SECT. 1.

In your first Section you quarrel with me, because I prefix­ed seasonable word of advice out of Seneca, in the Title­page of my book; seeking to eclipse the worth of his grave counsel, by branding him with the odious names of Heathen and Pagan:

Rep. To which I reply, That however it be among men, yet before the Lord; it's not the name, but the nature, that makes the distinction. He that is not born again and made partaker of the new nature, although he may be guilded o­ver with the name of Christian, yet in the judgement of truth, he is but a Heathen. He that bringeth forth the Pa­ganish fruits of lying, slandering, envy, pride, covetousness and the like, cover him over with the fairest vail you can, he is still really but a Pagan. Rom 2, 26, 27 If Seneca's uncircumcision kept the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumsion be coun­ted for circumcision, and judge you and many hundreds called Christians, who by the letter and circumcision do trans­gress the Law? And further, let me say, that if Seneca dwelt in the enjoyment and possession, as well as the profession, of those many excellent principles, that are reputed his, I would chuse rather (in the great day of the Lord) to be Seneca, then to be (unless they repent) either Christopher Fowler or Simon Ford.

SECT. 2.

In your second Section you tell me that you suppose I will give you leave to be so ingenious as to leave the answer­ing of my Book to William Thomas his able pen:

Rep. I wish you were once so ingenious as to leave your lying, and let your sayings and doings agree together; who not onely here, but in the Fifty seventh Section of your Book, do say that you will wave the answering of my Book because you are advertised that William Thomas intendeth to take that task in hand himself, &c. And yet (contrary to your several sayings) you have undertaken the dispute with me, touching many of the most substantial things contained in my Book, as the Reader may at large see by perusing yours and mine.

You proceed in the same Section, to con me thanks for the charitable advice I begin my Epistle withal, promising with a great many Lamb. like words to take warning, &c. Instead of which William Thomas doth most bitterly revile me, calling me False witness, Novice, one that do cast reproach upon Gods servants, &c.

Rep. It was not without cause that William Thomas told his Reader in his Epistle to his Pamphlet, that his and (yours) his Brethrens meditations were so directed that you should walk in something a different way in one and the same work, and yet without difference. For in your seeming disagreement you agree. You smite more in the dark, he more openly, in your work you agree, which is to support your tottering Babel, one Master do you serve, and you shall receive your wages. In your way of prosecution you differ, just as much as a wolf in sheeps cloathing, from the same creature in his proper shape.

SECT. 4.

You begin your Fourth Section with a Query. Whether I do beleeve in earnest, that those Prophets of whom Michah [Page 25] speaks that teach for hire, and divine for money, or those whom Christ notes for doing their works to be seen of men, &c. are characters suiting the men of my indignation?

To which I answer. That I retain indignation against no man, looking upon every mans person as the workmanship of God; but against that evill spirit that ruleth and rageth in you and your brethren, do I bear a perfect indignation. And I do beleeve that to all Idol Shepheards in this Nation, that are acted by that spirit, do the Characters given both by Michah, and by Christ, most aptly suit, of which more in the next Section. And whereas you charge me with a desire to reduce you to voluntary contributions. I say, if you are Christs Ministers, why should you not be contented with Christs maintenance? who that I can find in Scripture never ordained any other but this, freely ye have received, Matth. 10.8. freely give, and I never read of any of his in Scripture, that found their allowance too scant. But as for such as you who do feast it, and brave it among the people, who must have for your lusts, as well as for your necessity, its no marvel if you refuse a confinement within the limits of his mainte­nance.

SECT. 5.

Your fifth Section beginnneth with a high-flown expostu­lation, demanding of me in the heigth of your spirits, who I am that do judge your hearts? Why? because (say you) I tell you what you aim at, and set up as your end in preach­ing.

Rep. That I did appeal to you in my Epistle whether you were not guilty of the same crime (of teaching for hire) with Micha's hirelings, is true. But it seemeth your own guilt made the application. Neither had I judged your hearts, but your works, if I had been positive in my charge against you. May not a common drunkard (with as much strength of reason as you, interrogate me) demand of you, when you call him by his name, who are you that do judge his heart? Do not his fruits manifest what sort of tree he is? If you [Page 26]are not indeed such as do preach for hire, and divine for mo­ney; Tyth-exacters proved to teach for hire. tell me, why is it that when you first begin to set up that trade, you do so earnestly covet to get into that place which yeeldeth the largest maintenance, most Tythes, most acres of Gleab Land, or the greatest augmentation? And when you are setled, why is it that you are so easily removed thence to a richer Benefice? Moreover, I have seen many sore contentions among you Teachers, who should get into a Parish endowed with a large Revenue; but how is it that you never contend, who should come among a people, from whom there might be expected little money, and smal maintenance? In brief, do you not settle and remove just as Tenants do (for outward advantage) from a hard to a better bargain? And is it judging your hearts to ask, whe­ther such men as these do not teach for hire, and divine for money?

William Thomas saith,Page 5. that he and his Brethren do take that which Christ saith they are worthy of. How is that proved?Luk. 10.7. by Christs words in Luke, The labourer is Worthy of his hire: whereas neither are they Christs Labourers (be­cause persecutors) nor do they take his hire; for in the same verse, Christ commandeth his labourers to eat and drink such things as were given them; which way of maintenance they despise under the notion of voluntary contribution.

SECT. 6.

Your Sixth Section smelleth so rank of loathsom hypocri­sie, that it cannot but be abominable in the nostrils of any sober reader. Whilst you pretend to adore that gracious pro­vidence which keepeth you out of the reach of my malice; o­therwise (strange things would follow) you are assured you should not be long Without persecution, &c.

Rep. What pious and peaceable Martyrs, would you have your Reader to judge you two to be? who dare so devoutly adore that providence, who keepeth you from the reach of his malice, who never yet exchanged word with you, nor saw ei­ther of your faces, nor had ought to do with you in his life [Page 27]time, and who doth as much abominate that spirit that per­secuteth, as he doth the foulest devil that ever came out of the bottomless pit; Nay, who for this very thing sake, principally doth deny you, and your outragious genera­tion.

But you say that you have already your shares in the perse­cution of the tongues, and hands, of those of my fellowship and communion.

Rep. To which I reply two things: First, Whereas you do often throughout your Book, in scorn make men­tion of me, and my Fraternity; me, and my Sister-hood; me, and my Quaking generation; me, and my companions, &c. I say, that I am of no sect or faction, nor do I profess my self of any other generation but of those that fear God, Acts 10 35. and work righteousness. And whatever name of reproach your venemous tongues do, for the truths sake, cast upon such, I do esteem it my honour to wear with them as my crown.

Secondly, You mention three things that these persecuters do to you. 1. Impoverish you and your families 2. De­tain your just and legal subsistance. 3. Disturb you in the ex­ercise of your publick Worship. To the first, I ask, Is it truth, or is it a lye that you say? are you and your families indeed impoverished, who do live high, fare deliciously, and vaunt it among men? Why sirs, are you past all shame, that you can aver things so notoriously false? 2. Your second is like unto this, for I hold communion and fellowship with none that do detain any mans just and legal subsistance: I do deny all such injustice, and untill you shall particularly point out some of my communion that do act thus unjustly, you must stand for a couple of false accusers. 3. The third piece of this your sore persecution is, the disturbance you receive in your pub­lick worship: That is to say, when you have spent an hour, or more time in your Pulpits, in railing and raging, against such as cannot bow down to the Image you have set up, some peaceable man or woman appeareth, crying out of your de­ceit, or bidding the people repent, or the like; and what usually followeth? why this, your sheep (according to the [Page 28]precepts and pattern of their Pastors) fall foul on them, beat them, kick them, oftentimes draw their blood, drag them out of your Steeple-houses, hurry them before Magi­strates, and thence into some nasty Prison or Dungeon a­mong Rogues and Fellons, where they lie some two, some three, some four or more moneths; many of whom have by the unheard of tyranny of merciless Jailors, been brought to seal their testimony for Jesus with their lives, and so faln asleep. Now let all that are not intoxicated with the cup of rage, received from the hands of their Priests judge, who are the disturbers, and who the persecutors:

William Thomas urgeth my own words against me, because I asked in my Epistle,Pag. 7. whether the Bishops did not in their days imprison, and evil intreat many of them? And then ignorantly demandeth, why I should ask them, Are you im­prisoned?

Rep. The more is their shame, and the greater their wick­edness, that, having so lately gotten their necks from under the Bishops yoaks, they should now justifie the said Bishops in what they did to them, by laying Iron yoaks upon the necks of others.

SECT. 7.

You begin your seventh Section with boasting. 1. That many of you live upon a free contribution maintenance.

Rep. What confusion do the inhabitants of Babylon live in! But even now, in the close of your fourth Section, you did tartly reflect on me, as one endeavouring to reduce you to voluntary contributions; as that which would soon reduce you to contempt; and yet here you glory in the same thing. So industrious is the Serpent to save his head, that he will gladly betake himself to any shelter. One while being afraid that the Master whom you serve will not supply your wants by voluntary contributions, you decry them, and despise them; and yet presently after, to save your selves from being bran­ded with the name of Exactors, you assert them as the way of your maintenance, and glory in them. 2. You boast what [Page 29]noble voluntiers many of you are in the work of your Master, by your maintaining many Lectures, &c.

Rep. Lectures made a covering. Were it not for fear of being burthensom to the Reader, I could tell him at large what trade these men do drive with most of those things called Lectures. If the Priests have any wretched design to promote in the Country, then a Lecture must presently be erected, in the the most publick and convenient place for their convening, that under pre­tence of that they may joyntly confer about, and contrive, the effecting of that mischief which they had before singly pro­jected. But are you two of the number of these Voluntiers? how cometh it then to pass,Simon Ford. that one of you did some time since erect a Lecture in the Town of Reading, and finding your free Contribution maintenance, coming in but slowly thence, did soon let the Lecture fall? Whatever you proclaim of your selves, to those that know you not, yet the people of the Town of Reading do well know, that you live by a­nother rule then you pretend to (viz.) no penny, no Pa­ter noster!

But though some of you are thus free of your labour, yet others you confess do preach by Indentures. For which their practice, I did in my Epistle demand a rule in Scripture. And you, to save them from condemnation, do offer an ac­quittance under Pauls hand, who saith, that he that doth not provide for his own is worse then an Infidel,1 Tim. 5.8.and hath denied the faith.

Rep. And is this your rule by which you indent for your wages, before you dare enter upon your work? What a shameful begging of the question is this? Do you two pre­tend your selves to be such great Masters of learning, and eminent Zealots in Religion, and yet reason like men at once bereft of all honesty and understanding? Because Paul proclaimeth him that doth not provide for himself, and fa­mily to be worse then an Infidel, doth he thereby justifie any means (right or wrong) by which a man may make provision, as lawful and commendable? tell me by this wild Logick, how you will be able to convince a common Thief that he doth evil? Suppose a poor man should come and steal a bushel of [Page 30]corn out of either of your Barns, or a bag of money out of your Chests, for the supply of the necessities of himself and his; if you accuse him for an evil doer, may he not offer your own rule in evidence for himself, and reason thus; He that maketh provision for himself and family, proveth himself not worse then an Infidel; But I (may he say) by stealing do make provision for my self and family, Ergo, &c. Nay further will not the most notorious thief upon Salisbury Plain (who doth rob for necessity) find patronage for his wickedness under such Tutors as you are? Ask him whilst he is taking a purse from a Traveller by what rule he doth act such injustice? By the same rule may he say as the Priests act by, when they indent for their hire, viz. that I might make provision for my self and family, and so not shew my self Worse then an Infidel, and a denier of the faith. Now Sirs, reflect upon your selves seriously, and see your co­vering pull'd off you, and to that of God in both your consciences do I appeal, whether ever any age of the world afforded Sophisters, that did more palpably abuse the holy Scriptures to patronize their own lusts, then you, and the rest that call themselves Ministers do at this day.

You proceed in the same Section to tell me of some of mine, Who Wander up and down to the manifest and apparent ruine of themselves, and those that they are bound to provide for.

Rep. Such wanderers are none of mine (for I deny them) but some of yours.Si accusasse sat sit, quis innocens erit? Did ever any man or woman, whom you in soorn call Quakers, beg relief of either of you? or can you quote one of their families that is thus ruined? I can produce you instances enough of Parish Priests, who have drunk and rioted themselves and families into poverty; by which character I am sure one may find many Infidels a­mong your generation, who yet talk much of faith. But who can escape the stroak of your slanderous pens, who dare preach any thing, print any thing, and produce no other proof for what you avouch, but this, that you dare say it is so? Nay, to what height of impudence are you come who [Page 31] dare belie the Son of God, in saying presently after, that he commanded his to travel about to declare without shooes on their feet. Monstrons impiety!Mar. 10.8, 9, 10 what is it not enough for you to heap slanders, falshoods, and reproaches upon me, but you must attempt to fasten an untruth upon him, who is truth it self? Read that Scripture again, and then see if you can be so wicked as to say, that Christ commandeth that which never proceeded out of his lips, viz. that his should travel without shooes upon their feet. Reader, what horri­ble fables would these men fasten on the Scripture among the ignorant, were they kept sealed in Greek or Latin? when as they dare even now to assert such things to be in them, for asserting which, the meanest child that can read English, may prove them Liars?

Much ado you keep in this Section labouring in confusion, and all to prove that which I never denied,1 Cor. 9.6. to 14. viz. that they that preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. Which Scripture, you say, the adversaries to Ministers maintenance do pass over in deep silence; and you expect it will be by me al­so, &c. To which I say; that I do subscribe to the truth of what Paul saith all along in that Chapter, viz. That he that planteth a vineyard ought to eat of the fruit thereof; and he that feedeth a flock, ought to eat of the milk thereof, &c. But what is all this to you? who are not Planters, but de­stoyers; not Feeders, but devourers of the flock? or if you were such, what rule is this for your vexatious suits at law for your maintenance? Doth the Scripture say that Paul took those men by the throats, that gave him not the tenth of all their increase? when you shall come to do Pauls work, and tread in Pauls footsteps, I shall not deny you Pauls wages.

You close this Section with as notable a falshood as the rest, viz. that no man holds the nine parts by firmer law in these Nations, then the Minister claims his tenth by.

Rep. If a man purchase ten acres of Land by measure, and payeth a full consideration for each foot of the said ten acres, have you as much right to the tenth acre, who never advanced peny towards the purchase, as he hath to the other [Page 32]nine, who paid the full value for the whole? If a poor man having a great family to maintain, do rent five acres of land, and after he hath plowed it, and sowed it, and he, and his, have lived in hope (perhaps with naked backs, and empty bel­lies) to receive the fruits of all their labor and toil; have you as good right to the tenth sheaf, as the poor oppressed man hath to the other nine? Well you may have a law that will own you in such your cruelties in the Courts of men; but sure I am, you have no law that will justifie you in the presence of the Lord, and that shall you surely one day wit­ness to your shame and sorrow, without repentance.

Where as I demanded (in my Epistle) a rule in Scripture, by which the teachers of the Nation did exact the tenth of their encrease, who did not hear them, nor own them for their Pastors? William Thomas answereth me by another Query, viz. Must a Minister be deprived of the members of his Church, and the maintenance of his place, both at once?

Rep. Is this Query a rule in Scripture to justifie their practice! Reader, thou that art sober, judge, whether this be an answer bespeaking him that gave it forth, to be a Mi­nister of reason, muchless of the Gospel. These are the men that do so passionately assert the Scripture to be their rule in words, and yet being demanded a rule thence for their practice, in a matter of such moment, are so shameless as to offer a senceless Query instead of Scripture. And thou maist further observe; that throughout both their books they have not produced any one Scripture, that do prove their practice in the things they are accused of. But instead there­of do offer the conceptions of their own brains, or else such meanings and sences as they please to force upon the Scrip­ture; which if a man refuse to accept of, he is presently con­demned for an Antiscripturist.

SECT. 8.

In your eighth Section, both you and William Thomas do confess the matter of fact, viz. That many of your bre­thren are found wallowing in the common mire, &c: And you [Page 33]say also, that you do bewaile it. Which I should have some reason to beleeve also, were your Pulpits fill'd with as frequent declamations, against the abominations of such your pol­luted Brethren, as they are with invectives against those, that stand up to bear witness against theirs and your wickedness. In the close of this Section, you speak of Swearing, drunken, and otherwise disorderly companions, that frequent the Quakers assemblies.

Rep. To which I say, That I have been often in the meet­ings of those peaceable people (and do bless the Lord that I lived to be in them) where I have seen many drunken, swear­ing, disorderly companions: But they were not of them with whom they assembled, though they were among them; but the scabby sheep that belonged to some Priest or other, that came there to act the same part in those Assemblies, that their Shepheards do in the pulpits (viz) scoff, scorn, reproach, and revile the innocent.

SECT. 9.

Your ninth Section is full of venome and bitterness, of taunts and unsavory scoffs; which (as I said in the begin­ning) I shall let fall into the Channel. You accuse me for calling the Scriptures in scorn your rule; For which I can boldly, and truly charge you to be a couple of malicious ly­ars. For the Scriptures of truth, I do highly esteem, and do bless the Lord for them; neither have I, through all my Epistle or Book, mentioned them with that apparent con­tempt that you do, calling them in your Tenth Section; your low Rule, and Section Sixty two, your old Rule. When my pen doth drop such contemptible expressions touching the Scriptures as these are, then write me down among the number of those that do scorn it with your selves. Until then know, that the Scriptures I do own against you, and your prating companions, that do pretend to cry up the Scriptures in word onely, serving your lusts upon them, making a trade to talk of them thereby to get a livelihood; but do most wretchedly abuse them and trample them un­der [Page 34]feet by contradicting them in your practices.

After this, having expostulated with you, touching all your violence, and persecution, against Christ in his mem­bers, minding you of the judgement of the great Day; you return this in answer, viz Judge not that you be not judged. Just as if a man should come to an unclean person that squan­dereth away his precious hours, in the filth and open pro­phaneness of the world, and deal with him for his iniquities, and he should return this in answer, Judge not that ye be not judged. The innecent do not dread judgement, but you that are guilty of all the violence and cruelty, mentioned in that Epistle, to judgement must you come, and that before that God who will not accept of a scoff, or an impertinen­cy, for an answer to what shall then be demanded of you. That which William Thomas saith in this particular, hath so little weight in it, that I shall not spend time or paper to make a recital of it, muchless judge it worthy of an answer.

SECT. 10.

You need not have told me in your Tenth Section of your readiness to persecute,Priests wait for commissi­on to perse­cute. worry, and imprison others, were you but legally commissioned thereunto. We very well know you would soon be upon Pauls work, could you but once gain his Letters. Your Brethren in the beginning of Queen Maries reign were very thirsty after blood, but could not drink their fill, until by the Session of a Parliament, they were legally commissioned to draw it. And should this, or any suc­ceeding Parliament, put the cup into the Priests hands, and bid them draw, I do confidently beleeve (that as far as in them lies) there should not be a drop of blood left, run­ning in the veins of any true Israelite in the Nation. Neither will that plea justifie you (when you shall be arraigned be­fore the Lamb sitting upon the Throne) to say, that you have persecuted and worried none but disguised Wolves. For they that are the Lambs followers never persecuted any; neither do the Scriptures or any other Histories, represent [Page 35]them to us in the posture of imposers, or afflictors, but of Bearers and Sufferers. Besides, is not every man a Wolf in your esteem, who cannot bow the knee to Baal? and is it not the greatest crime of those, whose blood you so long to be dabling in; that they are innocent? yea, I bear testimony to it, that he that at this day departeth from iniquity, maketh himself a prey to the cruel teeth of the false Pro­phet.

To this William Thomas addeth his mite, to help you at a dead lift as well as he can. He confesseth that the Parli­ament was called upon by the Presbiters, for the setling of a government, &c. That is, that every pragmatical Parish-Priest might have been a Bishop, and the decrees of a pre­sumptuous Synod, might have been as the giving forth of the Law from mount Sinai by the mouth of Moses, to which whosoever would not yield obedience, might be cut off without mercy. Next he would insinuate the badness of the people called Quakers, and the sadness of their condi­tion, because of the many wise, and (as he calleth them) God­ly men, that cannot approve, nor favour them.

Rep. Hath this man never read the Scripture? Or hath he forgotten how the wise, religious, devout Jews (both men and women) did with one lip cry out for Jesus to be crucifi­ed? and was that an argument he was a bad man?

And lastly, he suggesteth grave ground of suspition, that they that have an evill eye upon the Ministers, will not be long from overthrowing Magistracy:

Rep. How close this poor heart doth cling to the Magi­strate, whilst he will be his vassall, and his footstool? Here is the old Court Doctrine, no Bishop, no King. And as to the fifth Monarchy he speaketh of, I say, that I own, or expect none but this, that Christ may rule and reign, as King in the hearts of men; and then I am sure the beast and the false Prophet, must both to the bottomless pit, whence they came.

SECT. 11.

Your next Section is onely a Preparatory to what you in­tend to say in those that follow; and accordingly I shall re­ply to it. You tell me, that you dare not let me alone to co­zen the world into a good esteem of my opinions.

Rep. I know the man of sin, whose cause ye negotiate, is very vigilant to preserve his tottering kingdom, so that if truth hath but its current, it will soon shake the very foun­dations thereof. And therefore it is, that he doth so be­stir himself in you, and others of his instruments, to support that, which would be the joy of thousands of the Lambs followers to see razed to the ground.Page 12. William Thomas telleth his Reader, that I drew up the following charge in jest. But this must be reckoned among the rest of his pittifull mistakes; for I drew it up in earnest; and because yet I have not, now I shall acquaint the Reader with the ground of my drawing it up, viz Hearing a great noise and cry in the Nation, Pul­pits on fire, Cities on fire, and many separated Congregati­ons on sire, and all because of the coming forth of a people in scorn called Quakers; I began to make inquisition into the rise, and bottom of all this, and what was in the lives, manners, and declarations of the said people, that gave occa­sion to this so great an out-cry. And by inquiry I found, that the rage vented against them both from Press and Pulpits, had its occasion from those fifteen Particulars mentioned in my Epistle, which I thought meet to publish unto the world, that all men might see that it was not for thest, murther, drun­kenness, swearing, lying, grinding the faces of the poor, tear­ing mens throats for their maintenance, plucking the bread from betwixt the teeth of the needy, nor for suing men at the Law, and throwing them into nasty prisons, for the tenth of all their encrease, that the teachers of this Nation were so cruelly outragious against these men; but for matters that concerned the worship of the Lord their God.

Now whereas Christopher Fowler and Simon Ford do say that I have not drawn up all they have to say against them, [Page 37](wherefore they so eagerly pursue their blood) but that they have matters of greater moment to exhibit against them; which they call [The Quakers Doctrines] in their 54^th Section I say, that laying aside the notorious lies, and slanders, coucht in that List; I doubt not before I have ended with them, to spread before the sober Reader such a true Catalogue of theirs and their brethrens Doctrines and Practises (which I will prove to their faces) that will make his heart astonish­ed, and his eares to tingle.

SECT. 12.

Your 12^th Section beginneth thus; You take it ill to be charged as blasphemers for affirming that Christ is the light that enlightneth every one that cometh into the world &c.

Rep: Ill? Why is it well that you charge any man to be a blasphemer for reciting a Text of Scripture? Are not you excellent Advocates for the Scripture, that would fasten the character of blasphemer, upon a man for the bare quoting of it? nay you add, that I stand upon my purgation, For what? because I made mention of two Scriptures in John? is this such a crime that I need a purgation? Observe Rea­der, notwithstanding all these mens verbal zeal, what their bosom thoughts are of Scripture. But what would you have? you say, you hope I will give you leave to aske me a few questions.

Rep. Why had you not spoke out what is within, and said, what this Speed hath said is plain Scripture, and therefore we dare not (for fear of the people) but say it is truth; how­ever we will try, if we can, to catch him with our Queries, and meanings, that we may have some matter to work upon. But hold Sirs, do you use to bring men to their arraignment at the Bar, and then ask them if they know ought against themselves whereof you may accuse them? Let the Reader take notice of the subtilty of these men, that throughout my whole book, where they find my words so plain and true, that they have nought to answer, they (to cover over their own guilt) do either first go to making meanings on my words; [Page 38]or secondly, fly from the matter in hand, and begin to pro­pose Queries, thereby to amuse the Reader, and blunt the edge of his intention upon what hath been said.Pagei 5. And there­fore it is that William Thomas telleth his Reader in his Fif­teenth page, that his Brethren have dealt providently with me in querying me out of my starting holes. That is to say, out of my plain Scripture into meanings. For when the truth of plain Scripture, which I quote, do so rub their fore, that they cannot bear it, then they fall to querying about senses and meanings.

You ask me first, What light that is, with which Christ en­lighteneth every man?

Answ. The Scripture beareth witness that the work of Christs Ministers consisted in turning men from darkness to light, Acts 26.18. and do you two pretend to have been Christs Ministers for so many years past, and yet declare so much ignorance of your work, as now to ask what that light is? What is that conversion that your preaching have wrought upon your miserable hearers, more then from one degree of dark­ness to another, who yet remain strangers to that light to which they should have been converted.

William Thomas maketh a great cry about the light, VVill. Thomas his confession touching the light. with his meanings, and interpretations, his suppositions and distincti­ons, calling (but not proving) it a natural light, and all to stifle it if he could: Although in the close of his thirteenth page he is made to confess as much of it,Page 13. as ever I heard or read from the pens or lips of the men of his anger, viz. Christ lighteth every man that cometh into the world, ☞ though not by saving illumination, yet by saving revelation (a di­stinction which I understand not, but he will explain it) that is (saith he) by that Gospel-revelation that is fit to save them, though divers receiving the revelation (do through their own fault) lose the salvation. Let himself beware that having the reevlation he lose not the salvation.

And now lest you should think I am ashamed to declare what I own touching this light of Christ, I shall briefly ex­press what I understand of it.

• 1. This light of Jesus is that in which all the deceit of the [Page 39]Priests is seen, and witnessed against; and therefore it is that they do so bandy against it, speaking all manner of evil of it, refusing to come to it, because their deeds are evil.
• 2. This light is that which discovereth the temptation to evil before it is committed, and checketh and convinceth for sin when it is commited.
• 3. It is that which followeth many a man, day by day throughout his life, smiting him for that hidden wickedness he liveth in, prompting him to return to his Maker, which he stubbornly resisting passeth his days with a galled consci­ence to his grave.
• 4. It is the same that was in Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses, and the same to which the Prophets, John Baptist, and the Apostles did bear witness: So that, wherever it is now, it leadeth not contradictory, but according to the te­stimony of the same holy men recorded in the Scriptures of truth.
• 5. Lastly, It is that which will be the certain condemnation of all those, who having it, obey it not,
  Joh. 3.i9.
  but love darkness ra­then light.

Here I would close what I have to say to your answer to this first particular; but that William Thomas hath not yet done, being very wrath that I asked, What need of their teachings? And thereupon insolently demandeth of me, What need had Christ to send forth his Apostles, and bid them go and teach all Nations?

Rep. 1. What the Apostles taught was from the living Spirit of Jesus, and not from liveless traditions; neither were they fire-brands where they came, as he and his bre­thren are, teaching the people to persecute, imprison and de­stroy one another, as they do; but manifested the way of peace.

2. They taught men to turn from darkness unto light, but these men ask, what the light is? quarrelling, fighting, Page 16. raging against it. Nay as if he himself could not render it sufficiently odious, he chargeth his Readers to have a jealous eye upon it.

Some Scriptures there are that do stand much in his way, [Page 40]which I beleeve he heartily wisheth were razed out of the Bible, and doth endeavor all he can to make them Apocry­phal, such as these, They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, Isa. 31.34. 1 Joh 2 27. &c. And that in John, Ye need not that any man teach you, &c. To which Scriptures (he saith) he will for the satisfaction of weaker Christians speak something.

Rep: Page 17. I wish he, and the rest of the traders upon Scrip­ture, would let the Scriptures abide pure as they are, and not hew them, and clip them, and curtail them as they do; and all to make them speak according to their corrupt fan­cies. They must be weak Christians indeed, that must receive satisfaction from Scripture so rack'd and manacled as they are before they come out of his hands.

SECT. 13.

Your thirteenth Section sheweth your readiness to wrangle with me about words, if you could find any matter to work upon. Something you must have to say to me (for form sake) touching my second Article. Page 19. Although William Tho­mas doth so fully assent to what is said therein, that he pas­sionately saith, that if I say the Teachers of this Nation do charge the people called Quakers, with the bare affirming thereof, it is an untruth. But if I mean so, or so, then he saith, it's an untruth also. So let me say or mean what I will, if they like it not I must be condemned. In the close of this Section you come to speak scoffingly of this light; of which take heed and beware, for a swift witness shall you find it to be against all your unrighteousness (to your condemna­tion) in the great day of the Lord.

You say you are little beholding to my principles, who would reduce you to the condition of Heathens.

Rep. Well were it for a great part of you, that you were in the condition of those Heathens, whose uncircumcision do fulfill the Law, whilst you, who bless your selves with the name of Christians, Rom. 2.27. are found transgressors of it.

SECT. 14.

In your fourteenth Section you would be quarrelling with me if you durst, and could you handsomly quit your selves; of those Scriptures I quote about perfection, you would proclaim me a Blasphemer. And if that be all I hold of perfection, yet those of my perswasion (you say) are not so modest.

Rep. If by those of my perswasion, you intend the peo­ple called Quakers, (whom ye seek to devour) I say, that I never found any of them, to preach, or profess, any other perfection, then such as Christ exhorted to, and Paul and o­ther Saints witnessed. About which, you and William Tho­mas do distinguish with all the art you can, to stop the mouth of the Scripture. But when you have done all, what Paul witnessed therein, is still wisdom among them that are perfect. 1 Cor. 2.6. And here again you are craving allowance to ask me a few questions. Because you can finde no flaw in plain truth, you would therefore by questoning finde some if you could.

William Thomas closeth his discourse about perfection, Page 21. with a strange saying, viz. our duty here is to be always perfecting, Heb. 12.23. but (our labour is in vain for) it belongeth to our wisedom to know, that we can never be fully perfected till the last day, wherein our souls shall be among the souls of just men made per­fect.

Rep. What a thick mist doth rage cast before the eyes of the envious? Could one think that one that pretendeth him­self to have been so long a Minister of the Gospel,Vers. 22 [...] ΠΡΟΣΕ ΛΗΛΥ'ΘΑΤΕ. Sed ACCES­SISTIS. [...]. Τ ΕΤΕ­ΛΕΙΩΜΕ'­ΝΩΝ. Ad spiritus justo­rum PER­FECTORƲM should lay down such an assertion, and produce a Scripture for proof, speaking point-blank contrary thereunto? We cannot be fully perfected (saith he) untill the last day How doth he prove it? Why, by the words of the Author to the Hebrews, who saith to the Hebrews, Ye ARE come to the spirits of the just men made perfect. Doth he say in the future tense, they should come at the last day? or doth he say they are come to those that shall be perfect? doth he not say in the preter­perfect tense, they ARE already come, to the spirits of just [Page 42]men ALREADY made perfect? Isa. 44.25. is not the Scripture fulfilled at this day, which saith, The Lord maketh the Di­viners mad, and turneth the wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish?

SECT. 15.

In your fifteenth Section you offer little, save a threat what a severe reckoning you will have with me hereafter: Against which, I doubt not but to appear so armed with truth, as to be able therewith to quench all the fiery darts, that you and your Master have ready in your Quivers to shoot at me.

But William Thomas supplieth that wherein you are want­ing,Page 23. in passion and ignorance; exceeding zealous he is in this particular; for herein consisteth the life of the Priests trade, in mangling, tearing, and confounding the Scriptures, which they call Interpretations. The Scripture witnesseth, that none knoweth the mind of God, save the Spirit of God, and he to whom the Spirit shall reveal it. Now observe, Ten men do send each of them a Son to the University, in order to their outward preferment, where having spent seven or more years, they are called home by them that sent them, and by crouching,It is the spirit not study in a University, that maketh able to under­stand and in­terpret Scrip­ture. and cringing, and perhaps the help of some of Simon Magus his purchase money, a Benefice is gained for each of them. Now these men being Ministers in William Thomas's account, he asserteth it to be their imployment, com­mitted to them of God, to be Messengers and Interpreters. As if they had gained the Spirit, and consequently the mind of God, by the consumption of a few years in a University. One of these readeth Augustine, another Jerom, a third Calvin, a fourth Luther, Peter Martyr, &c. their interpretations of Scripture, and then they come forth to the people and say, this is the meaning, and t'other is the meaning: And is this to interpret by the Spirit? May not the worst of men, who have not the Spirit but hate the Spirit, nay, may not the worst of Devils, who well understand the languages in which those Commentators writ, do the same?

Moreover take these ten young Divines, which he calleth Gods Messengers and Interpreters, and give them ten difficult places of Scripture a part each from other to interpret, and it may be there shall not five of them agree in one interpretati­on. Now mind, if these men have not the Spirit of God, they are not fit Interpreters, because they cannot know Gods mind, without that Spirit. If they have that Spirit,The Spirit never contra­dicteth it self I demand, whether the same spirit interpreting in one man, do contradict it self giving an interpretation in another? If there be but one Spirit of truth, and that speaketh in every man (where it is) the same thing, then it's clear that these men whom he calleth Messengers and Interpreters, do bring forth the fancies and vain conceptions of their own brains (and not the mind of God by the Spirit of God) who do so jangle, and contradict one another in their interpretations. And therefore his charging it as a wicked error (in the same page) upon those that deny their expositions, and interpreta­tions, is but a Bug-bear to startle the ignorant. I say to thee Reader, Abide faithful in the counsel of the Lord, and thou shalt know his mind. Live in that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures, by the mouthes of holy men, and the Scripture will be plain unto thee, for it's that Spirit that unsealeth the mystery. Thy soul is most precious, therefore let not the false Prophet deceive thee. As I have formerly told thee, so now I tell thee again, in bowels of love, thou must die for thy self, and not thy Teacher for thee, and to the Lord must thou give an account for thy self, therefore look well to thy standing; interpret for thy self, and beleeve for thy self, and let not those Dreamers that call themselves Gods Messengers and Interpreters (but live in pride, malice, co­vetousness, &c.) lead thee down hood-winck'd to the cham­bers of death, whence there is no returning.

SECT. 16.

I now come to your sixteenth Section, in which you follow your old trade of deceit, viz. not daring to deny in express terms (although you do in effect) Christs unlimited prohibition, [Page 44]of swearing at all; you fall from that, to asking me questions. Before I answer which,Matth. 5.34. [...] "ΟΛΩΣ. I cannot but take notice of your pre­ambular Observations. 1. You suggest that the Founders of the Quakers Religion (as you express it) are supposed to be Papists.

Rep. This is such a ridiculous suggestion that the like I have seldom met with. I have been a diligent inquirer into the principles, professions, lives, and conversations, of that despised people; and upon inquiry do find, that there is not a people in the world who in all these, do more directly strike at the very root of Popery, then they do, and yet the delu­ding Teachers of this Nation, do (hoping thereby to contract an odium upon them among the simple) cry out, O they are many of them Jesuites and Papists. Sure I am, it's no difficult thing to prove the greatest part of your Steeple­house-worship to be but refined Popery. 2. I say, that swear­ing by the Contents of a Book, and kissing a Book, is a su­perstitions, popish invention, and that which was ne­ver practiced by the Saints of old, whilst swearing was in force.

The sum of your two first Queries to me is, Whether Christ spake or intended any thing, which might clash with the commands of God? or whether he did forbid any part of Gods moral worship?

Ans. But that the Lord in just judgement upon you for fighting against the truth, hath given you up to blindness of heart; could one almost imagine, that two that pretend themselves able Schollars, and eminent Christians, should propose Queries that have not the least shadow and weight of reason in them? May you not on the same ground charge Christ with clashing with Gods commands, in putting an end to all the Iewish Rites and Ceremonies? was not the practice of their whole worship, taken up by express command from God,Exod. 30.28. Lev. 6.18, 22. Lev. 23.13, 14 Exod. 28.42, 43. Gen. 17.13. consisting in washings, meat-offerings, drink-offerings, the Priests vestments, Sacrifices, Circumcision, &c. Con­cerning most of which, and many other Rites it's said by the Lord (which I never read of swearing) that they should be Statutes for EVER, throughout ALL generations? and [Page 45]yet Christ cometh and abolisheth all these, and not clash with his Fathers commands; Was not Circumcision com­manded upon that severe penalty, of being cut off from the people, in case of not being circumcised?Gen. 17 14. Gal. 5.2. and yet Paul telleth the Galathians, that if they were circumcised Christ should profit them nothing. There is a time when it is death not to circumcise, and there is a time when Paul maketh it more then death to use it. Christ in like manner, yeeldeth by way of concession, that there was a season when swearing was lawfully used,Mat. 5.33, 34. but I say unto you (NOW) swear not at all. And if he say it, sure I am, it is not for you to dispute his commands; for it was not onely decreed in heaven, but by the Lords own mouth proclaimed on earth, that he is his beloved Son, and that him should all men HEAR. Matth. 17 5.

What you say touching the necessity of Oathes to decide controversies, is but a lame begging of the question; for, there can be no real necessity supposed for that, which Christ (the great Law-giver) forbiddeth the use of.Heb. 6.16. That the Au­thor to the Hebrews, saith, that an oath for confirmation, is to men an end of all strife, is true: To which I reply three things.

• 1. That Author writeth to the Hebrews (among whom swearing was first practised) by way of concession, that it was used among them (who were probably ignorant of the change of the Priesthood, and consequently of the repeal of that practife) for that purpose, but he doth neither command it, nor commend it.
• 2. In that he saith that to men, it is an end of strife; it is even thence clear, that to them who are already come to the end of all strife (being redeemed out of it) an oath is useless.
• 3. But lastly, if this Author, or an Angel from Heaven, had commanded men to swear, yet behold a greater then the Author to the Hebrews, a greater then Moses, a greater then the Angels (whom the Father com­mandeth to worship him) is here, who saith,
  Heb. 1.6.
  swear not AT ALL. And him are we all commanded to hear, in all things whatsoever he shall say unto us. And every soul which will not hear him, shall be destroyed from among the people,
  Deut. 18.15.
  saith [Page 46]the Spirit of the Lord,
  Act 3.22 23.
  by the mouth of Moses and Pe­ter:

That prejudice you suggest to which mens Estates would be liable by cheating companions, in case there were no swear­ing, is of no force; for he that will (contrary to the witness of God in his conscience) say a thing falsly, will not stick to swear it: And he that can affirm or deny a thing falsly with his yea, yea, nay, nay, will not scruple to seal the same with his oath.

As for the examples you offer of Abrahams requiring an oath of his servant, Jacob of Joseph, Nehemiah of the Jews; they all fall to the ground (with Circumcision, and other Rites practised by the same persons) not onely by the com­ing, but the countermand of the great Law-giver, who saith, Swear not at all.

Of which being [...] to your selves, you pass from them, and in your closing Query (by which you thought to have struck me silent) do confidently demand of me, whe­ther the Apostle Paul did well or ill to swear, who saith, Behold, Gal. 1.20. before God I lie not.

Rep. Monstrous impiety! matchless impudence! What? was it not sufficient for you to clip, and mince, the comman­dement of Christ, but you must audaciously attempt to fasten a slanderous accusation upon innocent Paul, by charging him for a swearer? [...]. Is Pauls saying, before God, any more then in the presence of God, or in the sight of God? Do you not know (which induceth me to beleeve that you sin against the light of Christ in your consciences) that the same Greek word is used to signifie so in more then twenty places of the Scripture?Luke 15.10. [...]. Doth not Luke use the same word when he saith, that there is joy in the PRESENCE of the Angels, over one repenting sinner. Doth not the same Evangelist use the same word for,Luk. 1.15. [...]. in conspeclu meo Gen 17.1. in the sight of God, saying, touching John Baptist, that he should be great in the SIGHT of the Lord?

Doth not God command Abraham, saying, walk BE­FORE me, and be thou perfect; and Luke commend Za­charias and Elizabeth for being both righteous BEFORE [Page 47]God? And did God and Luke swear in these sayings?Luk. 1.6. [...]

Nay, by this blasphemous doctrine of yours, how will you absolve Christ himself from being a swearer? who (be­sides other instances in Scripture) doth use the same expres­sion three times in one Chapter, saying of the Sparrows,Luk 12.6. [...]. that not one of them is forgotten BEFORE God. And further, he that denieth me BEFORE men, shall be denied BEFORE the Angels of God.

And do you not blush to think, muchless to say, that Christ, [...]. did here swear by his Father, or swear by men, or swear by the Angels of God? I could tire the patience of the Reader with instances of this nature. By which all the wise in heart may judge, what a loathsom spirit that is, by which you are acted, who durst in print belye Paul, and blaspheme the Son of God, by leaving them upon record under your own hands for swearers.

SECT. 17.

Now to palliate this your contradiction to Christs com­mand in your seventeenth Section you undertake to expound Christs prohibition of swearing, extending it to our ordina­ry discourse; but before a Magistrate you assert it law­ful.

Rep. Christ saith, swear not AT ALL. Christopher Fowler and Simon Ford say nay, but before a Magistrate you may swear: Now whether Christ or they are to be beleeved, let all that fear the Lord judge. Suppose one of your ser­vants should ask you leave to pass to London on horseback, you tell him nay; he asketh again, shall I go by coach or on foot; you reply nay, thou shalt not go at all. If this servant shall, notwithstanding this prohibition, presume to pass to London by water, whether will you not esteem him disobedient, having given him a universal denial, although he was not particularly forbidden to pass by water. The application is obvious to those that are serious.

You tell your Reader in the close of your sixteenth Secti­on, that this doctrine of the unlawfulness of swearing in [Page 48]any case, is a fragment of the old German Anabap­tists.

Rep. Were Christ, and the Apostle James, German Ana­baptists, who do expresly forbid men to swear at all, or by any manner of oath? But what would you inser thence? why this, that it concerneth me to look to it, that (as the Magi­strates then saw cause to dispute with the sword of justice a­gainst them, so) the Magistracy of England may never have the like provocation, to do the same against the Quakers, and o­ther Sectaries among us.

Rep. Mind Reader, what spirit these men are of, and what they hunt after,Aut Caesares aut nulli. blood, blood, Quakers and other Sectaries? That is to say, all those that cannot subject their neeks to the Priests yoke. But stay, Sirs, was it a Quaker, or Sectary, or was it a Priest that lost his head by the Sword of Justice upon Tower-hill?Christoph. Love Were both your hands clean from the wickedness of that bloody design? if they were, its well. But sure I am that so considerable a number of your impericus generation, were concerned in that piece of Treason, that had the State disputed it with you according to the provoca­tion given them, they might have found sufficient cause to have cut many a Priest in this Nation shorter by the head.

And being now engaged in this discourse, I cannot but freely declare my mind to the whole Nation in this particu­lar, viz. all plots and designs, together with all plotters and designers, against the peace of the State under which they live, I do utterly deny; for the grace of God which bringeth salvation, teacheth me to live peaceably and soberly, in this present evil world.

And be they of what name or profession soever, that are found agitating any design for the spilling of blood, let the hand of justice find them out, and let them reap that just re­ward that is according to their doings. And whatever these men of blood (whose ambition it is to have their seet upon all others necks) do suggest to the Magistrate, yet I can freely say, that I do not know any one person in the Nation called a Quaker, but will readily set his seal to what I have now declared.

I have been the larger in this particular about swearing because of that great (but groundless) flourish you make in the close of your seventeenth Section touching it, viz. that who so can reconcile Christs prohibition, to the precepts and examples quoted by you, shall gain the cause; a thing so easily effected, that there is none, but he that is wilfully blind, but will see the seeming discord, fully reconciled by what hath been before said.

All that William Thomas doth about this particular, in mangling and confounding Christs plain precept, and clip­ping that of the Apostle James, by leaving out in his quo­tation those words, nor by any other oath; I say,Jam. 5.12. it's all a­bundantly answered before, and not onely his creature-swearing, Pag. 25. and his common swearing (as he expresseth himself) but all swearing falleth to the ground by that universal in­junction of Christs, swear not at all.

SECT. 18.

Your eighteenth Section is made up of fained words, and false suggestions; when you have a mind to belie me, then you quote not my particular expressions, but tell your Reader that the sum and upshot of them is such and such; and so instead of my words, do produce the idle concepti­ons of your own brains, and then spend time to answer them; just like children that fight with their own shadows. You pretend to have a great weight upon your shoulders, whilst you own the work of builders, but it is but of Babel; Sowers, viz. of tares, strife, and sedition among men; Plan­ters, but it is of that which must be pluck'd up; Husband­men, and yet briars, and thorns still standing in your fields; Shepheards, but not Christs, for they never devoured the sheep; Watchmen, but very blind ones; Souldiers, but not under Christs Banner, for such fought not with carnal wea­pons; I doubt not but you have a good mind to this last im­ployment, had you but an opportunity to fight Presbytery into the Chair.

You tell me in the same Section, that it's my Law, that [Page 50]those that have been bred to study, must have no subsistence, but by handy work or begging.

Rep. What a yoak of impudent Liars are you, who durst in print to father that expression upon me, which never procee­ded out of my lip? If you preach lies to the people, with that confidence with which you print them; let all that fear the Lord judge what maester you serve, whose Ministers you are, and whom you may call your Father. That it is your declared doubt, that you should be reduced to beg or work, in case you had not your maintenance ascertained to you, is clear to all that observe any thing for why else is it that you do make such firm indentures with the people for your wages, before ye dare enter upon the work? At the close of this Section you seem to lament the hard measure you should have from me, in case, I could compasse my fifth Monarchy.

Rep. This suggestion hath been once offered before, and now repeated, to beget (if possible) a jealous eye in the State upon a people trodden down, and trampled upon in the streets by all, and who are as far removed from a spirit of fighting, as these men are from the Spirit of truth, which is as far as light from darkness, or Heaven from Hell. And therefore I tell you again, that I do neither own, nor expect any other fifth Monarchy but this, that Christ Jesus should rule and reign in the contrite heart, which is already begun in the hearts of thousands in this Nation.

You further boast how you should trust God in case you were reduced to that condition, &c.

Rep. What admirable faith have these men, who can speak so largely of trusting God for food and raiment, with full bellies, and well-clothed backs? and have firm depen­dance on him for their maintenance, whilst their bags and barns are well filled, and have a power from without to force the people, where they will not freely give down their milk.

SECT. 19.

You entertain your Reader in your nineteenth Section [Page 51]with a few jests, and then come in the close to blesse God that provides for you; telling your Reader, that you dare not take Gods gifts, and throw them back into his face, by contemning the gracious allowance of his providence.

Rep. Is the tenth of poor mens labours that you cruelly exact from them, the gift of God? and is your forced main­tenance which you tear out of peoples throats, the gracious allowance of his providence? Was this the reason why one ofChristopher Fowler. you did arrest several poor Gardners in Redding (to the number of twelve, as I am informed) for the Tithe of their TƲRNEPS and CARRETS; that he might thereby quit himself from the guilt of throwing Gods gifts in his face? &c. Do not think to cover over the venom of your hearts and practises, with such hypocritical pretences as these; and know, that although you may for a season blind the eyes of men, with such mists of the bottomless pit, yet the righte­ous hand of the all-seeing God will find you out, and surely reward you according to the wickedness of your doings.

SECT. 20.

And now I am come to deal with you touching your great Idoll, Tithes, about which you and William Thomas make a great cry, as they in behalf of their dead Goddess,Acts 19.28. Great is Diana of the Ephesians but prove nothing. Sometimes you flie to the example of Melchisedeck, for patronage in your requiring Tithes, sometimes to the Law of man. And because you judge it too Jewish to claim them as Successors to Levi (though Gods command for Tithes, and the institution of that Priesthood were of equall antiquity) you run thence to Melchizedeck his receiving them of Abram, hoping thence to gain something for a covering to your practises not at all warranted by any example of the Ministers of Christ in the Scripture. But if this be the firmest prop you have to sup­port your Idol (and upon that you lay the stress of your swelling Argument in your 24^th Section) I doubt not but by what followeth, the understanding Reader will conclude, that its no more able to stand before the strength of truth, then [Page 52] Dagon was before the Ark of God And therefore to all that you have pleaded in the behalf of Tythes,1 Sam. 5.4. from your Twen­tieth to the end of your Twenty eighth Section, I shall make my reply in these following particular.

• 1.
  Heb. 7.4.
  Abram returning from the slaughter of certain Kings, GAVE unto Melchisedeck (who came out to meet him) the tenth of his SPOILS taken in the War. The Scripture saith not, that he gave them the tenth of his enerease, the tenth Calf, the tenth Lamb, the tenth Sheaf, the tenth Pig, &c.
• 2.
  Gen. 28.22.
  We read not that Abram did this by any command­ment of the Lords, but as a free will-offering (such as was Jacobs vow) neither do the Scripture say that Melchisedeck required or exacted these spoils of Abram, but that they were voluntarily given him.
• 3. You cannot shew in Scripture that the tenth of spoils was Melchisedecks yearly maintenance, or that Abraham gave them to him more then once.
• 4.
  Gen. 14 18, 19
  Abram gave the tenth of his spoils to Melchisedeck, from whom he received a blessing, besides bread and wine he brought forth to him; but you do forcibly extort the tenth of all their encrease from them; on whom you pronounce the curse, whom ye revile, against whom ye rail, and of whom you speak all manner of evil.
• 5. Who made you Priests after the order of Melchise­deck; or how came you to be his successors; who have as much right to his Priesthood, as the Bishops and their crea­tures had to make Ministers for Jesus Christ?

By all which, the wise-hearted Reader may perceive, that the example of Melchisedeck (under which you seem so securely to shelter your selves) doth not afford you the least shadow of countenance in your ungospel-like practices, in commencing suits at law against-men for the tenth of all their encrease. For let all men judge what parallel there is; Melchisedeck the Priest of the most high God, meeteth Abram returning from the War, blesseth him, receiveth (not exacteth) and that (not as his standing maintenance) but [Page 53] once, the tenth (not of all his encrease but) of his spoils, which Abram (not by commandment but) voluntarily gave him. But you (who are not Priests, as was Melchi­sedeck) do demand and force for your yearly maintenance during life, from whole Parishes (even where you curse in­stead of blessing) the tenth of all their encrease. So that the strongest inference that can be drawn from this example is this; that when any King returneth from the War, if he meet with a Priest of the most high God that blesseth him, he may, if he please, give him the tenth of his spoils; and what is this to you? unless you can perswade the Protector to grant, that when the Army or Fleet, do return from War, you meeting them with bread and wine (which I scarce beleeve you will do, for most of you do not love them so well) may receive the tenth of all their spoils. But what a mighty slaughter of Kings must the Army and Fleet needs make, to gain so much spoil, the tenth of which must serve to be a standing maintenance to so many Priests, who live so high, and fare so deliciously, as the most of you do?

SECT. 24.

Whereas you urge that Tythes are due to Christ, being a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck (and therefore due to you) it is such a ridiculous fiction, as the like I have seldom heard. For would Christ never have made demand of that which was his due, nor his Apostles and Ministers after him? As he and they were faithful in telling the people of other their abominations, so surely they would not have been si­lent, and not (at least) have told them of their duty, and reproved them for their sin, in detaining from them the tenth of their encrease, which was their due by com­mand.

But you say the Ministers of Christ then had not the same legal right, back'd with the power of a Christan Magi­strate.

Rep. To which I reply two things. 1: Could they not have made demand without a Magistrate, and have laid it as a sin upon those that refused payment? 2. But this is of no weight. for neither had the Tribe of Levi any law to en­force payment at all; which maketh your practice the more wicked, who (supposing Tythes to be as due to you as to Levi) do notwithstanding horribly transgress their pat­tern, in extorting that by Law from the people, of which they onely made demand, by vertue of Gods appoint­ment.

I shall close this of Tythes with these four things. 1. I do demand of you, and William Thomas, and of every Tyth-gathering Teacher in England, but one example throughout the Scripture, either of a Priest under the Law, or of any Minister of the Gospel since Christ, that did ever force his maintenance from the people, nay, even that maintenance which was given them by Gods, or Christ?

2. Whereas there was but a tenth appointed payable to the Tribe of Levi, and a tenth given to Melchisedeck, how cometh it to pass, that you (who are not of that Tribe) do demand, and receive a seventh of the people, viz. a seventh Calf, a seventh Lamb, a seventh Pig? &c.

3. I would demand of William Thomas, whether he did not some years since, receive of his Parishoners the sixth part of all their encrease for one year? and whether he did not urge them to have continued the same for one year more, which they refused? if this be true in the matter of fact (for which I can produce testimony out of his own neighbour­hood) then I demand, what shadow of a rule in Scripture, he had for this? and whether (supposing the tenth to be his due) it be not extortion to receive the sixth?

4. Lastly, There is no clearer demonstration that neither you nor he, are Ministers of Christ, then this, that you express such clamour about your maintenance. What fears? What di­strusts? what out-crys? Christ is no hard Master, for where he sendeth out, although it be without purse, or scrip, &c. there is no want: Never any that were faithful in his work [Page 55]but had enough; and were you his servants you would trust more, and fear and complain less.

SECT. 29.

To the contents of your twenty ninth Section, treating a­bout your not trusting your Master (as his Ministers in Scripture did) but indenting for a maintenance, I have already made reply in my seventh Section, to which I refer the Reader.

SECT. 30.

In this Section you charge me with bold censures, because I charge it as hypocrisie on such as preach against pride, and yet live in it, against covetousness, and yet are greedy of fil­thy lucre &c. And you do passionately deny that matter of fact. Whereas should I charge you two in particular to be a couple of proud, imperious, domineering persons, I could soon produce many scores of witnesses, out of the Town of Reading, and the County of Berks, to give testimony there­unto. And as to the most of your Brethren abroad, who, but he that shutteth his eyes at noon day, doth not see that whilst they preach against pride, and covetousness, they themselves are both proud and covetous? who more haughty? who more greedy of filthy lucre? I do further charge it as gross hypocrisie, for men to come in the face of a congregation, pretending to pray with a great deal of zeal, that God would teach them what to say, when as they are re­solved before hand what they will say. And I do further ask you, where you read of any of the Ministers of Jesus Christ in Scripture, that carried about Sermon-notes in their pockets, to the several places where they preached the Gospel, and putting them in a book, did now and then read, and now and then speak a few sentences to the people without them? Or whether did they not occasionally where they came, speak as the Spirit of the Lord gave them utterance? Surely, were they now upon the earth, William Thomas would damn them [Page 56]for extemporary Teachers,Page 40. and Enthusiasts, as in the heighth of his rage, he doth those that have not Sermon-notes, &c,

SECT. 31.

You charge me in your following Section, with bringing an Indictment of felony against poor Ministers (as you call them) for QƲOTING of the Fathers, and Expositers of Scripture.

Rep But that you are accustomed to tell your Reader that I say this and that, which never proceeded out of my lips (thereby hoping to enervate the force of that truth which I did indeed speak) one would wonder that you should so im­prudently assert so manifest a lye touching me: Let the honest Reader peruse my whole Epistle, and see if there be such a word as quote or quoting, to be found therein. And yet I must needs be made to charge your poor Ministers, with that which I never said. And having laid a lye for your foundation, you proceed to erect thereon a rotten build­ing; proposing several lofty interrogatories to me, touching Christ quoting Moses and the Prophets, Peter quoting Paul; and Paul quoting Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides; and all this while do but fight against a lye of your own creating, for I never gain-said any of these things. You know well enough, that my tenth Article did express the complaint made by your generation, against the people called Quakers, for that they called those men Thieves and Robbers who did spend six days in the week to gather together the words of other men, and then come forth on the seventh day, and bid the people hearken to the word of the Lord, &c. And did Christ or the Apostles thus? they spake from the Spirit, and preach'd by the Spirit, and as they were by that directed, they did (where they saw occasion) urge the words of the Prophets, against those that talked of them, but dwelt in that Spirit that slew them, as your generation do at this day, preach Christ in words, but yet crucifie him where he appeareth in power. And this practice of Christ and the Apostles I never condemned

William Thomas soming out his rage about this Article,Page 42. is as foul and false in his slanderous accusations, as you. He confesseth that he doth spend his time to gather together the words of the Prophets and Apostles (with their right mean­ings) and then say, Hearken unto the word of the Lord. Where by the way we must observe, that the meanings that the Priests do put upon the words of the Prophets and Apostles, are by this man esteemed the word of the Lord. And then demandeth whether they be theeves, because they re­ceive that from the Lord which they deliver to his people?

Rep. He is not in the account of truth a Thief, that re­ceiveth that from the Lord, that he delivereth to the people. But must he that maketh it his trade to gather together the Saints words, and thereunto add his own imaginations, and then come forth and bid the people hearken to the word of the Lord, I say, must this man presently be said to re­ceive this from the Lord? when as whilst he talketh of the Saints words, he is a stranger to the Saints conditions, and an enemy to those that witness them? may not the worst of men, nay, the fowlest of Devils, gather together the Saints words and the meanings of men imposed upon them, and then talk of them to the people? and will he allow that these Brats of darkness do therein speak what they receive from the Lord, or that the word of the Lord cometh unto them? Grant but his irrational premises, and this dismal conclusion will unavoidably follow.

SECT. 32.

In this Section you shufflle off your Reader (according to your usual manner of answering) with a few scoffs and Queries; and such also, which are not at all to the thing in hand. My Article spake of the people called Quakers, their confident advising the Publick Teachers to preach no more to the people, then the Lord hath spoken to them. In answer to which, you fall to querying about Prophetesses and womens teaching, and others coming into your Congregations; and Christs, and the Apostles disputing in the Synagogues, &c. [Page 58]All which were subjects that my Article spake not of. But wanting matter of just quarrel or accusation against me (the Article being plain) you would seek to create some. To all which your filty scoffs, and impertinent Queries, I shall on­ly say Three things.

• 1.
  Gal. 3.28.
  The Spirit of the Lord is not confined to one Sex, nei­ther is there male or female in Christ Jesus, but all are one. Had learned Apollos been such a stubborn opinionist as you scorners are, he would have disdained (as you do) to have received instruction, from the lips of a poor Pris­cilla.
• 2. Although Christ, and the Apostles did preach down the whole pedagogy of the Jews, and all their Temple-wor­ship (for which they were so exceeding zealous) yet when they came into their Synagogues to dispute with them, they found even at their hands, a thousand times sairer quarter, then many poor hearts finde from your Wolfish flocks in your Steeple-houses, for speaking but six words, among whom, they are oftentimes in danger of life, or limb.
• 3. Whereas you speak of the Quakers violating that Article of the Government which alloweth liberty to all such as profess Faith in God by Jesus Christ. I say, that this is monstrous hypocrisie in you; when as that Article of the Government, is not more broken upon any order of men at this day in the Nation, then upon that suffering people called Quakers; and that by the hands of the Priests Disciples, and their persecuting companions; by coming into their peacable meetings, and there railing, and reviling them, nay oftentimes laying vio­lent hands on them; of which there is scarce a day but doth afford an instance in some part of this Nation or other? and do you, as the most guilty, begin to complain first?

SECT. 33.

Your Three and thirtieth Section is such a Linsy. woolsey peece, such a medly of confusion, that there is neither head not tail in it. The advice given you, viz. to preach no more to the people then the Lord hath spoken to you, you say, were it de­livered [Page 59]to you in a sober, private, Christian way (I do well know you love to be honored before the people) you would take well at my hands, and practice accordingly.

Rep. Then you approve of the advice as good. And why is it then that you endeavour in the remaining part of your Section to contradict it, and go about to perswade your Reader, that I bad mal-advised you, in meaning what I did not speak? It's a strange law, that when no fault can be found with a mans words, being wholesom, he must then be reviled, and beaten, for his supposed meanings. You further demand of me, to what purpose the Scripture is avouched to be profitable for doctrine, if you may raise no doctrines from it?

Answ. With what reason, or on what ground this imper­tinent Query is proposed (more then to spend your spare time) I profess I cannot conceive, for that there is nothing spoken in my Article that concerneth any such thing. How­ever since you will needs know my mind in the case, I say, That the holy Scriptures were given by inspiration of God,2 Tim. 3.16. and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction, is true; but doth it therefore follow that the Scriptures were given forth, for you by the strength of your imaginations, to raise Doctrines, Reasons, and Ʋses from them, and then take them & sell them to the people for mony? The Scriptures of truth, as they were spoken forth by the holy men of God, are pure, but you and your Brethren (to gain a livelihood thereby) do spend your time to fasten your own corrupt glosses, and in­terpretations upon them, in which you are so full of confu­sion, and contradictions each to other, that, that which hath in it self a sweet harmony, you make to be a monstrous heap of jars and discord: Your after discourse about Christs and the Apostles speaking the words of Moses, and the Prophets, is vain and frivolous; being that which I never denied, or condemned. And therefore you have done but as peevish persons, in a deep fit of melancholly, viz. create images in your own fancies, and then fight with them.

SECT. 34.

In this Section you study how to pick matter of wrangling, about that advice given you, To preach no more to the people then you your selves witness the life and power of within your selves. But finding my expressions plain, you fall (accord­ing to your wonted ingenuous way) to suppose meanings up­on my naked expressions. And my meaning must needs be supposed to be that which never came out of my lips: The ground of this is, because you say others of my brethren do so, and so. How is that proved? by a discourse had (you say) betwixt two Quakers related by John Toldervy.

Rep. You appeal to Col Sidenham in your fawning Epistle touching your candor and integrity in the managery (a very hard word) as you term it, of your answer to my Epistle. And is this one of the demonstrations of your candor and in­tegrity, to charge such and such things upon the people cal­led Quakers, and then offer John Toldervy for proof? this is just as if a man should have come to the Chief-Priests and Rulers of old, and asked them, is Christ an evil-doer, and worthy to be given over to be crucified? yea would they say, how is that proved? Why, Judas saith so. And then ask the people of the Jews, what is this Jesus of Nazareth? why, would they say, he is a deceiver, and a blasphemer; how is that proved? Our Rulers and Chief-Priests say so. And so be­twixt you, and John Toldervy, the innocent shall no way escape condemnation.

SECT. 35.

Your 35^th is made up of malicious slanders, and false ac­cusations; where are those lazie Lurdens, or Drones (as you call them) who eat the fat, and drink the sweet? For mine own part, I know none such but the Priests; who yet are wiser for themselves, then those you accuse of walking up and down the Land; for that instead of travelling through heat, and cold, drouth and wet, they love to keep close in [Page 61]one parish, to eat the fat, and drink the sweet. But where are those that do eat their wives and families out of doors? name any man that's called a Quaker, that hath done so; and if you can (were recrimination any excuse) I doubt not but for every such one, to name you twenty Priests that are deeply guilty of the same crime.

SECT. 36.

In your 36^th Section you accuse me of setting up the reve­lation of the Spirit, in opposition to all humane studies; and why? Because my Twelfth Article said, That the mind of God is not to be known by study in a Ʋniversity, but by reve­lation of the Spirit, who alone knoweth his mind. 1 Cor. 2.11, 12 And is not this plain truth?

SECT. 37.

Why is it then, that you make such a great noise about Ʋniversity learning; endeavouring to make Paul and Peter to be Advocates for you in the case? The first of whom, viz, Paul, did with all his learning fight against Christ, and drew his blood; as you, and many others at this day do, that pretend highly to it. And although he came afterwards to know and receive, that Jesus whom he before persecuted, yet, I deny it was at all by the power of his humane learning, but by the revelation of the Spirit of life. And as for Pe­ter, how could you but blush (were you not past all shame) to abuse and belie him as you do, in bringing him for testi­mony to the usefulness of Ʋniversity learning in this way; making him to say, that in the reading of the Scriptures it may keep a man from wresting them to destruction? doth not the Scripture bear witness of Peter, that he himself was unlear­ned? and will you make Peter to condemn Peter, Act 4.13. and im­plicitly conclude that he himself was a wrester of Scripture having not that learning, which you say will keep men from wresting them? Moreover, do not the Pope, his Cardinals, the Jesuits and the rest of your Romish fraternity abound in [Page 62] Ʋniversity learning? notwithstanding which, do not you and the rest in England, accuse all those learned ones, for wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction.

SECT. 38.

In what confusion do your next Section shew you to live in? which you begin with as full an acknowledgment of the impotency of humane learning, to give the knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom, as I my self have at any time, or could have made. Your words are these. We acknowledge that all the learning of the world will not bring saving truth effectu­ally home to the understanding, and consciences of men; nay, carnal reason, back'd with LEARNING, will dispute the light of the most glorious doctrinal truths of the Gospel, out of mens judgements, and the most glorious practical truths of of the Gospel out of mens consciences, as appears daily in those, whose learning Satan makes use of (as he doth of yours and others) 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. Thus are you constrained in words (whatever your hearts are) to give testimony to the insufficiency of your Idol Ʋniversity learning, and to the efficacy of the revelation and demonstra­tion of the Spirit. And yet in the close of the same Section, you cannot but call Schools of learning, no small props of Christian Religion. Are not they very sure props of Christi­an Religion, in which men learn that, which joyned with carnal reason will dispute the most glorious truths of the Gospel out of mens judgements and consciences. Here is just the image of Babel. As your brethren do use to preach, so do you print; who oftentimes in their Sermons, do very zealously assert a thing for truth, and before they close their discourse, do cross the same thing and contradict it. I could tell the Reader at large what precious Plants the Ʋniversities and Schools of learning, do oftentimes nurse up, but I shall re­serve that untill another season. Onely for close of this, you [Page 63]being now crying Hosanna to your Universities, let me ask you this question; How came it to pass that Simon Ford was (a very few years since) expelled the University of Oxford? Simon Ford turned out of the University of Oxford. Was the Mother unrighteous, or was the Son wicked? If for a good deed he was driven thence, then that prop of Chri­stian Religion, was a persecuter of the innocent; if for evil­doing, then let the Reader judge, how well this man behaved himself there, that the University (which I am sure here­tofore did rarely administer expulsion to any, but for a very great crime) thought good to vomit him up as a corrupt member.

SECT. 40, 41, 42, 43.

In the next place I cannot but take notice how much stir both you and William Thomas do make, about that expressi­on of mine in the Twelfth Article viz. that Paul and Peter preach'd that Gospel which Christ by his Spirit revealed in them. 1 Cor. 2 10. Gal. 1.16. And here you follow your old trade of making meanings up­on my plain words: And you doubt another Snake in the grass of this fair expression.

Rep. Are you Ministers of Jesus Christ, and know not to this day what it is to preach the Gospel, which he hath re­vealed in you?

Are there two Gospels? or did Paul and Peter preach two, viz. one revealed in them and another without them [...] there any other way of knowing the glorious mysteries of the Gospel, but by revelation made by the Spirit of Iesus within.

William Thomas confesseth, that Paul and Peter were in­structed by immediate revelation, Page 44. which (saith he) We are not so presumptuous as to expect.

Rep. Poor blind man! The Lord is, my witness, that my beart was moved with pitty towards him at the reading of this expession, and could even weep over him thus drowned in ignorance. What hath he been preaching these thirty and nine years (for so long it seems he hath been a Teacher) who is so far from having received,Pag. 8. confes­sed. that he never expect­ed [Page 64] instruction by immediate revelation? Hath he only taught the history of that which others did, and spake? If so, what hath he done more then the Devils, and many (now) damned spirits, can do, and have done? Cannot those soul spirits talk of what others have said, and done in the Scriptures? nay,Mark. 5.7. do we not find an unclean spirit preaching Christ in words to be the Son of the most high God? Have not the Pope, his Cardinals and Jesuites the knowledge of the histo­ry of the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles, and do preach them in words? Had not the Priests, Scribes and Pharisees, the knowledge of the letter of Scriptures, and yet slew Christ? Could not Paul have preached the history of Scrip­tures that spake of Christ, even then (when with all his learn­ing) he drew his blood, and persecuted him from City to City? Now, what hath William Thomas done more then all these, unless, besides the knowledge of the History, gained by reading and hearing, he hath received instruction by the immediate revelation of the Spirit in the mystery, as Paul afterwards did, and so come to know the same made mani­fest which hath been hid from ages,Col. 1.26, 27. viz. Christ in him the hope of glory.

From the manifestation of his ignorance,Page 45. he proceedeth in the next page to cast up a loathsom morsel of his pro­phaneness, calling that expression, of witnessing the Saints conditions, by the reproachful name of gibberish. But let the scorner and the scoffer know, that though he preach and talk of the Saints words (which the evil Angels themselves can do) until he drop into his grave, if he live and die a stranger to the Saints conditions, he will be found to be but a lyar before the Lord, in the great day of his account. He may go up in his Pulpit, and make many guilded Orations, about Pauls being crucified with Christ, and Christs living in him (if he will yet acknowledge that to be a truth) and yet, if he come not to witness the same condition of Pauls to be his, let me tell him, that when the Lamb cometh to judgement, he shall wish with tears, that he might indeed know that which his scornful pen now trampleth upon as gibberish. Miserable souls, who pass away their daies (and [Page 65]so sink into eternity) under such mens teachings, who nei­ther have, nor expect to have instruction from the immediate revelation of the Spirit, and scornfully spurn at those that witness the Saints conditions.

SECT. 43.

You also have a stone to throw at this expression, calling it odd and uncouth.

Rep. To those that are ignorant of it, even the pearl of great price is of little value; and so it is to you, who live in blindness your selves, and do strive to keep others bound in the same chain. And whereas you charge me in the close of this Section, with speaking scornfully of the righteousness of Christ. I say you are a couple of impudent liars, who dare print that as mine, which never was in my heart to think, nor upon my lips to express. Are you Ministers of Christ, who can scarce write a leaf, without a lie? Beside; the witness of God in my own conscience,Christs inno­cency pleaded against the cry of the Chief-Priests: Page. 55. the honest Rea­der may see that I have my own expression as a witness for me also in my book, against your filthy stander? in which I spake of such, as did talk of a righteousness beyond the stars, and they in the mean time live in filthiness and pollution, and is this to speak scornfully of the righteousness of Christ, when as it was not so much as mentioned? They that witness Christ in them, do not witness his righteousness to be a far off from them, unless you suppose that Christ can be separated from his righteousness.

SECT. 44.

Your next Section containeth little worthy of notice, be­cause you say, that if I mean as I say, then you mean and say as I do. And yet you cannot forbear to multiply words, and make a confession of your faith; telling me, that you do not make your mortification of sin, or resurrection to newness of life, any part of your righteousness in the presence of God.

Rep. You have little reason so to do; for that would be a [Page 66]strange polluted righteousness to appear in the presence of the Lord with, which is made up of such mock-mortifica­tion of sin, and resurrection to life, as yours is; who by your unclean fruits do make it manifest, that you are alive to sin, and dead unto newness of life.

SECT. 45.

You cannot forbear (being accustomed to it) to add a­nother gross lie, to the former, in the beginning of this Section also; averting that in my fourteenth Article, I do confess that I do both publish, and practise, an unmannerly disrespect of all persons.

Rep. Why sirs, is the dread and fear of the Lord quite removed from before your eyes, that you are thus audacious in printing, and publishing, such notorious untruths unto the world? did I, by my recital of the words of the Apostle James (he that respecteth persons doth commit sin) confess, James 2.9. that I did both publish and practice an unmannerly disrespect of all persons? Do you not lay the innocent Apostle under the same condemnation, since the words recited out of that Scripture, were originally his and not mine? as you have be­fore pleaded hard for your backs and your bellies; so in this and your following Section, you do for your honour; being loth to lose the cap and the knee, and greetings in the Mar­kets. And having here (as formerly) laid a lie for your foundation, you proceed to tell me, that you will dispute it with me, whether Religion doth destroy civility and good man­ners? A thing which I never asserted, and therefore is out of all question with me. True Religion is the Nurse, not the destroyer of good manners; which good manners do consist, in doing the things that are honest both in the sight of God and men; not in an Apish fantastical pulling off the hat, and crying, Your humble servant Sir; when as oftentimes whilst that complement is upon the lip, there is so much malice in the heart, as would cut the throat of the person saluted, were there but an opportunity presented.

You proceed on and say, that you do humbly conceive [Page 67]that the fifth Commandment is not yet repealed.

Rep. Did I ever say it was? What? always create images in your own corrupt fancies, and then contend about them? I say according to the Scriptures, that children ought to obey their Eph. 6.1. parents, and servants their masters, and all people theVers. 5. Tit. 3.1. magistrates in the Lord. Which obedience consisteth in doing all things just, and well pleasing in the sight of God. Neither do I deny to call persons, or things, noble, excellent, or honourable, which indeed are so. But what is this to your crouching, and cringing, and capping, and kneeing it, to the man wearing the gold ring, and the gay raiment; passing by the poor man in vile apparrel, without any notice or regard? And whereas you justifie your selves as such who do prefer a godly poor man, before any wealthy man, that is not so. I say, how doth this appear? Is it by your insulting and lording it over all those in the Town of Redding, that refuse to be Vassals to your corrupt wills and lusts? Let those that are the godly poor in and about that Town, be witnesses a­gainst you in what you have here falsly asserted of your selves.

SECT. 47.

And whereas you demand of me, why I do give the name of Sirs, and Sir, since you say my brethren do quarrel with the name of Master, or Sir.

Ans. I answer, that for the Readers sake,Acts 7.26. "ΑΝΔΡΕΣ [...] VIRI. Act. 27.10. "ΑΝΔΡΕΣ [...] Viri vi­deo. Ver 25. [...] "ΑΝΔΡΕΣ Bono animo estote VIRI. So vers. 21. I shall give this plain account thereof; I do use the word Sir, and Sirs, as Moses used it, and as Paul used it three times in one Chapter, to express no more then man, or men, for so you do well know (though you conceal it from your Reader) the word there used doth signifie, and no more. And whereas you say that my brethren might know how often the word Master, or Sir, is given and taken by the Apostles of Christ. I say, I find not in Scripture that ever any Apostle of Christ gave the word Master, to any Apostle, or other Saint, nor that any Apostle did use the title of Sir, or Sirs, to the Apo­stles or other Saints, by the word ( [...]) Kurie, or ( [...]) [Page 68] Kurioi, which words do express Lordship, or Mastership; but when they did use the word Sirs, it was by the Greek word, ( [...]) Andres, which signifieth no more then men, and so do I use it, and no otherwise.

SECT. 48.

You have not yet done with this. But do go on to sup­pose worse blood in my veins, then that which boyles against poor Ministers. And you doubt that I that would strip them (viz. the Magistrates) of their Titles, have too great mind to their Offices.

Rep. Are you come with this threed-bare suggestion again? Antichrist and his Ministers throughout all ages, did cleave close to the Magistrates, The Priests pretend great love to the Magistrates whilst they will serve them. whilst they would be their servants, and supporters; but when they would no longer serve their lusts, then damn them to the bottomless pit: Fain you would perswade the Magistrates what aspi­ring persons, the people called Quakers are; which cannot be prevalent with any, but such as are as drunk with rage against them as your selves; unlesse it be because they are a people trodden down by all as mire in the streets. But let me ask you Did the Quakers ever attempt the overthrow and destruction of any power that would not establish them in the throne? Or did they ever endeavour to bring into Eng­land an army of Scots, to over-awe both Parliament and Ar­my, into subjection to prescripts, and rules of their creating? such things as these (with many other that I omit) would have shewed some bad blood running in their veins indeed.

I do well remember the time when your Pulpits sounded of little else, but Curse ye Meroz, curse bitterly the inhabi­tants thereof, &c. stirring up the people to joyn with the Par­liament, against the late King, and your forefathers the Bi­shops; hoping that the Parliament in conclusion (Bishops be­ing dethroned) would have made you heirs of their inheri­tance, of their lands, and revenues, of their honour, vain-glo­ry and domination; and have committed the scepter to you, to rule and tyrannize, over all other mens consciences. But [Page 69]they denying you that, your Dialect touching them was soon changed in your Pulpits: and probably, had you not been timely prevented, you bad given them in requital for all their pains and travel, nought but a Scottish yoak.

SECT. 49.

In this Section you do not a little insult, and triumph, ma­king a great flourish, as if you had gained some notable con­quest. And all because in my last Article, I said, that the people called Quakers, did avouch it proper, as in Hebrew, Greek, and Latine, so in English, to say thou, and thee, to any single person. And was this such a groundwork for you to build so mighty a flourish upon? Can you and your school­boy of ten years old, (you speak of) find me any place in Scri­pture where the Hebrew word, [...], or the Greek word. [...] or the Latine word. Tu, are rendred any otherwise in English then THOƲ? Or can you, and your young Schol­ler, shew me any place in Scripture, where the Hebrew word [...], or the Greek word [...], or the Latine word vos, are rendred any otherwise, then you, or ye? Neither am I so sil­ly (as you are pleased to call me) but that I do well know, that words in all languages do signifie this, or that, (ex in­stituto humano) by mans institutior, but when by mans insti­tution, tu is appointed to signifie thou, and vos, ye, I hope its not left (ad arbitrium) to every man to expresse ye, by the word tu, nor thou, by the word vos.

SECT. 50.

And because you would not be left without some reason, why you say thou and thee, to the great God; you offer such a one as you have, though it be a pittifull lame one, (viz.) because you address your selves to God in Prayer, in the unity of his nature.

Rep. Is it not proper upon the same ground to say thou and thee to a single person? unless you will say that you speak to a plurality of men, when you speak but to one.

William Thomas saith, that to say thou, Page 47. and thee, to our superiours is offensive, which ought to be avoided?

Rep. Is that language offensive unto men, which he himself doth give to the great God, as often as he prayeth? or is not the Lord of heaven and earth his Superior? if he be, why doth he not avoid such offensive language? And if to use the words thou and thee, be to be a perfect Clown (as he expres­seth it) then what would he be esteemed, who doth publike­ly use the same to the Almighty God his Superiour so of­ten in his Pulpit?

SECT. 54.

And now I am come to your large list of Particulars, which you call THE QƲAKERS DOCTRINES: In mustering up which you have shewed your selves not a little fraudulent and dis-ingenuous:

• For first, upon diligent search and enquiry, I can scarce find one particular in the whole Catalogue (that is, of any weight) but is either a thing created, or misquoted.
• Secondly, Let the Reader observe whose testimony you offer in evidence to prove those things of which you accuse them (viz.) The Book called The Perfect Pharisee, John Toldervy, Richard Baxter, &c. If Pilate will accept of the testimony of the whole counsell of the Rulers, chief Priests, and Pharisees against Christ (to whom they were professed enemies) can he be adjudged to be any other then a person worthy to suffer death? If a Je­suite should come to one of you and impeach you, and those called Protestants for Hereticks, and for proof there­of, should offer in evidence, the testimony of the Pope, Cardinals, and the whole Romish crew, would you judge it fair dealing, or would you not reject such his proof as coming from those that are judges and parties against you?
• Thirdly, if the things you charge were all true, (as they are not) must the particular expression of one man be present­ly [Page 71]charged as the doctrine of many thousands that are called by the same name, who do utterly disown the things so spoken? If this be a regular way of proceeding, what Monsters of men could I soon prove you two to be, and most of the publike Teachers of the Nation, by the ma­ny wicked, prophane, blasphemous expressions of your hea­rers, and followers?

Nay farther, if I listed to charge all that upon you two, which I have heard from the mouths of sober men, nay, which I find printed touching (not your sayings only; but) the wickedness of your doings, you would appear so foul and filthy, that there is no honest heart but would dis-own your fellowship (without repentance) whilst he had a day to live.

Its not my business not is it my purpose, to contend about other mens words. Yet that the Reader may judge how you deal with the People called Quakers, in the rest of your Articles: I shall let him know how falsely and unfairly, you deal with them in two or three of the Particulars:

1. One of the Quakers Doctrines you say is, That they are equall with God, as holy, just, and good, as God himself. For proof of which you quote the Book called, The Perfect Pharisee.

Rep. 1. The two persons upon whom this expression was charged have publikely enough denied, and disowned it in Print. 2. I do not know any one person that is called a Quaker, but doth (as I my self do) deny and abhor any such expression. Now then, let the honest Reader observe, whe­ther it be not a wicked and a horrible thing in these mali­cious persons, to charge that as one of the Quakers Do­ctrines, which not only the persons, on whom it is fathered do deny, and disown; but also, which is with one lip deni­ed and disowned, by every individual among those many thou­sands that are called by that name in these Nations.

2. Next you say that one of our shee-Quakers being con­vented before the Major of your Town, and asked what shee was, and what was her name (which is your false and wick­ed addition) roundly answered, I am that I am.

Rep. I have throughly examined this matter to the bot­tom, and do find it to be like your former, a filthy slander and a falshood. For the said person being again, and again asked by the Mayor, What she was (not what was her name, at that time she gave the following answer) answered, I am what I am. And to this I have the testimony of two credible persons that were then present. And whereas you mention two Officers of your Town that will attest what you say up­on oath. I say, to convince those two persons either of the weakness of their memories, or the wickedness of their hearts, let them remember (and let the Reader take notice of it) that she being accused for saying, I am what I am, a stander by asked, why, did not Paul say, by the grace of God. I am what I am? Ay, replied the Mayor by the grace of God? But if she had said,1 Cor. 15, 10. I am that I am (which she did not) must the saying of one particular person be made presently one of the Quakers Doctrines?

3. Another Doctrine of the Quakers you say (in your fourteenth Section) is, That whosoever expecteth to be saved by him that died at Jerusalem, shall be deceived.

Rep. Blush and be ashamed (if you can) ye shameless liars; who durst in print avouch that for one of the Quakers Doctrines, which is publickly disowned by them; as all may see who will but peruse their several Books. And where I have been at their meetings, I have often heard the thing dis­owned in the hearing of many hundreds of people; and salvation owned and presented, by none other but by that very Son of God, that witnessed a good confession before Pon­tius Pilat, and offered himself upon the cross at Jerusalem for the sins of the world. The Accuser of the brethren, which ruleth in you, taught you to be so maliciously subtle, that you quoted no proof for this abominable slander, and therefore the lie yet resteth upon your own heads. And if you can produce any person that avoucheth any such thing, know, that all the people called Quakers that I know, are as ready to deny and disown him, as they are to deny the filthi­ness of such false accusers as you two are.

I am unwilling any longer to detain the sober Reader, [Page 73]whilst I rake further into that filthy dunghil of your untruths, and slanders. By what hath been already said to those three particulars, he may easily judge of what stamp the remainer are, which are comprised in that deformed Cata­logue.

And now since you judge it equal to take the particular expressions (and those for the most part not true, but invent­ed) of certain persons called Quakers, and charge them as Doctrines upon the whole body of that people that are cal­by the same name; I hope you will not esteem it otherwise then just to have better measure returned back to you, then you have measured unto others, viz. by presenting the Rea­der with such expressions, as have dropt from the lips and pens of one of your brethren, which (according to your own rule) you must give me leave to call

The Priests Doctrines,

1. That to affirm that Christ is the means, and that there is no other means of salvation, is an error, if not damnable. Josh. Miller of Cardiff in his book entituled, Antichrist in man the Quakers Idol, pag. 13. Did the people cal­led Quakers, preach and profess such devillish Doctrine as this, I would disown them in the face of the whole world.

2. That lying is no sin but a change of the mind. Asserted and pleaded for by the same Joshuah Miller of Cardiff, be­fore sufficient witness ready to attest it. A wicked principle! and an in-let to all fraud, deceit, and falss-witness-bearing, and that which being practised would turn all the converse of men (which ought to be managed with truth as in the presence of the Lord) into a continued lye.

Many more particulars I could reckon up, and prove, [Page 74]upon your selves, and some of your Function, of as deep a die as these two. But I shall spare you for the present. Onely let me advise you, that if your way of proceeding against the people called Quakers be just and reasonable, in throwing created and misquoted expressions, as dirt upon the whole body of that people; I know not how you and all the publick Teachers of the Nation will be able to ab­solve your selves, from being horrible Blasphemers of the name of Christ, and destroyers of the beauty of all humane converse.

Thus have I made my Reply to that part of your Pamphlet that concerneth my Epistle. To the after part thereof (wherein you rather seek matter of quarrel with me, then answer ought that concerned you) I shall not be want­ing in making a particular return, in case I hear not further from William Thomas, whom that do more especially con­cern.

In the mean while return into your selves, and consider what you are now doing, and whose errand you are posting upon: And know that neither you, not your weapons for­med against the Lamb shall prosper before the Lord. Con­sider whether Satan doth not make the same use of your learning, In your 38. Section. which you confess he doth of some mens, viz. To defend and patronize your lusts. You may for a season, with fair words, and specious pretences, deceive the simple; per­swading them that you are Ministers of Christ, because you preach and profess him in words, though you persecute and crucifie him where he appeareth in power. But though men may be deceived, yet God will not be mocked. As you sow, so shall you also reap. Whilst you sow to the flesh, bringing forth the corrupt fruits of Pride, Envy, Covetousness, Op­pression, &c. It is not your guilded profession that will cover you over in the presence of the most high God. In the pure light of Christ, that despised light, that light which you so furiously decry and trample upon, search and prove your selves. For I bear record to it (and you shall one day witness the same to be true) that a swift and dread­ful [Page 75]witness will it be against all transgressors, in the great and terrible day of the Lord. It will then assuredly speak, by no gift will it be bribed, nor by the tongue of an Orator, will it be enjoyned silence; but an impartial cry will it make before the Lord for justice upon the the evil doer, and he himself shall put his seal to it, that the cry thereof is just.