publishing of the Gospel, by the Ministry that Nayler cryes downe in this as uselesse, but also the very Scriptures, the written word it selfe (being an outward discovery) must by the same reason be asserted needlesse. Here is the Religion of these men that pre­tend so much to perfection, and yet will not heare God in his Word.

Position 12. That there is no need of any outward teaching by Reading or Hearing the Scriptures opened or applyed, &c.

The Reader by his answer may observe, there is nothing said against our many proofes; onely one shuffle about the ex­pressions [Page 63] of Iohn Audland, who we said affirmed, No need of outward teaching, which Nayler sayes is false; for the words were, He needed no man to teach him; What a shufflle is this? or doth this deny what we say? doth he not say, no need of out­ward teaching to himselfe? But Nayler hath this but by report, and the words were spoken in our hearing. Nayler also (we observed in the last Position) asserts the same fully, in these words, Where this light of Christ is, there needs no outward light or discovery, &c. the rest of his answer is the grossest heape of rayling and lying, as we have seen. His rayling will appeare to all that reades it, and his lying is as full; For he saith, These promises you give to them that are in the first birth, sow pillowes under every arme-hole; you Preach them up all Beleevers, except some that refuse to give you hire, and them you prepare warre against: you say men must commit sinne while they live, &c. who knowes not that knoweth us, the falsenesse of these lyes, which he speakes out so freely, as if they were as true as could be. But as their wickednesse is fully knowne, so the Lord will in due time discover what shall be given to a false tongue.

Except. There is onely produced by him these Scriptures, Ier. Heb. 8, 10.11. they are both the same, They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, or saying, Know the Lord &c.

Reply 1 We answer, That this promise doth only concerne the chil­dren of God, as Nayler himselfe confesseth also, it concernes them onely.

That great promise in Jer. 31.31. opened at large.1. The children of God onely are in everlasting covenant in the new covenant. 2. They that shall be thus taught, are such as have their sinnes pardoned. Will Nayler say, that every man hath his sinne pardoned? he may as well affirme, that all have their sins pardoned, as affirme that this promise belongs to all. So that as in the point of pardon all flesh must signifie not eve­ry man; so it must be restrained also in the point of teaching, to those all that are the people of God, and are interessed in the mercy of this everlasting covenant.

2. Though these people of God be thus taught of God; yet this excludes not the use of outward [...]eaching. Reader, besides the evidences of this we gave thee in foure arguments under our reply to his answer to the eleventh Position; If thou [Page 64] wouldst take the paines to reade what we have Written in the Perfect Pharisee, pag 21. 22. in which we have convinced the needlesnesse of outward teaching, even to the best of Saints, by plentifull arguments, and above thirty undenyable, plaine, evident Scriptures, thou wilt be fully satisfied; and therefore we shall not trouble thee to repeate what we have said; onely in a few words to open the meaning of the expression, we shall adde.

1. Know this promise was made good when the Saints were under outward teachings, when the Apostles preached, when Elders were set over the Churches, when Faith came by hearing, Rom. 10. For in those times the spirit was abundantly powred forth: yea, then was the time, when their Sons and Daughters Prophesied; so that it is a promise consisting with outward reaching. 2. With how much willingnesse did the Saints, when enjoying this promise, attend the Apostle Doctrine, Acts 2.42. 3. Why doth the Apostle write to the Hebrewes to teach them, if that were the meaning, that no man should teach his neighbour. 4. Nay, doth he not say, Heb. 5.12. Ye [...] have need that one teach you againe which be the first Principles of the Oraecles of God. 5. Paul blames them for their forsa­king their Church-assemblies, Heb. 10.25. Yea 6. Command [...] these Hebrews, Remember them that have the rule over you, w [...]e [...] have spoken to you the Word of God, Heb. 13.7. And 7. Iud. ver. 3. It was needfull for me to Write unto you, and exhort you. 8. Paul speaking of himselfe as to his Ministry, sayes, Phil. 1.24. to continue in the flesh is more needfull for you; and what was it for? but as to their instruction, So that it plainely ap­peares, this is not spoken to exclude outward Preachings, but are to shew the abundance of spirituall Knowledge and light in Gospel-times, comparatively with the dispensation the Iewes were under, before the comming of the Lord Iesus But we have abundantly proved the sense is not, cannot be, to take away the needfulnesse of outward teaching.

VVarrant for divisi­on of Scri­pture into chapter and verse.To excuse George Fox his jugling in a Concordance, he fall to abuse the division of Scriptures into Chapters and Verses: It seems he hath a minde to cast all the dirt he can upon any outward light, though it be the Scriptures, and though for no­thing [Page 65] but this, and he saith, the Hireling Priests have done it to trade withall; thus doth he ignorantly rayle, though the Old Testament was so divided and distinguished long before the comming of Christ, by the Masorites into chapter and verse, about two hundred yeares before the comming of our Saviou; and the most Learned say, that they were that Ecclesiasticall Senate, held by Ezra, Haggai, Zachariah, and Malachy, with divers others; who amongst others their eminent services, distinguished the Scriptures into sections and verses. And as we finde none of the Apostles, nor Christ himselfe disalowing that division; so the Saints of God in our dayes, have [...]ound pretious advantage by thus methodizing Scripture, though this man revile it under the name of the worke of Hirelings.

How he shu [...]fles in the rest about the Apostles Preaching and ordaining E [...]ders, will info [...]e thee fully how the man was puzzled in that businesse: and his last expressions of saying, we tell men, they must commit sinne, will informe thee of his maliciousnesse. He would insinuate to the Reader, as if we pressed men to sinne. We have said so much of this, that we shall adde no more, having fully cleared, our pressing to all yea to the best, to strive after grea er degrees of holinesse dayly, and that they must struggle after that perfection, which yet they doe not enjoy; but we see the man is vexed and so we leave him to calme his spirits. We have been very full also as to pro [...]e the necessity of teaching, to which thou mayst ob­serve he answers nothing, and thereby see the spirit of those men, that doe stop their eyes against the plainest light; but he that hardeneth his heart shall not prosper.

Position 13. That the Scriptures are not the Word of God, but a Declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth.

He answers nothing, according to his custome, to our argu­ments, nor excepts against our proofes, but labours to confirme the Position.

Excep. 1 Christ is the Word; now if the Scriptures be the Word then there is two Words of God, now prove that in Scripture, or that the Letter is [...]aked the Word in plaine words.


Reply. 1. That Christ is the Word, is plaine, Iohn 1. and who know­eth it not,

The essen­tiall and declarative Word, not all one.2. That the will of God contained in the Scripture, is the Word of God, is as plaine, besides the Scriptures we named [...]n the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 24. Marke 7.13. Luke 11 28. Rom. 10.17. Iohn 12.48. we shall adde these; Luke 8.11. the Seed is the Word of God, ver. 12. then commeth the Devill and taketh the word out of their heart, least they should beleeve and be saved; can the Devill take Christ out of their hearts? 1 Thes. 2.13. When yee receaved the Word of God which you heard of us, yee received it not as the Word of Men, but as it is in truth the Word of God &c. This was the Word which the Apostles spake; yea, received it, which cannot be me [...]nt of Christ; he should have said, yee received him, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth the word of God. This is so plaine a case, we shall not trouble thee further. And here th [...]u mayst observe there are two words of God; the essentiall and [...] declarative, and wonder the man should be so weake as to bid [...] produce Scripture to prove this, when the Scripture is so full of it to any that doth but reade it.

Excep. 2 The Apostle calls what he wrote a Declaration, 1 [...]ohn 1.2.3.

Reply. How doth this prove the Scriptures are no [...] the word of God? nay, doth it not fully prove the contrary? for that which he de­clares was what he had heard of the Lord Iesus.Scriptures not onely a declarati­on of the conditions of Saints. Againe, we doe owne the Scriptures, to be the declarative Word of God, or a declaration of the minde of God; but we say, the Qua­kers doe destroy the Scriptures Divinity and authority, when they call them onely a declaration of the conditions of them that spoke them forth. For as we pr [...]ved before, 1 They shall be then no foundation for the Faith of Saints; for one mans condition is not the foundation of another mans Faith. 2. The Scripture shall have no authority over the soule of any, but he that is in the same condition, and hath experienced it, con­trary to Iohn 2.4 8. this is the reason why Nayler sayes, they are not commanded to forbear to weare sh [...]oes in his Book, p. 21. if they were, they should, as well as they are commanded, not to s [...]lute; whereas that command (if it be in any part binding) Luke 10.4. requires both; but this will tell thee, what is meant [Page 67] by their calling Scripture a speaking forth of the Saints condi­tion viz. it shall have no authority over them further then they list, or have an impulse on their spirits, or they practice; for both the commands are of equall auth [...]rity, yet he denyes they are commanded one of them: nay they are both in the same verse. Luke 10.4. Yea 3. This destroyes the divine au­thority of all Historicall and Propheticall Scripture, which could not be the Saints conditions when th [...]y spoke them; as also threatnings and promises &c But see this at large Perfect Pharisee. pag. 24.25. We sha l say but this, 1 Iohn 5.16. There is a sinne unto death, I doe not say that you should pray for it. was this Iohns cond [...]ion when he spake it? did he exper ence in his heart that he had sinned to death? 2 Pet. 2.22. The Dog is returned to his vomit, &c. was this the condition of Peter that spoke it? but we are ashamed of this wickednesse and folly of these men.

Excep. 3 VVhereas you say, it cannot be understood to be the word Christ that came to the Prophets Samuel, Ieremy, &c, it seems your understanding is not with the Apostle who saith, It was the Spirit of Ch ist that was in them, 1 Peter 1 11 and you say, what Christ and his Apostles Preached, &c. was not Christ, the Father, or Spirit, when as the Scripture saith, Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost, 2 Pet. cap. 1, ver, 21.

Reply. The Qua­kers gross [...] confound­ing of Christ with the written VVord.1, Consider Reader, how grossely he abuseth, and perverts the Scripture, to prove that the words that they spoke were Christ and the spirit, because it is said, These holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost. What a grosse and blasphemous con [...]ounding is here of the word that those men spoke, and the holy Ghost that moved them to speake; making the word spoken by a finite creature, to be the everla­sting spirit, the holy Ghost? The words were committed to Paper and Inke, Rev. 1. Heb. 2.2. engraven in Tables, 2 Cor. 3.7. Isay 30 8. write it before them in a Booke, note it in a Booke, &c. can this be Christ, or the Spirit of God? and yet these are the things which they were moved of the holy Ghost to write. Who knoweth not that it was the spirit of God that moved them to write, that revealed the things they were to [Page 68] publish to the world? but were those things that the holy Ghost moved them to write, were those things Christ? were those things the spirit? What a miserable ignorance, or judiciall blindnesse is this, which certainely the righteous judgement of God hath given up this Generation of people to, because they received not the truth in the love thereof, that they might be saved.

Position 14. That the Spirits are not to be tryed by the Scriptures, &c.

This Position is not denyed by Nayler; we proved it from three testimonies, and Nayler in his answer addes his owne de­fence thereof, without exception, against any of our proofes. VVe shall take his arguments for defence thereof in order.

Excep. 1 The infallible spirit, which is the originall of all Scriptures, is the tryall of all spirits, and that spirituall man judgeth all things, and by that spirit the Saints was to judge of all spirits, and gave those up to Sathan that was for that end; as is plaine, 1 Cor. 5 4.

Reply 1 The spirit not to be set in op­position to Scripture.The force of this argument by which he would prove that spirits are not to be tryed by Scripture, lyeth thus; The infalli­ble spirit is the tryall of all spirits; therefore spirits are not to [...]e tryed by Scriptures. To which we reply, That this is no conse­quence at all and shall demonstrately prove it from these seve­rall arguments.

1. To set the minde and will of the spirit in opposition to the spirit it selfe, can be no Gospel argument. For the Scri­ptures are the infallible will of the spirit, layd downe as the rule of Saints beleeving, judging, and walking. What a re­proach had it been, when the spirit of God sent the Prophets to reveale his will? or when Jesus Christ sent the Iewes to search the Scriptures, what a reproach had it been to the living God, for them to have answered, We will not be judged, not will we judge of spirits or doctrines by that Word or Scripture, we will stand to the judgement of the spirit it selfe, opposing the spirit it selfe to its owne will? How wicked a thing had it been in them? and how ridiculous an answer is this in Nay­ler?

2. How is this to undervalue the wisedome of the holy [Page 69] Ghost himselfe,Bereans commen­ded for try­ing spirits by Scrip­tures. Acts 17.11. who judgeth and pronounceth the Bereans more Noble then those of Thessaloniea in that they searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things that were spoken by Paul and Silas were so, or no; in that they searched the Scri­ptures; the Spirit prizeth them, for trying the Doctrines of Paul and Silas by the Scrip [...]u [...]es the written Word. And how wicked a thing is this in the Quakers to cry downe this trying of spirits, and Doctrines of Scriptures, which the spirit ex­pressely ownes with such a signall testimony, as speaking out in the soule such a spirituall noblenesse.

3. It is confessed on all hands, that the eternall Spirit is the originall of Scriptures, and the tryer of Spirits; who ever que­stioned that? But our question is, what the Saints are to try the spirits by? not whether the spirit can try the Doctrines; No. But we affirme, that this eternall Spirit, hath left the writ­ten Word, as that which shall be the discovery, touchstone, and tryall of spirits, and Doctrines by authority and divine war­rant from himselfe. See 2 Pet. 1.21. Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost. 2 Tim. 3 16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, &c. John 5.99. Search the Scriptures. Isay 8.20. &c. So that our asserting the Scriptu [...]es to be tryall of spirits, is but setting up the spirit in his owne au­thority and throne, over the spirits and consciences of men, and pleading with men that the spirit may rule in his owne way, and that they will try Doctrines by that Scripture which the holy Ghost commands them to try the Doctrines by. And he that refuseth that touchstone which the spirit hath layd d [...]wne for tryall, doth destroy the authority of the holy Ghos, [...]et h [...]m speake fantastically of trying by the spirit what he will. But this reasoning of Naylers, is as if when the Lo [...]d Protector should declare what is treason by Law in publique Procl [...]mati­ons, a Justice of Peace should, when a Person were proved before him guilty of treason, according to that Law; yet should say, he is not to judge what is treason according to that Law, but he would appeale from the Law, to himselfe for what is treason, though the Law had determined it before.

But in this case, to exclude the Scriptures, because the holy Ghost is the originall of them, is to destroy that plaine truth, [Page 70] Subordinate: non pugnant, things that act in a subordination, though about the same thing, doe not destroy one anothers use­fulnesse or causality. Nay, the spirits being the Originall of all Scripture, this being confessed, doth necessarily confesse their divine authority, for that trying of spirits for which they were given forth by the inspiration of God.

2. As to that expression, the spirituall man judgeth all things, we have fully spoken before in pag. 79. We know there is a spirit of discerning which Beleevers have of Gospel mysteries; but what absurdity is this to inferre, therefore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures? For that light which a spirituall man hath, is a Scripture light.

1 Cor. 5.4. opened.3. How ignorantly is that 1 Cor. 5.4. produced to prove this assertion, when Paul sayes, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ when you are gathered together, and my spirit, to deliver such an one to Sathan, &c. Paul is not trying of spirits, or judg­ing of Doctrines, but exhorting the Church to excommunicate the incestuous Person, and tells them, That his Apostolicall power shall goe along with them in that sentence. The verse going before, tells you what is the meaning of his spirit, where he sayes, I as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath done this deed; that is, I in this Epistle doe send you my mind and my judgement, what you ought to doe with this man that hath committed Incest, as fully as if I were present with you, and so you may goe on at your meeting to excommunicate him, ha­ving for so doing, not onely the authority of the Lord Jesus, but also the conse [...]t and iudgement of me his Apostle. This is that in those words, In the name of the Lord Jesus, and my Spirit. How doth this man heape up quotations, without any under­standing of the minde of the spirit in them; and with what exceeding ignorance doth he apply such Texts to his absurdi­ties, as neither prove them, nor speake a tittle concerning them.

Excep. 2 By this spirits were the spirits tryed, before the letter was; there­fore spirits are not to be tryed by Scriptures.

Reply. What a miserable non sequitur is here. There was a time when the spirit had not given forth the Written Word; there­fore [Page 71] when the spirit doth give forth a written Word, it is not to be regarded. There was a time when the Law was not en­graven in Tables of Stone, therefore when it was engraven, the Israelites must not looke upon it as a rule of life, or judge­ment. There was a time when the will of God was not writ­ten, was not Scripture; therefore when Christ bids you search the Scriptures, you need not heed them at all. But we leave the Reader to laugh at this absurd consequence The Bereans judged by another light then James Nayler doth who though they knew there was a time when Scripture was not written, yet they tryed the spirits and doctrines of Paul and Salas by the Scriptures. And the Spirit it selfe inspired and moved holy men of God to write the Scriptures, to leave them as a tryall and touchstone of spirits, though once there was a time when there was no written word. But oh! how doth God infatuate men, when they will not submit to the authority of his Word.

Excep. 3 He falls a rayling exceedingly, and sayes, We have no guide but the letter (because we assert the authority of Scripture) and addes, how many minds, how many formes, how many gods doe ye worship? and all pretend Scripture. If it be possible to rake up a reason out of a heape of rayling, this it is; Those that doe up­hold the Scriptures to be the tryall of Doctrines, doe yet differ amongst themselves; therefore the Spirits or Doctrines are not to be tryed in Scriptures.

Reply. Quakers Popish ar­gument.This, as many other of their answers, is a knowne thread­bare Popish argument: they say, You Protestants cannot agree in your Discipline, and therefore, the Scriptures are not to be the judge of Doctrines, but the infallible spirit of the Pope. We hope God will discover them ere lon [...] to be men meerely acted by the spirit of Anti-christ; but we shall give you a full answer under these two considerations.

Difference in non-fun­damentals, no preju­dice to the Scriptures being judge of spirits.1. First, as it reflects upon our selves: We say, to differ in discipline, is not to worship severall gods (as Nayler rayles) while it is knowne we hold the head the Lord Jesus: but this we looke upon as the spitting of his venome. When Peter was for Circumcision, and Paul was against Circumcision, Gal. 2.13.14. did they worship severall gods? So those Acts 15. that contested in different judgements, did they worship severall [Page 72] gods? But this man cares not what he sayes, so be may throw his dirt upon us, though he bewray his excessive ignorance in it before the world.

2. As it fights against the Scriptures, being the judge and tryall of spirits, we shall shew there is no strength in this ex­ception at all. For the Scripture loseth not its authority for the tryall of spirits by reason of the darkenesse and different apprehensions of spirits. How darke were the Apostles in the Prophesies of Christs Resurrection? Luke 24 25. Fooles and flow of heart, to beleeve all that the Prophets have spoken &c. yet the Scriptures lost not their touchstone authority upon the account of their darkenesse, though Christ saw th [...]t truth of the Resurrection in the Scriptures spoken of, which they could not apprehend: ought not Christ. ver. 26. to have s [...]ffo [...]ed these things and to enter into his glory. Doth not Peter say plainely, that in the writings of Paul. there are 2 Pet 3.10. difficult things, and hard to be understood, and such as the unstable and unlearned rest; and yet those Writings and Epist es doe not lose their authority, because of the diversities and darkenesse of Beleevers thoughts. Scripture rightly understood will clearely discover every spirit, and every Doctrine, though the best of men, knowing but in part, 1 Cor. 13.9. and so not fully taking in the genuine sense of Scripture, may have, through their darkenesse difference of judgement in things lesse fundamen­tall But we may be weary in following such triviall arguments, onely we would not have the saints entrapped in any of Sa­tans snares nor the blessed word, that's sweeter then hony, and the hony combe▪ subjected to the delusions of evill men.

Thus we have given thee the strength of his answer; onely he addes his false glosse upon that of Isay 8.20.Isay 8.20. vindicated. by us objected against them in the Perfect Pharisee: the glosse is this, Whereas you quote that place, To the Law and to the testimony; it is true, the Law of the new Covenant is written in the heart by God, and the testimody of Jesus is the spirit of Prophesie, and if any be not guided by and speake according to these, it is because they have no light in them but without them. But we answer, As he plain­ly by this overturnes all Scripture, and leaves no rule but the Law written upon mens hearts, (which we have confuted in [Page 73] the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 25.) so it is a grosse perverting of the text and truth: for it is clearely spoken of the Written Word, and the very next words expresseth it clearely; If they speake not according to this Word, the Hebrew is full beyond exception, [cedabar hazzeh] according to this Word: so that that text is no reference, that God makes to the Law written upon mens hearts, but to the Law written in Tables of stone, which tables, were called the testimony, and the Arke thereof called, the Arke of the testimony, Exod. 25.22. because the Tables of stone in which the Law was written, called Exod. 31.18. the tables of the testimony were layd up there.

We have fully showne in the Booke called the Perfect Pha­risee, pag. 26. the sad fruits of this Doctrine of denying the Scripture to be the rule of trying doctrines and spirits, that it is to open a gap to all the delusions of Satan, and we instanced sin the knowne case of Iohn Gilpin, who was sometimes a Quaker, to which Nayler replyes onely thus, It is no more then if the chiefe priests should have cited Iudas to confute Christ, &c. as he consulted with the priests to betray the truth; so Iohn Gilpin hath done now, who shall receive his reward, and you priests also, as Nayler sayes. To which rayling we thus answer.

Shaking off the S [...]rip­ture t [...]e [...] ­ler to Sa­tans delu­sions.1. That Iohn Gilpin was thus acted by the Devill, is a known truth beyond questioning. 2. That he did verily beleeve he was acted by Christ, when yet the Devill acted him, is very ap­parant. Nay Atkinson, the boy that pretends to answer that re­ [...]ation of Gilpin, doth all along confesse, that he was acted by the Devill, is plaine to any that reades that his childish [...]nd non-sensicall piece of rayling. 3. Iohn Gilpin himselfe, [...]ee the Lord hath delivered him in mercy out of the snares of Sa­tan, hath fully confest, that it was the spirit of Satan, and not the Lord Iesus that then acted him. 4 And that all this grew [...]ut of his casting off the Scriptures searching to a light within: Take his owne words, pag. 15. of a Booke called, The Quakers shaken. It was most just with God to give me over to strong de­lusions to beleeve lyes &c. as for other provocations. s [...] especially for rejecting the revealed will of God in his Word, and hea [...]kning onely to a Voyce within me; nay, not onely to l sten to the Devils suggestions, but to embrace his Voyce for the Voyce of Christ. [Page 74] Thou seest now Reader what reason we had to say, this rejecting the Scriptures from being the tryer of Doctrines doth open an unavoydable gap to Satans delusions.

2. But what reason hath the man to say, in this, both Iohn Gilpin and we have consulted against Christ? Nay, have we not been pleading for Christ against Iudas, the desperate betrayen of his truth and Gospel? while we have been discovering [...]he subtilties of Satan in those that are acted by him, and pleading for the authority of Christ in his word, against all the delusions of the Devill. And as we can thankefully and comfortably looke upon it, that God hath engaged us in so good a work; so we can looke for our reward, not what Nayler we beleeve could wish us (but how can he defie, when God hath not defied) but what Christ hath promised to them that can forsake their names and comforts, &c. for his testimony. It is no small sland [...] to say we have consulted with John Gilpin, whose face none of us ever saw to our knowledge, till after the Printing of his con­fession; but there is a day wherein God will call every id [...]e word to an account, and then Naylers conceit of his perfection will not take off the guilt of such apparant lyes.

Position 15. That there ought to be no sense, meaning, or ex­position given, or studying of the Scriptures.

We had many proofes for this, that it was a Position of th [...] Quakers, which he denyes not; we could adde more, but 'ti [...] needlesse, because Nayler in his answer goes about to justifie it [...] the summe of which lyes in these two exceptions.

Excep. 1 The Scriptures are either perfect, or not perfect; if perfect, l [...] them alone, and doe not darken them by your invented wisedome.

Reply 1 Though Scripture be perfect in it selfe, yet needs expound­ing through the darknet of soules.To which we answer: The Scriptures were given out perfect by the Prophets and Apostles; yet they gave them out i [...] some places more darkely, and in some places more clearely as Peter plainely confesseth, 2 Pet. 3.16. that some things i [...] Pauls Epistles were hard to be understood, and layd downe [...] darkly, as that those that were unlearned, that is, not well a [...] quainted with the mind of the holy Ghost in them, did wr [...] them to their owne destruction; which shewes the necessity opening and expounding Scriptures, unlesse we will suffer m [...] [Page 75] through their ignorance to runne upon their owne ruine. 2. Were the Scriptures imperfect, or did Ezra adde to them, because he gave the sense, and caused them to understand the Reading? Neh. 3.8. 3. Doth not Christ speake the necessity of expounding Scripture, though it be perfect, when he said to the Pharisees, Goe learne what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice? Mat. 9.13. Nay, doth not Christ clear­ly assert the necessity of expounding, when he saith Marke 12.24. Doe yee not therefore erre, not knowing the Scriptures? Ver. 26 Have ye not Read in the Booke of Moses, how God spake unto him in the Bush saying, I am the God of Abraham, &c. he is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living? where he op [...]n; the Scripture, and proves the Resurrection from thence, wh ch lay but darkely hid in those words, had not he that had the Key of David opened and expounded them. 4. The necessi [...]y of expounding doth not arise from the im­perfection of Scriptures but from that darkenesse that lyes upon the spirits of the saints. For now we see through a glasse darkely, 1 Cor. 13. so that though the Scriptures be perfect in them elves, yet thou seest the necessity of the opening of them through the imperfecti [...]n that is in us. This Christ and the Apostles knew, when they made it a great part of their busi­nesse in the teaching of soules to expound the Scriptures,

Excep. 2 You that have not that infallible spirit that gave them forth, what will you judge, and open, and expound them with? &c.

Reply. This is but an old straine of his railing, but we can (let prayses be to free grace) say with the Apostle, God hath re­vealed them unto us by the spirit; by the light of which spirit we are taught to compare spirituall things with spirituall, 1 Cor 2.13. and so to open the Scriptures; for though we are the least of saints, and Nayler thus revile us: yet we can blesse God for the in dwelling [...] of the infallible spirit in us, which communi­cates light to our soules in that measure that pleaseth him, di­viding to every man severally as he will.

The rest of that answer is a heape of bitter rayling which is no more to us, then the chaffe before the wind, or the Viper up­ [...]n Pauls hand, which comes forth from the flaming of their [Page 76] contention, James 3.6. and we can shake off as into the fire from whence it came.

Position 16. They cry downe Baptisme with Water, and the Lords Supper, as being but types and shadowes ceasing upon the appearance of Christ within them.

Excep. 1 Though the generall charge lie, and our many proofes which he doth not deny, make it cleare that they cry downe all Bap­tisme with Water; yet Nayler in his answer shuffles from that charge, and falls to except against Infant Bap [...]isme.

Reply. Reader we should willingly cleare up that Ordinance of Christ to thee, but it hath bin so fully cleared in the learned writings of Mr. Marshall, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Blak [...], Mr. Si [...]enham, &c. [...] are loath to fill up our Booke with the discussing and clearing [...] that point (it being already growne up to a bulke beyond [...] thoughts) and shall referre thee for satisfaction in th [...]se [...] discourses. But let the Reader observe, that this is but a [...] evasion of Nayler, for our proofes doe evidently satisfie [...] they cry downe all manner of Baptisme with Water, no [...] [...] the Baptizing of Infants, but of all, and its further app [...] by their practice.

Excep. 2 But at last he speaks his mind, and reasons against all [...] tisme, and quotes that of Paul, 1 Cor. 4.14. Paul knew wha [...] he spake when he thanked God he had Baptized no more; for Christ (saith he) sent me not to Baptize, but to Preach.

Reply 1 1 Cor. 1 14 opened.By these expressions, Nayler seems to make Paul looke upon his Baptizing others as a sinne, and so to thanke God that he Baptized no more. How is this to heape sinne upon Peter and the rest of the Apostles, who Baptized three thousand at one time. Acts 2.41. Ierusalem and all Iudea went forth to John to be Baptized of him, and yet Iesus himselfe made and Baptized more Disciples then Iohn. See Iohn 4.1. though Iesus himselfe Baptized none but his Disciples, what is this but to make [...]ul condemne the practice of those saints, and oppose the c [...] ­mand of the Lord Iesus, Goe and Baptize, Mat. 28.19.

2. But to give thee the full meaning of Pauls expression then shalt finde, 1 Cor. 1.12. he is charging them for factions, Ou [...] said, I am of Paul, another I am of Apollo, &c. and argues [Page 77] thus, Were you Baptized in the name of Paul? and thence takes occasion to blesse God, for not having Baptized many, lest any should from thence have growne into a Faction; as himselfe gives the reason, ver. 15. lest any should say, I have Baptized in my owne name, and from thence have made a Faction; so that he blesseth God that sith the Corinthians were growne of such Factions and dividing spirits that providence had so ordered it, that they had by his Baptizing so few of them, so little advan­tage to cry him, or his name up in opposition to Apollos, Christ, or Ceph [...]. Yet by the history of the Acts of the Apostles, thou mayst observe, that when ever any were converted by Paul, they were Baptized, Acts 16.15. ver. 33. Acts 18.8. many of the Corinthians hearing, beleeved, and were Baptized. Acts 22.16. &c. But if Nayler from that expression, Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to Preach, will argue against Baptisme, he will fully make voyd the expresse commands of Christ for Bap­tizing, and charge sinne upon the Apostles practice; so that in stead of crying downe expounding Scriptures we leave him to study what that expression meaneth.

Excep. For the outward signes of the Supper, doe this in remembrance of me till I come; but when he was come, then the Bread which they did breake was the Body of Christ.

Reply 1 We cannot but be amazed at his grosse perverting Scripture: but we have showne the false meaning of that expression (till he come) in the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 29.The Lords Supper an Ordinance to the end of the vvorld. That those Corinthians to whom Paul wrote, and commands to use that Ordinance, Doe this in remembrance of me, till the comming of Christ, &c. were those in whom he was spiritually come before, 1 Cor. 1.2. Yet notwithstanding that spirituall comming, they were commanded to eate of the Bread, and drinks of the Cup, to shew forth the Lords death 1 Cor. 11.26. till he come; that is not till his spiri­tuall comming in the worke of grace (that was past before) but his comming in glory.

2. The life of saints here is a life of Faith, Heb. 10.38. the just shall live by his Faith. Now for the nourishing and strength­ning of Faith, he hath left the Seales of Bread and Wine, as the holders forth of his Body and Blood for Faith to act it selfe up­on; and therefore before Faith be swallowed up in vision these [Page 78] are appointed as standing Ordinances by the Lord Iesus for the establishing of it.

The rest of his answer is made up of such rayling in stead of reasoning, and such inconsistent expressions, that we shall onely leave him to the Lord, to deale with his conscience for the guilt of them.

Position 17. That there is no mediate Call to the Ministry.

He denyes not our proofe, and in stead of answering the ma­ny Scripture arguments we gave in our Perfect Pharisee, pag. 32. for a mediate call to the Ministry, he falls to a downe-right rayling; though we have nothing we need to add to the argu­ments we there layd down against this Position, meeting with no answer to what we have written; yet we shall observe in the midst of his raylings these things.

Naylers contradictions.1. How flatly he contradicts himselfe, when he tells the Rea­der, pag. 19. l. 8. the Apostles when they had gathered Churches out of the world, they ordained them Elders of themselves? yet after sayes, l. 10. 11. these were ordained not by man; and after, l. 13. 14. this ordination was not by man, nor by the Churches, &c. the Apostles ordained them Elders; and yet those Elders were not ordained by man: were not the Apostles men? And was not this a mediate call, wherein the Apostles ordained them Elders in every City, Acts 14.23.

2. Though he lab [...]urs with abundance of bitternesse to cry downe any mediate call; yet as he answers nothing to our Scri­ptures; so we cannot but [...] [...]ve how he is forced in the midst of his rayling to confesse the truth, saying, pag. 19. l. 8. the Apo­stles ordained them Elders, which is that mediate call we conten­ded for.

Lastly, The substance of his rayling is to tell us, that we are invested in the Ministry by Magistrates Townes, and Parishes; when as, we doe professe we doe not know a Minister in Eng­land that is ordained, or professeth to receive his ordination from a Magistrate, Towne, or Parish.

2. All that the Magistrate, Towne, or Parish doe, is to provide maintenance for th [...]se that labour in the Gospel; nay, the late Commission (which perhaps Nayler drives at) never [Page 79] pretended to put any in the Office of a Minister, but onely pro­vided maintenance for him in the propogation of the Gospel; so that notwithstanding what he hath said, we are still fully convinced of the clearenesse of a mediate call to the worke of publique Ministry of the Word.

And thu [...] we have followed him in every materiall expressi­on, though [...]e answers nothing to our Scriptures, or Arguments: And though his great cavill be at our testimonies, and upon this cryes out [...] we published filthy lyes; yet the Reader will now clearely see, that of 55. proofes we layd downe, he onely de­nyes the truth of seven, which are yet fully cleared, and proved either by the testimony of these that were the witnesses, under their Hands and Seales; or by the demonstration out of their owne Books, however Nayler labours to evade and shuffle them. How unjustly we have been charged with lyes, will now appeare; and we must seriously professe, that had it not been to cleare up those truths, which he chargeth with falsehood, and vindica­ting Scripture from his grosse perverting of them, his Booke is so meerely composed of rayling, and abusing us, and so beyond expectation sottish and senselesse, that we should not have thought it at all worth our answer or observation.

Were we not ready according to that rule, 1 Pet. 3.15. to give a reason of the hope that is in us; and that Tit. to convince gainesayers, (whose mouthes must be stopped) we should not have troubled thee, or our selves, with answering such tri­viall exceptions as doe hereafter follow, against what we have proved so plainely from Scripture, against the Principles of the Quakers; But that we may not seem to leave any stone untur­ned that may cleare up the truth to the spirits of the people of God; we shall proceed to the consideration of that which fol­lowes in Naylers answer.

Principle 1. Not to salute any.

REader, though we have proved that this command Luke 10.4. of not saluting any by the way, were but a particular case, and not generally binding (as we have made evident by many Scripture Arguments, and the practises of the Saints) and though we have fully proved the command of Christ imposeth [Page 80] generall salutation upon saints, as a duty, as thou mayst Reade Perfect Pharisee, pag. 31. 42. yet thus he excepts.

Excep. 1 The summe of his exception is against High-way salutes.

To which we answer.

Reply. 1. High-way Salutes are the knowne practice of Quakers, as when they meet any of their owne way in the streets, or other-where, their Phrase is, How dost thou, and their action, to take them by the Hand. And if that Text command against High-way salutes, how contrary is their practice to it, Salute no man by the way.

2. However the Quakers doe contend against high-way sa­lutes, (though by their owne practice, Publican-like amongst one another, they contradict this Principle) yet high-way sa­lutes were the practice of saints, when holy Iacob met his Bro­ther Esau by the high-way, Gen. 33.3. He passed over before them, and bowed himselfe before him seven times, untill he came neere to his Brother, &c. Did nor gracious Abigail salute David by the high-way? 1 Sam. 25 23. When David was comming to her house, she went to meet him, and when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the Asse, and fell before David on her face, and bowed her selfe by the ground. Thus you see the pra­ctice of the saints in high-way salutes.

3. Nay, it was not onely the custome of the saints to salute by bodily gestures, [...]. Salutes of Primitive times. but by words also, and words equivalent to what are used by the people of God in England in their saluta­tions. See 2 Iohn 10. where Iohn forbiddeth them to give the least countenance to the hereticall venters of false Doctrines, commands them not so much as to bid them God-speed; which clearely proves, that that high-way salutation, was a common thing in the Apostles dayes, and not to be denyed to any, but such wicked persons as the Apostle there speaks of in carrying on their wicked Principles; If any man bring not this Doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. Hence Naylers colour, of taking the name of God in vaine, we fully de­clare against peoples using that Phrase without any sense of God upon their soules. Yet looke upon salutes as a command of Christ, and so wish all such as doe use the name of the bles­sed God in their salutes, either to keep a due regard of that [Page 81] Majesty upon their spirits when they use his glorious name, or else to use some other expression.

Excep. 2 His next cavill is against that plaine Text, Mat. 5.47. If yee salute your Brethren onely, what doe you more then doe others? doe not even the Publicans so? Where in stead of submitting to the authority of the commands of Christ; He sayes thus, It is no command to them to salute all, but a warning to them of their partiality.

Reply. 1. He that hath but looked upon that Text Mat. 5.46.47. but with halfe an eye, will clearely see, that he must as well ex­cept, that Christ doth not command to love all, as to say, that Christ doth not command to salute all; when its apparant, that the very phrase and reason in both commands, is the very same.

2. Sure this man doth not understand himselfe, when he affirmes, that this is a command against partiality, in saluting; and yet is not a command to salute all: for what is partiality in saluting? but this saluting some, and not saluting all. What a ridiculous cavill is this, even to the contradicting of himselfe?

3. As to his endeavouring by this ridiculous, and selfe con­tradicting exposition, to charge us with partiality, as that we salute onely those whom we love, and who are rich, &c. we say it is a malitious slander; for tis sufficiently knowne, we salute strangers, whose face we never saw before, and the poore of the people, as well as the richest of them; nay, the very Quakers them­selves also: But how doth this againe fly in their Fa [...]es, who for the most part carry with so much incivility to all, but to people of their owne way.

Excep. 3 3. There is a third exception, which we must not passe over without serious observation, it being a more then ordinary dis­covery of the spirit of the Quakers. Where when we charge them for picking and choosing at the command of Christ, such things in Scripture as doe most agree with their humors and fancies, thus, though they are forbid in the same place, Luke 7.4. to carrie mony in their purses, or to weare shooes on their feet, as well as to salute any by the way; yet we charge them in this, because they stand upon the one command, and not upon any of the rest, and doe evidently bring themselves within the curse, Rev. 22. Nayler thus replyes to it, pag. 21. l. 4. &c What we [Page 82] doe is not from the command that was to others, but from command of the same power by which we are sent forth; and if we were commanded to forbeare wearing shooes, as well as we are comman­ded to forbeare your Heathenish customes, &c. we should be made willing to obey, as some have done who have been commanded to goe naked, &c.

Reply. Now thou mayst see the mystery of iniquity, that lyes in the Quakers, layd open; we can blesse the Lord that hath made them thus unvayle themselves, and discover the rottennesse of their hearts as to the authority of the Scriptures, which they have so long by their jugling endeavoured to conceale. For here thou wi [...]t clearely see, that the Quakers looke upon the commands of Christ in Scripture, as having no soveraigne or binding authority over their consciences and practises, further then agrees with their owne Principles and fancies. For what means that expression? What we doe, is not from the command that was to others. This without controversie is utterly to shake off the authority of the the Word. For 1. Was not the whole Word written to others? Did any now alive live in those dayes when the Prophets or Apostles writ their severall Bookes? Were we of the Church of Corinth? or Philippi? Were we of the seven Churches of Asia? or did we live in these dayes? Alas, there is no command in Scripture but was given to others long before the dayes of our Fathers; and shall no command given to others be binding to us? Let them Reade these convincing Texts, Rom. 15.4. What­soever things were Written before time, were Written for our learn­ing; where Paul makes the Books of the Old Testament bind­ing to those who were not alive when they were Written; for the Romans to whom he then Wrote, were borne many hun­dred yeares after the writing of those Scriptures. 1 Cor. 10 11. All these things happened unto them for examples, and they were Written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 2 Tim. 3.16. All Scripture to whomsoever Written, or to what man soever the command was given before time, yet all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, reproofe, correction, instruction in righteousnesse. So the 2 Peter 1.19. speaking of the Scriptures, that sure Word of Prophesie, sayes, they doe well to take heed to them, as to a light [Page 83] in a darke place; though they were Prophesies and command [...] given forth to other persons many hundred yeares before. Thus you see that commands in Scripture that were given forth to others, are yet of universall concernment unto all, to those that lived not in those dayes, even such upon whom the ends of the world are come.

For that other expression of Naylers, If we were commanded to forbeare to weare shooes, &c. what a wretched casting off is this of the yoke of Christ, and a desperate picking and choosing in his commands, onely what is agreeing to their owne fancies. I [...] not this, to breake his bonds asunder and cast his cords from them. Psal. 2.3. If we were commanded; Is not the revealed will of Christ a command? Is one part of the same verse a command, (see Luke 10.4.) and not the other part? Is nothing a command till they judge it so? How loose doe they hang in obedience to the Lord Jesus? they will obey, and not obey, as they shall see cause▪ Prayses be to our God that we have discovered them; Now we understand the reason why Nayler answered none of our Scriptures; we perceive he looked upon them as nothing to him: and now we clearely see the meaning of their s [...]uffling [...] about the Word of God and their scornefull expressions about the written Word, &c. So that we can boldly charge them from this place with this horrid blasphemy, that the Quakers doe af­firme.

That the Scriptures have no authority over their consciences at all, nor any command in Scripture that was given to others that binds them, save what command they have an impulse upon their owne spirits; for,

This is the great strong hold of Satan, and the snare, with which he entraps them as he will.

[...]From this Principle of theirs he goes about to prove the law fulnesse of people going naked, and reviles us for speaking against it; and sayes they doe it by particular command from God. Reader, thou mayst observe. That Nayler denyes not what we wrote about their going naked in Perfect Pharisee. pag. 48. the Wife of Edmund Adlington of Kendale going naked though the streets, Nov. 21. 1653. We shall adde more, because some that have lesse acquaintance with these people, may seeme to [Page 84] make question of it. On Munday October 28. 1653. there was one Thomas Holme of Kendale went as naked as he was borne through the Market place at Kirby Stephen on the market day; at his turning he said,Mark that It is not I, but God that goeth naked, &c. and so after a time, he went to his clothes, which were kept in a Barne by foure men of his Sect. And to shew that this is a fact they justifie and pleade for (in stead of mourning for the horrible sin of it) Mr. Taylour a great ring-leader of that peo­ple, came to that Towne the weeke after to seeke Mr. Higgin­son, Minister of that place, as he said, having a Message to him from the Lord, and being there in the Market place, he very solemnely pronounced a woe against it, for rejecting that Pro­phet of the Lord, which he had sent to doe signes and wonders in it, meaning, as those that heard him did conceive, that beast that went starke naked through the Towne a little before.

This we have from Mr. Higginson, under his owne hand.

Thomas Castly, January 10. 1653. went shamelessely naked as he was borne through the streets at Kendale. Edmund Nubyes Wife went through Kendale naked, except that she had a shift on: and about the latter end of December last, she came into the place of meeting of the Church at Kendale in the same posture. Another of this Sect came in the same posture into Hutton Chap­pell at the time of exercise about the beginning of January. Eli­zabeth Levens, and Miles Newby went up the streets at Kendale in the same posture. This we have attested from Mr. Walker a godly Minister at Kendale under his hand, by Letters bearing date Ianuary 31. 1653. But were it needfull to prove it, we could by sending into places where these converse, fill thee with undeniable evidence hereof; but its needlesse, because Nayler denyeth it not, but labours to justifie them in this sinfull pra­ctice. As to the manifesting of the wickednesse hereof, we shall give thee these considerations.

1. No sooner had Adam and Eve fallen, and were stripped of their Innocency, but they saw themselves shamefully naked, Gen 3.10. But God who knowes the working of corruption in the hearts of men after the fall, he himselfe cloathed them, lost their nakednesse should appeare, ver. 21. Ʋnto Adam also, and to his Wife, did the Lord God make Coats of Skins, and [Page 85] cloathed them. And doth not this manifest the will of God against going naked? would he have cloathed them, if he would have had them continue in that nakednesse?

2 But that you may yet see further, how odious being naked before others is in the sight of God, the sad curse that Noah from the mouth of God layd upon Ham the Father of Canaan, for not covering his Fathers nakednesse, will appeare Gen. 9 22.23.24. &c. Ham the Father of Canaan saw the Nakednesse of his Father, and told his two Brethren without, and Shem and Ja­phet tooke a garment and layd it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakednesse of their Fathers, and their Faces were backeward, and they saw not their Fathers na­kednesse; And Noah aweke from his Wine, and knew what his younger Sonne had done to him, and said, Cursed be Canaan, &c. and he said, Blessed be the God of Shem, anh Canaan shall be his servant, &c. God shall enlarge Japheth, and Canaan shall be his servant, &c. Where you see, Ham is bitterly cursed, and the curse entailed to all his Posteri y for that sinne of not covering his Fathers nakednesse. And what then shall we thinke of such an expression as Mary Collison a Quaker in Kendale used to these that covered the nakednesse of the Wife of Edmund Adlington, in the street at Kendale, That they had hindered the worke of the Lord? Oh! let them remember the curse of Ham, and the blessing of Shem and Iapheth here expressed.

3. The Apostle arguing to the care that one Saint ought to have over another, doth it by a comparison of them with the body naturall; and tells you 1 Cor. 12.23.24. those members of the body which we judge to be losse honourable, upon these we be­stow more abundant honour, and our uncomely parts ( [...] See Rom. 1.27. pudenda, indecora membra, instrumenta excretioni, & generationi destinata) have more abundant comelinesse; for our comely parts (viz. Face, Hands, &c.) have no need; marke that, the uncomely parts needed, yea they are such parts, that (as the Apostle phraseth it) they lacked more abundant honour, viz. lest their nakednesse and shame should appeare.

4. In the 2. Sam. 10 4. When Han [...]n the King of Amon had cut off the garments of Davids servants in the middle, even to their buttockes, &c. and sent them away, the men were greatly [Page 86] ashamed, ver. 5. and David, in the sense of this Wicked act, made warre against the men of Ammon, and destroyed them; so sensible was David of the wickednesse of this act, of disco­vering the [...]ckednesse of his servants.

5. 1 Tim. 2.9. The Apostle wills, that Women adorne them­selves in modest Apparell, with shamefastnesse and sobriety. And we leave it to the Reader to consider, whether either going na­ked, or having nothing but their shift on, be any wayes accord­ing to the modesty, bashfulnesse, and sobriety, by the Apostle com­manded in that place.

6. To adde no more, we shall conclude with laying before thee the wickednesse of this practice, besides that impudence, and immodesty, even such as nature and ingenuity it selfe ob­horres, this practice speaks: Oh! what a fuell is this to the flames of lust, what accursed fires of Hell doth it kindle in the hearts of men? Doth not the Apostle strictly charge all, to mor­tifie their earthly members, Col. 3.5. Fornication, uncleannesse, inordinate affection, evill concupisence, &c. nay, doth he not say, ver. 6. For these things sake the wrath of God commeth on the children of disobedience. And 1 Thes. 4.4. he chargeth every one that he should know how to possesse his Vessell in sanctification and honour, not in the lust of concupisence, &c. And what is the horriblenesse of the temptation of such wicked practises? this is so loathsome, and naus [...]ous to any sober apprehensions, that surely it will make the very practisers of such things, to be a stinke in their nostril [...] and be looked upon as a shame, both to Religion and Humanity, and we are fully certified from severall parts it doth so already.

There is but one thing that we imagine can be pretended for this wicked practice; and that is the Prophets going naked up­on particular command; we shall take that which is the fullest Scripture for it,Isay 20.3. opened. Isay 20.3. and in that, answer all together. Where God sayes to Isaiah, Goe and loose thy sa [...]kecloth from off thy loynes and put off thy shooes from thy feet, and he did so, walk­ing barefeet and naked.

1. We are fully satisfied, and we hope we have satisfied the Reader in the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 45 46. 47, 48. that the pre­tences of these men to immediate calls, are bu [...] meere delusi­ons, [Page 87] and an apish imitation of the Prophets. But what these Prophets did, was by a true immediate call from God, which we owne, though we abhorre the pretence of these men to it, of the lying and falsehood whereof we have informed thee fully.

2. Did either Jesus Christ, or the Apostles, when they came to publish the everlasting Gospel, ever take up such imitation?

3. For the full meaning of that place, understand 1. Some will onely understand this thing as done in vision, Hos. 1.2. Take unto thee a Wife of Whoredomes. 2. Others conceive it was really acted and with them we rather close. But what was that nakednesse? it was not the putting off all their gar­ments, that their sh [...]me should appeare; but the putting off their upper garme [...]ts. For so the word naked is often used in Scripture, when a man goeth in his inner rayment onely, with­out upper garments; so it is said of Saul, he in a Propheticall rapture strip'd off his cloathes that is, his upper cloathes, (for the Jewes used to weare an upper garment upon their long Cas­sacke, which was close next their bodies) and lay downe naked before Samuel, 1 Sam. 19.24. So in Isay, 32.11 the women are commanded to strip themselves, and make them bare (that is, to put off their bravery and better apparell, &c.) [...]. This na­kednesse is the putting off his Propheticall Robe, for the Prophe [...]s had an upper garment of hayre, to distinguish them from others. as you may plainely see Zach 13.4. neither should they weare a rough garment to deceive. See 2 Kings 1 8. Mat. 3.4. this was such a mantle as dropped from Eliah, 2 Kings 2.13. and thus a Prophet wanting his Propheticall mantle or garment, is said to be naked, and Scripture calls him naked. 3. What was Isaiah to signifie by this? you must know, his foretelling the shamefull captivity of Ethiopia. ver. 3. was the intent of this command, how the Egyptian Prisoners were to be handled; therefore he was to goe strip'd in that posture as Captives and Prisoners use to be; Now the common usage of Prisoners, is not to leave them quite naked, but to take away their best apparell, and to leave them under ragged cloathes, or such as was necessary to cover their shame; for can it be imagined that they should be led starke naked from Egypt to Assyria so many hundred of miles. 4. But to put all out of doubt that it was not meant of [Page 88] being starke naked, can any man be so devoyd of sense, as to imagine the good man went starke naked three yeares together? Reade Isay 20.4. that time which the Prophet went naked, was for three whole yeares.

Therefore let these people see how vainely they doe bring in the practice of the Prophets, though farre different from theirs; and though acted upon that call from God (which the Quakers but pretend to, doth speake the lying spirit they are acted by) how vainely we say these things are wrested by them to bolster them up in such wayes, as will make even a Heathen blush that hath but any remaining sparkes of ingenuity.

Principle 2. Not giving any outward token of Reverence to Magistrate, Parent, Master, or any other.

Quakers to justifie their vvay, cast dirt upon the Saints in Scripture.We have said so much to this, that we need say no more, only we must observe, that rather then he will be convinced by Scri­pture light, this man cares not to charge the chiefest of Saints with sin in this case, but that it was no sin in them, that Scri­pture will fully speake, Rom. 13.7. Render to all their due, tri­bute to whom tribute is due, honour to whom honour. So that as there are some to whom tribute is distinguishingly due; there are also some to whom honour is due also, as we have proved at large, Perfect Pharisee pag. 33. 34. to which the Reader may observe he answereth nothing.

But he goes on with his ridiculous application of Scripture, viz. that of the Commandement, Thou shalt not bow downe or worship, which is evidently spoken of adoring graven Images made with hands, and this is Naylers text, against giving out­ward tokens of honour to Magistrates or Parents, as though they were Idols: as ridiculously doth he also cite that Text, Pro. 25.26. A righteous man falling downe before the wicked, is as a troubled Fountaine; which speaks onely the falling, perishing, crushing of the Saints by ungodly men, which is like filth or mud stird up in a Fountaine,

A. P. his Annotati­ons answe­red.There onely remains the learned Annotation of A. P. Sure A. P. had some great crotchet in his head, that he must needs stop it in the Margent, with his name at the bottome; sure tis some demonstration. But what is it? There is a Power with­out [Page 89] Persons, because the Keepers of the Liberties of England were no Persons. We aske him, Were the Keepers of the Liberties of England, no body? And was this honourable no body set up by the authority of Parliament, against whom it should be Treason to act? But what is this to make Government without Governors; Power without Persons to manage it? Were not the Parlia­ment Governors? or were the Parliament men who were the su­preame Governors, Were not they Persons? what were they? But what becomes of the Justices of Peace, will they be con­tent to be turned out of their being by A. P. But seriously A. P. if there be Government without Governors, who shall punish sin? who shall make Laws? who shall preserve the Peace? shall Government? when it is in no bodies hands? But let him leave his wild notion, and look upon 1 Pet. 2.13. Submit your selv [...]s, to, &c. whether the King as Supreame, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him. And Rom. 13.4.6. he is the Minister of God to thee, they are the Ministers of God attending on this ve­ry thing, and there he will learn that him and them, and he and they, doe signifie not things, but Persons in the power, not Go­vernment but Governors; so that we leave him amongst the rest of his fancies to study Sir Thomas Moores Eutopia, or Pla­t [...]es Common-wealth, where probably he may find a Govern­ment without any Persons to Govern, or be Governed.

Principle 3. That no man must have the title of Master.

All he replyes to this, is, that we bring the practice of men in the Old Testament to disanull the commands of Christ in the New. We give the man leave to lye and rayle, as having nothing else to say. For if thou look into the Perfect Pharisee, p. 34. 35. thou wilt see at least ten Scriptures out of the New Testament fully discovering the vanity of this Principle, and the lawfulnesse of calling men Sir or Master, besides the opening of what Christ meant in that prohibition, Mat. 23.10. so that we need to add no more.

There are foure things that they charge against the Ministry, to wit, 1. That they love the high places in the Synagogues. 2. That they weare long Robes. 3. That they stand praying in the Syna­gogues. 4. That they Preach for hire.

We dare without boasting say, we have by evident demonstra­tion from the Scripture shown at large, that these were the pro­per guilt of the Pharisees, and no way applicable to the godly Ministers of England. See Pers. Pharisee, p. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. And we are saved the labour of further clearing those points, for as much as Nayler returnes nothing of answer to what we there layd downe. We onely beg the Reader in these points to compare our Book and his together, and we leave it to thee to judge. But as we have all along found nothing but rayling in stead of reason, and the poyson of Aspes under his tongue, in stead of the force of reason or Scripture; so he doth here heap up such a masse of bitter revilings, as thou hast not seen: but we leave this evill spirit in him to the Lord to rebuke.

In pag. 40. of the Perf. Pharisee, thou wilt find us repeating others of their cavills against the Ministry, viz. Their having been at Ʋniversities. 2. Making use of an houre-glasse. 3. Preach­ing upon a text. 4. Running to the powers of the World to protect us. 5. Stealing from the Prophets. 6. Not tho [...]ing. Foure of these he answers nothing to; for the fifth he repeats that Scripture that is against stealing the Word of the Lord from their neigh­bours; as if to name the same charge again, were enough to prove it, though we have cleared it in the Perfect Pharisee, That in quoting Scripture we doe but follow the example of Christ and the Apostles. See Perf. Pharisee, pag. 27. 28. and walke by Scripture rule. And for the sixth, viz. thouing, we told him, that the not tho [...]ing all, doth no wayes entrench upon any Attri­bute o [...] command of God; and being but an expression of a ci­vill respect, as Sir, Master, most noble, most excellent (which the Saints in the New Testament used) we told him, we saw no cause why the same freedome in our dialect might not be used. Had he excepted any thing against these, we should have answe­red him.The Qua­kers make the pure language to vvhich the Saints are redee­med, to be, vvhen they begin to Thou all men. And for that pure language, which he sayes the Saints are redeemed unto, we cannot but wonder at the lownesse of the mans conceptions in the things of God, to think the pure lan­guage to which God restores them, is to make them say, thou and thee. Oh! the blindnesse of these men in the things of Christ; for that pure language, Zeph. 3.9. imports, the peoples deliverance from Idolatrous worship, shall no more call upon [Page 91] their Idols, nor call God by the name of their Idols, Hos. 2.16. nor lispe the language of Ashdod. Neh. 13.24. but call upon the name of the Lord, and serve him with one consent. Having gone through these things in our Perfect Pharisee, we proceeded, pag. 41. to some considerations of their practises.

Practice 1. Quaking.

Excep. 5 For trembling and quaking we owne it; but for grovelling on the ground, and foaming at the mouth, are lyes and slanders of your owne inventing.

Reply. Quakers grovelling upon the earth when in their fits of posses­sion.Are they lyes and slanders? Was not Iohn Gilpin a Quaker? and when a Quaker he tells you thus, in the Book called Quakers Shaken, p. 5. I could not stand upon my feet, but was constrained to fall downe upon the bed, where I howled and cryed, as is usuall with them, in a terrible and hiddeous manner, to the great astonish­ment of my Family. Pap 7. further, In the time of Iohn Aud­lands speaking, I was from the power within me drawne from the chaire upon which I sate, and throwne upon the ground in the midst of the company, where I lay all night; all which time I was turned from my backe to my belly, and so backe again, &c. Is not this grovelling upon the ground? How dare this man say they are lyes? Nay Atkinson, who would seem to answer that Booke, in his pittifull Pamphlet, pag. 11. sayes, he owned it to be of God. So in Quakers Shaken, pag. 10. he sayes, I was cast upon the ground, and lying upon my belly, I was forced to licke the dust. Atkinson denies it not, but tells him, this is his portion. And how can Nayler say, that these things are lyes and slanders? We shall add but one more, as to their foaming at mouth we shall give you this account under the hand of Mr. Moore Minister at Kellet in Lancashire.

OVt of the Quakers comming to disturbe our Congregation, fell into a trance, her belly puffed up, her sides extended her back­bone thrust out, her shoulders stretched up, her whole body as a blad­der when it is in blowing: Whereupon I sent a mayd to George Fox, to tell him, he had indeed alleaged many Scriptures for quaking and trembling but withall to aske him, what Scriptures he could shew one for swelling of the body, or foaming at the mouth: or where did he ever reade of any in those postures, save onely such [Page 92] as were possessed with Devils: He denyed that any of theirs swel­led, till she was pointed out, and then he confessed it; upon which she asked him, whether lying was a sin? because he had before de­nyed that he committed any sin. Will. Moore.

Reade and judge what thou now thinkest of these mens act­ings and lyings.

As for our large discovery of the nature of quaking, owning it where there was any reall appearance of God to the Prophets, and shewing a clear difference betwixt these div [...]ne rep [...]ures, and the Satanicall quakings of these men, he answers nothing at all, but onely cavils at a word.

Excep. 2 That we say, They call their Quaking their great perfection; which he sayes is false, &c.

Reply. To which we answer. We cannot but look upon that as the great perfection in the eyes of these men which they doe so much cry up, and so much desire as such a pretious attainement.W. C. One of us doth know, that Cap Ward, and Will. Cartmell, did expresse their desires of it, and their hopes to come under that condition. Henry Houseman said, speaking concerning quaking, he was not come up to that perfection yet. We might adde more; but Iohn Gilpin tells you in Quakers Shaken, p. 5 that he did earnestly de­sire that he might fall into quaking and trembling, apprehending that he should thereby attaine to the immediate discoveries of God unto him. And is not that perfection? Why doth Nayler still charge us with slanders?

Practice 2. Rayling.

Except. He would endeavour from Scripture to lay downe a warrant for his rayling; and his reason is, because Christ called the Iewes the children of the Devil. &c. The Apostle cals men dogs, wolves, &c.

Reply. 1 We charged them with rayling at those persons they had never seen before; telling them, they were Devils, damned, they saw the Devil in their faces, so that this appeares to be perfect rayling; because not knowing the persons or actions of any such men, nor any particular sinne by them, yet they let fly their dreadfull censures at randome. Thus we instanced in our Perfect Pharisee p. 46. in their rayling at Mr. H. T. Merchant of Newcastle, cal­ling him a Priest, &c. and Gorge Fox rayling at Mr. Nichols in Carlile, p. 48. telling him he was an hypocrite, though he had [Page 93] never seen his face, nor knew his name. Now how is this bot­tom'd upon Christs example, or the Apostles, who gave such ex­pressions to none but such as they had particular knowledge of, as to their sinne, giving a reason for such titles.

2. Those titles were given to wicked Herod, and to the teach­ers of false Doctrines, Phil. 3. 2 Pet. 2. and we have fully cleared it we hope to every mans conscience, who is not filled with er­rour and prejudice, that we are neither reproachers of Christ, or his Doctrine, but according to our talent, have found mercy of the Lord to be faithfull in carrying on the interest of the Lord Iesus; and therefore we cannot but looke upon it as their sin­full practice, in powring out such language upon us.

3. He that doth but reade the Scriptures, shall finde, that this is not the ordinary language of Christ and his Apostles, it was very seldome, and very solemne; and he that doth but compare this, with the practice of quakers, shall see a vast difference: for it is their common practice, and such words are as familiar as any they use, as thou art damned, and I see the Devill in thy face; nay, they are their usuall first salute to all they meet withall. Was this the Apostles way? take but any of their Books, and compare them with any of Pauls Epistles, and as thou wilt see a spirit of sweetnesse and meeknesse in his, so thou wilt observe such a continuall froathing out of passion and bitternes in these men, as will lay them naked, to be acted by a spirit vastly diffe­rent from that of Paul or any of the Apostles of the Lord Iesus.

4. But shall the holy zeale of Christ and his Apostles be wrest­ed to be made a patronage to their malitious raylings? Doe they not by this means, labour to take away the sinfulnesse of that rayling, which the Apostle tells you is the fruit of the flesh, and of which they that are guilty, shall never enter into the Kingdome of God, 1 Cor. 6.9. But we referr thee for further information in this to the Perfect Pharisee, pag 44. 45.

Pract. 3. Their pretending upon all occasions to be sent by she [...]iall Commission from God.

1. Here we having related by severall passages of the quakers pretending to a Commission from God, the ridiculousnesse of their Messages, and that pretence, he plainely tells us, he will not justifie them; and when he cannot shuffle it off, he tell us, he can [Page 94] say nothing to it, because he knows not the things in particular; though the persons (Reader, thou mayst observe) that are there mentioned are of his familiar company and converse; and so thou wilt easily think, had they been lyes, we should have heard from him with open mouth: yet the man will needs take the boldnesse to call them lyes, though he confesse he knows not the par­ticulars. Now Reader, judge of Nayler and his conscience.

2. He sayes, that they who were before the Magistrates, were invited to any of our houses, is false. Oh! the confidence of this man, and how boldly dare he rush upon a lye, or any thing, to make us odious. All we say is, that some of them that came to Newcastle were invited to come to our houses by some of us. If Iames Nayler will aske M. Tayler, if he were not invited by W. C. to his house, when he was at that time at Newcastle, and did not come, he will see the debauchednesse of his conscience; for W. C. doth beleeve, M. Tayler hath so much honesty left, as not to deny it.

Quakers justifie their cursing be­cause such vvords are in Scripture and make the Scrip­ture a vvarrant for cursing.As to George Foxes cursing M. Fetherston, which we quoted, p. 48. Perf. Phar. all that Nayler replyes is, that M. Fetherston con­fessed, all that Geo. Fox spoke, was Scripture. What a ridiculous evasion is this of so great a sin? Because there are such words in Scripture, therefore he may apply them as he will. There are these words in Scripture, I am the Lord, and change not; he sits upon the circle of the Heavens, &c. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God; these expressions, because they are in Scripture, is it therefore lawfull to give them to any creature? Nay, dare Geo. Fox challenge them to himself, because they are in Scripture? Or because such words, the Lord smite thee thou painted wall; thou hast lyed against the holy Ghost; for whom is reserved the blacknesse of darknesse for ever; Are these true of G. Fox? or may we there­fore lawfully apply them to G. Fox? because they are such words as are found in Scripture? Oh! what a ridiculous evasion is this? He may also plead, that he and his followers may lawfully swear, because the words [sweare and oaths] are to be found in Scripture; and then this generation will perfectly come up to the necessary and experienced fruit of these principles, viz. Ranting to a great degree wherof they are already attained in their most impudent, obscene, and shamelesse nakednesse.

The next exception is against our objecting Perf. Phar. p. 48. Christopher Atkinson his immodest familiarity with a woman of that way &c. where Atkinson challengeth the proofe of it: we shall onely say, that that immodest familiarity (if he will needs force us, from our modest covering of that carriage, to speak out) it was his familiar Kissing of her, as we are fully informed by the testimony of M. Walker and M. Wallas, and we cannot but ac­count it as a sinfull behaviour. But to weaken the strength of this testimony, Atkinson tells the Reader, that M. Wallace said, It was no murther in him to murther Christopher Atkinson, and the rest of the prisoners at Kendale.

Truely we are afraid this whole generation of men are in a confederacy of lying; we have purposely sent to finde out the truth of this foule challenge, and shall give thee his clearing of himselfe word for word as we received it.

M. Wallace his vindica­tion from Atkinsons lye. HAving received a Paper from the Quakers that were prisoners containing horrible blasphemies, viz. That they were the searchers of hearts, and saying, Let them be accursed from God for ever, that will have Christ have any other Body, but his Church. I spoke these words, and no more, in the hearing of many, viz. (That I thought it was no murder in the civill Magistrate to put such blasphemers as they were to death, it being accord­ing to the Law of God.)Reade Lev 24.10.16. Deut. 13. the vvhole chapter. But that I ever said, It was no murder in me to murder them, or to put them to death, I declare it to be a manifest lye.

Iohn Wallace.

We whose names are subscribed, did heare when M. Wallace spoke these words above written, namely, these which are in­closed within the parenthesis, but no more.

  • Thomas Barket.
  • Miles Harrison.

Now let the Reader judge of what spirit these men are; and as for the rayling which Atkinson powres out by reason of this testimony like a floud upon W. C. we his Brethren s [...]y, we hope he hath learned that of Christ, 2 Pet. 2.23. who when he was re­viled, reviled not againe, when he suffered, he threatned not, but committed himselfe to him that judgeth righteously.

There is but one thing remains, And that is the account we gave, why we called our Booke the Perfect Pharisce, which thou mayst reade in pages 49. 50. 51. and so conclude. We therein prove from Scripture, that that Title was most truely and pro­perly applicable to them: to which Nayler answers so exceeding weakely and raylingly, that we are resolved not to reply one word thereto, as having said enough before to that purpose, to discover how weakely he struggles to evade the clearenesse of these Scriptures against himselfe and that way.

Reader, thou wilt by this time, see the falsenesse of what Nayler speaks in his word of conclusion to us five: as if we had uttered many untruths, and false reports, taken up by heare say, without any ground at all, and divers things out of Books, which we have on purpose wrested to slander with, &c. Thou wilt in this reply, see the fullest evidence we thinke that can be given as to such cases, and all these particulars that he excepts against, made the more apparant unto all. We professe before the Lord, that it [...] nothing we have against their persons, that should any way leade us to wrest any of their writings to make them odi­ous: it is our onely zeale for the truth and Saints of the high God, that hath carried out our spirits thus to expose our selves to the revilings of all this generation, if by any meanes we might be serviceable to the Gospel, and save our selves, and them that heare us.

Thou wilt finde in the close of Naylers Booke two leaves put forth in the name of one, who sayes, his name in the Flesh is Iohn Andland: tis such a perfect piece of bitternesse and ray­ling, and no way in answer to our Booke, that we leave it for waste Paper.

Thus having been carried on by the Everlasting Arme, and drawne out by the cords of Love to our deare Lord Iesus his Ordinances, and his Saints, to beare witnesse to the true grace of God wherein we stand; we shall sit downe in comfort, and fly to him, who is a refuge from the storme, and a shadow from the beat, when the bla [...] the terrible ones shall be as the storme against the Wall.


This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.