TRUTH'S DEFENCE: Or, the Pretended EXAMINATION BY john Alexander of Leith, Of the Principles of those (called QUAKERS) Falsely termed by him Jesuitico-Quakerism, Reexamined AND Confuted, Together with Some Animadversions on the Dedication of his Book to Sir Robert Clayton, then Major of London. By G. K.  
LONDON, Printed for Benjamin Clark in George-Yard in Lombardstreet, Bookseller, 1682.   

The pretended Examination of the Principles of those called Quakers (Falsely called Jesuitico-Quakerism) by John Alexander in Leith, Reexamined and Confuted, by G. K.  

CHAP. I.  
IN my Answer to this pretended Examination of I. A. I intent to observe on his Answer to every Question wherein he misrepresents, or perverts the state of the Question; and wherein he hath miss to Answer ●it: Also to Answer briefly, but I hope sufficiently and distinctly what is necessary to the Vindication of Truth, (not to every Word or Sentence, nor to every frivolous and weak or impertinent Argument, where the solution thereof lieth obvious to any ordinary understanding, but) to any thing alleged by him that seemeth Material, or to require an Answer, referring the Enquiring and Truth-loving Reader to divers Treatises already published (not to mention our Friends books in England) by some here in Scotland, to wit, R. B. his Apology▪ also to his Answer in Vindication thereof to I. B. al●o his book called, Truth cleared of Calumnies, in Answer to W. M. in Aberden. And the Answer given by the said R. B. and me to the Students of Aberden; as also to divers Treatises published by me, such as my book of Immediate Revelation, my book of Universal Grace, my book called, The Way cast up, my book called, The Rector Corrected, in Answer to T. W. who calls himself Rector of Arrow, and lastly to my book called, Quakerism no Popery. And though to this last book I. A. hath replied in some few particulars, which I purpose, so far as may seem requisite, to Answer; yet he hath quite passed by the most material passages, and especially all the Authorities and Testimonies of Ancient Writers; and also of the Protestants brought by me, as concurring with the Scriptures Testimony, to clear us of that imputation of Popery falsely charged upon us by I. M. To none of which weighty Testimonies hath the said I. A. replied one word. Now because there is little or nothing that seems Material of I. A. his Objections that is not already fully answered in these Books and Treatises above mentioned, therefore I Judge it not needful to Write a large or particular Answer to every thing; yet lest he should seem too wise in his own Eyes, or lest he and others that favour him, should think he is stronger, than really he is; and especially to prevent the stumbling of the weak, into whose hands his book may come. I purpose, through the Lord's Assistance, to reply some things, which may suffice on every Head or Section.  
What hath induced I. A. to Dedicate his book against us, to the Mayor of London, may seem no impertinent Query. Had he none in all his Native Country whom he had confidence in to Patronise his undertake? Or being Conscious of his small esteem at home, did he despair to find any Liberal Maecenas in Scotland, and therefore he must go so far as London to find out one, and that no less than the Mayor himself, to whom it may be supposed I. A. his greatest commendation was his being a stranger: And that he saith in his Epistle to the said Eminent person; His Treatise presums not to add any lustre to his Name, whereof it is uncapable: That may well be believed, that his Book is indeed uncapable of adding any lustre thereunto. But why was he not afraid that it would detract from his lustre? It were good, that those Eminent persons in the World, who suffer men to Superscribe their Names as Patrons to their Books, did first examine them diligently, if they did deserve any such Patronage, lest Error masking itself under the name of Truth, seek the Protection, as is too common now in the World. And for my part, I have no small conjecture, that if the said Eminent person, to whom this disingenuous and impertinent piece by I. A. is Dedicated, had but taken the leisure or pains, to review but one sixth part of it, he had never suffered his Name to be superscribed to it. And I am very hopeful that the Mayor of London, who hath divers thousands of that people, within his Precinct in that Famous City; many of whom I judge are better known to him, than I. A. ever was, hath more charity towards the people called in scorn Quakers, than to believe I. A. his description of them in his said Epistle; were he expressly allegeth on them, That they renounce all true Principles of Religion, and stifle their very faculties of Reason; charging them also with Absurdity: And in his Preface to the Reader he calleth them, Uncircumcised Philistines and reproachful Adversaries; having in their Queries and other Papers, disgorged as many Lies against God and his Truth, and as many Slanders against the Church of God in Britain, as if they had exchanged both Persons and Offices with●the Father of Lies and Accuser of the Brethren. But if that Eminent person, whose Name and Favour this I. A. hath abused, shall please to look into this small Treatise, in Answer to that of I. A. I hope he shall find, that they are falsely charged with those Crimes. It seemeth no new or strange thing to us to be so falsely accused, knowing that not only our Fellow Servants and Brethren in former Generations, have been so used, but also the Head himself, and Captain of our Salvation, the Lord Jesus Christ, was not only numbered among transgressors, but called a Blasphemer, and said to have a Devil: And the Lord forewarned his Disciples and Followers that they should be so lied upon, and all manner of evil things said against them falsely for his Name sake. But rejoice, said he, and be glad, for great is your reward in Heaven.  
Now whereas I. A. calleth his Book, A Vindication of the Church of God in Britain, he ought to have told what Church he meant, seeing there are divers sorts of people in Britain, who call themselves the Church of God, and yet in divers things Dissent from I. A. And upon review of his Book, I find the said I. A. his Principles to be almost wholly Calvinistical, and particularly, 1. That he denyeth the Universal Grace of God, or that Christ hath died for all men. 2. That he denyeth that God hath any regard to the new Creature, or work of Conversion, or Repentance to be so much as a condition requisite in order to our justification. 3. That he denyeth that any can be free from actual sinning in this Life by any Grace of God given them, or to be given. These and other principles alleged by him, which are wholly Calvinistical, are as much disliked by many and some of those, the most considerable, of the Episcopal Church in Britain, as by us. And I judge that I. A. should hold himself a Member of th●s Episcopal Church, seeing he himself Officiates as Reader and Presenter at at Leith, under john Hamilton an Episcopal Preacher, who hath also recommended his Book. And therefore seeing I. A. hath undertaken the Vindication of the Church of God in Britain, as he allegeth against the Quakers; he must either acknowledge, that the Episcopal Church in Britain is not the Church of God, whereof he is a professed Member, or else have proved out of the the Episcopal Church now in Britain, that she avoweth and owneth such principles, all and every one, as he asserteth; and that those Eminent and Noted persons, both in England and Scotland, who descent from him, and agree with us, in those principles already mentioned, are Heretics, and renouncers of true principles of Religion, stifling the faculties of reason; such as among others in England, R. Cudworth, and H. More, accounted great Doctors, also William Sharlock, and I. A. his Reverend and much admired Rich▪ Baxter, whom he particularly opposeth in the matter of Justification: And in Scotland, Bishop William Forbes in his Treatise called, Considerationes modestae & pacificae Controvers. As also divers other persons of Note yet living, whose Names I need not to mention; all which I suppose, and thousands more in the Episcopal Church in Britain, of all Qualities and Ranks, will be loath to acknowledge I. A. for a Patron or Defender of their Faith; but rather find ●ault with him in those things, as an Enemy of their Faith, and in other things a bewrayer and betrayer of it, rather than a Defender. In his Preface to the Reader, he excuseth himself that he hath not Cited any humane Testimonies (meaning Authorities of Ancient and Modern Writers) against us Seeing these (saith he) they do not value, except when they think they make for them, especially ad hominem. And with this slender pretext, I suppose he thinketh to evade the many Testimonies I brought to confirm the Truth of our principles, in my Book called Quakerism no Popery, even out of Writters both Ancient and late, of great esteem among them; none of which he hath once so much as touched. But to Answer to his Charge, I say, we value the Testimonies of all Writers, whether Ancient or late, which are true, and agree with the Scriptures, as much as any Protestants do, or more than he doth. And seeing he imputeth it as a fault to us, that we will not own the Testimonies of others, against us; I ask him, if he would own or value any Testimonies of Authors that make against him, or his Judgement? If he say nay, than his excuse is removed, and he hath nought to say for this omission. But the matter seemeth to be in effect, that those Testimonies adduced by me in the foresaid Treatise he knew not how to Answer, unless by saying that those persons erred in those principles, as much as we, which he was loath to acknowledge, lest he should seem to weaken the Charge of his Title against us, and acknowledge his own party, and those that are more worth of Credit than himself, equally guilty of jesuitism with the people called Quakers, wherewith he doth falsely accuse them.  
And here I shall give a List or Catalogue of divers gross Perversions and Calumnies, whereby he seeketh to abuse his Reader, in the very Preface of his book against us: As 1. That we reject all manner of External Ordinances; Which is notoriously false, as all who have the least knowledge of us can witness; that we are for Meeting together, and that frequently; and when we meet, to Preach, Exhort, Pray, and give Thanks to God in Audible words, as the Spirit of the Lord doth help us: And can I. A. say that none of these are External Ordinances or Appointments; and we challenge him to instance any one External Ordinance or Appointment of God that is truly so, which we are against: For it is but only humane Institutions, (and Abolished shadows) set up as Divine Ordinances which we oppose, as in the Sequel of this Treatise doth appear. 2. He saith, We do directly strike at the Foundation of all with one blow, overturning (so far as we can) the whole rule of Faith and Duty, setting a new one of our own Invention in the room thereof. But why doth he charge us so highly in this matter? because we cannot own the Letter or External Testimony of the Scriptures, as the primary Rule or Foundation of Faith; but only Christ Jesus, the first and last; concerning whom Paul hath writ, That another foundation no man can lay, then that which is laid already, which is Christ jesus. And said the Lord, behold I lay in Zion an Elect precious Corner stone, a sure foundation: Which to be sure, is not the Letter, but Christ and his Spirit, Light and Life revealed in the heart. And I Query this Accuser I. A. whether, if to acknowledge Christ in his immediate Teachings by his Spirit in men's hearts, is to set up a false Foundation or overturn the true one; the Apostles are guilty of this Charge, as to their own particulars; seeing I A. will not deny, but that the Apostles had Christ immediately to Teach them, and speak in them: And was it not the Apostle Paul his labour to build the Churches upon Christ, that their Faith might not stand in men, (though sent and moved of God) but in the power of God. And though I. A. blame us for setting up the Light within for the Rule, yet Christ taught people to believe in the Light, and that this Light was not the Scripture, which he bid them believe in is clear; that he said, While ye have the Light, believe in the Light, that ye may be the Children of it: This clearly Imports, that this Light should not long remain with them, if they did not believe in it, as he said in the foregoing Verse, Yet a little while is the Light with you; walk while ye have the Light, lest darkness come upon you, see john 12. 35, 36. And indeed the gracious Visitation of Light did not long after remain with them who did reject it, although the Scriptures did remain with them: And therefore the Light which he bid them believe in, was not the Letter of the Scripture, but Christ himself, who said, I am the Light of the World. 3. He saith, This Heresy (so he calleth our Faith) is a very Sink or an Universal System of almost all the gross Errors, which hitherto have annoyed the Church of God: And herein he doth imitate I. Brown, and the Author of the Postcript to S. R. his Epistles, who have so charged us; but how unjustly, we hope our Answers do sufficiently evince: And surely this I. A. in the Art of Slandering and false Accusing, may pass muster for a Lieutenant to those aforesaid Champions, who have led the way before him in this enterprise. It is not unknown, how the Papists loaded the Protestants, at their appearing, and do still at this day load them with such kind of Charges; and to none is it more familiar to blame others for Heresy, than those who are greatest Heretics themselves. 4. He saith, In Doctrine, we trample generally upon the whole Moral Law, but more especially upon the first Table: And here very falsely he Charges our Doctrine to be contrary to the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth and ninth Commandments: but let us see how he maketh good his Charge in each of them. He allegeth our Doctrine transgresseth the first Commandment, because we say, All Prayer and Worship that is performed without the Spirit of God, is Will-worship and Superstition, and consequently no wicked or unregenerate persons are bound to Worship God, or indeed in any respect to obey God: And from thence he concludes, They are not under any Law of God; and therefore lastly, let them do what they will, they cannot sin against God, such men (in the Quakers Principles, as he saith) may deny, disown, reject, hate and contemn God, worship the Devil, and debauch at their pleasure; they may lawfully dishonour and defame all men, Murder, commit Adultery, Steal, bear false Witness, and yet they cannot sin, because they are under no Law. Hence also he infers, That Reprobates are most unjustly condemned for their sinning against God, seeing they (not having received the Spirit) are not under Law to God, and so cannot be guilty of sinning against him.  
Now what Sober, Impartial and indifferent person that is not biased with deep prejudice against us, seeth not, that these absurd consequences have not the least shadow of any Rational inference. For although we say indeed▪ that there is no true Worship, but that which is in Spirit, according to the express words of Christ; and that none are true Worshippers of God, but such as Worship him n the Spirit; and that God requireth no Lifeless or Spiritless Worship; yet we still affirm that all mankind ought to Worship God, and Call upon him, even all the wicked and unrenewed persons, as well as the renewed; so that in the thing of Worship itself, we have no Controversy, whether it be due unto God by all mankind; but the state of the Question lieth here betwixt us, and those that descent from us, what the Worship of God is, and what kind or sort of Worship it is that God requires of all men: And in Answer thereunto, we say, the true Worship of God is a Spiritual Worship, requiring the sincerity of the heart not as a circumstance, or accidental thing, but as the essential part thereof, which cannot be done without the Spirit of God: How much therefore more True and Rational consequence is it to argue thus. God commands all men to Worship him, therefore he hath given some measure more or less of the help of his Spirit, unto all men, whereby they may so do, which doth continue with them so long as it pleaseth God, who taketh away this help from none, but such as mightily provoke him, and sin out the day of their Visitation. And even those whom the Lord in his Justice hath withdrawn that help or grace of his Spirit, are still bound by the Law of God, to Worship him, as much as ever; even when they neither do, or can Worship him truly, because they have brought this unpotency or inability upon themselves, by their own unfaithfulness: Even as a Servant or Steward that hath received a sum of Money to pay his Master, and the said Servant spendeth the Money upon his Lusts, and hath not one Penny, wherewith to pay the debt; yet he is still liable for the whole sum. Hence what I. A. saith in page 11. of his Preface, is true, that the inability of unrenewed men, to perform acceptable Worship, neither does nor can take away their Obligation to perform it. But we differ from I. A. in the cause or reason, why those who want that ability are still under the said Obligation; which reason he will have only and alone men's losing it in Adam, in whom they all once had it; and the losing of it is their fault, citing Rom. 5. 12, 19  
But to this I Answer, First, Whatever loss or inability is come upon Adam's posterity by the primitive disobedience; yet now by virtue of the second Adam his obedience, a new ability is conferred upon all men; So that as broad as the Sore did spread by the first sin, even as broad is the Plaster that God hath provided to the Lame and Diseased Souls of all mankind. And this is most clear and plain from Rom. 5. 18. as also from joh. 3. 19 And this is the condemnation (said Christ) that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than Light, because their deeds were evil: So we see, that Christ layeth not the ground of wicked men's condemnation upon Adam's sin, but upon their hating the Light that did come unto them as a new and fresh discovery and visitation of God's love. But secondly, Whether this Inability is come upon the wicked by reason of Adam's sin, or by their own actual disobedience since that time; yet we affirm no less than I. A. that the most wicked and ungodly are still under the obligation to the whole Law of God; and their inability can be no ground of excuse unto them. But the true state of the Question is this, Whether wicked men, not simply as men, or creatures, but as wicked, and remaining still in their wickedness, should, or are required to offer up unto God hypocritical and lifeless performances of that which men commonly call Prayer and Worship; but is no more so in the sight of God, than a dead Picture of Stone or Day is a true living man; and so whether God did ever require any to draw near to him with their Mouths, and remove their Hearts far away, as the manner of all wicked persons, while so remaining, always is: Now we say, God never required such sort of Prayers, but refused and forbade them, to be offered unto him, even under the Law, see Isaiah 1. 13. Bring no more vain Oblations; and v. 12. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand to tread my Courts? Again Psal. 50. 16, 17. But unto the wicked, God saith, what hast thou to do to declare my Statutes, or that thou shouldest take my Covenant in thy mouth, seeing thou hatest instruction, etc. And whereas I. A. citeth some words of our Friends, That wicked men should not Pray; let the Impartial and Indifferent Reader understand these words, in the Sense of those Scriptures just now mentioned, which are as positive and full, as any that can be cited out of our Friends Books, and all occasion of mistake shall be removed. For neither the Sense of the Scripture, nor of our Friends is, That wicked men are b●und in no respect to Wor●ip God; for the contrary is manifest from the words cited by I. A. out of the Book called, The Principles of Truth●, where he allegeth their words, saying, All men ought first to wait, until they receive the Spirit in Truth, then in the same Truth to Worship God in Spirit who is a Spirit. So we see by I. A. his own Confession, the Quakers teach that all men ought to Worship God in the Spirit, and that they may indeed Worship him, they would have all men follow the Lords order, which is to wait, or watch unto Prayer; and they would have men in the first place cease or depart from their wickedness; and then by the help of the Spirit (which is never wanting in the proper season of it) to come and Pray unto God. And that this is no new or invented way of the Quakers so called; Read Isaiah 1. 16, 17, 18. where the Lord by the Prophet bids first, That they wash and be clean, and put away the evil of their doings, etc. And then said he, Come now let us reason together: Also Peter commanded Simon Magus to join Repentance with Prayer; Repent (said he) and Pray, that the Thoughts of thy heart may be forgiven thee. And for the more clear understanding of this whole matter, we are to consider, that Prayer is either simply Mental, and with the heart only, or both Mental and Vocal; to wit, both with heart and Mouth. Now as for Mental Prayer, at least in respect of the bent or frame and inclination of the Heart, God requireth it always of all men; and it is possible for all men, if they but receive that help of his Spirit, which he giveth or offereth unto men always to perform it. But as for Vocal Prayer, he neither doth require it at all times, nor doth he give the help at all times, nor the utterance whereby to perform it. And it is observable, that under the Gospel, no particular set or limited time is appointed for Vocal Prayer: But every one is to wait to know the times of the Spirits call and moving thereunto, which will be seasonably and frequently afforded to such as wait singly therefore, especially when the people of God Assemble together; for than it is that Vocal Prayer is of greatest use and service, though it hath also its use and service in private, or when one is apart.  
But whereas I. A. allegeth further, That if wicked men are not to Pray, (viz. their Hypocritical Prayers) because they sin when they Pray; No man on earth should offer to Pray or Worship God, seeing as he saith, There is somewhat of sin ●leaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away. To this I answer; That there is somewhat of sin cleaving to the best Actions of the Saints here away is denied, seeing it is asserted by him without proof, for the Scriptures cited by him, viz. Prov. 20. 9 Gal. 5. 17. say no such thing, and by consequence he hath not evinced it; and for a proof to the contrary, see job 16. 17. Malach. 1. 11. But secondly, nor doth it follow, that men, who are not yet come to a perfect state, but labour sincerely under the burden of their sins, to be delivered from them, may not Pray unto God, because their Prayer, as they put it up unto God by the help of his Spirit is pure and without all sin, proceeding from the pure or renewed part of their hearts; for it is only the pure or renewed part of the heart, from which indeed the true Prayer doth proceed; even as on the contrary, the evil desires and affections arise and spring only from the impure and unrenewed part. Therefore he that hath this unrenewed part in him, aught to watch against it, while he prayeth, that he give it no liberty to move or stir, as indeed he ought to watch against it at all other times. And though he that prayeth sincerely, being not attained to a sinless state, pray not with that degree or measure of fervency, wherewith another more perfect doth or can pray; yet God regarding that man's sincerity, he accepteth his Prayer, in Christ, and for Christ's sake pardoneth him, when at any time he committeth a weakness in his Prayer, in not keeping purely to the Spirit.  
Again, Lastly, Whereas I. A. objecteth, That the Ploughing, Eating, Sleeping, etc. of the wicked is sin: Shall the wicked than do nothing at all, because whatever they do, they go about it in a sinful manner. I answer, This consequence doth no wise follow, because there is a great difference betwixt a wicked man's Ploughing, Eating, Drinking, etc. and his Praying, as remaining wicked and alienated from the Spirit of God; for his Ploughing, Eating, Drinking, or any other Corporal or Natural actions, are really these actions, and they are profitable and necessary in the Creation; and when he performeth these actions he faileth not in the substance or matter of the action required, but only in the manner; for the substance or matter of a wicked man's Ploughing, Eating, Travelling, is not sin, but the manner of it, viz. That it is not in Faith, but a wicked man's Prayer, as he is a wicked man, is no true Prayer at all, it hath nothing of the true substance of true and real Prayer, it is a mere picture, or dead resemblance of Prayer; and is rather a mocking God, than praying unto him; for it wants the life of true Prayer, which alone the Spirit of God doth give; and thus a plain difference is demonstrated betwixt the two cases: and the Unvalidity of I. A. his consequences in this whole matter is evinced. And if the Reader desire further satisfaction, in this particular, let him Read our Answer to the Students, and R. B. his Apology, where these Objections of I. A. are largely Answered, for he has brought no new matter against us; and it had been better he had both spared his own pains, and not troubled the world with his repeating other men's Arguments, long since answered. As for his instance of our opposing the second Commandment, by our rejecting, wresting and abusing the Word of God, and avowing of Error and Blasphemy; seeing it is but a bare alleging, without any shadow of proof; it is enough as simply to deny it, as he doth simply affirm it. But another instance he giveth of our opposing the second Commandment, By swallowing down our Meat and Drink (as so many Beasts) without any Prayer and thanksgiving; without which (if they will believe the Apostle, 1 Tim. 4. 3, 4, 5.) they are not sanctied. But how unjustly he chargeth this upon us, I can freely leave to the Judgement of all sober and true Christians. For how doth he prove that we Eat, or Drink, or receive any Creatures of God without Prayer and Thanksgivings? Because we do not always use Vocal and External Prayer, when we Eat and Drink although at other times we use it, as God is pleased to give utterance, and are most glad either to do it, or join with these, who do it by the help of God's Spirit: But is I. A. so ignorant and unreasonable to think that theirs is no Prayer, or Thanksgiving, nor any use of the Word of God, but that which is Vocal and External: Do we not Read of the Prayer of the Heart in Scripture, and also of Singing and making Melody in the heart unto the Lord, as well as with the Mouth? Or doth I. A. think that brutes can do this, as well as we, that he compares our Eating and Drinking altogether to that of Brutes. However for the satisfaction of those that are sober. I further declare, that we hold it our duty, and I hope, we can say, it is our aim, and endeavour in all our Eating and Drinking, and in the receiving all the Mercies of God, both Spiritual and Temporal, to receive them with Prayer and Thanksgiving, either both Mental and Vocal; or at least Mental, which we know is aceepted of God, if in sincerity when the Vocal is not used. And they who Pray, or seem to Pray with their Lips and Voices, when their Hearts are far away, as it is too much the general manner and custom of people; their Eating and Drinking is worse than that of Brutes, which sin not when they Eat, as all wicked persons do. But I ask I. A. doth he use Vocal and External Prayer and Thanksgiving, always when he receives any of the Creatures of God; as in the use of Tobacco▪ or Tasting a little Wine, or Ale, occasionally in a Tavern; or when walking in an Orchard, is his Conscience so scrupulous, that he cannot Taste an Apple, but he must use Vocal Prayer: I suppose he is not so scrupulous. And doth not I A. know, that there is not one moment of our Life, but we are still receiving the Creatures of God, seeing every breathing or receiving in of the Air, is a renewed Mercy and Bleaing of God, with many others continually added unto us: And yet the Lord doth not continually require Vocal Prayer, in the continual use of t●ose Mercies. And here I shall propose a few plain Questions for I. A. to Answer, upon this whole matter. 1. Whether one that sincerely useth Prayer and Thanksgiving in his ●●art before he Eateth and Drinketh, and in his Eating and Drinking; and at a●● other times laboureth to have his heart exercised in the ●ear of God, although at times he use not Vocal Prayer, before and after Meat, is not more unlike to a Brute, and more indeed a true Christian; than he, who knoweth not what it is to fear God, or Pray to God sincerely in his heart, at any time, yet always at Meal-times useth a form of dead and lifeless words before and after Meat. 2. Whether to Pray without the Spirit and without sincerity of heart, be not a transgressing of the first, second and third Commandments. 3. Whether that Doctrine which teacheth men to Pray spiritless and hypocritical Prayers, doth not oppose these three Commandments. Further I. A. doth allege, that we do openly impugn the fourth Commandment, in one of the following Queries, unto which place, he referreth the Controversy. To 〈◊〉 I Answer, and so he might all the rest, without prepossessing his Reader with prejudice against us, until he had heard the whole matter more amply discussed.  
Our opposing the fifth Commandment he instanceth; in not taking off our Hats, and bowing the body in Salutations: But seeing the fifth Commandment mentioneth no such form of Honour, nor doth he deduce it by any just consequence therefrom, It is as easily denied by us, as affirmed by him. Nor doth it follow, as he allegeth, that because we are to obey ehe fifth Commandment, with our Bodies, as well as with our Souls; that therefore we are to take off our Hats, in giving that honour to Parents; for the jews to whom that command was particularly given, used no such form of honour or respect. And as for bowing the Body, although it was practised under the Law, yet we find it forbidden under the Gospel, as in the case of Cornelius bowing to Peter: And in the New Testament we read of no bowing that is lawful, but that which is at the Name of Jesus, and of God Almighty. Again, whereas he allegeth, that from the words of Christ, john 5. 44. We Impugn the very letter of the fifth Commandment, and declare that no manner of Civil Reverence or regard is to be given to any man. I Answer, this is a false Charge like unto the rest; for we deny not, that there is a civil regard and honour that is due unto all men, in their respective degrees, which is also to be signified and practised with a suitable outward behaviour of the body, and may very well be, without either uncovering the Head, or bowing the Knee, such as to rise up before the Hoary-Head, or those that are our Superiors; also to stand before them, to speak humbly, or be silent, unless when required, or liberty is given; also to havean humble Aspect, or regard of the Eye and Face towards them, to give the Hand, if required; to be ready at a beck to Answer their Call, and to walk and run to serve them, in what is requisite; these and many such instances of External Honour and respect, may Children lawfully practise to their Parents, and Inferiors to their Superiors, without either bowing the Knee, or taking off the Hat. But certainly these words of Christ, joh. 5. 44. Condemn all false honour which the spirit of the World hath invented: And such we have good cause to hold the uncovering of the Head to men, until I. A. can produce a better Original for it.  
Lastly, His instances of our opposing the sixth and ninth Commandments; seeing they are but Allegations, I pass them.  
And thus I have gone through all that I saw requisite in his Preface to answer, which may occasion me to be the more brief in the things that follow, where most of the same things do again occur.   

CHAP. II.  
ANd here I give the Reader to know, that this pretended Examination of I. A. is in Answer to 17 Queries, which he saith came to him subscribed by I. S. But I believe I. S. never did Subscribe those Queries, nor was he Author of them, but some of our Friends in England; however it is possible that through a mistake, some had put the said Letters unto them. And though I. A. seemeth not a little offended that these Queries should be directed for one or all of the Ministers in Scotland to Answer, as if such a direction did argue both the Arrogance and weakness of the Authors; yet I do not believe that they all can Answer them sufficiently, holding to Scripture, without renouncing their former Principles in great part. Far less is this pretended Examination of I. A. any sufficient Answer unto them, as the sequel I hope shall make appear. In his Survey or Examination of the first Query, he allegeth, That the Questionist doth pervert the whole state of the Question, For, saith he, who ever heard that the Church of Scotland, or any other Church, made humane Arts and Sciences an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ? then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office, but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logic, which the Adversaries themselves know to be most false.  
To this I Answer, That not the Questionist but I. A. doth pervert the state of the Question, for the Question was not, Whether Grammar and Logic, and the many Tongues, etc. was the only infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ: but whether it was an infallible Rule, etc. Now that may be conceived to be an Infallible Ru●e, which is not the Infallible Rule. Nor doth I. A. his consequence follow, that then they should never have required more of any man in order to his admission to that Office, but his alone sufficient skill in Grammar and Logic, an example in other cases will show the weakness of this Consequence. It is reported that Plato made it an Infallible Rule to receive none into his School, but he who had some skill in Geometry, doth it therefore follow, that he required no more of any man, in order to his admission, to be his Scholar, but that he had some skill in that Science. Another Instance may be this, in divers Incorporations and Cities it is an Infallible Rule, That none may be admitted to be a Magistrate in the said City or Incorporation, but he that is a Freeman therein, doth it therefore follow, that nothing is more required of any man in order to his being a Magistrate, but that he be a Freeman in that City? Now suppose the Church of Scotland make it not the one only Rule to make a Minister of Christ, that he hath Grammar, Logic, and the Languages, yet it may be very fairly Queried I hope, whether she makes it not an Infallible Rule? Seeing for many years bygone she hath made no Ministers, but some as at least pretend to have Grammar and Logic, and Languages, and are called Masters of those Arts, (howbeit many of them have but a very small scantling of them for all the stress that seems to be laid on them.) And I Query whether it be not one of the Canons of the Church, that none be admitted into the Office of the Ministry but who have those aforesaid Arts? And if there be no infallible or absolute Rule or Canon in the case, then why do they not frequently allow men, wanting those Arts, who possibly may have all the other Qualifications required, to enter into the Ministry. And it is further Queried, Whether I. A. or the Church that he doth own, doth establish and avow that Doctrine of james Durhame, positively asserted in his Commentary on the Revelation, that Grammar Logic, or the like acquired Arts, are necessary to the esse or being of a Minister of Christ, and consequently much more necessary than true Piety and Godliness, which he maketh only but necessary to his bene esse or better being, and only accidental to his being a Minister of Christ. And this Question, which is indeed the main design of the first Question, as is obvious to any ordinary understanding, I. A. for all his glorious pretence hath not in the least Answered, which is therefore returned upon him to be further considered.  
And whereas I. A. saith, That Grammar and Logic are ordinary means of Knowledge, exceedingly requisite in a Minister. If by Grammar and Logic he mean not those innate gifts (which may be well called natural as common to all men having the ordinary use of understanding, and which I acknowledge to be in some degree necessary unto all) but the Systems of those Arts, as they are artificially composed of a great many Rules and Precepts, and commonly taught in the Schools. I ask I. A. Why are they more requisite in a Minister, than in the rest of the Church? Ought not all the Church to have the knowledge of God, and of the Principles of Christian Religion as well as the Minister. And may not some of the people come to have as much true knowledge of God, as their Teachers; yea, may they not become wiser than their Teachers, as David said concerning himself? and whereby did David become wiser than his Teachers, was it by the humane Arts of Grammar and Logic? I trow not, but by the Law of God, wherein he did meditate both day and night. May not therefore people come to have as much knowledge of God at this day, without those aforesaid Arts, only by meditating in the said Law or Word, and praying to the Lord, as also waiting upon the Lord to have their understandings more and more opened, to understand the Scriptures, as I. A. hath, with all the help of his Arts? And if I. A. think that those Arts are necessary to attain Divine Knowledge, so as he who wants them, may not know as much of Divine things, as he who has them, I am not of his mind, nor ● hope are many others in his Church, who believe they may both know the Lord, and daily grow in the knowledge of Him till they have as much, and perhaps more of true Divine Knowledge than I. A. ever had, without all I. A. his Arts, which he doth so highly magnify.  
But I. A. saith, The Infallible rule to make a Minister of Christ, is set down in 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1.  
Answ. It is very well. But I cannot find in these places, or any where else in all the Scripture; that Artificial Grammar and Logic, are made any one part of that Infallible Rule, or that God hath any where appointed them, as ordinary means of attaining Divine knowledge. And if they be the ordinary means of Divine knowledge; than it must needs follow, that all who have the least measure of true Divine knowledge, have also humane Arts, or else they are extraordinarily taught; none of which I judge I. A. will readily grant. Now the Infallible rule set down by the Apostle, in these places already cited, requireth, That Bishops and Deacons (and consequently Ministers) should be blameless, sober, just, holy, temperate: And I Query I: A. if this one only qualification, viz. To be Holy, be as much made an Infallible rule, to make a Minister of Christ in the Church he owneth, as to have Grammar, and Logic, and Tongues: And how is this consistent with the foresaid Doctrine, that real Holiness is not necessary to the esse or being of a Minister of Christ? For is not that which is the infallible rule, to make a Minister of Christ necessary to his very esse or being.  
In the following part of his Examination of this first Query, I. A. doth further wrong the people called Quakers, As if they did hold that Grammar, Logic, and Languages, were unlawful among Christians: And upon this idle and false Supposition, he disputeth for the lawfulness of those Arts, which none of these people, so far as I know, deny: And for a proof to the contrary, that people have Schools wherein Grammar, and the Languages, viz. Hebrew, Greek and Latin are Taught, and some other Arts. Nor is it the use of these things, but the abuse of them, and laying too great a stress upon them, that we oppose. Nor do we deny, but Grammar, Logic, and especially the knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek Languages, may be of good use and service to him that is a Minister of Christ in a subordinate and subservient way, when he hath to do with men, especially that glory in these Arts, and in the abuse of them, contend against the Truth; such adversaries may be lawfully redargued from their own principles, and the points of their own weapons turned against them, as the Lord giveth freedom foe to do; although the simple naked Truth, out of the mou●h of a man, having none of those Arts, has more prevailed against a Letter-learned Adversary many times, than many Learned men have done, whereof a famous instance is recorded to have befallen at the Council of Nice, where a simple Layman convinced again-saying Philosopher so called, when the Learned Bishops and Doctors could nothing prevail upon him; the which passage is at length recorded in Lucas Osiander, his Epitome of the Church History, Centur. 4.  
But the said I. A. seemeth to dispute, not only for the lawfulness of Grammar and Logic, as they are Taught in Schools, but for the absolute necessity of them, to a Minister of Christ. For he saith, Would they then have a Minister, not knowing how to Speak and Write Sense. To which I Answer, And thinketh he that none in all the Church of Scotland knoweth how to Speak and Write Sense, but they who have Learned the Art of Grammar. I suppose there are many thousands in that Church, who never Learned any Art of Grammar, that have as good Sense, and can both Speak and Write to as good Sense; at least in their Mother Tongue, as I. A. and perhaps to better too, if that Proverb hold good, That an Ounce of Mother-wit, is worth a Pound of Clergy. And do we not commonly Learn to Speak and Write our Mother Tongue, without any Rules of Grammar; and these who so Learn to Speak and Write, only by Reading and Hearing, without Rules of Grammar, speak well enough to be understood. And what great or intolerable defect is it, if a Minister of Christ, having sufficient knowledge and Piety requisite to that Office, should Speak or Write a little Incongruous Grammar; doth or should that Unminister him? Is not a blemish or error in Life and Conversation, much more intolerable; although such is the Vice of the Times, whereof some good men have formerly complained, that he who breaks a Rule of Grammar, is more noticed, than he who breaks the Rule of Piety.  
Nor doth the Translation of the Scriptures out of Hebrew and Greek, argue the absolute necessity of those Languages, unto the Ministers of Christ; seeing men who are not Ministers, might have done that: And now since the Scriptures are Translated, (which we acknowledge is a great Blessing of God) the Knowledge of these Languages seemeth less necessary on a general account; seeing whatever errors or weaknesses may be found in the present Iransstions, they contain the form of found words, in respect of the more necessary things: And therefore the Scriptures thus Translated to him, who is endued with that Spirit that gave them forth, may well enough suffice, though he hath neither Hebrew nor Greek: Which for all this pretended necessity, the far greatest part of those called Ministers in these three Nations have not so much skill of, but that they are as much obliged to the Translation as many others that make no such Vaunt. And it is a great question; for all this pretended necessity of Hebrew and Greek, whether many called Ministers in these three Nations, ever once in all their life Read an entire Chapter of the Bible in Hebrew, or indeed can so do: And I see no cause why there is any more absolute necessity for a Preacher to have Hebrew and Greek than any ordinary true Christian; for if true Faith, Knowledge and Piety, can be attained as well without Hebrew and Greek, as with it, then why is it made abs●●lutely necessary in the one, rather than in the other. Nor do we plead against the lawfulness or good use that may be made of Tongues▪ because they began at Babel, as I. A. doth allege; but seeing they began at Babel, or Babylon, we may lawfully infer, they are not absolutely necessary to give the true knowledge of God, nor to make true Preachers, seeing there were men that did both truly know the Lord, and also Preached him in Truth, before the many Languages came in. Nor is I. A. his Argument for the necessity of School-Logick less impertinent. He that knows nothing (saith he) how to define, divide, judge and Argument aright (if any such were) is in no better capacity, than the Ass speaking to his Master: Take there (saith he) the Quakers Minister, very fit for Balaam ' s Saddle, if he had but four Legs. Ignorance I see is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion. By this Argument I. A. (as it seemeth) concludes, that all men who want School-Logick, are no more men, and have no more the use of their Rational Faculties, to define, divide, judge and Argument aright, than Balaam's Ass; and thus he puts many thousands, and ten thousands of his Fellow-Church-Members in the same List with Balaam's Ass, and maketh them as unskilsul to define, divide, judge and Argument aright, as Balaam's Ass, only because they want School-Logick. And is this a Vindication of the Church of Britain, so to defame the greatest part of all her Members, by comparing them to Balaam's Ass, only for want of School-Logick, which I suppose scarce the hundreth person has any knowledge of? Indeed I confess, it hath been but too familiar for such men, to repute the people as Asses▪ for want of those School-Arts; and they have but too much used them in times past as Asses, and also Rid upon them. But whether is not I. A. short of Balaam's Ass, which saw the Angel of God, and had its mouth immediately opened by the Lord to reprove the Prophet; to none of which I. A. hath any pretence. and why doth I. A. conclude, That Ignorance is the Mother of the Quakers Devotion? Because they have not commonly School-Logick, and judge it not absolutely necessary to any Christian, or Minister of Christ. Then by I. A. his Irronical and Sarcasme, none have true Devotion, but these who have School-Logick; the which reflection striketh as much against his own Church Members as us. And I suppose there are many thousands in the so called Church of Scotland, that may think I. A. deserves a sharp reproof, for such an idle satire, as to conclude, because we establish not School-Logick as necessary to Devotion, That therefore Ignorance (according to us) is the Mother of Devotion. When the Protestants blame the Papists for holding Ignorance to be the Mother of Devotion, I understand they mean the ignorance of the Scriptures, and principles of Religion, and not of School-Logick, which men may either have or want, and yet be truly Devout: And for all this scorn of I. A. I shall mind him of what Augustine observed above 12 hundred years ago, Surgunt indocti, & indoctae, & rapiunt coelum a nobis doctis: The unlearned men and women arise and take the Kingdom from us who are the Learned: Which may well at least be applied against them, who glory in their Artificial Learning, and set it up higher than it doth deserve. And said Paul, to the Corinthians, as well to the Preachers among them as others; For ye see your Calling Brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, etc. are called. And what is a man with all his School-Logick and other Natural Sciences and Arts, but a wise man after the flesh: And yet according to Paul's Doctrine, God had not chosen many such either to be Christians or Ministers. Moreover, whereas I. A. pleadeth for the great commendation of Humane Arts and Sciences of Grammar, Logic, etc. from Isaiah 50. 4. and 2 Pet. 3. 16. It remaineth for him to prove, that these places are to be understood of such kind of Learning, which I deny; and on the contrary affirm, it is Divine and Supernatural Learning, which is there to be understood. As to Isaiah 29. v. 12. 14. I grant that it is meant of humanly Learned; but it maketh clearly against him, seeing the Vision was a Sealed Book, as well to the Learned, as to the Unlearned: And therefore none of I. A. his Arts of Grammar and Logic could open the Seals here of.  
Again, whereas he saith, The Quakers have often Objected to him against the lawfulness of Logic among Christians, because it was first used among Heathens; and then he scoffingly doth inquire, But what shall we do with the Isle of Britain, which was first used by Heathens. I Answer, that I suppose it is I. A. his mistake, or failure of memory, that the Quakers have ever Objected against the lawfulness of true Logic, which I know none to be against; only I judge it may be well argued, that seeing it was a thing used among the Heathens, and yet did not bring them to the true knowledge of God; nor can it bring any Christians thereunto now. And it seemeth unreasonable, that any Art found or used among the Heathens should be made an Infallible Rule to make a Minister of Christ. Or perhaps, if any of those called Quakers have Disputed against Logic, it hath been only against that falsely so called, viz. a Sophistical way of contending about any thing, for or against, which is too much used in Schools at this day, and wherein too many glory, and are puffed up. But I. A. his comparison betwixt the Isle of Britain and School Logic is very unequal, else let him prove that his School-Logick is as necessary, and profitable to the life of man, as the Land of Britain is.  
Again, whereas in Answer to the Instances of Elisha, Amos, Peter and john, who were not bred up in Grammar and Logic, and yet were true Minister's, he allegeth, It is no good consequence to argue from an extraordinary fact to an ordinary fixed Rule; I Answer, he hath not as yet proved that it is any ordinary fixed Rule by the Lord, that all must have those Arts of School-Logick and Grammar who are Ministers of Christ. He but here beggeth the Question, as it's ordinary for him to do in other cases. And as for us, we judge it no tempting of God, nor looking for extraordinaries to believe that we may receive true knowledge, and grow up in the same, so far as is requisite for a true Preacher to have, by our diligent reading and meditating on the Scriptures, by the help of God's Spirit assisting us to understand them, and withal using fervent Prayer unto God, to obtain the said help of His Spirit, although we neither use the Art of Grammar or Logic; and we find not that Paul recommended Timothy to give attendance to those Arts, but only to Reading, viz. the Scriptures, and not to neglect the gift that was in him, which I suppose I. A. will not be so ra●h as to say, was either Grammar or Logic. And now after divers abuses and perversions of I. A. in his examination of this first Question, he concludeth with another great calumny and false charge, in saying, The Quakers allege that Peter and John had no Grammar and Languages, whereas the Question doth only allege, That Peter and John were not bred up in Grammar and Languages, which doth not hinder it to be true, that God afterwards did immediately inspire them with the gift of Tongues. And yet even before they were inspired with these Tongues, they were Ministers.  
In his Survey or Examination of the second Query, he continueth to play his old Game of perverting the state of the Question, which is not (as the Reader may see) whether Grammar, Logic, and Philosophy, etc. were extant in the World before Christ his coming in the Flesh, for that we readily acknowledge; but the Question is, How long it was, after Christ, that those Arts were set up to make Ministers of Christ; To this he gives no Reply, but only goeth on to prove the lawfulness of Philosophy, and to tell what it teacheth. Now, as for true and genuine Philosophy the Quakers deny it not to be lawful, even that commonly called Natural Philosophy, which is a knowledge of natural things, and the operations thereof, with their effects; but that which they oppose is to make such a natural knowledge, so ●ar as it is only an Art taught in the Schools absolutely necessary to make a Minister of Christ. Again, Secondly, We Question much, Whether that which is commonly taught in Schools, among those called Christians, under the name of Philosophy, be indeed the true and genuine Natural Philosophy, seeing the far greatest part of it is exploded and rejected by not a few of the more knowing among yourselves, and if any of us have called Philosophy, Foolosophy and Witchcraft, as I. A. allegeth they did not mean it of any true Natural Knowledge, but in the Apostlessence, when he saith, Beware lest any spoil you through Philosophy, and vain deceit; which I. A. confesseth is Sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy. And dare he say there is none of that sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy taught in the Schools and Universities in Britain. And may not sophisticate and corrupt Philosophy be called Witchcraft in that sense used by Paul, Gal. 3. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you. And I Query what Philosophy doth I. A. mean by the true and genuine Philosophy, which he maketh so necessary to every Minister of Christ, whether Aristotle's Philosophy, or the Cartesian, or any other, seeing there are many kinds of that called Philosophy in the World, whose principles and rules directly contradict one another. And the Schools in Christend●m to this day have not agreed in the common principles and Rules of that called Philosophy, but remain at great uncertainty in the very foundations of it, as is acknowledged, by the most ingenuous Professors thereof. Now to make a thing so uncertain (as their Philosophy is in many or most things, to wit, a fallible thing) an infallible Rule to make a Minister of the Infallible Truth, is a very absurd and unreasonable matter. But I. A. giveth us a number of Thirteen or Fourteen Positions, which his School-Philosophy doth teach, the truth whereof is evident as that there is a God, who is Infinite, Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Unchangeable; that every man is a Rational Creature; that the Soul of man is Immortal; that no Brute is a Man; that no Action can be without some Subject, nor without some effect; nor any Union without some extremes. But I suppose there are few men, if any that have but the right use of their understanding as men, that do not, or may not know all this without School-Philosophy, as well as I. A. doth with it. And then what advantage giveth his Philosophy unto him? But toere are other great matters which his Philosophy teacheth; and as he particularly describeth them? they are these following, That every thing either is, or is not; that nothing can ●oth be, and not be at once; that of every contradiction the one part is true, and the other false; that every whole is more than 〈◊〉 part, that every Cause is prior in nature to its effect, that nothing can work before it exist. But I must tell I. A. that these last mentioned Positions, are not taught by Philosophy, and are not any part of Philosophy, as is generally acknowledged by the Professors of it; because they are first Principles which Philosophy doth not undertake to teach, but presupposeth them as already known and understood, by the common dictates of understanding, that is in all men; and are called by them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 common Sentiments or Principles; and therefore we still desiderate, what peculiar Mysteries I. A. his Philosophy doth teach, that men of ordinary understanding doth not already know, or at least may know very easily by a simple reflection, without his Philosophy or School-Craft. Not that I deny, but that there are divers things which the true genuine Philosophy may teach, that are not obvious to common understanding; but I find nothing asserted by I. A. in all these positions, which he giveth as instances of what Philosophy teacheth, but every ordinary Tradesman knoweth as well to be true, as I. A. And therefore he might have spared his Pains in that idle and unnecessary work.   

CHAP. III.  
J. A. in his Survey or Examination of the third Query, doth earnestly contend, That the Words of the Scripture are, and aught to be called the Word of God: For which he useth divers Arguments and Citations of Scripture; but the true state of the Question here, is, not whether the Scriptures figuratively, as by a Synecdoche, or Metonymy, may not be called the Word, for which I shall not contend, finding that the Greek Word Logo●, Translated into English [the Word] is used sometimes in Scripture to signify either Words or Writings, as Acts 1. 1. the Treatise Writ by Luke, he calleth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to say in English, the first Word or Speech: Also where Paul saith, Our Gospel came unto you, not in Word only, but in Power, etc. 1 Thess: 1. 5. And some other places may be found both in the Old and New Testament to that effect, which yet doth in nothing give to I. A. nor to any of our Adversaries, the least advantage against us. For the Question is, what is properly the Word God, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That which is most properly and eminently that Word of God, so much mentioned in the Scripture, with its wonderful effects; and that the Letter is not properly the Word of God, is as evidently apparent, as that the Writing or Written Letter of a man's Speech, is not properly the words of a man's Mouth; for we commonly distinguish betwixt a man's Word and his Write. How much more ought we to distinguish betwixt the outward Letter and Writing, and the Word of God in the proper sense, seeing God is an invisible Spirit, and so is his Word: And what he hath spoke by his Prophets or Apostles, he spoke it first in their Hearts and Mouths, before there was any Declaration of it in Writ; and consequently it was the Word of God, before the Writing: And therefore the Writing is not the Word properly, but only figuratively, as when a part is put for the whole, by a Synecdoche, or when the sign is put for the thing signified, as a Map of England and Scotland, is commonly called England and Scotland? and yet none will say, that that Map is really England or Scotland; or when we hear that England and Scotland produceth such and such Fruits, who is so ignorant as to think, that the Map or Card, produceth these Fruits, and not the Land itself. Let I. A. know therefore, that in all the places where the Word is mentioned, he must prove that the Letter of the Scripture is meant, or he doth nothing against us; the which I am sure he shall never be able to perform, seeing he grants himself, That sometimes at least, by the Word is meant Christ, and not the Letter. Moreover, I ask I. A. when he saith, The Scripture is the Word of God, what he meaneth by the term Scripture Doth he mean the only bare Writing, or Characters consisting of Ink and Paper; and will he say that is properly the Word of God? Or doth he mean the Doctrine expressed and signified by the said Writing and Characters, and the true sense and meaning of the Spirit of God held forth in the same, which Metonymically may be called the Scripture, putting the thing signified for the sign (and thus the Doctrine may be called the Scripture, and the Scripture the Doctrine, to wit, by a twofold Metonymy, one where the thing signified is put for the sign, the other where the sign is put for the thing ●igni●ied.)  
Now we do most willingly grant that the Doctrine and true sense or mind of the Spirit declared of or expressed in the Scripture, is, and may properly be called the Word of God. But then we further affirm, that the said Doctrine or true sense of the mind or Spirit, cannot be reached or attained unto by the mere Reading or Hearing the Letter, o the bare meditating in the Letter; and therefore not every one that hath the Letter, Preacheth the Letter, and Heareth the Letter, hath also the true Doctrine and mind of the Spirit, and consequently nor hath he the Word of God. But he only that receiveth the Spirit of Christ, or Christ the Lord who is that Spirit, receiveth the true Doctrine when he Readeth or Heareth the Scriptures, or meditateth in them, and consequently he only receiveth the Word of God: And thus also none can Preach the true Doctrine and Word of God, but he who speaketh it by the Spirit of God; and none Heareth the Word of God, but he who Heareth it, and into the Heart and inward Ears of his inward man receiveth it by the Spirit of God. To these only, I say, the Doctrine is known, and by these it is only received, as it is indeed the Word of God; and in this respect it was, that Paul commended such as received the Truth, by the same Spirit by which it was Preached unto them through him; That they received it not as the word of Man, but as the Word of God, etc. Now this commendation can be given to no unbeliever, that what he receiveth in the Ministry of the true Servants of God, he receiveth it as the Word of God; for only the true Believers do so receive it, according to Paul's Testimony, as it is indeed the Word of God. Moreover, I would have the Reader to know, that when we say, by the Word, is understood Christ; we mean not Christ abstractly, or separately considered from the Divine Doctrine and Testimony of Life, whether in the heart or Mouth, that immediately proceedeth from him, nor yet as divided or separated from any Divine operation of his Spirit, Power and Life in any of his Servants; but we take both these conjoined together, to be the Word of God, even as the Soul and Body is one Man, and sometimes the Soul is called the man, and sometimes the Body, and both properly enough, when the Soul is in the Body and united therewith, but the Body alone without the Soul, is not properly called the man; and thus much I hope shall suffice, to satisfy the sober Reader, as concerning the Word of God, how we understand it. Now whereas I. A. citeth divers places of Scripture to prove, That by the Word of God is not understood Christ, but the outward Testimony or Writing of the Scriptures. It is very evident, and may plainly appear so to be unto any having the least measure of Spiritual understanding, that by the Word of God in these Scriptures, is not understood the Letter, but Christ, together with the Divine operation and Testimony of his Life in the Hearts and Mouths of his Servants. And among these places by him alleged, I shall cite these following (for it is needless to cite them all) viz. Heb. 4. 12. Eph. 6. 17. Rev. 1. 16. Rev. 2. 12, 16. Rev. 19 15. And also he citeth divers Scriptures which mention the Word of Christ, and the Word which he hath spoken. And seeing that cannot be Christ himself, it must needs ac-according to him be the Letter. Now as to that Scripture Heb. 4. 12. For the Word of God is quick and powerful, etc. There are divers Protestants that expound it of Christ, and not of the Letter; and indeed the words themselves do plainly enough evince it, seeing it is said in the next verse, concerning the same Word, That all things are bare and manifest to his sight; and therefore that Word hath an Omniscience, which I suppose I. A. when he considers, will not affirm of the Letter of the Scripture. As for Eph. 6. 17. his reason is weak, that by it cannot be understood Christ, seeing it is called, The Sword of the Spirit; as to say, an Instrument in the hand of the Spirit. But this is only I. A. his gloss, and not Paul's words; For the Sword of the Spirit, may very well be understood to be the Spirit itself, As the shield of Faith, is Faith that shield, The Helmet of Hope, is Hope that Helmet, so the City of Rome, is Rome that City; and why not also the Sword of the Spirit, that Spirit itself: And this is further confirmed out of the Greek Article, Englished by [which] that is in the Neuter Gender, and therefore rendering this Sense, The Sword of the Spirit, which Spirit is the Word of God, so that the Article [which] being in the Neuter Gender, is Relative to Spirit, which in the Greek Language is in the same gender. Again, as to those three places in the Revelation, which mention the Word of God; it's being the Sword of his Mouth, and proceeding out of the Mouth of Christ: Doth I. A. think, that this only is the Letter of the Scripture? Doth nothing but the Letter come out of his Mouth? Doth not Spirit and Life, and living virtue come out of his Mouth? And did not Christ say, The Words that I speak unto you, they are Spirit and Life, John 6. And is not this somewhat more than the Letter? But lastly, The Word of Christ, and the Word that Christ speaks, hath of the Life and Spirit of Christ in it; and therefore it is still somewhat beside the External Writing or Letter, and is not divided or separated from Christ. And I have told I. A. already, that not only Christ abstractly considered, but the immediate Testimony and influence of his Life (which can never be separated from him, no more than the Sun Beams can be separated from the Son) is also acknowledged by us to be the Word of God, and to be Light and Life.  
B●t, saith I. A. The whole Doctrine of the Prophets, is the Word of the Lord; To which I Answer, I have granted, and do still grant it so to be, but as is already said, that Doctrine is not the bare Letter; nor hath every one that doctrine who hath the Letter; for to have the true doctrine and sense of the Spirit, is not only to have the Letter, but to have the Spirit, by which only the true doctrine can be conveyed unto us, although the true service and use of the Letter, in subordination to the Spirit is not denied.  
And whereas I. A. accuseth the Quakers, That they call the Scriptures a dead Letter, I no where remember that ever I read or heard any of them simply calling it so. But only in so far as it is eventually such unto them, who are spiritually dead themselves, and are not turned to the quickening Spirit, but alienated therefrom, to such only the Scripture is a dead and kill Letter, and this much divers Protestants have acknowledged as well as we, and particularly john Owen, in his Treatise on the Scriptures, That it is so to the jews, and other unbelievers. But unto all those who are spiritually alive, the Scripture is no dead nor kill Letter, but a living Testimony; as also unto all such whom it pleased God to quicken by his Spirit in the reading, or hearing or meditating in the Scriptures. Again that he saith, A part of the Scripture, to wit, the Law considered, as strictly legal is in respect of guilty sinners called a kill Letter, but never the whole Scripture; I Answer, That not only the Old Testament, but even the Writings or Letter of the New Testament, may be called a kill Letter to those that remain alienated from the Spirit that quickens. Lven as Origen hath formerly taught in his Commentary on Leviticus, Not only (saith he) in the Old Testament is found the kill Letter; there is also in the New Testament the Letter which killeth him, who doth not spiritually attend unto the things which are spoken. And why was the Law called a kill Letter? only because it did curse and condemn guilty sinners. Nay, that is not the only or main reason, but rather that its Ministration could not give life, whereas the Ministration of the Gospel, being accompanied with the Spirit, doth quicken and give life; and in that respect Paul said, The Law was weak and could no make perfect, and therefore calls it, The Law of a carnal Commandment. Now if any go from the Spirit, that only makes the true Gospel Administration, and set up the Letter or Writings of the Apostles, in the room of the same. These Writings of the Apostles do eventually become a kill Letter, no less than that of the Law, and can no more give life, or make perfect, than the outward Law could.  
And here upon this Head, I do readily take notice what I. A. acknowledgeth concerning the Scriptures in page 16. of his Book, towards the middle part, viz, That the Scriptures as to the external Form and Mode, which they have from the Writers Pen, they are not the Word of God, but that as to their ennutiate doctrine and sentence they are the Word of God.  
And why then doth I. A. make all this loud clamour and noise against the Quakers, seeing upon the matter he confesseth what they say, viz. That the letter or external form of the Writing is not properly the Word of God. And I suppose I may add with I. A his allowance, that the external Form and Mode of the Preachers mouth, when he formeth a sound in speaking Scripture Words, is not properly the Word of God any more than the bare writing, ●seeing there is no more in the one than in the other, simply as such. Let not I. A. therefore blame us for that hereafter, which he confesseth himself; and we do as readily acknowledge, as he either doth or can do, That the ennutiate and expressed Doctrine and sense of the Spirit is indeed truly and properly the Word of God. But than is there no difference betwixt him and us? I Answer, as to the naming the Scriptures, the Word, it seemeth there is none. But yet another great Controversy ariseth, which I doubt will not be so soon ended betwixt us, viz. Whether any man can reach unto that Ennuti●te Doctrine and sense of the Scriptures without the Spiritual Illumination and Assistance of that Spirit that gave them forth? we say Not; and if he say Yea, we still differ; but not as it seemeth to me by his Confession, in naming the Scriptures, The Word of God.  
But there is yet another great Charge wherewith he loadeth us in this his Survey of the Third Query, Some Quakers, saith he, are upon this Head so grossly Atheistical, as to say, That the Scriptures are but the Saints Words and Testimony from their own particular experiences. And again he allegeth, That according to the Quakers, they are but the mere bare Word of a Creature. Hence he inferreth, That the Penmen of the Scriptures, of all men in the World, must have been the greatest Cheats and archest Impostors, etc.  
But seeing he produceth no express Testimonies out of the Writings of that People, for such Assertions he is not to be believed. Nor doth it follow, that because the Scriptures are the Saints Words, that therefore they are not also the Words of God, even unto all who hear or read them; at least mediately and remotely; although none but such as believe, do receive them as such, which yet is only and alone the ●ault of those unbelieving persons, because they reject the Spirit of God that doth certify or assure unto us, That the Scriptures are proceeded from God by Divine Inspiration. And what if some have said, That the Scriptures are Testimonies of the Saints, from their experience. May not this receive a fair and charitable construction, and not presently be judged to be gross Atheism; for although the Scriptures give a narration of divers Histories, as also of Precepts, Prohibitions, and mysteries of Faith, As Christ His coming in the Flesh; His being born of a Virgin; His being Crucified, and Buried; His Resurrection, and Ascension; the which Histories, and things aforementioned, albeit they cannot properly be called the Saints Experiences, yet the Divine Inspiration and Revelation, which the Prophets and Apostles had immediately of those things, was truly their Experience; and let us see if I. A. will deny it; or if he do, may it not be more justly retorted upon him, That he, and not the Quakers, deny that the Scriptures are from Divine Inspiration; or can he say, that although the Prophets and Apostles had Divine Inspiration and Immediate Revelation, yet they had no Experience of the same. And that we call the Scriptures, sometimes, the Saints Words (yet not denying them in a true sense to be the Words of God) I. A. can no more justly blame us than Paul and john who called their own Preaching and Writing, and that of their Brethren, the Witness and Teaching of men; so that Paul and the Apostles Words were both the words of men, and yet also the Words of God, to wit, mediately declared unto them by the Apostles. Now they whose Faith stood in the Power of God, received them, as the Words of God, but who came not to that power to believe in it, they were but unto such as the words of men, which, as is already said, was only and alone the fault of such unbelieving Persons.  
There yet remains two parts or branches of the third Query, to which I. A. for all his pretended Survey, hath given no more satisfaction, than to any of the former. The first is, Whether all that is written in the Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, be a Rule of Faith and Manners. To this he only answereth in general, That we are bound to believe all Scripture Enunciation, from the beginning to the e●d (which we do readily grant, and that therefore it may well be called an Historical Rule of Faith) and that the Moral Law, with whatsoever is of common equity, or whatever enjoining any piece of Religious Worship under the New Testament doth belong to Christians of our Calling and Condition; but that the obligation of the Ceremonial and judicial Law is totally abrogated: And (saith he) the Quakers must be content with these generals. To which I Answer, When the Nature of the Question requireth a particular Answer, to Answer in general, neither can nor aught to satisfy; for notwithstanding of all he hath said, the great Question yet remains unanswered. What parts of the Scripture belong to the Moral Law, and what ●o the Ceremonial and Judicial so called. Also seeing there are divers things that were commanded and practised by the Apostles and Primitive Christians under the New Testament; whether all these do oblige us now, yea or nay; as for example, the Washing one another's Feet, and Anointing the Sick with Oil; and whether these actions were commanded by any part of the Ceremonial or Judicial Law, or whether they belong to any piece of Religious Worship under the New Testament. The other branch of the Question is, Whether every Title from 〈◊〉 to the Revelation be the Word, or Words of God. To this he Answereth affirmatively, and seemeth, to be so offended with the Question, as if it did conclude, That the Quakers judge, that the Scriptures are interpolated and corrupted with the additions of men. But in Answer, I. A. aught to know, that to Query a thing, will not conclude that the Questionist doth positively affim or deny what is Queried. Again, I hope it may without offence, not only be Queried, but also concluded, that the Translations of the Scripture (the which Translations are commonly cal●ed Scripture) have divers additions, which men have added, without any pretence to Divine Inspiration: The which Additions are commonly Printed in our English Bibles, in another Character than the other words. Now is it any Crime to ask if these Addititions be the words of God, or only the words of man; and if such Additions be any part of the Rule of Faith and Manners? And yet those very Additions are of such consequence, that they may occasion the Reader to take up another sense of the Sentences, than otherwise he would, or perhaps the Spirit of God did really intend. Nor are there wanting divers, both Judicious and Learned men so accounted, and of good repute, even among Protestants, who do acknowledge, that some particular words have dropped in, into the Greek and Hebrew Texts, since their first Writing, and what are these various Lections of many places of Scripture, especially when they contradict in one and the same place? Are not some of them at least only the words of men? All which being granted, yet do not hinder, but that the purity of the Scriptures is sufficiently preserved (viz. in respect of the main and necessary things) for which we have cause to bless God, and acknowledge his great care and Providence, as in many other things. And thus I. A. may see how much of the weightiest part of his task, in giving a sufficient Answer to those Queries, he hath still left undone, for all his windy Bragging against the people called Quakers.   

CHAP. IU.  
IN his pretended Survey of the fourth Query, he divides it into three Sections: In the first, he laboureth by many Arguments to prove a thing, which we do not deny, to wit, That the Scriptures are a Rule of Faith and Manners: And so he might have spared himself and others, all that pains, for the state of the Question is not, whether the Scriptures are not, and may not be called a secondary Rule; nor whether they may not in respect of all the Historical part, be called an Historical Rule: But the true Question is, whether the words of the Scripture, as they are only written and spoken outwardly, be the Principal, or only Rule of Faith and Manners.  
Now seeing I. A. hath been at such needless pains, to prove a thing against us, which we do not deny, I need not give a particular Answer to any of his Arguments. But because there are divers of his Arguments, which have some false premises, although the conclusion be granted; therefore I shall a little take notice of one or two of them.  
In his seventh Argument, he maketh it one of the Premises, That the more sure word of Prophecy, mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19, 20. is the Scripture. But this is denied by us, for we believe it to be that Word of God in the heart, by which all the true Prophets did Prophecy, and without which we cannot understand their Prophecies, nor any other part of the Scripture. Now the reasons of his Assertion are, 1. Because of the coherence of 19 and 20 Verses. But this is no sufficient reason, for the coherence is as good and better, to understand it of the word in the heart, as to understand Peter saying thus, Take heed to the Word of God in your hearts, by which the Prophets gave forth the Scriptures, for it is that same word, which maketh us sure, that the Scriptures are Divinely Inspired, and also doth give unto us the true Interpretation of them: This is a good coherence and much better than that imagined by I. A. as if Peter had said, Take heed unto the Scripture, as the more sure Word, for no Scripture is of any private interpretation: The which violent and strained coherence, I for my part cannot understand, seeing Peter aimeth at something that is not the Scripture, as being necessary to give us its Interpretation: And what can that be, But that Word of ●od, which spoke in the Prophets. His second reason is, That he cannot understand how the Dictate or Light within is more sure, than God's immediate voice from Heaven, as that was at the Transfiguration. To which I Answer, that the inward Voice or Word of God immediately in the heart, can very well be understood to be more sure as to us, than any outward Voice of God from Heaven. 1. Because that which is immediate in the Heart, is more near and immediate, than that which is outward in the Air, which cometh to the Heart and Soul, but mediately through the outward Hearing; however immediate may be understood otherwise. 2. It was by the immediate Word of God in the Heart, by which the Prophets, when at any time they heard an outward Voice or Word from God, did assuredly know that it came from God, and that it was no delusion of Satan. And they believed the Word of God in their Hearts, simply from its own self Evidence, and not from any borrowed Evidence of an outward Voice: For they oft believed, and received the Word of God in their Hearts immediately, when they heard no outward voice at all, as is generally acknowledged. And this inward or intellectual kind of speaking by the Lord unto the Prophets, is acknowledged by Thomas Aquinas and Suarez, and other Schoolmen, to be the most noble kind of Divine Revelation, and consequently the most sure, at least unto us. His 3. Reason, Is the Testimony of other Scriptures produced, and to be produced. But he has neither produced, nor can produce any Scripture that proveth, that Word of Prophecy, or Prophetical Word, to be only the Letter of the Scripture, and not the Word or Light of God, and of Christ in the Heart.  
Again in his eighth Argument, he allegeth, That it cannot be the Dictate or Light within, by which Spirits are to be tried; because the Dictate or Light within is fallible: And this he undertakes to prove, from some words of mine in Quakerism no Popery, where I acknowledge, That it is possible for us to mistake and err in Speaking and Writing (and consequently in Examining and judging) if we be not duly watchful. But how unreasonable this consequence is, I leave unto sober men to judge; as to conclude, because men are infallible, that therefore the Dictate and Light of God's Spirit in men is fallible also. Was not Peter fallible in some Cases; Yea, did he not fail sorely, when he denied his Master: Doth it therefore follow, that the Dictate or Light of God's Spirit in him was fallible? Indeed if I had said, that when we follow the Dictate and Light of God within, we are fallible, he might have inferred such a consequence; but I never said, nor thought any such thing, but on the contrary, that the Dictates and Leadings of God's Spirit in us are infallible, and have a direct tendency to lead, guide and move us infallibly, as they are purely kept unto, the which is possible for us to do. Another Argument he bringeth against the Dictate 〈◊〉; I●s being the rule to try Spirits, because than it would be both Superior and Inferior, which is Repugnant, Superior, when it tries and examines; and Inferior, when it is tried and examined. To which I Answer, 1. It is no Repugnancy, that one and the same thing be Superior and Inferior in different respects, and as it respecteth different Subjects. But 2. There is no necessity to understand the Dictate and Light of God's Spirit in divers men to be Superior and Inferior, when it examines, and is examined, for one equal may be a measure or rule to another; yea one thing may be said to be a rule unto itself, according unto that common Maxim or principle, Line● recta est norma sui & obliqui, i. e. A right line is the rule of itself, and also of that which is crooked. Otherwise let I. A. Answer me, How did Adam know the voice of God in his Heart and the Prophets, before the Scriptures were writ, how did they know it?  
And in the close of his first Section, he concludeth with a manifest Untruth, That the Quakers are for a new Dispensation, not only in manner, but matter, contrary to the Doctrine formerly Dictated by the Holy Ghost. This I say is false, which he neither doth, nor can prove, and the Dispensation we plead for is the same, both for matter and manner, which belonged to all true and good Christians in all Ages. And as to what he saith, Of our extreme Infatuation and Brain-sickness, and retaining the proportion and features of humane bodies, having quite enervated our Rational Essence. These and the like scoffing and disdainful expressions are no more to be regarded by us, nor have any more weight, than when some Epicureans at Athens, called Paul a Babbler We know, it hath been the Lot of God's people in former Generations, to be reputed by Adversaries, both Fools and Madmen. However, we hope, the sober Readers of our Books and Treatises, and these also who have any Converse with us, will find that we have neither abandoned, nor lost the use of our Rational Faculties, which we acknowledge to be good Gifts of God, and for which he is to be praised; nor doth our principle and belief of Divine Inspiration, as being a more noble and excellent Gift of God, than the highest Natural Faculty of Reason, either weaken or render useless to us our Reason, but both indeed both strengthen it and make it the more useful and comfortable, whereof to God's praise, we are bold to say, we have true experience, notwithstanding of what I. A. or any of his insulting humour do, or can say to the contrary.  
There yet remains two other things in this first Section of I. A. which I think fit to notice. One is, That he allegeth some of us understand by the more sure word of Prophecy, the Scripture, which is only to be taken heed unto, until the day dawn, and the day Star arise in the heart; that is, until the Holy Ghost be given, and that consequently, the Scriptures serve for nothing to belivers, who are born with the Spirit and sealed therewith. But seeing he has produced no Names of any among us understanding that more sure word of Prophecy to be the Scripture, we are not concerned to Answer him. It is possible that some in Discourse, has only so argued with him, ad hominem, as they use to say, and not as being their own judgement. And as for the Scriptures, we judge that they are profitable, and aught to be Read by true Believers and renewed persons, as well as others. But when doth I. A. think that the day dawneth, and the day Star ariseth in the hearts of believers? Whether in this mortal State, Yea or Nay, and then whether the shining of God's day, and the day Star thereof, be not a true immediate Revelation in the hearts of those who have it, and whether it doth not more assure them who have it, than the Letter of Scripture can do? And seeing the Light of God in them, when it shines in the heart but as in a dark place, is a more sure Word, than an audible voice from Heaven, or than the Letter of the Scripture, as to us; what shall be said of that Light, when it becometh not only as the day Star, but as the day itself, for clearness in the Soul? Or can there be any greater, or more principal rule than this? The other thing I notice is, That he inferreth the Scriptures to be a rule, because Christ said to the Sadduces, Ye err not knowing the Scriptures. Now if this Argument hold good, seeing Christ said also, Ye err not knowing the Scriptures, nor the Power of God; It will as well follow, That the Power of God, is the Rule, and that the rather, because it was their being ignorant of the Power of God, (which quickens both Soul and Body) that made them ignorant of the Scriptures; for none know truly the Scriptures, but they who know the Power of God; and therefore that Power, which is Life, Light and Spirit, is the more principal and original rule. But I. A. in citing these words of Christ, omitted the following words, which are exceeding weighty, viz. [no the Power of God,] whether this was purposely done of him, to ensuare his unwary Reader, or not, I shall not determine, but leave to his consideration.   

CHAP. V.  
J. A. in the beginning of his second Section, concerning the Rule, is pleased to call me an Arch-Quaker, (the which Title I no wise acknowledge) and a man too Learned, as I employ it. To which I Answer, That as to my Learning, that is but very ordinary, and a thing I neither can nor aught to glory in. However in this I rejoice, that the Testimony of my Conscience beareth me Witness in the Holy Spirit, that any small measure I have of that called Learning, it hath been my sincere aim and endeavour to employ it to God's Honour, and serve the Truth therewith, and not in the least to use it against the Truth, so far as it was, or is made manifest unto me. Next, he blames me that I affirm, The Scriptures are only but a secondory Rule of Faith and Manners; but that the Spirit, or his Dictate within is the Principal Rule, and like Proteus, turning myself into all shapes; sometimes I design Christ himself, oftener the Spirit himself, but oftenest the Dictate of the Spirit within to be that Rule. But he might at that ra●e have no less blamed the Apostle Paul that he turned himself into all shapes, while he affirmeth sometimes, That Christ spoke in him; and sometimes that the Spirit spoke in him; and certainly what Christ or the Spirit spoke in him, was by a certain Word or dictate. But to Answer directly, when I say Christ is the Rule: And again, when I say the Spirit is the Rule, there is no absurdness therein; for if we mean by the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, Christ and the Holy Ghost are never separated or divided in what they Speak or Witness in the souls of men, but their speech and Testimony is one and the same always; and also Christ himself in Scripture is called the second Adam; the quickening Spirit, and the Lord that Spirit; and said Christ, I am the way, the Truth, and the Life; and certainly that Life is Spirit; and also the Words or dictate of it is Spirit and Life, as Christ said, The words that I speak unto you are Spirit and Life. So the Reader may see that my words are sound and according to Scripture, and therefore whether I say, Christ or the Spirit, or the internal dictate and Word of the Spirit is the Rule, it is to the same purpose. And to say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule, is no other than to say, the Spirit dictating or speaking is that Rule; and do not some of yourselves use a variety of Speech, when ye speak of the Rule, one time saying, The Scripture is the Rule; another time, The Word of God contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only Rule, etc. as the Westminster Confession of Faith expressly hath it. Another time, The Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, etc. Now according to I. A. I may blame him and his Brethren in this case, that Proteus like, he and his Brethren turn themselves into all shapes when they speak of the Rule. And whether these phrases used by them be not more unscriptural, I leave unto sober men for to judge.  
In the next place he argueth, That Christ cannot be the Rule, nor the Spirit, because the Rule of Faith must be some complex Proposition, Direction, or Precept, and the like. To this I Answer, First, That the Rule of Faith must be a complex Proposition, Direction, or Precept, formally understood in words formally conceived, I altogether deny, and I. A. hath not offered to prove it. And although the Sp●rit of Christ may, and often doth speak express words in the souls of his people, yet he doth not always so do, when yet he clearly enough signifieth his mind and will unto them; for if among men, a King may signify his mind to his Subjects, or a Master to his servants, without any formal Proposition, or direction of words, but only by some motion of his hand or face: How much more may the Lord God, who is the King of Kings, signify his mind unto his servants by the motion of his Spirit, without any formal or express words? Again I ask I. A. if he hath not learned in the Schools, that the reasonable nature of God is the first rule of Manners? And certainly the reasonable Nature of God is not a complex Proposition consisting of many words. And hath he not read in Boetius that excellent saying? Quis legem det amantibus? major lex amor est ipse sibi, which the Author of a late Book called, The Life of God in the soul of man, doth use, to prove that somewhat more than words is a Law or Rule to Christians, and Englisheth thus: 
For who shall give a Law to them that Love?  
Love's a more powerful Law that doth such persons move.  And I further Query I. A. seeing the Scripture saith, God is Love; he that knoweth God to be Love, and hath the Love of God shed abroad in his Heart by the holy Spirit, which in Scripture is called, The Spirit of Love; shall not this man be tied to love God, and his Brethren; yea, and all mankind, even his very enemies. Suppose it be not said to him in formal express words, do so and so. Again, whether he that only readeth or heareth these outwardly, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, etc. and thy Neighbour as thyself; but his Heart is utterly void of the love of God; or he that hath the love of God in his heart, and feelleth the powerful constraint of it, is under the most powerful Law? Whether the words without, or the Spirit and Nature of Divine Love within, is the most powerful Law and Rule? There may therefore be a Law or Rule, which is not a complex Proposition of words, either inward or outward, to wit, the Divine Love itself, which hath a Voice and Language to the souls of men, in the silence of all words, many times, and can be understood as well without words as with them. And therefore when I say the dictate of the Spirit is the Rule, I mean not, that there is always a dictate of express words; but that which is either such a formal express dictate, or equivalent thereunto, which those who are acquainted with the experiences of the Saints do well understand, although it may seem to I. A. a strange Riddle or Paradox. And thus by what I have said in this particular, the intelligent Reader, I hope, shall perceive, that in saying, The Spirit is the Rule, I am not beside myself, as I. A. doth allege, but speak the words of Truth, and soberness. And I further ask, Whether I. A. thinks that Ignatius the Martyr was beside himself, when he writ in one of his Epistles to the People, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. Using the Holy Ghost for a Rule? or, Whether Paul was beside himself when he said, The Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ jesus had made him free from the law of Sin and Death. And whether that Law was not the Spirit of Life, even as the Law of sin, was sin; and the Law of death, was death. And whether the Law of the Mind, mentioned by Paul, was not a Divine Principle of Grace in his mind, even as the Law of his Members was a principle of sin and corruption, that sometime had place in him, and not any complex Proposition of words? And whether the Law that God writeth in the hearts of his people in the new Covenant, be simply a form of words, consisting of so many letters, syllables and sentences; or, rather to speak properly is not that Law, a new and Divine Nature or substantial Life of Holiness and Righteousness and Wisdom, by which the Children of God are led and taught under the new Covenant (naturally as it were) to love God, and all men; even as the Law that God hath put in all living Creatures, or Animals to love and cherish their Offspring (which is a shadow or figure of that more Divine Law in God's people) is not any complex Proposition of words, but an innate principle of love and affection, which he hath planted in them?  
Moreover, the said I. A. digresseth here from his matter to seek an occasion against us, and to load us with downright Blasphemy, because we do not say, that there are three Persons in the Godhead. But to this Charge I have answered already to one of I A. his Champions, in my book called, The Way Cast Up; the which hath given content to divers-sober people, and I hope may give content to all who reads it in that particular, where I show, that it is only the unscriptural terms of a Trinity of Persons, or of three Persons in the Godhead, that we deny, and not the mystery or thing itself, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, being three that bear Record in Heaven, which according to the Scripture, we both believe and confess. And indeed Augustine in his Fifth and Seventh Books of the Trinity, not only saith the words, three Persons are improper, but disputeth against them; and I suppose I. A. for all his School-Logick and Philosophy, shall hardly be able to Answer his Argument, the substance of which, to my best remembrance, is this, The word Person, either it signifieth somewhat absolute and simple, or somewhat relative; to say the first is absurd, otherwise there should be three 〈◊〉 Being's, or Essences in God, which is absurd, if somewhat relative (which is the second) then seeing every relative is referred, or is relative to another, as Father is relative to Son (and therefore Father is the Father of another, and no man is his own Father) in this sense, to say the Father is a Person, is to say, the Father is the Person of some other, and so of the rest, which is absurd. The which Argument, not as mine, but really Augustine's, I leave I. A. to Answer; and Jerome, another ancient Doctor and Father so called, doth find fault with the words, Three Hypostasis, saying expressly in the words, Three Hyposta●is, Latet aliquid veneni, There lieth hid some poison. And La●rentius Valla, a man well esteemed among the learned, findeth fault with the words, Three Persons, why then should we be so uncharitably charged by I. A. or such hotheaded men, with Blasphemy, only for keeping close to Scripture words in so great a Mystery, while the thing itself, so far as the Scripture declareth it, is owned by us. And whereas he urgeth us to tell what Three are they to be called, if neither Three Gods, nor Three Persons, I Answer, It sufficeth us to call them, what the Spirit of God in Christ and the Apostles hath called them; and to inquire no further, nor to be curiously wise, above what they have declared. Hath not I A. heard, That there is a Docta Ignorantia, or Learned Ignorance, which is more safe, and to be preferred, to an uncertain Knowledge or Science falsely so called. And if I. A. his definition of Person be received, viz. That it is an intelligent Being, subsisting incommunicably or distinctly one from another. I see not, for my part, but that Three Persons, at this rate, shall infer three intelligent Being's subsisting incommunicably, and consequently Three Gods.  
Lastly, That he saith, Some Quakers have called them three Manifes●ations, viz. of Moses, of Christ, and of the Spirit; he ought to have produced their names, or then we are not bound to believe him, that any have said so; for, at this rate, Moses should be the Father of Christ, which I do not believe any, called a Quaker, ever thought; perhaps some have said, there have been three Dispensations or Manifestations of God, one through Moses, and one through Christ in the Flesh, and one through the Spirit, or Christ in Spirit; and that these may after some sort have such a reference, as that the first may be called relative to the Father, yet not excluding the Son; and the second may be relative to the Son, not excluding the Father, etc. which yet doth not argue, that we understand the Dispensation, or Administration of the Father, to be the Father himself; far less, Moses to be the Father, as I. A. I believe very rashly and unwarrantably doth allege, Now that there are or have been diversity of Administrations, the Scripture is plain, and Protestants as well as Papists do acknowledge it. Yea, what saith I. A. to the common Catechism that saith, The Father hath Created us, the Son hath Redeemed us, and the Holy Ghost hath Sanctified us; which is to be understood not exclusively, nor yet without some order in the manner of working. But who will be so foolish or ignorant, for all this to say, That the Father is our Creation, the Son our Redemption (strictly or literally, and without a Figure so understood) and the Holy Ghost our Sanctification. Nor doth it follow, that because Christ bringeth in his Father and himself as two Witnesses, to prove that he was the true Messiah; that therefore there are either two or three Persons in the Godhead; for Christ speaketh these words, not simply as God, but as man: Now as Man, we acknowledge that Christ is a distinct Nature or Being from God, although not divided or separated therefrom. And lastly, that he argueth, That Christ is called the express Image of the Fathers Hypostasis, and that Hypostasis should be and is truly Translated Person, and not Substance, and otherwise it would infer Arianism. I Answer, That Hypostasis should be Translated Person, he doth merely affirm without any proof from approved Authors, and sure I am the Etymology of the word, hath no affinity to person, but properly signifieth Substance, being compounded of the Preposition, and Substantive Verb, which as near as possible, is in Latin substantia, and in English substance, and is so Translated, Heb. 11. 1. Now that to Translate it substance, would infer Arrianism, I. A. doth but merely say it without any proof, and so is not to be believed, And beside, Christ in Scripture is called, The Image of the Invisible God; and certainly God is a substance, and yet this, I hope, will not infer Arrianism, and may we not well understand how Christ as man is the Character or Image of God's substance, without Arrianism, seeing Christ said, viz. in respect of his Manhood, My Father is greater than I; and it is clear that the aforesaid place, Heb. 1. 2, 3. is to be understood of Christ, not simply as God, but as man, who certainly as man is the most bright and glorious Image of God, and above all Angels or Men, or whatever can be named besides the Godhead itself.   

CHAP. VI  
HAving thus traced I. A. in his unnecessary and impertinent digression. I shall now reply unto his Arguments, whereby he laboureth to prove, that the Scriptures are the principal rule of Faith and manners.  
And to the first, that in Isaiah 8. 10. they were sent unto the Law and Testimony, supposing that were the Scripture; it followeth not, that therefore it is the principal rule, especially in Gospel times, when God writeth his Law in the heart, and the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy; and he that believeth hath the Testimony or Witness in himself. But that people are not sent to any dictate, Word or Light within, as I. A. doth allege is false, and contrary to 2 Pet. 1. 19 Deut. 30. 14. Rom. 10. 8. joh. 3. 20, 21. joh. 12. 36. And doth not God and Christ, and the Holy Ghost dwell in the Hearts of believers; and must not they go to God and Christ, where they are, and doth not God and Christ speak in his people? Are they not his Temple, and as God spoke immediately in the outward Temple, under the Old Covenant; the which Temple was a Figure of Christ and the Church, shall he not speak now immediately in his true Temple, as well as he did in former times: Or are we wholly to neglect God and Christ in us, and their Inward Teaching; and only to mind the Letter of the Scripture without us, according to I. A. And when Paul said to Timothy, Neglect not the Gift that is in thee, Hath this command no regard unto us. And when Christ saith, Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any man will hear my voice; Is this door only an outward door, or is not rather the door of the Heart, which is inward; and therefore is not that voice inward? And whence is it, that seeing Christ is so near to his people as to be in them, that he doth not speak one word to them by himself, as a man doth to his Friend, that he is present with: Is it want of power or unkindness, that he doth so refrain. Doth not I A. and those of his Principle, make God over all Blessed for ever more; like unto the dumb Idols mentioned in the Scripture, Who have a Mouth but speak not, being always dumb or silent. Oh! what an Indignity is this to the Lord of Glory; and let I. A. take heed, lest he who is so ready to charge us with Blasphemy, be not found among the Blasphemers himself, who would limit the Lord from speaking and revealing himself, in his Living Temples.  
To his second Argument I Answer; Though the Scriptures are Infallible, and cannot deceive us; yet they cannot sufficiently demonstrate unto us, their Infallibility, nor yet their true Sense, without the evidence of the Spirit, as is clear by Paul's Testimony, 1 Cor. 2. 4. where he telleth, That his Speech and Preaching was in Demonstration of the Spirit and Power; And therefore without that demonstration of the Spirit, his words could not prevail, nor persuade them, that they were of God: And certainly if Paul's Preaching needed the demonstration of the Spirit, his Writing doth as much need it at this day.  
To the third, I say, It is no derogating from the Scripture, that they derive their Authority from the Spirit of God, which gave them their being, even as it is no derogation from the words of a King, long ago spoken by him, That he confirmeth them a new, by a new immediate Testimony.  
To the fourth, Although we may not receive any Dictate within, that agrees not with the Scripture; it doth not follow, that therefore the Scripture is above the Spirit of God, or his Dictate; for as the Spirit can never contradict the Scripture, so nor can the Scripture ever contradict the Spirit of God; and neither can the Spirit or Scripture, ever contradict pure and sound Reason; yet it doth not follow, that Reason is either greater, or equal to the Spirit, or to Scripture. And because that Dictate which is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected, as being none of God's Spirit, it doth only well follow, that the Scripture is a Rule, that is to be set over all false Dictates, to judge and condemn them, which we most willingly grant.  
Now I. A. perceiving that I could retort one of his Arguments, labours to guard against it, As seeing the Word of God is the principal Rule, and the Dictate or Speech of God's Spirit within men, is the word of God; therefore that Dictate is the principal Rule: And this Argument I did use in my Book called, Quakerism no Pepery. To which he Answers by denying, That there is any such Dictate of God, or the spirit in any men whomsoever, whether believers or unbelievers. But to this I Answer, 1. He will not deny, but that the Apostles had such an inward or immediate Dictate, and also the Prophets; and therefore he must allow, that the Scripture, as to the Prophets and Apostles, was but a secondary Rule, or at least no greater Rule, than that Dictate within, which they had. And yet by I. A. his Logic, the Apostles did vilify and despise the Scriptures, and it was a needless or unuseful thing unto them, seeing they had an inward Dictate, which was greater, or at lest equa unto the Scripture: Or let I. A. show, how their having the Inward Dictate for their Rule, did not make them undervalue the Scriptures; whereas our having such a Dictate as he allegeth, or pretending to such a Dictate makes us so to undervalue them. But secondly, he only supposeth it, without any proof, that such an Inward Dictate, which was once in the Church of God, (as is confessed,) is discontinued, or ceased. And this indeed is the general manner of our opposers, who lay it down as a Principle, as needing no proof, that Immediate Revelation, and Teaching of God's Spirit is ceased. But let I. A. know, that we can receive no such Doctrine as a Principle from them but return it as a mere idle and false supposition, which yet is the foundation of a great many of his consequences against us. Thirdly, that he saith, I should first prove, that there is such a Dictate in every man. I Answer, that I have done already, in my Book called, Immediate Revelation, published many years ago, by many Arguments; and he should first have Answered to these, before he had sought any more. Also in my Book called, Quakerism no Popery, to which he has given no sufficient reply, and some of the most weighty, he hath not so much as once Named. And whereas he objecteth the Americans, and others that cannot tell how many Gods there are: I ask him, by what shall the Americans be judged at the last day; shall it not be by the Law of God, writ in their Hearts. And do not these Americans sin against God, and those also who are most ignorant, and yet want the Scripture; now where no Law is, there is no transgression. This I hope is enough to prove, that even the Americans, and consequently all men, have a Divine Law in their Hearts; for if it were not Divine, and as really the Law of God, as any that we have, to transgress it, were not a sin against God. Hence I thus argue, a Divine Law in all men, is an Inward immediate Dictate; but there is a Divine Law in all men, and therefore, etc. And in this respect it is, that the substance of the Moral Law is generally acknowledged to be Imprinted in the Hearts of all men, even those who want the Scriptures. And I well remember, that Bishop Sanderson saith in one of his Sermons, That the said Law, in the Hearts of all men, is as really the Word of God, as that Printed in our Bibles: And thus I hope I have sufficiently evinced, that there is a Dictate in all men, that is a Divine Law and Rule, at least in many or most things, belonging both to Piety, Justice, and Sobriety. Although I do not plead, that there is a Law or Rule in them, who have not had the History of the Gospel revealed unto them to believe the same. Nor do I say, that the History of the Gospel is revealed to us immediately without the Scripture; but that, having Herd or Read the said History, and all other Historical parts of the Scripture, the Spirit of God, by some Inward Dictate formal or virtual, or that which is equivalent, doth move and incline us to believe the same. And that I. A. doth plead, That Believers only have the Spirit. I Answer, They have it only so as to possess and enjoy the indwelling of it, and union with it; but that Unbelievers have it so far, at least as to reprove them, and call them to repentance, is clear from many Scriptures, especially john 16. 8. Prov. 1. 23, 24.  
In Answer to one Argument of mine, he saith, A Believer needs not any immediate Dictate, to assure him that he is a Child of God, seeing by the assistance of the Spirit effectively, he may draw a conclusion from Scripture Premises, in applying the Scripture marks. But to this I Answer, that the Scripture only telleth him one of the Premises, of that they call the practical Syllogism; but no Scripture in all the Bible telleth I. A. or me, that he, or I have these marks; and seeing a true Believer may attain to a Faith of assurance, as I. A. doth not deny; and Faith must have the Word of God for its object, seeing there is not a word in all the Scripture that saith, he or I have those marks, we must seek that word somewhere else then in the Scripture; and where shall we seek it else but in our Hearts, where the Spirit himself witnesseth with our Spirits, that we are the Children of God, (if so be, that we have that witness) even as it did witness in Paul. And if the illumination of the Spirit discover the Graces of God in our Souls, certainly that is an Immediate Revelation; for Scripture doth not discover in us those Graces, but the Spirit; and he that discovers the Graces, discovereth also himself to be the true Spirit of God, and doth not hide himself from us; or else we might doubt whether the discovery were true or not, not knowing infallibly the Author thereof.  
Lastly, That he saith, I spurn at the distinction of objective and subjective Illumination, as Anti-christian and deceitful. I Answer, I do not blame the distinction simply as in itself, but as it is illused and applied: Whereas they say, The influence and illumination of the Spirit in Believers, is merely effective or subjective, and not at all objective: But I say it is both effective and objective; effective to help us to See or Hear; and objective, or by way of ●bject, for the Sight and Hearing, or any other perception of our Souls to stay and rest upon; but this object, can no more be the Letter of Scripture alone, than a report of Meat and Drink, can be the object to satisfy a man's Taste, or Appetite, when he is Hungry or Thirsty: And thus I do not confound the distinct considerations of objective and effective; only I affirm, that the same thing may be both, and so indeed is; as when the Sun enlightens us, its Ray or Beam helps us to see, and also it is the object of our sight: And the Heat of the Fire is both the object of our Feeling, and also when it is moderate helpeth us to feel, and effectively doth strengthen our Feeling: But when the Fire heateth a stone, it worketh in it only effectively, and not objectively, or as an object; but Believers receive not the Heavenly Light and warmth of the Spirit as dead and insensible stones, but as living Souls that have a real sense and perception of that which doth influence them; and therefore that influence is the proper immediate object of their perception. And if there be no inward Spiritual object, that the Spirit presents to God's Children, than there is no inward Spiritual Eye nor Ear, nor inward Spiritual Taste or Savour, nor inward Spiritual Feeling, all which is most contrary, both to Scripture, (which mentions all these Spiritual Senses, as I have proved at large in my Book of Immediate Revelation) and also to the Saints experiences. And doth not God promise, that his Children shall see him under the New Covenant; and certainly all sight that is proper is immediate. And to say, that the Saints only see God by the Scriptures, is but as much as to say, that we only see our Father, by a report of him, or that we only see the outward Sun by ones telling us that it shines, who hath indeed seen it; or that we only see our Native Country in which we live and dwell, by looking at the Map of it: But certainly such a remote and improper seeing do●s no wise answer to the Glory of the New Covenant, but rather falleth short of the Old: And if that be all to see God in the Scriptures, than all those that lived under the Old Covenant saw God, as clearly as Believers under the New Covenant, seeing they had the Scriptures in great part. But I remember a good saying of S. R. in one of his Epistles, that I hope may have some weight with I. A. That is little (saith he) to see Christ in a Book, (which yet the Scripture is) and certainly if I A. has seen no more of God, or Christ, but what he has had a report of, from the Letter of the Scripture; I must needs say, he is a great stranger to the New Covenant Dispensation, and is still like so to remain, while he disputes in unbelief against so great a Blessing, that if he did believe, he might attain unto: But I wish the Lord may open his Eyes, and then he will no more contend against such a thing.  
I. A. proceedeth further to dispute against the Dictate, or Witness of the Spirit within, although he saith, He hath sufficiently affronted it, yet because it is worthy of a thousand deaths, for its proud usurpation, as he saith, he will reach it some few blows more. To this I Answer, that these exceeding bold and daring words, against the Blessed Dictates or Words of Gods Holy Spirit in the Hearts of his people, hath not a little moved me with Commiseration and pity, praying heartily that the Lord may forgive him.  
But now let us see further, what he saith against the inward Dictate. First, he saith, It is not essentially right and infallible, because all men have not the Spirit: But to this is Answered already. And whether all men have the Spirit in some sense, Yea or Nay; it is agreed upon by all sober Writers, that there is an infallible and incorruptible Law planted by God in all men, even those who have not the Scriptures, which the Lawyers call Synderesis, that is, the foundation of all just and good Laws; and if that were destroyed or corrupted, all Justice should utterly perish among that part of mankind, in whom it should be destroyed or corrupted. But this I. A. like a blind man he striketh so rashly with his supposed Blows, that he not only fighteth against our Religion, and Principle, but even against all the Lawyers and Justiciaries, and all other sober Writers, on these matters, who do all unanimously plead, that there is such an incorruptible Law implanted or imprinted by the Creator in all men: And certainly if that Law could be corrupted and changed from its essential rectitude and purity, to transgress it, were no sin; for a corrupt and impure Law, can be no Law of God. And doth not Paul speak of the Law that was in the Hearts of the Gentiles, which he did not say, they did or could corrupt, But that they held the Truth in unrighteousness, Rom. 2. 15 compared 1. 18. Again he argueth, That as for Believers, they need no Inward Dictate or Teaching of the Spirit, seeing the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures. But I Answer, That the whole Doctrine of Salvation is abundantly made known in the Scriptures, that the Inward Teaching and Revelation of God by his Spirit is needless, is a thing he barely doth allege, without proof, as his ordinary custom is: And indeed his manner of Argument is, as if one should say, the Card or Map of the Earth, doth abundantly make the Earth known unto us, with the things therein; and therefore we need no other knowledge of the Earth, nor of any thing in it; we need not see the Earth itself, nor Taste any of the Fruits of it; and when we Hunger or Thirst, we need neither Bread nor Drink, the report of these things can satisfy our Appetite well enough: Or if one should say to a Woman that entirely loves her Husband, thou hast many of thy Husband's Letters, and Books; also thou hast his Picture very perfectly drawn, to look upon, and it cannot be better drawn than it is done already, and therefore what needs thou to hear or see thy Husband himself. The application is easy, for certainly as the report of Meat and Drink, cannot satisfy one that is Hungry and Thirsty, though it be never so full, and as to hear or read of our most dear and beloved Friends, is not enough to satisfy our desire after them; but over and above all that others can tell us of them, we desire to hear and see them, and converse with them immediately; so a report of God and Christ, cannot satisfy the Souls of God's people, but they desire a nearer knowledge of him, whom their Souls love, and which he doth also give unto them, according to his promise, joh. 14. 21. He that loveth me, (said Christ) shall be loved of my Father, and I will manifest myself unto him. And why did Christ promise, that he would send his Spirit to Teach them all things, if the Teaching of his Spirit was a needless thing? Might they not have answered according to I. A. thou needest not send thy Spirit to Teach us, we have the Scriptures that abundantly Teach us all things needful to be known; and what is not expressly contained in the Scriptures, we can gather it by consequence from the Scripture, and therefore there is no need of sending the Spirit to Teach us, it is but a superfluous labour. But however this Language savours to such whole persons as I. A. that need not the Physician; yet those that are truly Sick, Poor and Indigent, do need the Lord and his Spirit to Teach them, and also to speak unto them; without which they cannot be healed, refreshed and comforted, by all that they can read or hear from the Letter of the Scriptures, or what man can Preach unto them, until the Lord by his Spirit syeak unto them himself.  
And in the close of his Argument against the necessity of the Inward Teaching, or Dictate of the Spirit of God, he pleadeth, That it is inconsistent, to hold an infallible Dictate of the Spirit to be in any man, and yet that man in any respect, to Think, Speak, Write, or act fallibly: And 〈◊〉 when Peter denied Christ, as also when Christ reproved him, for saying, be it far from thee Master: Peter according to I. A. had no infallible Dictate in him: And seeing I. A. doth plead that the Apostles did sin in Thought, Word and Deed, so long as they lived upon Earth, and to sin is to act fallibly, it must needs follow by his doctrine, that none of the Apostles had any infallible Dictate. But why may they not err who have an infallible Dictate within, as they may err who have the Scripture without, that is infallible? May not a man have an infallible guide and way before him, and yet through unwatchfulness, not follow that infallible guide and way. Again, whereas he pleads, That there is no middle betwixt fallible and infallible. I Answer, to be universally fallible, and partly infallible, I grant is a contradiction, and admitteth no midst, but yet to be partly infallible, viz. so far as a man doth follow the infallible Teaching and leading of God's Spirit; and partly fallible, viz. so far as at another instant or moment, or hour, and in another thing he waiteth not for his guide, but runneth before, or turneth aside from him: I say, these two are no contradiction. And I ask I. A. hath he no infallibility nor infallible knowledge in any thing? Doth he not believe and know infallibly that there is a God, and divers other weighty Truths? This I judge he will not deny? Well then. According to his Logic, if he be infallible, when he Thinks, Sesse, or Writs that there is a God, he must be infallible in all other things that he either Thinks, Writes, or speaks, because according to his Doctrine, there is no middle betwixt fallible and infallible. I. A. should have better remembered his School-Logick, which Teacheth, that contradictory propositions are not betwixt two universals, nor two particulars; but the one universal, and the other particular.  
His 3d Argument against the Dictate of the Spirit of God within, is the same with his 4th Argument that is formerly Answered above▪ concerning the Scripture. And surely this repeating of Arguments, as if they were new ones, when they are nothing but old ones formerly used, argueth great barrenness of matter in I. A. else he would not run into such needless and idle Tautologies. But he thinks I have yielded the cause to him, because I grant, all Doctrines, that agree not with the Scriptures, are to be rejected; therefore the Scripture is a superior rule to all such false Doctrines I grant. Therefore the Scripture is Superior to the Spirit of God and his Dictate in our Hearts, I deny it. And though we are to examine the inward Dictates of God's Spirit by the Scriptures, yet that proves not that the Scriptures are superior; no more, than that it proves that the words of the Prophets were superior to the words of Christ and the Apostles, because the people examined the latter by the former.  
His fourth Argument is built upon a Supposition, that the Scriptures are the principal rule, and consequently not the Spirit inwardly Dictating in our hearts. But he hath not proved that the Scripture is a more principal rule, than the Spirit. Although in respect of all outward rules that can be named, or conceived, the Scripture is the most principal rule. Nor is it any repugnancy to say, the Scripture is the principal external rule, by which all Doctrines and Principles of Religion are to be examined, and what is contrary to Scripture is to be rejected; and yet to say also that the Spirit himself, persuading or assuring us, of the Truth of the Scripture, is the principal inward rule, seeing these two principles are in differing kinds, the one external, or without us, the other internal, and within us, which are very well consistent, and mutually bear witness one of another, even as john bore witness to Christ, and Christ bare witness to john: Although Christ needed not the Testimony of john, as for himself.  
His fourth Argument concludeth only against a thing, which we do no wise deny, viz. That every Dictate within is not the Rule: And I. A. might have spared his pains to dispute against that, which no man holdeth. For who is so absurd to think that every Dictate, suppose it be of a man's own vain and foolish mind, or of the Devil, is to be received as his rule. The Question is not concerning every Dictate, nor indeed concerning any other, then that alone Dictate of the Spirit of God and of Christ in men, which hath a self evidence unto him, who hath it, as I. A. must needs acknowledge it had to the Prophets and Apostles. But he objects, That the Devil may present an Imposture unto a man, with so much seeming evidence, as with the concurrence of a deceitful heart, will make it be received for a Divine Truth, especially by that man that for the present time has no Divine Dictate. To this I Answer, That the person supposed by I. A. is either one that the Lord hath in his just judgement for some great unfaithfulness, and abuse of Light formerly given, delivered up to Satan's delusions, such as these mentioned 2 Thess. 2. 11. And as for him, and the like sort, the Scripture cannot help him: For certainly he that is given up by the Lord, to the delusion of Satan, as a punishment of his sinning against the Light he once had, will misunderstand the Scripture, and cannot otherwise do, even as the jews and Sadducees did of old. But as for others that are not so given up by the Lord, it ought not to be supposed, that they can altogether want some Divine Dictate, or witness of God's Spirit, to testify against the strongest delusion of Satan. And therefore he to whom Satan presents such a delusion, if he hath a sincere love to the Truth, by comparing the delusion with the true Dictate or Light of Christ that witnesseth against it, may readily discover it, to be a delusion; and if the said delusion be contrary to any Doctrine expressly declared in the Scripture, the Scripture will also be a secondary confirmation to him, that what is so presented to him, is but a delusion. But many times Satan presents delusions to men to do, or act things, that are not simply in themselves unlawful, or contrary to Scripture. And then I Query by what rule, shall these delusions be discovered? But I confess I. A. hath a very short way, but yet very false and unsound to resolve this question, viz. Positively to conclude, that all inward Dictates and suggestions whatsoever that any man finds in himself, are utterly to be rejected, as being any Command of God, or any Divine Testimony, seeing▪ there are none such in the hearts of men. They are all according to him, either a man's own thoughts or suggestions of Satan: And therefore nothing that a man hath in him is to be relied upon. But it is strange Doctrine, that Satan shall be so near always to Dictate evil, even unto the Children of God, immediately; but God and Christ shall be at such a distance, as not once in a man's whole life time, to Dictate in him immediately that which is good. The which Doctrine of I. A. is so favourable to the Devil, and so advantageous to advance and uphold his Kingdom among men, that this one consideration is enough to render it suspected that it is not of God, but of the adversary.   

CHAP. VII.  
IN the Third Section of his Survey upon the Fourth Query, I. A. pretends to Answer our Objections or Reasons, That there is a Word or Dictate of God in our Hearts, or Christ himself that doth Dictate or Teach in us; and who is the principal Rule of Faith and Life. All which Objections he brings them not, either in matter or form as used by us, but miserably perverts the most of them to a contrary sense and intent, as if we did use those Reasons to oppose an outward Ministry, or the use of outward Preaching, Hearing, Reading, Praying; none of which we oppose; but on the contrary, we own all these things, as both needful to be done, seeing they are commanded of God, and as profitable to men; yea, to the most advanced and experienced Saints, when duly practised. And it is an exceeding great mistake in our Adversaries generally to suppose, That our Principle of Immediate Revelation, or the Immediate Teachings of the Spirit doth destroy, or make null and void the use of the Scriptures, or any other means: For by Immediate, we mean not Immediate in opposition to those things, that are means truly appointed of God, as Reading the Scriptures, Preaching, Praying, Meditating, Singing, Waiting. But on the contrary we say, It is only by the help of the Spirits immediate Teachings and Leadings, that those and the like means are made effectual, and profitable to the People of God. For if the Prophets and Apostles their having Immediate Revelation, did not make void the use of the Scriptures unto them, nor the use of Preaching, Praying, Reading, Meditating, Waiting and Watching, no more doth our having it. Again, our Adversaries grant, that God doth operate or work immediately, by an immediate effective illumination of his Spirit, in the hearts of all his People, and that this immediateness doth not hinder, or make void the use of means, but make them the more profitable and useful; even so nor the immediate objective illumination, doth in the least made void the means, as is already said in the case of the Prophets and Apostles; and Paul said, the Scriptutes were writ for his and his brethren's Learning, even his fellow Apostles, as well as other Christians. And to say or think the contrary, is as absurd and unreasonable, as who would say, a Scholar that is taught of his Master immediately is not to read upon any Book, nor to hearken to any of his fellow Scholars, that may be as well or better learned than himself; and on the other hand, to set up the means in opposition to the Lords immediate Teachings, is equally unreasonable as to conclude, such a man has Books whereon to learn, and therefore it can profit him nothing to be taught immediately, or viva voce, and by word of mouth by a l●ving Teacher. Now both these extremes, our Principle, and the Scripture, and also our good experience have taught us to shun. And the immediateness of the Spirits illuminations, both effectively and objectively to work and operate in us, in the use of all the means appointed of God, (sometimes in the use of one means, and sometimes in the use of another; as now in Reading, then in Hearing; now in Preaching, then in Praying; now in Meditating, then in Singing or Praising God; now in giving Alms, then in visiting the Sick, or thos● that are in Prison; and sometimes, as the mind is retired in pure silence to wait upon the Lord, which may be as well and as truly called a mean, as any of the former. I say the immediateness of the Spirits Communications and Illuminations, in the use of those and the like means aforesaid) do as well consist with the means, and the means with them, as the immediate Sunshine and influence of the heat, and comfortable warmth of the Sun, which worketh both effectively and objectively upon us, consist with the means; when we walk or travel on the Road at noon day, or labour in the Field, Plough, Digg, Sow, Reap, and use any other manual operation, the which means are so far from hindering, or making void the necessity of the Sun's immediate influence and concurrence, that none of these things can be well or comfortably performed without it. And in this large and general sense of the word means, which also is true, it may be warrantably enough said, without any prejudice to our principle of Immediate Revelation, that we have no ground to expect any Immediate Manifestation or Revelation of God, but in the use of some one means or another, that God requireth us to be found in. For there is not one hour, or moment of our Life, but there is something of Duty or Obedience that we ought to be found in, either inwardly or outwardly (if we have the use of our understandings as men) and every act of Obedience may and ought truly to be called a means of our receiving somewhat immediately of God, to wit, our Faith, our Love▪ our Hope, our Holy Fear, our Care, our Watchfulness, our Praying, Meditating, and silent Waiting; and in one word, our whole Obedience, all these are as truly and properly means, as Preaching, or reading in the Scriptures. And thus every one that is most diligently exercised in the true means, has greatest access unto God, and doth most abundantly partake of the immediate Revelations and Communications of God's Holy Spirit, Light, Life, Love, Virtue, Power, and Wisdom. And if it be said, Why are they called then Immediate; I Answer, Because we feel or perceive them most near unto us even as near, or rather more near unto us, as the things or actions wherein we are exercised, giving Spiritual Vigour, Life, and lustre unto them, without which they are but as dead or lifeless. And thus even as when the soul liveth in the Body, it is said to be immediately united with it, and act immediately therein or therewith, although it useth the Body as its Instrument: Even so the Spirit of God and of Christ, livingly indwelling in the Saints, and united with them, and they with him, is said to act immediately in them, and with them, although the Lord useth them as means or instruments to work with him. And as for the word Immediate Revelation, seeing it is not any express Scripture phrase, no not in the case of the Prophets and Apostles, so far as I can remember, if the thing itself were granted, to wit, That God doth inwardly reveal and speak his mind, or show his Glory, and glorious ●ower and Presence in his Children, as he did in and to his Saints of Old; so that the Saints do Hear, See and perceive, also Taste and Savour, and feel after God Himself, as he reveals himself in his Son, by the Holy Spirit, the Controversy about the Name or Phrase should soon be at an end; for it did satisfy the Prophets and Apostles, who had it in great measure to call it simply Revelation, and Vision, or the like, without adding the word Immediate: for in those days, it seemeth that deceitful distinction of Mediate and Immediate Revelation was not found out in the World; I call it deceitful and false, because, to speak properly, all Revelation is Immediate, even as all Vision is Immediate; and so is all Hearing, for I can neither see nor hear a man, unless I see and hear him immediately. And as for the Scripture, when it is called a Revelation, it should be figuratively understood, as when it is called a Vision; for none will say that Isaiah his Book is really the Vision itself which he s●w, but only a declaration of it. And as 〈◊〉 could not write the intellectual Vision that he saw, to speak properly, so nor could he write the intellectual Voice, Word or Words, that he did only intellectually hear, but only a Report or Declaration of them, the which doth far come short of what he saw, or heard; and in this respect, Paul saith, that he heard verba ineffabilia, unspeakable words, that could not be uttered or expressed, and so did all the Prophets and Apostles; for indeed the words of the mouth, as they can be spoken and writ, fall short many times to express the depth of what we inwardly think or receive in natural things, and how much more to express what God doth inwardly speak or reveal, which yet is no derogation from the words of Scripture, for it is acknowledged by us to be a blessed instrument, in the hand of the Spirit for our Instruction. And though we cannot be so bold as to say, That the true God is not Worshipped, nor known savingly, where the Scripture is wanting, as I. A. doth allege more daringly, I suppose, than many of his Brethren that that are more sober will allow, yet we do believe and freely acknowledge that the Scriptures are ordinary means, (but yet not without the inward Direction, Revelation and Teaching of God's own Spirit) of People's Instruction, in all Nations, according to Rom. 16. 26. and those Nations that want the Scriptures, are, no doubt, for most part, in great darkness; But why some Nations want the blessing of the Scriptures belongeth to the secret Judgements of God; and as for us, who have them, let us be thankful to God, and earnestly seek the holy Spirit that gave them forth, without which they will be a Sealed Book unto us, whether learned or unlearned, as it is at this day unto the unbelieving Jews, and also unto many thousands of unfaithful Professors of Christ, who in works deny him. And thus, by what is said, how and in what manner we own the Word of God in our Hearts, immediately Speaking and Teaching, as our principal Rule, I. A. his Cavils, and false Charges are sufficiently Answered, which may serve to all his Third Section. Yet to Answer to some things more particularly, whereas I. A. allegeth, That the Word mentioned, Deut. 30. 14. is not Christ, but the Books or Writings of Moses. To this I Answer, But whether shall we rather believe I. A. or the Apostle Paul, who, Rom. 10. doth plainly expound it of Christ; see Verse 4. compared with Verse 5, 6, 7, 8. when he distinguisheth betwixt the Law and Christ, as preferring Christ to the Law; and he saith, Christ is the end of the Law, which he proveth out of Moses' words, Deut. 30. 14. and therefore these words of Moses are to be understood of Christ, and so did Clements Alexandrinus, and others of the Fathers understand them. But saith I. A. Moses ties them straight to the external written Word of the Scriptures. But what then, doth he so tie them, as that they were not to regard God, or Christ, or the Holy Spirit in their Hearts? How wild and unreasonable is this consequence? Could the people understand the true Spiritual intent and signification of the Law, without Christ and his Spirit, and inward Teaching? Was it not the fault of the people, that they stuck so close to the bare outward performances of the Law, and neglected Christ and his Spirit, which could alone give the understanding of it: And therefore when he came in the flesh, they rejected him.  
Secondly, as to jeremiah 31. v. 31, 32. we do not bring this place to overthrow the external Rule of the Scripture, or true outward Teaching, as I. A. falsely doth allege, but only to prove, that God himself doth Teach his people under the New Covenant; so that they hear God himself, and learn of him; which yet doth not hinder, yet they both also may and aught to hear all those, whom God sendeth. And certainly that Scripture expression to be Taught of God; is more, or a further thing then to be Taught by the Letter of the Scripture, or by Moses and the Prophets Writings; otherwise it might be said, that the people simply by the Old Covenant, was as much Taught of God, as under the New.  
Thirdly, Nor do we bring Luke 17. 20, 21. where Christ saith, The Kingdom of God is within you, to exclude all External helps and means, as I. A. doth again no less falsely allege. But only to prove that there is an inward Principle of Christ's Light, Life and Grace in men, whereby he ruleth in those that are obedient unto the same; and even in them, who are disobedient, it hath its Rule and Kingdom so far as to judge and condemn them; which yet it could not do, without some inward Dictate or witness.  
Fourthly, As to john 16. 13. where Christ Promises to send his Spirit to guide us into all Truth: Nor do we bring this to oppose all outward Teaching, Reading, Learning, etc. But still we say, seeing it was a promise made to the Apostles, as well as unto us, it implieth a real inward Teaching of God, and the Spirit; that is somewhat further, than the outward Teaching whatsomever, which if it may and aught to be called immediate in the Apostles, may and ought also to be called immediate in God's people now, and always to the end of the World, seeing the promise is the same to both; and therefore hath the same performance at least in kind, if not in degree.  
Fifthly, The same false and absurd charge he is guilty of, as to 1 joh. 2. 20, 27. which mentioneth, The Anointing which taught them all things, so that they needed not any man to Teach them. For we bring not this place to oppose all outward Preaching or Teaching of men, of God truly sent and called by him; But only the bare dead and dry Teaching of men, who run, and God hath not sent them. And also the words may be understood in respect of an absolute necessity; so as they who are come to that inward Anointing, and that it abide in them, they have not an absolute necessity of outward true Teachers, so as they must need perish, for want of them, if so be at any time, they could not be had, as doth at times come to pass. And thus also that of jeremiah 31. 31, 32, 33, 34. is to be understood, importing likewise that all True Believers, should have that experimental knowledge of God and acquaintance with him, by the inward Teachings of his Spirit, so as none should be wholly ignorant of God, but all should know him in measure; and therefore it should not be needful to say unto any of them, know the Lord; as if they were utterly ignorant of him, in respect of Spiritual and experimental knowledge, as indeed many or most of the people under the Law were: Which yet hinders not, but that still there will be both need and great use of True Teachers in the Church to the World's end, though not to say, know the Lord, (as if they did not in any measure know him) yet to promote and advance them who know him already, in more knowledge of him; and of the great and deep Mysteries of his Kingdom.  
Sixthly, He saith, That engrafted word mentioned Jam. 1. 21. which we are bid receive, is the Scripture, and not Christ, or his Light. For he saith, We cannot in proper Speech be said to receive or hear a Dictate within, which we have already, and is not audible properly. But how weak is this Argument? Could not the Prophets and Apostles both hear and receive Christ, whom they had already? were they not still more and more to receive him. And have we not the Scripture already, and consequently according to I. A. we cannot receive it. And that he saith, A Dictate within is not audible properly. But why not as properly, as a Dictate without? Seeing the Spiritual Hearing and Seeing are as proper in their kind, as the Natural are in their kind. And according to this reasoning of I. A. none of the Prophets nor Apostles were to hear God, or the Spirit in them, seeing nothing within, is audible properly. And as for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Englished, Engrafted, it doth most properly signify innate, and is commonly understood of that which originally is Grafted or Implanted in us; and in this sense is used generally both by Christian and Heathen Writers, as it is contradistinguished▪ from that which is outwardly received. Hence the natural love or affection that is in mankind, is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the which is not a thing outwardly received, and consequently the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot be the Letter of the Scripture, but a Divine principle immediately grafted into our Souls, when God Created them? and in respect of which, men are said to be made in the Image of God.  
Seventhly, He allegeth, that we bring Heb. 6. 1, 2. To oppose and reject all External Ordinances out of the Church citing Principles of Truth, pag. 63, 68, 77, 80. And here he insulteth not a little, as if by the same Argument, The Quakers were obliged to reject the very Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, and the foundation of Repentance and Faith, as well as Water-Baptism. But to this I Answer, having examined these pages cited by him, I do not find, that they mention or intend any thing of rejecting the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, or External Ordinances. And let but the Reader examine the words, and he shall find, that nothing further is intended, than this, that people should not sit down, or build their Faith upon a form of words, though never so sound, but should come further than all words; so that leaving them behind, as in respect of a foundation, they were to come unto Christ the true foundation, and grow up in him unto perfection. And as for Water-baptism, that place of the Heb. 6. 1, 2. doth not mention it, among the principles of the Doctrine of Christ, but only the Doctrine of Baptisms, which is another thing than Water-Baptism. For although we have not Water-Baptism among us, yet we have the Doctrine of Baptisms, that is set down, with other principles of our Faith, as in divers other of our Book, so in that mentioned by him, called, The Principles of Truth. Now to leave a form of Words, or Articles and Propositions concerning Faith, which commonly are called Principles, so as not to set them up for the principal and only foundation of our Faith, which people are but too ready to do. This is not to reject them, no more than when a man leaves his Affairs he hath been conversant in, and goeth to his Bed to rest him with moderate sleep, is to reject his Affairs, for he returneth unto them again.  
Eighthly, He saith, We object that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. Had not the Scripture to be their Rule, and therefore nor are we to have it to be our Rule: And this he makes as ridiculous a consequence, as to say, the Scriptures were not written in the primitive World, therefore neither afterwards. But I Answer, that to argue from thence, that the Scripture is not to be our only and principal Rule, is both safe and pertinent. For it Enoch, Noah, Abraham had the Spirit to be a Rule unto them, it is no less a rule unto all now, who have the same Faith which they had; seeing the same Spirit is given to Believers now, which they had, which Spirit is one, as Paul hath declared; and it is most Rational, that as the Faith is one, in all Ages of the World, and the Spirit one, so the Principal rule of Faith should be one also.  
Ninthly, He saith, I object, (Quakerism no Popery, pag. 9 13.) That the Testimony of the Spirit within, is greater than the External Testimony of the Scripture; and therefore the said Testimony of the Spirit is the Principal Rule. To which he roundly Answereth, by denying that there is any such Testimony of the Spirit within Believers; and because I say there is, he allegeth I drive the Plough before the Oxen. But I Answer, that I have proved it sufficiently already; and now also I have Answered I hope sufficiently, all his objections against it. And here I desire the Reader to take notice, how that notwithstanding I. A. saith elsewhere, as Pag. 44. That he and his Brethren never denied the Spirits Teaching, Yet how inconsistent that is, with denying any Testimony of the Spirit, or Dictate thereof, in men's hearts. Is the Teaching of the Spirit, only an outward thing? Is it nothing else, but to Hear or Read the Letter of the Scripture? And are they all Taught of the Spirit, who are but only and merely Taught by the Letter? But if it be granted, that there is an inward Teaching of the Spirit, distinct from the outward Teaching of the Scripture, although not separated therefrom, or without the outward, as I know some of the more sober doth acknowledge; then I say, is not that inward Teaching a Testimony of the Spirit? For to affirm it to be a Teaching, and no Testimony, seemeth to me to be a great contradiction. And as for us, although we cannot say that the inward Teaching or Testimony of the Spirit is never in any case, without the outward; yet we grant it is oft accompanied with the outward, and in that case, it is no less truly immediate, than if it were without it, as I have already showed. And supposing, but not at all granting, that the inward Teaching of the Spirit were never without the outward of the Letter; yet seeing the outward Teaching of the Letter, is oft without the inward, (for many are Taught by the Letter, who are not Spiritually Taught, all that the Letter hath outwardly Taught them) it followeth evidently that the inward Teaching of the Spirit, and outward Teaching of the Letter are distinct things, as is manifest from that sure maxim, that when two things can be separate, so as the one to be without the other, they are really distinct. This Argument I used in my Book called Quakerism no Popery; but I. A. hath made no reply to it. And still I say, if the inward Teaching of the Spirit be denied, it doth follow, that in respect of any inward Speaking, or Teaching, God doth no more intelligibly or perceptibly speak to the Saints, than he speaketh to the Earth to bring forth Grass; the which consequence I. A. seemeth to allow, but how absurdly, I leave to sober men to judge.  
And whereas I. A. saith, That God doth not always make use of the greater Witnesses for testifying his will to us. I Answer, In respect of men and Angels, it is true: But notwithstanding God hath given himself, and his own Holy Spirit, which is one with him, to be unto us a witness of his will; and this is the greatest witness that can be given: See Rom. 8. 16. 1 joh. 5. 8, 9   

CHAP. VIII.  
IN his pretended Survey of the Fifth Query, he begins with two false Charges against us, the First, That we deny all Scripture Interpretation; the Second, That we deny all Scripture Consequences; And to refute these idle Suppositions, which are none of our Assertions, he spendeth many Pages of his Book to no purpose, and wherein we are nothing concerned to Answer: For we own both Scripture interpretation, and just and necessary consequences of Scripture; but then we say, that these interpretations and consequences ought to be by the help and direction of the same Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures, immediately teaching them to interpret, and to draw such consequences therefrom; to which I. A. doth not pretend, nor any of his Brethren. For all the Interpretations and consequences which Christ or the Apostles used, were by the same Spirit that was in the Prophets; and Peter saith expressly that no Prophecy of Scripture is of private Interpretation; and it is said of Christ, that he opened the understandings of the Disciples that they might understand the Scriptures, which opening was by his Spirit that he gave unto them, and seeing the Scripture cannot be understood without the opening of the Spirit that gave it forth, it cannot be interpreted without the same; nor can consequences be lawfully deduced from Scriptures without it; for how can a man interpret what he doth not understand? or how can he deduce a consequence from that whereof he is ignorant?  
And there is yet another fault that we find in I. A. and his brethren's interpretations of Scripture and consequences therefrom, that they keep not closely to Scripture itself, when they interpret, or draw consequences, but for most part, mingle with the Scripture words many of their false principles and Axioms of that they call their Philosophy. For as I have already said; the most part of that they call their Philosophy, is utterly false or uncertain; nor are the Teachers of it agreed among themselves, in their Principles and Axioms. And yet their Consequences are commonly from one or other of these false or uncertain Maxims or Principles which they join with the Scripture, in which case the consequences are not purely Scriptural. For seeing in Argumentation, the Conclusion or Consequence is drawn from two Propositions or Premises, one of which may be true, the other false. Again, the one may be true and certain, the other although true, yet may be to us uncertain and doubtful; in which cases, the consequence or conclusion is always of the nature of the weaker premise, hence if but one of the premises be false, the conclusion is false, although the other Premise be true: And if one of the Premises be unclear or uncertain, the conclusion is also uncertain. And again, if one of the Premises be Scripture, and the other be but some principle or maxim of Natural Philosophy so called, the conclusion in that case is not Scriptural, but Natural: And thus much is generally acknowledged by all the Schoolmen so called. And hence it is that the School-Divinity, as it is so termed is rejected by many, as a dubious and uncertain thing, because the conclusions thereof, for most part, depend not on Scripture Propositions, but uncertain and doubtful principles and maxims of that called Natural Philosophy. But again, suppose one should draw a consequence from Premises that are both Scriptural; yet seeing the terms in those Premises may have different significations, as the words, Flesh, Spirit, Life, Light, Man, and many others, that have one signification in one place of Scripture, and quite another in another part of Scripture; the conclusion in that case doth not follow, for not only the Art of Logic, but Common Reason itself Teacheth us, that in all Arguments, the word or term that is used in both Premises, must have the same sense and signification in both. Now he who has not the direction of the same Spirit that did Dictate the Scripture, hath not this discerning so as to know the true sense or signification of Scripture words, as they signify Spiritual Mysteries and things; For the Natural man understands not the Things of God, as saith the Scripture, and therefore he is utterly unfit to reason about them. By which natural man I understand, any man considered as never so well furnished with all Natural helps of his Parts and Arts, but wanting the Spirit of God, or at least not making use of the help of it, but putting another thing in its room. And thus much shall suffice at present to the Intelligent Reader, how and after what manner we own both Scripture Interpretations and Consequences; and yet may very well deny I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences, and all such as he is, who declare themselves Enemies to that Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures, as necessary to help them in interpreting and drawing Consequences from Scripture. And albeit I. A. use many Arguments to prove, that Interpretations of Scripture are lawful, and Consequences therefrom; as that Christ and the Apostles did interpret the Scriptures, and draw Consequences therefrom; yet all this proves not, that I. A. his Interpretations and Consequences, without the same Spirit, which they had, are as good, which is all one as to say, Christ and the Apostles did Interpret the Scriptures, and argue from them by the Spirit: And therefore I. A. and his Brethren may as well do it, without the Spirit; but who having common Sense, doth not see the unreasonableness of this Consequence. Again, as for the Levites their Expounding the Scripture, which is another Argument of I. A. it remaineth for him to prove, that these Levites who did rightly Interpret the Scripture, did it without the Spirit of God, and merely by their own Natural Understanding. And what if these Levites were not in all respects Infallible? it doth not therefore follow, that they had no Infallible direction of God's Spirit, when they did rightly Interpret the Scripture. And indeed this is a third false Charge of I. A. against us, as if we did hold, that none is to Intepret the Scripture, but he who is simply and absolutely, or in all respects Infallible, which we affirm not. Nor is that the true state of the Question, but this, Whether any should give an Interpretation of Scripture, without he be Infallibly persuaded by the Spirit of God, that he hath received it from the Lo●d. We say, Nay, otherwise he Preacheth not the Word of God to the people, but his own Fallible conjecture. Now it is one thing to be simply or universally Infallible, and another thing to be Infallibly directed in some particular cases of Interpreting some particular places of Scripture, as God giveth to a man the help of his Spirit so to do. And thus I. A. his two first Sections, wherein he spendeth 18 Pages are sufficiently Answered. In the beginning of his third Section, concerning Baptism with Water, he allegeth falsely upon us, That wherever Baptism is mentioned in the New Testament, and the word Water is not expressly added; that we always deny Baptism with Water, there to be meant. This is false, for we grant, that though Water be not expressed, yet in some places, Baptism with Water is understood; as where Paul said, Christ sent me not to Baptise; here we affirm, that to Baptise signifieth to Baptise with Water. But we say further, That the words Baptism and Baptise, when Water is not mentioned, do sometimes signify Water-baptism, and at other times not, but some other thing, as the Baptism of the Spirit, or the Baptism of Sufferings; as where Christ said to two of his Disciples, Can ye be Baptised with my Baptism; this was not Water-baptism, but the Baptism of his Sufferings whereof they were to be partakers.  
And here in my Answer to I. A. his Arguments for Water-baptism, its being a Gospel Ordinance, it shall suffice to take notice, what is the principal defect of every one of them, and wherein he comes short in his proof as being merely asserted, which therefore are to be returned unto him to be proved. In his first Argument he allegeth, That John the Baptist was the first Minister of the New Testament way of Dispensation, for which he citeth, Mat. 11, 12, 13. Luk. 16. But these places prove no such thing, for they do not call him the first; and the words, viz. The Law and the Prophets was unto John; here john is the term inclusive in respect of the Law and Prophets, as if I should say England reaches from I and's end in Cornwall to Berwick upon I weed; here Berwick is the term inclusive, and therefore it doth not follow, that it is any part of Scotland; again to say Scotland reacheth from Berwick to Orknay; here again Berwick is exclusive, in respect of Scotland; and therefore when it is said, From John, the Gospel of the Kingdom is P●eached. It doth not infer, that the Gospel began at john inclusively, but exclusively, even as Scotland begins at Berwick exclusively; for john was but a forerunner of Christ, who himself began the Gospel Dispensation, in a peculiar way, and yet Christ also was subject to the Law, for he was Circumcised, and did Eat the Passover, both which were but Legal Administrations.  
And here again, in the Prosecution of the first Argument I. A. abuseth us, saying, That we agree with Papists in affirming that Christ's Baptism was substantially differing from the Baptism of John. But his fallacy lieth in this, that he doth not express what the Papists mean by Christ's Baptism; for they mean Water-Baptism, even as I. A. doth; but we say, the Baptism of Christ is not with Water, but with the Holy Ghost: Now we do not say as the Papi●ts, That there were two Baptisms with Water, one of John another of Christ; but only that John's Baptism with Water, and Christ's Baptism with the Holy Ghost were distinct, even as john and Christ have expressly distinguished them. And therefore the seeond Objection he instanceth pag. 69. doth not concern us.  
As to his second Argument, he taketh great pains to prove a thing which we no wise deny, viz. That the Disciples did Baptise divers with Water, after Christ his Ascension, and his giving the Holy Ghost; But it is the consequence that is den●ed by us, viz. That therefore Water-Baptism, is a Gospel precept, for the Disciples practised divers things after Christ his Ascension, which were not Gospel Precepts, for Paul Circumcised Timothy long after Christ his Ascension, also he purified himself after the manner of the Law, none of which were Gospel Precepts. And the Disciples did not only abstain from Blood and things Strangled, but enjoined it unto others, the which Abstinence continued in the Church, even in Tertullian's days, as is clear from his words; and I. A. doth not hold that to be a Gospel Precept, nor yet the Anointing with Oil the Sick, nor the Washing one another's Feet, both which were commanded and practised in the Primitive times. And this doth also sufficiently Answer his third Argument, from Peter his saying, Repent and be Baptised, if it were granted him, that Baptism with Water is there to be understood, for Peter might see it convenient at that time, for a help to their weakness, who were much used with outward Signs, to require it of them; which yet proveth not, that it is a Gospel Precept: For all Gospel Precepts reach further than unto Figures and Signs, which are but the shadows of Gospel Mysteries. And his fourth Argument hath the same defect with the former, that because Peter commanded Cornelius and others with him to be Baptised, that therefore it was a Gospel Precept; which doth no more follow, than that abstaining from Blood was commanded by the Apostles, that therefore it is a Gospel Precept; or because Anointing the Sick with Oil was commanded by james, that therefore it is a Gospel Precept.  
And to his Fifth Argument, from Eph. 4. 5. that the one Baptism must be Water-Baptism, because that is the only proper Baptism, according to the signification of the word, whereas there is not one but mány improper or Metaphorical Baptisms. But according to this reason of I. A. when in the same place Paul saith, There is one Body; Body doth not signify the Church: for, to call the Church Body, is but improper and metaphorical; and there are many such metaphorical Bodies. Also when Paul saith, There is one Spirit, I. A. I suppose, doth know that Spirit, or as it is in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, doth not improperly and metaphorically signify God, as much as Baptise signifieth inward Baptism, for the Grammatical signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●, is Wind, and therefore if I. A. his consequence hold good, when the Apostle saith, There is one Spirit, that Spirit must be, in the Grammatical sense, Wind, that is a material thing, and not the Spirit of God, even as the Baptism must be a material or outward Baptism. And thus we may see, whether I. A. his blind way of drawing consequences doth lead him, even to the greatest impertinencies imaginable.  
His sixth Argument from Mark 16. 16. hath this defect, that seeing the word Baptised cannot be meant of Conversion, or any other metaphorical Baptism, it must therefore be meant of Water-baptism. And it cannot be meant of Conversion, because of the order of the words, which requireth Faith to go before Baptism, whereas Faith cannot go before Conversion, because Faith is Conversion itself. I say his Argument hath this defect, that it confounds the part with the whole, for granting that Faith is Conversion in part, or in some degree; it doth not follow, that therefore it is the whole, or furthest degree of Conversion; for the work of Conversion, or Sanctification hath its several degrees, and that high or eminent degree of the Souls purification, which may be called its Baptism, or through plunging, is really posterior to the Souls first believing, and is the effect or consequence of it. Hence we read of purifying the heart by Faith, so as the purification is the effect and consequent of Faith. Again, whereas he laboureth to prove that the Baptism that saveth, which is mentioned, 1. Pet. 3. 21. must be Water-baptism, because it is called the Anti-type, or thing signified, in respect of Noah's temporal saving by Water, and there must be some near resemblance betwixt a Type and its Anti-type, but he allegeth there is little or no resemblance betwixt Noah's temporal saving by Water, and the saving by the inward or Spiritual Baptism. But who is so blind or weak, that doth not see the falsehood of this his Assertion? Is there not the greatest and most near and infallible resemblance betwixt that temporal Salvation of Noah by Water, and the spiritual and eternal Salvation by the spiritual Baptism, which doth universally and infallibly save all Souls that are partakers of the said spiritual Baptism, whereas many thousands get the Water-baptism, who are not saved thereby? and therefore it doth much more naturally follow that not Water-baptism, but the Baptism of the Spirit that doth infallibly purify the Soul is here meant, even as the inward Circumcision of the Spirit, is the Anti-type, or thing signified by outward Circumcision.  
Lastly, As to his seventh Argument; whereas he laboureth to prove, That Water-baptism is meant, Matth. 28. 19, 20. whereof he is so confident, that he entreats his Reader, Not to believe him henceforth, if he do not prove it so to be▪ I shall briefly take his proof into consideration.  
〈◊〉 He says, The Greek Word which is Translated Teach, signifies to make Disciples, and therefore they were to be made Disciples before they were to be Baptised; but they could not be made Disciples before Conversion, nor does Conversion pre-require Discipleship, or else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen, or of any man who is not before Hand a Disciple. To which I Answer, That granting the Greek word may signify to make Disciples, yet all this reasoning of I. A. doth not infer, that by Baptising here, cannot be meant the Spiritual Baptising, by the effusion of the Spiritual Water upon them, which, as is already said, signifies not barely the first or lowest degree of Conversion, but an high or eminent degree thereof, even as the outward Plunging or Dipping into Water, i● more than a small Sprinkling. Now as true Faith is before this eminent degree of Conversion, or Purification, so is also true Discipleship: Nor doth it follow, that else no man might endeavour the Conversion of an Heathen; for they were to endeavour the full and perfect Conversion of Heathens, in the highest degree that was possible; but so as to do it in God's way and order, to wit, first by Teaching and Discipling them into the true Faith, and then their full and perfect Conversion, or Purification and Spiritual Cleansing, was to follow one degree after another.  
His other reason is, That the Baptism of Conversion, or the Spiritual cleansing of the Soul is but only improper and Metaphorical; and we must 〈◊〉 throw about the words of any Text of Scripture, from a proper to an improper meaning, without some necessity constrain us so to do. To this I Answer, First, That we ought not to go from the proper signification of any word, to an improper, without some urgent necessity, I already acknowledge. But then why doth I. A. and his Brethren frequently transgress this Rule in expounding other places of Scripture; as to instance when the Scripture saith, Christ died for all men, I. A. expoundeth this all, not of all individuals of mankind but only some, and these the far less number; and yet he must needs acknowledge, that the proper signification of the word all, is all individual. Again, when the Scripture saith, Th● Kingdom of God is within you, I. A. turneth it, to among you, contrary to the proper signification, and also to the common Translation. Also when the Scripture speaketh frequently of Christ and the Holy Spirit being in the Saints, they commonly say, This is not to be meant properly, but figuratively understanding by Christ and the Spirit, the effects and operations or Graces of the Spirit, and not Christ or the Spirit himself; And many instances of that nature can be given, to show how I. A. and his Brethren go from the proper signification of Scripture words, to an improper, without any necessity, unless that of their own devising.  
But Secondly, I. A. doth but barely take it for granted, without any shadow of proof, that it is an improper meaning, to mean by the Baptism of Christ, the spiritual Baptism. For the proper meaning of any place or sentence of Scripture, is certainly that meaning which the Spirit of God doth intend, whether there be a Metaphor used in that place or not. Nor doth the Metaphorical use of the word, hinder the meaning of it to be properwhen it is so intended. And seeing the Scripture doth almost every whereabound with Metaphors and metaphorical expressions, we are not so much to consider, what is the bare Grammatical sense of any word in common Speech, as what is the most common and usual sense of it in Scripture; for what is the most, common sense of it in Scripture I judge is the most proper meaning of it, whether the word be otherwise metaphorical or not; for who will deny, but according to Scripture sense, by the word Christ is properly understood the true Christ of God, to wit, His only begotten Son; and yet Grammatically, it is but metaphorical; at least, as much as the word Baptise, for Christ signifieth Anointed, even as Baptised signifieth Was●ed or Dipped; and if I. A. or any will contend, That Christ is properly called Christ or Anointed, because the spiritual Anointing is as real and proper in its kind, as the outward and natural is in its kind; I shall not contend against them, but rather go along with them therein; but then I say also, that the spiritual Baptism is as real and proper in its kind, as the spiritual Anointing is in its kind; and thus also when Christ is called Bread in Scripture, in the Scripture sense, he is truly and properly called so; yea, why doth he call himself, The true Bread; and why said he that the Manna which Moses gave to the People in the Wilderness, was not the true Bread from Heaven. Doth not this signify, that whatever virtue or excellency outward, Bread hath to feed the Body Christ, who is the inward and spiritual Bread hath it much more to feed the Soul, yea, and the Body also, when he pleaseth so to do; and in this respect it is that some do affirm, That those names of Bread, Water, Light, Oil, and the like, are more properly applied to the spiritual than to the natural: so that the Water, Oil, Light and Bread, that is but outward and natural is rather metaphorically so called, and the inward and spiritual, more truly and properly deserving those names. And thus the spiritual Baptism shall be the most proper in that sense also. But now let the Scripture be searched, and we shall find, that the word to Baptise, doth no less commonly signify the spiritual Baptism, than the outward and Elementary▪ and therefore whoever would persuade us to believe that the spiritual Baptism is not meant here in Matth. 28. 19, 20. must show some invinsible necessity, why it ought not, the which I. A. hath not as yet done; and on the contrary we have good ground to believe, that the spiritual only is meant, because it is the spiritual Baptism only, which is called the Baptism of Christ in Scripture, and is expressly distinguished from the Baptism of john with Water; and certainly the Baptism which Christ commanded, was his own Baptism, whereof he gave the Apostles charge to administer it as servants and instruments under him, who made them Ministers of the Spirit and Power that was in him, by whose Ministry, others were partakers of the same. But if I. A. his Argument hold good, the spiritual Baptism is altogether excluded, and the Apostles received no Authority to Administer the Baptism of the Spirit, but only of Water, and consequently they were no Minister of the Spirit, for how could they Minister of the Spirit or the spiritual Baptism, unless they received Authority so to do; and where received they this Authority or Command; if not, when Christ said these words unto them. Again, if Christ had sent the Apostles to Baptise with Water, then certainly he had sent Paul a Chief Apostle, but Paul said, Christ sent him not to Baptise, to wit, with Water. But whereas I. A. doth allege, that Paul meaneth, That Christ sent him not principally to Baptise; I ask him, Why doth he transgress his own Rule, to go from the proper to the improper, and unusual signification of the word, not which is absolutely Negative, and not Comparative, and that without any urge●t necessity, but that of his own mere devising; and that he saith, Doubtless the Apostles did not Baptise without a Commission; I Answer, this is barely asserted without proof, why might not Paul and others Baptise without a Commission, to wit, by a permission, as well as he did Circumcise, and did other things of the Law, and that without any impu●●tion of Will-worship.  
Having thus Answered I. A. his Arguments, I shall not need to answer his Objections, or pretended refutation of our Arguments, and that especially because some ● of them which he bringeth as our Arguments, are not really ours; and none of them he bringeth doth he fairly propose; and therefore I shall refer the Reader to our other Treatises, wherein our Arguments are more duly and fairly proposed, without repeating them here, because of Brevity. Only whereas he allegeth, we argue that Water-baptism is not meant, Matth. 28. 19, 20. because not expressed, I say, that Baptism with Water is not expressed, nor by any true and just consequence is proved to be meant in Matth. 28. 19 and therefore we are not bound to believe that Water-baptism is there understood. And I hope the intelligent and impartial Reader may see, that I. A. hath not proved it to be so meant, by all his endeavours, and therefore not of his own mouth, henceforth he is not to be believed.  
As concerning I. A. his Fourth Section, which is altogether concerning Infant-Baptism, I might wave it, because it proceeds upon a bare Supposition that is not proved, viz. That Water-Baptism is a Gospel Precept. And seeing the Controversy is most proper betwixt him, and these called Anabaptists, wherein we are little concerned, I shall not insist to Answer every thing, only I cannot but take notice of some of his most gross and impertinent Assertions and Proofs.  
He allegeth Baptism under the New Testament is succeeded in the room of Circumcision; to this I may reply in his own language elsewhere, He putteth the Plough ●before the Oxen, because he supposeth still a thing without proof, that Water-baptism is any New Testament Precept. Again he allegeth, That Boptism with Water is come ●n the room of Circumcision, because Paul saith, Col. 2. 11, 12. Our burial with Christ in Baptism is our Circumcision. But he hath not proved that the Baptism, there mentioned, is Water-baptism; where is his consequence for this? And why doth he expound the Circumcision to be spiritual in that place; and the Baptism outward and visible? Is it not more proper to take them both spiritually, and then his Argument doth wholly vanish? And I find, ask him, Are all buried with Christ, who are Baptised with Water; if he say Not, as he ought, then surely the Water-baptism, is not the Baptism there understood. Another Argument of his, is, That because the Infants of Believers are probably partakers of Regeneration, which is the thing sealed or signified; that therefore they ought to be baptised with Water. But this Argument proves as much, that Infants should also have that called the Supper, because Christ who was signified thereby, doth as probably belong to Infants as Regeneration, seeing none can have Regeneration without Christ, and I would know what I. A. doth say to this; or let him show a reason why his Argument prove the one rather than the other. And it seems, that for that, or the like reason, Augustine and others of those called the Fathers, were for giving that called the Supper to Infants, as well as Water-baptism; and in that respect was long ago really administered to them.  
But seeing I. A. hath spent so much Paper on Water-baptism, why saith he nothing to sprinkling of Infants? why doth he not so much as attempt to prove that sprinkling with Water, is, or ever was the true form of Baptism with Water, although the Question doth expressly mention it. Thus we see how all along hitherto, I. A. hath left the substance of the Queries unanswered.   

CHAP. IX.  
BEfore my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the Sixth Query, which is concerning that called the Sacrament of the Supper, I shall premise these few particulars: 1. That we do not deny but own and believe that all true Christians and Believers do eat of Christ's body, and drink of his blood, and that beyond, or what is more than a figure or figurative Commemoration thereof, to wit, really and substantially, yet so as spiritually, and by Faith, and not outwardly and with the outward or bodily mouth. 2. Nor do we deny, but that in all our Eating and Drink, we are to remember the Lords Death, and so Eat with Holy Fear and Reverence, and Thankfulness. 3. And we deny not, but that the night wherein he was betrayed, he took Bread and broke it, after Supper, and having given Thanks, he gave it unto his Apostles, saying, Take Eat this is my Body, and likewise the Cup, saying, Drink ye all of it, for as oft as ye Eat this Bread, and Drink this Cup, ye show forth the Lords Death until he come: So we grant, he gave them a Commandment to do the like for sometime to come: But that which is Queried is this, Where is it called a Gospel Ordinance, or standing Command of Christ unto the World's end, to Eat Bread and Drink Wine after Supper in a peculiar and solemn way of Commemoration, over and besides that which may and aught to be done every day? And whereas Christ said, Do this in remembrance of his Death, till he come again. It is Queried, Was this coming to the end of the World, or was it his coming to dwell in them? Now saith I. A. to all this, first he allegeth, It was a mere Circumstance, the doing of it at night, and after Supper, and so is no Essential part of the Action. But he giveth no proof of this: And if men take a liberty to change one Circumstance, why may they not change all the rest as well as that one. As for Example, why may they not say, that Bread of Wheat, and the Wine, are but Circumstances also, seeing Eating and Drinking may be without either Wheat or Wine, as well as it may be any other time, then at Night. Again, why may it not be said, that the whole Action is but a Circumstance in respect of the thing principally intended, which was to signify our Spiritual Eating and Drinking of Christ his Body and Blood; which may be very well without the outward Eating and Drinking, as all Protestants do generally acknowledge; and thus the outward Eating and Drinking is but a Circumstance, as well as the time: And surely the time doth seem no less to have signification, than the Eating and Drinking itself had, to wit, that it was at Night; for that time when Christ suffered was the Evening, or last part of the Covenant Dispensation, wherein he gave them a Sign or Figure suitable to that present Dispensation, and was not to continue as a binding thing, after the Gospel day or Dispensation should clearly break up, or be dispersed. And it doth plainly enough appear, that in the primitive times, they who used that Solemnity, they laid weight upon the circumstance of the time, doing it at Night, and after Supper; which came in process of time to be changed, to the doing of 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉, or before Dinner: And if Christ 〈…〉 intended some weighty signification 〈…〉 circumstance of time, to wit, at 〈…〉 the Passover, I see not, 〈…〉 of time is so carefully 〈…〉 ●angelists. Hence from the 〈…〉 of time, I bring an 〈…〉 Christ did at that time, and 〈…〉 do, until he came, is no Gospel 〈◊〉, because it was done in the Night or Evening of the Old Covenant Dispensation, and consequently was to come to an end with it. Although for the weakness of some, it was continued for a time in the Primitive Church after the Night of the Old Covenant was expired, and the day of the Gospel Dispensation was clearly broke up: And another Argument we have, that the outward Bread and Wine is but a Figure of Christ's Flesh and Blood, and not his real Body, as all Protestants acknowledge, and consequently is no Gospel Ordinance, which consists not in the Figures, Types and Shadows, that were proper to the Law, but in the things signified by them. Again, whereas I. A. doth allege, That Christ commanded it to be done, It is granted, he commanded it for that time, and for some time to come, until the darkness of the legal Dispensation should clearly ●anish, and be dispelled from the Eyes of the Disciples, which was not ●udde●ly done, but required a time: And many 〈…〉 believe in Christ, were but 〈◊〉 and could not easily be weaned from 〈◊〉 observation of outward Figures and 〈◊〉 and therefore Christ gave them thus 〈…〉 to condescend to their weakness, to bring them off from the Law, and the Figures, Types and Shadows thereof by degrees, as they were able to bear. But it doth not follow, that because Christ commanded it unto them, for that time, or sometime following, that therefore it is a Gospel Ordinance, seeing he commanded them as expressly divers other things, which I. A. and his Brethren acknowledge are no Gospel Ordinances, As the washing one another's Feet; also, That they should go and tarry at Jerusalem for certain days, and wait for the Promise of the Father. And he bid them, Provide neither Bag, nor Shoes, nor Money, when they went forth to Preach: But I suppose none of all these will I. A. or his Brethren plead to be Gospel Ordinances. And even as his commanding them to tarry at jerusalem until they received the Promise of the Father; which was the Spirit, (to wit, in greater measure than formerly it was given unto them) did not oblige them to stay longer: So his commanding them to use that solemn and peculiar commemoration of his Death until he should come, did not oblige them longer, than until that his coming. But now the Question is, What coming did Christ mean, whether his last coming at the end of the World, or his Spiritual coming to dwell in them, and feed with his real Flesh and Blood Spiritually received, which is more than the Figure? We say it is his Spiritual coming in his Saints; but I. A. and his Brethren say, It is his outward coming, which yet he hath not proved, for all his wrangling. And instead of proving what he saith, he not only abuseth us with bad words, as calling us, Possessed with a blind and deaf Spirit; but most falsely allegeth on us, that we hold, Christ did not dwell in his Apostles, before that time, when Christ took the Bread: For we say no such thing, nor is any thing of that sort insinuated in the Queries: Only, That Christ did promise unto them, that he would come and dwell in them, to wit, in a more abundant measure, and clearer way of manifestation, suitable to the Gospel Dispensation, than formerly they witnessed under the Law. Nor will this argue that either the Apostles were wholly unconverted, or unregenerated at that time; all this is but the bare imagination of I. A. his Brain, and no just or true consequence from our words. And whereas I. A. Querieth, Did not Christ dwell in these Corinthians whom Paul writes to. I Answer, he did in some measure; but yet in divers of them, he did not dwell in that measure or manner of clear manifestation, as was promised; for Paul said unto them, He could not write unto them as spiritual, but as carnal, and he fed them with milk, and not with meat; which plainly imports that many of them was short of that measure and degree of Spirituality, which the pure Gospel state required. And as for 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24. Which I. A. bringeth to prove, That the outward Eating is a Gospel Institution; I Answer, that place, 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24. contains no Institution of it at all, but only an Historical relation of what Christ did and said that night to his Disciples. Nor did Paul say, that he received a Command from the Lord, or delivered a command unto them, concerning Bread and Wine; but that which he received and delivered unto them from the Lord was, the knowledge of what the Lord did and said at that time. And though this practice was continued in the Church of Corinth for that time, and perhaps in other churches, this proves it not be a Gospel Ordinance more than Water-baptism, or Circumcision, both which were practised by many that did believe in those times.  
And here again I. A. falls into his old trade of fal●ly accusing us, as being against all external Ordinances, because the Query insinuates, That such who are come into Death with Christ, need not Bread and Wine to put them into remembrance of his Death; from whence he most unjustly inferreth his consequence, that we reject all outward helps and means whatsoever. But doth not I A. know that his own brethren acknowledge there is no absolute necessity of using that called the Supper, so as none can be saved but such as partake of it; and the like may be said of any outward helps, when people cannot have them. But yet we say still, whatever outward thing God hath Commanded us to use, be it never so small or mean, is in that respect both necessary and profitable unto us, for there is none of God's Commands, but they bring along with them a real advantage to men's Souls; but I. A. hath not as yet proved it, that using Bread and Wine, as aforesaid, is any Gospel Command. Another abuse of his is, that he allegeth, We reject the said practice of taking the Bread and Wine, from a conceited perfection; which is false, for as we do not boast of our perfections, so we do not reject that customs because of any perfection, that some of us may become unto beyond others, but because we cannot find it to be any Gospel Precept; and therefore we cannot acknowledge it either to be necessary or profitable to the weakest.  
Another thing he quarrelleth in the Query is, That it makes to die with Christ, and to come to the Death with him all one. And here he insults not a little in his knowledge of Philosophy above the Quakers, for a mere Grammaticism of saying to for into, which perhaps was only a fault in the Transcriber; and yet we find commonly that to and into are indifferently used to signify one thing: as to come to Town, is all one as to come into it; and to come to Christ, is all one as to come into him; and when Christ said, Come unto me, he did certainly mean that they were to come into him. Hence we read of the Saints being in Christ. And if this be I. A. his Philosophy so to quarrel at words proper enough, and according to Scripture, let the judicious and sober Reader judge, whether some of our Friends that called his Philosophy, Foolosophy, had not ground so to do. And whether he has not discovered more folly than true Philosophy, from first to last, in his Book against us.  
In his Answer to the reason hinted in the Query from Paul's words, to seek the things that are above, and the things that are seen are temporal, he still beggeth the Question, That the outward observation of Bread and Wine, is a mean which God hath appointed, for the attaining the things above. And in Opposition to his Assertion, let him read what Paul saith, Col. 2. 17. where he putteth mea● and drink in together with the new Moons, and other legal Observations, which he calleth, A shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. And seeing I. A. acknowledgeth that the Bread and Wine are but external signs, and not the real body of Christ; I ask him, wherein then differ they from Shadows. And if they be Shadows, they are no part of the Gospel Dispensation, according to Paul's Doctrine.  
In the close of his pretended Survey to this Sixth Query, he chargeth us most rashly and uncharitably, as being related to the accuser of the Brethren, as if the writer of the Queries had positively charged all the Ministers of Scotland, that they never intended their Hearers should come any nearer to Christ's Death, than a bare Historical remembrance thereof. But doth not I A. know, that to Query a thing is one, and positively to conclude it, far another. And the Enquirer had ground so to Query, because he understands, that if it were the care of Preachers to bring people into the Death with Christ, so as to be Crucified with him, they would not plead so much for upholding a Figure or Shadow of Christ's Death, to put them in remembrance of it; when to suffer and die with Christ is much more effectual to remember them. Nor Secondly, would they plead so much for carrying a body of sin about with them, while they live, and that all must be under a necessity of sinning daily in Thought, Word, and Deed; yea, in whatever they think, speak, or do, for such a state is not consistent with a being Dead and Crucified with Christ. And Thirdly, If it were their work to bring people to die with Christ, they would turn them to the Light of Christ in their Hearts, and Preach it to be unto them of a saving Nature, and an effectual mean to obtain the said Death with Christ, which yet they do not, but on the contrary deny it as merely natural insufficient. And is it not too apparent that the far greatest number of your Church Members, know nothing more of Christ's Death than the History of it? And whether the fault of this lie not in a very great part upon the Preachers, is no small nor impertinent Question.  
And seeing I. A. pretends so much to Scripture Rule, I shall ask him a few Queries more upon the former Head.  
First, What Scripture hath he and his Brethren to call that eating of Bread and drinking of Wine, once or twice in a year, in the Pub●●ck Assembly, the Sacrament?  
2. What Scripture have they to instruct them how oft they should use it, as once, twice, or four times in every year? And if they have none, was it not then left to people according to the Query, at least as to the time?  
3. What Scripture have they for consecrating it, or when did Christ say, Before ye eat it, consecreate it?  
4. When did Christ give only the power to a Priest or Presbyter, or Ordamed Minister to Consecrate it, so as without the said Consecration by some Priest, or Ordained Minister, it is no Sacrament? And seeing every Christian may eat it as well as the Minister, why may he not also consecreate it, as well as he, seeing every true Christian is a Priest?  
5. Where did Christ appoint, that these words, Take Eat, this is my body, should be the words of consecration, and have ye not received all this from the Papists, and not from Christ?  
6. Seeing ye commonly say, that this Sacra●●●● of the Supper is come in the room of the Passo●er, and under the Law, every Family had power without a Priest, to celebrate the Passover; why hath not also every Family under the Gospel 〈◊〉 much power, without any Ordained Priest or Minister to celebrate that called the Supper?  
7. Seeing every true Christian feeds daily by Faith upon the body of Christ, according to the Protestant Doctrine, and ought daily to remember the Death of Christ, in all their eating and drinking, which is also sanctified unto them by the Word of God and Prayer, what peculiar virtue or efficacy hath your sacramental eating, more than ordinary eating; when done, with godly Fear, Prayer and thanksgiving, and remembering the Lords Death?  
8. Seeing it is clear from Luke 22. 17, 18, 19, 20. that Christ did take the cup twice; once before he gave them the bread, and once after, bidding them do the same; why take ye the cup but once? was this only a bare circumstance?  
9 Is not the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 10. 15, 16, 17. to be understood of quite another Bread and Cup, than that which is visible and outward, when he saith, I speak as to wise men, judge ye what I say (did he not say this because he was to speak of the Bread and Cup, in the mystery, as it was altogether a spiritual and invisible thing, to wit, the real body and blood of Christ spiritually received, which none but the spiritually wise could understand) The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we Break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one Bread, for we a●e all partakers of that one Bread. Is it not clear from all this, that Paul speaks not of any visible and corruptible Bread but of Christ himself, as he is spiritually and invisibly received by Faith whom he calls the same spiritual meat and drink, which the Fathers received of old? see the same Chapter, Verse 3, 4.  
10. Do any receive the Supper of the Lord, or Sup with the Lord, but such as open to him and hear his voice, according to Rev. 3. 20. And is not this Supper, or Supping with the Lord, altogether inward, spiritual and invisible.  
Now whereas I. A. doth allege that the Querist hath mistaken the second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians for the first, because h● citeth these words in the second Epistle, For the things that are seen, are but temporal, but the things which are not seen, are eternal; I Answer, that the Apostle Paul writeth to the same purpose, in the first Epistle, and that much more clearly, calling Christ the spiritual Meat and Drink, as he is spiritually and invisibly received by Faith.   

CHAP. X.  
J. A. in his pretended Survey of the seventh Query, (which is concerning the Sabbath-day) allegeth, That the fourth Commandment requireth, to keep Holy unto God one day of seven; and seeing that fourth Commandment is Moral, it extends to all Ages of the World. But in Answer to this, as that the fourth Commandment required one day in seven, so it expressly mentions that day to be the seventh, and not any one other of the seven; for the said fourth Commandment did plainly bind the jews to the seventh day, which was not lawful for them to change to the first. And whereas I. A. allegeth, That the Accommodation to the particular time, or Diet to the last day of the Week is indeed Abrogated, but not the substance of the Command: By this he quite overturneth his former Assertion, That the fourth Commandment was simply Moral; for if it was simply Moral, nothing of the least Circumstance of it could be Abrogated. But some of I. A. his Brethrem●are more wary and considerate, who say, The fourth Commandment was partly Moral, and partly Ceremonial: The Ceremonial part of it was, that it tied to the seventh day; the Moral part of it was, and is partly that it requires some competent time to be appointed for the Worship of God, both private and public, laying aside all Worldly occasions for that time, as well out of our Minds as hands, without tying to any limited day of seventh or sixth: And partly again in respect of its Spiritual signification; for the outward Sabbath of the jews, was a Type or Shadow of Christ, in whom all True Believers find rest to their Souls, from all their heavy Labours and Toils; and that Christ is the thing signified by the Sabbath, is clear from Coloss. 2. 16, 17. Again that neither I. A. nor his Brethren hold the first day of the Week, in that strickness of a Sabbath, as the fourth Commandment required is clear, because the said fourth Commandment required, That in it they should not do any work, which elsewhere in Scripture is more particularly set down, That they were not to kindle a Fire on the Sabbath; and he that gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was to be stoned to Death: All which proveth that the Sabbath of the jews was Typical, and consequently that the Morality of it, was principally its Spiritual signification, as it did hold forth Christ, no less than the other Types and Figures. But I. A. alloweth people to kindle a Fire on that day, and to Boil and Roast Meat as plentifully as on other days, if he be of his brethren's mind, who commonly Feast on that day, and have a larger Table than at other times. And although I. A. undertake the Vindication of the Church in Britain, yet he cannot be ignorant, that the greatest part of his Episcopal Brethren were and are of another mind, viz. That the keeping of the First day of the Week is no Moral Command; else they would never have allowed Plays and Markets to be kept on that day. And Calvin, whose Opinions I A. followeth but too much in other things did not hold, That the keeping of the first day, was any Command of God, but simply that the Church had agreed to it to meet on that day: And he saith plainly, They might have choosed another day as well as that.  
Now the Query saith, That the Saints did meet together, this is Scripture; so we acknowledge that the Saints did meet together on the first day of the Week, and so we do according to their example; and also we acknowledge that some considerable part of our life time is to be set apart for the solemn Worship and Service of God; and this not only the Scripture Testimony, but the Law of God in our hearts doth require. And we further judge, that rather more of our time is to be given to the Service of God, solemnly se● apart from all worldly occasions now under the New Testament, (and that Servants and Beasts may have rest, for God requireth that mercy be shown to them also) than was formerly under the Law, by virtue of the fourth Commandment. And therefore we have Meetings, and other times of Retirement, at other times of the Week, than on the first day. As also we do generally abstain from Bodily Labour on the first day of the Week, although we cannot call it the Christian Sabbath, for that were to put it in the room of Christ: But what abuse and profanity is it to pretend to set apart a day only for the Service of God, and yet to spend it worse, than any other day of the Week, for most part, to wit, in Idle Communications, Plays, and Drinking, as too many of I. A. his Brethren openly do.  
And now let us see further, what I. A. doth allege for the first day of the Week, its being appointed to be kept for a Sabbath.  
One Argument is, That because Christ rose on that day, and honoured it with his most frequent appearings, after his Resurrection on that day, that therefore he appointed it to be kept for a Sabbath: But this inference is without any proof, and is therefore returned to him: And it is manifest, that at a certain time, when Christ did appear, some of the Disciples were Fishing with their Nets, joh. 21. And if that was the first day of the Week, and appointed by Christ for a Sabbath, how was it that the Disciples did so openly transgress it, and yet were not reproved by Christ, but were bidden cast out the Net by himself. Nor is his other Argument of any greater weight, That because the Primitive Christians, in the Apostles times and downwards, did constantly meet on that day, and had their Collections for the poor, that therefore it was appointed to be strictly observed as a Sabbath: This consequence is also returned upon him, as barely alleged without proof. And both we and many other Protestants in France and Holland, constantly meet on that day; and yet it doth not follow, that we or they hold it for a Sabbath, for many of them do not, any more than we.  
Another Argument of his is, Because it is called the Lords day, Rev. 1. 10. To which I Answer I. A. hath not as yet proved it evidently, that by the Lord's day there is meant the first day of the Week, but giving it, that john meant the first day, as I find generally that justine Martin and others about his time did call the first day of the Week, the Lords day; yet it doth not follow, that therefore the Lord appointed it to be kept as a Sabbath, for it might well enough he called the Lords day because he arose upon it, for many day● have received Names for much less reason, according to the Ancient Tradition in Old times, which not being in Scripture is not so certain to us, as that other, viz. Of Christ his Resurrection day.  
Another Argument of his is, Because that Christ Taught the Disciples to Pray that their flight might not be on the Winter, nor on the Sabbath day, when he Prophesied of the Destruction of Jerusalem, Math. 24. 20. But to this I Answer, That the Name of Sabbath doth not infer, that any outward day is to be kept for a Sabbath, under the New Testament, more than the Name of Circumcision doth infer that there is now to be any outward Circumcision; and what Christ spoke to the Disciples, it was not to them alone, but to all the jews, who as he did well know, would still be Zealous for the jewish Sabbath, after his Resurrection? As indeed they were, and also for Circumcision; and therefore he knew what great an Affliction it would be to them to be put to flee on that day; and accordingly we find, that not only them, but long after the jews, even many of them that believed, and also our Christians, did observe the jewish Sabbath, and some observed both, that and also the first day, until Constantine's time. What Christ therefore spoke of the Sabbath, was not to confirm them, to keep either that or the first day of the Week for a Sabbath, but to express the great Affliction, they would be in, if they should flee on that day, which they so much did regard. And beside, some understand the Sabbath here also by way of Allegory, which I. A. hath not re●u●ed.  
And whereas the said I. A. allegeth, that Rom. 14. 5, 6. Is not to be understood of the first day of the Week, but only of other Jewish days: This is merely alleged, without any shadow of proof; for no where doth Paul, or any other Penman of the Scripture make an exception of the first day: And therefore seeing Rom. 14. speaks of days indefinitely, the first day is understood as well as the rest.   

CHAP. XI.  
IN the pretended Survey of the eighth Query, which is concerning Singing of Psalms, I. A. is at much pains to prove a thing, which we do not deny, viz. That Singing of Psalms, is allowed and commanded under the New Testament: For this we willingly acknowledge, and those who can Sing with the Spirit and understanding, they may use either David's words, or words of any other Holy-men, recorded in Scripture, or any other sound words, as the Lord shall move them: But all this is no Answer to the Question, which is not concerning sing only or simply, but that way of Singing used by I. A. and his Brethren, without any pretence to an immediate direction, or motion of the Spirit Infallibly Teaching or assisting them what and how to Sing. Now the Query is, where doth he find such Singing Warranted in Scripture, viz. without the Spirit infallibly directing them. 2. Their Singing with Meeter or Tooting Rhymes, Artificially composed by mere Natural Art and Industry; where is such Singing commanded or practised in Scripture. And 3. it is Queried since the Apostles did not turn them into Meeter, why have others since them, done so, as if they were more wise than the Apostles, or saw further what God required of them. And whereas I. A. allegeth, That Psalms cannot be Sung, except they be Meetered; If he mean by Meetering, putting them in Tooting Rhymes, or Rhymes ending with the like Cadencies and Sounds, he showeth his great ignorance in Poetry, and Music; for the best Poesies are without any such Cadencies: Nor have David's Psalms any such Cadencies of like sounds at the end of the Lines, as they are written in Hebrew. And although David's Psalms are Penned with certain measures of Words and Sentences, yet that was by some Divine Skill, which the Spirit of the Lord Taught him, and not by bare humane Art, as I suppose I. A. will not deny.  
But another great abuse in I. A. is, that he excuseth wicked and proud men's Singing such words of David as these: I am not puffed up in mind, I water my Couch with my Tears, etc. alleging they may be Sung as well as Read by such men. But who cannot see the absurdity of this inference, for to Read, and to Pray, and also to Sing, are very differing; and one may Read the Devils words, and the words of the wickedest men Recorded in Scripture, but when one Prayeth, or Praiseth, he expresseth somewhat of his own condition. And men may read the Creed or Ten Commands, but yet they are not proper for a Prayer, and the most of the Psalms are Prayers.  
But lastly, whereas I. A. saith, He and his Brethren have the same Spirit the Apostles had, though not the same measure: We may not unfitly Query them, how he can prove or demonstrate this to us, seeing some of his Brethren have asked a proof from us, that we had the same Spirit: And if I. A. be in good earnest, and doth indeed believe that he has the same Spirit, which the Apostles had, how is it that he doth so very frequently mock and scoff at the Infallible Inspiration of the Spirit, which we plead for, as the common privilege of all true Christians. And was not the Spirit which the Apostles had, the Infallible Spirit? And if I. A. thinks he has the same Spirit, either he must needs acknowledge, that he has the Infallible Spirit, and is so far infallible, or then he must say, that the Spirit of God is changed, so that whereas it was Infallible in the Apostles and Primitive Christians, it is become Fall●ble in I. A. and his Brethren. And if he have the same Spirit, which the Apostles had, but in the least measure, how is it ●hat he hath said above that the Dictate of the Spirit within is worthy of a thousand Deaths? Let I. A. extricate himself of these contradictions if he can. And further I ask I. A. whether the Psalms, he and his Brethren Sing in their Meetings, be these Spiritual Songs, which the Primitive Christians did Sing; and such as we Read of particularly in the Church of Corinth, where Psalms are reckoned among the other peculiar Gifts of the Spirit, such as Revelations and Interpretations; where it is manifest, that the whole Assembly did not all Sing the same words with their voice; but every one did Sing as they received it from the Lord, and as he did put it into their Hearts; and such were the Songs of Zachariah, Mary and Elizabeth, who Sung and Blessed the Lord by the Holy Ghost. And seeing I. A. saith, That they cannot Sing, unless what they Sing, be turned into Meeter, I ask him, whether the Songs of Zachariah, Mary and Elizabeth were Sung by them in Meeter, or Rhyme, and with Musical Dittyes and Tunes Artificially Composed, or whether they had a Precentor, or any that went before them. And whether such kind of Officers were in the Church in the time of the Apostles, as Precentors that went before the people: And whom they were all to follow, accordingly as he Sang after ●his or that Tune of Music Artificially Composed. Or rather have ye not Learned all this from the Papists? And was it not Guido Aretinus, ● Popish Monk, that invented the Scale of Music commonly called the Gamut according to which the Precentors are Learned to Raise the Psalms. All which is but the bare Act of Man; and such who plead for Vocal Music in the Church, from the example of David, and the Law; they may also on the same account plead for the use of Musical Instruments in the Church; not only as lawful, but as necessary, (which yet the Episcopal Church here wanteth) and not only so, but Dancing also, as a part of Divine Worship, which was used in time of the Law, and especially by David. And thus by I. A. his Argument, both Instrumental Music, and Dancing shall be necessary parts of Gospel Worship.  
And as concerning wicked men's Singing, it is most clear, that as they are not to Pray, while remaining wicked, so nor are they to Sing, because all true sing is a real part of Divine Worship, which is to be done in Spirit and Truth; but no wicked nor unrenewed person can so do. And seeing all wicked persons professing Christianity, are Captives in Spiritual Babylon, how can they Sing any of the Songs of Zion in a strange Land? Can they Sing that new Song, which the Redeemed from the Earth Sing? Rev. 14. was not the Lord displeased with their Singing even under the Law, when the people did degenerate and become perverse? And did he not threaten that he would turn the Songs of their Temple into Howl? And yet according to I. A. the most perverse and abominable corrupted persons, may and aught to Sing Psalms: But what Harmony can such Singing make in the Ears of the Lord, while the Heart is so discordant to the Law of God? And although I. A. hath his best and greatest Patrons, for his Musical Singing, with Artificial Dittyes, and Tunes, and Rhymes out of the Popish Church; as also for his pleading that wicked persons may Sing David's words, without making a Lie; I shall here Cite a very fair acknowledgement out of a late Popish Writer, to the Truth of what we allege against I. A. The which Writer is johannes Bona in his Book called, The Principles of the Christian Life, Part 1. Sect. 44. They are ●yes (saith he) and empty words, when any committeth wickedness; and singeth in a Psalm unto God: I have hated iniquity, and abominated it, Psal. 118. He that is altogether in his Dishes, and saith, I have forgot to Eat my Bread, Psal. 101. 1. He Laugheth the whole day, and exceedeth in vain joy, and saith, my Tears were my Bread day and night; he obeyeth not the Commandments, and he Singeth They are Cursed who decline from thy Commandments, Psal. 118. Such Prayers (saith he) are Accursed, provoking the wrath of God, toward such, and they deserve to be punished with severe Pains. Now albeit this Testimony is from a Papist, I hope no Sober person will call it a Popish Doctrine, but rather a Christian Truth, which the Evidence of Truth hath extorted from him. And it is a shame that I. A. should be more blind, who pretends to more knowledge.   

CHAP. XII.  
J. A. in his pretended Survey of the 9th, 10 th', and 11 th'. Queries, doth ground his Discourse so much partly upon mistakes, and partly upon barely supposed alleged principles, which he doth not prove, that I shall need to say very little directly in Answer to the whole, from his pag. 119, to pag. 131. only some of his most considerable mistakes and bare Suppositions, I shall take notice of, the which being denied, and removed, his whole Superstructure falls of itself.  
First, He blames the Queriest, or Writer of the Queries, For falsely accusing the or slandering the Church in Britain, as he calleth it, as if they did hold their Ecclesiastical Constitutions formally, as such, for an Infallible Rule, and their Catechisms and Confessions of Faith equal to the Scriptures. But I Answer, the Query maketh no mention of those terms [formally as such.] But simply whether they hold their Directory Confession of Faith and Catechism, to be an Infallible Rule, and equal to the Scripture. Again, Secondly, what is proposed in the Query is not positively concluded one way or another, as the Nature of a Query doth plainly demonstrate. And yet Thirdly, he plainly affirmeth, pag. 129. That the whole Articles and Difinitions contained in the Catechism and Confession of Faith materially considered, are very Gospel Rule, and Scripture Sentence, either expressly and formally, or materially, implicitly and by good consequence taught therein. How then can he have any face to accuse the Inquirer, for ask such a thing which he doth openly acknowledge. And here let the Reader take notice, that the Catechism and Confession of Faith, whereof I. A. giveth so great a Commendation, is not that of the Episcopal Church, but the Presbyterian, viz. that made by the Assembly at Westminster which is expressly cited by him, cap. 31. art. 4. it is not then as seemeth the Defence of the Episcopal Church and Faith, that joh. Alexander undertaketh, but the Presbyterian, and yet I. A. is a Member of the Episcopal Church, and Officiates therein under john Hamilton, an Episcopal Preacher, who hath recommended his Book, at the Order of the Bishop of Edinburgh. But I suppose the Episcopal Church in Britain will give john Alexander, or his Patriot john Hamilton little Thanks for his Service, seeing many Episcopal Teachers in Britain differ widely in Doctrine from the said Westminster Confession. And had I. A. no other Confession of Faith, or Catechism to commend, but that of the Presbyterians, whom his Episcopal Brethren commonly call fanatics; and is it turned to that, that they commend their Confession of Faith, as the only Confession of the Church in Britain? But I can find no mention in the said Confession, that Episcopacy is jure Divino.  
However since I. A. has undertaken the defence of the Presbyterian Church and Faith, in all its Articles and Definitions, as very Gospel Rule, and Scripture Sentence, he must then acknowledge that all these Definitions and Articles of his Presbyterian Brethren, are at left materially considered, infallible Oracles. ●nd seeing he confesseth they are not all expressly contained in Scripture, but many of them only deduced by consequence therefrom, by what infallible consequence can he convince any rational man, that his and their consequences are just and right since he lays no claim to the least measure of that kind of direction of the Holy Spirit, teaching him and his Brethren to draw those consequences, which Christ and the Apostles had, whereby they argued, and did draw consequences from places of Scripture formerly writ. And seeing not only Papists and Protestants, but the Episcopal and Presbyterian draw contrary consequences from the Scriptures, what evidence can I. A. give us, why we should receive the consequences of the one more than the other. Or can we think the Lord hath left his people so in the dark, as to give no other knowledge of his Will in a great many things, whi●h are Articles of Faith, but what can be searched out by long and tedious consequences, of the bare natural understanding of man, as it is left to itself, to fish and hunt in the dark, after such consequences, without any such special direction and conduct of the Holy Spirit, in the least measure, which Christ and the Prophets▪ and Apostles had. Nay I do not find that I. A. doth acknowledge so much as the least absolute necessity of any sort of operation or illumination of the Spirit, so ●uch as that they call effective or subjective, order to draw their consequences from the scripture. But if this way of drawing consequences without the help of the Holy Spirit were so safe and sure, how is it then that so many of all sorts draw contrary consequences from the same Scriptures? Is not the great reason of all this, because men are departed from that holy Spirit, which gave forth the Scriptures, and can only give the true understanding of them? And therefore is it not plain and manifest, as the Light at Noonday, that man's natural Spirit, and Reason, and Wisdom, in its highest perfection, is altogether unable to meddle with Divine Truths, or to search after them, as it remains alone, hunting in the dark. And certainly this is no small part of that cursed self-conceit and exaltation of mind, that Rules in the degenerated nature of man, that they think they can be wise enough without God's Spirit, they need no direction, or assistance, or illumination to help them to search into the Scriptures, they can do that well enough with their natural reason, and a little School-craft of Artificial Logic, and Grammar, and Natural Philosophy; but that blessed man David was of another mind, when he prayed unto the Lord, saying, Open my Eyes, that I may see the wonderful things of thy Law. And as for consequences which men draw, as they are directed and taught by the Spirit of God, as Christ and the Apostles were, when they drew any consequence from what was formerly writ, we do own them, and receive them, and none else. But yet as to the most weighty and necessary things, to wit, such as are the general principles of the Christian Faith and Doctrine, and which as such are generally to be received by all Christians, as well these of the meanest capacity, as others of the greatest, we see the Lord hath not left it to man's industry, to search after them by consequences long or short, but hath delivered them to us in plain express words and terms, and that many times over and over again (as in respect of many of them) in the Holy Scriptures. And why is it, that the Scriptures are so full and large in their Testimony to the Doctrines and Principles of Religion, but to let us understand, that all the Principles and Doctrines of the Christian Faith, which God requireth in common of all Christians are expressly their delivered and recorded, and put as it were in a puplick Register. And therefore, for my part, what I cannot find expressly delivered in Scripture, I see no reason why I should receive or believe it as any common Article or principle of the Christian Faith or Life; and for such, to whom God hath given that Divine skill to ●ive, or dip into the depth of the Scriptures, 〈◊〉 out of the reach of other men, who may ●e true Christians, so as to collect or gather by just and true consequences, other things that lie out of the view of their weaker Brethren, they ought not to obtrude them upon any to be received as principles of Faith, but in that case to have Faith to themselves, and receive them as peculiar discoveries or Revelations of the Spirit to them, and such others as God hath so enlightened; the which by the Apostle Paul is called, The Word of Wisdom, to wit, such a peculiar degree of Wisdom or Understanding in the depth of the Scriptures, as others who yet were true Christians did not reach unto; and concerning such a peculiar gift of Divine Wisdom, he said, We speak Wisdom among the perfect? this certainly could be no common Article of Faith, else he should have Preached it to all. And this by the same Apostle is elsewhere called, The knowledge of Mysteries, as distinguished from the common Faith and knowledge of the whole Church. Now if this were but received among those called Christians, that nothing should be required by one sort from another, as an Article of Faith, or Doctrine or principle of the Christian Religion in common to be believed, but what is expressly delivered in the Scriptures, in plain express Scripture terms, of how great an advantage might it be to bring a true reconcilement among them, and beget true Christian Unity, Peace, Love and Concord. And as for the consequential part of peculiar Doctrines, whether true or false, to leave every one a freedom or latitude, without imposing upon them the affirmative or negative, as any bond or tye of Christian fellowship; for if such consequential Doctrine be false, it is most unreasonable to impose it, and therefore in that Case, a Dissenter should have his liberty to differ in judgement, without any breach of Brotherly Unity and Society; and if it be true, yet not being opened or revealed to another, it cannot be in justice pressed or urged upon him, where God has not given him the true freedom and clearness of mind to receive it; and to do otherwise, is to transgress that Golden Rule delivered by Paul, viz. To walk by the same Rule, according to what we have attained; and if any be otherwise minded, said he, God will reveal it unto him. And if this Advice could find place, it would bring the differences among those called Christians, in point of judgement, into a very small and narrow compass, and they would understand one another far better than now they do.  
But again, seeing I A. is so absolute and peremptory, that the Presbyterian Confession of Faith and Catechism, (and wh● not the Presbyterian Directory also) materially considered is infallible, and yet is but a Book of their making, and the consequential part of it, the alone Fruit and product of their humane Spirit, since they deny all pretence to an inward Dictate or Direction of God's Spirit in the Case; why should the said I A. so oft Taunt and upbraid us with an Infallible Spirit, and Infallible Speaking and Writing, and Inspiration; for now it seems a mere humane Spirit hath inspired those that gave forth the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism, to write every Article and Sentence of it Infallibly, according to I. A. his high estimation of them.  
But whereas I. A. dareth us, To give any instances of any Articles and Definitions contained in the said Confession and Catechism, that are not Scripture Sentence materially or formally considered. This hath been done many times over and over again by our Friends in England, and by some of us here in Scotland, particularly by R. B. in his Catechism and Apology, and by me in my Book of Immediate Revelation: And there was in the year 1651. an entire examination of that Confession of Faith published in Print by one W. Parker, (who was not called a Quaker, and whose words in all things we do not own) and to the said Examination I. A. or any of his Fraternity is referred, where I am abundantly persuaded he hath said more against it, and many Articles contained therein, viz. in the said Confession, than ever I. A. or any of his Presbyterian half Brethren shall be able to Answer; which whole Book lieth at their door to this day (so far as I can understand) unanswered. Another gross mistake, or rather abuse of I. A. is, that he allegeth, The Quakers are against all Confessions of Faith and Catechisms whatsoever, and yet they have Confessions and Catechisms of their own. I say this is a gross abuse, for we do own, that there may and aught to be Confessions of Faith given by True Christians; and also we own, that there may be Catechisms, and that they are useful in the Church, and accordingly we have such. And though the Writers of those Confessions and Catechisms, be not absolutely or universally Infallible, yet we hold that none should publish any Confession of Faith, or Catechism, but in such things whereof they are Infallibly persuaded by the Spirit of the Lord; and as to other things that may be uncertain or unclear unto them, they should forbear: and so every one should Speak or Write, as they have received the spirit of Faith: as the Apostle Paul said, We ha●ing re●e●ved the same spirit of Faith, we believe, and therefore we have spoken; bu● I. A. thinks he may Speak and Confess his Faith, without the same Spirit of Faith which David and Paul had: And as for our Catechisms and Confessions of Faith, if we cannot prove them, and all the Articles and Sentences in them, to be according to express Scripture words, then let them not be received. For we profess to urge nothing, nor to press any thing to be received, as a common Article of Faith, but what is expressly delivered and Recorded in the Scriptures. And if any should be so unbelieving and obstinate, as not to believe the express Scripture words, we may not urge them, or press them thereunto by any Humane or Carnal Force and Compulsion, but only to labour to persuade them, according to that evidence and demonstration of the Spirit and Power, as God shall be pleased to furnish us withal.  
Another great mistake or abuse of I. A. is, that he allegeth the Tenth Query is void of Sense, as if it did import, That their justification and Sanctification, Faith and Grace, were the Gifts of their Directory, Catechism, and Confession of Faith; and thus because the Query saith, The Gifts of these, whereas it is plain to any Sober and Rational Person, that by the Gifts of these, the Inquirer meaneth, the Gifts of Justification, Sanctification, Faith and Grace; and this is a form of Speech allowed by the Grammar itself, and practised by Learned Authors, I suppose far beyond I. A. who say not only the Town London, or Rome, or Edinburgh, but also the Town or City of London, the City of Rome, the City of Edinburgh; and therefore why may it not be as well said, the Gift of Faith, of Justification, of Sanctification; and speaking of these in general, why may it not be said, the Gifts of these, which is equivalent to these Gifts: And beside, perhaps all this Quibble is only raised upon a mistake of the Transcriber, writing the Gifts of these, for these Gifts; but it seems I. A. is barren of matter, when he maketh a mountain of so small a matter, if so be it were an impropriety of Speech. But to deal in earnest with I. A. seeing he is so declared an Enemy to Divine Inspiration in our days, we cannot think that he indeed oweth his pretended Justification, Sanctification and Faith unto God, but rather unto those Confessions and Catechisms; for what Evidence or probable ground can he give us, that he hath any Divine Faith, or that which is more than barely Historical and Traditional?  
Another gross abuse of his is, That because we call the Gospel the Power of God, as we are warranted by the express words of Paul, Rom. 1. 16. therefore he allegeth, That we fain to ourselves a sort of dumb Gospel, without any Words, or Doctrine. But to remove this abuse, let the Reader know, that by the Gospel, we mean not the Power of God abstractly considered without the Doctrine, and suitable words, inwardly or outwardly Preached, nor yet the Doctrine and Wor●●▪ without the Power, and Life, and 〈◊〉 God, but both conjunctly. And although we do readily acknowledge that the Doctrine, when it is outwardly Preached by the Spirit of God, and so hath the Power of God accompanying it, is and may be called Gospel; yet we cannot simply or absolutely limit or confine the Gospel to outward Preaching of men; otherwise what God or Christ Preaches of his Love and Mercy to men in their Hearts, should not be the Gospel, nor should that be Gospel which God Preached unto ●braham, and also unto Adam after the Fall; seeing to none of these God did use the Ministry of men. To conclude therefore, what God reveals of his Love and Mercy for men's Salvation, whether without, or by the Ministry of men Spiritually fitted and called thereunto is the Gospel, and that Gospel may be called the Power of God unto Salvation, because it is mighty and powerful in operation; but yet it doth not follow, that the ●reaching of the Letter without the Spirit and Power of God, is the Gospel, as I. A. would have it.   

CHAP. XIII.  
IN the pretended Survey of the 12th Query, I. A. 〈◊〉 the Inspirer of the Quakers, as he scoffingly 〈◊〉 it, as being both a great Jester, and a great Fool also, because the Inquirer asketh, Whether Original Sin be the Devil, seeing the Word Original signifieth the Beginning. But I ask I. A. why may not the Devil be called sin, or unrighteousness in a certain sense, as Christ is called righteousness frequently in Scripture? And what is it that made him that was an Angel of Light, to become a Devil, but sin; for when God first created him, he was not a Devil; but he became so, or made himself so, by his sin: And seeing sin made him become a Devil, why may it not receive his Name? And also seeing the Devil stirreth up men to sin, and is the Author of it commonly in men's Hearts, it may very well receive his Name, at least by a Metonymy.  
Again, is not sin called in Scripture, The Old Man, or Old Adam, whom we are bidden to put off? According to I. A. his reasoning, Sin cannot be an Old Man, because a man is a person, and then Sin should be a person also. Again, by his Argument, God made man, but he made not sin, therefore sin cannot be a man: And thus according to I. A. the Inspirer of the Apostle Paul, must also be a Fool and a Jester (which were very Blasphemous to think) because Paul calleth sin in men, The Old Man, and compareth it unto man, having its various Members.  
Now if indwelling sin may be called man, in any tolerable sense of a Metonymy, or Allegory; according to Scripture, why not also Devil, Serpent, Leviathan, as also it is called flesh. And whereas the Inquirer doth ask, what did Christ come to destroy? was it not the Devil and his works? To this I. A. giveth no direct Answer; for certainly that Devil whom Christ destroyeth in men's hearts; and that Serpent whose head Christ the Seed of the Woman doth bruise, is sin, which is the Serpent's birth in men's hearts, and which receiveth his Name, as the Child doth the Name of its Parent.  
Now as to the words Original sin, as they are no express Scripture words, so they have an Ambiguous or doubtful signification, and therefore it were better to leave those words, and to keep to express Scripture. For in one Sense, there can be no Original sin, because originally all things were good, and sin came in not with the Creation, but sometime after it.  
But how sin hath come generally upon all men, as whether by the bare imputation of Adam's sin, without the consent of his Posterity, or by and through their consenting thereunto, is the true state of the question, which I. A. hath not as yet resolved. And it seemeth most absurd that God should reckon any sinners for Adam's sin, without the least consent or concurrence on their part, which is not just among men; and certainly what is unjust with just men, is not just before the Lord, who is infinitely just and good. And seeing none are Righteous or Just by the Righteousness of Christ, the second Adam, without their Faith in him, and consenting to his Righteousness; so none are unrighteous by the first Adam, but such as consent to his sin. But again, when this consenting to Adam's sin took place in his posterity, as namely whether before they came into the womb, (as those who hold the pre-existence of all Souls from the beginning, do affirm, whereof there have been and are divers among those called Christians) or whether after they are born, when they grow up to the capacity of discerning good from evil, is yet another Question, which I. A. hath not touched, far less resolved. And it were well that men were more inquisitive to find the way, how to get sin put out, than how it came in; seeing they are generally sensible that that it hath entered, and got too great place in them. But as to the determinate and precise time, when sin hath entered into men's Souls; as it is no part of the Query, so it is none of my present work to determine. It shall suffice enough to reply unto I. A. that all his Arguments for the in being of sin in men's hearts, fall short to prove that it came into them without their own consent; or that God doth impute sin unto any Soul, simply and barely for the Fact of another; for that is to contradict the common instinct of Justice that is placed by the Lord, the judge of the whole Earth in all men.  
Another Question which I. A. raiseth on this Head, although it be no part of the Query, is, Whether that Seed of Concupiscence which is felt to move in those who are Travelling uprightly towards perfection, be really and properly their sin, or imputed unto them; for sin by the Lord, when not consented unto, in any measure or degree. And he resolveth it in the affirmative, but with very weak and insufficient Arguments. 1. He saith, By the sin of Adam, all were made sinners, Rom. 5. 16, 17, 18. But what then, doth it therefore follow, that they were made sinners without their own consent; let him show us this any where in Scripture? 2. He saith, Adam was the representative Head of mankind. But I say again, it doth not thence follow, that his sin is the sin of his Posterity without their consent; no more than it doth follow, that because Christ is also the Head of every man, that his righteousness becometh theirs, without their consent; and their actual receiving of him, and believing in him. 3. He saith, There are motions, which are sinful, though not consented to, when they are tampered with, or listened unto. I Answer, to tamper with any evil motion, or listen thereunto, is some measure of consenting; but when the evil motion is not tampered with, nor listened unto, in any measure, this reason hath no place. And here he allegeth on me, that as he was informed I did once dispute for a Professors place, which to what purpose he mentioneth this, I donot understand; however I tell him, his Information is false, for I never disputed any where in all my life, for a Professors place. 4. He argueth, That as Gracious Principles are Grace, so an evil principle is sin. I Answer, there is a Principle of Grace, in the Souls of Bad men, which is Grace in itself, and Truth and Righteousness, yet it is not their Righteousness, nor Grace, because they join not with it, and even so an evil Principle in a good man, though evil, and sin is not his sin, when he doth not join with it. 5. He Argueth, That which inclineth men to sin, must be sin. But if this Argument hold, than the Devil must be sin still, because he inclines men to sin. Again, as to what he alleges that Paul said, Sin did dwell in him, from Rom. 7. I Answer, I. A. hath not proved that Paul was at that time in that condition, whereof he makes mention, and although he speaks of the dwelling of sin, in him, viz. in respect of his former condition; yet he telleth, that not his mind, but his flesh, was the Subject, where it did indwell. And therefore when I. A. so insultingly inquireth at me, What is the Subject of that evil thing or motion; for seeing it is an accident, it must have some subject, without which it cannot exist. I Answer him from the Apostle; the Subject of it, in good men, is not the mind, or more noble part, which is immortal, but the flesh. And seeing it is not lodged in the mind of any righteous man, it cannot defile it, when it is not in any wise consented unto. Nor doth it follow, that because an evil motion may be in the flesh or mortal part, the Devil is also lodged there too; this is nothing but a foolish inference of I. A. his making; and therefore let him take home his silly Jest to himself, where he saith, It is better to lodge s●n alone, than it and the Devil too; for two such Devi●s are worse together, than any of them itself. I say, nothing of this can be inferred from our Principle; but let I. A. take heed, lest sin and the Devil too, have not too great place in him, which so leads him forth to foolish Jesting, and reproaching the Blessed Spirit of Truth, in its Holy Inspirations, in the Hearts of God's People. But why is I. A. so offended with the Inquirer, for ask if Sin be the Devil; seeing he calleth sin, Devil, saying, Sin and the Devil, are two worse Devils, than one alone.  
To conclude this matter, I. A. doth plainly acknowledge, That by Christ his destroying the Devil, is meant the destroying his Power and Kingdom in the World, pag. 137. And not the Annihilating the Devil's entity and being. Is it not then clear, that I. A. his own Confession, the Devil's Power and Kingdom is called Devil in Scripture, and what is that but sin; and thus we see, h●w at last he is forced, at least indirectly, to acknowledge, what he hath so earnestly opposed.   

CHAP. XIV.  
IN the pretended Survey of the thirteenth Query, I. A. accuseth the Spirit in the Inquirer, As being either an ignerant Blockhead, or else a Captious Sophister, and withal alleging, That the Question as it is propounded cannot be Answered; and that therefore it must be purged from a plurality of Interrogations. But all this Accusation proceeds upon a wrong Supposition, viz. That Christ hath not died for all men: And therefore, although I. A. cannot Answer the Question according to his own false Principle; yet according to Scripture it can be well Answered, viz. That Christ hath died for all the ungodly and sinners, that they should live unto him.  
In the next place he offereth to give some clear demonstrations from the Scriptures, That Christ did not die for all men. But in his whole Survey of this Question, consisting of above 13 Pages, he bringeth not one place of Scripture, which saith expressly, That Christ died not for all men: And for my part, I have Read the Scriptures all over several times, but to this day I could never find any such place: But on th● contrary, I have found divers places of Scripture expressly affirming, That Christ hath died for all, as Isaiah 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14, 15. Heb. 2. 9 and 1 Tim. 2. 6. and 1 joh. 2. 2. And therefore his clear demonstrations, are but his own consequences gathered not from Scripture, but from his own mistakes; and his absurd Interpretations of Scripture, the which we are not bound to receive, seeing he has renounced all claim to the Inspiration of that Spirit that gave forth the Scripture.  
And because it would be too tedious, and to little purpose to Answer particularly to every frivolous Objection he maketh against the Doctrine of the Scripture, Concerning Christ's dying for all men: I shall lay down some general Heads or Propositions according to Scripture, by which all his Objections shall be sufficiently Answered.  

PROP. I.  
ALthough Christ died for all men, and thereby gave a Testimony of God's great Love, and also of his own to all mankind, according to 1 joh. 4. 9, 10. and 1 joh. 3. 16. and Rom. 5. 8. Yet it doth not follow, that Christ or God hath equally conferred upon all, the Spiritual Blessings procured by his Death; for the Love of God being free, he might extend it in different measures or degrees to men, as it pleased him, according to his own infinite Counsel, which we cannot comprehend: And whereas joh. 15. 13. it is said, Greater Love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his Life for his Friends. This doth not import, as I. A. doth allege, That Christ died only for his Friends, but it expresseth the superabundant Love of Christ above the Love of all other men, in that whereas it is the greatest Testimony of the love among men, a man to die for his Friend; yet Christ hath given a far greater, in that he died for his Enemies, Rom. 5. 10.   

PROP. II.  
CHrist died in so far, even for these who perish; that by virtue of his Death all such have a day of Visitation, wherein it is possible for them to be saved, during which day: Christ Jesus doth Enlighten them with his true Light, to show them their way unto God; and also he breathes upon them in some measure, sufficient unto their Conversion, with his Spirit of Grace to draw and gather them, whereby it is possible for them within the day of their Visitation to believe, and so to be saved: And this Grace of Illumination, which hath a Sanctifying and renewing virtue in it comes upon them, as the real effect and consequence of what Christ hath done and suffered for them, God having so ordered it, in his infinite Love and Wisdom, that this Grace, whereby he converteth Souls should flow, and run forth unto us in that way, and as it were through the Conduit of Christ his Blood; so that the Sufferings of Christ were as the opening of a great Fountain, out of which the abundant Grace of God, that formerly as it were but droped on mankind, is in the Latter days poured forth upon them, as it was promised so to be; for which read and compare these following Scriptures, Isaiah 44. 3. joel 2. 28. jeremiah 31. 31. Psal. 68 18. Eph. 4. 7, 8. and joh. 1. 16, 17. Rom. 5. 18.   

PROP. III.  
WHen once the day of men's Gracious Visitation is at an end, which is possible to come to pass on many, and doth no doubt come to pass on many, even when living in the World, after they have finally rejected the Call of God in their Souls, and ●●ully resisted, and hardened themselves against his tender dealings by his Spirit of Grace, gently working on their hearts: I do not say that Christ hath died for the sins of all, or any one of those, after the said day of their Visitation is at an end: For although we read in Scripture, That Christ hath died for the re●ission of all sins past; in the time of ignorance when God winked, and for the redemption of the transgressions under the first Covenant, according to Rom. 3. 25. and Heb. 9 15. Yet we find not that Christ hath died for all sins of men that were to come, after they were Enlightened. And although no doubt all sins, as well to come as past, are pardoned upon Repentance; and that Christ hath died for such sins, as are repent of by any men, at any time, when they truly repent; yet seeing many sins are committed, by many, that are never repent of, and wherein they die finally Impenitent and hardened against God's tender Call and Visitation of Grace in their Souls: Also seeing some sin wilfully and fall away, after they have received the knowledge of the Truth, and die in that state, the Scripture is plain, That there remaineth no more Sacrifice for them. Also john speaketh, Of a s●n that is unto death, of which he Writes; I do not say, that such a one is to be Prayed for: And what is such a sin, but a final impenitence, even until the day of Visitation be over, and God be provoked to give them up, even as many at this day, because they received not the Truth in Love, are given up to the strong delusions of Antichrist, to believe Lies, and die in that state.   

PROP. IU.  
MEn are not according to Scripture called Reprobates within that time, that God dwelleth with them by his Grace, in order to convert them, and renew them by Repentance; far less doth the Scripture speak of men's being Reprobated from all Eternity, or before the foundation of the World, as some allege; although we read of an Election in Christ before the foundation of the World. And to say that God doth simply Reprobate men, while he is calling them to Repentance, and graciously inviting them in true Love to be reconciled with him, is an absolute inconsistency. The time therefore of any man's final Reprobation is after this day of Grace is over, and God hath wholly left striving with him in order to his Conversion. We must therefore distinguish betwixt persons, and their sins and sinful state; for also ●in, and state of sin is always rejected and reprobated, yet not the persons, until their day be over. For the Scripture speaketh abundantly of a day of Grace that all men have, or are to have, wherein the Lord not only visits them, but even endures with much long suffering the Vessels of wrath fitted for destruction. These only therefore are properly Reprobates, who are finally given over to a Reprobate mind, after their day of Grace is over; and God's foreknowledge and preordination respecteth them only as such.   

PROP. V.  
ACcording to what is formerly said, it may be further concluded, that although Christ hath died for all men in a day, so that within that day of Grace, all their sins past and to come as well as present, are pardonable for Christ's sake, no man being absolutely reprobated, and finally given over, within this day of Grace; yet that day being at an end, Christ's death is no more a Sacrifice for, them, nor for their sins; and because of their rejecting so great Salvation offered them by Christ, all their former sins which formerly were not imputed unto them, so as to hinder Pardon, are newly charged upon them, and that in the just Judgement of God, seeing they deny the Lord that bought them, and account his Blood, as an unholy or common thing. And in this respect Christ hath Died for no Reprobates, to wit, as such: And he hath neither died nor Prayed for the World; in that sense, to wit, as it signifieth them, who die in the final unbelief and impenitency, and so perish, for so I find the term World sometimes to signify in Scripture. And if I. A. think that this is a contradiction; 
1 Cor. 11 32.  as implying that Christ hath died for all men, and yet hath not died for Reprobates, who are a great part, or the greatest part of mankind; I shall mind him of a Rule in his School-Logick, that he doth so highly magnify, to wit, that Propositions are not contradictory, although the one be Affirmative, and the other Negative, unless they be in ordtne ad idem, in order to the same, and in regard of the same Circumstances of time, place, condition, etc.   

PROP. VI  
THe Sacrifice of Christ's death did truly extend, for the remission of sins past, from the beginning of the world; hence all the Believers that lived under the Law, and Prophets, and before the Law were saved by Faith in Christ, and had their sins pardoned; not by the Offering of the Blood of Bulls and Rams; but by the Blood of Christ, who was to die for them, and in whom they believed; and died in Faith; as is clear out of many places of Scripture, and especially the Epistle to the Hebrews. And by virtue of Christ's death, and offering once for all men, have had or have, or shall have a day of Visitation, and offer of Grace through Christ, even these who lived before Christ came in the flesh, in that prepared body as well as others. And therefore all who finally perish, and are lost in whatever Age or time of the World they lived, they must be accountable to Christ who is judge, both of quick and dead, and Lord of both; and they shall be punished with Fire of Hell, for neglecting and despising the Salvation offered by him. And although this is a great Mystery and hard to be uttered, how this Gospel Invitation, 
Act. 10. 42.  and Visitation cometh unto all, and how all shall be accountable unto the man Christ Jesus, on the score or account of his dying for them; yet seeing the Scripture is so plain and clear for it, 
Act. 17. 31.  it is better to believe it, than curiously to dispute how, or after what manner it comes so to be: And the opening of this and other great Mysteries of the Christian Religion, is approaching to many, who as yet do not see them; and when men are prepared to receive them, God will no doubt give that; and all other Good things to those that Love and Fear him.   

PROP. VII.  
ANd whereas I. A. and others do urge, That either Christ has died for those that perish, absolutely or conditionally: I Answer, partly both, first he hath so far died absolutely even for those, as by his death and righteousness, Grace is come upon them, sufficient both to Faith and Salvation, within their day of Grace; which Grace is given them absolutely for that time, and doth continue with them, until the day of their Visitation be at an end, and then it is taken away from them, the Lord ceasing to strive with them any more for their Recovery. Secondly, I say, Christ hath died conditionally, even for those that perish, that they might have been saved, within their day, upon the condition of their believing: And whereas I. A. doth object, That seeing the condition itself, to wit, Faith is the Gift of God, than he either bestows it upon them absolutely or conditionally; if absolutely, than Reprobates shall thereby be made Believers, and so be saved; if conditionally, than the sense will be, that God bestows Faith in Christ upon Reprobates, upon condition that they fir●● have Faith in him. To which I Answer, that Faith is indeed the Gift of God, and God is willing to bestow it upon them, and work it in them; not upon the condition of their first believing, before he give them to believe, which I confess would imply a contradiction; but the condition on which God is willing to work Faith in them is, if they do not finally resist his Spirit of Grace, having offered Faith unto all men, which moveth and draweth or inclineth them to believe; for to every one that doth not resist the motion of God's Spirit of Grace, he giveth Faith, and worketh it in them: And though men cannot actually do any thing that is good, or acceptable unto God, before they believe; yet when the Visitation of God's Grace is upon them, by the help thereof they may cease from resisting the Spirit of God: and whereas I have heard it again urged by others, Either God willeth that men should not resist the Spirit of Grace absolutely or conditionally; if absolutely, then say they, men shall not resist it; for what God willeth absolutely, must certainly come to pass, if conditionally, than the Argument may be renewed concerning that condition, and so without end. To this also I Answer, that God willeth absolutely, that men should n●t, or d● not resist his Spirit of Grace; for seeing God commandeth that men do not resist, it is evident that it is the absolute or positive will of God, that they do not; for whatever God commandeth is according to his will. But it doth not follow, that whatever God willeth men to do, that must certainly be done; for how often do men act contrary to the Will of God, in some sense, although when they do so act, it is not without his permissive will, whereby he suffers them so to do. Indeed I g●ant, that whatever God willeth that he do himself, that must certainly be done, and it cannot be resisted; and therefore when God punisheth the disobedient, it being his own act of Justice, and proceeding from his own holy and just will, it cannot be resisted in that respect. I have the more largely Answered this Objection, because it is judged by many of the Adversary side, to be unanswerable: But I hope by what is said, the Impartial Reader, who loveth Truth, may perceive, that there is indeed no strength in it; and it is so far from being a clear demonstration, that it is nothing else, but a Captious Sophism, and Fallacy.  
Moreover, whereas I. A. classeth us with the Arminians and jesuits, for holding this Doctrine, That Christ Died for all men. I Answer, seeing both Arminians and jesuits profess to hold many other Doctrines, which I. A. doth also profess, as that there is one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ; it is no just ground of reproach to us, to own that Doctrine, which the Scripture doth own, although Arminians and jesuits profess to own that also: But it is the greater shame to I. A. and his party, who profess to be more Orthodox, to be guilty in denying that, which Adversaries confess; we find that not only wicked men, but the Devils also confessed unto Christ, which yet is no reproach unto Christ, nor to the true Confessors of him.  
And lastly, whereas I. A. pretendeth to Answer our Arguments, For Christ his dying for all men; Some of them he doth not fairly represent; and others, being some places of Scriptures, he doth only Answer, by giving us his private meanings of his own private Spirit, (without any convincing reason) of those places of Scripture, which we are no wise bound to receive: And at best, all his Answers proceed upon a bare Supposition, that his own Principle is true; which is a common Fallacy, called in the Schools Petitio Principii, which is to say, A begging of the Question.    

CHAP. XV.  
IN my Answer to I. A. his pretended Survey of the 14 th'. Query, I purpose to use the same way as in the former, viz. To lay down some Propositions, which may sufficiently Answer to any thing he objects against the Universality of the saving Light and Grace of God unto all men; and in so doing, I shall both save myself and the Reader the pains ●o follow him in every Trivial thing that is objected.  
PROP. 1. In the Question concerning the Universality of God's Grace sufficient to Salvation; it were altogether wisdom in our Adversaries to forbear pressing so hard in that point, and so positively conclude against us, and not us only, but the Scripture itself, That many Nations or Kingdoms of the World are utterly excluded from all sufficiency of Saving Grace, and possibility of Salvation; and that upon the account of wanting the Gospel outwardly preached unto them, and benefit of the Scriptures. Do we not read in Scripture, That God hath given the Heathens to his Son for his Inheritance, and the uttermost ends of the Earth for his possession? And doth not Christ invite the most remote and desolate places of the Earth to come unto him, saying, Look unto me all ye ends of the Earth, and be ye saved: Mark it is not said, some ends of the Earth, but [all ye ends of the Earth;] even as well those to whom the outward Testimony of Christ by the Scriptures is not come, as those to whom it is come. And did not Christ command, That the Gospel should be preached to all Nations, even those that wanted the Scriptures Testimony, and therefore the Gospel did belong unto them; even so to speak before it was outwardly Preached u●to them, for because it did belong unto them, therefore was it to be Preached unto them; and consequently for the same reason the Gospel doth belong to many at this day, to whom it is not as yet outwardly Preached; and did not Paul say, Rom. 1. 14. That he was a Debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians, as concerning the Gospel? And how can I. A. or any of his party who dispute so fiercely against all possibility of Salvation, not only to many thousands among those called the Heathens, but to many entire Nations of them, make it appear that they are utterly and finally excluded from all sufficient means of Salvation. Have they been in Gods secret Counsel to know this? or who hath revealed it to them? And if the outward Testimony of the Scriptures be not as yet come to divers Nations of the Earth, this doth not hinder, but that the Gospel doth belong unto them, as well as unto others, to whom they are already come, Seeing God hath commanded, that the mystery which was kept secret since the World began, should now be declared or made known unto all Nations for the obedience of Faith, and that by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to Rom. 16. 25, 26. And seeing Christ hath commanded, That the Gospel should be Preached to all Nations, Dare I. A. or any of his party give us the Instance of any one Nation now under Heaven, to whom the Gospel ought not, or may not be Preached, suppose they altogether at present want the outward Testimony of Scripure, and knowledge of the History of the coming of Christ in the flesh. But if the Gospel may be Preached to any Nation now under Heaven, then certainly it belongeth unto them, I mean the Gospel Dispensation; for because it belongeth unto them, and is the free Gift of God unto them: And because Christ Jesus hath procured or obtained that privilege unto the Gentiles, by virtue of his death and bloodshed for them, Having broken down the middle wall of partition betwixt the Jews and Gentiles; therefore i● is to be Preached unto them: Even as because the King hath given some great favour unto his Subjects, it is to be published or declared unto them, and it is therefore published unto them, because it is given them; and is not given them, because it is published; and therefore the Gentiles have some title or claim to the Gospel, even before it be published, and consequently before the outward publication of it unto them, they are not utterly excluded from the Dispensation of God's Grace towards men. And if any shall say; The Gospel is to be Preached to all Nations indeed, (seeing Christ hath commanded it, and not one Nation is excepted) because that God hath some scattered up and down all the Nations, who are to be saved, as belonging to God's Election. To this I Answer, that according to I. A. his way of reasoning, God hath none belonging to his Election in many Nations of the World, because they are excluded from all possibility of Salvation for want of the Scriptures.  
PROP. 2. Whereas I. A. objects against the universal sufficient Light and Grace of God, because it is said, 1 Cor. 2. 14. The Natural man does not discern, neither can he know the things of the Spirit of God. I Answer, By the Natural man is to be understood, the Soul or Mind of man, as it laboureth to understand Divine things merely by its Natural faculties of Natural wisdom and understanding, without any Divine illumination: But when it pleaseth God to shine upon man in his Natural state, by his Divine illuminaon, than he may know something belonging to his Soul's Salvation, so far as his weakness can permit, by virtue of the said illumination. For how are men converted from Natural to Spiritual? God dealeth not with men in Conversion, as with Stocks and Stones, but as with Reasonable Creatures, having some capacity of understanding.  
PROP. 3. That some in Scripture are said to have neither Ears to hear, nor Eyes to see, nor Hearts to understand, And that because God hath not given it unto them, which is another objection of J. A. This doth not prove, that at no time God hath given to those people any measure of sufficient Grace for this great and extraordinary darkness and blindness may be upon them, either because the day of their Visitation is expired altogether, or because of some intermission, that is only to continue for some time; after which they are again to have a new Visitation, so that they may both see and hear, and also understand, if they will not wilfully shut their Eyes.  
PROP. 4. These who are said in Scripture, as 2 Thess. 2. 11, 12. To be given up to strong Delusions, to believe Lies; Are such, who when the Truth was made known unto them, received it not in love, that they might be saved, as is clear from v. 10. And therefore it doth not follow, as I. A. would have it, That these who are so fearfully blinded by Antichrists delusions, never had a day of Visitation, before they were so blinded: But on the contrary it is manifest they had, because their blindness is a Judgement inflicted upon them, for their wilful opposing the Light that God gave them sometime formerly.  
PROP. 5. Whereas I. A. saith, That the Father draweth not all men to Christ: I Answer, As this is no where said in Scripture, so it is contrary to Christ his Doctrine, who said, After I am lifted up, I will draw all men unto me: And certainly all whom Christ draweth, the Father also draweth; for said Christ, My Father hitherto worketh, and I work. Nor do the words of Christ cited by I. A. prove the contrary, joh. 6. 45. Every man that hath heard and learned of the Father comes to him: For Christ doth not simply say, every one that hath heard of the Father, comes to him; but every one that hath learned, as well as heard; now we do not say that every one hath Learned of the Father, although they have heard in some sort; also there is a right and wrong hearing, some hear willingly; and this is only the right hearing; but although all hear one time or another, while their day of Grace last, yet few hear willingly so as to obey, and therefore they come not unto Christ.  
PROP. 6. Whereas I. A. Argueth again, That wicked men have not the powers, principles or habits of Grace, and therefore they have not sufficient Grace; and he laboureth to prove, They have not the powers and habits or principles of Grace, because otherwise they would be Converts and Gracious men. To this I Answer, Although wicked men have not these powers and habits, as some call them, actually, yet they have them hiddenly, to wit, in a Seed or principle of Grace, which virtually containeth all these powers and faculties, even as the Seed of a Tree doth virtually contain the Fruit and tree itself. But it doth not follow, that because a wicked man hath a good Seed in him, that therefore he is a good man, no more, than because good Seed is sown in barren ground, that therefore it is fruitful.  
PROP. 7. Whereas I. A. doth further all●dge, That the Gentiles did the things of the Law mentioned, Rom. 2. 14. By the mere nature of man, without the Grace of God; and this because it is not said, They did the things contained in the Law by Grace, but by Nature. To this I Answer, nor is it said they did the things contained in the Law by the corrupt Nature of man, as it is corrupted in the Fall, and no wise healed or restored. And certainly corrupted Nature could not do the things contained in the Law; for the Law of God in the Hearts of the Gentiles, did require not only the outward action, but the inward purity of the heart; and if this was wanting, they did not the things contained in the Law. But that there was an uprightness of heart in some of the Gentiles, is clear from divers examples of Scripture, as from Rom. 2. 14. They show the work of the Law Writ in their Hearts; and in the Case of Cornelius, and also of Abimelech, Gen. 20. 6. so that God said unto him, I know that thou didst this in the Integrity of thy heart. And therefore that Nature mentioned by Paul Rom. 2. 14. is either Nature healed and restored in some measure by the Grace of God, as Augustine did partly expound it, or the innate word mentioned by james, to wit, The Word of Life immediately grafted, or planted in the Souls of men, which is a Divine Nature; for the Greek word used by james in that place, doth most properly signify, that which is immediately planted in men's Nature, as distinguished from that which they receive by Education or Industry; as when we say, innate wisdom or understanding, and innate goodness, we mean that which a man hath immediately received from God, from his Birth, or Creation, to distinguish it from what he hath acquired by his own pains or labour, in which sense I find both the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be used by Greek Authors. Now that the Gentiles had a measure of God's Grace bestowed upon them, which for most part they did not improve, is clear as from many other passages of Scripture, so in particular from the Parable of the Prodigal, who received of his Father's Goods and Substance, as well as the Elder Brother, but he spent it in Riotous living, so that he was left destitute. Now I ask what was that which the Prodigal spent which his Fathers gave him, and was a Portion of his Father's Goods and Substance; surely this was not man's own corrupted Nature, nor any faculty or power thereof, for that remained still with him: And therefore it behoved to be the Grace of God.  
PROP. 8. Whereas I. A. expoundeth, All men to whom the Grace of God hath appeared, Tit. 2. 11. To be all Ranks, Stations and Qualities of men, etc. This his Exposition contradicteth his own Doctrine, who so fiercely doth oppose the appearing of God's Grace, not only unto all particulars, but also to many or most of the Nations of the Earth, who belong to some of the Ranks, Stations and Qualities of men, such as these numerous and great Nations in the East and West-Indies, and other remote places, to whom the Doctrine of the Gospel was not in Paul's time, nor perhaps since outwardly Preached, at least to most of them. Nor can I. A. show where all men signify any definite number, and that the smallest part also of mankind. And when Paul spoke of his warning and teaching every man, his sense is clear, that he excepted none, but still as he had occasion, he Preached the Gospel freely unto all, telling them, That they should repent and believe, that they might receive the remission of their sins through jesus Christ; who had died for them, and was risen again. But I. A. saith, There are many Nations as well as persons for whom Christ died not; and these for whom Christ died not, are not exhorted to believe that Christ died for them; except they shall first make choice of and embrace him, for their Lord and Saviour, as the Gospel offers him. But this is a strange inconsistency and contradiction? How can they or aught they to embrace him as their Lord and Saviour, if they are not to believe that he has died for them, even when the account of Christ his dying for mankind is Preached unto them. It God require men to believe in Christ, it is certainly upon reasonable and equal terms; some foundation or ground for such a belief is to be made known unto them, As that God is Merciful and ready to pardon their by past sins; which yet cannot be if Christ hath not died for them.  
PROP. 9 Lastly, whereas I. A. doth argue, That the Doctrine of Universal Grace, destroys the Efficacy of Grace, and makes the Effectualness thereof depend upon man's will, to choose or refuse as he pleaseth, and so the Grace of God shall be subordinate to man's will, which is absurd: To this it is easily Answered, that the Grace of God is still effectual in its Nature, even when it doth not actually work the Salvation of all; for as much as it is sufficiently able to work it, where it is not resisted, even as the Fire is effectual to Melt the hardest Metal, if the Metal be duly applied to it, but if the Metal be removed from the Fire, that the said Metal is not Melted, is not because of the Fire, it's not having efficacy enough, but because the Metal is removed from it, so the Fire still retaineth its efficacy as it had before. Again, the efficacy of God's Grace dependeth not on man's will, seeing the will of man doth not influence or excite the Grace of God to make it operate; but on the contrary, it is the Grace of God that doth influence or excite the heart and will of man, without which it cannot do any thing towards man's Salvation; and therefore the Grace of God is never subordinate to the will of man, as I. A. doth falsely infer. And whereas I. A. upon this head, Calls the Grace of God, that can be resisted, (so as the Souls Conversion may be hindered by man's resisting it) ill natured, and false Grace; and moreover addeth, that he will have nothing to do with such Grace that can be resisted, he speaketh here too rashly and presumptuously▪ for do we not read of some in Scripture that resisted the Truth, and also the Holy Ghost? As Stephen charged the jews, that they did always resist the Holy Ghost, as did their Fathers; and yet according to I. A. his Principle, he might as well say, He would have nothing to do with the Holy Chest that can be resisted, and charge it as ill natured and false, which were Blasphemous to affirm. Notwithstanding the same, I. A. forgetting himself a few Lines after, saith, We may indeed resist both the means and motions of Grace, and not improve Grace, as we should and might too: But (saith he) God makes it still effectual to the growth by him designed. This is a contradiction not only to his former Assertion, but to itself, as implying that men may improve Grace further than God designed they should. Another very absurd Assertion I find alleged by him, as if Grace did not incline men to perfection, and so there cannot be any resistance of it in that respect. But he may as well say, God doth not command perfection, and so not to be perfect is no sin; for certainly whatever God commands, his Grace inclines men to; yea, it is his Grace in their Hearts, that is a Law, and command unto them. In the close of this Section, I. A. falleth on to dispute against the posibility of the falling away of any from real beginnings of Sanctification, the which because he doth it so overly and barely, not bringing Arguments for what he saith, but merely giving us his own private conjectures on some places of Scripture which are alleged on both sides, as also because it is altogether a digression from the Queries, I shall not insist upon particularly to refute. Only for a service unto those, who may desire Information, as touching the thing itself; because of the seeming contrariety of some places of Scripture, which hold forth the state of some in the Grace and favour of God, as unchangeable and not liable to any alteration of falling away from the same, are to be understood of the State of such persons, after they have come to such a growth in Grace, so that perseverance in the same is a reward given them of God, with a respect to their Faithfulness and diligence, wherein they have been formerly exercised. And such especially is that place, Rev. 3. 12.   

CHAP. XVI.  
IN my Examination of I. A. his Survey of the 15 th'. and two other Queries, which are the last: I design to be very brief, finding little or nothing in all that he objecteth against us, on these heads, but mere quibbling and trifling, together with some manifest abuses and perversions, part of which I shall take notice of, leaving other things of less moment to the Readers own consideration. And indeed were it not for the worth, and serviceableness of the things themselves proposed in the Queries, and to give to my Native Country, as well as unto other places, a new occasion to Read and Consider those Queries, and the weightiness of the things proposed in them, I had not taken the pa●ns to put Pen to Paper in Answer to I. A. notwithstanding his many abusive reflections against me in particular, considering of what small repute or esteem he is among his Brethren; for although he appears in his Book, as some great Pillar mightily concerned in his brethren's Quarrel and Cause, yet so small is their esteem of him, or of his work (as it seemeth) that they have suffered him to lie in Prison in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for want of Money to pay the Charges of his Book, as is not our to many in this place: It is like I. A. will be more provident the next time he engageth against the Quakers, to get john Hamilton, who hath so highly commended his work, or some other to secure him, from the next inconveniency of that sort.  
First of all he begins on this Query, to Quibble about the word [should] as if the Inquirer did mean, by these words, That men should not be perfect; as if these called Ministers did teach, that it was not men's duty to be perfect, or as if it were not commanded; whereas by the word should, is only meant the event or attainment, and not the duty, as sometimes the word doth signify; a thing most common in ordinary Speech, as when one saith, if such a man had lived long, he should have been Rich, or he should have been Wise, etc.  
Next he alleges, I abu●e some worthy men, because I had cited some, as holding a Divine condescendence, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and as if the same did consist in God his remitting or nullifying his Law, in its obligation; but this is a gross perversion, for I did not mean any such thing thereby, as I. A. doth allege, but only that God out of his infinite goodness and wisdom hath given unto men, under the Gospel Dispensation, a Law that is so Gentle and so full of Clemency, as that by the same he requires no more of any of us, but according to the measure of Grace and Strength he doth afford unto us; and still as our Strength and Ability is Increased, the obligation of the Law becomes the greater upon us. Hence it is, that he who is Faithful in every respect to the measure of Grace which he hath received, is indeed a perfect man, and doth please God, although he be not equal in his attainment unto others, who have more given them: For to whom much is given, much is required; and to whom less is given, less is required; which is most clear from the Doctrine of Christ, in his Parable of the Talents.  
And whereas I. A. doth plead against the possibility of perfection in this Life, by divers Arguments deduced from a misapplication of some places of Scripture; I shall only point at the defects of his Arguments in general, which shall suffice to every one of them, if duly applied in particular. 1. One great defect of his Arguments is, that the most they prove is, That man of himself, without the Grace and help of God's Spirit, cannot attain to perfection; which we do not deny, but this hinders not, that by Grace he may. 2. A second defect is, that his Arguments prove, That the Saints had their Imperfections and sins, before they were fully washed and cleansed from them, which we also acknowledge, but this doth not hinder, that some time or other, they witnessed a perfect cleansing before death. A third defect is, his confounding ●he States and Conditions of the Saints, to wit, Their weak Estate, when they are but in the warfare, and struggling against sin, with their Last and final Estate, wherein they have overcome, and got the Victory. And lastly, to mention no more, his misapplying the word or term perfect, when it is taken in an higher sense, to the lowest condition of a sinless state, as in the Case of Paul, when he said, Philip. 3. 12. He was not as yet perfected, where he means, certainly, that he had not attained to the highest pitch or condition of Holiness, that was attainable in this Life; which notwithstanding doth not hinder a sinless perfection; for although Adam was Created in a sinless perfection, yet certainly he was to have gone on to a higher state of Perfection: And we Read of Christ who had no sin at all, that he was made perfect through Sufferings. Again, when Christ said, I work to day, and to morrow, and the third day I am perfected: This cannot signify that he had any sinful Imperfection before that time; but his being perfected the third day, signifieth that his work was then to be done, and so that he was prepared for the Glory that he was to receive thereafter.  
Again, whereas he maketh some show of bringing our Arguments or Reasons for Perfection, I find not myself concerned to Vindicate those Arguments, as managed by him; because he doth not propose them, either in matter or form as they do require; as also that he allegeth divers Arguments as used by us in the Case, which I know not, if indeed used by any of us. Nor is it my work at present, to bring Arguments for our Doctrine, that being already done by others, and partly also by me; but to Answer I. A. in what he hath against the same.  
He allegeth, that Paul must needs have been in that very condition, which he there describes, Rom. 3. 14, 15, 18, 23. and consequently there can be no place for the figure called Metaschematismus, as I did allege, except I will say, that Paul then did not with his mind serve the Law of God. But how weak and frivolous is his ●cason here? Could not Paul in the same discourse, speak of something that was truly his present conditions, and of some other thing that was not? Is it not clear that james doth so in his Epistle, when he saith of the Tongue, Herewith Bless we God, and herewith Curse we men. My Brethren these things ought not to be so. Now according to I. A. his highly admired Logic, james behoved to be both a Blesser of God, and Curser of men at the same time, seeing he useth the first person to express both, and the like Impertinency I. A. is guilty of, in saying the word cleanseth, 1 joh. 1. 7. Being in the present Tense, imports the Sanctification of Believers to be imperfect in this Life; for the word is also used in the present time. And second by I. A. his reason, the word justifieth, Rom. 8. 33. importeth an imperfect Justification, contrary to I. A. his express assertion.  
Again he allegeth, that the words in Ecclesiast. 7. 20. There is not a just man upon the Earth that doth good and sinneth not; Have the Verb in the indicative Mood, and not in the Potential signified frequently by the second future, as I did affirm. But this is a bareevasion, and no direct Answer to my Assertion? And I say again, the second future, even that of the indicative, may be turned into the Potential Mood, as it is often at other times, because the Hebrew Language hath no Potential Mood distinct by itself. Again, whereas he urgeth, That Solomon must needs understand Actual Sinning, and not a bare possibility of men's sinning, for who would be ignorant of that? To this I Answer, that Solomon did not mean a bare possibility, but such a possibility as did infer the great danger and hazard that men were under to sin, if they were not duly watchful: And although all men did know this, yet they did need to be admonished of it; for some parts of the Scripture are for admonition, and putting us in remembrance, and not barely for Information. How oft doth the Scripture tell us, that all men are Mortal, and must die, which yet none are ignorant of, although they oft forget that it is so, and therefore need often to be remembered. But by I. A. his Logic, either men are ignorant, that they shall die, or the Scripture saith so in vain. Who seeth not here, the weakness of I. A. his Reasons, which I am already weary to repeat, or spend my time and pains on such stuff; and therefore shall hast to an end of the whole. Only I cannot but take notice, with what confidence I. A. doth conclude, That the Apostles and Prophets their Writing the Scriptures, was an Action surely defective and imperfect, as to the exact and complete degree of Love to God and men, etc. But where doth he read any such assertion in Scripture? Or by what consequence doth he prove it? Suppose they did not what they did in the highest degree, that men could attain to; this doth not prove any sinful defect in what they did. For it did sufficiently Answer to the exactness of the Law, if what they did was, with all that degree of Love to God and men, that was possible for them, at that time to perform.   

CHAP. XVII.  
J. A. in his pretended Answer to the 16 th' Query; first of all beginneth to accuse the Inquirer, As guilty of a lewd Calumny, in charging his Brethren, for holding Salvation by Self-works, and Self-Righteousness; whereas they disclaim Salvation by the best works of the Saints. But I. A. in this, as in other things, doth grossly abuse his Reader, and falsely accuse the Inquirer. For doth not I A. know, that to Query a thing is no positive conclusion, either for or against it. And albeit the Inquirer did know, that in words ye cry down all self-works, and self-righteousness; yet he had but too much ground to question you, about them, seeing ye are generally found so much practising them; and if they be not so much as useful means or helps of Salvation, why do ye both so much practise them and plead for them, as I. A. hath done at great length, for Preaching, and Praying, and Singing without the Spirit, all which are nothing but Self-righteousness. Another fault that I. A. committeth here is, that he confoundeth the meritorious cause of Salvation, with the subordinate and instrumental means thereof. For although those called Protestants deny the Saints good Works, that are wrought by the Spirit, to be strictly the meritorious cause of Salvation; yet generally, or for the most part, they deny not, that they are means of Salvation, and necessary in order thereunto, which yet I. A. seemeth here altogether to deny. And as to that place of Scripture cited by I. A. to prove, that the Saints are not saved by any work of righteousness, even wrought by the Holy Spirit in their hearts, viz. Tit. 3. 5. He could not have brought a more convincing Testimony against his false Doctrine, than that very place: For after that Paul said, Not by works of Righteousness, which we had done, (viz. by any power of our own) he immediately addeth, That God saveth us according to his Mercy, by the washing of Regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost: Which Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, comprehendeth the whole work of Sanctification in the Saints.  
And here I. A. goeth on at his old rate of multiplying false accusations and perversions and perversions against us: Some of the chiefest whereof I shall briefly mention. 1. That we hold a Popish justification. 2. That in one of our Books called, A Confession of Faith, p. 21. We deny to be justified by Righteousness received of us by Faith, and also by a Righteousness imputed unto us. All which are most gross Forgeries and Slanders, for the words in that page 21. say expressly. That acceptance with the Father is only in Christ, and by his Righteousness made ours, or imputed unto us. And the said Book denyeth not that the Righteousness of Christ is received by Faith, that is the Gift of God, but both that Faith and imputation, which is only and alone the Creatures act, or work without the Spirit of Christ, we do justly deny to have any place in our Justification. 3. Whereas in the said Book, our Friends allege, it is not Acts of Righteousness as done by us, nor as inherent in us as Acts, by which we are accepted of God, and justified before him, but by Christ the Author and worker of those Acts in us, and for us, etc. He most grossly perverteth the sober and honest intent of those words, as if by them, they understood, only that they hold not themselves justified by all Acts, as Blasphemy or any other gross sin. But who seeth not that this is a most gross perversion, for certainly, all Righteous Arts of all sorts they exclude, when they say, not by Acts of Righteousness; and therefore when they say, it is not Righteous Acts as Acts, whereby we are justified, their meaning is most plain and obvious, as Acts being understood, to be only, even as Acts of Righteousness, and not simply and barely as Acts; though upon this mere Grammatical Quibble I. A. buildeth all his loud clamour against them. But I. A. should know better, that when the Sense is obvious, a word may be understood, that is not expressed in the Sentence, as so it is in this present Case. A fourth gross Perversion of his, that he saith of me, in my Book called Quakerism no Popery, I affirm, That we are justified by our inward Graces immediately, I. A. doth understand, that I mean without all respect to Christ, which is a most gross perversion; for the express words of my Book are these following, The Righteousness of God and Christ by which we are most immediately and nearly justified, is Christ himself, (and then I add) and his work of Righteousness in us by his Spirit, So that I am so far from excluding Christ, that I say in the first place, Christ himself is our Righteousness. A fifth gross Perversion of I. A. is, that in my defunction of Justification, I give no other material cause of our Righteousness before God, but only our Inward Graces; whereas in the said definition, I mention expressly Jesus Christ, as being the ground and foundation of our Justification, both in what he hath done and suffered for us, without us, and as really and truly indwelling in us. A sixth perversion of his is, that I confound Justification and Sanctification together, making no imaginable distinction betwixt them; and that because I say, we are justified by inward Righteousness, and sanctified by the very same. But this proveth not, that I do not distinguish them, for one and the same thing may have a respect to different operations, as well as to different Causes. But this reasoning of I. A. is as one would argue, that when a Malefactor is both Condemned and punished for his Crime, that his Sentence of Condemnation, and his punishment are one and the same, without any imaginable distinction betwixt them. As also that his Condemnation and guiltiness are the same, seeing by his Crime he is both guilty and condemned. But as to Justification and Sanctification, that they are distinguished (although sometimes in Scripture, one and the same word doth signify both) I willingly grant, and do expressly mention them as distinct in my Book, which I need not here repeat.  
And whereas I. A. doth not only accuse me in particular, as holding a Popish Justification, but saith further, That Bellarmine himself was never more Popish on that Head. Surely this his assertion proceeds either from great ignorance or something worse. For Bellarmine de justif. lib. 5. cap. 17. holdeth, That good works do merit Eternal Life condignly, not only by reason of God's Covenant and acceptation, but also by reason of the work itself; so that in a good works proceeding from Grace, there may be a certain proportion and equality unto the reward of Eternal Salvation; and to the same purpose writeth Gabriel Vas●uez, a Papist: But no such thing is affirmed by any of us, nor by me; but on the contrary, in my Book called Quakerism no Popery I altogether deny the merit of the best works; as it signifieth an equality of worth to the reward of Eternal Life. Nor do I in any other case, or sense allow the word merit, with a respect to the best works of the Saints, but in that sober and qualified sense used by divers of greatest note among those called Reformers among the Protestants, as Melanction and Bucer, and also by the Fathers so called, and which is agreeable to Scripture, which calleth Eternal Life the reward of good works, now reward and 〈◊〉 are relative ●●rms, as Richar● Baxter (highly commended by I. A. elsewhere) doth acknowledge. And not only the said Richard Baxter a great English Presbyterian, but divers of the best account in the Episcopal way, as particularly H. Hammond do hold, that the Saints are justified not by Faith only, but by Repentance, Love and New Obedience, as well as by Faith, as Instruments of Justification; and necessary conditions requisite thereunto, and that Sanctification in the order of Causes is prior to Justification. And james Durham a great Scots Presbyterian, in his Commentary on the Revelation, Digress. 11. saith, That such who rest upon Christ for justification, and acknowledge his satisfaction, ought not to be blamed as guilty of Popery; although they hold that Repentance, Love and other Spiritual Virtues and Graces are necessary to justification as Faith is. Seeing then we have some of the greatest note, both among those called Presbyterians and Episcopalians who agree with us, in the Doctrine of Justification; it must needs proceed from great prejudice, and untowardliness in I. A. to charge us, as being guilty of Papery, in that, for which we have not only the Scriptures abundantly to warrant us, but divers also both Episcopal and Presbyterian, of the best account, to vindicate us. And as for Henry Hammond, a man of singular esteem in the Episcopal▪ Church in Britain, whereof I. A. is a pro●●s●ed Member; he doth not only agree with us on this Head of Justification, but also on many other very great and weighty Heads of Doctrine so fiercely opposed by I. A. as particularly in those following. 1. That Christ hath died for men. 2. That there is no absolute decree of Reprobation. 3. That God's Grace is Universal. 4. That beginnings of Regeneration may be fallen from. 5. That these words of Paul, Rom. 7. 14, 15. concerning his being Sold under sin, are a Meta●chematismus, and not the present State that Paul was in. And I. A. is extremely ignorant, if he know not, that an exceeding great number, if not the greatest, of the most judicious persons of the Episcopal Church both in Britain and Ireland, are of the same mind with the said H. Hammond in these things, who therefore are so far from esteeming I. A. a Patron, or Advocate of their Church, that they cannot but judge him in so far at best, their Adversary.  
Moreover, the great prejudice of I. A. against us appears in this, that because I deny all merit strictly considered, he inferreth most absurdly, that if Justice will not exact the very rigid rigour of the Law from us, and take the very summum jus, we think to merit our Justification by our Inherent Righteousness at God's Tribunal. This I say is an absurd inference, and smelleth rankly of deep prejudice, and perverseness of Spirit, in I. A. in opposition to which, I say, that unless God did not only not exact in his Justice, the rigid rigour of the Law, as he terms it, but did not also pardon and forgive us freely for Christ's sake, multitude of sins, so as not only to remit us a Penny, but many thousands of Pounds; neither we, nor any man living could be justified at God's Tribunal, by the greatest Holiness attainable; for all that the best of the Saints can attain unto; of Holiness or Righteousness, is but their duty, and therefore can be no ransom nor redemption, unto God, for the lest by past sin; far less, for many that they have formerly committed.  
And whereas in my Book aforesaid, I charged. I. A. and his Brethren, to be too much one with the Papists, in the Doctrine of Justification; both of them denying that the Saints Justified by Christ indwelling in them, as Luther expressly Taught in his Commentary on the Galatians: And also denying that Gods Justifying his Children is an inward Sentence, or Dictate of his Spirit immediately pronounced in their hearts; to which the said I. A. can give no reply, but a mere evasion, and falleth on a fresh to accuse us of Enthusiasm, which being already Answered in the former part, I need not here to repeat. Only I cannot but take notice, how ignorantly I A. opposeth the word or term immediate, to the use of means, which I have already refuted, and showed how immediate Revelation, such as the Prophets and Apostles had, doth very well consist with the use of means: And so I willingly acknowledge, that true and right means, are as Vessels, whereby ordinarily our Spiritual Meat and Drink are conveyed to us, sometimes in the use of one mean, sometimes in the use of another; but I hope, when we Eat and Drink, that which is conveyed to us, we Eat and Drink it immediately, See, Taste, Savour, and Handle, and Feel it immediately, and can well understand, when the Meat is indeed in the Vessel, and when it is empty; and therefore I. A. his comparison in this respect, doth altogether halt, and is impertinent.  
Another great impertinency and abuse I observe in I. A. that whereas I. A. blamed our Friends, for saying, We are not justified by Acts of Righteousness 〈◊〉 Acts; grossly inferring, that thereby they understand, that they are not justified by sinful Acts, as Blasphemy, Murder, and the like; ye● h● himself 〈◊〉 the same kind of Expression, as to Faith; saying, The Saints are not justified by Faith, as it is a 〈◊〉 Act: And according to I. A. his Logic, he means, they are not justified by all works, as Blasphemy, Murder, Unbelief, according to the maxim cited by him, A quatenus ad omne sequitur Vniversaliter. Nor is he less Impertinent to accuse me of a self contradiction, because I distinguish Faith, as it is both receptive and operative; for even the receptive Faith, I hold it to be a work, and also wrought, not only in the Soul, but in some degree by it, as a co-worker through the operation of the Holy Spirit. And I say again, to affirm that the Saints are not justified by Faith, as it is a work, is too nice, and subtle a distinction, unless they mean thereby, as work wrought by them, and as having an equal proportion to the reward of Eternal Salvation. And in this sense, that may be as well said, we are justified by Love, Repentance, and all the Acts of men and Spiritual obedience, but not as works done by us, and having that quality of proportion to Eternal Life.  
I shall not insist to Answer particularly I. A. his pretended Arguments against Justification by Repentance, and Conversion, and inward Acts of Righteousness, as proceeding from the Spirit of Christ in Believers. The whole force of his reasons being founded on a bare Assertion, that hath been often sufficiently refuted both by us, and divers noted men in the Episcopal Church, as if Paul did oppose Faith and all works, or the inward work of Regeneration, and Renewing by the Holy Ghost, when he saith, We are not saved by Works; and the contrary is manifest from Tit. 3. 5. already cited. As for his saying, That our Souls are of great price in the sight of God, and yet do not merit Heaven, and consequently nor the best Works, although they are said to be of great price with God. I grant, neither our Souls, nor our Virtue's merit Heaven, nor Redemption, as merit signifieth equality: But seeing God hath counted our Souls so dear, as to give so great a price for them, as the Blood of his Dear Son, they may at least be said to have some dignity or worth (which is to say merit) in them; otherwise God would never have given so great a Ransom for them, if the Souls of men, in respect of their Nature and Being, had not been of great value, which is all I understand by the word merit, as used by any of us. And truly for our part, we very rarely, or never use the word merit, as with a respect to the Saints best works, unless, when we are constrained, to bear our Testimony against the ignorance and rashness of those, who so undervalue, and reproach the Blessed Spirit his works in the Saints, as to call them not only unclean and underfiled with sin, but sin itself, for which God might justly condemn them to Hell, as some have not been afraid to affirm.  
I take notice also on this Head, how I. A. doth acknowledge, that Repentance, Love and Hope, are necessary to Justification, by way of presence, and existence, but not as conditions or qualifications required in order to Justification, which is another frivolous and groundless distinction; for seeing the Scripture doth equally press our Repentance and Conversion, that we may obtain Forgiveness and Justification, as it doth Faith. The one is certainly as much the condition as the other. And it is not Faith barely considered, which hath the fitness to receive us into the Favour of God, and his acceptance, but as it is accompanied with sincere Repentance and Obedience; for as it is a most unfit and incongruous thing, that any man, while remaining in his unbelief, should be admitted into Friendship and Favour with God, so it is no less unfit, and unagreeable to the Wisdom and Holiness of God, to receive them into his Friendship and Favour, as his Children, who remain still Rebellious and disobedient against him.  
As for I. A. his last Assertion on this Head, consisting of above three pages; wherein he only beats the Air, and fights with his own shadow, upon a gross and perverse, but altogether groundless surmise; as if the Quakers did deny any imputed Righteousness of Christ, in what he did and suffered for us, but as it is inwardly wrought and inherent in us; for we most willingly and sincerely acknowledge, that the Righteousness of Christ, in what he did and suffered for us outwardly in his own person, is imputed unto us for Justification; and so much I did acknowledge in my Book already mentioned: But we further say, that all to whom that is imputed, which Christ did and suffered for us outwardly, must witness a real and true Conformity both to the Death of Christ, and also to his Holy Life and walk, without which, all men's imputing it unto themselves, is but an airy Dream and Imagination.  
There is yet another gross perversion used by I. A. in his pretended Survey or Answer of the sixteenth Question; as if the Quakers so called, Seem to deny that there was any Spiritual Worship, in the time of the Old Testament; And thus because it is said in the Query, that Christ set up the True Worship in Spirit and in Truth above 1600 years ago; but nothing but great Ignorance or prejudice, can from this infer, that there was not any degree of it in the World in former times. And I. A. might as well argue against the Scriptures, that because God saith in the last days, He would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and Write his Law in their Hearts; That therefore nothing of this sort was formerly in the World. And thus I have done with I. A. his long and tedious pretended Survey of this Question, having omitted nothing that seemed unto me Material; and having found in his whole Discourse consisting of about 19 pages, scarce any thing, but gross mistakes and perversions.   

CHAP. XVIII  
HEre again I. A. in his pretended Survey to the 17th and last Question, beginneth with a most gross perversion, As if the Quakers (because they would have men to cease from all their own works, merely acted in the strength of man's Will, and natural Power, without the supernatural and Spiritual aid and assistance of the Spirit of God) would have men, to be as senseless Trunks doing nothing; the bare Rehearsal of which is sufficient Refutation.  
Another charge, little less gross is, That the Quakers hold only Babylon to be within in men's hearts, for which he citeth the aforesaid Book called, The Principles of Truth, in several pages. To which I Answer, Although the said Book saith, That Babylon, etc. is within, yet it doth not say, it is only within, but on the contrary it plainly affirmeth, that all who are in outward Worships (without the leading and enabling of the Spirit of God) painted over with glorious Words, but inwardly full of Abominations, belong to the Kingdom of Babylon. And well may that unclean and deceitful Spirit, that acteth all such persons who are levened and governed therewith and thereby, be called Babylon, by a Figurative Speech, even as the Soul of a man is commonly called the man, which hinders not, that the people in whatsoever Profession they may be, who are acted by that evil and Antichristian Spirit, are Babylon. And as for the Pope, and Popish Church; as we do cordially join with the best and most sincere Proantests against them, as being the great and principal Members of that Scarlet Whore Mystery Babylon, in whom Antichrist or that Antichristian Spirit hath its chiefest or most principal residence, (and therefore in no respect can be said to favour the Pope, or Popish Church, on that or any consideration, although we with the Salvation of the worst,) so we most freely declare, that wherever we find any degree or measure of the same Spirit of Antichrist, and Babylon, as too much of it is to be found in I. A. and too many of his Brethren▪ we cannot acquit them, from being Members of the same Antichristian body; although in this our upright and honest Testimony we expect neither the kindness of the Pope, nor yet of I. A. far less the Pope's Wages or reward, for being so kind to him, as I. A. doth most falsely and grossly allege: And divers of our Friends have suffered deeply under the Popish Power, for bearing a Testimony against him and them; which neither I. A. nor his Brethren have ever done, but sit warmly at home, without exposing themselves to any suffering on that account.  
Having thus, as briefly as I could, given an Answer to I. A. his Book, against us, omitting nothing that seemed to be material; I shall neither trouble the Readers nor myself, with his two Postscripts, to Answer them in particular. The substance of the first Postscript against me, being already Answered in the foregoing Sheets, as to what is any wise material. Or if he suppose any thing is omitted, let him mind me of it in his next; and withal Write an entire and thorough Answer, to what is already said, both here, and in the Treatise called Quakerism no Popery, which he hath only but here and there nibbled at: And I may, possibly (if God give me freedom and convenience) return him a ●urther Answer. 〈◊〉 at present I suppose he hath work enough to lie on his hand, and needs no more.  
As for his Postscript against, or for Doctor Everards', Ghost, as he calleth it: I find not myself concerned to Answer him therein, nor defend every word or Opinion of his, seeing he never went under that Name or Designation with us: Albeit I must needs acknowledge, both my Friends and I, (such of them I mean as have read his Book) have a great love and respect to his memory, which all I. A. his bitter Revile against him, shall never be able to defame: And we believe the said Everard hath indeed had rare and singular gifts of Understanding and Openings of Scripture from God, and withal a good measure of Integrity and zeal for the Truth, according to the time, and Dispensation he was in and in that respect doth truly deserve to be accounted among the Witnesses of Truth in his day, whatever imperfections attended him otherwise; or suppose some mistakes of Judgement in some things, or not so warily cautioning some of his words, as could have been wished. Although I judge that I. A. doth seek to fix or fasten upon him divers errors of Judgement, of which he is not guilty, by reason of deep prejudice against him: Partly, whiles he takes the said john Evrard's words too Literally and Superficially, which are to be understood more Mystically and Figuratively, and partly while he takes that as spoken absolutely, which is but spoken comparative, and by way of some Similitude, and but in some respect.  
But before I make a full close, I shall only take notice of two gross and absurd Assertions, (waving others to another opportunity) in his Postscript to me. The one is, that the Pope and his Clergy had the true Power and Authority of Ordination, and calling Ministers before the Reformation, neither as Christian, nor as Antichristian. Not as Christian, or else all Christians would have it, nor as Antichristian, seeing these two terms are not contradictory but contrary; for many things and persons too, are neither Christian nor Antichristian. To which I Answer, Every true Minister or Pastor hath his Authority to Execute his Function; as Christian, as nor being a strict and formal reduplication, but taken specifically; seeing to be a Christian is as necessary to every true Minister of Christ, as to be a living Creature is necessary to be a man, or to be a man is necessary to be a Soldier, or Magistrate, or Lawyer. And whereas I. A. saith, That Christian and Antichristian are not contradictory terms, seeing many persons are neither Christian nor Antichristian I Answer again, as they are taken indefinitely, they are not contradictory, but as restricted to such as bear the Name and Profession of Christianity they are perfectly contradictory, so that every one that professeth himself to be a Christian, (such as the Pope doth) is most certainly either Christian or Antichristian.  
The other gross Assertion of his is, That the Church of Rome, was still a True Church, and not Babylon, until the time of Reformation, viz. about the time of the Council of Trent, or Luther's arising, with some others to witness against her; notwithstanding she did hold many fundamental errors, and thus because her errors were not so discovered and demonstrated unto her, before as since that time. But what a miserable shift and evasion this is, and how contrary to Scripture, and the Judgement of the most sound of all Protestant Writers, I leave the Sober Reader to judge. For doth not the Scripture plainly declare, That Mystery Babylon was to rule over the Nations, and deceive them, and Drink the Blood of the Martyrs and Witnesses of jesus for many Hundreds of years? And when was it, that she deceived all Nations? Was it only since the Reformation, or rather was not her chiefest tim● before the Reformation; for since the Reformation many Nations are come to see her Abominations more than formerly. And when was 〈◊〉, That the Kings of the Earth hath committed Fornication with her? Hath it not been for many hundreds of years bygone, rather than since the Reformation, when they have begun to hate her, and burn her flesh with Fire, in some sense? And when began she to drink the Blood of the Saints? Only since Luther's days, or the Council of Trent: Surely none who hath the least knowledge of Church History, but will say the contrary, and acknowledge that she has been a Bloody Murtheress for divers hundreds of years long before the Reformation, and consequently was no true Church of Christ. For not only her unsound and corrupt Doctrines, but her wicked Life, and especially her slaying the Witnesses of Christ, And exalting herself over the Kings and Emperors of the Earth, above six hundred years ago (at least) with many other things to be charged against her, utterly inconsistent with a true Church, doth altogether make her to be no true Church for many hundred of years before Luther. And the Lord wanted not Witnesses sufficient to demonstrate her Errors unto her, many hundreds of years before Luther; for in every Century God raised up his Witnesses against her, as the Church History doth plainly and fully relate. Moreover she had both the Scriptures of Truth to Witness against her, and also God's Holy Checks and Reproofs of his Spirit in her Conscience, that was instead of a thousand, so she wanted not demonstration of her Errors sufficient to render without excuse for many hundreds of years before Luther's time. And now let all sober Protestants judge, who doth most favour the Harlot Babylon, I. A. or we; for by I. A. his Doctrine, she is but a Young Woman, as yet, and scarce ●ad time in the World, to bring up her Daughters of Fornication to that Age and Stature the Scripture declareth. How much more true is the Testimony of those Protestants, who date her rising above a Thousand years ago, her whole time being numbered in Scripture to contain 1260, or 1290. days at most, signifying according to the Prophetic Style of Scripture so many years; the period or end of which time sincere Protest●ants are looking for as near approaching, when she shall fall as a Millstone cast into the Sea, and never rise again. But by I. A. his account, she began not to rise, till little more than a hundred years ago; and consequently before her fall, more than a thousand years are yet to expire, which is too glad tidings unto her; but they are false, and too sad tidings to the people of God, if that they were true.  
THE END.