A SOBER ANSWER, TO AN ANGRY PAMPHLET: OR, ANIMADVERSIONS, By way of Reply, to Robert Barclays late Book (entitled, Truth cleared of Calumnies) in answer to a Dialogue between a Quaker and a Stable CHRISTIAN.  
By WILLIAM MITCHELL.  Matth. 24.24. 
For there shall arise false Christ's, and false Prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders: insomuch that (if it were possible) they shall deceive the very Elect,  2. Pet. 3.17. 
Ye therefore, Beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.  
Aberdene, Printed by john Forbes, An. 1671   

An Epistle to ROBERT BARCLAY, Which may serve for an Admonition to the Quakers in and about ABERDENE.  
SIR,  
I have considered the Preface prefixed to your book, wherein you give an account of the rise of Quakerism in this place (under the notion of the LORDS raising up the witnesses of this day) and the opposition it met with. And First, It is alleged that your supposed witnesses (and yet real enough in bearing testimony against the truth) were reproached as demented distracted and bodily possessed. Sir, did you ever hear any speak (in this place) thus of Quakers? Or rather, are you not too apt to take things upon trust; without weighing what truth or falsehood may be in a report? Yet it is not to be thought strange, though Quakers had been charged with all this: when as men of Faith, Credit, and eminent Piety, (in our neighbour Nation) have testified of their extraordinary quaking, going naked in the streets, (even the women of them) and some pretending to a power of raising the Dead: and for this end taking them out of their Graves, calling them by name to arise and walk; but their ineffectual attempts of this kind, made them to return covered with confusion and shame, and yet as much hardened in their delusions as ever! See Sam Clarks Mirror, pag. 259. 262. 263. 267. See the Perfect Pharisee, published by the Ministers of Newcastle pag 41. 48. see Pagits Heresiography pag. 250. 257.  
Secondly You say they were called nothing better than john of Leyden, and his Complices. Sir, I hope you are not ignorant that john of Leyden, and those that followed him, were much led by revelations and delivered their Doctrines, as being moved of GOD; and that with as much confidence as any of you pretend unto: And at first they spoke against bearing Arms and would not suffer a man to wear a Ring, nor a woman a Silken Gown: they made a great show of Humility, and their ordinary communication was about Mortification. But what their after carriage was, we are sufficiently informed by those that have written of their principles; and of their practices, see Pagits Heresiography, pag. 13.  
Thirdly, You speak of some serious and sober professors in and about Aberdene, who (in the year 1663.) began to find the Savour of that Life, in the testimony of that so much reproached people, which some years before had stirred in others. Sir, that people whom you call so much reproached, have with very much bitterness reproached others: and cast as much obloquy upon the best persons that have differed from them as ever a generation of men did: Are not their opprobrious terms so far from any good savour, that they rather savour of a Spirit of rancour, and bewray a root of bitterness to be within?  
And let not Quakers think to shelter themselves under the practice of Christ and his Apostles, who were wont to speak of Pharisees, and other open enemies of the Gospel: as being a viperous Generation, children of Hell and of the Devil; now let us search the records of Scripture, and (as I suppose) it will not be found that Christ and his Apostles carried thus: to those that professed subjection to the Gospel, and owned Christ to be the Messiah, showing earnestness of desire, that Souls might be saved: being willing to take any course for promoting and furthering this great and glorious design.  
And Sir, because you speak of Professors who had found that savour of life in the testimony of Quakers, which before had stirred in others: It is probable you will not take it well, to say, that those others were Ignatius Loyola and his followers; and yet in very deed, the Quakers carriage is very like unto theirs: which Doctor Stillingfleet (in his late book of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome) notably demonstrats; there he tells of a Sect in Spain called Alumbrado s, or the Illuminati: this Sect under a pretence of mental prayer, divine contemplation, and union with GOD, they despised Sacraments and Religious exercises. Of this Sect Ignatius Loyola, the father of the jesuits, was vehemently suspect to be. Those of his own order who have write his life (Maffeius, Orlandinus) say; First, that it was his custom not to give men any titles of respect, but to call them by their common names, and resolved he would not break this custom: because to do it; proceeded from too great fear of men. Secondly, He preached in an Enthusiastical manner, going up and down the streets: preaching to all persons, and to all sorts of men; and being examined, confessed he was unlearned. Thirdly, When afterwards he was committed to prison, he preached to people with great zeal, and they gloried much in his sufferings: and the rest of the prisoners making their escape by the negligence of the keepers, Ignatius and his adherents would not stir. Fourthly, Being to form a society, he had for that purpose used himself to all the Arts of insinuation imaginable▪ obliging men with expressions of the greatest kindness, bearing all affronts with wonderful dissimulation. Fifthly, Having gotten persons to be of his mind, he used all means to prevent any difference hapening among them. Sixthly, They preach in the streets and market places; and invited people to hear him: and no doubt (saith my Learned Author) he converted many from the use of laces and ribbons And saith he, I know not whether any of the innocent & religious order of the jesuits had any hand of forming this new Society among us (as hath been frequently suggested) but if one may guests the father by the child's likeness, Ignatius Loyola the Founder of the jesuits, was at least the Grandfather of the Quakers. See these things at length, in the above mentioned Treatise, pag. 305. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 320. 321. 324. 325.  
Moreover Sir, If you would have others to savour and relish life in your testimony, ye must study more self-denial, and show forth first, less pride, be not too big in your own conceit, consider Isaiah, 65.5. Even be content with Burying places, that better than yourselves do lie in; and do not separate from us as children of Heth: this is intolerable sauciness.  
Secondly, Show forth less passion and anger, the Scripture saith the Man of GOD must be gentle and meek, 2. Tim. 2.25. reviling doth better become Shimei's then Saints.  
Thirdly; Show forth less censoriousness, do not say that men (who can manifest their spiritual descent from Christ upon as sure grounds, if not surer grounds, than any Quaker) are smothering and resisting the Light, because (forsooth) they will not dance after your pipe.  
Fourthly, Show forth less folly: It would be your wisdom to be well acquainted with your own hearts, and not to pretend so much to the knowledge of other men's hearts; when as it may be, ye know not their names.  
Fifthly; Show forth less contrariety in your doctrines to the good and holy word of GOD. Set not yourselves against the ordinances of Christ, and justification by his imputed Righteousness.  
Sixthly, Show forth less ignorance, as to the nature of true Conversion: crying out against forms, and wearing of ribbons, speaking thou and thee, and keeping on the hat, condemning all that are not of your gang, saying, ye were never well till now, (which is a great part of the Religion of many of your Proselytes) will never prove you nor them to be true Converts.  
Seventhly, Show forth less endeavours for promoting the Popish interest, if ye were under their hire, ye could not advance their interest more, then by decrying our Ministry and Churches: when once ye have persuaded people to the belief of this, than they are fit matter for Priests to work upon: and they cannot but thank you, for doing their work to their hands. Sir, if you listen not to my advice, yet I have followed my Light in tendering it unto you.  
Sir, in the close of your preface, you fall foul upon the Author of the Dialogue as having deceitfully misrepresented the Quakers, which is a crime he is not sensible of: for his design in the Dialogue, was not to tell the world all the Scriptures which the Quakers abuse; but only to give a true information of the grossest of their opinions, (and briefly to answer some of their arguments, and to lay down Scripture grounds for instructing the ignorant, and confirming the weak in the truth) which He was in some capacity to do, having exchanged several papers with Quakers: and would have continued in replying to their papers; but that he was told, it would prove no better, than (according to the proverb) lies Ptolemaica, that is, a long and constant strife: Quakers (as he heard) being like some froward and scolding women, who will be sure to have the last word: and indeed after this, he is resolved to let Mr. Barclay have it.  
Some are of opinion that Quakers are of their nature, who are best appeased by neglect; and soon quieted by silence: and yet a total neglect of them (though they be contemptible in the eyes of many) may make them formidable.  
Sir, It is altogether unnecessary to be at pains in ripping up your wild comparisons, it were easy to be sharp in reflections; but these things can neither commend to GOD, nor good men: and therefore desiring you, and your brethren would allow some time for reading this my Answer: (which was in readiness divers months ago; but a convenient opportunity was wanting to publish it till now) I take my leave, wishing the LORD the great and Mighty GOD to extend his Power and Mercy for your recovery: and that he would reclaim you according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all to himself. Philipp. 3● 21.  
W. M.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
Christian Reader.  
IF a person who (really) affects retirement, hath adventured thus to appear in public (when hereby he brings himself under the lash of the censures of many, which otherwise he might escape) his plea is, that Truth (even the least grain of truth) is so choice, and precious: that it calls to the denial of these things which would stand in the way, and hinder an undertaking of the defence of it.  
If it be said, that an abler hand had been meeter for a work of this importance: the Authors apology is, that what is done, needs be no impediment to others; but rather a provocation of them to appear for the interest of truth which is so much trampled upon: in the mean time let none find fault with the Author for doing that, which in other cases passeth for good service: when a house is on fire, he that brings water to quench it, though (it may be) he contribute but a little help; yet he is not blamed but encouraged. Now the flame of error has more danger in it, than a flame of fire: and therefore an endeavour to quench it, cannot be justly censured.  
In case the Author be twitted with this, that he has done nothing, but what was done before: his answer is, that if the adversaries of truth, have been at paine● to pluck out of the dunghill of Heresy old errors, and to send them abroad in a new dress: then the author should not be quarrelled with; for making use of these weapons, by which heretofore good old truths have been defended: And he further saith, that Popery from the mouth of a Quaker will be swallowed down by some (as glorious discoveries) who yet would not listen to a Popish Priest speaking the same things? And therefore the Author thinks that it may be good service to well meaning people, to take off the Quakers arguments, by the same answers which PROESTANTS have used against Papists: that so it may appear, that Quakers and Papists are sailing in one boat, though their faces look several ways; but not willing to detain the Reader any longer, from perusing the following Treatise: which that it may be blessed for reducing the misled, and establishing those that yet stand, is, and shall be the earnest desire of him, who is  
Thy Servant for Christ's sake. William Mitchell.   

GOOD READER.  
Be pleased to do Me that favour, as to correct with thy pen these following mistakes.  
Page 16. line 20 read incolis. p. 27. l. 15. r. have not always many. p. 52. l. 4. r. which is said to be more. p. 53. l. 1. r. causa infirma. Epist. p. 1 l. 1. r. reproach, for reroach. p. 16. l. 20. r. it's rightly translated, p. 54. l. 17. r. Now in that he saith p. 94. l. 23. r. repeal.  
Reader, there are divers othter literal escapes, but seeing they do not obscure the sense, it's expected thou wilt in charity cover them: If any thing in the book seem dark, I desire thou wouldst look into the Dialogue, to which the book hath reference: and by that means, thou mayest get some clearness.   

Some ANIMADVERTIONS, By way of Reply, to a Book ENTITLED, TRUTH CLEARED OF CALUMNIES.  

I. HEAD. Wherein the Lawfulness of Salutations is justified.  

SECT. I. Concerning Salutations by Gestures.  
THE AUTHOR.  
HAving (after the Quaker-rate) saluted me with Reproaches, than page 10. 11. he telleth us that Quakers dearly own Salutations, warranted by the Scriptures, such as Christ commanded, and the Saints practised, but the salutations that are amongst us, he calleth corrupt and Idolatrous; and instanceth in bowing the Body, and uncovering the head: The reason alleged to prove this to be Idolatry, is, because these things are the signification of our worship to GOD, and what is Religious worship but that which is given to GOD? Answer, It is true, Religious Worship is given to GOD, and its that which is peculiar to GOD, and due to him alone, and giving to the Creature, what is thus pecular to GOD? Is Idolatry, but bowing of the body and uncovering of the head is not of this nature. And therefore, worship is to be distinguished, it is either Civil or Sacred, (this distinction is founded on Scripture, of Civil-worship we read, Luke 14.10 Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee: We read of Sacred Religious worship; Matth. 4.10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.) Civil worship proceedeth from a reverencing of men, for their Stations, Relations, or some notable Qualifications, and this kind of worship, hath been given and received by the holiest of Saints, (neither is it any where forbidden in Scripture) and so Joseph upon his approach to his Father Jacob, he bowed himself with his face to the ground, Genesis 48.12. Abraham and Lot bowed themselves to the Angels, (supposing them to be men) Genes. 18.3. and 19.2. compared with Heb. 13 2. and the Angels accepted this worship without any reproof of them for it; yea, Abraham bowed himself twice before the people of the land, Gen. 23.7.12. and though every practice of Abraham is not to be so lowed, yet these practices which are not condemned in Scripture, neither by repehension or prohibition, why should we be blaimed for an imitation of the Saints in them? Seeing we mantain Sacred, Religious worship to be due, only to GOD, and his glory must not be given to another as the Papists give to their Images, of which one of themselves affirms, that it is the constant opinion of their Divines, that the Image is to be honoured and worshipped with the same honour and worship which is given to him, whose Image it is. None can say, (unless they will be peevish and perverse) that we bow to men, to worship GOD, in and by them. It is known that the Papists speak of two kinds of Religious worship, namely, absolute, which they give to GOD, or the Saints, and relative, which they give to their Images, and therefore Papists have no advantage, as to their Idolatrous worshipping of Images, from our allowable practice of bowing to men, thereby to testify a mere Civil respect to them.  
The Gentleman disputeth against bowing of the body as Idolatry, but he seemeth to justify Moses his doing Obeisance to his Father in law; And yet what is obeisance, but civil reverence by bowing the body, in token of that regard which we own to some person of note?   

SECT. II. Concerning Salutations by Words.  
And as Salutations by Gestures are warranted by the Scriptures, so likewise are Salutations by words, Ruth 2. 4. And behold Boas came from Bethlehem, and said unto the Reapers the Lord be with you, and they answered him the Lord bless thee. And that command of Christ's, (Matth. 10.5. when ye come into an house salute it; It's explained by the Evangelist Luke, chapter 10. verse 5. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, peace be to this house. Now it's known that the Jews in their ordinary Salutations and Greetings, when they wished all happiness unto one another, they expressed it thus, Peace be to You: And from this, I infer that bowing of the body, and expressing our affections by words, comprehending desires and good wishes, (though persons be not friends, but foes, Matth. 5.47.) is agreeable to Scripture, and the practice of renowned Saints. As for taking of the Hat, seeing it is not manifest from Scripture, that the Saints did wear Hats, (the word so rendered Dan. 3.21. is varied on the margin Turbans, which were Head-garments peculiar to those Eastern Countries) it is no wonder that we do not read of their putting them Off, and yet this being one harmless way, whereby we express outward honour to those to whom it is due, why should it be quarrelled against? We must not think it enough to give Superiors inward honour, the Scripture also calleth for outward honour, Levit. 19.32. Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man.   

SECT. III. Containing an Answer to the Quakers Objection.  
He saith, It's strange that we should say (considering our principles) the kingdom of God consisteth not in words, for what is our Preaching, and the Scripture itself, and the very Gospel according to us, but a company of words. Answer. Truly by the Scriptures we mean nothing else, but that Heavenly Doctrine, those divine instructions, or revelation of the mind and will of God, which the Lord excited and moved Holy men of old, to speak and write for the good of his Church and People, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (or the Gospel) according to us, is the doctrine of Christ, (the good news and joyful tidings of Salvation by him to poor sinners) contained in the Scriptures; And the Preaching of this Gospel hath been found the Power of God to the salvation of many a Soul, Rom. 1.16. Now if Quakers be for another Gospel, than they may justly be reputed subverters of the Christian Religion, and enemies to the Cross of Christ, and therefore liable to that curse which is threatened Gal. 1.8. And likewise know, that we use to distinguish between the subject matter of the Scripture, or the doctrine which it contains, and the words or writings containing, or expressing this Doctrine, the one is as the Blood, the other as the Veins in which it runneth.    

II. HEAD. Wherein is warranted our way of speaking, in Opposition to the Quakers Thou and Thee.  
Page 12. He findeth fault with me for saying, that to whom the singular number is agreeable, the plural may be applied without making a lie, and saith the proofs alleged, evince nothing in this matter. Answer. Though that place Luke 22.31. be not understood of one, Exclusively of others, yet Christ there directeth his speech only to one, (viz. Peter) and he saith not (after the Quakers way) Satan hath desired to have Thee and You, that he might sift Thee and You, but behold Satan hath desired to have you, and to sift you as wheat. It is plain that the third Epistle of John, is directed to a single Person, verse 1. The Elder unto the well beloved Gaius whom I love in the Truth, and yet verse 12. the Apostle saith, Ye know that our report is true. Job. 18.2. there Bildad speaking to Job, saith, how long will it be ere you make an end of words? I am of that mind, that if our Translators had translated Attah, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not according to the rigour of construction, but as use hath made the propriety of our Language, that then the Quakers would have kept their old tone, and said you instead of thou. But if men will needs make a contentious bustle about words, then let them read and ponder 1. Tim. 6.4. he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, rail, evil surmisings.   

III. HEAD. Showing that the Quakers departure from us, is not to be justified by our departing from Papists.  
He confesseth that when they walked with us, the Lord begat a measure of honesty and integrity in divers of them, turning the bent of their hearts towards him. Answer. By what means was this honesty and integrity of heart wrought in them? Was it not in the use of these very Ordinances which now they cry down, their consciences cannot but force some of them to an acknowledgement of this? Now when the Lord first wrought this integrity in them; what was it that he countenanced for begetting of it? It could not be any antecedaneous measure of integrity, for they had not integrity before it was wrought, and therefore doubtless GOD hath regaird to his own appointments, blessing and making them effectual.  
May not some of the Quakers remember that (even in their walk with us) by such a Sermon, and the opening of such a Scripture, the bent of their hearts, was drawn Heaven-wards and GOD wards? Which though they should refuse, yet there are many living witness who have found this effect of Preaching, and do remember it, to their unspeakable comfort.  
He addeth page 13. That the Lord visited some while they lived among Papists, and at times refreshed them. Ans. The question is whether these persons were visited in a way of conversion, by Popish inventions and traditions? Among Papists themselves the Scriptures are to be found, and God hath blessed to some (in times of Popery) the reading of the Scriptures, for their Reformation, and illumination in the knowledge of the truth. When Luther betook himself to the Augustine Monks College, there he met with a copy of the Latin Bible, which he read with great attention and admiration; and thereafter spent his time in searching the Prophetical and Apostolical writings, seeking thence to inform himself in the knowledge of God's mind and will. It is known that in the darkest times of Popery, the Lord wanted not his witnesses, who stood up in defence of the truth, whom the Papists (when they could get their hands on them) cruelly butchered and murdered, and the labour of these servants of God was nor in vain, but attended with great success.  
Now it remaineth for him to prove that such as were converted among Papists, were converted by Popery, that is by their invented corruptions. And yet if the primest of Quakers were ever savingly wrought upon (as I cannot but think, thus it is with some of them) the work was begun by the Lord's blessing, and countenancing these selfsame ordinances, which they reject as our Traditions.  
He thinketh it meet to pass by that objection (calling it weak) from Solomon's sacrificing at Gibeon. Answer. No wonder if it be weak, coming from a feeble person, and yet an Apostle among the Quakers, namely, P. L. in a Letter of his (which no doubt he will justify as the immediate endytment of the Spirit of God) to the People of ABERDENE.   

iv HEAD. Concerning the Light, and their Union with CHRIST, that have Saving Grace and Light in them.  
He quarrels at me for calling the Light in us, our Light. Ans. Though it be Efficiently and Originally the Light of Christ, yet is it nor Subjectively ours: Is it disingenuity, to say, that we are the persons in whom this Light is?  
He saith page 14. 15. That sometimes the being of Christ in men, signifieth the existence of Christ in them to prepare for union with him and that Christ must needs be in men, before thy have union with Christ. Ans. We grant that Christ may be and is in men in respect of his general presence, and as to common operations before they be in Union with him; But it is incumbent for him to prove, that Chrst is in men as to saving grace and light, (which is the Quakers principle) and that men who are thus savingly enlightened are without Union to Christ.  
As for those spoken of John 1.5.10. (the other Scriptures shall afterwards be examined) in that they knew not Christ, this showeth that saving grace was not their privilege: The Scripture abundantly testifieth, that persons truly gracious and savingly enlightened, are in a state of union with Christ; and therefore Christ is said to be in them, Rom. 8.10. to dwell in them, 2. Cor. 6.16. and they are said to abide in Christ. 1. John 4.16. and to dwell in Him, Joh. 6.56. All which expressions clearly import an Union between Christ and those that have saving Grace and Light in them.  
He subjoineth if it be thought strange that Christ should be in the Heathen, and they not know him. Was it not as strange, that he should be among the Jews who had the Letter that did bear a testimony of him, and they not know him? Answer. It is not so much for men to have the Scriptures among them, and miracles wrought before them, as to have Saving Light and Grace in them, though some that enjoyed the former, did sadly mistake Christ, yet such as had Christ in them, by his saving Light, they cordially owned Christ, and had the Mysteries of his Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection revealed to them; see joh. 1.14. Act. 1 3.  
Page 16. He saith Christ doth reveal himself in some measure unto all, in whom he bears witness against iniquity. Answer. If it be a Revelation of Christ to persons in that they have a testimony in them against sin, than we must yield that the Americans have Christ revealed to them: Yea more, the very Devils have this Revelation of Christ, for they have that in them, which witnesseth against iniquity and sin: And therefore notwithstanding all the Quakers plead for Heathens (as having saving Light in them) he doth them but small favour, in putting them in the same case with Devils.  

SECT. I. The Danger of Asserting Saving and Sufficient Light to be in all.  
He calleth it difingenuity for saying, that the opinion of all men's having sufficient Light in them tendeth to put Christians in the same condition with Pagans. Ans. This Doctrine of Saving sufficient Light in all, naturally tends to it, for if Pagans have saving Light, their state should be as safe as the state of of Real Christians. Where saving illumination is, there is also saving Faith, there being a concatination between these Graces of the Spirit. That Scripture, while ye have the Light, believe in the Light, is understood of the Person of Christ, joh. 8.12. joh. 12.46. which the Jews than had among them, and not of subjective inherent light, wrought in the soul by Christ, for this being a created thing is not to be believed in. If the Pagan's light be sufficient, then there is no Spiritual benefit (let the Quaker call it as he will, whether the raising of the seed in them, or refreshing of them, the seed being raised) necessary to Salvation, that accrues to Christians by the Scriptures and the Gospel, but Pagans may have the same by their light, else their Light is not sufficient. Now is not the tendency of this opinion to make the Gospel a vain and needless thing, and men's labour in Preaching the Gospel, wholly unnecessary? Yea, it tends to make men impiously proud, as if they needed not to be beholden to GOD for more light; And therefore if any of the Quakers judgdement, had been overhearing David, when be prayed, Open mine eyes, that I may understand the wonderful things of the law, give me understanding that I may keep thy precepts. They might have been bold to correct David, saying look to the Light within thee, (that's sufficient) what needest thou pray for more?  
Whereas he saith, page 17. That men are said to be brutish in their knowledge and to have no understanding, because they turn their backs upon the light, and will not follow it. Answer. This is but petitio principis, a begging of the question, (which yet must not be given upon alms, without solid proof) taking it for granted, that persons who are brutish in their knowledge, having no understanding, yet have saving Light in them which they refuse to follow. Before the Quaker speak of men's being in darkness, because of their opposition to the Light; It would concern him first to prove, that the wicked who in Scripture, are called darkness, have saving Grace and Light in them. Can dead men have this saving Light? And is not every man by Nature Spiritually dead? Ephes. 2.1. To assert that persons Spiritually dead, have saving grace and light in them, looks like a contradiction, for than they should be spiritually dead, and not spiritually dead: And though according to Scripture they be children of darkness, yet according to Quakers they should be children of light; for to be a child of light, is as much as to be one in whom there is saving grace and light, sufficient to guide him to please GOD, Luk. 16.8.  
If it may well be supposed (as he saith) that the light in some is darkness, than the Quaker would do well in exhorting his Disciples, to bid them take heed of their light, (and not to it.) This was Christ's way of exhortation, Luke 11.35. And as I remember that phrase, take heed to the light of GOD within (which is so common among Quakers) is not to be found in all the Scripture.  
Neither can saving light, which is from Christ in any sense be called darkness, as the Quaker insinuateth, calling it darkness to them that reject it, in that it giveth them not comfort and joy, etc. We own that a disconsolate state wherein men walk without comfort, is called darkness, but this name is not where given to Christ's saving light, which he setteh up in the soul; and though comfort and joy, be the result of the souls assurance and confidence of being in a state of light; yet this joy and comfort is not the proper effect of that light (which proceedeth from Christ) but of that Lord who gave the light, who is therefore styled the God of all Comfort, 2. Cor. 1.4.  
He denyeth, that having of saving light and grace presupposes Conversion, which he illustrateth by the similitude of a wound and plaster, the being healed of a wound presupposes the plaster, but the application of the plaster presupposeth not the being healed. Ans. What is this to the purpose? For when a man has saving light & grace, he is in part healed, cured of the dominion and reigning power of sin: And this supposeth an application of healing grace, which is conveyed into the soul, by the converting and sanctifying Power of the Spirit of GOD, and to make a difference between having of saving Grace, and being in a state of Grace, is but the figment of the Quakers own brain. It's true, the wicked do not stand in grace; For how can they stand in that which they have not?  
He addeth page 18. That there may be a sufficient light in men, who may be said after a certain manner not to have the Spirit; as wicked persons have not the Spirit, bringing forth the fruits thereof in them, to wit, love, meekness, goodness, faith, etc. Answer. Can that person be said to have sufficient light, who is destitute of goodness, and wants faith which units to Christ, in whom the Christians strength and sufficiency lies? Philp. 4.13. And without whom we can do nothing, joh. 15.5.  
Besides having the spirit, implies the souls receiving of the spirit, and this phrase notes the implantation of the Graces of the spirit in the soul, at its Conversion and Regeneration. Where the spirit of the LORD is, there is liberty, 2. Cor. 3.17. this spirit is a spirit of faith, 2. Cor. 4.13. and though the spirit reprove and convince the wicked, and by his motions call upon them, and strive with them, yet it will not follow, that they have sufficient light, or saving light; for men may have reproofs, strive, convictions, that are far from saving grace: And unless the Quaker can make out that the Spirit calls upon every man, and strives with every man, in order to his conversion, than he cannot conclude that all have the Spirit, (even according to his own notion of men's having the Spirit) and if all have not the spirit, than all have not sufficient light, as for that place joh. 16.8. it rests for him to prove that the word world (which is homonymous) is there taken for all and every one throughout the world.   

SECT. II. The necessity of the Knowledge of Christ's outward Crucifixion.  
He telleth us, page 19 20. That the Apostle, 1. Cor. 2.2. Speaketh not of Christ as crucified outwardly, but of him, as he was inwardly crucified in the Corinthians, as the word imports, being rightly translated out of the Greek, I determined not to know any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i e. in you. Answer. Here he hath no ground to except against our Translation, the words being solidly and sound enough translated, for by an ordinary Enallage, which particularly is called Protheseon Parallaga (which is the putting of one preposition for another) in, is rendered among, and this is consonant to the Hebrew and Greek, see Genes. 34.30. ye have made me to stink, Bejoshev haaretz, in incoll●s ter●ae, and yet it's translated among the inhabitants of the Earth. Then Acts 6.8. Stephen did great wonders and miracles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in populo, and yet who justly quarrel, if it be said that the wonders and miracles were wrought among the people. Then Luke 1.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Benedicta tu in mulieribus, but yet it must be rendered (for making it good sense) blessed art thou inter mulieres, among women, 1. Cor. 2.6. we speak wisdom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in perfectis, in the perfect, and yet the skilfullest Translators render it, inter perfectos, among the perfect; Paul in delivering his message was not in them, though they wanted not inward fruits of that Gospel which he Preached to and among them.  
That it may appear how corruptly the Quaker would be translating the words, it must be considered that the doctrine of Quakers is, That Christ was crucified in the Corinthians, in the time of their unbelief, and at that time Christ was crucified in them in his suffering seed; that seed of Light and Truth, suffered in them under the burden of their transgression. Now remark, that the knowledge of Christ mentioned, 1. Corinth. 2.2. was that which Paul rejoiced in, hence he saith, God forbidden that I should glory save in the Cross of Christ; now it would not have been the Apostles joy, but his grief, to know that the Light of Christ was born down in them by their transgression: And therefore I must say it again, that text speaks of Christ outwardly crucified, and the obediential, heart affecting knowledge of Christ thus crucified, is the main thing that all who profess Christianity, should aim to attain unto. And as it is a calumny to insinuate, that that which we plead for, is a bare naming of Christ's Death and Passion, so it is a gross abuse of that Scripture, 2. Cor. 5.16. to infer from it, any thing against the knowledge of Christ's outward Crucifixion. For the thing which the Apostle there condemns, is earthly and carnal thoughts of Christ, as if Christ as King of Israel, should begin an earthly and temporal Kingdom, in this manner (saith the Apostle) from henceforth know we him no more, or we know him no more as a man living amongst us.  
He addeth page 21. That the Blood of Christ known and felt within for Christ as he is within, is not without his Blood, which he giveth to them, who know not distinctly, the outward shedding of the Blood, as it was many hundred years ago. Answer. It is hard to take up what the Quaker means by Christ's Blood within, he calls it spiritual, even the pure Blood of the Vine. But seeing he speaketh of it, as distinct from the outward shedding of Christ's Blood; it would seem that either he inclines to justify that which hath been charged upon some of his brethren, for saying, that they are not such fools, as to hope to be saved, by that JESUS, who was crucified at Jerusalem above sixteen hundred years ago: Or that which hath been charged upon others of them, who affirm, that CHRIST as man dwells in them. A doctrine that tends to overthrow the Ascension of Christ to Heaven, there to continue till the Restitution of all things, Act. 3.21. If the Quaker design nothing by the Blood of Christ felt within, but the inward working of the Spirit, helping men believingly to apply Christ's Blood which was shed at Jerusalem, (besides this, there is no other heart cleansing and conscience purging Blood, and every cleansing Grace in the Soul, is the fruit of this Blood.) Then it is his work to prove that they are wholly ignorant of this Blood, (that is, know no such thing as Christ's Passion and Suffering) who yet are helped to a believing application of it, which if he do, then true Faith shall be a blind Faith, contrary to Esa. 53.11. by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many.   

SECT. III. The tendency of the Quakers Principle, to introduce Paganism.  
He saith, as for thy deceitful insinuation to render us odious, that if our principles were generally owned, these Nations would be overspread in an Age or two with as palpable darkness, as the Heathens at this day are; seeing it hath no just ground, we return it upon thee, as false and malicious, etc. Answer. Bona verba quaeso, soft words and hard arguments would become you better. If it be the Quakers principle, that the light within is a sufficient teacher, and that taking heed to this, there needs no more, than it is no deceit to affirm that this tends to introduce Paganism, and that the general owning of it would make these Nations in a short time as the Heathen Nations at this day are. Now that this is their principle, our Quakers cannot deny, but by denying the writings of their infallible friends, who in their Printed books call upon people to cease from their outside lights, and to return to the light of Christ in them, saying, that they who look out at teachers without them, are strangers to that Covenant, by which all come to know the Lord, and need not that one teach another. I am credibly informed (by a Reverend Person whom I may trust) that upon occasion of his visiting a dying friend (in Aberdene) there was at that time in the house two Quakers, and both of them pressed so much upon the dying man, to take heed to the light within, (making this the chief and only matter of their discourse) that my informer found fault with them, that they spoke so much of taking heed to the light, and nothing of believing in Christ: Whereupon on of their further said, that if he took heed to the light there needed no more words, neither book without, nor teacher without: which in effect is, that the light within is so sufficient a teacher, that there needs no other to teach but that, neither the teaching of the Scriptures, nor the Ministry of men; and laying this Teaching aside, what a woeful plight should these Nations (in an Age or two) be in? There is no doubt but dismal darkness would overspread them. It is like, that now the Quakers do see, how much this principle contradicts their own practice (and must of necessity tend to make them odious) for they have teachers, and teaching among themselves. And therefore it's added, page 22. that the light must not only be taken heed unto, but believed, obeyed, and walked in, which who do, it will lead them to use the Scriptures, and lead them to the assemblies of God's people, and to hear and receive the Ministry of those whom God sends. But some of the Quakers in England, to keep their principle from clashing with their practice, have been heard say, that their teaching is but to take people off from other teachers, that they may be brought to mind the light in them alone; and then they will cease teachings. Now when all Teaching ceaseth, except the inward teaching which the Indians have, how quickly shall we be like them, among whom the Name of CHRIST is not in remembrance.   

SECT. iv The Light GIVER must not be confounded with the Light given.  
He addeth page 22. That they do not confound the Light Giver with the Light, or enlightening given. Ans. Ye do plainly confound them, for do ye not call that light Jesus Christ, wherewith all men are enlightened? And yet this light is but a ray or beam proceeding from Christ, and therefore he is said to be that True Light, which enlighteneth every man: clearly importing a difference between the light in all men, and Christ the Donator of this light. It is acknowledged that where the light, or enlightening from Christ is, there is Christ himself, namely, according to the nature of the light: which light in the wicked is common, but in the Godly is saving, and so Christ is in the one, as to a common, but in the other, in respect of a saving operation of light. Now when he saith that Christ is in all men, if his meaning be that as God, he is in all men, than we do not control him, for thus Christ is every where. If his meaning be that as man, he is in all men, than the Scripture controls him, which holdeth forth his Manhood, must continue in Heaven, until the time of the restitution of all things. If his meaning be that Christ is in all men to enlighten them that they may believe, than his proof is not sufficient, which is joh. 1.9. compared with 7. for this seventh verse, speaketh expressly of john the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, as is evident by looking back to the preceding verse, There was a man sent from God, whose name was John, the same came for a witness to bear witness of the light, that all men through him might believe. Here the Evangelist holdeth forth john's calling and the end of it, which was to bear testimony concerning Christ. This was the special scop of john's Ministry, to point out Christ in his excellencies and usefulness to lost men, and to whom the offer of Christ comes (in the Ministry of the word) they are called upon to believe in Christ, none being excluded.   

SECT. V There is a Consistency between Man's Lapsed State, and the Remainders of the IMAGE of GOD in him.  
He asketh, how it is consistent (to affirm that some remainders of knowledge, and principles of good remain in man after the ruins of God's Image in him) with what we say, to wit, that there is no good thing at all in men unconverted, and that man fell wholly from God, as to all things that are good. Ans. Who of us do say so, without adding any limitation? And yet there is no inconsistency between these things (even as set down by you) if rightly understood, for though men unconverted have not any saving good, yet it followeth not, ergo, they are destitute of all good. The unconverted have precious Souls in them, which are of great excellency and worth; and there still remains in them some similitude of GOD, their Souls being Spiritual and Immortal. It is true man by the fall was bereft of saving graces, in so much that true holiness, and saving knowledged he hath not; yet he is not denuded of all knowledge: In him there are certain notions concerning good and evil, which though they cannot direct to Salvation and Eternal happiness; yet if we live not up to them, they serve to leave us unexcusable.  
Now it may be demanded, whether it be inconsistent to say, that a City is wholly demolished, whereas there is some rubbish, and some foundations of houses still remaining? If this be not inconsistent, why should it be thought an inconsistency: To say, that though men be fallen off from GOD, yet he retains some fragments, and Relics of the Image of GOD? As in very deed he doth, for the Image of GOD is the conformity of the creature to the Creator, and the Soul of man is conformable to GOD in its nature, as it is a Spiritual and Immortal Substance. Likewise, man hath not lost all his dominion over the creatures. And it is to be observed, that though there be light in the consciences of men that are corrupt, yet this light is not the corruption of the conscience; but it is derived from Christ and cometh from him, as a bountiful Creator: and in this respect the light of knowledge, reason, and understanding, that is in man since the fall, may be called the light of Jesus Christ, for he is that true light that thus enlighneth every man, that cometh into the world.    

V HEAD. Concerning the Scriptures.  

SECT. I. Showing how the Quakers vilify the Scriptures.  
Look to page 24.25. And we may easily perceive the Quakers disesteem of the Scriptures, though in speaking to people, they would bear them in hand to the contrary. For,  
1. They grant that they meet not to read the Scriptures, but to wait on the Lord, and they meet to worship GOD, whose worship is to be performed in Spirit and in Truth, and not in External Reading. Now do not these men's endeavours tend to disgrace the Scriptures, in that they make an opposition, between reading the Scriptures, and waiting on GOD, and Spiritual worshipping of him; as if the Lord could not be waited on, in the use of reading his Word. Was not the Eunuch in the duty of waiting, when sitting in his chariot he read the Prophet Isaias? This work was so well pleasing to GOD, that the Lord encouraged him in it, helping him to understand what before he knew not, Act. 8.28. Did not the Saints under the Old Testament worship GOD in Spirit and in Truth? Surely the Lord required of them, sincere, Spirit worship, which they performed, (lifting up their Souls to GOD) and did not satisfy themselves with the bare outside and carcase of duty, Lament. 3.41. And yet they were not enemies to external Reading of the Scriptures, Act, 15.21. Moses of old time, hath in every City them that Preached him, being Read in the Synagogue every Sabbath-day. And although Reading the Scriptures was a duty done under the Law, it doth not cease to be a duty under the Gospel, because it is not where repealed, but on the contrary, as it was commanded in the Old Testament, so it is confirmed in the New, this being a special means of having the Word of GOD to dwell richly in us, Coloss. 3.16.  
It is most agreeable to the Scriptures, for a Minister to take the Bible and read a part of it, opening and applying it, see Nehem. 8.5.8. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, so they read in the book of the Law of GOD distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. Christ himself took a text and applied it, Luke 4.18.21. And albeit Christ did this in the synagogue, Quid inde? What then? did he not likewise Preach in the synagogue? And yet Preaching continues to be the Minister's duty, 2. Tim. 4.2.  
As for that Scripture, 1. Cor. 14.29.30.31. it conduceth nothing to keep up the successive talking of Quakers. For the Prophesying here mentioned was the act of Prophets, and it is restrained to them, all the Prophets who prophesy. Now the Gentleman will have much ado, to prove all his brethren, who at their meetings take upon them to Preach, or rather (to use his own term) prate one after another to be Prophets: especially, to prove their women preachers to be in the number of them, for their preaching is expressly prohibited, verses 34.35. Let your women keep silence in the Church, for it is not permitted, unto them to speak,— it is a shame for women to speak in the Church. Neither doth the  Scripture make any thing against our way; for Ministers amongst us, sometimes speak two or three, and the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets. The Quakers themselves have not many speakers; for at times they sit dumb, as if silence could promote their mutual edification: Was this the Church's way? Or the custom of the Apostles, and primitive Christians? Certainly this hemlock (or invention) hath sprung up since their late apostasy from the Truth.  
Secondly, They will not have the Scriptures called their Master's letter, no (forsooth) their Master's letter is written in their hearts, and there they are to find it, neither is their Master separated from them, as those who use to write letters to servants to set them on work. But is not Christ as much separate from Quakers, as from the seven Churches of Asia? Or was he not as near those Famous Churches, as them? And yet they had letters sent to them from their great LORD and Master, to direct them in their duty, Revel. 1.11. I am Alpha, and Omega, and what thou seest write in a book, and send it unto the seven Churches which are in Asia. Now will ye observe how much these persons bend their strength to evacuate the authority of the Scriptures; For they say, GOD requires us to do all our work by immediate counsel and direction, as if by the outward command contained in the Scriptures, GOD did not require any work of them: yea they will not allow the Scripture precepts the name of Commands; but call them the outward testimony, and signification of the Command, which (as they say) they regaird in its place, that is only when they have an inward command, and so while this inward command is wanting, through their neligence in waiting, all that time, the Scripture loseth its authority, and is of no use to them. Is this to regard the Scriptures? Doth it not tend to forward and confirm negligent Atheists, in their contemptuous slighting, and undervaluing of the Scriptures? Oh! that all such would read and tremble at the reading of joh. 12.48. he that receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him, the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him at the last day.  
Thirdly, They prefer their silent waiting, to the reading of the Scriptures, as if we must first come to this, ere we can know the Scriptures aright. Now they should prove (which is not so much as touched upon) that their way of waiting is a mean appointed by GOD for right understanding of the Scriptures, or profitable speaking concerning them. Waiting in their notion is Apocryphal, not warranted by any Scripture. Some of them have defined it to be a silent posture of the heart without thinking good or evil. It seemeth to me, no better than misspent time, to be employed in seeking such a posture of heart: the heart is such a stirring & working thing, that if it be not upon good, it will be busy enough in evil, as may be found in our daily experience. According to Scripture, faith, patience, and hope, must be exercised in waiting, Psal. 40.1. Lam. 3.26. and can we be in the exercise of these graces without thinking good or evil? What an odd conceit is this?  
Fourthly, Lest they should seem to be too great enemies to the Scriptures, they confess it to be their desire to try Doctrines by the Scriptures. Ans. If this be their desire indeed, how is it then, that one of the Quakers seeing a Religious woman (in this Town) with a Bible in her hand, told her, she might as well read a Latin book as that Book? And why is it, that they do not desire their hearers to bring their Bibles, that so they may the better discern whether the doctrines taught at their meetings, be answerable to the Scriptures? But happily they think not this convenient, lest their juggle should be found out; And I must tell the Gentleman (that though he charge us with juggling) that the Quakers have been suspected from their first rise, as notable jugglers, which R. Farmer, in his Mystery of ungodlyness showeth by this instance, saith he, it is usual for Quakers to say, they own the Scriptures, yea, we confirm and establish the Scriptures, and witness the Scriptures; Now saith he, an honestman (that means plainly) would think they believed the Scriptures to be the written Word of GOD, and the rule of a Christian to walk by, in things to be believed and practised, But saith he, these persons play the deceivers (not using words in that sense, they are usually understood) they mean otherwise, they say in express words else where, the Scriptures are not the Saints rule of knowing God and living to him. And indeed these are the words of one C. Atkinson a Quaker, (see his book, called the sword of the Lord furbished, in answer to the Ministers first principle) and a little after he insinuats, that to affirm the Scriptures to be the rule, is to put darkness for light, and light for darkness. Now let all  persons, judge whether these men put the Scriptures in their true place.   

SECT. II. Proving the Scriptures to be the Word of GOD.  
He addeth page 26. That every declaration of a man's mind, is not his word, for signs may be a declaration of his mind. Ans. Though a dumb man may declare his mind by signs,; yet this maketh nothing against the Scriptures, being the word of God, which are such a declaration of God's mind, as he uttered and spoke. If any thing can be accounted the proper word of one, that must be it, which he utters and speaks: Now the Truths, the Commands, and Precepts, contained in the Scriptures, were uttered and spoken by God, Exod. 20.1. And God spoke all these words, etc.  
He saith, people usually distinguish between a man's word and his write. Ans. True: For they call the one verbum dictum, a word spoken, and the other verbum scriptum, a word written; but can it be inferred from this, that the Scriptures are not the Word of GOD, which he hath committed to writing, for the good of his Church and People.  
He saith, the Word of GOD is like unto himself, spiritual, yea, spirit, and life, and therefore cannot be read with the external senses. Ans. The Word of GOD is twofold, 1. There is the coessential, coeternal word, namely, JESUS CHRIST, who is one with the Father, this Word properly cannot be read, though we may, and do read of it. 2. There is the Spiritual Word, the temporal expressed Word, or the Word written in time, now the external senses may be employed in reading this Word.  
He saith, that these scriptures (Hos. 1.1. Joel. 1.1. Esay. 38.4.) are understood of that word from which the scriptures were given forth. Ans. It is not denied, that the Lord spoke by the Prophets, and was the author of giving forth the scriptures, but yet that word of the Lord which came to the Prophets, is not meant of the Word made flesh, (as Quakers would have it) but of the mind and message of the Lord contained in Scripture jeremiah 14.1. the word of the Lord that came to jeremiah: Now what word was this, surely, none else but the message which the Prophet was to deliver from GOD, to the persons therein concerned, having reference to that dearth which should make Judah mourn and languish, verse 2. The same may be said of the other scriptures.  
He addeth, What the Scripture saith and GOD saith, may be said, that they are one, because of their agreement. Ans. This is to advance humane writings, and to equal them with the scriptures, when their say agree with what God saith.  
He saith, every one that reads and hears the scriptures read, heareth not God immediately. Answer. GOD himself speaketh in the Scriptures to them that have ears to hear him, Rev. 3.6. And though all that read and hear the Scriptures Read, hear not GOD immediately, as the Prophtts who had truths revealed to them by immediate inspiration; yet when we read the Scriptures GOD speaks to us mediately, by his written Word: and believers so hear his voice, that at the reading and hearing of the Scriptures, they are forced to say the voice of GOD, and not the voice of man.  
Page 27. He saith, (in answering 1. Thes. 2.13.) that the word which they heard of the Apostles, was the living word. Answ. The word which they heard of Paul, and received as the word of GOD, was the Scripture or written word, which speaketh of the essential and living word, or it was the doctrine he preached concerning Chtist, grounded on, and warranted by the Scriptures, compare 1. Thess. 2.13. with Act. 26.22.  
He saith, that the Pharisees in striking at the first Command, did consequently strike at the living word which gave it forth. Ans. The Pharisees without doubt, were enemies to Christ, and struck at him many ways; but yet the word, which they sought to make void, Mark 7. is plainly held forth, to be that written precept, honour thy father and thy mother, compare verse 13. with verse 10.  
He concludeth the matter, saying, that the reason why they may not call the scriptures the word of God, is, that people may be directed to that inward living word. Ans. If they believe the Scriptures to be true, they may and aught to call them the word of GOD, for the Scriptures call themselves the word of GOD, Ephes. 6.17. the sword of the spirit which is the word of GOD, this sword of the spirit, is not a carnal, but a spiritual weapon, even the holy Scriptures, (which are mighty through GOD, for repelling the temper, and cutting asunder temptations) this was the sword which Christ made use of, in his conflict with Satan, it's written, and again it is written, Matth. 4. Luke 4.  
By calling the Scriptures the word of God, (which is a name due to them) this will make their testimony concerning Christ to be more regarded, and therefore the more effectual means to our closing with the living word. It seemeth Quakers have strange thoughts of the Scriptures, as if they were set up as an Idol, instead of that from whence they came. If we profess love to the Scriptures, and desire to obey them, this is not to Idolise them, and we are far from putting the Scriptures in Christ's stead; Did they ever hear any of us call the Scripture, the eternal Son of God, that Saviour who died and suffered, thereby paying a ransom for sinner's Redemption? Do we not say, that though the Scriptures be the word of God, yet there is a vast difference between them and Christ, he being the essential, eternal word, and the Scriptures only the word written in time? Why then should it be insinuate, that we call Christ the Scripture, and put the Scripture in his stead, is not this unworthy dealing? We distinguish between Christ, the word, and the word of Christ, and though the Scripture be not that word which is Christ, yet it is the word of that word, Colos. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly.   

SECT. II. Clearing the Scriptures to be the Rule.  
He addeth, that it rests to be proved, that the Law and Testimony mentioned, Esay. 8.20. was not the inward law. Ans. The proof of this will not be difficult, for here the Prophet opposes what is written (as being no light) if it agree not to the law and testimony. Let people pretend what they will, to a law and word within: yet if they accord not with the Scripture law, or scripture word, there is no light of truth in them. It is undeniable that the outward law gets the name of testimony, this name was given unto the law written in the two Tables, in regard whereof, the Ark was called the Ark of the testimony, because those Tables were laid up in the Ark, Exod. 25.16. 1. King. 8.9.  
My intent in bringing that scripture joh. 7.49. was only to prove the acceptation of the word law, for the outward law left upon record in the Scriptures though the Quaker maliciously glosses on it, as if in speaking for the law, we were crucifying Christ afresh, therein comparng us to the Pharisees: whereas the comparison will fit the Quakers a great deal better than us, their known rash censuring abundantly declares their conformity to Pharisees; for they can freely pronounce men damned and cursed, who will not take their gate of it, and this was the way of the Pharisees, this people (said they) who know not the law are cursed. Neither is it probable that Christ checked the Lawyer, Luk. 10.26. in saying, how readest thou? But rather would have men in matters of Religion to consult the scriptures, and therefore in convincing ignorant and erroneous persons of their ignorance and errors; He alleged the Scriptures against them, Matth. 22.31.32. When a question arose about divorcement, Christ had present recourse to the Scripture, Matth. 19.4. have ye not read, that he that made them at the beginning, made them male and female? So when the Pharisees accused Christ's Disciples for breach of the Sabbath, Christ said unto them, have ye not read, what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him. Matth. 12.3. Christ then would have the scriptures the rule to walk by, and matters of Religion to be tried by them: for he refers us to the scriptures for direction, and it's his will that we resort to them (in controversies and doubts) for resolution.  
He saith, page 28. That we seem to lay much stress upon this, that it cannot be made out to a Jew or Turk, that Jesus the Son of Mary, is in very deed the Christ without the Scripture. Answ. We lay so much stress on it, that we think Quakers can never prove this fundamental truth referring them to the light within, for they pretend following of their light in opposing Christ, as much as Quakers do at this day in opposing the precious ordinances and truths of Christ: And if Paul's course was commendable, so must ours, if against the Jews we should allege scripture in demonstrating Christ to be the Messiah; for the Jews profess a belief of the scriptures, of the Old Testament. Though the inward testimony of the spirit be of great use to persuade and assure us of the divine authority of the scripture, yet it is false to affirm that this can be proved no other way, but by the spirits inward testimony: there are other arguments whereby the authority of the scripture may be convincingly and solidly proved against Turks and Pagans, and all Antiscripturists whatsoever. Let me crave leave to put Quakers in mind of one argument, which is excellently improved, by that judicious servant of GOD, Mr. Baxter, in his book of the Saints rest, page 239. Where he thus reasoneth, if the Scriptures be neither the invention of Devils, nor of men, than they can be from none but GOD, (he takes it for granted, that good Angels could not be guilty of forging the scriptures) now he proves at length (it would be needless to set down here the full proof of this argument, because the book is common, and in the hands of many) that the Scripture is not the invention of Devils, that no mere men were the inventors of Scripture, it was neither devised by good men, nor by bad men, then sure by no man, and consequently must of necessity proceed from GOD.  
When the Ancient Fathers had to do with Pagans (who were strangers to the inward testimony of the spirit) they made use of other arguments, in proving the Scriptures Divinity: such as the Heavenliness of the matter, the Majesty of the style, the efficacy of the Doctrine, the verity of the predictions, and by these and such like arguments, they confounded the learnedst Pagans. And JOHN CALVIN, lib. 1. cap. 7. of his Instit: plainly supposeth that there are other arguments (besides the testimony of the spirit) to prove the divine authority of the Scriptures, saith he, verum quidem est, si argumentis agere libeat, multa posse in medium preferri quae facile evincant, siquis est in Coelo DEUS, Legem, & Prophetias, & Evangelium ab eo manasse i. e. True indeed it is, that if we pleased to deal by arguments, many things might be produced, that may easily prove, that if there be a GOD in Heaven, that the Law, the Prophets, and the Gospel came from him. Now seeing the Quakers have cited CALVIN, I would advise them to look to the 9 chapter, wherein be fully showeth, that fanatical men, who (forsaking scripture) betake themselves unto revelation, do overturn all principles of godliness.  
He saith, that joh. 5.39. may be translated, ye search the scriptures, as Pasor translateth the words. Ans. The same Pasor, speaking of that scripture, the kingdom of God is within you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he rendereth the words in medio vestro, in sinu gentis vestrae, that is, in the midst of you, in the bosom of your nation; and yet the Quakers will not admit of this translation. It is confessed that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is taken by some (even PROTESTANT Writters) in the indicative mood, though by that which follows, it appears to be imperative rather than indicative; for the great controversy at that time was, whether Christ was the Son of GOD, and the true Messiah, now Christ remits them to the scriptures (which the Jews deservedly had in high esteem) as bearing witness unto him, search the scriptures and they are they which testify of me; As who would say, peruse them frequently, search them diligently, digging for these heavenly treasures, as men do for gold, who break every clod, that they may find the golden oar. Neither doth Christ check them, when he saith, in them ye think to have eternal life, this was a true thought, as to the scriptures pointing out the way to Eternal life, 2. Tim. 1.10.  
Seeing the Quaker (page 29.) granteth that the scriptures are profitable, for doctrine, correction, reproof, instruction in righteousness, why then, doth he not acknowledge them to be a perfect rule of faith and manners; What more can be requisite to prove their perfection, than their teaching truth, confuting error, reproving sin, and discovering duty. There is enough said, and delivered in the Scripture, to direct us in things to be believed and practised, and if the Scriptures do not actually profit us for this end, the blaime is to be laid at the door of our ignorance and perverseness. Now the scriptures are thus profitabe that the man of God may be perfect. i e. That the Minister of Jesus Christ may be complete, and every way fitted for the work of his Calling, for though any man led by the spirit of GOD, may (in a general sense) be called the man of God; yet the Lord honours his Ministers with this tittle, and peculiarly attributs it to them, 1. Sam. 2.27. and 9.6. 1. King. 17.18.   

SECT. III. Showing that the Spirit within is not the Rule.  
In stead of answering my argument, proving that the Spirit within is not the rule, he saith, did these Jews receive Christ who had the scriptures? Did they not reject him, and why? Because they harkened not to the inward voice and testimony of the Father concerning him, and this was the testimony which he said, was greater than that of John. Ans. Look into the place where Christ speaks of this testimony, and it will be found that it is no inward voice of the Father, there spoken of. See joh. 5.36. I have a greater witness than that of John for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me: That is his works in doing miracles, these were a more convincing witness of Christ's being the promised Messiah, then that of John: And therefore, when john's Disciples asked, saying, art thou he that shall come, or do we look for another? Jesus answered, go and show John these things which ye do hear and see, the blind receive their sight, etc. As for that testimony which the Father gave concerning Christ, verse 37. it was not an inward voice and testimony, but an outward audible voice from Heaven, Matth. 3.17. compared with 2. Pet. 1.17.18. And Christ reproveth the unbelieving Jews, in that they were ignorant of the Father, though they gloried so much of him, as being the people whose Progenitors had heard the voice of GOD, Deut. 4.12. Now Christ showeth that all this was nothing to them; for they were strangers to such manifestations of GOD, and they looked not like that people whose Ancestors had heard so much of GOD, ye have neither heard his voice, nor seen his shape.  
He saith, there is not any word 1. joh. 4.1. of trying the spirits by the scriptures. Answer. It is sufficient if there be warrant in other places (though no express mention of it in this) for trying the spirits by the scripture. Now seeing every spirit (is not to be believed) that is, every doctrine propounded as received by inspiration from God's spirit, false teachers will be as ready as any to boast of the spirit: and therefore we must try from what spirit their doctrine cometh. And what surer and safer way can there be of trying, then that for which the Beraeans are commended, even in trying the Apostles themselves? They searched the Scriptures whether these things were so, Act. 17.11. and Christ appealed to the Scriptures, joh. 5.39.  
He saith, cannot the spirits be tried by the Spirit of God? How tried Peter the spirit of Ananias and Saphirah? And is not the trial and discerning of spirits the privilege of the Saints now? Ans. We are speaking about the trying of Doctrines, now Ananias and Saphirah, their failing was not in a matter of Doctrine, but of Fact, by lying in keeping back pa●● of the price of the possession, which Peter knew extraordinarily: as appears by the miraculous effect, that attended his reproving of this sin, which was their sudden death, and present giving up of the Ghost, Act. 5.5.  
As for discerning of spirits (if thereby he either intent the knowledge of the secret conceptions and inward thoughts of men's spirits, or a certain infallible knowledge, who be truly spiritual, and who not.) It is not the privilege of the Saints now, neither was it ever a privilege common to all the Saints, 1. Cor. 12.10. to another is given the working of miracles, to anothter discerning of spirits. Though the Saints have that anointing in them which teacheth them all things; yet as hereby external teaching is not excluded (for john himself was now teaching in writing this very Epistle to them) so is not trying of the spirits by an external rule, the anointings, teaching, may well consist with bringing Doctrines to the Touchstone of the Word, doth not the anointing (or the spirit) direct us to the law and testimony? And if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  
He saith, were there any more strongly deluded then the Pharisees, yet how much did they lay claim to the scriptures, how came they to be deluded, who were so skilled in the scriptures according to the letter of them? Ans. That the Pharisees were deluded, the Scripture is not to be blamed for this, the fault was in their blindness, hence they are so often called blind guides, Matth. 23.16.24.26. It is granted that deluded souls, such as are unlearned and unstable, may and do wrest the scriptures unto their own destruction, 2. Pet. 3.16. But yet there is enough said in the Scriptures, by which delusions might be discovered, and controversies ended: If men would be humble and studious in the use of helps and means, bringing not discutiendi acumen, a disputing head, but discendi pietatem, a pious heart, desirous to be instructed.  
And for further clearing of our mind in this, it is to be considered, that albeit we look upon the scriptures, as a rule for finding out truth, and deciding controversies, yet that we may be right discerners, we judge a work of the spirit necessary, for removing our natural depravedness, perverseness, and ignorance, so that though the scripture be sufficient for discovering delusions, and ending differences in genere objecti, yet the spirit is necessary in genere causae effectivae.  
He addeth page 30. Though the same deluding spirit, who deceived first may deceive over again, that makes nothing against the insufficiency of the spirit, to discover the delusion. Answer. We blaime not the spirit for men's falling into delusion at first, or for their continuance in delusions; Who can charge the spirit with insufficiency, as if he could not discover the tricks and deceits of Satan? Yet persons who reject the Scripture, refussing it to be the rule, pretending only to an inward rule, they provoke the spirit to give them up to delusions, and open a gap for a deluding spirit to enter in. May not the History of I. Galpen, once a Quaker (be an admonition and warning to all that Sect) who by casting off external teaching, and harkening to a voice within, was put upon mischievous and detestable practices. Sometimes he was led to the Fiddler's house, and being told it was such a man's house, he answered, be it whose house it will, Christ led me hither, and hither I must go: Then was his hand forced to knock at the door, and a voice bade him say, behold Christ stands at the door and knocks: Otherwhile, he was carried upon his hands and knees out of the doors into the street, and when his wife would have stopped him, he said, he must not be stopped, he must forsake wife, children, and all to follow Christ. Sometimes, he was forced to take up a knife, and to put it to his throat, and the voice said open a hole there, and I will give eternal life. But in the end the Lord was pleased to give him repentance: whereupon he published a narration of those things, to discover the danger of these ways, and to be for caution of others, to take heed how they go out of God's ways, and forsake his ordinances: lest falling into the error of the wicked, they decline from their former steadfastness, and lest not receiving the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God give them over to strong delusions to believe a lie. See this History set down largely by Mr. Samuel Clark, in his book called the Mirror for Saints and sinners.   

SECT. iv The Quakers way is ineffectual to convince an Opposer.  
Quakers in their way cannot convince a Gainsayer, for what they call truth, others differing from them, call delusion and error, and how can they produce any evidence (that they are not deluded) for the conviction of an unbeliever, who knoweth not the testimony of the spirit in them? And himself hath not the spirit, being in the number of those who are without GOD, and without the Spirit. Suppose one say, that he hath a testimony of the spirit, to assure him of his gracious state, I would ask whether the testimony of the spirit be any otherwise then according to the Word of GOD? It is like, Quakers will confess that every testimony speaking peace (being contrary to the word) that testimony is not the voice of the spirit of the Lord; but the voice of the spirit of delusion. Now I would ask (if trial by the word be neglected) how is it possible to know whether this testimony speak according to the word, or whether it speak contrary to the word? If Quakers say, that they are assured by the same spirit that gives the testimony that it is according to the word, and other evidence they need not look after: the voice of the spirit that speaks in them, is that beyond which there needs no enquiry. Then I ask again, how can Quakers convince deluded persons, who pretend to the testimony of the spirit, in reference to their gracious state? For they persuade themselves, that it is the voice of the spirit that speaks peace to them; and other evidence they will not look after, the testimony of the spirit, is that beyond which there must be no enquiry. Now will not Quakers according to their principles, be so far from convincing such of their mistake, that they will rather confirm them in their deceit?  
Now according to us scripture is the rule (which lies patent & open to both parties. And therefore a Papist of great note, is feign to acknowledge that Scriptures nihil est certius, nihil est notius. i e. nothing is more certain and more evident than the Scriptures.) And this is profitable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, for conviction, and (as was said) though the Scriptures do not actually convince the stubborn and stiff-heretick; yet there is so much in them as may satisfy an inquisitive adversary, who is willing to know right from wrong, and truth from error. Apollo's mightily convinced the Jews by the Scriptures.  
It is inconsequential to argue, that the Scripture or written word, is not the rule to us, (to whom GOD hath set down his mind in write) because it was not a rule to them who lived when the Scripture or written word was not.  
As for the Prophets, the event of what they foretold, was that whereby they were to be tried, Deut. 18.22. When a Prophet speaketh in the Name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, that is, the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the Prophet hath spoken presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him. jerem. 28.9. The Prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the LORD shall come to pass, then shall the Prophet be known that the Lord hath sent him. But because GOD for the trial of his people, may sometimes suffer such things to fall out, as false-prophets foretell, Deut. 13.2. Therefore when men pretend themselves to be prophets sent of GOD, their doctrine must be brought to the rule and touchstone of GOD'S written word, and thereby examined, Esay 8.20.  
He saith, page 31. that we disjoin the word and the spirit, because many preach and read the scriptures, and talk of them without the joined concurrence of the spirit, which they ought not to do. Answer. He hath not offered to prove that the Scriptures should not be read or spoken of, without the concurrence of the spirit, unless that be his proof (we say, they ought not to do) but upon what ground do ye say so? 1. The command for reading and speaking of the Scriptures, hath not this condition annexed to it, that we should read and speak of the scriptures, only when we have a concurrence of the spirit, and never but then, where is there such a condition mentioned? 2. What shall be the carriage of wicked persons, who are strangers to the drawings and motion of the spirit, must the Bible be to them as an Almanac out of date? Shall it be to them, as a book useless to look into? 3. When the Saints want the concurrence of the spirit, may they not read and talk of the Scriptures, as a mean of good to their souls? How many cold hearts have been rubbed and chaffed into spiritual heat, by reading and talking of the Scriptures; In so doing the Lord hath met with them, and made their hearts to burn within them: Now though the scriptures may be read and spoken of, without the concurrence of the spirit. Yet to affirm this, is not to disjoin the Scriptures and the spirit, separating the one from the other; for still the Scriptures remain to be the endytment of the spirit, being spoken and breathed forth by the spirit, Act. 28.25. Well spoke the Holy Ghost by Isaias the prophet unto our fathers, Act. 1.16. this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the holy Ghost spoke by the mouth of David. Mark the Scriptures which Dav d and others of the Prophets penned, they are the breathe forth of the Holy Ghost himself.  
Why doth the Quaker complain so much, for my improving Esay 59.21. as if it made so much against me; whereas it is directly to that purpose, which it was alleged for; namely, that GOD'S Spirit and word go together, and doth not the Lord here promise, that the Spirit and Word should continue with his Church and People, to direct and instruct them in all necessaries, throughout all ages sucessiuly, even unto the end of the world?  
He asketh, cannot dead things kill, if men feed upon them? Answ. There is no doubt of it, yet the Scripture or that part of Scripture which is called the law, is said to be killing in such a way, as dead things are not: And therefore this kill Letter is spoken of as being the ministration of death, and the ministration of condemnation; For the Law threatens death against the sinner, and curseth every one that abideth not in all things that are written therein, 2. Cor. 6.7.9. Now are the dead things which the Quaker reckons up, thus killing? It shall not be denied, but feeding upon sand, gravel, stones, etc. will prove deadly and destructive to the body, even as the drinking in of the lifeless poisonous opinions of Quakers will prove hurtful and destructive to the soul.   

SECT. V Quakers have learned their Language about the Scriptures from Papists.  
Now any may perceive a Popish design in all the Quakers reasonings against the Scriptures, for both Papists and they join in studing to disgrace them. Herein they very much resemble one another. Ye may hear how Quakers lisp after the Papists, and concur with them in speaking the language of Ashdod.  
Do not Papists call the Scriptures, Do not Quakers say of them, 1. A nose of wax, or a rule of lead which may be bowed every way as men please? If the delusion be strong in the heart, will it not twine the Scriptures without to cause the scriptures to seem for it 2. Papists call the Scriptures inky Divinity, paper and parchment? Quakers speak of the Scriptures as a dead letter; 3. Papists blaime the Scriptures, (the reading of them by the Laity) as that which causeth controversies, multiplieth both Heresies and Sects? Quakers say, ye that set up the Scriptures as a rule, what Sects, what jangling, and contesting is among you; 4. Papists prefer the Church before the Scripture? Quakers prefer the light within, hence they say, that it is by the inward dispensation (that the outward dispensation of the Gospel is serviceable) without which it hath no service at all. 5. Papists contemn and vilify the Scriptures? Quakers will not have the Scriptures to be so much as a copy to them, but the Spirit is both their teacher and their copy, and if they walk according to this, by looking upon it, and eyeing it, they shall be good scholars and proficients, they need not go forth for a copy. 6. Papists say the church was judge before the Scriptures were written. Quakers say, there was a rule before the Scriptures were written? 7. Papists deny the Scriptures to be the principal & complete rule of faith And Quakers do the same.  
So true is that of Tertullian, CHRIST is always crucified between two theives.  
He denyeth, That that more sure word of prophecy, 2. Pet. 1.19. is the scripture. Answer. Had it not been meet, not only to have denied this, but likewise confuted what was said, proving it to be so; Is not the Apostle more to be believed (than any Quaker) who expounds that more sure word of prophecy calling it, verse 20, not the word in the heart, but the prophecy rf Scripture, or Scripture prophesy, which is said to more 〈◊〉 sure then a voice from heaven; not as if there could be any uncertainty of the Lords voice speaking from Heaven: this is sure enough in itself, but yet Scripture prophecy is more sure quoad nos, as to us, because a trans●ient voice is more easily mistaken, or forgotten, than a standing record.    

VI HEAD. Concerning justification.  

SECT. I. Wherein is cleared the Quakers agreement with Papists in the Doctrine of justification.  
Page 32. He raiseth a great storm against me, as displaying the banner of disingenuity, venting filthy imaginations, discovering vanity and malice, extending myself in a foolish and vain excursion. Ans. I wish the Gentleman would reflect how much his pen & spirit hath been dipped in the gall of Asps, and remember that causa firma est semper querula. I have not leisure to answer his bitter revile and rail, and therefore passing them: I shall endeavour to trace him, according to the method he hath proposed, in giving (as he pretends) an honest, and plain, and true account of their belief in the matter of Justification.  
He saith, page 33. That we are justified by jesus Christ, both as he appeared and was manifest in the flesh at jerusalem, and also as he is made manifest and revealed in us, and thus Christ and his righteousness without, are not divided from his righteousness within, but we do receive him wholly, and undivided the Lord our righteousness in the sight of God, and which ought not, nor cannot be divided. Ans. Here he insinuats that our opinion is, to divide the the righteousness of christ without, from his righteousness within, which is the calumny of Papists against us; as if we held that because Christ's righteousness is imputed to men, there needed no other righteousness. When as we maintain that inherent righteousness and imputed are inseparably annexed: so that every one that is justified hath holiness and righteousness wrought in him. We may not confound Justification and Sanctification (seeing the Scripture distinguisheth them) and yet we must not divide them. Now that the Quakers fraud and cheatry (which I suspect he is guilty of) in this thing, may be discovered; it will be necessary to inquire how the word justify (in the present affair, namely as it imports the sinner's Justification before God) is used in scripture: and in this PROTESTANTS and Papists are at variance. Papists say, that it signifies to make inherently just and righteous (as calefaction signifies to make inherently hot) on the other hand PROTESTANTS affirm that it signifies not the making of a man just, by infused inherent righteousness; but to absolve, account, and pronounce a man righteous, Prov. 17.15. he that justifies the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Mark, to justify is not to make inherently just and holy (for this would not be abominable, but acceptable to God) but it is to absolve and pronounce a man righteous, as to condemn, is to declare a man guilty, and accordingly sentence him to punishment.  
Now in that he saith, that they are justified by Christ revealed in them, by which he understands grace and holiness wrought in them by Christ, (for he afterwards explains it to be that which in scripture is called Christ form within.) Here he falls in with the Popish sense of Justification, by righteousness infused. And his more full agreement with Papists, will appear even in that, wherein page 34. 35. he saith, that they greatly differ from them. To make good this, I shall do two things. 1. Set down the words of G. Keith, in his paper to me, (which Mr. Barclay acknowledges to be in substance the same with that which he hath written) Saith he, I perceive that by the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed, by which thou queries, if we be justified thou understandest not his work of righteousness, he worketh in his Saints, but his obedience and sufferings even unto death in the flesh (not excluding but including his souls sufferings) at Jerusalem. To which I thus Reply, that we are even justified by the righteousness of his obedience and sufferings, in that Vessel or Manhood not formally but causally; forasmuch, as by his obedience and sufferings therein, he was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us, which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us: by which we are formally (as the Schoolmen speak) righteous, and this inward righteousness wrought by him in us, is truly and properly his Righteousness, and that on a twofold account. 1. For that by his obedience and sufferings, he procured an entrance to men's hearts, to become a Prince and a Saviour in them. Secondly, In that he is not only the remote procuring cause in the manner aforesaid, but the immediate worker of it in us, by his immediate Arm and Power, so that he is well called the LORD our righteousness. Now that there is no inconsistency between these two, to be justified by the obedience of Jesus Christ in the flesh at Jerusalem, as the remote procuring cause, and to be justified by the work of Righteousness wrought by him in us, as the formal cause is manifest, being causes of different kinds, which do not repugn one to another, but sweetly concur to the producing their effect. Thus far G. Keith.  
Second thing to be done, is to show wherein PROTESTANTS differ from Papists in the matter of Justification: which will be notably seen by the answer both of PROTESTANTS and Papists, to this important and weighty question, viz. what is that very thing, which causeth a poor believing sinner stand pardoned and so just before GOD, and for which he is pronounced righteous, or absolved from the accusation and condemnation of the law, and accepted unto eternal life. Now the Papists in answering this question, have recourse to infused, inherent righteousness, ass thing this to be the thing, whereby they are justified in the sight of GOD. But PROTESTANTS though they look upon a principle of Grace within, as an excellent gift of GOD; yet they cannot lean to that for Justification, but think their only refuge to be the imputed righteousness of CHRIST, (namely, the satisfaction and merit of his Death, Passion, and Obedience in fulfilling the law) judging this to be the very thing by which Believers may appear before GOD, and in the confidence whereof they may live and die: And for which they are accounted righteous, absolved from death, and accepted unto eternal life. Now let us hear the Quakers answer to the aforementioned question, and it will be found, that as Papists make the formal cause of Justification to be an inherent righteousness wrought in us, and inspired into us by the Spirit of GOD, so the Quakers do the same; for G. Keiths' express words are; that we are justified by a work of righteousness wrought by Christ in us as the formal cause: And therefore when in their Printed book, they say, that they rely on Christ himself revealed in them, indwelling in them, as the ground and foundation of their Justification. What can their meaning be? (though they blind the eyes of the simple, by using words inoffensive in themselves) but as G. Keith explaineth it, to wit, that Christ by his obedience and suffering, was the procuring cause of that grace and power of his revealed in us, which produceth a work of righteousness wrought in us by which we are formally righteous. Now is not this a manifest coincidency with Papists? For even they make the obedience and sufferings of Christ, the procuring cause of that grace and righteousness wrought in them, which they own as the formal cause of their first Justification. So that both Papists and Quakers deny the imputed righteousness of Christ, to be the very thing by which a Believer stands pardoned & so just before God & for which he is pronounced righteous, or absolved from the condemnation of the law, and accepted unto eternal life: which is looked upon as carrying with it such danger, that some PROTESTANTS are of opinion, that hereby the Church of Rome doth raze the very foundation. And upon this ground, Mr. Samuel Hammond undertakes to demonstrate the impossibility of Salvation, in and by the principles of Quakers, in his book, called, The Quakers house built upon the sand.   

SECT. II. That Works are not Meritorious of justification.  
He addeth, that he may not deny Justification by works, but plead for it, according to the true sense and mind of the spirit. Answ. Let him hold there and we shall go along with him, for we readily yield that by works, a man is declared and manifested to be a justified person, so that good works justify our justification: being notable evidences thereof, and signs of that faith whereby we are justified; for we are not justified by a barren faith, but by a faith which is fruitful in good works, and this is that which the Apostle drives at jam. 2. But justification by works, such as the Quakers plead for, is not according to the true sense and mind of the spirit. Is it the mind of the spirit, that good works are the meritorious cause of Justification? Which Sam Fisher (one of the Quakers ringleaders) plainly asserts, exercit. 1. page 84. and page 88 he saith, there are good works which in different respects are called (truly enough) both Christ's and ours, viz. ours, as done in and by our persons; Christ's, as done only by his Power in us: and by these (call them as ye will, Christ's or ours) is the justification of all, that ever were, or shall be justified, both deserved and effected.  
Object. We understand it not any other way then thus, that all their merit or worth is from Christ. Ans. Where doth the scriptures say, that works wrought in us have merit in them (from Christ) to deserve justification? This is a Doctrine of your own forging and not of Christ's teaching. Though good works shall not want a reward, yet they do not merit. It is false to say, that reward and merit infer one another. PROTESTANTS use to distinguish between a reward of merit, and a reward of grace: which distinction is grounded on scripture, compare the original words in Matth. 5.46. with Luk. 6.32. and in that you affirm the reward to be of grace, than it is not merited by works; the Apostle opposeth these two, making them incompatible, Rom. 11.6. And if by grace, than it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace, but if it be of works, than it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. We acknowledge that God of his rich mercy and goodness, hath promised to reward good works, and being faithful he will not deny himself, 2. Tim. 2.13. But a reward given by promise, doth not import merit and desert, the reward proceedeth from the bounty of the Giver, and not from the merit of the receiver.  
Now the Quakers wisdom is much to be observed, in that they refuse to own the grossest sort of Papists (for then their draught would be found out, and their tendency sufficiently known) but they (under the specious name of new lights) can creep towards the moderate sort of them: who say, that works are not meritorious, but as they proceed from grace, and by virtue of God's promise: when as indeed, if works be of, and flow from the free grace of God, this infers that they are not meritorious; for that which doth merit, must not be done by the strength of another; especially his, at whose hands we look to merit.  
It is evident that the Gentleman is of a higher strain, then to be only for a reward or merit (as he phraseth it) of free grace, and upon the account of the promise: Else how shall he be able to reconcile himself to his brother Sam. Fisher, who (exerc. 1. page 90.) maketh use of this Popish argument, namely, evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation, therefore good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, (insinuating that there is a meritorious dignity in good works, even as there is a meritorious indignity and sinfulness in evil works) this argument hath been often answered by a denial of the consequence, because our evil works are perfectly evil, but our good works are but imperfectly good. And giving but not granting, that our works were perfectly good, yet all the requisits to make a work meritorious would not agree to them.  
He addeth, that the works that Papists seek to be justified by, are such as they believe, none can be justified by. Ans. Though they do not go along with Papists in some of their practices, yet they own their principle, as hath been abundantly cleared, and therefore their correspondence with Rome being manifest, we must conclude, that in stead of coming out of Babylon, they are rather running to it.  
His next work, page 36. Is to make people believe, that we are near a kin to Papists; But none who know what Popery is, are like to give him credit, yet if any be of such an easy faith, as to take upon trust what he saith, than no wonder if the blind leading the blind, both fall into the ditch.  
We shall consider wherein he chargeth us as guilty of Popery, which he brancheth forth into several particulars. 1. Because we deny, that we are justified by Christ dwelling in us. Ans. We affirm that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, and when this righteousness is believingly applied and laid hold on, than Christ dwells in us, is this Popery? Or can any that know the difference between Papists and us, think that we agree with them in the matter of our Justification? 2. He saith, according to us the way to attain to a state of Justification, is not by believing in the light, wherewith Christ inlightens every man that cometh into the world. Ans. That being a created work of light, it is not the object of faith, we are not where warranted to believe in a creature, but threatened with a curse if we do it. 3. He saith, that we deny, that men are to know their justification, or that they are in a justified estate, by the immediate testimony of the spirit, and so do Papists, Ans. It is by us looked upon as an error in Papists, that they are against the certain knowledge and assurance of Justification, and do so much cry up doubtings; but though Papists should oppose the knowledge of justification by an immediate testimony of the spirit, this will not prove it to be Popery: Every thing that Papists maintain, is not Popery, for it is known, they hold some truths in common with the Orthodox: Popery is their supper added inventions and corrupt additions to the truth, amongst which is their and your doctrine of justification by inherent righteousness.   

SECT. III. We are not justified by good and Gracious Works wrought in us.  
He saith, that Rom. 3.28. Gal. 2.16. The works of the law are excluded, but not the works of Christ in us. Ans. Either the works of the law which in these scriptures are excluded from justification, must be evil and sinful works, or else good and gracious works: they are not evil and sinful, for here the Apostle confutes such among the Romans and Galatians, as had corrupted the doctrine of justification; but it would be irrational to think, that their opinion was that sinful works did justify: could they imagine that to be the cause of justification, which deserveth and bringeth on condemnation? And therefore the Apostle excludeth (from justifition) good and gracious works, and consequently the works of Christ in us, as not being the meritorious cause of justification.  
Further, we shall find that works simply and in general, are excluded from justification: and this is notably proved in the case of Abraham, who though a gracious and godly man, yet was not justified by works, Rom. 4.2.3.4.5. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but what saith the scripture, Abraham believed GOD, and it was counted to him for righteousness, now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt, but to him that worketh not, but believeth in him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Likewise works without that limitation (of the law) are excluded, Tit. 3.5. which scripture was cited by me, in opposition to justification by works, as the meritorious cause thereof, (verse 7. that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life,) and indeed works in us, and done by us, neither merit justification nor salvation, though they be the qualification of the persons that are justified and shall be saved, (for all such are regenerate and renewed by the Holy Ghost.) It is a known saying, good works are the way to the Kingdom, and not the cause of reigning: and we only deny them to be meritorious causes of blessedness, in this respect the Apostle excludes works generally. And therefore the Gentleman might have kept in his insulting, triumphing words, why should he be at so much pains to make to himself a man of straw, and then take pleasure to undress him? There is no hazard to exclude the merit of works in justification, and yet to affirm them necessarily requisite in the subject justified.  
He telleth us page 38. That they justly cast off the accusation of Popery, having express testimony of scripture, that we are justified by works, Jam. 2.24. Answer. Papists allege the same scripture for justification by works, and therefore one answer shall serve you both: we must distinguish between justification before GOD, and justification before men: if we speak of GOD, and being justified in his sight, and before his Tribunal, than works cannot serve the turn, Job. 9.2.3. But how should man be just with GOD, if he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. Yet works are useful in respect of men, to declare and clear our Justification as to them: thus Abraham was justified by works, Jam. 2.21. that is, declared to be just; hereby he was approved as just and righteous in his own conscience, and before the World.  
He saith, that good works are not ours, in that signification, as where it is said, Hebrews 4 10. he that hath entered to his rest, hath ceased from his own works. Answer. None of us do affirm that that good and gracious works are ours in that way that sinful works are; and therefore his answer is but a shift: he cannot deny good works of Christ in us to be called ours, for though we be enabled to them by Christ, (and so efficiently his) yet they are subjectiuly our own, our own faith, and our own repentance (it is not Christ but we, who repent and believe.) Hence it is evident that if justification be by good works of Christ in us (than our good works justify us) for these are ours in respect of subject and inherency.  
He addeth, that faith may be excluded from justification, if it were granted to be imperfect. Answer. This is his groundless assertion, for the matter and substance of our justification is not faith; but the perfect righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith: and upon the account of this object of faith, to wit, Christ's perfect righteousness: Which faith applieth, therefore faith is said to be accounted for righteousness, Rom. 4.5.  
He saith, that little faith is perfect in the measure of it, and though the Disciples had doubting, yet the faith was not doubting. Answer. According to this he might as well say, that light in the Air (at the very first breaking in, and dawning of the day) is perfect light; for though the Air then be partly light and partly dark, yet the light is not darkness: yea, he might call gold (attended and mingled with a great deal of dross) perfect gold, because the gold is not dross. And page 39 he reasoneth no better, alleging that though we know but in part, yet our knowledge is not imperfect, we may know a thing in part, and that which we know of it we may know perfectly. Ans. It is needful to inquire, what is meant by imperfection, is not that imperfection, when there is not that degree of grace in us, which ought to be? Now when our faith is but little, and our knowledge in part, have we all that faith and knowledge that we ought to have? Or rather have we not cause to complain, that we come short of the command? Who can say they know GOD, believe in him, and love him, in the highest degree that they are bound to do, if not, than these grace● must be imperfect?  
Object. It is said of Abraham, that his faith was perfected by works, Jam. 2.22. Answer. This comes to no more, but that his faith was made known and discovered by his works; like that expression, where GOD'S strength is said ro be perfected in our weakness, 2. Cor. 12.9.  
In answering that place Eccl. 7.20. he brings scriptures to prove, that there are righteous men who do good. But this was not the thing denied, he should have proved that righteous men on earth do good so purely, that there is not the least fault or blemish cleaving thereunto. As for that scripture 1. joh. 3.9. he that is born of GOD sinneth not (it doth not prove an absolute freedom from sin; for this is contrary to the experiences of the Regenerate, and Saints in all Ages, who have bitterly bewailed, and ruefully mourned under the sense of their sins) the words in the Greek are, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is he maketh not sin, sin is not his trade. Now a man makes a trade of sin, when in sinning he is in his Element, where he would be: there is no work so pleasing to him, as the work of sin. But this is not the disposition of a Regenerate Person.  
He addeth that the Prophet Isaiah 64.6. saith not all our righteousness which is of thy working in us, who are Saints is as filthy rags. Answ. Neither doth the Prophet say (as the Quaker brings him in speaking) all our righteousness, which we, even the best of the Saints can perform, of and from themselves are as filthy rags. The Prophet speaketh in general (and plurally) of righteousnessess, and that in the person of the whole Church; and not relating only to the wicked and ungodly, therefore he useth the word all, and our righteousness.  
To affirm the Saints righteousness to be filthy rags, is no just ground to make us ashamed, for we do not reflect on the holy Spirit of GOD (as if filthiness did proceed from him) he is good in giving us the least degree of grace: not being bound to give us any (his work of grace and holiness in us, is a special ornament to the soul, making it in beauty to resemble GOD) but in respect of us, imperfection cleaveth to this grace, in that it is not all the grace which the Law of GOD requireth of us: being commanded to love GOD, with all our hearts souls, and minds, Matth. 22.37. The best action and works done and performed by us (as instruments) have something of the taint of sin adhering to them; where is the soul that is carried out in prayer, and other spiritual duties, with that love and delight, with that purity and fervency of spirit, which the spiritualness of the law doth call for? Now it is the sin which cleaveth to the Saints good works, which is to be thrown away, this indeed is not an ornament but a deformity, for which we should be humbled and ashamed in the sight of God.  
He saith, page 40. 41. that the Saints are subordinate coworkers with Christ, but yet it followeth not that his works in them, and by them are defiled, and though it be said, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean; this hinders not, but that the Lord can, and doth make clean, those who have been unclean, and so out of them who are made clean, can bring forth clean things. Answer. 1. We grant that there are thousands in Heaven whom the Lord hath made perfectly clean, and their actings have not the least impurity in them, Heb. 12.23. Revel. 21.27. 2. We grant that there be many on Earth who are sanctified and cleansed: yet their cleansing and sanctification is but in part, they are not throughly cleansed and perfectly sanctified; there is yet an unclean part in them, they have in them flesh as well as spirit; and however this unclean part, viz. the flesh, should be chained and kept down; Yet GOD'S People to their smart and grief, find the stir and risings of it, and the resistance and opposition it makes; whereby they are hindered from doing good perfectly, Gal. 5.17. the flesh lasteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do, the things that ye would. Rom. 7.19. the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now men being but in part holy, and in part carnal; therefore the works which proceed from them have some filth and taint of sin cleaving to them: there is sin in the best men to undo them, if GOD should deal with them in rigour, Psalm. 130.3. If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquity, O Lord who shall stand, 1. King. 8.46. for there is no man that sinneth not: And yet we deny not, but by degrees the clean part increaseth, and the unclean is diminished; yea and at last all the uncleanness shall be wrought out: there is a happy time coming, when the children of GOD, shall not have spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but this privilege is reserved for them till they come to Heaven, for there is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not, Eccl. 7.20. Intimating that the just man's doing good is attended with sin: sinfulness cleaveth to his good actions, as was formerly cleared by that similitude (which the Quaker hath not in the lest weakened) of clean water passing through an unclean pipe, and thereby receiving a tincture of uncleanness. The Gentleman that supposeth himself so well skilled in the outward creation, should have instructed me, what that outward water is, which is not capable of defilment: And having first done this, he might then (the more freely) have come to his supercilious application.   

SECT. iv justification is not by inherent Righteousness, but by the imputed Righteousness of JESUS CHRIST.  
He addeth that justification is taken for the making a man righteous, and then it is all one with sanctification. Answer. Is not this to confound what the scripture distinguisheth? Now justification and sanctification in scripture are always spoken of, as distinct benefits, 1. Cor. 6.11. But ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, Rom. 8.30. whom he called (namely to a conformity to the Image of his Son) them he also justified. And it is to be observed, that we need not contest with Quakers or Papists, whether the word justify, signify to make righteous or no? Only we say that the righteousness which doth make a man just, or justifyeth him, is not inherent in him. And to assert justification, to be the making of a man righteous, by infused, inherent righteousness (or righteousness wrought in him) is to confound what GOD distinguisheth, and to alter the scripture sense of the word justify.  
He addeth, page 42. that admitting the Apostle Phil. 3.9. speaketh not of his righteousness whilst he was a Pharisee, yet he was still to deny the work and righteousness which was to proceed from his own will and spirit. Answer. The Apostle in the preceding verses, disclaimed righteousness proceeding from his own will and spirit: but verses 8.9. he riseth higher, and goeth a step further, even to the present time, (I account all things) intending the present graces and privileges which he enjoyed, and disclaiming them in the matter of Justification; Paul durst not lean to any work of grace in him (the best man's graces being imperfect) as that which can endure GOD'S sight, his exact and severe trial: and therefore is that word, 1. Cor. 4.4. I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified: Notwithstanding his holy course of life, and obedience performed to the law, yet he saw a necessity to look after a more perfect righteousness then this: such as God himself cannot refuse as imperfect and insufficient, namely, the righteousness which is of GOD by faith.  
Then in the following verse, there are the excellent fruits and advantages, which redound to them, who renouncing confidence in themselves, lay hold on Christ for righteousness. Such as 1. Increase of Knowledge. 2. Mortification of the Old-man. 3. Resurrection to newness of Life. To make these things the righteousness whereby we are justified (as the Quaker doth) is to confound Justification with Sanctification, for here the parts of Sanctification (namely, Mortification, and Vivification) are expressly mentioned.  
He saith, My last argument from 2. Cor. 5.21. is most absurd and impious, for accordingly it would follow, that as Christ was made sin for us, who of himself knew no sin, no not in the jest, so we may be made righteous before GOD, though we have no holiness, no faith, no good thing wrought in us. Answ. He indeed impudently and absurdly wrists my argument, the strength of which lieth in this: that as our sins are inherent in us, and imputed to Christ, so his righteousness is inherent in him, and imputed to us: Or as Christ was made sin for us, by the imputation of our sins to him, Isa. 53.6. so we are made righteous before GOD, by the imputation of his righteousness to us, he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of GOD in him, upon which words, one thus excellently glosseth, he sin, and we righteousness, and not ours; but the righteousness of GOD, and not in us, but in him: Even as he sin, not his own, but ours, nor in himself, but in us, so therefore are we the righteousness of GOD in him, as he is sin in us.  
The Quakers inference is impious, and absurd to imagine, that GOD (considering his purity and justice) should accept one as righteous in his fight, and yet his person remain abhored of GOD, as an unholy sinner; for the righteousness of Justification and Sanctification are twin blessings, which go together in regard of GOD'S actual application of them: And therefore it is a mistake arising (to speak fairest) from ignorance, to insinuate that we are against inward righteousness and holiness; seeing we profess that without this no man shall see the Lord. And though we plead for the imputation of Christ's tighteousness as to Justification; yet we do nor hold, that there needs no other righteousness at all: We assert Justification and Sanctification to be inseparable companions, and that whosoever is justified, hath inherent godliness and righteousness. And therefore it is false to say, that we strengthen the profane and wicked in their presumption; for we declare to them that while they continue wicked they are without hope, and can lay no just claim to Christ's righteousness: and that they must be new creatures, of they can never come to the New Jerusalem.  
He asketh page 43. Whether the Apostles did sin in writing the Scriptures? Answer. There are two things that shall be said to satisfy this demand. 1. That this was a singular extraordinary case, and no doubt but GOD (he that made an immaculate Conception, in the womb of her that was a sinner) can preserve extraordinarily some singular action from impurity, such as the penning of the scriptures was. But what is this to us, who can pretend to no such thing? 2. Though the matter contained and delivered in the Scriptures, remains inviolable and without the least defilment; yet what hazard is it to affirm, that the Apostles in penning the Scriptures were nor inflamed with love and zeal: According to the utmost extent of the Law, though being tall Cedars, their love and zeal was far above the love and zeal of others.    

VII. HEAD. Concerning the Quakers groundless magnifying of their Sect.  
I mean to be thrifty of my paper in answering the Quakers self-advancing and exalting words. He saith, page 44. The flock of Christ is like to him, and can it be an unsuitable thing, for one who supposeth himself to be of Christ's flock, to say, the flock with whom he is, it likest to Christ? Answer. What though the flock of Christ be likest to him? Should the Quakers therefore set up themselves above all the people of GOD on Earth? Are none of Christ's flock but they? Oh! It is intolerable pride to vilify all the Saints and Servants of GOD in the world, and to shut them out from being of Christ's flock; for if this be their privilege, than Quakers are not the most Christ like people, others may call themselves so as well as they.  
He saith, that Christianity stands not in flying the society of men, but the matter is for people, to have their occasions and business in the world using it, as if they were not using it. Answer. This indeed is the great work and business; but can it be inferred from hence, that the true power and life of holiness is more truly known to Quakers, and eminently held forth by them, then by any people else that have come forth since the Apostles days? It were good that that parable were remembered, Luke 18.9. And he spoke this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves, that they were righteous and despised others. And truly what ever thoughts the Gentleman hath of the PROTESTANT CHURCHES, (which in disdain he calleth our Flocks) there are many in them who live in the world very much dead to the world: and their communication and habitual course of life, holdeth forth their conversations to be in Heaven; some of them have professed it were ill for them, if they lived not every day, as if it should prove their dying day.  
We are far from commending the way of Monks and Hermits; but their example was brought, to give check to ignorant well meaning people: who are apt to be too much taken with an outward show of mortification.  
He saith, page 45. such as have had so much of the fear of God upon their hearts, that they durst not adventure upon sin, would they not love to be perfect? Answer. Yes surely, perfection is their aim, and the white that they shoot at, and therefore they long to be in Heaven, where they shall sin no more for ever; but they know that the Saints while on Earth shall be clogged with sin: and that the question is not, whether GOD can by the singular assistance of his grace, keep any in this bodily life totally pure from sin? But whether GOD hath not declared and revealed his mind to the contrary: and whether he seethe it not fit to have his people while in this world) exercised with relics of sin, to be as pricks and thorns in their sides, and to keep them humble, lest they should be exalted above measure. And though the Saints do fear and dread to adventure upon sin; yet through the strength of remaining corruption, and violence of temptation, they may (to their heart's sorrow and grief) be drawn to it, which will be evident by reading over the seventh chapter to the Romans.  
He asketh page 46. Whether such as have lived in the sense of God's favour, would have pleaded for continuance in sin, and doth not continuance in sin take away and eclipse the sense of God's favour. An. There are conscience wasting sins and falling or continuing in them, will greatly eclipse the sense of divine favour; but there are sins of daily incursion which people may be guilty of, and yet enjoy the favour of GOD. The godly dare not plead for allowing themselves in the  sin, approving of any sin will mar our peace, and let in a sensible damp upon the soul.  
The persons mentioned by me (in the Dialogue) as having such notable enjoyments of & communion with GOD, were far from Quakerism, they would have looked upon your opinions as monstrous, and to be abominated with the greatest detestation.   

VIII. HEAD. Proving the Quakers to be guilty of Equivocating.  
He saith page 47. That it is a false challenge and a calumny to charge them as denying Baptism and the Lords Supper, for they do own these things in the substance and reality, and in the true acceptation. Answer. They are utterly against Baptism with water, and the Lords Supper as instituted by Christ in giving and receiving Bread and Wine. Now in this sense Baptism and the Lords Supper are commonly understood, and do not Quakers dissemble and equivocate, when they speak one thing and mean another? When they speak plain words that other men use, saying, they are for Baptism and the Lords Supper: but it is with a reserved sense, and not in that sense wherein the words are usualy taken; what is this but to speak lies in hypocrisy? As the Apostle charges upon the Seducers and false teachers in his time, 1. Tim. 4.2.  
It is a slander to say that we place the shadow for the substance, the husk for the kernel. Do we not make a difference between the outward signs, and the things signified? Pressing people no to rest satisfied with the one without the other: and to seek not only the bread of the Lord, but that bread which is the Lord. We know and believe that outward privileges will not serve the turn, there must be reality and truth of grace in the heart, otherwise GOD will punish the circumcised with the uncircumcised, jerem. 9.25.   

IX. HEAD. Wherein the Quakers Objections (against our singing of Psalms) are answered.  
Page 48. He confesses that singing of Psalms was used by the Saints, that it is a part of GOD'S worship, when performed by his spirit, and still may warrantably be performed, and it is not unusual among Quakers, yea David's words may also be used as they suit the condition of the party. Answ. It is good that he grants (and yet it is no more than he should) the lawfulness of singing David's Psalms, yet truly I suspect his words have not so honest a meaning, as they have a look, for if Quakers be for singing Psalms; How cometh it to pass that the exercise of this duty is not kept up among them at their meetings? Though they have been meeting in this place for about eight or nine years; yet none (for aught I can understand) have been witness to their practice in this thing. But happily the singing that the Gentleman pleads for, is of the same nature with that of some of his friends, who leading the horse of I. Nayler, in his entrance to Bristol: and singing (with one bare before him) holy, holy, the holy one of Israel; which they applied to the said Nayler, and he for his part, professed that he might not refuse any thing, that is moved of the Lord, and that he thought the Father did command them to do it. A woman Quaker said, that she witnessed the holy of holies was risen which moved her so to do. See Naylers' Trial, pag. 4.5.  
However, my arguments for singing of Psalms remain untouched, yet he moveth two objections against our way of singing.  
Object. 1. Though singing of Psams in the true sense of them be allowable, yet as used by us is abominable, because the persons using it, are a mixed multitude. Answer. He hath not proved it unlawful to join in singing with a mixed multitude, hath GOD any where forbidden their singing? We find in Scripture that all the creatures are called upon to sing praises to GOD, Psalm 148.11.12.13 Kings of the earth, and all people, both young men and maidens, old men and children, let them praise the Lord. Psalm. 96.1. O sing unto the Lord a new song, sing unto the Lord all the earth. As for that Scripture 1. Cor. 14.15. it doth not only speak of singing with the understanding, but also praying with the understanding. And if hereby he would infer that the mixed multitude should forbear singing, he may as well urge them to forbear praying: yea according to his way of reasoning, I know no spiritual duty that they should be employed in, because they are dead in their sins, and it is the living that serve God spiritually, and not the dead.  
2. Object. All lying is abomination, but many times it falls out, that by singing of Psalms the people come to lie in the presence of God. Answ. This objection saith nothing when we sing Psalms that suit our condition (than we are not guilty of lying) and the truth is, there is such plenty and variety of spiritual matter in David's Psalms, matter of such general and comprehensive concernment; that they readily offer matter to us, to present our own case to GOD. But suppose that the Psalm do not suit with our condition, yet we do not lie in singing it, why should the singing of these words (my heart is not haughty, and I water my couch with tears) be accounted a lie, more than the reading of them? May we not sing these words as expressing the condition of former Saints? And withal secretly wishing that the frame of our hearts were like unto theirs, is this to lie in the presence of GOD?   

X. HEAD. Concerning Baptism.  

SECT. I. There is no Substantial difference between JOHN'S Baptism, and CHRIST'S.  
Page 49. He acknowledges that john's Baptism (was with water) and that his Baptism and Christ's Baptism agreed in the Author, but he saith as to the matter they are not one, for john himself distinguisheth them, Mark. 1.8. Answer. In this place john maketh no difference between the matter of his Baptism and Christ's Baptism, he only showeth a difference between his office and work, and the office and work of Christ; all that john could do was to administer the outward Element, but Christ could give the spirit by means of the outward Baptism: so that john here depresseth himself & advanceth Christ, it being Christ alone who bestoweth what the outward Baptism signifieth. I indeed have baptised you with water but he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost.  
He saith, they agree not in the end, for the end of john's Baptism was but to point and show forth the other, as the end of the shadow is to point to the substance. Ans. The Scripture speaking of john's Baptism, calleth it the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, Mark. 1.4. intimating that its end was to signify and seal remission of sin: which likewise is the end of Christ's Baptism, Act. 2.38. Now john's Baptism and Christ's agreeing not only in the Author, but also in the matter and end, this proveth that there is no substantial difference between them.  
Object. They differ in substance, for it is written Act. 19, 2.3.4.5. that there were of the Baptism of john who had not so much as heard of the Holy Ghost. Answer. The meaning is not, that they heard not of the person of the Holy Ghost, being Disciples and Believers, they could not be totally ignorant of this, doubtless they were acquainted with the Scriptures, and from thence they could not but know, that there was a Holy Ghost; But the thing they were ignorant of, was the visible, miraculous, and extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost: which then flourished in the Church, and yet were not common to all that were Baptised, Act. 8.15.16. they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost, for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptised in the Name of the LORD JESUS. The Apostle did not anew baptise those persons that had been baptised with the Baptism of john: only he gave a right explanation of john's Baptism, and then laid hands on them, upon which followed the gifts of the Holy Ghost, viz, speaking with tongues and prophesying verse 6.   

SECT. II. Showing that Baptism with Water is an Ordinance of CHRIST and to be continued in the Church.  
He addeth, That where Christ commands his Disciples to baptise, Matth. 28. there is no command to baptise with water. Answ. The subsequent practice of the Apostles may satisfy sober persons, that Christ's command had reference to baptising with water; Can there be a better comment upon the command then Apostolical practice? And it is observable that when Philip had preached Christ to the Eunuch, and it would seem had informed him of the ordinance of Baptism (however it is sure, the knowledge of it he had) immediately upon the sight of water he desired to be baptised, Act. 8.37. see here is water what doth hinder me to be baptised. And that command of Christ's (Matth. 28.) to his Apostles, as it doth not expressly speak of Baptism with water; so neither of Baptism with the spirit, and therefore if the Quaker exclude the one, he may likewise exclude the other.  
Object. It is said baptise into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and this is Baptism with the spirit- Answ. This is affirmed, but without proof. The Name of GOD hath various acceptations, and how doth he make good, that it is taken here in his sense, and not any other way? If by baptising into the Name of GOD, he mean regenerating of men, making them just and holy like GOD: Then I say, this was commanded before, when our Lord said, go teach (or disciple) all nations, doth not this imply an endeavour to make them holy and righteous? And therefore if Baptising them into the Name of GOD, import the same thing: this would infer a needless tautology in the command of Christ, which the GOD of wisdom will not own, in so short a sum of words.  
He addeth page 50. That Peter's words in baptising Cornelius after he had received the spirit imply no command. Ans. Is it not (totidem verbis) in plain terms said, he commanded them to be baptised in the Name of the LORD, Act, 10.48. and the Scripture phrase of doing a thing in the Name of the LORD, is as much as doing it at his command, and by authority and warrant from him, Matth. 18.20. Where two or three are gathered together in my Name (that is, in obedience to my command) there am I in the midst of them.  
Object. That the Apostles received no commission to baptise with water, is clear from that of Paul, where he saith, I thank GOD I baptised none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanus for I was not sent to baptise, but to preach the Gospel. 1. Cor. 1. Answer. If the Apostle had no commission to baptise with water, how was it then, that he thus baptised some? He would not have done this of his own head and self-will, Paul should have sinned in baptising any at all without commission: and therefore we gather that he was sent indeed to Baptise, but his principal mission was to Preach; and this is not an adding to Scripture but the true meaning of it, which will be further clear by comparing it with Hos. 6.6. for I desired mercy and not sacrifice. Now it is certain that sacrifice was a thing that GOD required, but mercy was the principal thing, it was not so much sacrifice as mercy that GOD called for. Even so Christ sent Paul not so much to Baptise as to Preach; he sent him principally to Preach as being a more principal work. The Quakers instance about worshipping of Images, is altogether impertinent, the Religious worshipping of them (more or less) is absolutely forbidden. But Paul had not such an absolute prohibition as to baptising with water, otherwise he had not adventured upon the baptising of any.  
He saith, That Scripture Matth. 28.19. relateth to the Baptism of the Spirit, and not to Baptism with Water. Arsw. Because this is the main Scripture, that the continuance of Water Baptism is grounded upon, it will be needful to clear that by Baptism here, is intended (not the Baptism of the spirit) but Baptism with water. For making out of which, two things are to be remarked, 1. That the Baptism here mentioned is held forth to be the action of the Apostles: hence Christ said to them, go and teach all Nations Baptising them. Now to baptise with the Spirit, is spoken of as the peculiar action of Christ; to ascribe to men a power of Baptising with the Spirit, is to attribute to them, what is peculiar to Christ, Matth. 3.11. he that cometh after me is mightyer than I, he shall baptise with the Holy Ghost. 2. The Baptism of the spirit, is a sanctifying, renewing, operation of the spirit in and upon the heart. Now if this Baptism were here intended, than the duty commanded should be confounded with the promise, for the promise is, I will be with you, that is, by the assistance, presence, and powerful operation of my spirit, accompanying your labours, making them effectual upon the hearts of people: so that understanding the words of the Baptism of the spirit, there should be a confounding of the duty commanded, with the mercy and blessing promised: therefore the Baptism which Christ commanded is Baptism with Water (as is verified by the Apostles practise) which is to continue as the Preaching of the word, unto the end of the world.  
Page 51. He undertaketh to elude the Scriptures cited by me, as holding forth the excellent end; and uses of Baptism, the first was Act. 2.28. To this, he saith, that here is no mention of outward water. Ans. Neither is there mention of outward water, 1 Cor. 1.16.17. and yet be grants that baptising there hath reference to water. 2. He saith that repentance and remission of sins may be, and are found without water Baptism. Ans. Therefore, Baptism with water is not absolutely necessary to salvation, which we readily yield. 3. He saith, where Baptism with water is, both these are frequently wanting. Answ. Ergo, the Papists are in an error, who affirm that Baptism doth ex opere operato, confer grace.  
Second Scripture is 1. Pet. 3.21. To this he saith, that the words following clear the meaning, not to be water Baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh. Answ. These words do indeed manifest that Baptism of itself, is not available unto salvation, and so the Popish opus operatum, is struck at: as if by the mere receiving of Baptism, grace were conveyed. The like may be said, to what he alleges in answering the other Scriptures, viz. Act. 22.6. Ephes. 5.26. Gal. 3.7. in all which he proceedeth upon a wrong supposition, as if we thought that Baptism of itself (or by any force of the outward element of water) were effectual to cleanse the soul, and to work grace and regeneration: Now this is far from our thoughts, who make the efficacy of it, to be only the power and operation of the Holy Ghost, accompanying the ordinance in the right use of it.  
He addeth, that Baptism with water is but a figure, which was to give place to that one Baptism Epes. 4.5. Answer. This one Baptism was the Baptism which Christ commanded, and it hath been cleared, that this Baptism was Baptism with water: so that that one Baptism, cannot be called the substance, and Baptism with water the shadow seeing they are the same thing: and therefore it remaineth that baptism with water is an ordinance of Christ, and (the Lord concurring with it) a profitable means to further our Salvation. And whereas he reflects upon our baptising of Infants, and the manner ●f it: it must be adverted, that the quarrel betwixt Quakers and us, is not whether Baptism belong to Infants, or whether it should be by sprinkling or dipping: but they are against all Baptism with water (even of adult persons) not allowing this, so much as the name of an ordinance of JESUS CHRIST.    

XI. HEAD. Concerning the LORDS Supper.  
He granteth page 52. that Christ was the Author of the Lords Supper, and that the Disciples were enjoined the observance of it, but he saith, this prouss not that it was to be of perpetual continuance. Answ. Hereby is proved all that was intended, namely, that the ordinance of the Supper, hath Christ for the Instituter of it: and therefore it is called the Lords Table, 1. Cor. 10.21. and the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11.20. Why then doth the Quaker vilify this Ordinance, by speaking of it with that addition (the Lord's Supper so called) cannot he find in his heart to give it that name, which the Scripture giveth it.  
He saith, That by breaking bread Act. 2.42. is meant their ordinary eating. Answer. The eating there, is not ordinary, but Sacramental eating, which usually is expressed by this phrase of breaking bread, (a part being taken for the whole) Act. 20.7. 1. Cor. 10.16.  
Neither doth Act. 2.46. make it evident, that their breaking of bread was their ordinary eating. This text speaketh not of daily eating (but of continuing daily in the Temple) And though they did eat from house to house; yet the Syriak expoundeth it expressly of the Eucharist: and it is thought that the Faithful abode sometimes in one house, and sometimes in another for fear of persecution. It seemeth the Gentleman knoweth not well the way of PROTESTANT CHURCHES, who thinketh that their Sacramental eating is but once or twice in a year, they plead that it should be often: and the practice of some is answerable, in that they communicate once in a fortnight, and others once every month. And albeit we do not go to this ordinance to make a full meal for our bodies (liberal feeding of them at such a time would make the better part to be neglected) yet as much is made use of, as serveth to represent the Spiritual nourishment of Believers by Jesus Christ, and more is not requisite.  
He addeth page 53. That the eating mentioned Act. 2.46. is conjoined with this, that they sold their possessions, and if we make the Apostles example and practise our rule, why do we not sell our possessions as they did? Answer. We hold not ourselves bound to follow the Saints and Apostles in every thing, all their practices are not to be imitated by us: And therefore we distinguish their practices, some of them were accidental or occasional, being occasioned by the special necessity of times and seasons; these are not always binding (but only when cases and seasons are alike) and of this nature, was their selling of their possessions. Then some of their actions were upon such grounds as are of perpetual and common concernment, to one Church as well a another, to one Age as well as another, and these actions are still obligatory: thus we ought to follow them in breaking bread, or in the ordinance of the Supper; because this concerns the Churches of Christ in this Age as well as in their Age: seeing the Lord left it as a standing and lasting monument of his love, to continue until his coming again in the clouds, as shall be made good in due time.  
He asketh, Why we do not abstain from eating blood, and things strangled, as they did? Answer. The command in reference to these things was but temporary, and there is a plain repeal of it: in that Christian liberty is extended to whatsoever is sold in the shambles, of that (saith the Apostle) eat making no question for conscience sake, 1 Cor. 10.25.  
He asketh again, Why we do not wash one another's feet, which they were as solemnly commanded to do, as to take and eat? joh. 13.14. Answer. How is it then, that we do not read in all the Scriptures, that ever the Disciples practised this thing? They continued in breaking bread, but where is there mention of their washing the feet of one another? The great design of this command, was to teach the Apostles humility and love, and mutually to condescend for one another's good, even to the meanest and lowest services: our Lord and Master's pattern of humility, should make fellow servants ashamed of their statliness and pride.  
He denyeth that the Apostle 1. Cor. 11. recommended the practice of this ordinance by way of command. Answer. What clearer command can there be then that verse 28. let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. Mark, the Apostle doth not only hold forth, that they were or might be in the use of this ordinance; but that they ought and should be in the use of it, plainly enjoining this by way of precept: & withal discovering the necessity of previous examination, before their partaking of this so solemn an ordinance. It is further to be observed that the Corinthians were to be often in the use of this ordinance, as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup. Now these ordinances which were abolished by the coming of Christ (and yet for a season were practised) they were nor often used by the Apostles and primitive Christians: Let me clear this, by instancing in circumcision (which is the instance very much talked of by Quakers) we read indeed that Paul circumcised Timothy, (but whom other did he circumcise?) He refused to circumcise Titus, Gal. 2.3. and the reason of Timothy's circumcision, was to prevent the scandal of weak brethren, Act. 16.3. Now where doth the Apostle when he warrants Christians to be often in the use of this ordinance of the Supper, give this as a reason? Namely, that it was for the sake of the weak, who could nor suddenly be weaned from it, (let the Quaker show this from Scripture if he can) The Apostle had a higher rise, he saw divine authority stamped upon this Ordinance, that (saith he) which I received of the Lord, have I delivered unto you. 1. Cor. 11.23.  

SECT. I. The Ordinance of the SUPPER is not abolished, but to be continued till the coming of CHRIST.  
Page 54. He letteth of his great gun, (small shot will not serve his turn) thinking to give this Ordinance deadly wound; But really, he maketh a noise without doing the least spoil. Let us examine the Scripture which he brings for the abolishing and ending of the LORDS SUPPER, it is 1. Cor. 10.15.16.17. I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say, the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ. Then saith he, the Apostle proceeds to show what that bread was, for we being many are one bread, and one body, for we are partakers of that one bread. Answer. There is not a word here concerning the abolishing of the the Lords Supper. This Scripture affords a notable argument to promote union and oneness among the professing people of GOD: The drift of it being to show, that as many grains of Wheat make up one loaf, so many members make up one Body of Christ; and partaking of that one bread, thereby they profess union in love towards one another.  
He asketh, What is that one Bread, is it the outward, or the inward? Ans. It is both the outward and the inward, and yet it is but one Bread, in regard of the Sacramental union, which if between the sign, and the thing signified: and by virtue of this union, the sign sometimes gets the name of the thing signified; as when Christ took the bread, saying, this is my Body. Now by this answer, our intent only is to show how truly the bread may be called one bread (and that this ordinance is to be continued, we shall prove another way) and therefore it is a pitiful evasion for him to say, that we might as well plead for the continuance of all the sacrifices and offerings, etc. Any one may see a non sequitur in his reasoning.  
He addeth, page 55. That the Apostles and primitive Christians who had a large measure of the spirit, did use this ordinance, but it was not by necessity of command. Answer. It cannot be denied but once there was a command to be in the use of this ordinance, Christ said, do this in remembrance of me. Now there is no repeal of this command, neither in express terms, nor by due consequence from scripture: unless he can make (a formal or virtual appeal hereof) to appear, we have reason to think that the primitive Christians set about this ordinance, by virtue of a command, and that still we are obliged to do the same.  
He addeth, That we have no ground to say, that Christ enjoins the observance of this ordinance, till his outward coming so many hundred years after. Answer. The Scripture is plain that the duration and continuance of this ordinance must be, till Christ come, 1. Cor. 11.26. Now this coming of Christ is not to be understood of an internal coming, in a spiritual inward way of appearance in the hearts of his people; We deny not, but Christ promised thus to come to them, and hath made his promise good, by a plentiful infusion of the graces of his spirit into their hearts; after this manner he came to the Corinthians, who were called to be Saints, 1. Cor. 11.2. and had the Spirit of GOD dwelling in them. 1. Cor. 3.16. and were washed, justified, sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus. 1. Cor. 11.6. and enriched in all knowledge, 1. Cor. 1.5. But notwithstanding this inward coming they continued in the practice of this ordinance; and that (as hath been cleared) necessitate praecepti, in regard of a command; and therefore that coming (until which this ordinance must be continued) what other can it be, but even Christ's coming to judgement? Spoken of by the Angel at his alcention, when he shall come in like manner as he was seen go to Heaven, Act. 1.11. Now surely, Quakers must needs be great enemies to their own souls, who oppose this ordinance which the primitive Saints (who had the substance more than any of them) conscientiously practised, and the Lord expressly commanded: and plainly intimats his mind, that it should be perpetuated for the good and benefit of his Church, until his second coming to judge the World.  
It is meeter to pass by the Gentleman's empty words, which fill up page 56. then to make a repetition of, or any reply unto them. Only it is to be considered that the difference between Quakers and us, is not about the qualification of persons, who should be admitted to the Lords Supper; but they raze the very ordinance itself.    

HEAD. XII. Concerning the MINISTRY.  

SECT. I. Quakers are against a Mediate Call to the MINISTRY: And an immediate Call they have not.  
He addeth page 57 That it cannot be asserted in opposition to Quakers (who grant the same) that the Ministry of the word is an ordinance of Christ. Ans. In the Dialogue I pointed at a Ministry mediately called, and are Quakers for a mediate call to the Ministry? At when men are set a part and ordained to that Office, by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands: It this be their mind, why do they speak against those who are thus ordained? As not being the Ministers of Christ, but having their Ministry from men.  
He asketh, Why I cite Ephes. 4.11. Answer. To show that Christ appointed Ministers to be in his Church, and here is touched the principal and public Officers given to his Church: whereof the three first were extraordinary, and but temporary, and the three last ordinary and perpetual: For should these cease as the former? Then Christ (might come under that imputation, of not being faithful to his promise) who gave them to continue till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man.  
He addeth, That it is owned by them that the Ministry is not common, yet that hinders not but that any of them may speak when the saints are met together, according to 1. Cor. 14.31. Answer. I would ask how he can make out, that the prophesying mentioned in that place is an ordinary Office? And if it be extraordinary, than it can be no foundation, for Quakers to build an ordinary practice upon. Besides when it is said, ye may all prophesy one by one, it is not to be understood of all the members of the Church indifferently; for some are forbidden expressly to speak in the Church, verse 34. And therefore that all must be referred to the Prophets: all the Prophets may prophesy, and the same Apostle saith, all are not Prophets, 1. Cor. 12.29.  
He allegeth, it is not proved that some are called to the Ministry immediately without the intervention of men and some mediately by men authorized for that purpose. Answer. Were not the Prophets and Apostles called immediately? The Lord sent them by his own immediate command, Amos. 7.15. Matth. 16.1.6.7. was nor Timothy set a part to the work (mediately) by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery; 1. Timothy. 4.14. And it was given him in charge to lay hands suddenly on no man, 1. Tim. 5.22. we deny not but such (recorded in Scripture) as had a mediate outward Call to the Ministry, had also an inward Call (that is, competent qualifications, gifts and abilities for the work) but it must be observed, that the inward call, and immediate call, are not the same thing: In Scripture the one is opposed to the other, Paul who was immediately called to be an Apostle; opposeth himself, 1. To false Apostles, who were called by the mere authority of men. 2. He opposes himself to ordinary Ministers: who might have an inward call from GOD, and an outward call from men appointed by GOD for this work, see Gal. 1.1. Paul an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ.  
He addeth, That they who come preaching the Gospel, not in speech only, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in the evidence and demonstration of the spirit, give sufficient proof that they are called of GOD. Answer. Methinks then, he should have more favourable thoughts of PROTESTANT MINISTERS: who have been and are powerful Preachers of the Gospel, being able to give as evidences of their mission from GOD (besides their competent qualifications, and ordination to the Ministry) the success of and some daily assistance of the Spirit in their Labours; and yet the Quaker; in the heat and anger of their spirits, do not spare such. But stepping up to the Throne of Judgement, they impiously censure them, as deceivers, hypocrites, and children of the Devil.  
He maketh much ado, page 58. as if we were falling in with Papists, in pleading for miracles; when as it is known we do not pretend to the doing of miracles; only if men be so bold, as to assert an immediate call (which the Quakers do) such as the Apostles had: we think it meet that they show the signs of their Apostoleship, and the tokens of their immediate call; which hath been always accompanied either with the working of miracles, foretelling of things to come, or some other extraordinary thing. jonah foretold the destruction, which within forty days was to come upon Nineveh. john's call was attended with extraordinary things at his conception and birth, and there were singular predictions concerning him.  
Object. So there are special predictions concerning the Lords pouring forth of his Spirit, upon many in these latter days to prophesy. Answer. I suppose the special prediction which he aims at, is, Joel 2.28. now this prediction was accomplished in the extraordinary pouring forth of the Spirit upon the Apostles: when they were filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with tongues: the Apostle urgeth this, as the accomplishment of that promise in Joel. see Act. 2.15.16.17. When Quakers can manifest that Scripture predictions (of preparing the way of the Lord) are applied to them by Angels and confirmed by the testimony of Christ, as they were to john, we shall then look upon them, as called as he was, but not till then.  
He saith that Tit. 1.5. Act. 14.23. Prove not that those Elders had not the Call of the Spirit of GOD in themselves. Answer. What ever inward call they might have; yet they had not an immediate call, which is by the immed at voice and command of GOD, without the intervention of men: and therefore in that Moses consecrated Aaron, it followeth that his call was not immediate (but rather an extraordinary mediate call) and yet he was called of GOD: being set a part in that way which the Lord had prescribed and appointed.   

SECT. II. Proving the continuance of the MINISTRY.  
He addeth that my proof from Ephes. 4.12.13. is altogether impertinent, because we are against the perfection of the Saints in this life. Answer. This is a pregnant and pertinent proof to bold forth the continuance of the Ministry, the term whereof is the day of judgement: For this Ministry must continue till all the Elect come & meet in that complete unity (not only of opinion, but also of he art and affection) which is called the unity of the faith, and it is that which the Saints shall attain unto: being come to the state and degree of perfection in the life to come, which state is here called a perfect man.  
Neither can it be gathered from verse 14. (that this perfection is on earth) where the Apostle only showeth that the Ministry of the word is a mean ordained by God, to preserve & keep his People from the poison of dangerous errors, and from the snares of subtle, crafty seducers. It is true, the Ministry is given for perfecting of the Saints, and hereby (as a mean) they are brought to perfection in parts, and pressed to seek after an absolute full perfection even in degrees. Now in casting of the Ministry that we plead for (namely a Ministry according to the order delivered by the Apostles and prescribed in the word.) Quakers manifest themselves to be enemies to the Ministry of Christ, and injurious to their own souls.    

XIII. HEAD. Concerning the SABBATH.  

SECT. I. The observation of the SABBATH is warranted by the fourth Command.  
He addeth page 59 That as the fourth Command requireth the observation of one day of seven, so it expressly instanceth that day, to be the seventh. Ans▪ Though the fourth Command instance in the seventh day (that is for number) yet it speaketh not precisely of the seventh day in order from the creation. It is said six days shalt thou labour, but the seventh is the Sabbath, mark, the seventh is the Sabbath, the Lord saith not the seventh from the creation. It is likewise worthy special observation to consider the preceptive and the benedictive part of the fourth Command, or the beginning and conclusion of it. In the beginning it is said, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. In the conclusion it is said, Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it; observe the phrase, not seventh day, but Sabbath day is blessed, so that the fourth Command neither gins nor ends with that term the seventh day, but with that of the Sabbath day: which is an evidence that the design of this Command, is not to bind the Church to a precise keeping of the seventh day from the creation; for there is no express mention of that day in all the fourth Command: the main intendment therefore of the fourth Command is to prescribe a seventh day to be kept holy (after six day's labour) which GOD appointeth: And this to the People of GOD under the Old Testament, was the seventh day of the week, (it being appointed by GOD in the first institution of the Sabbath, Gen. 2 3.) but to us it is the first day of the week; the Sabbath being translated and changed to this day by divine authority, as will afterwards appear.  
1. Object. The keeping of one day of the week for a Sabbath is not perpetual, but abolished, Coloss. 2.16.17. let no man judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day, or new Moon, or of the Sabbath days. Answer. Here the Apostle opposeth ceremonial ordinances, but not Gospel institutions. Indeed the Old Anabaptists, and Familists (with whom Quakers go along) they urged this text against all difference of days under the Gospel; though the Apostles only design be to decry the several sorts of days, which were in use among the Jews, of which he gives an observable enumeration: proceeding from their yearly holy days, to their monethlie new Moons, and from them to their weekly Sabbaths: so that granting the weekly Sabbath to be here taken in, yet it maketh nothing against the Christian Sabbath, but against the old seventh day Sabbath.  
2. Object. Rom. 14.6. plainly holdeth forth all days to be alike. Answer. What was said before, serveth to clear this Scripture, it speaketh of ceremonial days: of such days as are in the rank with ceremonial meats, and therefore opposeth not the moral weekly Sabbath.  
3. Object. Gal. 4.10.11. Ye observe days and months, times, and years, I am afraid of you. Ans. There is a twofold observation of days, moral and ceremonial, now the Apostle speaketh not against the former, but the latter: he would not have Jewish times (such a their Sabbatical years, their annual feasts; their monethlie feasts, called new Moons, their weekly seventh day, which is probably thought to be included in that clause ye observe days) to be observed (which the Jewish false teachers cried up) but he was far from crying down the fourth Command, which is no less binding then the rest of the Decalogue: it being delivered in the same majestic manner pressed with the same severity, and written by the same finger of GOD, and put into the same Ark, with the rest. He that said, Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; said likewise, Remember the Sabbath day keep it holy: and therefore if persons take upon them to sacrifice this Command to their wild fancies, they need not spare the other Commands. And in very deed the Commands of GOD, are little beholden either to Papists or Quakers; for Papists reject the second Command, and Quakers give the same usage to the fourth. And this puts me in mind of a Story I have heard concerning an Honest Countryman, who travelling on the rod, there were two who denied the Sabbath, came up to him, upon a design to try his knowledge; the question they propounded was concerning the number of the Commands, the well meaning man, knew the persons and shaped an answer suitable to their principles, telling them there were eight Commands: whereupon the Querists made sport, and upbraided the poor man with his profession, and his ignorance; but he gravely replied, that the scripture indeed spoke of ten Commands, Deut. 4.13. but they had taken away one Command, and the Papists another: so that between them, they had brought the Commands from ten to eight.  
In his answer to Matth. 24.20. where Christ intimats the continuance of a Sabbath. He saith, that Sabbath, is neither here nor else where said to be the first day of the week. Answer. Though there be no express mention in this place, of the first day of the week; yet in that it proves the continuance of a Sabbath, it overthrows the Quakers opinion: who would be levelling all days, making them alike. And it is to be remarked, that Christ was come into the world, & relateth the sad things, which were to befall his Disciples, after he was ascended to the Father; and yet even then a Sabbath was in being  
He addeth page 60. That as the outward Jew ma● not be put to fly on his outward Sabbath, so the inward Jew desireth much more that he may keep hi● Sabbath, which is his spiritual rest in Christ, Heb 4.9. Answer. The Apostle in this chapter speaketh of a rest, which Believers only enter into; And showeth, 1. That this rest is not the rest of the Sabbath, verse 4. 2. That it is not the rest of the Land of Canaan, verse 8. If Jesus (that is Joshua) had given them rest, than would he not have spoken o● another rest. It followeth then that the rest which Believers only shall enter into, is the rest of Heaven, verse 9 there remains therefore a rest for the people of GOD. Now because there is an eternal rest promised to the Believing, obedient people of GOD, saith this, any thing why they should not observe one day of seven, as a Sabbath unto the Lord, Oh, the conscientious keeping of the Sabbath is a comfortable evidence of those that shall be admitted to this rest.   

SECT. II. The first day of the Week is set a part for the Service of GOD by Divine Authority.  
He addeth, If we have the same authority for keeping the first day of the week, as the Jews had for keeping their day, then let it be produced. Answer. It was produced before, but he would not see it: however for the sake of others we shall consider again that Scripture, Rev. 1.10. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. Now that by the Lord's day is meant the first day of the week, will be clear, if we advert that there are peculiar grounds, why this day is singularly to be called the Lords day, beyond other days; Because, 1. on this day our Lord arose, and ceased from the work of Redemption, Mark. 16.1.2. 2. On this day our Lord graciously (and frequently) appeared unto his Disciples, joh. 20.19. 3. On this day our Lord declared himself to be the Son of GOD with Power, Rom. 1.4. 4. On this day our Lord plentifully poured his Spirit upon his Apostles, for Penticost (or the fifthtieth day from the Passover) is computed to have fallen out that year on this day, Act. 2.1.2. Thus it is apparent that the first day of the week may (beyond other days) be peculiarly termed the Lords day. To this may be subjoined the observation of famous Beza, who observes out of an ancient Greek Manuscript, wherein the first day of the week, is expressly called the Lords day. Now this day being called the Lords, it imports that the Lord is the author and instituter of it, this tittle (as I remember) the Lords, is in the New Testament attributed but to two things: namely, to the Supper (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the day (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) now the Supper is called the Lords, because he did institute and appoint it, and so the day is called the Lords, because Christ is the author and appointer of it: and therefore in keeping this day we walk obediently to the fourth Command, which requires on day (to be observed as a Sabbath) which the Lord appointeth: we then keep this day, because it is a day instituted and appointed by the Lord.  
Neither must those two expressions, the day of the Lord, and the Lords day, be confounded; for all days wherein GOD executeth judgement upon sinners are days of the Lord, Amos 5.18.20. But the Lord's day mentioned Revel. 1. is but one, which at that time was known to the Churches to be the first day of the week. Ignatius (who lived in john's time) speaking of this day, saith, Omnis Christi amator, Dominicum celebret diem, Reginam & Principem dierum omnium: that is, let every one that loveth Christ keep holy the Lord's day, which is the Queen and Empress of all days.  
Whereas page 61. 62. he insinuats that every day, even all the days of our life, are to be given up unto the Lord and spent in his service. Answer. It is true, we ought daily to be employed in the worship and service of GOD; But as this will not infer, that every day is to be keeps as a sabbath (which must be wholly consecrated to the service of GOD) so it makes nothing against the keeping of a weekly sabbath? for the Jews before Christ were bound every day to serve GOD; and yet they were tied to the observance of a weekly Sabbath.  
Thus my former charge is still made good against Quakers, that it is for the inventions of men, but the ordinances of Jesus Christ which they disowne.    

HEAD. XIV. Concerning Original Sin which Quakers deny.  
He affirmeth page 62. That the thing which we intent by original sin, is not expressed in scripture. Ans. Is it not expressed in Scripture, that there is corruption and sin in us from our conception and birth? (And this is that which we intent by original sin) for this the Scripture is plain, joh. 3.6. that which is born of the flesh is flesh, intimating that men by their natural birth are corrupt and fleshly. Job speaking of man's birth uttereth these words, who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, Job, 14.4. David acknowledged that corruption and sin, wherewith he was defiled from his conception, Psalm 51.5.  
He saith, the thing that we intent by original sin, is, that all infants are sinners before GOD only for Adam's sin. Answer. It seemeth he is not well acquainted with our Doctrine about original sin. It is true we assert (and with good warrant) that Infants are guilty of Adam's sin, for in Adam all die, and therefore in him all have sinned, 1. Cor. 15.22. And though Adam's first sin may be called original sin; yet we distinguish of original sin, it being either imputed or inherent. Original sin imputed, is the disobedience of Adam, which is imputed to his posterity, Rom. 5.19. by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin inherent, is that hereditary inbred corruption, which we brought with us into the world: and this is conveyed and derived to Infants from their immediate Parents, in sin did my mother conceive me.  
Page 63. He denyeth that the guilt of Adam's first sin lies at the door of Infants who never actually sinned. Answer. The Apostle confutes the Quaker Rom. 5.12. Where first he showeth, that by one man, (namely Adam) sin came into the world. Secondly, That death entered the world by sin. Thirdly, That death (i. e. lyableness to death) passed upon all. Fourthly, The reason why death (which came by the sin of one man) passed upon all; for that all have sinned, so that Infants are not exempted from the guilt of that one man's sin: which will be further clear, if it be considered that the Greek (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) will bear in whom, thus it is varied on the margin of our books; and so Beza renders it, and they who are well skilled in the Greek, think this the best reading. Now it is only one of three things that can be alleged for the antecedent of this relative in whom, either sin, or death, or that one man: but it is not sin, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (rendered sin) cannot answer the Greek relative, because they are of different genders; neither is it death (as the Quakers pretend) for what sense is it to say, in which death all have sinned? This is an improper speech. It was long since observed, that in peccato moriuntur homines, non in morte peccant, men die in sin, they are not said to sin in death: and therefore this in whom, hath reference to that one man, namely, Adam; in him, all (without exception of Infants) have sinned.  
Object. It is plain that sin is not imputed to Infants, for the Apostle saith Rom. 5.13. sin is not imputed where there is no Law, now Infants are not capable of a Law. Answer. Infant's may be considered in respect of their own persons, or in respect of their representative: now though Infants as to their own proper persons be not capable of a law; for they cannot discern between their right hand and their left, yet their representative was capable of a law; Yea, to Adam the representative of all mankind, a law was actually given, and this will serve to answer the Quakers two other Objections.  
1. Object. Why should Infants be guilty of Adam's sin, and not of the sin of their other forefathers? Answer. The reason is, because Adam is to be looked upon, not as a single individual person; but as a public universal person: Now that Adam was a public person representing mankind, is evident from the miserable event of his sin, which made not only himself obnoxious to death, but likewise his Posterity descending from him in an ordinary way, Rom. 5.12. Yea, such of his Posterity have come under death, as never actually sinned in their own persons, verse 14. death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned, after the similitude of Adam's transgression; that is, over Infants who sinned not actually as Adam did, in their own persons, yet they were subject to death as well as others.  
2. Object. It is said Ezek. 18.20. the soul that sinneth it shall die, the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Answer. What if the son be a partaker of the father's iniquity, will not GOD then visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children? Exod. 20.5. Now though Infants partake not of Adam's sin by imitation, yet they partake of his sin, in so far as Adam was the root of Mankind, and sinned as a public person representing them: the root dying all the branches died in it, and with it, 1. Cor. 15.22.  
He saith page 64. That Infants are subject to diseases, and death, this proves them not to be sinners. Ans. The Scripture gives ground to believe, that if man had not sinned he should not have died; because death is only threatened in case of man's sinning, Gen. 2.17. and upon his sinning GOD told him (not till then) that he should return to the dust, Gen. 3.19. It is true the inanimat creatures suffer for the sin of man. But it followeth not, that therefore all of Mankind who suffer death are not sinners; especially, seeing the Apostle plainly affirms, that death entered by sin, and death hath passed upon all, for that all have sinned: so that he concludes all persons who are liable to death, to be under the guilt of sin, and consequently sinners. Christ indeed though innocent, was a man of sorrows, because our sins were laid upon him.  
He pleadeth for the salvation of all Infants who die in their infancy, alleging that Scripture Mark. 10.14. suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of GOD. Answer. The Kingdom of GOD is taken either for the Kingdom of Grace, or for the Kingdom of Glory: and such Infants as are subjects of his Kingdom of Grace, upon whom the Lord exerciseth a gracious government, in regenerating and sanctifying them: all such Infants shall be admitted to the Kingdom of Glory. But how will the Quaker prove that all Infants who die in their infancy, have such s gracious operation in and upon them? Now the Scripture is plain that there is that in Infants, which makes them liable to destruction, Ephes. 2.3. by nature we are children of wrath, that is from the very first receiving of our natures and beings, we receive withal a lyableness to the wrath of GOD. And that some Infants do perish, may be gathered from that which befell Sodom and Gomorrha, none of the inhabitants were spared, no not the Infants and Sucklings: and they were not only consumed with fire and brimstone; but it is expressly said that they suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, Judas verse 7.  
He saith, page 65. That Christ is a Saviour not only to save from sin, but also from the consequences of sin, not only from the fruits and branches of it, but from the seed. Answer. Christ indeed is a perfect Saviour, and will completely save his people from every sin and evil, but whom he thus saveth, it supposeth that they had sin in them to be saved from; but if the Quaker speak truth, Infants have not sin in them to be saved from: for he saith, they are not guilty of Adam's sin, and the seed doth not make them guilty of sin before GOD, because they do not close with it: now actual sin they have not, so that Christ is not a Saviour to save them from their sin; and consequently they are shut out from being in the number of Christ's people. I cannot but take notice of the Gentleman's impudence, or else ignorance, in bringing that Scripture Matth. 1.21. as making so much against us, as if we were for a salvation in our sins: whenas nothing can more unjustly be charged upon us. We assert that whom the Lord saveth, he works in them a detestation of sin, and a purpose to come off from all their sins; and delivers them (in this life) from sin in part, compare Rom. 6.6 with Rom. 7.20.24. and at death he gives them a total riddance of sin, Heb. 4.10.  
To say that Infants are saved from sin, because they are not suffered to fall into it, (it might be as well said, that Christ died to save the Elect holy Angels from sin, because they are not suffered to fall into sin.) This looks like the old evasion of the Pelagians, viz. that Infant's need Christ, not to save them from sin, but to bring them to the Kingdom of Heaven: against whom Augustin urged that they divided these two names of our Saviour, Jesus, and Christ, making him a Christ where he was not a Jesus.   

HEAD. XV. Concerning the perseverance of the Saints, which Quakers are against.  
He addeth, That they hold no such matter as falling away from Regeneration, and that these that fell away never attained to regeneration. Ans. Here he seeks to hid himself, but may easily be discovered: For is not this the doctrine of Quakers, that Saints may fall totally and finally away from true and saving grace? G. Keith in his answer to my Queries, sticks not to say, that this is clear both from experience, and abundant testimonies of Scripture. Now are not Saints regenerate? What is Regeneration but to be brought into such a state, wherein we are made like GOD in righteousness and holiness? And this being the state of Saints, than it followeth, that if Saints may fall away totally and finally (which Quakers grant) then there may be a total and final falling away from Regeneration.  
It is in vain to assert a total and final falling away from saving grace (because it is said, some who believed afterwards fell away, and some make shipwreck of the faith, and some who tasted the good word of GOD, and the powers of the world to come fell away.) Seeing it is known that we use to distinguish between seeming, counterfeit grace, and sound, saving grace, between the common gifts of the Spirit, and the saving graces of the Spirit: Now it is incumbent for the Gentleman to prove, that they who believed & made shipwreck of their faith, (or others who finally fell away) had the sound and saving graces of the spirit, which is the thing that we deny.  
He saith, That Philipp. 1.6. is to be understood no otherwise, then as the condition is made good on their part, as Heb. 3.14. we are made partakers of Christ if we hold fast unto the end. Answer. The condition which the Lord requires on his people's part, he promiseth to enable them to make good, jerem. 32.29. I will give them one heart, that they may fear me for ever. Here is a promise that GOD'S People shall persevere in cleaving to him: and the promise of GOD cannot fail, it is more sure than Heaven and Earth, Mark. 13.31.  
Page 66. in answering 1. Pet. 1.5. He saith such as are kept by the power of GOD, it is through faith, but as they abide not in that power through faith but wander from it, they fall, and cannot but fall. Answer. A goodly reply (forsooth) which is as if he had said, if the Saints fall from faith, they must fall and cannot but fall. (Remonstrants grant that a Believer quatalis, as a Believer cannot fall away, but qui talis est, he that is a Believer may fall away.) Now the design of that Scripture 1. Pet. 1.5. is to show that there are two things concurring to prevent the Saints, total and final fall, namely, faith and the power of GOD: both work together to keep the Saints unto Salvation; that Lord who gives faith unto his people helps them to persevere in it, for he is not only the author but the finisher of their faith, Heb. 12.2.  
In answering jerem. 32.40. He saith, it should be translated thus, I will put my fear in their hearts, that they may not departed from me. Answer. The words in the Hebrew are, lebilti sur megnalai, which will as well carry shall not, as may not departed from me. But granting that the words were translated according to his own desire, yet they are full enough to prove the Saints perseverance (the Lord putting his fear into them for this end) GOD'S love will not suffer him to departed from the Saints, and fear will not let them departed from GOD: GOD principles their hearts with such a measure of his dread and fear, as stays them from an utter departur from him.  
He maketh short work with these other Scriptures, joh. 10.27.28. joh. 13.1.1. joh. 2.19 saying, that they speak of those who were to come to a through regeneration. Answer. This is a bare affirmation, without any proof. There is no mention in the texts themselves of a through regeneration; and if it be only throughly regenerate, or perfectly sanctified persons that shall persevere; then perseverance is the privilege only of Saints in Heaven, (whose attainment this perfection is) and not of Saints on earth who groan under their imperfections.  
Now seeing that Saints who have true and saving grace are the Regeneat Children of GOD, (when by faith they receive Christ, GOD owns them for his children, and they are truly regenerate, Gal. 3.26. joh. 1.12.13.) On the other hand graceless persons are branded as being the children of the Devil, joh. 8.44. Is it not then manifest that to mantain the total and final Apostasy of the Saints from grace, will infer, that they who are the children of GOD, by true regeneration this day, may the next day become the children of the Devil? Because the grace that they have now, they may utterly lose it, err to morrow.  
He asketh, whether I look upon the Quakers as having fallen away? Answer. His book (containing nor only his private sentiments, but the common opinions of Quakers) is a sufficient proof that they have apostatised and fallen from the truth: and such of them as have felt a gracious operation on their hearts, (but in this hour of temptation are under a sad snare) I trust the Lord will convince them, and grant them repentance to the acknowledgement of the truth: that by their rising again they may edify and rejoice those Souls whom they have wounded, and stumbled by their fall.   

HEAD. XVI. Concerning the hazard and danger of Quakerism.  

SECT. I. It tends to the neglect of that Worship which is due to GOD.  
He saith page 67. That they deny not true worship, but only our Idolatrous worship. Answer. If our Worship were Idolatrous, they had reason to deny it; but it is unreasonable to call our Worship Idolatrous, when they have not a shadow of reason to prove it to be so, unless the Gentleman think that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Quakers naked affirmation is a sufficient reason. Now it is manifest that Quakers refuse GOD the worship which is due to him in the use of the creatures, in that they can, and do adventure to use these, without seeking GOD'S Blessing upon them: which hath been (by former Saints) accounted a profane custom, utterly unfit to be heard of, among Christians professing the knowledge and fear of GOD! Are we not commanded to eat and drink to the glory of GOD? 1. Cor. 10.31. And must we not then look up to GOD, and desire his help to improve the creatures to his glory? Besides the creatures of themselves cannot nourish us, if GOD deny his blessing, our eating and drinking can do us no good: and therefore we have need to address ourselves to GOD by prayer; for by this means the blessing is obtained, and the creatures come to be sanctified to us, 1. Tim. 4.4.  
Object. To receive the benefits and gifts of GOD with thanksgiving, and to witness it sanctified to us by the word and prayer is owned by us. Answer. Do Quakers witness the creatures sanctified to them by prayer, when yet they do not pray for the sanctified use of them? Pray, observe the way that Christ took (his example is worth our imitation) at the receiving of the creatures he looked up to Heaven for a blessing, Mark. 6.14. and gave thanks, Matth. 15.36. and this appears to have been his ordinary practice, he was known of his Disciples in breaking bread: it being his ordinary manner to bless the bread (in some special way) which he break, whereby he was discerned and differenced from others Luk. 24.30.31.  
Object. It is usual among us, when we sit down, to wait upon the Lord for sometime, that we may know ourselves stated in his fear, and as there we stand, outward expressions may be uttered by us. Answer. When they are not thus stated in GOD'S fear, yet they have liberty and freedom to fall to meat: so it would seem though they will not pray without fear, yet they can eat without fear, which is the character of wicked persons, Judas, verse 12. As for their waiting (its but an engine to overthrow Scripture precepts) seeing it hath reference to a new inward command, without which they do not hold themselves obliged, to express their desire in words, but as they are thus required of them.  
He addeth page 68 That to say, that a man cannot, nor ought not to pray without (an impulse) the spirits drawing, and motion, hath no bad tendency, because all such prayers, as are performed without the help of the spirit, are abomination, not true prayers, but hypocritical and deceitful. Answer. We grant these things. First, That the spirit teacheth and helpeth the Saints to pray, sometimes they are so stirred and moved to prayer, that they cannot be at quiet; but they must to some secret corner: and there pour out their complaints before the LORD, Gal. 4.6. Secondly, That the season when the spirit moveth to duty, should be laid hold on, Psal. 27.8. when thou saidst seek ye my face, my heart said unto thee, thy face I will seek. Thirdly, When the spirit moveth the w●ek is sweetest; then the Christian is cheerful in the exercise of duty. The joy that is in a little hearty praying, is beyond all the joys that the world can afford, Isaiah. 56.7. Fourthly, Persons cannot pray aright without the spirit, and therefore the prayers of the wicked are said to be an abomination unto the Lord. Prov. 15.8. But it must be observed, that though prayer without the spirit be an abomination to GOD; yet omission of prayer is double abomination: the reason is, because to pray without the spirit, is a sin for the manner, but to neglect prayer is a sin, both as to matter and manner.  
He addeth, whosoever can pray to the Lord indeed, let him pray, but that any can pray without the spirit, that we deny. Answer. May he not according to this way of reasoning, take men off from eating? If they can eat to the glory of GOD indeed, then let them eat; but that they can eat to the glory of GOD, without the spirit: that's denied. Likewise he may take men off from the works of their calling, for as the praying, so the ploughing of the wicked is sin, Prov. 21.4.  
A motion of the spirit, is an encouragement to, but it is not our alone warrant for prayer: GOD in his word hath commanded prayer, 1. Thess. 5.17. pray without ceasing: in obedience to this command we ought to set to the duty. And if it be alleged that we should pray (when we have the spirit) without ceasing; but not otherwise: it may as well be said, that children should honour their Parents, and husbands love their wives, when they have a motion of the spirit to it; but in the absence of this motion, they may omit these duties.  
He asketh, what ground I have to believe, that some Quakers for the space of a whole year, have not so much as once bowed a knee to call upon GOD in their families? Answer. There is too much ground for the belief of it: their infrequency in family prayer, is too palpable. One of them confessed (whom I forbear to name) that now he was come to that pitch, that he prayed always: and though heretofore he was wont to call his family together, and pray with them; yet he had not done so for a twelve month past. Is this a louly Religion which takes men off from family prayer? It is a miserable shift, to tell that friends of truth, who have any whom they can join with: do meet, wait, and pray together. Now grant that persons in Quakers families were enemies to truth, would it not be a work of charity, and demonstration of love and tenderness to their souls, to pray with them, and for them? Must not Abraham keep up Religion in his family, because an Ishmael was in it? Nor David because of the presence of Absolom?  
Page 69. He looketh upon me, as one wholly unacquainted with the ways and motions of the spirit, for supposing that an impulse of the spirit, may be denied for many years. Answer. Is there not ground to suppose, that men may turn lose negligent, and defective in waiting, even for several years: If so, than the motions of the spirit may be denied to them, (which he acknowledges are frequent, but to those that wait for them) and therefore all that time that they (who neglect to wait) want the motions of the spirit: they must not adventure upon prayer: yea they must not pray, though they were at the gates of death, and in danger of present drowning.  
It is true he conceives, that at such a season the breathe of the spirit will not be wanting to the Saints; but what shall the wicked do in this case; Must they keep silent? Shall it not be lawful for them, to follow the advice which the Apostle gave to Simon Magus? Act. 8.22. pray GOD if perhaps the thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee.  
The Quakers principle is, that men should not pray without a motion of the spirit. Now suppose that persons contract guilt by their not waiting, hereby provoking the Lord to withhold the motions of his Spirit from them: then these motions being withheld, their not praying is not sin: and therefore they need not to be troubled for their omission of prayer. Now doth not this tend to lull people asleep in security, and to keep them from charging themselves with that sin: which without repentance GOD will charge upon them? for he will call sinners to an account for their omissions, as well as for their commissions.   

SECT. II. Quakerism tends to render Mortification of sin useless.  
He asketh page 70. Whether mortification of sin be useless, where the end of it (which is perfection) is attained? Answer. There is a twofold perfection; namely, comparative, and absolute; the Apostle speaketh of both these kinds of perfection, Philipp. 3. and denyeth to himself an absolute, complete perfection, verse 12. not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect. Yet he outstripped many others in holiness, and so had a comparative perfection, verse 13. let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded. Now when there is an absolute, complete perfection (which is the thing the Quaker pleads for) without the least indwelling corruption and sin: to such there is no use for mortification. Persons need not to be taken up in kill sin (which is the importance of the word mortify) that have not sin in them to be killed.  
He quarrels at my saying, the opinion of a sinless perfection in this life wounds the very vitals of Religion, and here the Quaker triumphs (but it is before the victory;) Ask, Whether the vitals of Religion consist in sinning or not sinning? Answer. The vitals of Religion consist in the means appointed by GOD, (and diligent  thereof) for subduing and bearing down sin: such as prayer, repentance, mortification, believing, application of the Blood of Christ, And though the Quakers grant that these things are needful for attaining unto perfection yet supposing a sinless perfection to be actually attained unto (by men in this world) what need is there then to pray for pardon of sin, to repent of sin, apply Christ's blood for cleansing from sin? Seeing there is no sin to be pardoned, repent of, or cleansed from. And therefore (the Gentleman not denying that such consequences do flow from his principle) he is feign to shift, saying, that they who come to perfection witness the true use of these things; but in the mean time he should remember, that (under a pretence of perfection) he takes them off from the practice and use of the aforementioned duties and means; and so Christianity in the vitals of it is struck at.  
He accuses me of confusion and contradiction, because (as he saith) I would infer a sinless man to be a sinning man. Answer. Is it either confusion or a contradiction to affirm one of the Quakers conceitedly sinless men (to be sinful) who pretending to be without sin; yet discover much sin, by their pride, passion, bitterness, censuring and condemning others, and vilifying them by opprobrious terms, and railing accusations: if such say, they have no sin, they are but liars, and the truth is not in them, 1. joh. 1.8. It is remarkable, to consider whom the Apostle speaketh of, if we (saith he) what we? look to verse 1. we that have heard and seen and handled the word of life; verse third, we who have fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, verse 7, we who (by our Justification) are cleansed from the guilt of all sin; yet it we say, we have no sin, we are not sincere but hypocrites, deceiving both ourselves and others.  
Object. This Scripture 1. job. 1.8. is conditional, otherwise it would contradict what follows, verse 9 and chapter 2.4. and chapter 3.9. Answer. There is no contradiction; but sweet agreement between these Scriptures: for verse 9 speaketh of forgiuness of sin, (which consisteth in freedom from the guilt of sin) and this may be where sin is nor utterly abolished. And 1. joh. 2.4. is understood of a sincere nor absolutely perfect keeping of the Commands of GOD. And as for 1. joh. 3.9. it was formerly opened, and may be further cleared by comparing it with chapter 5.16. where the Apostle speaketh of a sin unto death, which they that are born of GOD cannot commit, verse 18. we know that whosoever is born of GOD sinneth not, but he that is begotten of GOD, keepeth himself and the wicked one toucheth him not: That is, so as to draw him to that unpardonable sin, the Child of GOD is secured from this sin.    

HEAD. XVII. Wherein Truth is cleared of Calumnies.  
Page 72. He cometh to examine whether their or our principles will be most acceptable to the wicked. And first, he saith, wicked men and hypocrites love well to hear, that they can never be free from their sins in this life. Answer. Some wicked men, are so well conceited of the honesty and integrity of their hearts, that it is a hard thing, to get convictions of sin fastened upon them: and as for mortification of sin, which we urge as necessary to Salvation; there is nothing more distasteful to the wicked then this.  
Secondly, He saith, they love well to hear, to be justified by Christ without them. Answer. How is it then, that so many wicked men, scoff at justification by Christ's righteousness without them? Calling [in contempt] this imputed righteousness an imaginary, putative righteousness. Is it not natural for persons to seek to be justified by something within them?  
Thirdly, He saith, they love well to hear, that the words without them are the only rule. Answer. Doubtless there are many wicked persons, who could wish there were no such rule. Hath it not been the attempt of the wicked to destroy the Scriptures? In the tenth Persecution the books of the holy Scriptures were ordered to be burnt: and to this day there is a secret enmity in the hearts of thousands of sinners against the Scriptures.  
Fourthly, He saith, they love well to hear, that they may use the customs and fashions of this world, and that they may use sports, games, and plays, and wear laces, ribbons, etc. Answer. They hear from none of us any thing to encourage them in following sinful customs and fashions: these we oppose, yea, we think that people should be sparing even as to lawful games and recreations. As for wearing ribbons, laces, gold-rings, etc. we judge it not simply unlawful; and yet persons sin, when in this they exceed their degree and rank: which is the thing condemned by the Apostle, 1. Tim. 2.9.  
Fifthly, He saith, they love well to hear, that men must not expect to hear GOD immediately. Ans. Some of them know not what is intended by GOD'S immediate speaking, and others have no liking to hear GOD mediately by the Ministry of his Word: this is a burdensome stone, that they would feign be rid of.  
Sixthly, He saith, they love well to hear, that water Baptism, and giving of Bread and Wine are the Ordinances of Christ; for than they think they are Christians, if they partake of these outward things, Answer. Our endeavour is to take them off from their groundless thoughts: telling them that outward privileges must not be rested on, and that who ever build their hopes of Heaven merely upon these, they build upon the sand, a foundation which will fail them in the day of their strait.  
Seventhly, He saith, that none plead more for the observation of the Sabbath, then profane light men. Answer. The contrary is abundantly known, for none are greater enemies than they to the true observation of the Sabbath: which must be devoted entirely to GOD, and spent in the public and private exercises of his worship and service. Are not the wicked brought in saying, when shall the Sabbath be gone? Amos 8.5.  
Eightly, He saith, they love well to hear, that they may be members of a Church, though they have no infallible evidence of holiness. Answer. Have all the members of the Quakers Church infallible evidences of grace and holiness? I must be free to tell you, that your raw, conceity Proselyts, are so ignorant, and yet so confident, that sober men suspect them to be in a fools paradise.  
Ninthly, He saith, they love well to hear of our Doctrine of Election and Reprobation. Answer. I have heard divers of them (Pelagians mocked at predestination) wrangle against this doctrine, and herein Quakers join with them; but the truth will stand firm against them both.  
Tenthly, He saith, they love our Doctrine of once in grace and ever in grace. Answer. What ground can graceless persons have to like this? (they being alienated from the life of GOD) the promise of persevering in grace doth not belong to them: and we do not plead for a wild perseverance, the Saints who have had most persuasions of their perseverance, have been most closely and circumspect in their walk with GOD. Thus it is evident that our principles do not gratify the wicked, nor give them the lest allowance in licentiousness and looseness: and if any of us be looss and licentious (as a lace, there be too many!) it is our principle, that the wrath of GOD will come upon such children of disobedience.   

HEAD. XVIII. The Quakers tenants are pleasing to the Wicked.  
The Quakers religion is exceeding suitable to carnal hearts. First, They love well to hear, that a sufficient light is in them, that Christ (and saving grace) is in them. Secondly, They love well to hear that all days are alike, and that men may work and plough on the Sabbath as well as on any other day. Thirdly, They love well to hear, that Family Prayer is but a form. Fourthly, They love well to hear that they must not pray in secret; but when they have an inward drawing and motion to it. Fifthly, They love well to hear outward teaching cried down: and mind the light within, here is your teacher and this light is not a chapter without you, in a book. Sixthly, They love well to hear the holiest Ministers spoken against, as hirelings, and Baal's Priests. Seventhly, They love well to hear, the LORDS Ordinances vilified and reproached: carnal Bread and Wine, is lovely language to them. Eightly, They love well to hear, that Adam's sin is not theirs, and that the evil seed doth not make them guilty of sin before GOD, until they close with it. Ninthly, They love well to hear, that they may sit down to eat, and drink, and rise up again without a word of thanksgiving or prayer to GOD. But I am tired with raking in this Dung hill. I leave it to  persons to judge, whether these principles will not sure with carnal hearts? Will not the wicked be glade to hear these things cried down, which they themselves live down, and cannot be brought up to the practice of them?  
He shuts up his book charging me with a notorious lie. Ans. Wherein am I guilty of lying? The Dialogue supposed A Conference between an enemy to, & a Lover of the Truth; and might I not (without a lie) testify so much love to men's Souls, as to express pity toward the seduced, wishing GOD too (reclaim them, and to) confirm his people in his ways? What is it that some will not carp at? Epecially, the persons that I have to do with: of whom a pious Minister in England, giveth this testimony, saith he, We have a strange generation of men abroad, whose very Religion consists in railing, reviling, reproaching the Servants of the living GOD, not the best men, nor the best Ministers under Heaven can escape them. Then he sets down a letter, wherein the Quakers gave the Ministers of Christ these following names; Conjurers, Thiefs, Robbers, Anti-christs', Witches, Blind-guides, Devils, Liars, Dissemblers, Baal's Priests, a Viperous and Serpenti●● Generation, Bloody Herodians, Blasphemers, Scarlet coloured Beasts, Babylon's Merchants, Busybodies, Whited walls, Painted Sepulchers, reavening Wolves, Persecutors, Tyrants, greedy Dogs, Pharisees!  
Then he gives good advice, Christians (saith he) when ye hear this language learn to conform yourselves to Christ, go ye first to GOD with the LORDS own plea. Zach. 3.2. Now the LORD rebuke thee O Satan, even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee.  
See Ambrose his looking unto Jesus, pag. 1006.   
FINIS.