NOT many daies since, we received each of us a Book as from you, by the hands of a Friend of yours, living in this Town, Intituled Christs Innocency pleaded, &c. which although it be par­ticularly directed to a Godly and able Minister of the Neighbourhood, yet it seems you thought fit to disperse it into these parts, as well as over the rest of the Nation, in Print, to confirm those that are already gained to your belief, and reduce others either to an entertain­ment [Page 2] of, or moderation to, the principles thereof. And we must confesse, that you have acted the last part of this designe with a great deale of Artifice, not without (as we conceive) a concurrent aime of your own, to shew how much credit your wit could give to an evill cause, and how (if not amiable, yet) tolerable, you could render an ugly face, by a decent dresse.

For our parts, we are sorry you can find no better exercise for your parts, then the maintaining of absurd Paradoxes in Ci­vility, and blasphemous Heresies in Religion; for so we dare call the Doctrines you undertake to shelter under the wing of your Patronage; and make no question but that Judge, who, we are assured, will one day make that written Law, which you refuse to own as the rule of your lives, the ground of his pro­ceedings upon you, and all others that live within the sound of it, after death, will then call them so too, when all the rhetori­call vailes you put upon them, will be pulled off, and you be found, except you repent, one of those that dawbe a rotten Se­pulcher with untempered Morter, and cover Violence with a Mal. 2. 16. Garment of subtle and Jesuiticall equivocation.

And indeed, that which makes us the more compassionate towards your self in this sad delusion you are under, is the repute which you have had (till of late daies) for soundnesse and Orthodoxy in Doctrinals, and some kind of moderation, beyond others of your Brethren in separation, towards those you separated from: And this, because we feare that the in­fluence of your Apostacy may occasion the ruine of many others, whose former esteem of your person endangers them to follow you blindfold into your Errors.

This, we assure you, is not the least cause (together with the preservation of those of our own charges from the infection likely to be spread among them by your name, and the reduce­ment of those of them who may (we feare) call you Father, in other respects, as well as the relation of Affinity) which in­duceth us to put Pen to paper in this Quarrell. Not that we intend hereby to take the Cudgels out of the hand of that Reve­rend man who is more neerly concerned, and better able to manage them then our selves; for (as to that concernes his Papers so brokenly quoted by you) we believe his own publi­cation [Page 3] of the entire Copies (which you think fit to conceale, not without some ground of suspicion, that you were rather willing to pick out what you could best sport your self, and your credulous Reader withall, then to give a solid answer to his Arguments as they come from his hand) with such animad­versions, as he is sufficiently able to make to the disingenuities of your reply, will abundantly vindicate him, and the Truth. Onely, we cannot but acquaint you, that you have mistaken the mark very much in the arrowes of bitter words, which your discourse levels with too much virulency against that holy man. Had you dealt with one of those sorry things in black, whose Doctrine and life are scandals to the Gospell; and ble­mishes to their holy Profession, you might have promised your selfe an easie beliefe from the Readers of your Book, to whatsoever load of reproches, you should have laid upon him: but the man you deale withall, is so well known for Piety, Meek­nesse, Humility, Heavenly-mindednesse, tendernesse of consci­ence, and all other Ministeriall Qualifications, that you may as well perswade them the Snow is black, as fasten those re­proches upon him with any hope of gaining credit to your self, or your book, except amongst those who are either totally stran­gers to him, or given up to so potent a prejudice against all that beare the name of Ministers, that they can easily admit into their Creed, whatsoever evill can be said of them. But to more sober Readers, and especially those of the parts where he lives, you might be easily convinced (had you any principles left to bottome a conviction upon) that the unjust imputations you every where bespatter him withall, will render you suspected, in all the rest of your book, for the falsehood detected in them. And we must tel you withal, that we cannot prevail w^th our rea­sons or consciences to perswade themselves that you have that infallible Spirit, which you pretend to dictate to you; seeing we know you to be so grossly mistaken in the censures you spend upon him, and divers of his fellow-labourers. Nor can we judge that language inspired by the holy spirit of God, when we consider, that there is no Gall in that Dove, & that those holy men of God who wrote as they were moved by the H. Ghost, tell us, that Saints must put away all clamour and bitternesse; and evill speak­ing, Ephes. 4. 31. [Page 4] and wrath: That the wisdome that is from above is gentle; Ja. 3. 17. Ja. 1. 16. and that if any man bridle not his tongue, his religion is vain.

And lastly, that if you be not a better Master of Language then Michal the Arch-angel, or we deserve worse usage then the Devill himself; the light in which the Apostle Jude spake, will tell you (but that you think him too low a Scholar to in­struct you, that have gotten through the Schoole, wherein he was a Disciple) that it ill becomes you to bring against your Antagonists a railing accusation. But if that convince not you Iude 9. and your brethren of the incivility and irreligion of your tongues and pens in this way, we shall refer you from Michaels Dispute to Enochs Prophesie, wherein you will find, that hard speeches will beare an Indictment at the last Assise, as well as Vers. 14. hard blowes: And in the mean time, we hope God will heare our prayers, and free us from the mercy of your Hands, who find what cruelty there is in the tender mercies of your Prov. 12. 10. Tongues

Mean while, in hope that a soft answer will turn away wrath, Pro. 15. 1. and that we may set you a fairer Copy to write after, when you next put pen to paper, we shall endeavour by Gods assistance, Pro. 26. 4, 5. to answer so much of your papers, as concernes us in common with other Ministers, without answering your passions.

And Sir, upon our first view of your Pamphlet, we cannot Sect. 1. but tell you, that if your Title-page were calculated for the Meridian of your Book, you mistook your self extreamly: For Tituli re­media, pix­ides vene­na. (to let passe the Title it self, wherein you abuse the glorious name of Christs Innocency, to patronize your own guilt) we cannot but wonder how Seneca (an Heathen) comes to be so great in your esteem, that you that will not allow us to quote Hierome, Augustine, Calvin, or Luther, yet think your Book Epistle p. D. credited by the wrested Testimony of a Pagan Philosopher pre­fixed thereunto. Sect. 2.

But to let that passe, and proceed to your Epistle, which on­ly because you direct it to the whole body of the Ministery, we suppose our selves concerned in. The rest of your Book, because we are assured from your Adversary that he will speedily take it in hand; we suppose you will give us leave to be so ingenu­ous as to leave to his able Pen, without interpreting it any wise [Page 5] to proceed from any consciousnesse of our own weaknesse, that we meddle not with it.

And here in the first place, we con you many thanks for the charitable advice you begin withall, and assure you, that the more we think of the day and houre, which in your entrance you mind us of, and that account we must hereafter therein give to the righteous Judge of Heaven and Earth, the more are we exci­ted to the consciencious discharge of that office, which (howe­ver you revile) we are sufficiently assured he will own at that day to be held by commission from him: and the more are we encouraged against all that evill entertainment, which (for the discharge thereof) we meet withall, from men of corrupt minds, 2. Tim. 3. 8. reprobate as concerning the Faith. And we hope, we shall take warning (even from an Adversary) to walk worthy of our high and holy calling, and not wear our Livery to the disgrace of our Master. But we are jealous, that whatever use we may make of your counsell, you intend it to far another purpose; to wit, rather as a slye way of casting reproach upon us, by insinuating that we stand in need of being so advised, then out of any inten­tion to do us good by that advice. [I wish you were] (in your language) is no other, then [I proclaime your are not:] Sect. 3. And although you tell us immediatly after, that you will not un­dertake Epistle, pag. 2. rashly to judge us, or accuse us to the world (from which crime of rash judgment you think your self sufficiently se­cured by comparing our works with our rule, the Scriptures) and then proceed (as you think cum privilegio) to misapply Scriptures, to slander us, yet we must retort upon you that which you give in way of advice to us, that the hower is coming, when all coverings shall be removed, and the vailes pluckt off from Ep. p. 1. all faces; and then we doubt not but you will be found, not on­ly a rash, but a false accuser, and that to the world (in Print) notwithstanding that colour and covering which you hide it withall.

For do you believe in earnest, that those Prophets of whom Sect. 4. Micah speaks, that teach for hire, and divine for money, or those Mic. 3, 11. Mar. 23. 5, 6, 7. whom our Saviour notes, for doing their works to be seen of men, for standing to pray in the Synagogues and the corners of the streets for loving the uppermost roomes at Feasts, &c. are chara­cters [Page 6] suiting the men of your indignation, whom you endeavour to degrade from the esteem they have, as Ministers of Christ, by such intimations as these? You pretend to something of Scho­larship and reason, and cannot but know, except your new light have quite put out the old, that the Priests and Prophets that Micah speaks of were such, as made their hire the end of their teaching and prophesying, and accordingly accommodated their Doctrines to the corrupt humours of those, from whom they expected their reward; a thing which a fixed maintenance, by Tithes, or otherwise by Law established, secures our Ministers from the tentation of.

It is you, and your brethren that would make us such as you slander us to be, by reducing us to voluntary contributions, which would be quickly detained from us, as often as we should dare to differ from the opinions, or reprove the Vices of our Neighbours.

And who are you, Sir, that judge our hearts, when you tell Sect. 5. us, what we aime at, and set up as our end in teaching, which you do more then once, and twice in your Epistle, and Book? How long have you been seated in the Throne of the most high God, and made a Judge of the secrets of mens hearts, that you tell us that we preach for hire, and do our works to be seen of men, and that we love the upper-most roomes, &c. As for standing to pray in the Synagogues, if you consult the place whence you pretend to draw that parallell between the Pharisees and us, you will find that the action is not condemned, but the end, to be seen of men; they neglecting in the mean time to pray in their Mat. 6. 5. Closets, where man could not take notice of their devotion. And so this charge (except you will say, with some of your companions, that you know the heart) comes under the same G. Fox see the perfect Pharisee, p. 49. and 4. condemnation of slander with the rest.

The corners of the streets, if they be used by any persons in these daies, for religious uses, we know not who herein resem­ble the Pharisees, more then those of your own Fraternity (and Sisterhood too) who, though they meddle little with prayer, (it is to be seared) any where, yet choose the streets, and Mar­ket-places to vent their pretended Declarations from God.

Your next Paragraph endeavours to fasten upon us the im­putation Sect. 6. of Persecuters, and upon your selves the character of Christian sufferers. To which, we shall say only thus much in this place, That we adore that gracious Providence which keeps us out of the reach of your malice; otherwise we are assured we should not be long without that persecution which you make the badge of true Ministers, for better Doctrines and pra­ctises, then those, which some of yours suffer for.

In the mean while, we have our shares sufficiently in the per­secution of your tongues, and hands, as far as you can, by im­poverishing us, and our Families, by detaining our just and le­gall subsistence, disturbing us in the exercise of our publick wor­ship, &c. which we suffer constantly from those of your fel­lowship and communion. What further needs to be spoken to this head, as it concernes your usage from us, will be taken up in its due place, and more largely debated with you hereaf­ter See Sect. 9, 10.

That we are not the Ministers of Christ, because we indent Sect. 7. for our maintenance, where we sit down in a charge, and that we sue for the tenth of their increase, those that owne us not for their Pastors, is the summe of your charge. To the first branch whereof, we can, divers of us, reject it as a meer slander: many Ministers in this Nation living upon as free a contribution­maintenance, as any of your selves, but in a more orderly way; Their people contribute to those Pastors that reside among them, and not to wandering Preachers, whose faces they sel­dome see, and from whose standing converse with, or inspecti­on over them they can receive no benefit. And others of us maintain many Lectures, either simply, or joyntly, for which we receive as little, as the Quakers themselves would wish. And as for those that either indent for maintenance, or enter upon the maintenance already setled by Law; we are sure they are not blame-worthy, for that, to gain the repute of Ministers, they do not prove themseles worse then Infidells, in not provi­ding for themselves and their Families, which the Apostles light makes a badge of one that hath denied the faith (the pro­per 1 Tim. 5. 8. character of some of yours, who wander up and down to the manifest and apparent ruine of themselves, and those that [Page 8] they are bound to provide for.) Nor are we at all startled at the practise of the Apostles under an extraordinary command, so confessed (in effect) by your selves in your own practise, (for why else do you not travell about to declare without Pur­ses, or Shooes on your feet, or Staves in your hands, commands immediatly subjoyning to that of giving freely what they had Mat. 10. 8, 9, 10. freely received, in the same place of Scripture) and appearing to be such; if we compare Luke 22. 36. where Christ in another exigency of time allowes them to make that provision for them­selves, which in the former command he forbad them. For we are sufficiently assured, that the Apostles themselves were main­tained by the Church in which they laboured, excepting only the Apostle Paul, and his companion Barnabas, and that only Act. 20. 34 See 2 Cor. 11. 7. v. 9. and 2 Thes. 3. 8, 9. at Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica, where (little to their credit too, if we mark the tart reflexions of the Apostle upon their sordidnesse) they wrought with their hands, for speciall reasons assigned in the Texts themselves; yet withall the said Apostle asserts it as an Ordinance of God (and that founded up­on reason, and Scripture too) that they that preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel; and withall affirmeth his owne and his brethrens power to have claimed the same from them, which they received from other Churches. We forbeare tran­scribing Texts, you may find this and more, 2 Thes. 3. 9. and 1 Cor. 9 from verse 6. to the end of the 14. which Scripture we observe in most of the Pamphlets published by the Adversa­ries of Ministers maintenance, is passed over with deep silence; and so expect it will be by you and your brotherhood, or an­swered by (the common refuge of Hereticks) the decrying of interpretations, and inferences upon Scripture. When you further urge the same Apostles practise, against coveting other mens sil­ver and gold, or apparell; We have nothing to object against you, provided that you will not call requiring that which is le­gally our own, a coveting that which is anothers: Surely no man holds the nine parts, by firmer Law in these Nations, then the Minister claimes his tenth by: And how can it then be more co­vetous in a Minister to sue for that which is his by Law, then in others to detain it from him without Law? so that we feare the coveting other mens silver and gold will lye at yours and [Page 9] your brethrens doores, and you will never be able to sweep it away.

The claiming a maintenance from those without, and exacting it of those that never heare us, which you further object against us, as a disparagement to our Ministeriall calling, comes under the See Sect. 18, 19, 20, &c. consideration of maintenance in the way of Tithes, which we re­fer to its proper place, where it falls in your discourse.

That some who beare the name of Ministers (and such Sect. 8. as we no lesse disown, then your selfe) live in darknesse, swearing, &c. (the declaiming against whom is the substance of your next Paragraph, and your fifth proof against our Cal­ling;) we confesse and bewaile, and did the anger that dwels in you and your brethren extend to none but those, who may justly come under that charge, we should vvillingly joyne with you in the prosecution of them; and do it where any such come within our reach. Yea vve further must professe, vve should be very glad, that some men in power among us, who are very favourable to your party, vvere as zealous against them as vve. We must freely declare that those that are indeed such, have been sheltred (upon prosecution) under the vvings of some such among us, & we verily believe it is in their hearts to vvish us all such, that they might have some colour to strike off the neck of the vvhole Ministry at a blow.

But vve must tell you (whilst vve are not all such, and now fewer such then formerly) that it is an injurious procedure in you, to reflect disparagement upon a vvhole Profession, for the fault of some that against their vvills joyne themselves to them: Should all the swearing, drunken, and o­therwise disorderly companions, that frequent the Quakers Assemblies, be reckoned among them, and all be judged by some, you vvould think it hard usage. We hope you vvill be conten­ted to buy by the same Bushell you sell withall.

But you are fain to come off from this charge as too gross to be generally laid upon the whole Ministry, with [are there not a great sort of you such?] and [are your hands all cleane from this filth?] only you come in vvith an after-charge against the rest in another Quaere, Viz. Among those of you that have es­caped that open pollution of drunkennesse with Wine, are you not [Page 10] yet intoxicated with wrath, and rage against the innocent. And you proceed, enquiring, Whether in the Prisons and Dungeons of England, Jesus Christ doth not as truly lye bound by our insti­gation and procurement (to wit, in those deare Servants of his the Quakers, who account it no robbery to be at least equall with their Master) as he did by the procurement of Saul in Damascus? And yet further, Whether if any poore Jeremiah came from the Lord to beare witnesse against our abominations (to vvit, in those abominable practises of instructing the people against the delu­sions of the times, vvhich is the greatest Antidote against that Plague of Error and Heresie, that is dispersed over all the Nati­on; and vvorshiping God according to the rule of his blessed vvord, and the light of our own consciences) Whether there be wanting among us a Lordly Pastor, who (in case the Magi­strate be so honest, (to wit, through cowardize, or luke-warm­nesse) as to refuse) will not with his owne hands put his feet in the Stocks? To vvhich vve say, vve know none of our Professi­on that take so much upon them, if you do, you may do vvell to discover them; and vve should be vvell contented for their paines, to see them set there a while themselves, till they learn to do their owne businesse. And then you catechize, us further in our rule (as with scorne enough you often cal the Scriptures, for which we must reckon with you at large anon.) Whether ever the true Prophets of the Lord did persecute or imprison any that were differing from them in matters of Religion? And Whether they be in Christs esteem Shepheards, or Wolves, who worry the Sheep instead of feeding them, &c? After vvhich you spend a great deale of rhetorick in anticipating the Judgment of Christ at the last day, as if you vvere already bespoken to be Clerk of the Ar­raignments against that Assise: In answer vvhereunto vve say no more but this; Judge not, that yee be not judged: And vve make no question, that if no better evidence be brought against us at that day, then any you yet offer, to prove those high Cri­minations; that our Not-guilty vvill be as good a plea (though vvithout a distinction) as your charge of Guilty vvill be an In­dictment vvithout a proof.

But supposing vve vvere (indeed) the Persecuters, the Sect. 10 Worriers, the Imprisoners, of those men of your right hand, [Page 11] provided, we were legally commissioned thereunto (which we hope we shall never desire for our selves, nor allow in o­thers of our Function) yet why all distinctions should be a plea so inconsistent with the Justice of that Court (as you intimate to us it will be) we know not. Nay, we have a little light from (our low rule) the Scripture, that perswades us there P. 4, 5. may be some use of them then. For in that short description of the last Judgment, whence you draw out a Copy of our Ar­raignment, not without some aggravating expostulations (viz. Mat. 25 41, 42. &c) we find the Judge distinguishing upon the Bench, to conclude the Offenders within the reach of the Law; For the wicked there indicted are brought in pleading their Not guilty, as to the neglect of relieving and visiting Christ in his own person. To take off which plea, and cleare the equity of his condemnatory sentence; he distinguisheth between him­selfe in his person, and himself in his little ones, or Members; and granting their plea as to the former, rejects it as to the la­ter. Now, surely we cannot believe that the Judge of the whole World will not at that great and solemn day, give us the latitude he takes to himself. If he distinguish upon the Law, he will allow us to distinguish upon the Indictment. We know not if we be indicted for worrying the Sheep; why we may not plead the Scripture distinction between Sheep indeed, and Wolves in Sheeps clothing; and if we can indeed prove that we worry no other, but disguised Wolves (upon which proof in­deed we are contented to lay the whole stresse of our present, and (we hope) future justification in this whole matter now in debate between us) we cannot but expect the same dis­charge at the Bar, which we should not doubt from humane e­quity, in case, being indicted for assaulting and beating a true Subject upon Salisbury plaines, we could make it appeare, that we beat only a Theef, and that upon our own necessary defence: So that indeed, all that outragious cry which you afterward make against the poore Presbyters for justifying the Scribes and P. 5. Pharisees, and the Lordly Bishops in former times (who, you perswade your self) had the same distinction to plead, for cru­cifying the Lord of Glory, and his precious Saints, and persecu­ting the Puritanes, &c. to wit, that they used them thus under [Page 12] the notion of blasphemous Hereticks and Deceivers) falls to the ground, if we can prove those whom we are charged to perse­cute, such as we take them to be. And this we doubt not to make good against you, and your brethren in the way of Qua­king, in the processe of this our book, and then shall leave the whole matter to our Lord, and yours, to judge between us at the great day of his appearing. But then you will allow us Sect. 11 (we hope) not to suffer you to phrase your own Indictment, as you do very dextrously and artificially, in favour of your self and your Generation, in the following Section of your Epistle; wherein you make your self, and your Reader pretty sport, by drawing up a ridiculous charge against your selves, and then set our names to it, as if we had made so great a cry (as you mention) for so little wooll, and had no matters of greater mo­ment to exhibit against you, then those which you will confesse against your selves. And yet we must tell you, that you were not very well advised (if you meant wholly to clear your selves from those imputations) to confesse so much as you do in many passages of your Book, which we shall deale with anon. Mean while we dare not let you alone to cousen the World in­to a good esteem of your opinions by your ambiguous expres­sions, and therefore we must crave your patience, if we come after you, and sift you, that by being first in your owne cause, Pro. 18. 17. you may not seem uprighter then indeed you are.

First, you take it ill to be charged as Blasphemers, for Sect. 12 affirming, that Christ is the light that enlighteneth every one that cometh into the world, and that he that followeth that light (your Jo. 8. 2. Text (by the way) saith, He that followeth me, and the words [that light] are your interpretation and meaning, which (were we as peevish as those of your way) we might reject) shall not walk in darknesse, but shall have the light of life; ad­ding further, that that light is sufficient to teach them and guide them to the Father: and thence ask for a close, What need then of our teachings?

We hope (seeing you stand upon your purgation) you will give us leave to ask you a few questions upon this Article.

1. Q. What light is that with which Christ enlightens every man? It is Christ himself (we would say, if you would give us [Page 13] leave for distinction sake) personally, or is it a light infused in him? If so,

2. Q. It is the light of bare reason in a reasonable Soule, or is it the discovery of himselfe by supernaturall revelation?

3. Q. Whether the meer light of reason be sufficient to lead all men, Heathens and all, to the Father savingly; or onely (as the place partially quoted in your next Article hath it) to that which may be known of him, by the things that are made, that they may be without excuse? or

4. Q. Whether if any meer Pagan live up to the naturall light of his own reason or conscience, God be bound to bestow upon him that farther light, which is sufficient to bring him to salvation?

Q 5. If Christ be (in your sence) the light of every one that comes into the World; why is it that Judas saith Jo. 14. 23. Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thy self to us, and not to the World?

And when you have answered (plainly and without equivo­cations) to these quaeres; possibly you may retort your clo­sing Quaere upon your selves: What need then of our teachings, as well as the Priests?

You would faine make us believe (in your next Arti­cle) Sect. 13 that you say no more in the case of the Heathens light, then the Apostle doth, Rom. 1. 19. 20. which is (as you render it) That that which may be known of God is manifest in their consciences (where again, though we contradict it not, yet we observe you can interpret, and give your meanings upon Scripture, though in us it be adding to the Scripture; for the Text saith no more but in them, or (as in your Margin) to them. (God having, say you farther, revealed it to them) [shewed] saith the Text, [revealed] is your meaning, because it makes more for your own turn; so that they not having a Law without them (interpretation again) they are a Law to them­selves, &c. Rom. 2. 14, 15.

Now you would insinuate, that you hold forth no more then the Scripture doth therein: Which whether you do or no, will appeare by your plaine and ingenuous answer to the former Quaeres. Mean while, we desire you to take notice. 1 That [Page 14] the words in the Text [That which may be known of God] im­plies, that there is something of God which may not be known to Heathens, as such; which is the way of being reconciled to him, and justified in his sight, through Christ Jesus, and other like Gospel discoveries of him, necessary to salvation. (2.) That the knowledge they have of him, is by the Apostle affirmed to be a light without them, as well as within them, for God shewes it to them by the things that are made. (3.) That if the Hea­thens (as you say) have only a Law within them, and none without them, we are little beholding to your principles, that would reduce us to the condition of Heathens, by setting up a light within us to the exclusion of a light without us. As also, (4.) That Quakers and Heathens may shake hands, seeing both of them live by the same Law, and the same light too.

You further insinuate (Artile 3.) that in the Do­ctrine Sect. 14. of perfection here below; you are falsely accused by us for blaspheming: Whereas you say no more then our Saviour himself commands, when he bids us be perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect; which commands, you say, is not given in Mat. 5. 48. mockery, or requires an impossibility. You add, that the same Christ spake truth, when he bore witnesse of Nathaniel, that he was an Israelite in whom was no guile: and that Paul did not Io. 1. 47. designe an impossibility when he laboured to present men perfect in Christ Jesus. And you would suggest that you affirm no more: Col. 1. 28. We answer, whether this be all you your self hold of perfecti­on, or no, we will not judge. But we shall shew you anon, that those of your perswasion are not altogether so modest. It is well if your self be so, when you will please to speak out, which we scarce believe you will do, in a charge against your self of your own drawing up. But we hope, you will allow us to ask you a few questions upon this Article also, seeing you stand upon your justification.

Q. 1. To what purpose is all this? Did any of your preten­ded Accusers ever accuse our Saviour Christ, for mockery or commanding impossibilities, in this command of perfection? or for falsehood in his commendation of Nathaniel? or the Apo­stle Paul for designing an impossibility.

2. Qu. Whether the perfection commanded by Christ, or that which is commended in Nathaniel, or aimed at by Paul, be a perfection of degrees, and that as high as that of God himself; or a perfection of kind, truth, or sincerity? Say not that we coine distinctions of perfection out of our own braine. Doth not the Scripture call Job a perfect man, Job 1. 1. and yet chap. 3. gives us a sad instance of his imperfections, and Job himself renoun­ceth perfection in himself, chap. 9. 20, 21. Doth not the Apostle Paul himself, in one chapter, affirms and deny himself to be per­fect, Phil. 3. 12. 15. And therefore (seeing, as we hope, you will not allow any contradictions in Scripture) there a necessi­ty to distinguish of different sences, wherein they affirme and deny. And if we distinguish amisse, we wish you, or your companions would do it better. Nay, we suppose both these sorts of perfection necessarily held forth in the Scriptures of your own quotation. For the command of our Saviour saies not, Be yee as perfect as your Father which is in Heaven, but Be yee perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. [Perfect as] doth not imply more then a perfection of the same kind, which perfection we professe, a perfection consisting in truth and sincerity of holinesse, the perfection of Nathaniel [as per­fect] denotes a perfection of degrees, which (in the compa­rison with an infinitely holy God) we deny to be attainable by any Creature, or to be asserted concerning any Creature, without highest blasphemy. But a perfection of degrees suita­ble to the capacity of finite Creatures, we hope for in Heaven; and a perfection of degrees suitable to the capacity of mortall creatures, we presse towards your selves, and endeavour with Paul, to present all our hearers unto Jesus Christ in the same at the last day.

4. About your forth Article concerning rejecting all mean­ings Sect. 15. and interpretations of Scripture, we shall take a more convenient time to reckon with you in a distinct Question sub­joyned hereunto. Only we make bold to ask you here also.

Qu. Whether [to interpret Christs and the Apostles sayings] be not injuriously reflected upon by you as a deniall that they meant as they spake? and whether a man may not mean as he speaks, and yet not to be understood without interpretation? [Page 16] we are so charitable to think that divers of the Familists and Quakers mean as they speak, and yet we cannot understand their meaning by their speaking, in divers odd phrases used by them, without interpretation; would you would give us a Lexicon of them.

5. Your fifth Article, we shall speak more largely to in Sect 16. this place. You say, that you and your Complices assert, that Christ did not speak one thing and intend another, when he commanded men not to sweare at all, but to let their yea, be yea, and nay, nay: Whereas we that are (scornfully enough) by you called Orthodox, do both sweare our selves, and teach others so to do. And you add the reason (as good a one as you please to allow us) because otherwise we might happily go without our maintenance, for want of swearers in Courts of Justice, against those Hereticks that refuse to pay us Tythes. And in your Mar­gin (to give us a touch of your learning, that we may take it for an act of self-deniall in your after-declared contempt there­of, and not an act of envious declaiming against the Grapes you cannot reach) you quote the Originall in that prohibition, [...], with this note, That it is a prohibition so univer­sall, that it admitteth of no exception. Upon which Article we first observe two things.

1. That it was very warily done of the Founders of the Qua­king Religion, who are by many judicious men supposed to be Papists, to insert an Article in their new Creed, to excuse them from being discovered, by refusing the Oath of Abjuration, which they may (under the shelter of your Principles) do, and yet passe undiscovered. Secondly we quaere,

We observe secondly, that the Quakers refusing to sweare according to the Ceremony now required in England, of kissing the Bible, and swearing by the contents of that Book, is suitable to their Doctrine; that the Scriptures are not our rule, and (by consequence that God will not judge us according to the con­tents of the Bible; so that to call God to witnesse according to the contents of that book, according to which they conceive he will not judge, were absurd. It may be if a new forme of an Oath, such as by the light within them, were required, they might be perswaded to sweare.

Qu. 1. Whether our Saviour Christ spake or intended any thing which might clash with the expresse command of God elsewhere? And if not, then surely Christs words in this place must not be taken so unlimitedly as you say, seeing we find a command Deut. 5. 13. Thou shalt feare the Lord thy God, and sweare by his name. So also Deut. 10. 20.

Qu. 2. Whether our Saviour Christ forbid any part of Gods morall Worship, or no? If not, then we are assured he forbids See Jer. 4. 2. & Is. 45. 23. which peculiarly concerneth us, as re­ferring to Gospel times, and is therefore quoted by the Apostle, Rom. 14. 21. with such a variation of the phrase swearing, into confessing, as plainly proves, that to sweare by God is sometimes a necessary part of our confession and acknowledgment of him. not swearing without any exception. For we find it frequently made a part of Gods morall Worship to sweare by his name, and it is also joyned in the mentioned Scriptures with fearing and serving God.

Qu. 3. Whether our Saviour Christ cut off by this command any necessary meanes of deciding controversies between man and man, or confirming truth in matters of testimony? If so, surely he would thereby have rendred his Doctrine justly ob­noxious, as being destructive to humane society: If not, we are certain he forbids not all swearing without exception: for the Epistle to the Hebrewes tells us that an Oath of confirmati­on is an end of all strife, Heb. 6. 16.

Q. 4. Whether the Author in his former Article, setting forth God as a Pattern of perfection to us, doth not therein al­low us in some Cases to sweare? seeing we are told, Heb. 6. 17. that God himself allowes himself to sweare for those ends, for which an Oath is legally used by men, viz. for confirmation of his word.

Q. 5. Whether without swearing upon the call of a Magi­strate, all mens estates be not as liable to prejudice, as the main­tenance of the Ministry? And whether cheating companions will not be as prone to take the same advantage against other men, in case there was no judiciall Oathes required, as it seems (by the Authors confession) Hereticks would against poor Mi­nisters? except we must take it for granted, that every mans [Page 18] yea, yea, and nay, nay, is as a sufficient security in this case of te­stifying the Truth judicially, as a solemn Oath.

Q. 6. Whether Abraham did well or ill, to require an Oath of his Servant, Gen. 24. 3. Jacob of Joseph, 50. 5. Nehemiah of the Jewes, Neh. 13 25. Or (if you evade these examples, as being before Christ) whether the Apostle Paul did well or ill to sweare, Gal. 1. 20. &c.

In a word, this Doctrine of the unlawfulnesse of swearing in Sect. 14 any case, is a fragment of the old Germane Anabaptists, a Generation of men against whom the Magistrates saw sufficient cause to dispute with the Sword of Justice, for being publick enemies to humane Society: and it concernes you to take heed that the Magistracy of England may never have the like provo­cation to follow their example against their genuine issue, the Quakers, and other Sectaries among us.

But (least you should seem justly to charge us with swearing our selves, and teaching others to do so, contrary to the command of Christ) we must, in the close, let you know how we sweare, and allow others to do so; and what swearing we forbeare our selves, and preach downe among them, in obedience to Christs command: We must tell you, that being lawfully cal­led to witnesse to truth upon Oath, before a Magistrate, we shall not our selves refuse to sweare, that is (according to the forme required in Law) to call God to witnesse that we lye not: But in our communication, or ordinary discourse, we desire, both we and our hearers, may keep to our yea, yea, and nay, nay, as Christ commands, and not to sweare at all, because we dare not take, or allow others to take the name of God in vaine. And this we suppose to be all that our Saviour intends in that Prohibition, that in our communication we should not sweare at all. If any one be not convinced hereof by what we have said, let him reconcile our Saviours Prohibition, to the precepts and examples before pleaded some other way, and

—Phyllida solus habeto,

He shall gaine the cause in this point.

Your following three Articles, viz. 6. 7, 8. are all concerning Sect. 18 Tythes and forced maintenance, wherein the summe and upshot of all, shewes your charity to the poore Ministery, that you [Page 19] would faine have them reduced to the condition of the unjust Steward, that is, either to work, or beg. For working, we suppose (in such a Generation, as God hath now east us into) we shall not want) whilest besides the ordinary attendance up­on our charges, which the Apostle Paul accounted a work, and a great one too, 1 Thes. 5. 13. Eph. 4. 12. and such as none will be too forward to intrude into, that sufficiently understands the weight of it, 2 Cor. 2. 16. The work of a Builder, a Sower, 1 Cor. 3. 10. Mar. 4. 13: 1 Cor. 3. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 6. Jo. 21. 26. Heb. 13. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 3 P. 40. a Planter, an Husbandman, a Shepheard, a Watohman, a Soul­dier:) We are called upon to answer every idle rayling Paper, that you, and your companions send us. But (seeing you ac­count this no work) it seemes you would have us worke with our hands, or beg: An hard Law, for men that have been bred in a way of humane Learning, which elsewhere, you seem to al­low some use in the World, it may serve to tile the house, you confesse, and in that place you are content it shall stand. But surely should this Law of yours take place [that those that have been bred to study, must have no subsistence but by handy work, or begging] I feare the next Generation would yeild few Tiles to keep the house in repaire, so that it would quickly drop through, and you, as well as others, would not be able to lye dry in it: For who will give his Children ingenuous Edu­cation at the Schooles of Learning, and set them there to spend the flower of their youth in acquiring humane literature; when the highest preferment they could expect after ten or twenty yeares Study, would be either to work, or beg? would not, e­very one conclude it better to set their Sons to some Trade or other, in their youth, that so at the end of seven yeares they might be able to get a livelyhood at their fingers ends, or turne them a begging in their Childhood, rather then maintain them twice seven yeares at Schoole, and University, to come thence to be preferred to a certain beggary, as being the only lot of the two, like to befall them, who are utterly to learne to work, having never been bred thereunto?

But the measure you mete unto us, is harder yet: You that will have us work, or beg, will not allow us to carry so much as a Purse to put our Wages in, when we have earned it, nor a Scrip to put our Almes in, when we have begged it; but to [Page 20] live as the Sparrowes do, that digest one meales meat in seeking where to get another. I suppose, should God call us to that condition either by an extraordinary command, as Christ did his Lu. 10. 7. Apostles in the place you quote, or by an extraordinary provi­dence (as we suspect in case you can compasse your fifth Mo­narchy, it would befall us) we should not want faith to trust him, who feeds the Sparrowes, and clothes the Lillies; whether in a way of working, as we are able, or asking the charity of o­thers, when disabled: We have learned a distich of learned and honest Musculus, which he made when the fury of the Germane Anabaptists (your Predecessors) turned him out of his Pulpit, and maintenance, and enforced him to weave and dig for a sub­sistence for himself and his Family.

Which for the sake of your Brethren, who (whatsoever you are) are no great friends to Latine, we shall english.

But we question yet further, whether you, that would re­quire Sect. 19 us to follow precisely the Apostolicall example in that Chapter, will not yet go further then this, in your rigorous ex­actions. Suppose we should work without a Purse, and beg without a Scrip at your command, what security will you give us, that you will not make us work, and beg barefoot too. For if your Text concern us, we cannot see how we may be al­lowed Shooes to our feet, more then Purses and Scrips; and then possibly we might please you better, seeing we should be more like your good friends, the Franciscan Friers, who are the only men that we have heard of, since our Saviour sent out the Apostles upon that extraordinary errand, who have thought themselves concerned to walk by that rule: Where­fore if you must have Ministers of that character, you are most likely to fit your selves among them.

For our parts, we blesse God that yet provides better for us, and whilest he continues to do so, we shall not think a professi­on of voluntary Monkish poverty, our duty to undertake, see­ing we dare not take Gods Gifts, and throw them back into his face, by contemning the gracious allowance of his providence.

As for the way of our subsistence by Tythes and forced main­tenance, Sect. 20 you will needs make it unlawfull as being (you say) a Leviticall Ordinance, and (as you add in your Book, where P. 13. you againe serve in this Crambo) appointed as an inheritance to the Priests and Levites for their service in the Tabernacle and Temple: and thereupon you proceed to ask these Quaeries in your Book.

• 1. Whether Christ was not the end of the Leviticall Priest­hood?
• 2. Whether he that upholdeth that which was to have an end in Christ, do not deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and consequently is Antichrist?
• 3 Whether they that claime Priests and Levites Mainte­nance ought not to do their work?

And this indeed is the summe of all that you say to this point; (for as to forcing the payment of maintenance by Law, it will stand or fall with the maintenance it selfe:) Concerning this we shall have a little debate with you.

And first, we desire you to understand, that Tithes were paid before ever the Leviticall Priesthood was appointed. Sure­ly Abrahams Victory over the Kings, and Jacobs Vow were be­fore the Leviticall Ordinances were set up, many hundreds of yeares.

If you object (what we frequently meet withal from the men of your principles) that these were voluntary Acts in those Pa­triarchs. However we observe it was lawfull to give and re­ceive them then; and it lies on you to prove when it became unlawfull.

But further, we demand by what light they walked in so doing? was it by a Light without them, some traditionall rule received from their godly Ancestors? If so, then it was a voluntary obe­dience to a Law; Tradition being their Law: If by a light with­in them, some immediate motion from God so to do; then we [Page 22] say; that by the same inward light, were those Kings and Prin­ces, and other Proprietors of Lands that gave Tythes in this Nation, long before Popery began, moved to dedicate the Tithes of their Lands to God for ever. And so we receive them by the same Title with those to whom they were then paid, excepting the consideration of Melchizedeck as he was a Type of Christ, which yet confirmes our Title, as you shall see anon.

And moreover we must tell you, that the very reason which God gives for his making that allowance to Levie's Posterity afterwards, is the Title that he had to them precedent to Levi's, whence the Levites themselves were first to offer them to the Numb. 18. 24, 25, &c. Lord, and then they were to enjoy them as from God; and therefore Mal. 3 8. 9. when the people through covetousnesse then withdrew them, as now some do, God himself enters an Indictment against them: Yee have robbed me, saith he, in Tithes and Offerings; not Levi, but Me: So that they were Gods by a peculiar claime and Title, and the Levites held them from him, not from the people; and therefore they were to bring them into a Store-house in the Temple; as Mede a learn­ed Mede on Act. 5. 34. Antiquary well observes, and gives the reason from Philo the Jew, to wit, that he might thereby take away all occasion from the people, of upbraiding the Priests, as if they were maintained at their charge, God first claiming them, and then demising them to the Priests, their maintenance became (as Philo saies) [...], A Gift that reflected no shame upon the recei­vers, who thereby became Gods Eleemosynaries, or Almes-men, not the Peoples.

But it may be you will say, that the first claime which God Sect. 21 made to Tythes, was then, when he gave them to Levi, and so they were not more anciently Gods, then the other Leviticall Offerings. So that God claiming them then first, that he might bestow them on the Jewish Priests, they are since the abolish­ing of that Administration no more due then Sacrifices.

For answer whereunto, we refer you to Mr. Ainsworth, a man very well versed in Jewish Antiquities (and one that should be Answ. on Gen. 14. 19. more esteemed by you being a friend to separation) who tells you expresly, that Abrahams and Jacobs payment of Tythes was but according to their duty; as a signe of Tribute and Ho­mage [Page 23] to God, as Soveraign Lord and King. And Abraham par­ticularly in his payment of Tythes to Melchizedek, walked by the equity of that rule, which the Apostle afterwards left on record, in expresse termes, Rom. 15. 27. That it was but meet, that he being made partaker of Melchizedeks spirituall things, should minister to him in carnall things. And he further gives us some light to conclude that this Custome of Tythe-paying, was by nature implanted in the hearts of men, or at least derived by Tradition from the Patriarchs. Because even the Heathens (who you say, have the light of Christ in them) paid Tythes to their Gods, which practise surely they did not take up of the Jewes (they did not love them so well) but from some higher Originall. He quotes the Athenians from Diog. Laertius, and the ancient Latines, from Pomponius Loetus, and Macrobius, for instances.

Sir, we had not suffered our Pens to expatiate into this field Sect. 22 of humane Learning, but that we deale with you, who professe an allowance of it in its place; and we suppose it is not out of place, in the search of Antiquities, especially when the question is concerning the Origine, or beginning of Tythes, which you say (at least as commanded) is in the Leviticall Priesthood, we, before it.

But we do not lay the weight of our dispute in this particu­lar Sect. 23 upon this foundation. We shall debate the question with you a little more closely, from your own Chapter which you ap­peal to in this case, viz. Heb. 7. And because the strength of all the Quaeries thence lies in v. 12. which asserts a necessary change of the Law, upon the change of the Priesthood from the order of Aaron, to that of Melchizedek; we desire you first to consi­der, that it is not necessary to be granted, that by the Law there said to be changed must be meant the Law of Tythes, but the Law of Priesthood; that Law, that set up Levi's Posterity for Priests, which Law differs from that of Tythes very much. However, that Scripture vvill not stead you vvithout interpre­tation, and that you renounce.

But to gratifie you, vve vvill suppose your meaning and in­terpretation, Sect. 24 for once (though that be more favour then you vvill shevv us:) and upon your ovvn supposition, try one Ar­gument [Page 24] with you, and that is this.

If the abolition of the Law of Tithes depend upon the abolition of the Priesthood, to which they were due; then (vve hope you vvill allow us that) if the Priesthood to which Tithes were once due (and that before the Leviticall Priesthood) be not abolished, the Law of Tithes to that Priesthood is not abolished.

But we shall prove that the Priesthood to which Tithes were once due, and that long before the Leviticall Priesthood was in be­ing, is not abolished, vvhich if vve do, vve hope vve may be al­lowed to conclude

Therefore there is no abolishment of the Law of Tithes, but it is still in force.

That the Priesthood to vvhich Tithes vvere originally due is not abolished, vve prove thus from the same Chapter.

The Priesthood to which Tithes were (before the Leviticall Priesthood) due, was the Melchizedekian Priesthood. But the Melchizedekian Priesthood, or Priesthood after the order of Mel­chizedek is not abolished, For it is Christs Priesthood, Heb. 16, 17, verses. Therefore the Priesthood to which Tithes were original­ly due, is not abolished.

All that we suppose herein is to be proved, is, that Tithes were due to Melchizedeks order of Priesthood, and so still re­maine Sect. 25 due to Christ, vvho is a Priest for ever after that or­der.

Now for proofe of this, vve refer you higher in the same Chapter, viz. to v. 4. and thence down to the 10. And vve desire you to consider vvith us these three reasons from the Text, to prove that Abraham paid Tithes to Melchizedek as a due.

1. You pretend to skill in the Originall Tongue, and there­fore you vvill not be offended if vve argue from it, as you do more then once, or twice. Abraham (in the Apostles phrase) [...], v. 9 [...], v. 6. [...]. v. 5. is said to be Tithed by Melchizedek, and Melchizedek to tithe him, v. 6. 9. vvhich is the very same vvord Originally, vvith that vvhich is vsed in the Sons of Levi's tithing of the people by com­mandment, v. 5. Now if the word as applied to the Levites, sig­nifie to require Tithes, as it doth, it seems unlikely it was used vvith relation to Melchizedek, to denote a receiving of Tithes by way of gratuity only.

2. We desire you to consider the scope of the Apostle in that place, vvhich is to advance Melchizedeks Priesthood, as an Order superiour to Levi's. This the Apostle proves, because Levi himself in Abrahams loynes paid Tithes to Melchizedek. v. 9. Now had Melchizedek received Tithes from Levi, in Abra­hams loynes, as of courtesie only, and not of debt; it would have been a poore argument to prove Melchizedek a greater Priest, vvhich vvill as vvell prove a Beggar a greater man then a Prince, because the Beggar receives from him, it may be, a summ of money out of his courtesie.

3. We desire you to consider that Abraham paid the Tithe to Melchizedek, with relation to his blessing of him, which was an act of his Priestly Office, and shewed Melchize­dek to be Abrahams, and so Levi's superiour, v. 6, 7. So that Melchizedek as a Priest, received tithes of Abraham, and Christ in Melchizedek, received them from both Abraham and Levi: which (possibly) may be the reason, why God reserved (e­ven under the Law) the tenth of the Tithes, as an acknowledg­ment or high rent to Christ, the Priest, after the order of Mel­chizedek, to shew that Levi held them of him. Numb. 18. 26, 27, 28. which tenth therefore was to be given to Aaron the high Priest, who was a Type of Christ.

Possibly you may (according to the garb of your Genera­tion) Sect. 26 reject these things as our dark reasonings. But seeing your owne Assertions and Quaeres lead us hereunto, we hope you will take them into your consideration; at least; so far as to shew us the darknesse of them. In a word, you may here gather our Answer to your three Quaeres before mentioned, viz. to the

First; That we grant an end of the Leviticall Priesthood in Christ.

To the second, That in upholding Tithes, we uphold not that which was to have an end in Christ. Tithes being no necessary ap­pendant to that Priesthood, but Christs.

To the third, That we receive not Tithes upon that account, but as Ministers of Christ, live upon Christs portion; which, till our former arguments be answered, we suppose Tithes to be: and therefore are not by receiving them obliged to Leviticall [Page 26] service, but Gospell-administrations.

These things we have a little enlarged upon, to let you know Sect. 27 that we are not altogether so destitute of Scripture-warrant for receiving, yea, requiring Tythes, even in kind, as you (insul­tingly enough) insinuate us to be: Whether these arguments conclude the divine right of Tythes, or no, deserves the consideration of abler men, then you, or we, to vvhom vve humbly submit our conceptions herein. However, supposing the Law of Tythes be as you say, Leviticall, and meerly so, in its originall and rise; yet how you will prove that Law repea­led, so that it becomes unlawfull for any Proprietor of Land since that administration ceased, to set apart the same propor­tion of the incomes and profits thereof, for the maintenance of a Gospell Ministry, vve know not; vve are sure the Apostle Paul did not think the maintenance of the Leviticall Priesthood so Jewish as you do, vvhen he makes it one of the grounds of that Gospel-ordinance for Ministers maintenance, 1 Cor. 9. 13, 14. Do you not know, that they which Minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple? &c. Even so hath the Lord or­dained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gos­pell; and that is neither by working, nor begging.

But then say you, this maintenance should not be compul­sive, Sect. 28 to be recovered by Law, especially from the poore and needy, &c. For the true Prophets and Ministers of Christ mentioned in Scripture, did not so live on forced substance, but ate and drank what the people gave.

We answer (1.) That any of us should force maintenance from the poore and needy by Law, we confesse it in matter of fact, blameworthy, because in cases of indigency, and necessi­ty, it is every mans duty to relax and remit a just debt; but in matter of right, no mans legall Title falls, because of any such inability. So that you must first prove, that Ministers have no legall right to their Tenth, and then to force it from any, were sinfull; till which, vve shall conceive it in it self as lawfull for a Minister to sue for his Tenth, as for another man to put in suit a just Bond.

2. That the Ministers of Christ mentioned in Scripture, did not thus, was, because they had not the same legall right, back­ed [Page 27] with the power of a Christian Magistrate: or, because they were inforced to forbeare that claime among sorbid people, who loved their Purses better then the Gospell, 1 Cor. 9. 12. and truly some of us, to sweeten perverse Opinionists, are faine to remit much of our legall due to those that are able to pay well enough.

3. What you call forcing by Law, if you mean it of the Law of man, you condemne not us, but the publike Justice. If you mean it of the Law of God, you had best ask the Apostle Paul, what he meanes in the same verse, by using, or not using a power of claiming maintenance from the people. If others be partakers, saith he, of this power, Viz. Of requiring mainte­nance for teaching, are not we rather? neverthelesse, we have not used this power. And when he tells the Thessalonians, That he might have been burthensome to them, as the Apostles of Christ, 1 Thes. 2. 6.

As for your other objection against us, that vve do not trust Sect. 29 Gods providence, but indent for a maintenance. We answer, That we do not understand, how dependance upon divine pro­vidence comes to be inconsistent with using humane. You will think it an hard case, if all the poore in the Country should come about you, and require you to lend your Estate among them, hoping for nothing againe (which is as plaine Scripture Luke 5. 34, 35. as that you urge us vvithall in this case) and if you should deny them so unreasonable a request, they should tell you you are no Christian, because you do not trust Gods providence; we doubt in such a case, you would take shelter under some distinctions or other, as ill as you like them in the men of your scorne and wrath, the poore Ministers.

In the ninth Article, you excuse your bold censures of our Sect. 30 hearts, in calling us Hypocrites, upon some pretended reasons, as your selfe calls them, and vve for our parts believe them no o­ther.

In the first reason, you justifie the charge vvith a meer slan­der, Viz. That vve preach against pride, and yet live in it, and co­vetousnesse, and yet are greedy of filthy lucre, &c. Those that do so, vve disowne, and those that do not so (as thousands in this Nations do not) you belye.

Secondly, You say, vve are Hypocrites, because we often tell people, we should have proceeded further if time had not prevented us, when as indeed we have no more to say. How many Mini­sters have told you, they have been drawn so dry, that you thus charge us? It may be you did so vvhen you vvere a Preacher, so you measure other mens Corne by your owne Bushell.

Your third reason is, because in our prayers before Sermon, we frequently beg that he would put words into our mouthes, and teach us what to say, where as even then we have our Sermon-notes either in our Pockets, or our Bibles, or the platforme of our dis­course prepared in our heads.

As for our Sermon-notes, those of us that use them, are faine to do so many times, when they vvould not, because they have to do with such a captious Generation as yours, vvho vvould make no conscience of making them say, vvhat they do not, by mis-reports, had they not their owne papers to justifie them­selves. And yet vve know not why vve may not vvrite Notes, as vvell as you write Books; vve suppose that posterity is no lesse beholden to some Ministers Notes, then to yours.

But your quarrell is not against Sermon-notes only, but against all premeditated discourse. Indeed those that can give themselues liberty to talk. at the rate that your companions do, need not meditate much for vvhat they say; A man may safely say that heares you, that you are not guilty of premedi­tated discourses. But vve for our parts conceive Meditation a very Ministeriall exercise, else Paul would not have required it from Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 15. Immediatly after his charge, v. 13. to give attendance to exhortation, doctrine, he subjoynes, me­ditate on these things. It seemes the Apostle and you are of se­verall minds in this particular, as well as in point of Ministers maintenance.

But we wonder (whatsoever may be said against those that have, and use written-notes) how this reason of yours militates against those that have only the platforme of their discourse pre­pared in their heads, that they must needs be judged Hypocrites for praying to God to put words into their mouthes. May not a man that pre-meditates his matter, sometimes be at a losse for words? And may he not pray, that God would furnish him [Page 29] with expressions, who finds himself so, without hypocrisie?

And as for those that use Sermon-notes, might not they ex­presse themselves more aptly sometimes then they write? And why then may they not pray, that God would supply them with apter language, upon the service they are called unto, then they have prepared of themselves? We believe there are no godly Ministers, but find this assistance frequently, God di­recting their tongues to considerable alterations, and enlarge­ments beyond what they have before them, and bringing ma­ny things to their memories, concerning which they had no actuall pre-meditation.

Your tenth Article brings in an Indictment of Felony against Sect. 31 poore Ministers, for quoting of the Fathers and Expositers of the Scripture; and this you think will justifie you against an action of slander, for calling us Theeves and Robbers. But we desire you to consider,

Q. 1. Whether Augustine, and Hierome, and Calvin, and Lu­ther, be more unlawfull to be quoted by us, then Seneca, an Heathen Philosopher, by you.

Q. 2. Whether our Saviour Christ quoting Moses and the Prophets, Peter quoting Paul, and Jude, Enoch, yea Paul himself quoting Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, Hea­then Act. 17. 28 1 Cor. 15. 33. Tit. 1. 12. Poets, do not as much fall under your charge of Thievery, as we, for quoting those you mention?

Q. 3. Whether a man may not receive that from the Lord, which he gathers from the writings of other men? Surely you suppose the Readers that can find leasure enough, to look over your Pamphlet, will receive some light thereby. If not, why do you publish it? If so, is that light from God, or from your selfe, or from the Devill? We suppose you will not say, you write either your owne Dreames, or Satanicall suggestions. And if you say, from the Lord, then we hope the Lord may as well speak to us, by Austine, Hierome, Calvin, or Luther, as by you to your Proselites.

Q. 4. Whether we may not as well quote the words of these men, and yet say, hearken to the word of the Lord, as you receive your principles, railings, evasions, modes, and practises, from George Fox, and James Naylor? and yet cry the word of the Lord to your Proselites?

Q. 5. Whether you be not your selves under the same con­demnation, who superscribe your Quaeres (which you send us now and then) from the spirit of the Lord, and call them the word of the Lord to us, when we can produce the printed Books of others of your Fraternity, whence they are most of them stollen word for word. T. C. his Quaeres to one of us, borrowed to a Title out of a Book dire­cted to all that would know the way to the Kingdom, Excepting false eng­lish. Sect. 32

To your eleventh Article, wherein you justifie your confi­dence, in advising us to preach no more to the people, then the Lord hath spoken to us, and then we our selves witnesse the life and power of in our selves. We say, that tis true, your are noted for confidence enough, and none more then your female Declarers, who for such a scolding religion, as yours is, are very well furni­shed with a Billingsgate confidence. Concerning whom (by the way) we will be bold to examine you upon a few Interrogato­ries.

Q. 1. Whether the Spirit of God ever did act any persons with a boldnesse and confidence, that breaks the Lawes of Na­ture, and Civility?

Q. 2. Whether your Prophetesses that come to declare in publick Assemblies, and some of them sometimes naked, As at Whitehall not long since, and elsewhere. Jer. 3. 3. do not break the Lawes of Nature, and civility.

Q. 3. Whether such immodest practises, be not too great evidences against many of them, that they are so far from Reli­gion, that they have much corrupted the principles of common honesty? And whether such brazen-faced impudency in such, be not in the language of Scripture, an Whores forehead?

Q. 4. Whether Pauls light or yours be better, who saith, Let the woman learne in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, 1 Tim. 3. 11. 12. Whereas you allow your women to teach in our Assemblies, and your owne, and in the very Streets and Market-places, and to usurp Authority over us, who take our selves to be men, charging us to speak no more in the name of the Lord, &c.

And what confidence emboldens the rest of you to come into our Assemblies, and against the wills of the Officers, to deliver your rayling charges there, to the disturbance of whole Con­gregations, your selves best know. Only this we desire to know of you,

Q. 1. Whether Christ, or his Apostles ever practised the like liberty, in the Synagogues of the Jewes, without leave first ob­tained from the Rulers? We find not that our Saviour Christ at Nazareth, opened his mouth to speak to the people in the Synagogue till the Minister delivered him the Book, in token of the liberty granted him to teach there, Luke 4 17. 20. And we find the Apostle Paul, and his companion Barnabas at Anti­och, sate down and were silent, till the Rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them and gave them liberty, Act. 13. 14, 15. And yet supposing they did; their miraculous gifts were a sufficient de­monstration that they had an higher authority. We see no such in any of you.

Q. 2. Whether you be not herein so confident, as to offer vi­olence to that very Article of the Government by which you yourselves claime liberty; in disturbing those, who (as profes­sing faith in God by Jesus Christ) are worshiping him accord­ing to their Consciences?

Q. 3. Whether it be not an apparant designe of Satan, to imploy such confident men and women, to make such disturbances at such a time, when people should go home and meditate up­on what they have heard, to hinder and divert them.

But you think that you have warrant for all this confidence, Sect. 33 because you only advise us to preach no more to the people then the Lord hath spoken to us, &c. Which advice of yours, were it delivered in a sober, private, Christian way, we hope we should take well at your hands, and do assure you, that we will (to our utmost ability) practise accordingly. But we doubt, that so much will not satisfie, except we renounce what God speaks to us in the written word, and hearken for Gods voice in unwrit­ten revelations. In which sense, we must professe, we think it were great boldnesse indeed in you, to require us not to preach more then God hath spoken to us: Seeing you undertake to for­bid what God requires, and our Saviour Christ and his Apostles accordingly practised. The Apostle to Timothy tells him and us, that, the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, &c. To what purpose is the Scripture avouched to be profitable for Doctrine, if we may raise no Doctrines from it? for reproof, correction, and in­struction, [Page 32] if we may not lay it as the ground of all these, 2 Tim. 3. 16. And in the same Epistle chap. 2. 2. he commands Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithfull men, who shall be able to teach others also. Had your quaking Generation been on foot then, would they not have had the confidence to charge Ti­mothy to speak nothing to the people but what he had heard from God immediatly? and those that received Pauls Do­ctrine at the second hand, from Timothy much more? But whe­ther the Apostle Paul, or you be to be obeyed, let sober men judge.

Sure we are that our Saviour Christ himself took for his Text, what the Lord had many years before spoken to the Prophet I­saiah, Luke 4. 17. 18. And for the Apostles and Apostolicall men, we find them preaching those things which they learned from the Scriptures: Apollos, Act. 18. 28. shewed by the Scrip­tures, that Jesus was the Christ. And when the great question concerning Circumcision, and the Mosaicall observances, was started among the Apostles and Elders, Act. 15. James quotes the word of the Lord to Amos, v. 16, 17. in that Assembly. And the Apostle Paul, Act 26. before Agrippa and Festus professeth, He in all his Doctrine, witnessed, saying none other things, then those which the Prophets and Moses did say; So that he preached the word that was spoken to Moses and the Prophets, and yet none that we read of, charged him to cease from preaching more then God had immediatly spoken to him. And we hope, we may safely disobey your councels or commands herein, under the protection of such great examples.

As for the other part of your advice to us, that we preach no more then we our selves witnesse the life and power of, within our Sect. 34 selves: We would hope you mean Orthodoxly in it; to wit, that we practise what we preach; w^ch if it be all you intend herein, we assure you we do, and we hope shall be enabled by grace to do so more and more. But when we look upon the papers of others of your brethren, we doubt you mean, we must not preach any thing of the Histories and Prophesies of the Scrip­ture See faith full disco­very of mysticall Antichrist, pag. in their literall sense, but only the experiences of the Alle­goricall senses their teachers fasten upon them, within our selves. A brief Scheme of which Allegoricall experiences, we [Page 33] find in two Quakers discourses, related at large by John Tol­dervy, Foot out of the snare, p. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, &c. out of which, that it may be known, what the Quakers your brethren would have us witnesse in our selves, and then preach; we shall draw a short Catechisme, as faithfully, as ac­cording to our understanding we can.

Q. 1. What is the word? P. 5.

Answ. Life, or the substance whence the Scriptures are spoken.

Q. 2. What are the Scriptures?

A. A declaration from the word of life.

Q. 3. What is this substance the word of life?

A. The measure of God manifested in man; the Gift of the holy Spirit manifested in flesh, made known in all.

Q. 4 What is the Garden of Eden? P. 1. 1

A. The World.

Q 5. What are the Trees of this Garden?

A. All living beings.

Q. 6. Why so?

A. Because they have their being of God by somewhat of him­selfe that proceedeth out of the earth, God the life.

Q. 7. Where is Paradise?

A. In man.

Q. 8. How did man fall?

A. By hearkning to the weaker.

Q. 9. What is that weaker?

A. The fleshly mind.

Q. 10. Did not the Woman tempt him?

A. Woman is that silliest and weakest part.

Q. 11. What was Adam?

A. The earthly nature in man.

Q. 12. What is the Redeemer of man?

A. The light by which he is given to see sin, and enabled by it, if obeyed, to be redeemed from sin.

Q. 13. Where is this Redeemer?

A. In every particular man.

Q 14. Is not that person the Son of God that died at Jeru­salem, this Redeemer?

A. No.

These and the like are the Doctrines which in the sense of some of your companions we must witnesse the life and power of in our selves, i. e. These Allegoricall experiences of the my­stery of Scripture, as they call it, before we preach to others. Whether you be of this mind or no, we know not. But we fear you deale as partially and subtilly in drawing up this Article, as you do in many of the rest, to hide the grosenesse of your Doctrines from the people. What followes in this Arti­cle is a consequence fancied by you, that would follow, if we should herein follow your advice; Viz, That either constant si­lence or rare preaching would be found in our Congregations, &c. And we think so too, if we have hit upon your meaning in that advice: For we have no warrant to expect immediate re­velations at all, much lesse constantly; and lesse warrant to al­legorize Scripture into such odd and wretched conceits, and then preach them to the people.

If your meaning be as you speak, and as at first sight we Sect. 35 were willing in charity to suppose, we believe your Congrega­tions, would (should your teachers be tyed up to the same Law) be in as deep silence as any of ours We cannot suppose that the Lord, or experience speaks to most of you, those mad doctrines of which we have given you a tast before, and shall give you more anon. And we know, that there are of you that preach down pride, and yet are proud, most insolently proud, most pharisaically proud, if Christ describe pride aright, Luke 18. 9. There are that preach down persecution, and yet are to their power the most malicious Persecuters of all that are not as themselves; divers of you that preach down idlenesse, and tell poore Ministers, that if they will not worke, they must not eat; yet themselves walk up and down the Land, and like lazy Lurdens, or Drones, eat the fat, and drink the sweet at the charges of their deluded Entertainers, till (as we have had up­on credible information, a sad example lately not far from this place) they eat their Wives and Families out of doores: So that if you preach no more then you witnesse the life and power of in your selves, we should heare fewer declamations against the pride, and tythes, and persecution of the Ministry, and then what would your praters do for matter to entertaine their Hearers withall?

Your twelfth Article sets up (plaine enough) the revelation Sect. 36 of the Spirit, in opposition to all humane studies, but especially to those which are used in our Ʋniversities. We for our parts, judge they may very well go hand in hand. We do not find but that learning and grace together, make the best Preachers. We do not say, that learning alone is sufficient to discover the mind of God; but yet we believe that (if his mind be to be under­stood by his words) the understanding of his words, may be some help to the understanding of his mind. And surely, some parts of his mind are not to be understood without the help of that Learning which we call humane learning, either infused, or acquired. He that can understand Pauls Epistles without Logick, divers parts of Ezekiell, and the Revelation without Mathematicks; divers peices in Moses and Job without naturall Philosophy; Isaiah, or the Psalmes, without Rhetorick, &c. we will believe is indeed inspir'd by God. But we consider your Generation allow no discovery of the mind of God by Scriptures, and therefore it is no wonder if you will not allow any use of learning to draw that thence, which you will not be­lieve was ever there.

But whereas you appeale to the practise of Paul and Peter, Sect. 37 as evidence against the usefulnesse of Ʋniversity-learning in this way. We know (for one of them) Paul he was bred at the feet of Gamaliel, and made good use afterwards of the great learning he got there, not only in his Epistles, which indeed ex­hibite the marrow of polite learning, as well as Divinity; but also in his discourses sometimes, as in that of his before A­grippa and Festus, which provoked Festus to cry out, that much Learning made him mad, Act. 26. 24. And therefore we sup­pose, we shall find him at least indifferent in this businesse.

And as for the Apostle Peter, we gather this Testimony from him to the usefulnesse of Learning, that in the very reading of Pauls Epistles, and other Scriptures, it may keep a man from 2 Pet. 3. 16 wresting them to destruction, which many that want it he tells us, too often do.

We disparage not the revelation of the Spirit, we acknow­ledge Sect. 38 that all the learning of the world will not bring saving truth effectually home to the understanding and consciences of [Page 36] men; nay carnall reason back'd with learning will dispute the light of the most glorious Doctrinall Truthes of the Gospel, out of mens judgments (as is seen daily in the mysteries of the Person, natures, Incarnation, satisfaction, righteousnesse, merit, of Christ without us: which first heathen Philosophers, & Gnosticks, and after them the Arians, Socinians, and Papists, and last of all, by the weapons borrowed from some, or all of them, the Familists, and their off-spring the Jusuited Quakers, or Jesuites, and Fran­ciscans under the disguise of Quakers, have endeavoured to dispute, & rail out of the World) and the most glorious practi­call Truths of the Gospel out of mens Consciences, as appeares daily in those, whose learning Satan makes use of to defend and patronize their lusts: So that there needs another kind of learning to settle these Truths savingly in the minds and hearts of men, which the Scripture calls the revelation and demonstra­tion of the Spirit. But yet we must own Learning sanctified by the Spirit of God, as a precious help and furtherance to the un­derstanding of the Letter of the Scripture, confuting Hereticall wrestings of them, and convincing gain-sayers. And we won­der, whence all these that dispute against Learning from the Scriptures, received those Scriptures whence they dispute, but from the help of humane Learning. Surely those holy men who brought down the Scriptures to our capacities, by transla­ting them into our Mother Tongue, were not immediatly taught the knowledge of the Originall Tongues, by the reve­lation of the Spirit; but learnt it in Schooles and Ʋniversities, and most of the truths of the Gospel which have been preserved to us, from the violent hands of Heathen Philosophers, and He­reticks, have been very much (as to means) preserved by the disputes of learned men. Julian the Apostate knew well e­nough that Schools of Learning were no small props of Christi­an Religion, and therefore when he had designed a totall aboli­tion of Christianity out of the world, he attempted it by two wayes, which your Generation unhappily follow him in, sup­pressing Schooles of literature among Christians, and taking a­way Ministers maintenance.

And whereas you say, that the Apostles and Ministers of Sect. 39 Christ in Scripture did not serve an Apprentiship in any Ʋni­versity [Page 37] to learne the Trade of preaching (as you scornfully call it) we answer they needed it not, for they then received that by immediate inspiration, which since that time we know no per­son, Quaker, or other, ever attained in that way; they became Linguists, and Disputants, per saltum, which others since are faine to grow unto by degrees. If you say the same Spirit dwels in you, we say, look you to that as to the sanctifying and saving graces of that Spirit, for he that hath not the Spirit thus, is none of Christs, Rom. 8. 9 But as to gifts of Tongues, and other parts of learning, which were then by that Spirit, bestowed in an in­stant on the first Planters of the Church, we want an instance of any of you, that can say so much of himself. If you know any, let us heare from you in the next, who it is, and if he be able to make it out to us, we will believe him.

You say further, that they preached but the Gospel which Sect. 40 Christ by his Spirit revealed in them, and you quote two places of Scripture which speak of revelation indeed, but not such as is exclusive to humane learning, which is your drift. Indeed, in the first Paul saith, that God revealed those things which eye had not seen, &c. to him by his holy Spirit. And in the other 1 Cor. 2: 10. Gal. 1. 16. he saith, that God revealed his Son in him; but it is not pro­ved, that in the last of those places the Apostle speaks of the Doctrine, much lesse the holy Doctrine of the Gospell that Paul preached, as if his humane learning contributed nothing to that; but only of those inward operations that Paul expe­rienced; and therefore he shewes the effect of the revelation, that it took him off from consulting with flesh and blood, which we before acknowledge as well as you.

In the former of them, the Apostle speaks of such a revelati­on of the Gospel, as savingly enabled him to receive it, feeling­ly to preach it, as appeareth; by v. 14. where he opposeth the knowledge of a naturall man, which is by meer learning, to that of a spirituall man, which is by revelation, yet not excluding learning. For by the way, you may observe that he doth not oppose a spirituall man, and a learned man [Paul himself was spirituall and learned too] but a spirituall man, and a natu­rall, or unregenerate man, who hath nothing but naturall facul­ties, and humane learning to improve them.

And (as to your assertion it selfe) that they preached onely Sect. 41 that Gospel, which Christ by his spirit rovealed in them; if you mean thus, that they preached nothing but what was immedi­atly revealed from the Spirit without any externall help, the plaine Scripture will give you the lye. For how often did Christ instruct them, during his bodily presence among them? And how did he expound the Scriptures to them, going through all the Bookes then penned, even from Moses to Malachi, im­mediatly before his Assention? Luke. 24. 27. So that what­ever may be said of Paul, who was called and enabled to his Apostleship in a singular way, untrodden by any of the rest, we are sure, all the rest were taught, otherwise then by the im­mediate revelation of the Spirit only.

But we doubt yet another Snake in the Grasse of this faire Sect. 42 expression [which Christ by his Spirit revealed in them] and suspect it beares some analogy with that in your former Arti­cle, of preaching no more then we witnesse the life and power of in our selves; and which you call afterwards, witnessing the condi­tion of the Saints, whose words we preach, of which anon. The best sense therefore, which comparing your words with each other, and all with the language of your other Brethren, we can pick out of your expressions here, is, that you suppose, they preached no more, then what by spirituall experience the Spirit re­vealed in their hearts: Which if it be that you herein intend, we desire you to consider whether the Apostles did experience in themselves the Histories of the old Testament, which yet they preached, and whether they did experience in themselves the resurrection of the body, the generall judgment, and eternall damnation which they preached? Whether John experienced the Prophesies of the Revelation in himself, or no; as some of Foot out of the snare, p. 6. 13. you cant, that the witnesses are slaine in us, and must be raised to life in us, and Babylon in us, &c.

And of this stamp, we doubt, is that uncouth and odd expres­sion of witnessing the Saints conditions (which is one of the Sect. 43 phrases we told you before, that we conceive needs interpreta­tion) though possibly you speak what you mean, yet we know not what you mean by what you speak) especially if we com­pare those papers which we often receive from your Disciples [Page 39] in these parts, with what you here say.

But we will take you in the best sense, and so to witnesse, we suppose in your sense, is, to feele by inward experience the Saints conditions, whose words we preach. And without this qualifi­cation (in your judgment) we must passe for Ministers of the Letter only. We doubt you understand not, what a Minister of the Letter meanes. We are sure, by a Minister of the Letter, the Apostle meanes not such an one as expounds and applies the written Word, but either one that preached up the Jewish ce­remonies according to the Letter, which were the vaile that hid the Gospell, instead of Christ the substance of them; or else, that preached the duties of the Law for justification, and so your generation are the Ministers of the Letter, who preach up a righteousnesse of workes, under the notion of Christ in us, to the decrying and blaspheming of the righteousnesse of Faith, in Christs person without us. And you your selfe speake scorneful­ly enough of it, though covertly, p. 55. of your Book, as of a righteousnesse beyond the Stars, and a far off from us; so that we feare your heart is the same with them, though you be more wary in your expressions.

In a word, if we mistake you, you must impute it to your darknesse, and ambiguity of expression, which you affect in this Epistle, that you may (like a Carp) by running your head in the mud of uncouth and ambiguous language, avoid the Net of a just discovery and confutation: and to your undertaking, which being the justification of the people called Quakers, we are necessitated to interpret you by what we know of them.

To your thirteenth Article, concerning the unprofitable­nesse Sect. 44 of talking and professing Christ in Orthodox notions, except we witnesse (we will suppose you understand, find, and feele by ex­perience) the life of Christ in us: We would hope you mean as you say, and no more; and if so, we mean and say as you do, that it will not availe us or our hearers to talk of Christs dying for us, and our being justified by his righteousnesse, except we receive a spirit of holinesse from him, and be taught by the grace that ap­peareth to us, to deny all ungodlinesse, and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. But we Tim. 2. 12. must tell you, that we do not make our mortification of sin, or re­surrection [Page 40] to newnesse of life; or any of the fruits growing upon those roots (though we could be as holy as ever any Saint was upon earth) any part of our righteousnesse in the presence of God, but in matter of justification, we renounce them all as abominable and filthy rags, drosse and dung to the righteousnesse which is of God by faith, and desire to be found in him alone, who Isa. 64. 6. Phil. 3. 8, 9. Jer. 23. 5. Gal. 2. 16. is the Lord our righteousnesse. We say with the Apostle, Know­ing that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have beleived in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the workes of the Law. Whether you be of this judgment or no, we desire to know more fully in your next. Those of your generation are not, as we shall shew anon, from their own papers, which speak out, what we see you have a mind to conceale.

In your fourteenth Article, you confesse that you both publish Sect. 45 and practise, an unmannerly disrespect of all persons, in which (because you scruple swearing) we would (as well as we may) credit you without an Oath. And that you publish and practise it as truth, we will beleive. But Omne simile non est idem, as you may very well know. Many of your quaking doctrines (as you colour them) are very like truth. But we have in part shewn they are not what they shew for, and shall do more ere vve have done vvith you: Mean while vve will a little dis­pute it vvith you; Whether Religion destroy civility and good manners? For our parts, vve humbly conceive, that the fifth Commandement is not yet repealed, that commands us to ho­nour our Fathers and Mothers. And Solomon vve suppose wal­ked by that Law vvhen he bowed to his Mother, 1 King. 2. 29. Nor do vve dare condemne the bowing of Abraham before the Sons of Heth, Gen. 23. 7. 12. Nor do vve think that cursed Ca­naanites are more capable of civill honour and respect, then civill Magistrates. And how far the examples of Luke, dedicating his Book to the most excellent Theophilus, Lu. 1. 3. Pauls Titles of [King Agrippa and most Noble Festus] and Act. 26. 7. 25. 1 Pet. 3. 6. Sarahs calling Abraham Lord (practised in the old, and com­mended in the new Testament) vvill justifie the practise of those vvho bestow Titles upon men according to their quality, from that respecting of persons vvhich the Apostle James condemnes, it Jam. 5. 1. [Page 41] may be your own second thoughts will better inform you. Surely, the Apostle James doth not deny the distinction of Ma­gistrates, and others in their Seates and Benches. We do not find the Apostles when they were called before Magistrates, justle with them for their Chaires and Cushions, or set them­selves down cheek by joule with them upon the Bench. Nor was 1 King. 2. 19. Solomon to be charged with respecting persons, for calling for a Chair for his Mother Bathsheba, and not for all others as well that came to present Petitions to him. For a close, we are perswaded; that this levelling humour never lasted longer in a­ny person, then till he himself got into the Chair of Magistra­cy: We know no Prince in Europe that ever King'd it with that state as John of Leyden did, when he acted his part at Munster, and yet he and his Generation were as much against respecting of persons a while before, as any of our Quakers at this day.

In a word, we are no friends to that great distance which meer wealth makes in the esteem of the world between man and man, especially between godly poore, and ungodly rich men. And we hope we can say in the sincerity of our hearts, that we know no godly poor man whom we would not, and do not prefer in our esteems and respects, as we have opportu­nity to shew it, before any wealthy men, that are not so. But where the goodness is equall in both, we suppose the modesty of the inferiour will not suffer him to be agrieved, if his Supe­riour in any sort sit above him, or go before him; nor do we think it any token of humility (which is one of the most emi­nent graces in true Saints) for such an one to justle for the wall with another, to whom in common courtesie and civility, founded upon the Law of God, Nature, and Nations it is more due.

We shall not dispute against you the consequences of this Sect. 46 your Doctrine, if it should take place as they touch our selves. Let it follow (as you say) that we shall hereby be stripped of the Titles of Doctors, or Divines; we perswade our selves (as well-pleasing, as you think they are to us) we have learned of our Master to be contented to be made of no reputation, & if God think fit to abase us among those with whom we have to do, [Page 42] that vve should receive as little respect from others, as vve do from you; vve are able through grace, to contemne those poore things as dirt and dung: And if instead of Doctors and Divines, vve meet vvith the Titles of Serpent, Cain, E­sau, Satan, yea, Belzebub himself (which are the honourable Ti­tles your Generation in their great civility, or Christianity af­ford us.) In a word, should men call us Dolts instead of Do­ctors, and Devils instead of Divines, we hope we can say with­out vanity, vve should esteem it our Crown, so the name of Christ might be exalted by the fall of our own. The Titles that men give us, vve hope some of us can say, vve procured without ambition and receive vvithout pride, and can lay down vvithout discontent.

But vve vvonder however, how the name of Doctor, or Tea­cher Sect. 47 should come to be so Apocryphall vvith you, vvho know it vvas a name of Office in the Primitive times, Eph. 4. 11. And vvhy your brethren should quarrell so unmercifully against the name Master, or Sir, vvhen they might know how often it is given and taken by the Apostles of Christ, who, surely, knew their Masters mind in that prohibition better then they, and why (if Titles be thus unlawfull) do your self give the Sirs, to your Readers, and Sir to your Antagonist, which is all as much as Master? Nay, vvhy your Son should call you Father, any more then our Hearers call us Masters,, seeing one Text prohibits Both, vve cannot imagine: And vve know not vvhe­ther it vvas upon this account, that a Son of yours lately told one of us, that he disowned you.

But (to let this passe, and shut up this Article in a word) We suppose your other consequence of this Doctrine vvhich you Sect. 48 mention; to vvit, the stripping the Magistrate of his Titles of honourable, and worshipfull, shewes some vvorse blood then that that boyles in your Veines against the poore Ministers. We doubt that you that vvould strip them of their Titles, have no great (or it may be too great) mind to their Offices. For surely, there is lesse expresse Authority in the new Testament for Chri­stian Magistracy it selfe, then for the Titles bestowed upon them? What security then vvill you give them that you vvill not quarrell with their Robes and Maces, and afterwards with [Page 43] their Offices as vvell as vvith their Titles. We read of most excellent Theophilus, and most noble Festus, Titles as high as ho­nourable and worshipfull applyed to men in Magistracy. But of Christian Magistrates, not a vvord of Precept or practise; vvould you dared speak out! vvhy do you nibble at Titles? tell us plainly, you ayme at the thing it self, most think you do.

And now vve are arrived to the last of your Articles, vvhere­in you take some pleasure to shew how you can criticize on the vvords Thee and Thou, vvhich you vvould faine justifie to be the only proper tearmes to any single person A doughty un­dertaking! and very fit for your learning to mannage: We should scarce think it vvorth the vvhile to dispute such a trifle vvith you, but only to let you know, how unfit you are to dis­pute down Ʋniversities, that mannage a Grammaticall Questi­on so childishly: Should a Schoole Boy of ten years old be bid translate, How do you Sir into Latine, vvould he not render it Quomodo vales tu? It seems your new Grammer vvould correct him vvith a Quomodo valetis vos? A learned peice of Pe­dantry! Are you so silly as not to know that Translators respect the usage of words in the Tongues they make use of: If the Trans­lators of Hebrew or Greek, had rendred [...] or [...], by you, as well as thou, to a single person, might they not have done as well to an English eare, seeing both words are used indifferently by English men? you should not be ignorant of the old Rule, Loquendum ut vulgus. And Horace (if you have read him) tells you, that tis use (Quem penes arbitrium est, & vis, & nor­ma loquendi.) that words are to be regulated by.

But why then do we not (say you) use the word you to the Sect. 50 great God as well as to men? We answer, it is not necessary we should give you any answer hereunto, but that you have re­ceived already. Words are proper, or improper, as use makes them. And yet we conceive we well vary the phrase to God upon this account, because in our prayers we addresse our selves to God in the Unity of his nature, and therefore vve use a word that is not capable of importing plurality, as you is. [And vvhereas you add lastly, that the rich think it proper to say Sect. 51 [Thou] and [Thee] to a poore man, whereas we condemne the poore man for saying [Thou] or [Thee] to a rich man.

We answer, for our parts, we our selves can say, we know not our selves guilty of often making any such distinction, and when we do, it is rather in a way of familiarity, then otherwise, seeing we have used in common custome of speech, to look up­on the word [Thou] spoken to men as the more familiar word. But we insist not much upon these things, as supposing them beneath our study or notice, but that you vvill engage us in them whether we will or no; onely we must tell you at parting, that you may do well (in your great acutenesse) to correct Sect. 52 the French Tongue, whence we suppose this manner of speaking came into England, as well as our own, for the French use [vous] that signifies [you] to a single person, as well as we. And you after that to exercise your pedanticall Ferule upon the royall stile of most or all the Princes in the civill World, who (with as great a Grammaticall impropriety) write in their owne persons [Nos] and [Wee] instead of [Ego] and [I] vvhich is the stile of ordinary persons. And vve suppose you may maintain as learned a dispute vvith the Lord Protector about [Nos Oli­verus] [We Oliver] as you do vvith Mr. Thomas, p. 58. of the Book about the Nominative case, and the Verb.

These are all the Articles, it seemes you will confesse against Sect. 53 your self, and your quaking party; and because you are willing to flatter your self, and perswade your Readers (especially the Magistrate to whom this part of your Epistle is intended) that these bloody persecutors the Ministers, have no higher matters to charge you vvithall, you sing Io triumphe, the day is our owne; for These (say you) are the horrid blasphemies and damnable Doctrines against the abettors of which you do at this day discharge so much passion and rage, both from Presse and Pul­pit; calling upon the civill Powers for Bonds and Prisons, nay Fire and Fagot, against all those who (fearing the Lord) do feare to call darknesse light, and light darknesse.

But stay, Sir, we have some other matters then these to charge upon your Generation, vvhich vve vvill in the next place give you a short Catalogue of, collected out of such books as are either published by your selves, or justly charged upon you by those Witnesses vvho vve are assured vvill stand to their vvords vvhenever they are called to make them good.