A defence of the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit speaking in them, as the chief judge of Controversies of Faith, and of the light in them, as needful to be looked unto for direction to attain Salvation:  
With a Vindication of that Honour due to Magistrates, Ministers, and others, according to their Places and Dignities.  
In a Relation of a Disputation at Chesterfield in the County of Derby, between some Ministers of the Gospel, and James Nayler an erring Quaker.  
The Questions disputed were these four: 

1. Whether the Spirit of God speaking in the Scripture, be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith? Affirmed by us Ministers of Christ.  
2. Whether the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, be the chief Judge of Controversies? Denied.  
3. Whether every man be bound to look to the light within him (as sufficient) for his direction to attain Salvation? Denied.  
4. Whether it be lawful to call any man Master or Father, upon earth (or to give any honour to man?) Affirmed.    
In which, The Truth is confirmed, and the Quakers Errors and Blasphemies discovered, and confuted, and many places of Scripture from the Quakers false applications, cleared, With some Animadversions upon a lying Relation, of that disputation, published by james Nayler.  A man that is an Heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing, that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself, Tit. 3.10, 11. 
By Immanuel Bourne, Pastor of the Church in Ashover in the County of DERBY.  
London, Printed for John Wright at the King's Head in the Old Bailey, 1656.   

To the Right Honourable, john Glyn, Lord chief Justice, and to the Honourable 

Richard Ask  
Peter Warbarton   Justices of the Upper Bench.  
To the Right Honourable, Oliver Saint john Lord Chief Justice, and to the Honourable 

Edward Atkins,  
Matthew Hales,  
Hugh Windham,   Justices of the Court of Common Pleas.  
To the Right Honourable, William Steel, Lord chief Baron, and to the Honourable 

john Parker,  
Ro Nicolas,  
R Tomlins,   Barons of His Highness' Court of Exchequer.  
To the Right Honourable, Commissiary General Edward Whaley, Major General of the Counties of Nottingham Derby, Lincoln, Leicester & Warwick.  
And to all other the Honourable and Worshipful Justices and Officers, for the preservation of piety, and the peace of the Nation: The blessing of truth and true peace here, & eternal happiness hereafter.  
Right Honourable,  
MAY it please your honours, to give me leave to become your humble remembrancer; That when Joshua, that religious, wise, faithful, and valiant Captain, General of all the Armies of Israel, had conquered one & thirty Kings, and by God's assistance, settled the Lords people in the promised land, to witness his care of piety, as well as of peace, He calleth for all Israel, for their Elders, their Heads, their Judges, and for their Officers, and mindeth them of the mighty works the Lord had done for them, and pressed them upon that account, to stir up their affections, to love the Lord their God, and to fear him and serve him in truth and sincerity; yea, to put away their false gods, and false worship from amongst them. And we read likewise of faithful Samuel, that he judged Israel all the days of his life, and he went from year to year in Circuit, to Bethel, and Gilgal, and Mizpeh, and he judged Israel in all those places, and his return was to Ramah, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an Altar unto the Lord Thus here you see, there was both Justice and Piety in this holy man of God, and Israel was blessed in such a Judge. We cannot but acknowledge, that the Lord hath done great things in these Nations, and we do enjoy peace and plenty, and many mercies, which we have not prized nor improved as we ought to the best advantage, for God's glory, and our own good. Under his Highness' protection, and the present Government, through the grace of God, every man may sit quietly under his own vine and figtree, without fear of plundering, a happiness which in few years passed we did not enjoy; Yea, we have good Laws, and honourable religious Judges and Magistrates, to see Justice executed, and right done between man and man; and we enjoy our comfortable Liberty of preaching and hearing the Gospel of Christ; Yet can we not say, there is no complaining, nor cause of complaint in our streets. The Church and people of God have met with enemies in all ages: 
Cant. 2.2.  As is the Lily amongst the thorns, so is my beloved among the daughters, and as it was of old, so it is in these our days; the Church and people of God, especially Gods faithful Ministers, suffer persecution, by two sorts of people. The first, profane Ranters, Atheistical men, Drunkards, Gamesters, and ignorant blind souls, such as neglect public Ordinances in these times of liberty, and have no right principle of grace and goodness in them: These make it a delight to exercise their malice against the Ministers of Christ: These would rob and spoil them to the uttermost, if it were in their power: And this we can witness we have found true by troublesome experience. Again, there is another sort of people, which travel up and down the Nation, under the name of Quakers, as the Jesuits and seminary Priests have used to do secretly; so these now openly dissuading and seducing our people all they can, from commitig to our Churches, or meeting houses, calling our Churches, Idols Temples; All our services to God in prayer, preaching of the word, and other Christian exercises, ordinary, and extraordinary; when we seek the face of God for the peace and welfare of the Nation, for the prosperity of our Navy and Armies, both by sea and land, or our praising God for his mercies we do enjoy. All these (say the Quakers) are but Idol-worship, 
In a Quakers book called a Discovery of a threefold state of Antichrist by Samuel Ballivant etc.  and beastly services; and all the faithful and godly Ministers of Christ, without exception, are thiefs; our maintenance by Tithes, Antichristian, and unlawful: Yea they call us Conjurers, Antichrists, witches, devils, liars, a viperous and serpentine generation, blasphemers, scarlet coloured beasts, Babylon's Merchants, whited walls, painted Sepulchers; and whatsoever the true Prophets of God, or Christ our Saviour did justly call the false Prophets, wicked priests, and Scribes, and Pharisees, those names do these railing and reviling Quakers give to the godly, painful, learned and faithful Ministers of Christ in the Nation, dissuading our people from hearing us, or giving heed to any thing we preach, disturbing us in our public ministry. And what can we call this but a persecution, like that of those wicked men against the good Prophet Jeremy; Come say they, and let us smi●e him with the tongue, and let us not give heed to any of his words? Jer. 18.18. And what is persecution, if this be not? Yea such is the malice of these Jesuited Quaking adversaries against the ministers of Christ, that we have just cause to fear, they had some design before this day, to have brought to pass bloody projects to our ruin, had not God our most high protector, and his Highness under God, been provident to prevent those common mutinies, and insurrections, which in all appearance, had been plotted against this Nation, and the good people thereof, and then we doubt not but our Quaking, and our profane atheistical adversaries, like Herod and Pontius Pilate against Christ, would both have agreed against us to our destruction, if the Lord our good God should not preserve us. What construction else can we make of those bitter threaten, not only in words and to our faces (one of the Quakers telling me, 
Thus I was threatened by E. S. a Quaker since dead.  that I was plundered formerly by the Cavaliers, but it should not be long, but my house should be pulled down, and I thrust out of doors.) But to the same effect also in their written papers, 
A description of the true and false Temple, page 45. Nayler in his false relation.  and printed pamphlets: Howle ye Priests (say some of them) the Lord is coming to beat up your quarters by his sword and fire, and great shall be the slain of the Lord. And God is risen to cut you off (saith James Nayler himself.) And the former concludes, alas, alas poor Priests, your downfall is near at hand, subscribed, published by Thomas Aldam, Benjamin Nicolson, and John Harwood. And another of them, the Lord is coming to beat up your quarters, all ye proud Priests, and down with this deceiver, tith-monger and robber, and down with this Idols Temple, as if they would stir up the people to pull down our Churches, and to destroy all the faithful Ministers of the Gospel in the Nation, on a sudden; and this subscribed as an Oracle from heaven, written from the Spirit of the Lord. I let pass divers others; But I humbly conceive in these Alarms, it is fit the Ministers of Christ should be awakened, as to be faithful in their places, and to walk believingly, holily, and humbly with God, so to seek timely for protection and safety in the Lord, and to whom under God, should we seek, but to that high power and authority, and to those honourable Judges and Magistrates, whom the Lord in his most wise providence, hath raised up, and set over us, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well; and we acknowledge God's goodness, that he hath moved the heart of his Highness, 
His Highness' Declaration, November 21. 1655.  to take notice of the abuse of that Liberty of Conscience, as by others, so by these our adversaries, who make too bold, thereby to disturb and persecute Gods faithful Ministers; yea under pretence of honouring God, to dishonour and contemn the honourable Judges and Magistrates in the land, keeping on their hats, when they are called to answer before them, and refusing to give any respect or outward show of reverence to them: Yea, such they are, as in their blind zeal, to an imaginary reformation, and conceited or pretended obedience to Christ, 
Richard Farnworth, a Quaker, in a pamphlet of his, etc.  would persuade people to cast away, not only the good and wholesome laws, but all our learned Lawyers (as well as Divines) be they never so pious, honest and faithful (of which blessed be God we have many in the land) yet these must be banished also, as unfit (say they) for any Christians to make use of; and as if all going to law (though upon never so just grounds) were unlawful for any that professeth Christianity, without which, and the assistance of our honourable Judges, and good Magistrates, what lawless, wicked lives would a multitude lead? And we that are the faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, have cause further to acknowledge God's goodness, in stirring up his Highness (under God) our supreme Protector, with his honourable Council, 
His Highness' proclamation, Feb. 15. 1654.  to send forth his late Proclamation, against such profane Ranters and Quakers, to prohibit the disturbance of us Ministers and other Christians in our solemn assemblies. Since which Proclamation (blessed be God) we have had much more quietness in our exercises of religion, and congregations, then formerly we had: But yet we are not without malicious enemies, profane persons, as ill as Quakers; And therefore to whom under God, and his Highness under him, should we apply ourselves, but to you my honourable Lords, and to all other the honourable. Judge's Magistrates and Officers, who are appointed for the preservation of the peace and welfare of the Nation; And especially I am bold to apply myself to you my honoured Lords, in more particular, whose great Abilities, Wisdom, Justice, Goodness, and Faithfulness, which I have observed in a serious examination of such causes, which in your Circuits (and in particular, in several Assies at Derby) have come before your honours for trial; your judicious discerning between things that differ, between right and wrong, between a petty frivolous action, brought by a malicious adversary, brought only to vex a poor man; your discountenancing of malice, and that abuse of the good Laws; your just sentences given to the honour of God, the good laws of the land, and to the comfort of poor men oppressed. These things have encouraged me to dedicate this my defence of the Scriptures, & vindication of the honour of Magistrates, Ministers, and others according to their place & dignities. Unto your honours, and all that have power and authority in the execution of Justice, and preservation of piety, and the peace of this Commonwealth, humbly supplicating the continuance as of his Highness, so under him, of all your protections, and favourable aspects upon, and unto all Gods faithful Ministers, to maintain them in that which is their just rights, against their malicious adversaries; yea to defend and maintain the honour of magistracy, 
Rom. 13.1.  as an Ordinance of God, for the comfort and safety of his people, and to defend Christ, and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus; to defend the honour and glory of the Lord (the most high Protector of his Church) against all open profaneness, and odious heresies, and abominable blasphemies whatsoever, that it may appear, we are a people taught by Christ, as the truth is in Jesus, and that the Lord of Hosts may appear for us as our Protector to the end, even till Shilo come again. Most humbly praying in my daily addresses to the throne of grace, not only for myself, but for all my reverend brethren, the godly, faithful ministers of the Gospel of Christ, that the Lord will more and more fill our hearts with his spirit of grace, wisdom, holiness and zeal, that we may in a right way of holiness, 
jude 3.  meekness and truth, contend for the faith that was once delivered to the Saints, that our own lives may be as becomes the Gospel of peace, that we may win others to walk in peace and holiness, and by our own good conversation, 
1 Pet. 2.15.  put to silence the scandals of malicious, & the ignorance of foolish men, that God will give repentance, & free pardon in Christ to all our Adversaries, who complain of us as contentious; because (though after long sufferings) we seek in a just and lawful way to recover our due and just Rights, which they unjustly detain from us; desiring if it be the will of God, that they may obtain salvation in the Lord Jesus, and be delivered from wrath to come and that one day they may enjoy a happy and peaceable communion with us in glory, and to conclude, daily pouring out my soul to God, That the Lord, the great Protector of Zion, will be pleased to preserve his Highness and Honourable Council, and you my Honourable Lords, and the rest of the Honourable Judges, Justices, Magistrates, and other Worthies, who are Actors for Piety and Peace, to God's glory, and the benefit of these Nations, together with this whole Common wealth, in Truth, Unity and Peace, long to continue.  
Most humbly subscribing myself, Your Honour's daily Orator at the Throne of Grace, Immanuel Bourne, Pastor of the Church in Ashover. London, Feb. 26. 1655.   

A Defence of the Scriptures, and of the Holy Spirit of God speaking in them as the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, etc. In a Disputation at Chesterfield in the County of Derby, Jan. 3. 1654.  
FIrst, when the Ministers came to the Church or Meeting House-yard, james Nayler was there with his company, but seemed unwilling to go into the Church or Church-House, yet at last went into the lower end, and stood there. But when Mr Billingsley Minister of Chesterfield, began with prayer to God for a blessing upon the meeting, Nayler and his fellows went forth again, pretending some plot might be against them. But after prayer, assurance given there was none, they came in again.  
Secondly, Mr John Billingsley began to read the Questions; But after Nayler read them in the Paper sent to him (as I take it) and then began to read his Answer in writing, and when he had read his Answer to the first Question, it was desired that that Question, and his Answer to that, might be first Argued, and so the rest afterwards in order.  
Question. 1 The first Question was, Whether the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. Mr Bourne shown Nayler the Bible, and asked him if he would own that as God's word, he answered, part of it, or to that effect.  
First, For the state of the Question. By the Spirit, was meant the Spirit of God, 
1 john 5.7.  the third Person in Trinity, one with the Father and the Son.  
Secondly, by the Scriptures, the Canonical books of the Old and New Testament.  
Thirdly, By the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, that voice or speaking forth of God's Spirit recorded in Scripture, which is there now to be found; so whether the holy Scriptures, or Spirit in them be judge. This state was not so fully opened by reason of disturbance even in the entrance, Nayler endeavouring to avoid this Question.  
Naylers' Answer Nayler in his Answer, owned the Spirit that did speak in the holy men, who gave forth the holy Scriptures to be Judge; and said that Spirit was Judge before the Letter was written, and all Controversies were judged by that Spirit, but he did not own that Spirit that doth now speak in the Scriptures: He said he granted the Spirit was Judge, and would have avoided the Question.  
Mr Bournes Reply. But Mr Bourne pressed to go on with the Question, and affirmed it was one thing to say the Spirit that did speak in the holy men that gave out the Scriptures was Judge, and another to say the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, was Judge, or that the holy Scripture was Judge. Therefore pressed to go on with the Question, and began (as I remember) with this Reason.  
Mr bourn's 1 Argument. Whatsoever was and is the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost himself, that was and is the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, but the holy Scriptures are the speaking forth of the holy Spirit himself, therefore they are the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. The first proposition was not denied, and the second was proved, Acts 1.16. the Scripture which the holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke concerning Judas. Here it is evident what Scriptures David writ, or spoke by writing, that the Holy Ghost spoke; Therefore the holy Scripture is the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost, and so judge of Controversies. The same again witnessed by the Spirit, Acts 28.25. well spoke the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Isaias the Prophet, saying, etc. Here you see the Holy Ghost is witnessed (by the Apostle Paul) to speak by the mouth of Isaias; and that Scripture which Isaiah writ, was the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost, and so the supreme Judge of Controversies, etc.  
Naylers' Answer Nayler gave no direct answer, but he wrangled, and said, he did own the Spirit to be Judge, but not the written word, or to that effect; and that the Spirit did speak not in the dead, but in the living; which was (as I did understand him) not in the dead letter of the Scripture, but in living men, and vapoured as if he had said much, but yet would have avoided the Question, as needless to be further disputed on, since he did yield the Spirit to be Judge, although he denied that the Spirit speaking in Scripture, was the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith; But Mr Bourn went on to press another Argument.  
Mr bourn's 2 Argument. Whatsoever Christ himself did appeal unto, as to a chief Judge, and send his hearers unto, as to a chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, that is and aught to be esteemed the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith: But Christ himself appealed to the Scriptures, and sent his hearers to the Scriptures, as to the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, therefore the holy Scriptures are the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. The first not denied, the second witnessed by the Spirit in John 5.39. in that great controversy of Faith, whether Christ were the Son of God, or equal with God? Christ appeals to the Scriptures, Search the Scriptures, for in them you think to have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me, therefore the Scriptures are the chief Judge.  
Naylers' Answer Nayler did not give any answer to satisfy the Argument, but said still, the Spirit was the Judge, not the written word, and cried out, liar, liar, hold thy peace, the Spirit is Judge, not the written word. Mr Bourne bade him yield the Question, since Christ himself appealed to the Scriptures; But he cried out, and one of his fellow Quakers, away liar, the Spirit is Judge. Mr Bourn replied, The Spirit is Judge, but not the Spirit speaking in any man, but the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, and pressed a third Argument.  
Mr bourn's 3 Argument. Whatsoever is the very word of God himself, that is, and aught to be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith; But the holy Scriptures are the very word of God himself, and therefore they are the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith.  
The first not denied, the second proved, John 10.34, 35 Jesus said, is it not written in your Law, I have said ye are Gods: If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, etc. Here our Saviour calleth the Scriptures the word of God, therefore the holy Scripture is the word of God. And the like again, Mark 7.12, 13. Ye make the word of God of none effect by your traditions. Christ plainly calleth the Scriptures the written Law of God, the word of God, therefore the holy Scriptures are the very word of God himself, and so the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith.  
Naylers' Answer Nayler cavilled still and cried out it is false, it is false, the word is not the Judge, and sit down liar. But Mr Bourne pressed him to answer; And Nayler said, the word was God, but the Scripture was the letter, and that was not Judge.  
Mr Billingsleys 1 Argument. Mr Billingsley pressed an Argument, to prove that the written word, of which the Question is made, is not God. That which is the word of Christ, who is God, that is not Christ, nor God; But the holy Scriptures, and word preached, and written by the Apostles, is the word of Christ; Therefore the holy Scripture is not Christ nor God.  
First, that Christ is God, that is evident, Rom. 9.5. of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Therefore by this testimony it is evident, Christ is God.  
Secondly, that the holy Scriptures and word preached by the Apostles, is the word of Christ, that is witnessed, Col. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdom. The Apostle doth not say, let the word Christ dwell in you, but let the word of Christ; Therefore the word of Christ is not Christ nor God, so neither the holy Scriptures which are the word of Christ, and of the spirit of Christ, which holy men spoke and writ, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.  
Naylers' Answer Nayler instead of a better Answer, still quarrelled, and cried out, liar, liar, the word is God, and God and his word are all one, but the letter was in time.  
Mr bourn's Reply. To this Mr Bourne replied, that was not so; for although God and his written word were one in respect of that agreement of truth, was in the written word, and in God; yet that word of God and God, were not all one essentially, as the natural word or Son of God, was all one and the same Essence or Being with God.  
nailers Answer To this Nayler cried out, away with thy dark word, 
Iohn ●. 12, 14.  I do not own that word essentially, and so rejected the distinction of Gods written word, and essential word.  
Mr bourn's Reply. Mr Bourne replied, that the written word of God was not of the same Being with God.  
Naylers' Answer Nayler, and one of his fellow Quakers by him, cried out, liar, liar, stop thy mouth for shame, stop thy mouth, God and his word are all one.  
Mr Bournes Argument. Mr Bourne bad Nayler hearken to an Argument to prove it by Scripture, and told Nayler he was the brazen faced, foul mouthed fellow he had heard, when his own mouth was stopped, that he could not answer an Argument, he still cried out, liar, liar, stop thy mouth, stop thy mouth.  
Mr bourn's Argument. And Mr Bourne pressed this Argument: No word which was written in time, part by God himself, and part by Moses, and other holy men of God, was or is all one with God essentially, or of the same essence or being with God; but the holy Scriptures were written part by God himself in time, and part by Moses, and other holy men of God; Therefore that word of God was not of one or of the same Essence and Being with God.  
The first Proposition is evident of itself. The second is witnessed, Exod. 31.18. where God gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him, two Tables of stone written with the finger (or by the power) of God. And Exod. 34.27. God commanded Moses to write all the words of the Covenant, for after the tenor of these words, I have made a Covenant with thee, and with Israel (And this was written two thousand year after the Creation of the world which God made) therefore God and that written word was not all one, or of the same Essence and Being with God, and so not the rest of the holy Scriptures which was written in after times.  
nailers Answer But Nayler with a loud voice, still cried out, liar, liar, is not God and his word all one? and bade the people bear witness, he saith God and his word are not all one.  
Mr Bourn. For Reply, We distinguish there is a unity of agreement, so God and his written word are all one, and a unity of Essence or Being, so God and his written word, the Scripture, are not all one.  
Mr Gardiner's Argument. Mr Gardiner Minister of Eckinton, being present, when he saw him so audaciously impudent, called to Nayler to hearken to an Argument to the contrary; which was to this effect. Whatsoever is all one with God, is eternal, but the holy Scripture or written word is not eternal, therefore it is not all one with God.  
nailers Answer The Quaker Nayler presently cried out in a scornful manner, away liar, away, stop thy mouth, the word is eternal, and God is eternal. And one of his fellow Quakers that stood by Nayler, called Mr Gardiner liar, liar, both with a loud voice, stop thy mouth, thou art a liar, thou art a liar.  
But let any indifferent man but read and consider the Argument, and see if the Quaker be not proved the liar, and justly deserved that shame himself, which he so unjustly cast upon Mr Gardiner, and the other Ministers.  
Then Mr Godfrey Watkinson of Brampton (an understanding Gentleman not a Minister) being present, 
Mr Godfrey Watkinson of Brampton Moor near Chesterfield  called to Nayler, and told him he had lost the Question, and he himself was the liar; for even now he said the letter or written word was in time, and so not eternal, and now he saith the word is eternal, and God and his word is all one, when as the Question and Argument is about the written word, which is not eternal, and therefore he was the liar, & lost the Question, or words to this effect (for I cannot remember every particular, but I endeavour to keep the sense and words as well as I can remember.)  
nailers Answer But Nayler kept on his loud mouthed pace, and gave Mr Watkinson some unfit disrespective speeches, and said he owned the Spirit speaking in holy men to be the Judge, but would not own the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures.  
Mr Bournes Reply. Mr Bourn began to press other Arguments, but Nayler would not hearken, but cried, stop thy mouth, liar, liar. Then Mr Bourne called to another Question.  
But let any man truly consider the Arguments, and see if Naylers' mouth was not most fit to be stopped, and if Nayler was not the great liar, accusing others wrongfully for that, of which he was so justly guilty himself.  
Nayler did not then give his answer to the Question in writing, but sent it to us the day after the Disputation; In which he falsely applieth divers places of Scripture, to prove (if he could) that it is not the Spirit of God speaking in the holy Scriptures, but the Spirit in holy men that is the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. I shall only in brief, give some answer to his Allegation of Scripture, and some observations by the way, and then proceed to the second Question.  
Naylers' Allegation. 1. The first Scripture Nayler allegeth, is that, Exod. 18.16. When they have any matter (saith Moses) they come to me, and I judge between one and another, etc. Therefore thinks Nayler, it is not the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, but the Spirit speaking in men, that judgeth. To which for answer.  
Reply. First, I observe with what spirit the Quaker doth agree in this Allegation, 
Cardinalis Bellarmin. de judice Controversiarii fidei. lib. 3. cap. 3.  and this is with the Spirit of Antichrist in Cardinal Bellarmine, who brings the self same place of Scripture, to prove an outward Judge of Controversies of Faith, and to be interpreter of the holy Scripture.  
The Question he proposeth is, whether the interpretation of Scripture, be to be sought from some one visible common Judge, which he affirmeth, and endeavours to prove from this Scripture; That as Moses did answer to all doubts arising about the Law of God, so there must be an outward visible Judge of all Controversies: And this is the Church, and the Spirit in the Church, or in the chief Pastor (the Pope) with his Council of Pastors (saith Bellarmine) and the Spirit speaking in holy men (saith Nayler) that is, in himself, and his fellow Quaker: And thus you may see, from whom the Quakers received this Doctrine, even from the popish seducing Jesuits, or some seduced Socinians, or other Heretics, who seek to disgrace the holy Scriptures, that they may more easily set forth their own errors with fair pretences of the spirit. But to answer Cardinal Bellarmine and James Nayler both together.  
1. Moses was an extraordinary man, and had an extraordinary measure of the Spirit, and yet Moses did not take upon him an infallibility of Spirit and Judgement, but did make known to the people, the statutes of God, and his laws. Thus, what God had or did reveal, that was the Judge, not his own Spirit, nor any Spirit in him, but the voice of God in his law, or Gods own direction to end the Controversy. This is evident, if you consult these places of Scripture, which witness what Moses did in the cause of the woman's son that cursed God, Leu. 24. 
Leu. 24.11, 12, 13, 14.  And about receiving the Passeover by the men that had touched the dead body of a man, Num. 6.9. 
Numb. 9.7, 8. Numb. 32.33, 34, 15, 32.  And concerning the man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day, Numb. 15. he consults with God in all those. Thus Moses and holy men before the Law written, they inquire of God to know his mind and pleasure, and follow that which God taught them. But after the Law, and word and will of God was written, then to the Law and to the Testimony, If they speak not according to this, it is because they have no light in them, 
Isaiah 8.20.  as the Prophet Isaiah doth witness.  
2. Observe what matters they were which Moses did judge, they were not matters of Faith, but matters of Fact, Controversies between man and man, he did judge between one and another (saith that Text) which Nayler himself allegeth nothing to the purpose (if he speak of the Question) For this is whether the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, 
Exod. 18.16.  be the chief Judge of controversies of Faith, not of actions between man and man. And this the Reader, whose eyes are open, may easily discern that this place of Scripture will neither fit Cardinal Bellarmine a Papist, nor James Nayler a Quaker. Nayler doth allege divers other Scriptures of the same nature, to the same purpose; As that in Solomon's prayer, 
1 Kin. 3.9.  1 Kin. 3. That God would give him an understanding heart, that he might judge God's people, to which the former answer may give full satisfaction.  
3. 
1 Cor. 2, 15, 16.  Nayler allegeth that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man; for who hath known the mind of the Lord that he might instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. Therefore (if Nayler may judge) it is not the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, but the Spirit speaking in such spiritual men as he is, which is the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. And herein the Quaker exceeds Cardinal Bellarmine by far; for the popish Cardinal would have infallibility of spirit, only in the Pope and his company; but the Quaker maketh every particular spiritual man, a spiritual Pope, to be a chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, otherwise Naylers' Scripture is nothing to the Question, for the Question is not concerning a private inferior, or particular Judge, but concerning a chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, as Nayler himself repeateth it. Question the first. To give an answer to this and divers other Scriptures alleged by Nayler. But that he cannot away with a Distinction, he might know that there is a twofold Judge of Controversies. First, A Magisteriall Judge (as I may so call it) a supreme highest directing public Judge, to judge and discern and direct, and finally, sentence in the Church, all Controversies of Faith. And this is the holy Scriptures, and the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, to which Christ himself did appeal and direct his hearers, to appeal unto in that great Controversy of Faith, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me (which we noted before.)  
Again, there is a Ministerial, inferior, more private Judge of spiritual things, and so of Controversies of Faith. And this may be every particular spiritual regenerate man or Christian, according to the measure of that light of the Spirit and grace of Faith he hath received from Christ, and for the satisfaction of his own conscience, by the light of the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, and the light of Christ within him, he may so far as he is able, judge of opinions and doctrines of men, whether they agree to the doctrine of Christ in the holy Scriptures, I say to the satisfaction of a man or woman's own conscience, in what they are to believe; yea those to whom God hath given a more excellent measure of understanding in the mystery of Christ revealed in the Scriptures; these may in some measure judge, or be inferior Judges of spiritual things, and of private men's opinions in the Controversies of Faith; For the Spirit of the Prophets, 
1 Cor. 14.32.  is subject to the Prophets; but all private spirits of men in the world, yea the Pope himself and all the Quakers, they are and must be subject one day to the voice of God's Spirit speaking in the holy Scriptures, and that word of Christ recorded in holy Scriptures, shall judge them all at the last day, witness our Saviour himself, John 12.48. The Quaker abuseth other places of holy Scripture. But the Answers I have given, may satisfy any understanding Reader; I shall name only one more from Nayler and his fellow Quakers, which seems to conclude against the Scriptures excellency and authority, of being chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, calling the holy Scriptures a dead letter, and the letter that killeth all, to discountenance the credit of the Scriptures, & to exalt their own private spirit. The place of Scripture they pervert, is that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 3.6. Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. I might answer at large, & show how the letter is taken in several places of Scripture, and evidence the falsehood of Naylers' application of this place also; but in brief. The letter is taken 1. Propperly for the first Elements or beginnings of learning for the letters in several languages, from which by spelling and putting together, are made syllables, and words and sentences, in and by which the mind of God and men is held forth to our understanding, as in those letters of Greek and Latin and Hebrew, which were written over Christ upon his Cross, Luke 23.38. And these letters may be called dead letters, because of themselves they signify nothing to declare the mind of the writer, except they be joined and put together in● syllables words, and sentences.  
Again, Improperly and more generally, letters are taken several ways in Scripture, for Epistles private or public, 
2 Cor. 3.6.  etc. And in that place alleged, The letter killeth. The Apostle doth speak of the Law which he opposeth to the Gospel, which is the ministration of the Spirit, as will appear plainly, if the Chapter be truly looked into, yea the Law itself doth not properly kill of itself, but is said to kill when men break it, and so are become subject to death by sinning against it; 
Rom. 7.12, 13. Rom. 6.27. Psal. 119.50.  for the wages of sin is death, otherwise the Law and word of God doth quicken, as David found by experience, Psal. 119. And the written words of God, are lively oracles, 
Acts 7.38. Heb. 4.12. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17  as the blessed Martyr Stephen witnessed; yea mighty in operation and able to make us wise to salvation, and therefore most fit to be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, whatsoever the deluding Quakers pretend to the contrary. Thus I have done with the first Question, I come now to the second Question.  
Mr bourn's Argument. The second Question: Whether the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. This was denied, and Mr Bourne proved the negative by this Argument. No Spirit which is subject to trial itself, can be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith; but the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, is subject to trial itself, therefore the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, cannot be the chief Judge of any Controversies of Faith. The first proposition was not denied; and the second is witnessed, 1 John 4. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God, for many false Prophets are gone out into the world. And here you may see the Evangelist giveth a general rule for Christians to try the spirit, all spirits in any man, yea all that pretend to the Spirit of God, as the Pope and the Quakers do, therefore their spirits are to be tried, and so are not fit to be chief Judges of Controversies of Faith.  
Naylers' Answer James Nailer wrangled about the Spirit, but gave no satisfying answer to the Argument, but said the Spirit was not a private spirit, if he was but in one against a hundred, and said the Spirit was in them, and he was Judge in them, as if the Spirit in the Quaker were a public infallible Spirit, and so fit to be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, which cannot be; for if the Spirit of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets, 
1 Cor. 14.32.  then much more the Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, subject to trial, and therefore they cannot be the chief Judges of Controversiys of Faith.  
Mr bourn's 2 Argument. Then Mr Bourne pressed a second Argument. No Spirit which is a Spirit of Error, lying and false accusation, is or can be a chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. But the Spirit in the Quaker, and in James Nayler in particular, is a Spirit of Error, lying and false accusation, therefore that Spirit in them, cannot be a chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. The first proposition is clear, because a chief Judge must and aught to have in him a Spirit, not of error, lying and false accusation, but a Spirit of truth and righteousness, that he may be directed to give true judgement, and not to wrest or give wrong sentence; for this is contrary to the Law of God, Exod 23.6, 7. Thou shalt not wrest the judgement of the poor in his cause, and keep the fare from a false matter, etc. Therefore a Spirit of lying, and Error, and false accusation, is not fit to be a chief Judge of Controversies, especially not of Controversies of Faith. And for the second proposition, that the Spirit in the Quaker, and in James Nayler in particular, is a Spirit of Error, lying and false accusation. Mr Bourne proved it by these Arguments.  
Mr Bournes Argument. Whatsoever Spirit did or doth affirm, and falsely accuse the Ministers of Christ in England, that they err and are false Teachers, because they say, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are the Gospel, that is a Spirit of Error, lying and false accusation. But the Spirit that is in James Nayler, and some of his fellow Quakers, did or doth accuse the Ministers of Christ in England, that they err, and are false Teachers, because they affirm the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, to be the Gospel; therefore the Spirit in the Quakers, and in James Nayler in particular, is a Spirit of Error, lying and false accusation, and so not fit to be chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. To evidence the second proposition, Mr Bourne did show a book, the Title of it was concerning a threefold Antichrist, or to that effect. 
The same in effect by Richard Tarnworth, in his discovery of Faith, or rather of infidelity, page 13.  This was set out by some Quaker, and in page the 13. in the very leaf, in which beginneth a Letter of James nailers, to several friends about Wakefield, when Nayler was prisoner at Appleby. There is Printed this false accusation of the Ministers in England, as of Error, because they say the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are the Gospel, or contain the glad tidings of salvation through Jesus Christ, therefore the Quakers are not fit to be the chief Judges of Controversies of Faith  
nailers Answer Nayler answered, he did own that Letter writ to his friends about Wakefield, and said the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the Gospel, but Christ was the Gospel.  
Mr bourn's Reply. Mr Bourne went on to prove, that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were the Gospel by this Argument.  
Whatsoever book the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evangelist Mark, calleth the Gospel; that is the Gospel; but the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evangelist, Mark, calleth the book of Mark the Gospel, therefore that book of Mark is the Gospel. The first proposition is unquestionable, The second is witnessed, 
Mark 1.1.  Mark 1.1. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as it is written in the Prophets. Observe first, That the Evangelist affirmeth, that the Gospel was written in the Prophets. Secondly, that he calleth the beginning of that book, the beginning of the Gospel; not that the Gospel was not before, for the Gospel was preached to Adam and Eve in Paradise, after the Fall, 
Gen. 3.15.  But the seed of the woman shall break the serpent's head; but that it was the beginning of that book of the Gospel, of that history of Christ, and declaration of salvation by Christ Jesus. For what is the Gospel, but good news or good tidings of a Saviour, as that Angel speaketh, Luke 2.10. And good tidings of Christ, is not Christ himself, and so the Gospel is not Christ himself, but good news of salvation by Christ. This is the book of Mark, the Gospel; and thus are the books of Matthew, Luke and John the Gospel; and the Quaker denying this, and accusing the Ministers of Christ, as of Error; for affirming it, this assertion is plainly proved, that the Spirit in the Quaker, is a Spirit of Error, lying and false accusation, and so not fit to be the Judge of Controversies of Faith.  
Naylers' Reply. Nayler had nothing to answer, but liar, liar, hold thy tongue, and sit down, for Christ is the Gospel, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are not the Gospel.  
Mr Bournes Argument. Mr Bourne began to press another Argument out of a book of one Nicolas Cowlings, 
Nicol. Cowling his word to 52 London Ministers, p. 15, etc.  A word to the 52 London Ministers, pages 15, 16. wherein he blasphemously compareth Christ that died at Jerusalem, to a wooden leg. Let me be bold, saith he, to impart unto you my former experience in the mystery of Christ. I thought a long while, a faith in Christ that died at Jerusalem, was the top gallant of a Christian; but since it doth appear, 
I Answer, There was a twofold Faith in the person of Christ. 1. Erring of an outward Redemption from Roman tyranny, of which Luke 24 21. Acts 1.16. 2. True Faith of an eternal Redemption from sin, etc. and purchase of liternall happiness for his people in Heaven, of which, Mat. 1.21. john 1.29, 6, 47, 14, 1, 2, 3. The Erring faith died with Christ, but the true faith in Christ's person, did not die, as the Blasphemer imagineth.  etc. that faith the Disciples had in the person of Christ, died with him, etc. therefore it is Christ in the mystery that will save. A wooden leg (saith he) that is tied on, may do some service, but it is the leg natural that is useful for all occasions. Thus doth this blasphemer, make Christ our Saviour that died for us at Jerusalem, but as a wooden leg. But it is not that Christ that died at Jerusalem mighty to save, not only by the work of sanctification in us by his Spirit through Faith to purify our hearts, but by the work of justification by his blood, and merits of his death and passion, by which he hath made our peace, even by the blood of his cross, and righteousness imputed to us for our justification before God, as by our holiness and good works, we are declared to be justified before men: For God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. But this Spirit in this deceived Quaker, or Erring Sectary, who glories in his perfection, and disgracefully calleth Christ that died at Jerusalem, a wooden leg, it is an Erring spirit, and therefore not fit to be judge of Controversies of Faith.  
Naylers' Answer James Nayler would give no Answer to this, but said he would not answer for any but himself. Yet certainly James Nayler needed not then to have disowned that, or denied to answer; for it is nothing but what he himself did own before, 
Read the Perfect Pharisee, p. 8. position. 5.  as appears by that expression of his, in a Letter sent by him to one in Lancashire; That he that expected to be saved by him that died at Jerusalem, should be deceived. This witnessed by those reverend Divines, who writ that book, called the Perfect Pharisee. And it seemeth it is their common opinion, as may appear by that speech of another Quaker near Bristol, who said, he was not such a fool, as to hope to be saved by Jesus Christ that died at Jerusalem sixteen hundred years ago, 
Mr Farmer in his mystery of godliness and ungodliness.  witnessed by Reverend Mr Farmer, a Reverend Minister in Bristol. This spirit in the Quaker cannot be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith.  
Mr Billingsleys Argument. Then Mr John Billingsley to prove that the Spirit in the Quakers, and in James Nayler in particular, was a lying scandalising Spirit, and so not fit to be Judge of Controversies of Faith, brought an Argument to this purpose.  
That Spirit whatsoever that did or doth affirm, that Bull-baiting, swearing, cursing, and such like, are the fruits of John Billingsley's Ministry, that is a lying scandalising Spirit; but the Spirit that is in thee James Nayler, or thou thyself James Nayler, didst affirm, that Bull-baiting, swearing, cursing, and such like, is or are the fruits of John Billingsley's Ministry, therefore thy Spirit is a lying scandalising Spirit, and so not fit to be Judge of Controversies of Faith. For the first proposition, I John Billingsley do appeal to all the Congregations which have heard me preach in Chesterfield, or else where, if ever I preached any such doctrine, or did ever countenance any such thing neither was I at home at Chesterfield, when the Bull-baiting was, nor did I know any thing of it, but am altogether innocent. And for the second proposition. That thou James Nayler didst falsely accuse me, John Billingsley, it is evident by thy own hand writing in this paper, which thou didst send to me, subscribed with thy name, in which are these words, viz. This day is the fruits of thy Ministry manifest in the open streets, a multitude gathered together, to sport themselves in setting one of the Creatures of God against another to torment & thy people thou teachest, whooting, yelling, 
Mr Billingsley did then read these words, written by james Nayler to him, etc.  swearing, cursing, and blaspheming the dreadful name of God; Is this thy Ministry? etc. Thus didst thou falsely accuse me and my Ministry; therefore thy Spirit is a lying, and false accusing Spirit, and so not fit to be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith.  
nailers Answer To which Nayler said, he did own that paper, and shuffled to excuse himself, and said, he did not say so, but that the people to whom he did preach, were so doing, viz. swearing, cursing, etc.  
Mr Billingsley's Reply. But Mr Billingsley read the paper to all the congregation, wherein it did appear, that Nayler had writ, that Bull-baiting, swearing and cursing, were the fruits of Mr Billingsley's Ministry. nailers Answer At which Nayler knew not what to say for himself, but still persisted with an audacious face to justify himself, and called Mr Billingsley liar, liar, and bade him hold his tongue.  
Mr Billingsley's Reply. Upon which Mr Billingsley said, what a desperate fellow art thou, so shamelessly to deny that which thou hast writ with thy own hand, and dost now again prove thyself to be a liar, and a false accuser, and wilt not confess thy Error, or to that purpose.  
nailers Answer But Nayler vapoured, and called Mr Billingsley liar, and said he had accused him to be a liar, and a persecutor of the Ministers of Christ. Mr Billingsley's Reply. But Mr Billingsley did justify, that Nayler was a liar, and a persecutor, and that his false accusation was a persecution, or to that effect. And I might now add, well so he might; For may not all men see, that the Quakers and James Nayler himself, are as malicious persecutors of the Ministers of Christ in England, as ever they had? And would they not be as bloody as ever any, if it lay in their power? witness their cruel threaten both in their printed Pamphlets and by word of mouth against us, witness their labouring by all means, to pull down the very Calling and Ministerial Office, witness their endeavour to hinder the people to pay us any maintenance, though due unto us both by the Law of God and the Nation. 
jerem 18.18.  Do they not smite us with the tongue? as Jeremy's enemies did him, and dissuade our people from giving heed to any of our words; And what are these but persecutions? 
Rev. 12.10.  or what is persecution if this be not? and who are liars if these be none? and who is a diabolical false accuser, 
john B●nting en Elder of the Church in Ashover.  if James Nayler is not? John Bunting an honest Yeoman (of more true spiritual understanding, than many Quakers) sitting by Nayler at this disputation, writing in short hand what Nayler said, Nayler seeing him write, said to him, thou writest lies there: To whom John Bunting Replied, Nayler, thou art the father of them then, for I writ what thou speakest. Whereupon I may observe and argue, what may be argued from what St Paul did affirm of the Cretians, and of the vain talkers, and deceivers amongst them; That one of their own Prophets said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies, Tit. 1. 
Tit. 1.10, 11, 12.  And if the Cretians were liars, than that Prophet was a liar that said so, because he was a Cretian, and if the Cretians were not liars, than he was a liar for saying they were liars when they were not. In like manner, if john Bunting did write lies, than Nayler was and is a liar, because john Bunting did write that which Nayler spoke; and if john Bunting did not write lies, than james Nayler is the liar, because he falsely accused john Bunting for writing lies, when he did not; so that james Nayler is proved the liar out of his own mouth and pen, and having a spirit of lying, he is not fit to be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith.  
Thus I have done with the Disputation upon this Question, Whether the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. I shall only add one Argument more, and pass forwards.  
Mr Bournes additional Argument. No Spirit that is a Spirit of Error and Blasphemy, is fit to be or can be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. But the Spirit in james Nayler, and other Quakers, is a Spirit of Error and Blasphemy; Therefore the Spirit in james Nayler, and other Quakers, is not fit, nor can be a chief Judge of Controversies of Faith. For the first proposition, certainly the Quakers themselves will not deny it, and (if they do deny it) no honest Christian will deny it; and for the second it may be witnessed by these instances. 1. Blasphemy against God, whilst they do affirm they are equal with God; 
See Saules Errand to Damascus, p. 5, 6, 7, 8.  This was witnessed against George Fox (as is confessed by Fox and Nayler, one or both) (If that Book they call saul's Errand to Damascus be theirs (as their proselytes boast it is) and seek after it to learn their wicked doctrines. It was objected (say they) That George Fox professed and owned that he was equal with God. 
S●● the Perfect Pharis●● p. 3.  And in the: Perfect Pharisee it is witnessed, That George Fax being asked by Dr. Martial in the presence of two Justices of Peace in Lancashire, namely, Mr Thomson and Mr Lawry, whether he did believe himself to be equal with God; the said Fox in answer thereunto, positively affirmed, thus I am saith he equal with God; and this was deposed by Dr Martial and Mr Altham Schoolmaster of Lancaster, at the general Sessions in Westmoreland, and was deposed again before the honourable Judge Puleston at Lancaster the next Assizes after, witness that book called the Perfect Pharisee, 
Perfect Pharisee by Mr T●●mas W●ld, Mr R●chard Prid●a●●, Mr Samuel Hammond, Mr William 〈◊〉, Mr Will. D●rant. The Perfect Phar●see. p 3. etc.  made by those five Reverend Divines near New Castle, p. 3 which declares part of the Quakers blasphemies, in the page before recited. And in the same book it is witnessed against james Nayler, that he being asked by William Baldwinson of Underbarrow in Westmoreland, whether he believed that any could be as holy. Just, and good as God himself, Nayler answered, that he himself was as holy, just, and good, as God himself. And this Mr Baldw●nson did offer to depose to Colonel Briggs, who is a man fearing God, and of eminent trust in the Commonwealth; and what is this but presumptuous blasphemy, both in Fox and Nayler, so proudly to boast of their own perfection, and that not by the imputed righteousness of Christ, for that they deny, but by their own inherent holiness (which they pretend to be Christ within them) and yet so basely to manifest themselves notorious liars? 
The brief volation of the irreligion of the Northern Quakers wherein their h … d principles and practices, doctrines and manners are discovered, read page 24 25.  As in that Pamphlet, called Saul's Errand to Damascus, in which there are a hundred untruths, as may be proved by a hundred witnesses, testified in that book called A Brief Relation of the irreligion of the Northern Quakers, page 24. Many of them (saith that Author) will be as ready to say and unsay any thing, as if lying were a virtue, and they make no conscience (saith he) of raising false reports against those especially, who do any way oppose them; and he goeth on further. Thus wholly by lies, lying doctrines: lying wonders, lying reports, they endeavour to build up the Kingdom of the Father of lies amongst us. Thus fare and further that reverend Author. I might add many more of their errors lies, and abominable blasphemies: But these are sufficient to witness the Spirit in James Nayler, and divers of his fellow Quakers, to be a Spirit of Error and Blasphemy, and therefore not fit to be chief Judges of Controversies of Faith. Other their Errors and Blasphemies are so abominable, that I hold them fit to be buried in silence, then to rake them up out of the Devil's dunghill, to be an odious noisome stink and offence to the people of God.  
Now for Naylers' answer, and his cross interrogatories, upon this and other Questions. I have answered them fully in every particular, which with my Reply to his Queries and discoveries of many of his abominable lies, increased in my written hand, prepared for the Press, to above threescore sheets of paper, which I have ready by me, the which I was resolved by God's grace, to have printed in Defence of Christ, the Gospel, and the faithful Gospel-Ministers of Christ in England, and their maintenance. But coming to London, I find these things so sufficiently answered, and truth so sully satisfied against the Quakers and their errors, by so many godly and learned Divines, that I conceive to add more, is but to cast water into the sea; and therefore I have thought good to print only these few sheets, and to let the rest of my labours rest unprinted until God shall give me a further call unto that work. I now therefore proceed to the third Question Disputed.  
3 Question Disputed. Whether every man be bound to look to the light within him as sufficient for his ditection to attain salvation? This we denied.  
The state of the Question. The sense of the Question is, Whether every man and woman in the world, have a sufficient light within them, for their direction to attain eternal life, so as he or she needeth not to look to the outward light of the written word of God, or to the light of the Gospel revealed in the holy Scriptures, or to any outward teaching by man whatsoever, although it be agreeable to the Scripture of truth.  
This in effect was the opinion of Nayler, as it is of divers of his fellow Quakers, witness Nayler himself, in his answer in writing, sent to us the day after the Dispute, and since printed. The light of Christ saith he, which hath enlightened every man that cometh into the world, is ourlight, and to that is every one bound to look for direction to attain Salvation, and that he affirmeth as sufficient, or to that effect. And the same did Nayler affirm before, in his discourse with Mr Will. Cole at Kendal; 
See the Perfect Pharisee, the subscription to the Epistle, and pages 17.18. Richard Tarnworth, p. 51. &c  To whom he said that every man in the world had a light within him, sufficient to guide them to salvation, and this he extended to the Indians that never heard the Gospel, witness that book called the Perfect Pharisee, written by those five Reverend Ministers ne'er New Castle, named before. And thus James Nayler, and divers others of his fellow Quakers in other Pamphlets, which for brevity sake I omit.  
Mr Bournes Argument. But I did prove the contrary by this Argument. No man whosoever is darkness, is bound to look to the light within him, as sufficient to direct him to attain Salvation; but every natural man is darkness, therefore no natural man is bound to look to the light within him, as sufficient for his direction to attain salvation, and so not every man that cometh into the world. The first proposition is evident, because it is in vain to look for light in darkness. And the second proposition is witnessed by the Apostle Paul, Eph. 5.8. Ye were once darkness (saith he) to the Ephesians, but now ye are light in the Lord. In the state of nature corrupted by Adam's Fall, they were darkness, having their understandings darkened through the ignorance that was in them, because of the blindness of their minds. And what light then had these within them, sufficient to direct them to Salvation; or what sufficient light hath any natural man in the world? and therefore all are not bound to look to the light within them, as sufficient for their direction to attain Salvation.  
nailers Answer All Naylers' answer was, it is false, it is false, liar, liar, all are enlightened, and have a light within them sufficient to direct them to Salvation, or to that effect. Mr Billingsley's Argument: And after some wranglings by Nayler, Mr Billingsley called to Nayler to hear an Argument, and gave this, or to this effect.  
None of those to whom Paul was sent to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, had a light within them, to which they were bound to look, as sufficient to direct them to attain Salvation. But there were some Gentiles, to whom Paul was sent, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God; therefore some Gentiles had not a light within them to which they could look, as sufficient to direct them to attain Salvation, and so not every man in the world. The first proposition is manifest, because if those Gentiles had a light within them sufficient to direct them to attain Salvation, than what needed the Lord to have sent blessed Paul through so many dangers, to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. And for the second, the Evangelist Luke doth witness it, 
Acts 26.17, 18.  Acts 26. Delivering thee from the Gentiles, to whom I send thee to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. And thus again it is evident, that all have not a light within them sufficient to direct them to salvation, and therefore are not bound to look to that as a sufficient light, which is weak and insufficient, as the light of every natural man is.  
Nailers' Answer. To which Argument, Nayler gave his common Answer, crying out aloud as before, liar, liar, all have a light within them, to which they ought to look as sufficient to direct them to Salvation.  
john Buntings Argument. Upon which john Bunting of Ashover, named before, an understanding Christian, sitting near Nayler, Replied to him, Dead men have no light in them, but every natural man is a dead man, dead in trespasses and sins, 
Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3.  ●s witnesseth the Apostle, Eph. 2. and what light is there then in a natural dead man, sufficient to direct him to attain salvation?  
Naylers' Answer Nayler Answered not to the Argument, concerning natural men's blindness, but said Christ had enlightened all men, 
john. 1.9.  and alleged that place, john 1.9. He is that light that lightens every man that cometh into the world; and thence he would infer, every man is enlightened, and hath a light within him sufficient to direct him to attain Salvation, or to that purpose, so near as I could remember.  
Mr Bournes Answer to this Scripture, alleged, A first light. Unto this Scripture I did then answer to this effect, by distinguishing of light, and said, there was a twofold light. The first the light of nature, the remnant of that created light of the knowledge of God in man, by which men might know so much of God by the Creatures, 
Rom. 1.19, 20.  as may make them without excuse, Rom. 1.19. And which is a spark of light naturally in every man's conscience, 
Rom. 2.14, 15.  Rom. 2. And with this light Christ the Creator (God, equal with God the Father, by whom this light and all things were made) he doth enlighten every man that cometh into the world; that is into this habitable world, in which we dwell; and all that are borne into this world in their right mind and senses, Christ doth enlighten with this natural light. But this light of nature, since the Fall, is so darkened, that although it may be sufficient in some respects, to make men without excuse; 
Rom. 1.20.  yet it is not sufficient to reveal Christ, or to give sufficient direction to attain Salvation by Christ Jesus, as that light which revealeth Christ in the Gospel. Again, there is a second light, and this is the light of special grace given outwardly by the preaching of the Word, and inwardly by the Spirit of God, by which a soul is enlightened with such a special light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, as he owneth, 
2 Cor. 4 6, 7.  and by faith embraceth Christ, 
Rom. 5.  not only as a Justifier by his blood and merits, but a Sanctifier by his Spirit and grace in the soul, and so a perfect Saviour both from sin here, and from wrath to come hereafter, as due to sin. And this in ward light of special grace, every man (to whom God hath given it) is bound to look unto it in a special manner; yet not so as to neglect the outward light of the Gospel, revealed in the holy Scriptures, for the getting of more light, because we know here but in part, 
1 Cor. 13 9, 10, 11, 12.  and therefore should wait for more light of grace, until we come to enjoy a perfection of light in glory. Because this special light of grace held forth in the Gospel, is not given to all, for all do not know the mystery of the Gospel; nor is it given unto all, witness our Saviour, 
Mat. 13.11.  To you it is given (saith he) to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to others it is not given. And the Evangelist, John himself in the same Chapter, 
john 1.9, 10, 11, etc.  in which he affirmeth, that Christ is the true light that lighteneth every man that cometh into the world, in the very next verse he affirmeth, that Christ was in the world, and the world did not know him; yea he came to his own, and his own received him not. But if all in the world had this special light of grace within them, they would have known Christ; 
john 18.35.  yea if all his own people, the people of the Jews, his own Nation, had received this special light of grace, they would have received Christ; But many of them were in blindness, yea darkness itself, and did not know Christ; for had they known him, they would not have, crucified the Lord of Glory, witness the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.7, 8. Th●● answer was delivered logically in more brief terms, but to the same effect, and more fully and largely expressed now for weak brethren's sakes, that they may more easily understand Naylers' deceits in his answer, who gave that more largely also in his written paper, then at the Disputation for that was commonly very short; It is false, it is false, and liar, liar. And this was nailers Reply to this Distinction of light given by me, It is false, liar, hold thy peace and sit down, there is but one light that lightens every man that cometh into the world, and in a vapouring manner doubled it again, there is but one light which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.  
M. Maud●sl●y Mr Maudsley (as I remember) Minister of Dronfield, sitting near Nayler, asked him what world he did mean, Nayler. Question. Nayler answered, there is but one world, and that is the world of men; he was asked again, whether he himself was in the world, or out of the world, Answer. to which Nayler answered, that he was out of the world; unto which Answer, some one replied, it were well if thou wast out of the world, that thou mightest not spread thy errors as thou dost in the world. Nayler wrangled still about the world, and said, there was but one world, and that was the world of men, which were all enlightened. Than one that was near Nayler, asked Nayler what world that was into which Christ came, 
john 16.28.  when he came out from his Father, and which he left when he went to his Father again. And Nayler shufied, and would have avoided the Question; upon which there fell out a wrangling, and other passages impertinent to the Question in hand, which for brevity I omit here, and shall remember them in my Animadversions upon nailers false Relation. Mr Bourne. Whiles they were wrangling, Mr Bourne did call to Nayler to leave wrangling, and hearken to another Argument, to prove that all men had not a light within them, sufficient to direct them to attain salvation, and was giving forth an Argument. Mr Moor's Argument. But Mr Moor Minister of Brampton, stepped in and gave this Argument, or to this effect. If there be some men that have no light in them, than all men have not a light within them, sufficient to direct them to attain salvation. But there are some men that have no light in them, witness the Prophet Isaiah, chap. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this rule, it is because there is no light in them. Therefore all men have not a light within them, sufficient to direct them to attain salvation.  
Naylers' Answer James Nayler vapoured, and said, that place made most against us: But he gave no answer to show how that place did make against us, but cried out, all are enlightened by Christ, and that light of Christ is in them all, liars, liars, all are enlightened. Thus in a proud contemptuous manner, did Nayler behave himself; and as his manner was when he could not answer, turned aside, and talked to those that were about him, and at last affirmed again, that all had a light within them, sufficient to guide them to attain salvation, Naylers' Argument. because Christ said to the Pharisees, Luke 17.21. The Kingdom of God is within you, in you Pharisees, and therefore in all, and so the Kingdom of God being in all, all are sufficiently enlightened to direct them to attain salvation.  
Mr Bournes Answer. To which, Answer was given to this effect; That the Kingdom of God is taken diversely in the holy Scriptures.  
1. For the Kingdom of God's power, which is God's sovereignty over all the world, and this Kingdom of God is in every creature, and in, and over every man in the world; he sets up and pulls down, 
1 Sam. 2.6, 7, 8, etc. Dan. 4.30, etc.  kills and maketh alive at his pleasure, and ruleth, and over-ruleth all, when and how he will, and this Kingdom of God was in the Pharisees, as in all men whatsoever.  
2. The Kingdom of God is taken for the Kingdom of God's Grace, and this diversely taken also. First, for the outward administration of the coming and Kingdom of the Messiah Christ Jesus, in the Gospel; of which the Pharisees questioned Christ in that place, Luke 17. 
Luke 17.20. Gen. 49.10.  demanding when the Kingdom of God should come, that is, the Kingdom of the Messiah, which was prophesied and promised should come, 
Psal. 2. Psal. 45.6, 7. Luke 2.25, 26.  and which the Saints and people of God did expect and wait for; And John the Baptist (the forerunner of Christ) told the people this Kingdom was at hand. This Kingdom is called the Kingdom of Heaven, 
Mat. 3.2. Mat. 13.24, 44. Acts 1.3.  and it is taken for the Gospel, and Gospel. Administrations, and this Kingdom and coming of Christ, this King, not only the Scribes and Pharisees, 
Luke 24.21.  but some of the Disciples, did think should come in outward pomp and power, to deliver the Jews from the tyranny of the Romans, under whom they were tributaries. But Christ giveth them answer in that 20 verse. 
Luke 17 20.  The Kingdom of Christ the Messiah (which they enquired after) cometh not with observation, or with outward pomp; but saith Christ, the Kingdom of God is within you, not individually or personally, as if the Kingdom of heaven (the Gospel) and Christ the Messiah had been in every one of them particularly, or in every Pharisee; but collectively, or as they were a company of Pharisees, or people of the Jews. The Kingdom of God is within you, or rather amongst you, as the Greek word is well translated in the margin of our Bibles in that place. And thus Expositors agree, ye seek the Messiah as if he were absent, when he is in the midst of you, 
Beza upon the Text. P●scator on that place. Thus Passor jex con, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in medio vestri intra gentem vestram within your nation.  saith Beza. And Piscator, The Kingdom of God is in the midst of you, in the bosom of your Nation. The Kingdom of God is within you, understand it not as every one is looked upon, by and in himself, but as one body of many people, collected or joined together in one body or Nation. And the Kingdom of God in this sense, was in and amongst the Pharisees and people, to whom Christ did preach at that time. Again, the Kingdom of Grace is taken for the gifts and Graces of the Kingdom, or which Christ the King giveth to his subjects and servants, and by his Spirit worketh in them, as Knowledge, Faith, Love, Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost, and such like inward spiritual Riches, and Graces of the spirit, by which God doth rule and reign in the heats of his children, and this Kingdom is in God's Elect, his chosen and faithful, and called ones, 
Rev. 17.14.  not only amongst them, but in them; but this Kingdom or these graces of the Kingdom of Christ, the Messiah, and Christ's Spirit, was not in the Pharisees, to whom Christ did preach, though it was amongst them, in such as were true believers, Gods faithful servants. This Answer was delivered far shorter, but to this effect and purpose.  
Naylers' Reply. But Nayler according to his accustomed manner, cried out, liars, liars, it is false, Christ speaketh of the Kingdom of Grace, and that was in the Pharisees, and so in all, and all have a light in them, to which they may look, as sufficient to guide them to Salvation; or to that effect.  
Mr Bournes Reply. Mr Bourne did Reply, 
john 3.1. john 19.38, 39  that some of the Pharisees may be were believers, as Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, and was at cost with Joseph of Arimathea, at the burial of Christ, who was a Disciple, though secretly for fear of the Jews. And if this Kingdom of Grace was in any of the Pharisees, they must be such as were believers, for other wise in unbelievers and wicked Pharisees, who kept men (to their power) from confessing of Christ to be the Messiah, 
john 12.42.  in them Christ was not, nor the Kingdom, nor the graces of Christ's Kingdom. For in unbelievers, where sin, ruleth and reigneth in their mortal bodies, and they obey it in the lusts thereof, there or in their souls, 
Rom. 6.12, 16.  the Kingdom of Grace is not; for Christ and sin cannot reign both together in one soul. This answer was shorter likewise but to this intent.  
Naylers' Reply. But Nayler would not yield the Question for all this; but told the people the Kingdom of God was in the Pharisees, and we were liars that denied it.  
Mr Maud●sl●y's Question. Mr Maudesley (if my memory did not fail me) or some one near him asked Nayler, what Kingdom that was, which Christ spoke of after his resurrection, Acts 1. 
Acts. 1.3.  He was seen of them forty days, speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.  
Naylers' Reply. Nayler did not answer what that Kingdom was, but said, Christ was not seen after his Ascension. In which Nayler did mistake; Answer. for it was not after Christ's Ascension, but after his resurrection. After which it was demanded, what Kingdom Christ did speak of Acts 1.  
Reply of another to Nayler. But some one near Nayler Replied, 
Acts 9.5, 17. 1 Cor. 9.1. 1 Cor. 15.7, 8.  that Christ was seen after his Ascension. For he was seen of Paul, as Paul himself doth testify. Am not I an Apostle, have I not seen the Lord? And last of all, he was seen of me, as one born out of due time, etc.  
james Naylers' Answer. Nayler answered, Christ was seen, but he was seen invisibly.  
Reply. To which one Replied, that was a Bull or a senseless Answer, for whatsoever is seen, must be seen visibly, in what manner soever it is seen, whether by the eye of the body, or by faith the eye of the soul. If we see him that is invisible, as Moses did; yet he is visibly seen with those eyes, 
Heb. 11.27.  by which we do see him, either in Grace or Glory.  
Nayler. Yet Nayler still persisted in his confidence, that some thing might be seen invisibly, and continued his railing and reviling phrases, liars, liars, or to that effect. 4 Question Disputed. The time was fare spent; and Mr Bourn called to another Question, and that was taken, which was the last that was proposed, and the last that was disputed. This was, whether it be lawful to call any man Master or Father upon earth?  
The sense and meaning of the Question, was, whether it be lawful to give any honour, or titles of honour to men, to Father or Master, to Magistrate or Minister, to Lords or Ladies, or the like.  
The occasion was in part, the Qakers crying out against the Ministers of Christ, because they are called of men Masters; and in part the proud uncivil unchristian behaviour of some Quakers towards their natural parents, and ordinary masters; some towards civil Magistrates, honourable Judges and Justices of peace, before whom being called, they have (some of them in my sight) kept on their hats in a contemptuous manner, and denied any outward honour, or civil respect to be given unto them; james Nayler in his answer to this Question, in his false Relation. yea Nayler himself in his written Answer, calleth us the Ministers of Christ Antichrist, because we are called of men Masters.  
And Richard Farnworth another railing Quaker, 
R. Farnworths' discovery of Faith, and divers papers, page 2.3.  and their common practice of refusing to give any outward respect to Magistrates, not only Fox and Nayler, but their seduced proselytes witness daily.  
But Mr Bourne brought an Argument, to prove it lawful to call or be called Master or Father, and to give civil honour, and titles of honour, and respect to men, according to their place and dignity, to this effect.  
Mr Bournes Argument. Whatsoever titles of honour, or respect the holy Patriarches or Prophets, or Apostles, or other faithful men have given unto or received from each other, which are not where forbidden in the Scripture, or written word of God, those are lawful for Christians, now to give unto, or to receive from each other. But these titles of honour or respect, as Father and Master, and Lord and Lady, and the like, they have been given and received by the Patriarches and Prophets, & Apostles, and other holy faithful men, and are not where forbidden in the Scripture or written word of God. Therefore the same titles or names of Father and Master, Lord and Lady, and the like may lawfully be given and received by Christians in these days, or in this age of the world. First proposition I conceive will not be denied, except by such as will not be tried by the holy Scriptures. And for the minor or second proposition, we shall make that evident by an induction from singular or particular examples of godly men recorded in holy writ.  
First, if you read Gen. 23.6. You may find, Example. 1 that when Abraham came to the children of Heth to ge● a burying place for Sarah his wife (she being then dead) he spoke to the children of Heth, and bowed down himself to the people of the land, to give unto them, not any divine religious worship, which is due to God, but civil honour due to men; and three times is Abraham there called Lord by that people, and faithful Abraham taketh that title to himself, without any reproof of them, for giving that title to him, or any refusing of that title given him, which he would not have done, if it had not been lawful to have received any such honour, nor would he have bowed down himself to the people of the land, if it had been sin to have done so. For Abraham was a knowing faithful man, believing in Christ the Messiah to come, and rejoicing to see Christ's day, witness our Saviour, John 8. 
john 8.56. 〈◊〉   
Again, read Gen. 24. When Abraham sent his religious servant to provide a wife for his son Isaac, 
Gen. 24.27:  his servant putteth up his prayer to God, O Lord God of my Master Abraham, send me good speed this day, and show kindness to my Master Abraham. And he calleth Abraham Master, sixteen or seventeen times in that Chapter, which certainly he would not have done, if it had not been lawful to call Master.  
Thirdly, 
Gen. 32.18.  read Gen. 32. And you may find that Jacob calleth his brother Esau, Lord, in that direction of his to his servants, whom he sent before with a gift to his brother. When you meet my brother Esau (saith he) and he shall ask you, whose are these Cattles? you shall answer, it is a present sent to my Lord Esau; and he calls Esau Lord four times in that Chapter.  
Fourthly, 
1 Kin, 18.7, 8.  read 1 Kin. 18. When religious Obadiah (who did fear the Lord from his youth) met Elijah the Prophet; he calleth Elijah Lord. Art not thou my Lord Elijah. And verse the 8. The Prophet calleth wicked Ahab Obadiahs' Lord: For thus speaketh he to Obadiah, Go tell thy Lord, behold, Elijah is here. Thus doth that good Prophet, not only suffer himself to be called Lord, but calleth wicked King Ahab Obadiahs' Lord, which he would not have done, if it had not been lawful; and if it were lawful to call profane Esau Lord, and wicked Ahab Lord? wherefore is it not lawful to call Master or Father, or to give honourable titles to men now, unto whom they do belong, both by natural and civil respects, witnessed by the practice of the Saints & holy men in several ages of the world?  
For, fifthly, if you read 2 Kin. 2. Did not the children of the Prophets at Bethel, call Elijah, Elishas' Master? Knowest thou not that the Lord will take away thy Master from thy head to day? And again, another company of the Prophets at Jericho? verse 5. Knowest thou not that the Lord will take away thy Master from thy head to day? And in the same Chapter, verse 12. When Elijah was taken up into heaven in a fiery Chariot, Elisha cryeth out, my Father my, Father, the Chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. Thus you see, titles of honour, Lord, Master, Father, are both given and received by holy men, and this without any reproof or check of the Spirit of God, recorded in the Scriptures, concerning any of these examples, therefore sure it was and is lawful, to give and receive titles of respect and honour, to call or be called Lord or Master, or Father, according to every one's place and dignity. All these places of Scripture were not then alleged.  
Naylers' Answer. And James Nayler by his loud clamour, hindered the pressing and application of those places that were alleged (as much as he could) and cried out, that was in the Law, but now in the Gospel, Christ forbids to call any man Master, or to be called of men Masters or Father, and alleged that of our Saviour, Mat. 23. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren; and call no man your Father upon earth, for one is your Father▪ which is in heaven. And hence Nayler would infer, That now in time of the Gospel, it was not lawful tocall any man Master, or to be called of men Master or Father, upon earth.  
Mr Bournes. Reply. Then I replied, and bad Nayler read the context in the verses before, and if his eyes were open, he might see the mind of Christ, that it was not absolutely to forbid his hearers to call any man Master or Father, but to forbid the ambitious seeking of honour, and the ambitious love of honour, which was in the Scribes and Pharisees. This you may find is that that he reproveth in them, in the 6 and 7 verfes. They love (saith Christ) the uppermost rooms at Feasts, and the chief seats in the Synagogues, and greetings in the Markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi: And this ambitious pride and love of honour from men, Christ reproveth in the Pharisees; and this he forbiddeth his disciples, but be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren, he would not have his Apostles to seek superiority and power one over another in a proud ambitious manner, Diotrephes-like to love to have the pre-eminence, as 3 John 9 the Evangelist doth witnesle Diotrephes did. Yet our Saviour Christ here doth not simply and absolutely forbid all giving or receiving of honour, or of calling, or being called of men Master, or Father, or Lord or Lady, or the like. Yet it is certain, our Saviour Christ doth forbid so to call Master or Father, as to make any man the Master or Father of our Faith, instead of Christ; or that any man should be called Master or Father, so as to take the honour of chief Master or Father, or Teacher, to himself, which is due to Christ. This is that which Christ forbiddeth; and this is that which the Apostle Paul forbiddeth the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1. Now this I say (saith the Apostle) that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. One said he was Paul's Disciple; another, he was Apollos; another, he was Christ's. But what saith the Apostle, is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? Thus they made Paul the Master or Father of their faith. And this the Apostle Paul reproveth here. And this Christ our Saviour reproveth and forbiddeth, Mat. 23. And Christ doth forbid to give that divine honour which is due to God and Christ, that God-man our Saviour, to any man in the world; but he doth not forbid to give or receive civil honour and respect one to another, according to each man's place and dignity, or so to be called of men, Master or Father, or the like.  
To this effect was the Answer given, but more close and brief then now I give it.  
But Nayler, instead of any better Answer, cried out, liar, liar, hold thy peace for shame, doth not Christ plainly forbid to call Father or Master, and made a great clamorous noise, and bid, si● down for shame, for shame.  
Mr bourn's Reply. Then Mr Bourn called to Nayler, and bid him leave his loud shameless out cries, and hearken to an Argument to prove the Exposition to be truth, and according to the mind of Christ, which was to this effect.  
Argument. 2 Whatsoever Christ himself, or the Spirit of Christ in the Apostles of Christ, doth approve of elsewhere in thenew Testament, as lawful to be done, that Christ himself doth not forbid in that place, Mat. 23. But Christ himself, and the Spirit of Christ in the Apostles, doth elsewhere approve of the calling of men Masters, and Fathers, and of giving other titles of respect and honour to men: Therefore Christ in that place, Mat. 23. did not forbid to call any man Master or Father, as James Nayler pretendeth. The first proposition is witnessed to be clear, because Christ is truth, yea, the way, the truth, and the life, and he is no way contrary to himself. For Jesus Christ is yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever, Heb. 13. Therefore Christ doth not forbid that here, Mat. 23. which he alloweth elsewhere. And for the second proposition, that Christ and his spirit in the Apostles, doth approve and allow fit titles of honour to be given to men, as is agreeable to their conditions in their several places. This will be evident, & if you read rightly consider, that of the Evangelist, Mark 7. Where Christ is witnessed to repeat the Commandment, Honour thy Father and thy Mother; and in the next verse, Christ himself giveth the name of Father and Mother to the parents of the man, of whom he spoke to the Pharisees. And (saith Christ) ye suffer him no more to do aught for his Father and Mother. Now Christ certainly would not have named Father and Mother, nor have approved of those titles and that relation, if it had not been lawful. And the same also doth the Spirit of Christ in the Apostle Paul, in divers places, read Eph. 6. Col. 3. Col. 4. and you may find, he giveth the titles of Father and Master. Honour thy father and mother, and fathers provoke not your children, and masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven. And the Apostle Peter to the same effect, 1 Pet 2. Honour all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honour the King (the supreme magistrate by whatsoever title he be called) And servants be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward; so that here are earthly fathers and masters, as well as God and Christ is our father and master in heaven. And therefore it is evident, that our Saviour Christ in that place, Mat. 23. did not simply and absolutely forbidden to call or to be called master or father; for if he had, he would not have approved it himself, nor would the Apostles of Christ (who had the Spirit of Christ) have done it, as we have proved they did; to this purpose was the Argument, but shorter.  
Naylers' Answer. Then Nayler was constrained to acknowledge, that a natural father might be called father by his child, and a civil master might be called master by his servant; but that it was not lawful for any other to give or receive such honour, or titles of honour, as father or master, or the like, or to that effect. Although this acknowledgement of nailers was contrary to the Doctrine and practice even of Nayler himself, and divers of his fellow Quakers and proselytes, as the uncivil carriage of some of them towards their natural parents, and civil masters, and of others towards Magistrates and Ministers, doth witness at full. 
Mr Gardiner Minister of Eckinton.  Mr Gurdiner (a good Disputant) as I remember, seeing Nayler wrangle, and endeavour to shift off from the Question, began to press Nayler with an Argument. But before Mr Gardiner could speak out his Argument, nailers Reply. Nayler would not hear him, but he and some other of his sellow Quakers that stood by him, cried out aloud, liar, liar, stop thy mouth, and made a clamouring noise against him, to cause him to hold his peace. Mr Gardiner. To whom Mr Gardiner seeing Nayler's so uncivil, unchristian, and unreasonable behaviour; Replied, fie on thee thou unreasonable man, thou art not fit to be reasoned with, or to that purpose, and so turned his back upon him.  
Mr Bournes Argument. Then Mr Bourne called aloud to Nayler again, and bade him leave his uncivil railing and reviling speeches, and loud clamours, and hearken to an Argument to prove it, which was to this effect.  
That title of honour which St Paul did give to Festus, who was none of his natural father, nor civil master, that it is lawful for Christians, to give now to those who are neither natural fathers, nor ordinary civil masters. But read Acts 26. and you may find, that St Paul styled Festus, noble Festus, which is a title of honour, and high respect, and therefore it is lawful now to give honourable titles, to such as are neither natural parents, nor civil masters, and to be given by such as are neither natural children, nor menial or hired servants or to this end was the Argument.  
Naylers' Answer. Nayler answered those were noble Romans, and deserved honour, etc. But now, etc. as if he thought now we had none so worthy, to whom such honour should be given (for to my best observation, this was the sense of his broken speech) for he did not speak whole sentences, but wrangled about giving honour, and said, howsoever honour might be given to natural parents, or civil masters, yet how could we prove, that any that professed themselves Ministers of Christ, should be called master or father, contrary to that of Christ, Mat. 23. noted before, where he said, Christ did particularly forbid his Apostles and ministers, to be so called.  
Mr Bournes Reply. To which Mr Bourne replied, Nayler, and bade him read again that place, Mat. 23.1, 2. and thou shalt find, that Christ did speak there to the multitude, as well as to his Disciples, and what in that text he did not forbid others, he did not forbid them. Consider the Text fully, and thou mayest see it plain, if thou hast eyes to see.  
Naylers' Answer Nayler according to his custom, instead of other Answers, cried out, it is false, it is false, prove that any Minister of Christ should be called master or father, or have any such honour given to them or to that effect.  
Mr Maudesley Mr Maudesly Minister of Dronfield, being near to Nayler (as I remember) brought an Argument from that place, Eccl. 12.11. The words of the wise are like goads fastened by the masters of the Assemblies. And if by the Masters of the Assemblies be intended teachers of God's people, and Ministers of Christ, than it is lawful for them to be called masters, because the Spirit of God in Solomon, calleth them so. But this is apparent, that by masters he meaneth teachers, therefore it is lawful to call the ministers of Christ who are teachers, of God's people, masters, or to that purpose.  
nailers Answer But James Nayler sings still his old song, liar, liar, no such thing is intended there, and wrangled ignorantly about the sense of that place, as nothing concerning ministers in the New Testament.  
Mr Bournes Argument. Then Mr Bourne bad Nayler to hear an Argument out of the New Testament, from that place of the Apostle to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, especially them that labour in the word and doctrine to this effect. If preaching Elders that labour in the word and doctrine be worthy of double honour, than the faithful labouring ministers of Christ, are worthy of honour; but preaching Elders who labour in the word and doctrine, are worthy of double honour, witness the Apostle in that place, 1 Tim. 5. therefore the ministers of Christ, who labour in the word and doctrine, are worthy of honour, and so may lawfully have honour given them; yea, that honour which is due to them, that is, not only the honour of maintenance, but the honour of reverence and esteem; let a man esteem of us as ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.12.  
Nailers Answer This was not so fully pressed then. But Nayler answered and said, The ministers of Christ they must be honoured in the Lord, but not be called master or father, and have any outward honour. And still Nayler wrangled, and turned to those people near him, not answering the Argument, but railed at ministers for suffering ourselves to be called masters, vapouring in contemptuous terms, but bringing no word of proof at all.  
Mr Bournes Argument. Mr Bourne bad Nayler leave off his vapouring, or to that effect, and hearken to another Scripture, 1 Cor. 4.15. where St Paul did take to himself the name of father of the Corinthians, their spiritual father, though you have ten thousand instructers (saith he) yet ye have not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel. Now if Paul as a minister of Christ converting souls, did lawfully take to himself, the name of father; Then the faithful ministers of Christ who convert men and women to Christ, may lawfully take to themselves the name of father; but this was lawful for blessed Paul, therefore it is lawful also for all the faithful ministers of Christ Jesus, who turn men to God, to take to themselves the name of father and so to be called masters or sirs, which is a title of honour and respect: For what title was lawful to that blessed Apostle, and Silas, preachers of the Gospel, to receive from men, and they did accept that as lawful now to God's faithful ministers: But it was lawful for the Apostle Paul and Silas, to receive the title of sirs or masters, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domini, Sirs or Masters, a title of honour.  and they did accept of that title of honour from the Jailer, Acts 16. He came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, or Lords or masters. what must I do to be saved? therefore it is lawful for the ministers of Christ, now to be called sirs or masters, and to receive such titles or respects, which are due to their ministerial place, and honourable calling. The Argument was not then so fully and largely given, but to this effect Mr Bourn was pressing to prove this truth, But James Nayler like the deaf Adder, turned away his ear, and would not answer, and according to his practice, when he was not able to answer an argument, 
Mr Bourn and Mr Billingsley stood in the reading seat, and James Nayler was in a seat near Mr Major, a good distance from the reading seat.  looked aside, and spoke at random to the people, in a bragging vapouring manner, what he could do; and while we were pressing him to answer, we did see Mr Major, and some other near him, going forth of their seats, and Nayler and others following, and so the Disputation ended abruptly.  
But if any understanding Christian, who is not biased by misinformation of his judgement, consider these Arguments, they are sufficient to prove that honourable respect that is due to the ministers of Christ, not that Christ's ministers should ambitiously seek after honours or honourable titles, for that Christ forbids, and that Gods faithful Ambassadors affect not, endeavour not. But yet when false teachers seek to disgrace, and profane persons with their wicked plots and designs to dishonour us, and our honourable ministerial calling, we are bound in conscience with St Paul, to magnify our office, and to vindicate ourselves from such wicked practices of erring Quakers, and of profane ungodly malicious men, who neglect and contemn the Ordinances of Jesus Christ. Thus, as near as I can remember, out of my notes taken, and what I could learn of others, I have given a just and true relation of that Dispute at Chesterfield, if it were worthy of that name, being a wrangling by that man, who had not artificially, scarce natural order of reasoning, but like a boisterous railing fellow, who by loud out-cries, little or nothing to the purpose, sought to deceive the people. A witty honest Gentleman who was present at the Dispute, asked his name, and one told him his name was James Nayler; to whom (as I was informed) he replied, certainly his name should no more be called James Nayler, but James Railer; for (said he) I never heard a more bawling, railing, reviling fellow talk; or words to that purpose. The Lord give him repentance, if it be his will. I have said sufficient to the Question, to prove the lawfulness of giving honour to Christ's Ministers. 
That it is lawful to give hanour.  Now I shall only add a few Arguments to prove the lawfulness, yea, duty, of giving outward honour, as well as inward honour to Magistrates and others, according to their place and dignity, whatsoever these Quakers gatrulate to the contrary. It is lawful to give the title of Lord and Lady, and the like, and to declare our due respect by outward testimonies of the honour and due regard we do owe unto them as to superiors. james Nuyler. It is true, James Nayler being examined upon an indictment of blasphemy against him, at the Sessions at Appleby, in January. 1652. 
See the brief reply to some part of a scurrilous and lying pamphlet, called saul's errand to Damascus, printed 1653.  kept on his hat before the Bench; and when Justice Pearson, one of the Justices, commanded to put off their hats, James Nayler answered, I do it not in contempt of authority. And he being asked again by Colonel Briggs, If he were in the Parliament House, wouldst thou keep it on? To whom James answered, if God should keep me in the same mind I am now in, I should. Then Colonel Briggs replied, I knew thou wouldst contemn authority. The same hath been the practice of divers other of the seduced, seducing Quakers, before the honourable Justices of the Peace in several Countries. And Naylers' pretence of giving honour inwardly, when they refuse to give any outward civil respect, what is it but pharisaical dissimulation, instead of sincere humility and obedience, or duty to those whom the Lord hath set over us in power and authority, for his glory, and the good of his people: For shall we not judge the tree by its fruits? But let me evidence duty a little in this respect.  
Argument. 1 1. Those who by God's Ordinance are set in place above others in God's stead, for the people's good, they are to have honour given to them above others, to be declared outwardly, as well as settled inwardly in the hearts of men.  
But Magistrates supreme and inferior, Judges and Justices, and such as are of higher or lower place and power, they are by God's Ordinance, set in place above others in God's stead for the people's good: Therefore they are to have honour given unto them above others, to be declared outwardly, as well as settled inwardly in the hearts of men. The major or first proposition, is most agreeable to reason and order even in nature itself. The herbs and grass of the field, which are inferior, and have but a vegetive life, they do service, and give a kind of obedience in God's Ordinance, for the nourishment and service of the beasts and cattles, which are superior in nature, and have besides a vegetive or growing life, a life of sense also, which is more excellent. Again, these brute creatures which have only the vegetive and sensitive life, they are inferior unto, and do service, and yield obedience unto man, which is a more noble creature, superior to the other, as having not only a vegetive and sensitive, but also a rational life, and more excelling inferior creatures; and man hath yet the great God, and Creator of heaven and earth, above him, to whom he doth owe honour and service both in soul and body, Rom. 12.1. Thus in order of nature, and thus in order of government, the Comm-wealths and governments of Nations, there is and aught to be order of superior and inferior; 
1 Cor. 14.33.  for as in the Churches of the Saints (so in Commonwealths) God is not the Author of Confusion, but of peace and good order in all; And so an orderly respect is to be had to every superior, according to their place and power. The Apostle Paul giveth evidence to this at full, Rom. 13.1, etc. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be ordained of God, they are God's Ordinance, and he is the Minister of God to thee for good. For this cause pay you tribute also, for they are Gods ministers attending continually upon this very thing; And hence he concludes, render therefore to all their deuce, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. Thus honour is a due as well as tribute or custom, or any other service. I might call in the Apostle Peter to witness the same, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 17. but I refer the Reader to the Scripture itself, these testify an honour due to our superiors. And for the minor or second proposition; That magistrates supreme or inferior, are God's Ordinance set and approved by God for government above others; the places alleged might suffice, but if you read Exod. 18.21, 23. when Jethro, Moses Father in law, gave him that good counsel, to provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and to place them over them to be Rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of ten. And if thou do this thing, and God command thee so, then shalt thou be able to endure, and this people shall go to their place in peace. And Moses did so, and God himself doth approve of this order of government, of superiors and inferiors, and giveth Moses order to gather to God seventy Elders, and the Lord taketh of the Spirit of government, that was upon Moses, and gave it to the seventy Elders, as you may read Numb. 11.16, 17, 25. Thus are Governors over the people, of Gods own ordination, as superiors, and so a higher honour and respect is due unto them.  
Argument. 2 Again, that outward manifestation of honour, and those titles of honour, which have been given by holy men in Scripture, to Princes, Magistrates and Judges, and others according to their places and dignities, which are not reproved by God's Spirit, that may lawfully be given now to Princes, to Judges, Magistrates, Governors and others, according to their places and dignities. But outward manifestation of honour and honourable titles, have been given by holy men in Scripture, to Princes, Judges and Magistrates, and others, according to their place and dignities, therefore they may be given now to such without sin; yea, it is our duties so to do. 
Psal. 82.16.  Doth not the Scripture call them Gods as in God's stead? And to evidence both propositions, Example. 1 I shall give you several examples. If we read that place; Numb. 11.28. when the Spirit of God rested upon Eldad and Medad in the camp, Joshua in his zeal speaks to Moses to forbid them, and calls him Lord, and Joshua said, my Lord Moses forbidden them; he giveth him an honourable title, my Lord Moses. And did not wise Abigal call David Lord, when he was coming with his Soldiers to destroy churlish Nabal for his ingratitude? 1 Sam. 25 24, 25, etc. Yea divers times in that Chapter, she giveth David the honourable title of Lord. And did not good David cry after King Saul, and giveth him this honourable title, my Lord the King? 1 Sam. 24.8. And doth he not then give outward reverence to Saul, to witness his honourable respects to Saul, as to his superior in place and power; the text saith, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself? This is far unlike nailers and his quaking companions carriage, even to Princes, Magistrates, and Judges, and Justices of the peace, to stand with their hats on their heads, and to speak to them in an irreverent manner; thou man, or thee man, who sittest in the place of judgement, do this or that, as some of them have said and done. May I not say the same of Abner, who (as David testifieth) was a Prince, and a great man in Israel, yet when he came to David, he gave him titles of honour; I will go saith he, and gather all Israel unto my Lord the King, 2 Sam. 3.21. What need I tell you of that great Prophet of God, Elijah, doth he not call Ahab Obadiahs' Lord, go tell thy Lord, behold Elijah is here, 1 Kin. 18.14. Though Ahab was a wicked man, yet he doth not take from him his title of honour. And doth not the Spirit of God give the title of Lord to that noble man, on whose hand the King leaned? 2 Kin. 7.2. What need I tell you, that in the New Testament, the blessed Evangelist Luke, in that his history of the Gospel which he did write to Theophilus, he giveth him that honourable title, most excellent Theophilus, Luke 1.3. a title of great honour and high esteem given to Theophilus; And blessed Paul calleth Festus the Governor of that Province, noble Festus, Acts 26.25, 27. And in the same Chapter, when he was before King Agrippa, to answer for himself, he doth not in a proud or blind ignorant sottish manner, call Agrippa thou man, or thee man (as the Quakers do) but King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets, I know that thou believest. Thus do these Saints give titles of honour according to men's place and dignities; I will name but one more, and that is the blessed Evangelist St John, that beloved Disciple of Christ John 19.26. in his second Epistle, he giveth that gracious woman, to whom he writ her title of honour and respect, verse 1. The Elder (saith he) to the elect Lady; And again verse 5. I beseech thee Lady, Thus doth the blessed Apostle, give titles of honour, to whom honour belongs. And these certainly, are witnesses sufficient to justify this truth against the Quakers; that there may be some kind of respect, civil respect I mean, though not to corrupt or flatter, yet to know and own difference of persons, and to give to each that honour which is due to them in their several places.  
Again, as it is a duty to give honour and respect, so it is lawful for Princes, Judges, Justices and others, to this honour, when in a right and due manner it is given unto them. I shall call in only one witness to evidence this truth, besides those whom I named before, to whom honour was given of men, none of which godly men did reject that honour which was ascribed & given unto them which had it been unlawful to have received, they would certainly have refused. The witness is that holy man Job, one that feared God, and eschewed evil, and what doth he testify of himself? you may read, Job 29.7, 8, etc. when I went out of the gate (saith he) through the City, when I prepare my seat in the street, the young men saw me, and hid themselves, and the aged arose and stood up. Righteous Job was an honourable and just Judge, he was eyes to the blind, and feet to the lame; he was a father to the poor, and the cause which he knew not, he searched it out; he did break the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth, therefore was Job honourable, and both old and young did honour Job, not in their hearts only (as the Quakers would have magistrates honoured) but outwardly also, in giving all civil outward honour unto them, according to their several place and dignities; and good reason it should be so: For who more honourable, profitable, and necessary, then good religious, just and righteous Judges and Magistrates, in a Commonwealth? When justice is rightly executed, it exalteth a a Nation, 
Prov. 14 34.  but sin is a shame to a people: The want of magistracy and government, prepareth a people for destruction, 
judges 18.7. My Text the 2d time I preached before the honourable judges at Derby Assizes, in which I proved the necessity of, and honour due to Magistrates, at full.  witness that City Laish, who perished suddenly: And this is one reason given. There was no Magistrate in the Land, which might (punish, or) put them to shame in any thing. And this shall suffice to witness against all adversaries whatsoever, and clear up and resolve the Question into this conclusion, That it is lawful to call Master or Father, and to give honour to every one, even to the highest powers, and to inferior Magistrates, to the honourable Judges and Justices, and to all others, according to their several places and dignities whatsoever; yet so as the honour and glory of God is to be exalted above all.  
And thus I have ended these four Questions disputed. There were three more Questions; but for these and Naylers' answers, and his cross interrogatories, I have given my sufficient answer before, and my reason wherefore I print no more, namely, because they are so fully answered already by many learned divines, that it were but to cast water into the sea, as I have expressed in the one and twentieth page of this my Defence of the Scriptures, etc. to which I refer the Reader.  
I shall only give some brief Animadversions upon nailers most false relation of that Dispute at Chesterfield, and pass to a conclusion.  
1. It is an approved observation, 
Rectum est index sui & obliqui.  that a true and right rule will discover itself, and that which is false, and so will a true relation; therefore I need do no more here, but refer the Reader to what I have before expressed; yet to draw the curtain a little, that you may see Naylers' picture the better, I shall number up a number of his untruths, in that most false relation of that Dispute.  
Naylers' untruths. 1. In the very title, Nayler calleth it a dispute between James Nayler, and the parish-Teachers of Chesterfield. This is an untruth, for there was but one of the Parish-Teachers of Chesterfield, who had any hand in that Dispute.  
2. In the next line he addeth, By a challenge against him. This is a second falsehood; for the challenge was on his side, not only by John Prith boasting of Nayler, but by other of his fellow Quakers.  
3. He saith, the simple may see the bloody minds of these men. This is a third untruth; for there were no bloody minds, nor thought of any persecution against him, but of a Christian Conference.  
4. He saith, when we speak fair, war is in our hearts. This is a fourth untruth, we had not war in our hearts, nor any desires, but of peace, and that peace and rruth might dwell together.  
5. He saith, swearing and cursing, and blaspheming the dreadful name of God, are the fruits of John Billingsley's Ministry. This is a fifth untruth; for Mr Bilingsley never preached any such doctrine, nor approved of any such practice, nor did know of the Bull-baiting Nayler spoke against. There was a poor man of Wingerworth near Chesterfield, his name (as I was informed) was William Frost; who having heard nailers desperate doctrine, and read some of his books, despaired, and went and drowned himself: Was this the fruits of thy Ministry, Nayler? thou wilt not confess it was.  
6. Nayler cryeth out, and calleth Mr Billingsley man-pleaser; O thou man-pleaser (saith he.) This is a sixth lie; for it is evident Mr Billingsley is not a man-pleaser, for he refuseth to baptise children, except the parent will come unto him and be examined of the knowledge of his Faith. And doth not give the Lords Supper but to such as he examineth and approveth, by which too many are displeased, which they would not, if they did know what was good for their own souls.  
7. (For I let pass divers) he saith God is risen to cut us off, and it had been good we had never been borne. And I hope this is a seventh untruth, and a false prophecy. But Nayler manifesteth his bloody mind, he would cut off all the faithful Ministers of Christ if it were in his power. The Lord rebuke him.  
8. He saith there was another plot against him. Which is an eighth untruth; there was not any plot, (as he pretended) as God and our conscience can witness for us.  
9 For I omit again divers abominable untruths observed by Mr Billingsley, in that part of nailers false relation. Nayler again saith, he was showed the many plots laid, to have cast him in prison, and to prosecute our bloody intents. This is a 9th untruth from the father of lies; if any shown thee any such thing, they were inventors, and thou art a publisher of an abominable untruth.  
10. Nayler at the Disputation, did most falsely accuse me, that I did swear by Mary, when I did not so much as name Mary, as all that could hear me can witness at full, nor did I swear at all; as in my letter I writ to him the next day, I justified sully, and wished him to repent his lying accusation; which letter he hath most falsely printed, heaping up one lie after another, in a most shameless manner; as if the Spirit of lying and slander, had taken full possession of him, which I leave off to rehearse, as being unwilling to blot my paper with so many of his odious stinking untruths; yet I shall mention one more most abominable. Nayler saith, page 10. That these Priests set themselves with all their strength, to prove swearing lawful, etc. which is a most hellish lie. This was the truth, when Nayler wrangling, denied it to be lawful to take any oath before a lawful Magistrate, upon any occasion, Mr Billingsley proved it lawful by divers places of Scripture, both out of the Old and New Testament, which Nayler basely perverteth, and according to his custom, raiseth that most wicked slander, and here he fully maketh good that which is justified against him and his fellows, in that brief Relation of the irreligion of the Northern Quakers, noted before, page 20. basely to manifest themselves notorious liars; as in that Pamphlet called saul's errand to Damascus, in which there are a hundred untruths, as may be proved saith that Author, by a hundred witnesses, and many of them saith he, will be as ready to say and unsay any thing, as if lying were a virtue; and that they make no conscience of raising false reports against any that oppose them. And this I now find to be most true in lying Nayler by this experience. But if the adversaries of Christ called the Master of the house Belzeebub, no marvel if these Quaking adversaries like the devil (that grand Quaker) do belie and scandalise the ministers of Christ. The Lord forgive them if it be his will, if they have not sinned that sin unto death, of which St John witnesseth. There is a sin unto death, I say not that thou shouldest pray for it, 1 John 5.16.  
Now for thy twenty Queries Nayler, which thou sentest and addest towards the end; I have in part answered them already in what I have writ, and part of them are such Questions against which St Paul speaketh, as tending not to edification of those who are weak in the faith, Rom. 14.1, 2. but rather to their distraction, if not destruction, therefore more fit to be silenced and buried in darkness, then to be revived or brought to light. Secondly, some are hypocritical, like that of Herod to the wise men, Mat. 2.7, 8. Thirdly, some are curious Questions, to satisfy curious busy minds, such as thou art, which being answered, will not profit to godliness or edification, contrary to the rule, 1 Cor. 14.26 Fourthly some of them are tempting captious Questions, like those of the Pharisees (thy Fathers) to Christ our Saviour, which he either answereth by Questions to his adversaries again, or else wisely rejects or avoids to escape their treacherous designs against him, as Mat. 21.23, 24, etc. Mat. 22.16, 17, 18, etc. Fifthly, some are foolish and unlearned Questions, which gender strifes, not love, or any benefit to souls, and which the Apostle directs Timothy to avoid, 2 Tim. 2.23. and giveth the same command to Titus, because saith he, they are unprofitable and vain, Tit. 3.9. And I had rather follow St Paul's counsel, then satisfy thy folly. It is the counsel of the wise man, in some such cases to be silent, Prov. 26.4. Yet if thou wilt have an answer to thy twenty Queries, and to thy challenge and brags, lest thou be wise in thy own conceit, or any of thy generation, Prov. 26.5. know that all or most of them, or those that are fit to be replied unto, they are sufficiently answered by divers religious learned men, Ministers of the Gospel, and others. If any desire to see, First let them read learned Mr Baxter's answer to the sixteen Queries, 
The Worcester petition defended, printed 1653.  upon the Worcestershire Petition; to which is added seventeen Counter-Quaeries, not yet answered by thee and thy fellows that I have seen. 2. Read Mr baxter's Quakers Catechism, 
The Quakers confuted, printed, 1654.  and the Quakers Questions answered there, printed 1655. 3. Read godly Mr Eton, in his book called the Quakers confuted, being an answer to nineteen queries of thy companions, in which your weakness and erroneous wickedness is discovered, and the truth vindicated. 4. Read that book called the Perfect Pharisee, 
The Perfect Pharisee, printed 1654.  in which by way of position and proof, your wand'ring queries are learnedly and religiously answered, by those five godly Ministers ne'er New Castle. 5. 
Mr Fowler, &c printed 1655.  Read solid and acute Mr Fowler's book, called Satan at Noon Day, of the several sorts of Quakers and Familists, And there you may see the matter of these familisticall queries answered, and errors confuted to their sorrow, if they had grace to be sensible. 6. 
The mystery of ungodliness, printed 1653.  Read judicious and zealous Mr Farmer of Bristol, in his book entitled the Mystery of Godliness and ungodliness, in which the Questionist ungodliness, is there discovered to their shame. 7. Reverend and succinct Mr Sherlock's answer to twenty seven of the Quakers wild Questions, 
Mr Sherlock printed 1654.  and his learned discourse of the Spirit annexed, which might stay these erring wand'ring spirits, from their false pretences to the spirit of Christ. 8 Read that profitable book, 
A brief relation printed 1653.  of that observant Author called A Brief Relation of the Irreligion of the Northern Quakers, wherein their horrid principles and practices, doctrines and manners, are exposed to the view of every intelligent Reader, and the Quakers saul's errand to Damascus, in which are said to be an hundred lies replied unto. 9 
Antichrist in man, printed 1655.  Witness that book entitled Antichrist in man, the Quakers Idol, by Mr Joshua Milner a servant of Christ in the Gospel, in which is an answer and confutation of some of the Quakers dangerous and damnable doctrines. 10. 
Mr Prins Quakers unmasked, printed 1656.  witness godly and learned Mr William Prinne Esquire, detecting these Quakers to be but the spawn of the Romish Frogs, Jesuits, and Franciscan Friars, sent from Rome to seduce poor souls in this English Nation; with his reply to John audland's railing paper, by which, and what I have proved in my Answer and Arguments upon the Questions before, which were Disputed, any Christians seeing eye, may see that James Nayler and his wand'ring fellow Quakers, are but poor pedlars for the Priests of Rome, and the Jesuits servants, carrying up and down the Nation, their packs of errors, and bags of paper-quaeries, invented and hatched in Antichrists and the devil's warehouse, which they offer at every door or place where they come, like braided, baused, rotten wares, to deceive and cozen poor souls, and to disturb the peace and quiet of the Nation, that this common enemy may more easily wheel us about to Rome, and Romish Tyranny, and so bring us to confusion, from the highest to the lowest; from which, God of his mercy protect us. And for Minister's maintenance, 
Gen. 14.20. Gen. 28.22. Leu. 27.30, 31. Numb. 18.21. Deut. 10.8, 9 Mal 3 8 9 Mat. 23 23. 1 Cor. 9 13.14. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 7.8. Printed for Mr john Wright in the Old Bailie, 1646. Mr Deacons discovery, printed 1656.  read Dr Carleton, Dr Tillesley, Dr Slater, Sir Henry Spelman, Sir James Sempel, Mr William Prin Esquire, my own sixth book (I have printed) called a light from Christ, leading unto Christ; and divers others, who have sufficiently proved Tithes not only lawful, but due by divine Right to Christ, and the Ministers of Christ in the Gospel, and that the taking them away without due redemption, is that sin of sacrilege. Last of all (for I let pass others) Read Mr John Deacon, a solid and sharp Questionist, Replyant and Demandant, In his public discovery of a secret deceit, or the man of sin unmasked, and Satan transformed into the resemblance of an Angel of light, in that Sect or Society, commonly called Quakers, in which you have nineteen queries sent to the Quakers Speaker, at the bull and mouth near Aldersgate, and miserably answered by James Nayler, whom he calleth justly, the grand fomentor of heresy; and replied unto by Mr Deacon, and fourteen more returned by Nayler, and fully answered by Mr Deacon; and four and twenty more proposed by Mr Deacon, which nor James Nayler, nor any of his fellow Quakers (I believe) can truly and plainly answer, but they must deny the holy Scriptures, or forsake their own false erroneous and heretical principles. And thus I have said enough to direct James Nayler, and all his deceived, deluding Antichristian pharisaical company of Quakers, where they may find Answers to their so much bragged of queries. It would be happy for them, if they could leave their errors, and inquire after the knowledge of Christ, that they may be taught by him Eph. 4.20, 21. as the truth is in Jesus, which I desire I may pray for. And now dear souls, if any of you that belong to Jesus Christ, have been drawn away with the error of these wicked perfect pharisees (as they are rightly called) return again to your first Husband, Christ your Saviour, Hos. 2.7. you will find it will be better with you so, then now it is, and fly the society of these deluding, equivocating, Antichristian Quakers, who speak sometimes of the Scriptures, but deny them to be the word of God, and make use of them in show, but not in sincerity and truth. Who pretend to a Christ within them, but deny the merits of Christ's blood and righteousness of Christ imputed to believers for Justification and salvation. Some who proudly boast, 
George Fox james Nayler, etc. proved before. Read their books, and where do you read of ask forgiveness of sin for Christ's sake.  they are equal with God, and as holy, just and good, as God; that they are perfect, and without sin, and therefore ask no forgiveness of sins at God's hand, for Christ's merits sake, casting away both the Article of Faith, in which we profess we believe remission of sins; and that petition of the Lords prayer, in which our Saviour teacheth us to pray, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. Yea they endeavour to draw poor souls from Christ's public Ordinances, and to forsake the plain straight way to Heaven, Mat. 7. like cheating thiefs draw them into by ways, 
Mat. 7.14.  that they may-more securely rob and spoil them of the rich treasure of the Gospel, and blessed way to glory.  
Seek then my friends to Christ, who is the wisdom of the Father, Prov. 8. 
Col. 2.3.  for wisdom and power to departed from the tents of these wicked men, 
Numb. 16.16.  and to turn again unto the Lord, that ye perish not in their Apostasy from Christ. And for you my honoured precious souls, and well beloved in the Lord Jesus, who by strength from Christ, have withstood the temptations of these deluding Quakers, and are established in the Faith of Christ, Watch still, and beware ye be not drawn away with the error of the wicked, and fall from your own steadfastness, and labour in the use of all good means; public in the congregations of the saints, private in your families, and secret in your closerts, by the power of Christ, and assistance of the Spirit of holiness, John 15.5. Phil. 4.13. to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 3.17, 18. To whom with God the Father, and God the blessed Spirit, be glory both now and for ever.  
Amen.  
Immanuel Bourne.  
FINIS.