THE Quakers Folly Made manifest to all men: Or a True RELATION of what passed in Three DISPUTATIONS at Sandwich, April, 12, 13, 19, 1659. between three Quakers, and a Minister, viz. Mr. Samuel Fisher, George Whithead, Richard Hubberthorn, and Thomas Danson. Wherein many Popish Tenants were by them Maintained, and by him Refuted. OCCASIONED By an imperfect and (in many things) false Relation of the said Disputations, Published by R. Hubberthorn, one of the Three Quakers, which said Relation is also Censured and amended. Together with a brief Narrative of some remarkable Passages.  
By Tho. Danson, late Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon, and now Minister of the Gospel at Sandwich in Kent.  
The Second Edition.  
London, Printed by J. H. for John Allen at the Rising Sun in Paul's Churchyard, 1659.   

Imprimatur,  
Joseph Caryl. June 3d, 1659.   

THE EPISTLE TO the READER.  
Reader,  
PErhaps thou wilt wonder, that I should meddle with such a Generation, as the Quakers, and thou mayst be apt to think, that my time hangs on the Lugier (as we say) and will not off at any considerable rate: But that thy wonder may cease, and thy mistake be rectified, I refer thee to the Narrative hereto annexed; which I hope will give thee satisfaction: The reason of my appearance in Print, the Title Page does truly inform thee of. I can assure thee, it never was my ambition to appear so publicly, and had I considered the likelihood of the Quakers Printing, which would necessitate mine, I think I should have waved any discourse with them. But repentance is now too late, and perhaps unmeet, for God can serve himself by the meanest Instruments, among which I willingly rank myself: I verily hope thou wilt see the men out of their disguise, and wilt find cause sufficient to think and speak of them with pity and compassion; and of their opinions, with hatred and detestation. I promise thee Reader, no more than shall be performed (viz.) a true account of our discourses, I mean so much of them as was Argumentative, and pertinent to the Questions under debate. For thou must know, that the Quakers, like wantoness, would have their vagaries ever and anon, and then I must say somewhat to them, or let them have all the talk, which by the ignorance of common people, would have been a prejudice to the cause of God which I defended. And I therefore chose rather to outword them (which is the reason why my Answers are oftentimes so large and lax.) Many excursions they made into Arminian points, which I was fain to permit, and to defend the Truths they opposed: All which I shall either wholly omit, or mention very sparingly; because they are not Errors of so high a nature, as those which are the natural Members of that deformed Monster, we call Quakerism.  
The Names of Gentlemen, Ministers, and others in the Margin, are a few (of very many) witnesses of the Terms of the Questions agreed to by the Quakers, and of other remarkable passages, and matters of fact, who will free me from the suspicion of a partial Relator. That these men may proceed no further, but that their folly may be manifest to all men, 2 Tim. 3.9. And that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, but speaking the Truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ, is the earnest Prayer of,  
Thy Servant for Jesus sake, Tho. Danson. Sandwich, May 24, 1659.   

An ACCOUNT of a DISPUTE April 12th between three QUAKERS, M. S. Fisher, G. Whithead, R. Hubberthorn, and Tho. Danson.  
AFter a brief account of the occasion of our meeting, and a short prayer for a blessing upon it, we began with this Question, Whether every man that cometh into the world be enlightened by Christ?  R. Hubberth. 
I bear witness to the Truth.  T. Danson. 
But what light is it you intent? we grant that every man hath some light, by which he discerns (though dimly) many sins, and duties, and several Divine attributes, but the mystery of godliness, as it is summed up, 1 Tim 3. ult. God manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, etc. we deny that all men have the knowledge of.  R Hubberthorn. 
The light is but one, and that I testify.  T. Danson. 
The lights mentioned, viz. natural and supernatural light, are two, and though all have the one, yet but few have the other.  R. Hubberthorn. 
Thou speakest out of thy dark mind, because the true light hath not come over and comprehended thee.  T. Danson. 
Your judgement of me I value not, but pray forbear your censures, and let us speak to the business. If your meaning be that the knowledge of the Gospel is vouchsafed by Christ to every man, I shall either expect your proof, or shall prove the contrary myself. Here the man was silent.  T. Danson. 
I take your silence for consent to my offer of proving against your Doctrine. And thus I prove it false, Psal 147.19, 20. He showeth his Word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgements unto Israel: He hath not dealt so with any Nation, and as for his judgements they have not known them. 'Tis plain from Scripture that by the Word and Statutes and Judgements, are meant the supernatural light or knowledge of the Gospel. And the Psalmist does assert that no Nation besides the Jews had this knowledge at that time; which overthrows your assertion, for you speak of a light which every man hath in all ages and generations. And I shall add another plain Scripture, Eph. 2.12. where speaking of the state of the whole body of the Gentiles before Christ's coming in the flesh, he says, they were without Christ, strangers from the Covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. Observe, they who had no hope, that is, no ground o● hope of salvation, were ignorant of the promises the ground of hope, and so of God in Christ the object of hope, and so of the sum of the Gospel, or light of Christ.  G. Whithead. 
Thou bringest a place out of Eph. 2.12. to pr●ve that Chr●st enlightens not every man that cometh into the world, and thou hast given us thy meaning contrary to the Scripture, which says the Gentiles have the Law in their hearts, Rom. 2.15.  T. Danson. 
You prove not my interpretation of either of the Scriptures I urged unsound, but bringest me another Scripture, and I must let you go your own way. As for that Scripture, Rom. 2.15. 'tis spoken of the natural light, for 'tis opposed to the knowledge of the Jews. And the words are not the law, but the work or effects of the law written in their hearts, such as accusing and excusing mentioned in the latter end of the verse; and there is a great deal of difference between the law and the work of it, though you do not (it seems) understand it. And it is besides my business to inform you.  G. Whithead. 
Thou sayest 'tis meant of a natural light, whereas 'tis said to be the knowledge of whatsoever might be known of God, Rom. 1.19.  T. Danson. 
The Apostle intends that what might be known of God, without the preaching of the Gospel, was known to the Gentiles, v. 16, 17. 'tis by the Gospel that the righteousness of God is revealed, and John 4.22. Christ tells the Samar●tan woman, that the Jews (exclusively) knew what they worshipped, and that salvation was of the Jews. And in respect of this knowledge revealed by the Gospel, the Scripture says that the Gentiles have their understandings darkened, Eph. 4.18.  G. Whithead. 
That place says that the Gentiles were not so enlightened as afterwards: For 'tis said that Christ was given for a light to the Gentiles.  T. Danson. 
You give your meaning of the Scripture which you will not allow us to do. But as for that Scripture which is Isa. 49.6. it proves not that Christ was a light to the Gentiles in every age and generation, but the contrary, in that Christ was not to be a light to them till his coming in the flesh, and it was fulfilled, Acts 13.46, 47. Lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles. As for the place in the Ephesians, it denies that the Gentiles had been at all enlightened by Christ (unless you mean as God) ch. 2.13. The Apostle says in that estate before Christ's coming, they were afar off, viz. from God and Christ spoken of, v. 12. and the knowledge of them. And Eph. 4.18. he says that they were alienated from the life of God, which imports that their understandings were no more capable of the knowledge of God, than creatures of one kind of life to converse with those of another. God's understanding is his life, as he is a reasonable being, and these Gentiles wanted what some have by especial gift, 1 John 5.20. an understanding to know him that is true; and could no more converse with spiritual objects, than bruit beasts can with such rational objects as man's understanding does: So that those Scriptures put together do assert that the body of the Gentiles, for ages and Generations wanted the light of the Gospel, and light in their understandings, the difference of which you may conceive by the light of the Sun which is external light (and so the Gospel) and the light in the eye to which answers an understanding to know him that is true, and both of them are necessary, or else a blind man might see when there is light, and the seeing man when there is none.  G. Whithead. 
Thou makest the Gospel to be an outward light (in the darkness of thy own reasoning) but the Scripture says 'tis an inward light, 2 Cor. 4 6. the Apostle says it shines out of darkness in their hearts.  T. Danson. 
You show much ignorance in your interpretation. The Apostle speaks of material light, and argues from the effect of one creating word to another, that by the like word of command he had the light or knowledge of Christ in his understanding, which was given not for his own use only, but to be communicated to others. As for the phrase in their hearts, it imports but the same thing with that expression, Eph. 1.18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened. The light by which the Gospel is discerned is inward, but that makes not against the Gospel's being an outward light. But what's this to the enlightening of every man by Christ? Reply to the Scriptures brought against that assertion.  G. Whithead. 
The Apostle says the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ shined in their hearts, 2 Cor. 4.6.  T. Danson. 
In whose hearts? nor of all mankind, but of the Apostles, and some others, a small number in comparison of the rest who were not enlightened; and therefore the Apostle says, that the Gospel was hid to them that are lost, v. 3. and that there are some, to whom the light of the Gospel doth not shine, v. 4. And 'tis elsewhere spoken of as a distinguishing mercy to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 13.11. It was given to the Disciples, not to others. And to the same effect, Luke 10.21. Christ gives thanks to his Father, that whilst he hide the secrets of the Gospel from Scribes and Pharisees, he revealed them to others.  G. Whithead. 
The Scripture says that the Kingdom of God was in the Pharisees, Luke 17.21. and therefore it denies not but that they did know the mysteries of the Kingdom.  T. Danson. 
That expression may import that the Kingdom which they did upon mistake look for without them, was indeed a Kingdom within them. [To which I shall add, that upon second thoughts, I judge the most genuine interpretation to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among you (so the prepos. may be rendered) Mat. 21.43. meaning of the preaching of the Gospel by Christ in person and his Disciples, and this threat of taking away the Kingdom of God from them, is directed against the Pharisees, v. 45. The Pharisees perceived that he spoke of them.]  R. Hubberthorn. 
The form of ●ound words is, that Christ enlightens every man that cometh into the world, John 1.9.  T. Danson. 
The meaning of those words cannot be as the letter of them does import, for then the Scripture would contradict itself; but it must be either that Christ inl●ghtens every man that is enlightened, or else that he inlightens some of every Nation, kindred, tongue and people, as the phrase is, Rev. 5.9.  R. Hubberthorn. 
The Scripture says every man, and thou sayest but some, who shall be believed, thou or the Apostle? Thou makest John a liar.  T. Danson. 
No such matter, I make not the Apostle a liar. For the indefinite phrase hath a restrained sense, as elsewhere in the Scripture, Christ tasted death for every man, Heb. 2.9. when as he died but for a certain number, as appears by that very place, v. 10. In bringing many so●s to glory. Those whom Christ brings to glory are those for whom he tasted death, but the former are but many sons, and therefore not the latter: the every man for whom he died must be limited by the many sons whom he brings to glory.  R. Hubberthorn. 
Then it seems thou deniest that Christ died for all.  T. Danson. 
Yes, that I do, and 'tis more than you can prove.  G. Whithead. 
I witness according to the Scripture, that Christ died for all, 2 Cor. 5.14. If one died for all, then were all dead.  T. Danson. 
'Tis spoken of those who were converts and believers, whose sanctification was the end of Christ's death, and for whom Christ risen, and who therefore did ri●e with him. As for the meaning of the words 'tis this, that the necessity of Christ's dying imported the misery of their condition, in that they were dead spiritually, and obnoxious to eternal death, and the love of Christ which made him come in at a pinch, to help when none else could, is a great constraint to obedience upon all the dead for whom Christ died. That place is fully parallel and opens this (putting but Christ in stead of God into the former clause) God commendeth his love toward us (speaking of believers, v. 1, 2.) in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, Rom. 5.8.  G. Whithead. 
Still thou pervertest Scripture by thy meanings.  T. Danson. 
I pervert it not, but I reconcile the Scripture to itself.  G. Whithead. 
The Scripture is at unity with itself, and needs not thy reconciling. 'Tis said, the Scripture cannot be broken.  T. Danson. 
I say so too, that the Scripture is at unity with itself, but withal that it seems to disagree, and cannot approve itself to our understandings, without the mediation of a meaning or interpretation. It was an usual thing with Christ to speak words of a doubtful sense, as John 3.19. Destroy this Temple, which they understood of the material Temple (he being in it at the time, v. 15. and likely enough speaking with his eye as well as his tongue) v. 20. but he meant of the temple of his body, v. 21.  G. Whithead. 
Thou art such a giver of meanings as they were, who gave it contrary to Christ's meaning  T. Danson. 
Whether I be such a one or no is not for you to judge in your own cause, ● leave it to the understanding hearers. But in the mean while the place serves my purpose, viz. to prove that Christ's meaning may be mistaken, when his words are taken in the most ordinary and literal sense, and so it would be, if by every man, we should understand every individual man; so that 'tis yourself, and not I that am such a giver of meanings as the Jews.  G. Whithead. 
How canst thou prove that thou art to give meanings to Scripture?  T. Danson. 
I do not pretend to power to give meanings to Scripture (as your phrase is) if you mean thereby, adding any thing to the Scripture which is not in it, but to find out what already is, by causing the Scriptures with the Cherubims to face one another; that is my duty and all other men's. This the Scripture warrants, Neh. 8.8. So they read in the Book, in the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. And I should be glad to know of any of you who are against meanings, how you can understand such Scriptures as these without a meaning, God is not a man that he should repent. It repenteth me that I have made man. God tempted Abraham. God tempts not man. Answer not a fool according to his folly. Answer a fool according to his folly. And once more, Paul and James▪ The former says, that a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law, Rom. 3.28. And the other flatly contradicts him in terms, that by works a man is justified, and not by Faith only, Jam. 2.24. When as any of these do sweetly consent, if the ambiguity of phrases be once removed: As for instance in Paul and James, the one speaks of being formally justified, the other declaratively. Justification in Paul is opposite to the condemnation of a sinner in general, and justification in James is opposite to the condemnation of an hypocrite in particular. In Paul's sense a sinner is absolved, in James' sense a believer is approved. [So Diodat whose words I used, but forgot to name him in the discourse] Hear the two disputants had nothing to say, but what was absurd and impertinent; and thereupon I desired we might leave what had been spoken to the hearers judgement, and to go on to another Question, which at length was agreed to.  
The Second Question was, Whether in this life the Saints attain to a state of perfection or freedom from sin? This they held in the affirmative.  T. Danson. 
Your Doctrine of perfection is against the tenor of the Scripture, let us hear what you can say for the proof of it.  R. Hubberthorn. 
1 John 3.9. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.  T. Danson. 
That cannot be meant of freedom from sin; but either there is an emphasis in the word sin, intending under that general term one kind or sort of sin, which is spoken of, 1 John 5.16. There is a sin unto death. Or if not on the Substantive, on the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notes to make a trade or business of sin, as 'tis explained, v. 8. where he uses the same verb, for the Devil sinneth from the beginning. He hath never ceased to sin since he began, thus indeed the Saints sin not, but a course of sin is broken of●, and there is not such a free trade between the soul and sin, as in the state of unregeneracy, whereof this is given for one character, that cannot cease to sin, 2 Pet. 2.14.  G. Whithead. 
Thou wrestest the Scriptures to thy own destruction.  T. Danson. 
No, I wrist them not, if I do, show wherein. And if you will observe, either it must be meant of all Saints or none, for the New birth agrees to all, if then the phrase excludes the being of sin in some, it must in all; and mark the reason given, because his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God: Now the seed remains in all, as well as any; now lest you should be so mad as to assert all Saints to be free from sin, pray read 1 John 1.8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and this is spoken of such persons, as of whom it is denied that they commit sin, persons that had fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, v. 3.  Mr. Fisher. 
Pray do not multiply words to no purpose, but read, v. ult. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar. The born of God should lie if they did deny themselves to have sinned, before they were in the new birth.  T. Danson. 
Sir, you must not think to put us off so, v. 8. 'tis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the other is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Suppose the latter verse were to be understood of the sin, which preceded the new birth, yet the former is expressly de praesenti, that we have (not have had) no sin; and yet I see nothing to the contrary, but that we hav● not sinned, v. ult. may relate to particular acts of sin in the state of the new birth, denied either in whole or in part.  G. Whithead. 
Phil. 3.15. As many as he perfect let us ●e thus minded.  T. Danson. 
For the phrase upon which you ground your notion, 'tis used in a comparative sense, 1 Cor. 2.6. speaks of grown Christians, who could fancy the Gospel in a plain dress, whom he calls perfect in comparison of others, as he calls Babes in Christ, carnal in respect of those who are more spiritual, Ch. 3.1. And often in Scripture perfect is put for upright, and made synonymous, or of the same import, Job 1.1. that man (meaning Job) was perfect and upright; that perfect is not meant in your sense, appears by c. 9.20. If I say I am perfect 〈◊〉 (his mouth) shall also prove me perverse. Sincerity Job all along avouched, but perfection such as he m●ght justify h●mself by, he denies. But to return to the place, Phi●. 3.12. He denies that he was yet perfect, whilst in a breath he affirms himself so. The perfection he denies, is the resurrection of the dead, v. 11. that is by an usual Metonymy of the subject for the adjunct, that measure of holiness which accompanies tha● state, wh●ch we shall find to be exclusive of sin, 1 John 2.2. We shall be like him, meaning Christ, when he appears. But how shall Christ appear, Heb. 9 ult. appear the second time without sin. Put it together, and the perfection Paul denies, is the state of the resurrection, which is to be without sin. The perfection he affirms, is comparative, in respect of Christians of lower attainments, who could not assent to all the Doctrines of the Gospel, v. 15. If in any thing ye (i e. some of you) be otherwise minded.  M. Fisher. 
I will prove from the Scripture such a state of perfection, Psal. 119. Blessed ●re the undefiled in the way, v. 1. They also do no iniquity, v. 2. Do you mark every word?  T. Danson. 
Yes Sir, we mark the words, but I might expect a reply to what I have urged against the Scriptures brought by your friend. As for the phrases, they are hyperbolical, v. 6. Then I shall not be ashamed when I have respect to all thy Commandments, in respect of design and endeavour, though falling short in accomplishment, that v. explains the other two you brought. [I shall add, that David excludes himself out of a blessed state, if undefiled, and doing no iniquity be meant strictly. His wish, vers. 5. and other passages ●n the Psalms, show, that he was not free from sin, which su●e David did not intent; for Psal. 32 2. he pronounces the man blessed which hath no guilt in his spirit, or sincere, which himself was at that time, though under th● guilt of a great sin, vers. 5. which is by interpreters supposed to be the same sins, for which Psal. 51. was composed.] But Mr. Fisher can you produce one single example of a perfect Saint in your sense.  Mr. Fisher. 
Yes (Thomas Dans●n) that I can. 'Tis in Luke 1.6. And they (Zachary and Elizabeth) were bo●h righteous before God (not before man only, but before God) walking in all the Commandments (nor in s●me few o● many, but all) and Ordinances of the Lord blameless.  T. Danson. 
Methinks Sir, you bring in this Scripture with pomp and ceremony, yet it will not do: For first, how doth it appear that righteous before God, is meant a perfect inherent righteousness? seeing a believers person with his works are accepted with God, though his works be not perfect, Heb. 11.4. By Faith Abel offered to God a more excellent Sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, etc. And secondly, how do you prove blameless to be meant otherwise than comparatively, Phil. 2.15. Blameless, without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse Nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world. In the same sense may Luke understand the phrase. And if you mark, the very same phrase is used of Paul's external conformity to the Law; when he was so far from perfect, that he had no Grace at all, Phil. 3.6. Touching the righteousness which is in the Law blameless. v. 5. Touching the Law a Pharisce. Now how they were blameless, you find by instance, Luke 18.10, 11. Not as other men are, I fast twice in the week, etc. I bring this instance to let you know that the phrase simply considered, will be so far from importing perfection of Grace, that it will not import any Grace. But in a word, to put it out of doubt, Zacharias of whom these words are used, whence you gather him to be free from sin, is found guilty at the very time that this description agreed to him, of unbelief, and was with dumbness punished for it, Luke 1.10. Behold thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things be performed, because thou believest not my words, etc. 'Tis the message of Gabriel the Angel to Za●harias, v. 19 You see Mr. Fisher, your pomp in the bringing in of this Scripture was mere waist.  Mr. Fisher. 
But Tho. Danson, there is no such thing mentioned of Elizab●th, and if there be one instance, it sufficeth.  T. Danson. 
But Sir, your Argument is drawn from the import of the phrases, and if the phrases are applicable to him though guilty of actual sin, than they will not argue her to be more free from sin than him, though there be no mention of any of her sins.— Pray Sir, seeing you have nothing to reply, but God has stopped your mouth, let me hear what answer you can give to that Scripture which hath run much in my mind against this Doctrine, Eccles. 7.20. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not.  R. Hubberthorn. 
It cannot be meant as thou wouldst have it, for the man Christ then were not a just man, which I think thou wilt not say.  T. Danson. 
I desired Mr. Fisher's answer, and not yours. But seeing he is silenced, I will answer you: What a wretch are you to make such an Inference? was not Christ God as well as man? And could a nature tainted with sin be taken into a personal union with the Divine Nature? The place I urge excludes any mere man from perfection in this life.  Mr. Fisher. 
I will give thee an answer Tho. Danson, We grant the truth in that Scripture, the just man there spoken of, is not on earth, for he is redeemed from the earth, and in the Revelation he is said to be a dweller in Heaven, whereas the wrath of God is said to come upon the Inhabitants of the earth.  T. Danson. 
Mr. Fisher you run very low at last, this is a mere evasion, I verily believe in your own judgement and intention, because you think you must say somewhat. Can you possibly think that the j●st man's being in Heaven in respect of his disposition and affection, and in his Head Christ, excludes his local abode on earth? We say indeed that no such just man as Solomon speaks of, is to be found on earth, but in Heaven, which is a place of abode, as well as a state of bliss.  R. Hubberthorn. 
In Heb. 12.23. Spirits of just men made perfect; this is spoken of them to whom the Apostle writes.  T. Danson. 
The pl●ce doth not import the perfection of any men on earth, but speaking of the state we are advanced to under the Gospel by Christ, he says we are one body with them in Heaven, and have the same title with them in possession.  R. Hu●berthorn. 
Thus with thy meanings thou pervertest Scripture.  T. Danson. 
I leave it to the judgement of judicious hearers, whether I have perverted Scripture or no, and so pray do you.  
The third Question debated on was (though with much ado) at length stated in these terms; Whether our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification? And Mr. Fisher held it in the Affirmative.  Mr. Fisher. 
Thus I prove that our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification, by a rule that you own, Contraria contrariorum ratio, whence I argue thus; If our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation, than out good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or justification; But our evil works are the meritorious cause of our condemnation, therefore our good works are the meritorious cause of our non-condemnation or justification.  T. Danson. 
Now you show yourself a rank Papist indeed. We deny your consequence, because our evil works are perfectly evil, but our good works are but imperfectly good, and any one evil is a violation of the Law, and deserves the penalty of the Law, but any one or more, good work is not the fulfilling of the Law. [Let me add, that there is no consequence in that Popish Argument, notwithstanding that Canon, because our good and evil works are not absolute contraries, the one being perfectly evil, the other but imperfectly good, Mulum oritur ex quolibet defectu, Bonum fi●●ex integris causis, which latter appears by Isa. 64.6. All our righteousnesses (not our unrighteousnesses only) are as filthy rags. And again, thus the rule will allow to argue; Evil works which are the violation, of the Law deserve damnation; Ergo, good works which are the fulfilling of the Law deserve salvation. And we know no good works such, but Christ's. And once more in respect of the subject, the Rule will not hold, being one who owes all his good works to God, and is a finite creature, now those works which merit must not be due, and they must be of infinite value, or else there is no proportion between them and the reward. And thus we might argue à contrariis. If his evil works from whom only good works are due, as from a finite creature, to an infinite Creator, do truly deserve damnation, than his good works who owes none, and is an infinite person, do truly deserve non-condemnation. But verum prius, ergo et posterius. And to understand this, we must know that the desert of disobedience arises chief from the dignity of the Object against which sin is committed; when as the desert of obedience arises from the dignity of the subject by which it is performed.]  Mr. Fisher. 
I will prove my consequence from Gal. 5.18. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law. Whence I argue, If they who are led by the Spirit are not under the Law, than the leading of the Spirit is the meritorious cause of their not being under the Law, but they who are led by the Spirit, are not under the Law, Ergo.  T. Danson. 
Sir, you are very silly yourself, or take your hearers to be so, that you think this to be a proof of your former consequence, or that there is any consequence in this Argument. You should have proved that there is par ratio for the merit of good and of evil works. And surely Sir, the leading of the Spirit, or Sanctification is a fruit and effect, not a meritorious cause of not being under the Law, that is obliged to its penalty.  Mr. Fisher. 
I will prove by another Scripture that leading by the Spirit is the meritorious cause of our Justification, 1 Cor. 6.11. And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Observe, here the Co inthians are said to be justified by the Spirit.  T. Danson. 
I might say that perhaps the clause should be referred to Sanctification, which is in a more appropriate manner attributed to the Spirits efficiency, as if the order of the words had been, but ye are sanctified by the Spirit of our God, and such transpositions are not without instance in the Scripture, as, Mat. 7.6. Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast ye your Pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you, where turn again and rend you, is to be joined to the dogs, for as swine do trample under their feet, so dogs do fly upon a man, and tear him down. Or else justified by the Spirit may be meant of the Spirits application; I mean the third Person in the Trinity, not of the work of Grace, whereof we are the Subject  Mr. Fisher. 
In the 8th of the Rom. v. 2. The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the Law of sin and death. Now 'tis the same Law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ and the Saints.  T. Danson. 
That place is much against you: For the Apostle asserts the Holiness of man's Nature as a work of the Spirit conforming it to the Law, to be the meritorious cause of ou● freedom from sin and death; but mark withal, 'tis not that which is in us, but in Christ. And though 'tis true that the same spirit is in Christ and the Saints, yet neither does the spirit in us conform us fully to the Law (notwithstanding your vain assertion of perfection) nor if it did, were that conformity the merit of Justification. [Let me add, that the Law of the Spirit of life here spoken of, is not only the meritorious cause of our freedom from death, but from the Law of sin, or obeying of sin as a Law; now I would fain know what precedent holiness in the Saints merits subsequent holiness; or whether the exercise of what they have, is the meritorious cause of what they have not, or of perfection, especially if the law of sin intends the corruption of nature, as the Law of the Spirit of life does holiness of nature: I would be instructed how a nature in part corrupted can deserve total freedom; and I am sure the first work of the Spirit renews our natures but in part.]  Mr. Fisher. 
Pray read on, Rom. 8.4. That the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This place says the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in the persons of the Saints.  T. Danson. 
Sure Sir, you never read v. 3. which tells us that the Law was weak through the flesh; that is unable to justify us, in regard of our inability (through corruption) to fulfil it which were untrue, if we are able to fulfil it; and what follows, God sent his own Son to give us what we could not attain to by our own obedience to the Law; and as for the 4th v. it imports the end for which God sent Christ, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us; not in our own persons, but in Christ, his righteousness imputed to us, as if it had been inherent in ourselves.  Mr. Fisher. 
That is thy meaning, but not the meaning of the Apostle.  T. Danson. 
Yes, but it is the Apostles, as I have proved. But pray Sir, let me ask you a question (though it may seem besides, yet it will be to the purpose) 'tis this: whether there be any true believers who are not perfect?  Mr. F●sher. 
I must acknowledge that there are degrees among believers, as the Apostle says, 1 John 2.13, 14. Little children, Fathers, Young men.  T. Danson. 
I suppose you mean, that some of these have a mi●ture of sin with their Grace. But let me ask you but one question more, whether the children (for instance b● in a justified estate or not?  Mr. Fisher, 
I'll tell thee Tho. Danson, there are but two estates. Justification, and condemnation.  T. D. 
Now Sir, you are caught in a manifest contradiction and absurdity, for before you maintained that our justification was by a personal fulfilling of the Law, and now you grant some persons to be justified who never did fulfil it personally. That end I proposed in ask you the questions, and I have obtained it to make your folly manifest to all men. [Reader, observe that though it concerned Mr. Fisher to wind himself out of this contradiction, yet he did not reply, but sat down on the top of the seat like a man astonished, and under the Heretics judgement, I mean self-condemned, Tit. 3.11.] After a while we fell upon an Arminian point, whether a man that is justified may be unjustified? which Mr. Fisher affirmed, and I would have omitted all the discourse, but for the strangeness of one medium, by which he endeavoured to confirm it.  Mr. Fisher. 
Take the instance of David, Psalm 51.4. That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest. Whence I argue, if David was unjustified in his own conscience, he was unjustified before God, (and consequently a man may become unjustified after he hath been justified before God) But David was unjustified in his own Conscience, Ergo, he was so before God.  T. D. 
I might deny your minor, for it does not appear to me, that David was at this time unjustified in his own Conscience, but the contrary, for he spoke these words after the Prophet Nathan had come to him, Title of Ps. 51. And we find, 2 Sam. 12.13. The Prophet told him, the Lord hath put away thy sin. He might lose much of his joy, and yet retain the sense of his interest. And for the words, David either acknowledged God's righteousness in the temporal evils threatened against him, 2 Sam. 12 11. or the desert of condemnation. But I choose to deny your Sequel.  Mr. Fisher. 
I prove it, 1 John 3.20. If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things. Here the Apostle argues to God's condemnation, from that of our own hearts, which is always according to the light of the Spirit.  T. Danson. 
Your place proves nothing about David's state; but to take it as it comes, nor does it prove your assertion in the general; the place speaks of such a sentence as is passed by a Conscience not erroneous, but rightly guided. [I shall add to what was spoken, but these Scriptures against that tenant, Psal. 77.8, 9, 10. Joh. 8.54. Compared with v. 44. T t. 1.15. Their conscience is defiled. Of which latter Scripture, I say but this, that one of Consciences Offices being a Witness, its defilement as such▪ in the wicked, is to lead them into a wrong opinion of their estares, and Conscience in the Saints, being but in part cleansed, as a witness, it testifies falsehood to them also, in that th●● estate is bad, when it is good, as to the wicked, that it is good, when it is nothing less.]   

An Account of a Discourse April 13 between three QUAKERS, Mr. S. Fisher, G. Whitehead, R. Hubberthorn, and T. Danson.  T. D. 
Mr. F●sher, because you urged so hard for another Conference, I have granted your desire, yet not for your sake, so much as the hearers, that they may be convinced of the damnableness of your Doctrine, and may loathe and detest you, as you well deserve. And against it, I shall urge one irrefragable Scripture, which I should be glad to hear your answer to, or else you shall oppose, and I will answer, which I rather desire: The place is, Rom. 11.6. And if by Grace, than it is no more of works, otherwise Grace is no more Grace. But if it be of works, than it is no more of Grace, otherwise work is no more work. The Apostle having spoken of the efficient cause of Election, and effectual calling, he here excludes works from being any cause of them. And this he does by an argument taken from the opposition between immediate contraries: And I apply it to the case in hand, thu●, that if Justification be of wo●ks, as you assert, than Grace is excluded from any hand in Justification, which is contrary to the Scripture, which says, we are Justified by Grace. Our Justification cannot be a debt and a free gift, I mean not both in respect of us. [To this no reply was made.]  T. D. 
I will name another Scripture, Rom. 10.3.4. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to every on● that believeth. The Apostle here makes a distinction between our own righteousness and Gods, and finds fault with them, who neglecting Gods, went about to establish their own. And be makes our own righteousness to be a personal conformity to the Law, and God's righteousness to be Christ made ours by faith, you are therefore guilty of this sin, who make your own righteousness your justification.  G. Whitehead. 
We do not make our own righteousness our justification, but the righteousness of God is that we testify, being made manifest in us.  T. D. 
Do not ye delude your hearers with doubtful words? Ye did yesterday assert that the righteousness which we are enabled to perform, or our good works are the meritorious cause of our justification.  G. Whithead. 
We witness to the righteousness of God according to the Scripture, Phil. 3.9. Not having mine own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through the Faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by Faith.  T. D. 
You could not have brought a Scripture more full against you. The righteousness which is of Christ, and of God by Faith, is called Christ, vers. 8. That I may win Christ. And how he is our righteousness, 2 Cor. 5. ult. tells us, as Christ was made sin for us, so are we the righteousness of God in him, but the former was by imputation, not inherence, and therefore so the other. So that the Apostle by his own righteousness understands his personal conformity to the Law, and by Christ's righteousness that which is in Christ, made his by Faith.  G. Whithead. 
Then it seems you make two righteousnesses of Christ, whereas the righteousness of Christ is but one.  T. D. 
Yes, so I do, what of that? Do you think that the righteousness which the Apostle calls his own, was not Christ's? Had he any righteousness which he had not received? and yet that righteousness which was in the Apostle, never was in Christ as the subject, but was wrought in him by Christ, as an efficient cause. And Christ had an inherent righteousness, in respect of which he is said to know no sin, and to be a Lamb without spot and blemish. Are not here then two righteousnesses? and they serve for two different ends, the one for our justification, the other for our sanctification; the one gives us a right to the inheritance of the Saints in light, and the other makes us meet for possession.  G W●itehead. 
Let me ask thee a question then, are not we justified by Christ within us?  T.D. 
I answer, no, but by Christ without us.  G W●itehead. 
If we are not justified by Christ within us, then by another Christ, and so thou preachest two Christ's, whereas Christ is not divided, and thou dost that which thou chargest upon us, preach another Gospel.  T. D. 
I did foresee the catch you intended ●n your question, and answered you the more carelessly, that I might see how you could improve your supposed advantage by i●. But now I will answer you more punctually. The Scripture by Christ w thin us, understands not the p●rson of Christ, but h●s operations, the cause is put for the effect by a Metonymy (a word too hard for your capacity) Compare Col. 1.26. ●r st in you, w●th Eph. 3.17. That Christ m●y dwell in your hearts by Faith. And therefore it follows not that we make two Christ's. For we acknowledge that one and the same person justifies us by a righteousness inherent in himself, and sanct●fies us by a righteousness which he works in us by his Spirit. So that when I deny justification by Christ within us, however the words may sound to your ears, yet to the judicious the meaning is obvious (viz.) that we deny our justification by that righteousness in us, whereof Christ is the author, but not that I make two Christ's. Two things are indeed expressed by the name of Christ, his person, and his operations in us, and I deny the latter, but assert the former for our righteousness to justification [The Scripture speaks of two Christ's, Christ personal, and Christ mystical, if I should say, not Christ mystical, but Christ personal is our Saviour, would you not speak wisely think you, to say, oh you make two Christ's. This distinction you may find, Ch●ist personal, Col. 2.8, 9— not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Christ mystical, 1 Cor. 12.12. As the body is one, and hath many members, etc. so is Christ; meaning the Church, which v. ●7. he calls the body of Christ.]  G. Whitehead. 
I will prove by the Scriptures that we are justified by our sanctification, whi●h thou sayest does but make us meet, not give us a ●itle, which thou shalt see it does to the inheritance, Acts 20.32. And now Brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. God's grace gives an inheritance. [Here there was some disturbance among the people, which occasioned Whiteheads address to them, and though I called to him often to take an answer, he would not; but at length Mr. Fisher started up, and urged another Scripture, and so this was omitted; to it therefore I shall now return a brief answer, That the Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot refer to grace as this man would have it, (or if it did, yet grace intends not sanctification, but the favour of God, which is the subject matter of the word which the Apostle calls, v. 24. the Gospel of the Grace of God) but it refers to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God, and should be read, who is able, etc. and so it is nothing to his purpose.]  Mr. Fisher. 
I will prove we are justified by grace or sanctification, Tit. 3.7. that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal l fe. The grace by which we are said to be justified, is the same with that which is called washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, v. 5.  T. D. 
You are much mistaken Sir, the grace v. 7. is not meant of sanctification, but of the favour of God, which is manifested in the donation of his Son to us, imputation of his righteousness, and acceptance of us as righteous in him.  G. Whitehead. 
I shall prove that we are justified by Faith as the cause of our justification, by the plain words of the Apostle, Rom 4.3. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.  T. D. 
But pray observe how well this agrees with your former Doctrine, that we are justified by a personal conformity to the whole Law, and now you will prove that a conformity to one part will suffice. You interferr and cut one leg against tother, and are not sensible of it, Does not the Apostle oppose Faith and Works? Now if Faith be considered as a work, there's no opposition between them. And does not that opposition exclude Faith as a work? Yes surely; and is boasting excluded in justification by Faith as a work? no but there is more ground of boasting in the virtue of Faith, were that equivalent to universal obedience. Read Rom. 3.27. Where is boasting then? it is excluded. By what Law? of works? nay but by the Law of Faith; and chap. 4.5. To him that worketh not, but believeth, etc. which plainly int●mates, that Faith is opposed to itself as a work, in the business of Justification; and as for the words of the Text, the act is put for the object to which it relates, as if it had be●n in express terms. Christ whom his Faith laid hold upon, was imputed to him ●or righteousness; But that Faith is imputed to us, a● being nstead of a perfect righteousness personal, or that 'tis the meritorious cause of our justification; I utterly deny.  G. Wh. 
Thou dost darken counsel by words without knowledge; and pervertest the Scripture by thy meanings.  T. D. 
That's your usual charge, but I deny it; the Scriptures attribute our justification to the righteousness of Christ, in the same s●nce that th●y deny it to works. Receiving of Christ, and remission of sins, is the Office of Faith, and not to merit them. _____ [Here we fell into a discourse very abruptly, about several Arminian points, which for the Reasons mentioned in the Epistle, I omit.]   

An Account of a Discourse April 19th. between two Quakers, Mr. FISHER, R. HUBBERTHORN, AND THOMAS DANSON.  
THe first Question debated on was, Whether the Scriptures are the Word of God?  T. D. 
Mr. F. You promised to discourse upon this Question, I desire to know what you hold about it.  Mr. F. 
if you mean by the Scripture the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the writing, or the paper and ink, we deny it to be the Word of God.  T. D 
Sir you cannot believe us so simple (surely) as to affirm the Scriptures in that sense the Word of God, but we mean the matter contained in the writing, whether that be our rule of faith and life.  Mr. F. 
This I affirm, that there are several Books which are as much a rule (as those you call the Scripture) which are not bound up in your Bibles.  T. D. 
This is not to the purpose, yet I should be glad to hear your proof.  Mr. F. 
1 Cor. 5.9. I wrote unto you in an Epistle, etc. But now I have written unto you, v. 11. Here you find an Epistle of Paul, which was written before this which in your books is called the first.  T. D. 
Sir, you fall short in your proof, you should prove that the Epistle there mentioned was intended as much for our rule, as these we have in our books, and you prove only that such an Epistle was written by Paul.  Mr. F. 
If this Epistle was written to the same end with this you have, viz. to instruct the Corinthians how to carry themselves toward gross sinners, than it was intended as much for a rule as this; But it was written to the same end, Ergo.  T. D. 
I deny your consequence; Sermons, private religious discourses have the same common end with the written Scriptures, yet the latter only are our standing-rule, the former our rule, but so fare as they agree with the latter in the Scriptures.  Mr. F. 
What other evidence or character have you of this Epistles being a rule, which the other wants, that is not in your books.  T. D. 
Pray let me ask you one Question, and I will answer yours. Have you or any of your friends this first Epistle to the Corinthians, or do you know that it is exstant?  Mr. F. 
No.  T. D. 
Then I have a signal distinction between that and these we have, viz. that God hath preserved these two for our use, but not the first, whereas had God intended the first for a standing rule to us, as he hath the other two, his providence which watched over these, would also have watched over that.  Mr. F. 
But I will give you an instance of a Book which ye have not, but we have, Col. 4.16. And that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea.  T D. 
Though it is certain that God intended not that for a standing rule, which is lost yet all that was written by holy men, and preserved for our use, is not therefore our standing rule, for then the discourses of holy Ministers in former and latter times should be our Rule, which they are not, but to be brought to the written Word, as the Rule and Test. But pray Sir, what is the Title of that Epistle you have?  Mr. Fisher. 
The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.  T. D. 
So I thought; such an Epistle I know there is that go●s under the name of Paul, but the place you bring speaks not of an Epistle to Laodice●, but from Laodicea: And for ought you can prove to the contrary, we have the Epistle Paul did intent, 1 Tim. Postscript. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea.  Mr. Fisher. 
Dost thou own the Postscripts to be Canonical (as ye call it.)  T. D. 
As Canonical for aught appears yet to me, as your Epistle to the Laodiceans. W● know well enough that your Brethren of the Popish party, have laid many such brats at the Apostles doors, wh●ch they will not father. And you show what you a●e, in abetting their wickedness. [I shall add, that some learned men judge that Epistle mentioned from Laodicea, Col. 4.16. to be not an Epistle written by Paul either from or to Laodicea, but by th● Laodiceans, to Paul, which he would have read amon● the Collossians, that they might understand the case of their Si●●e● Church, and how suitable the matter of the Epistle to them, was also to the Laodiceans. Vid. Rev. Daven. in locum.] And to make the business short, Mr. Fisher, suppose we should grant you there were such an Epistle legitimate, yet it will not follow that it was intended for a rule to us. For we have already as much as God thought sufficient, read John 20.30, 31. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written that ye m●ght believe, etc. Suppose that we had the signs which are not in the Gospel, faithfully recorded in writing, yet were they not our Rule, because God did not give order for them, but has assured us as much as is sufficient to create and preserve Faith in the Gospel which we have. Let us come to the Question, which I propose to you in these terms, Whether the Books commonly called the Old and New Testament, were appointed by God for a standing Rule of Faith and life?  Mr. Fisher. 
I deny those books to be a standing Rule of Faith and life.  T. D. 
Now you have spit your venom, which I knew you were big with. And I will say to you (as the Apostle) If any man bring any other Gospel than what we have received, let him be accursed.  Mr Fisher. 
I am sure the Gospel you preach will never bring men to heaven. Indeed people it will not.  T. D. 
Then friends, you hear his acknowledgement, and how well he deserves the curse denounced against him.  Mr. F. 
If there be another standing Rule, than the Scripture is not it, but there is another standing Rule, therefore the Scripture is not it.  T. D. 
I deny your Minor; there is no other standing rule but the Scripture.  Mr. Fisher. 
I prove there is, from Gal. 5.16. This I say then, walk in the spirit: We are commanded to walk in or by the Spirit, and therefore that is our rule. The Scripture itself sends us to another for our rule.  T. D. 
That phrase does note the principle, not the rule of our obedience in that place.  Mr. F. 
You suppose the Letter to be antecedent to the Spirit, whereas the Spirit is antecedent to the Letter, and none can walk in the Letter, till they walk in the Spirit.  T. D. 
The Spirit is antecedent to the Letter in respect of the revelation of the Letter, but the Spirit is subsequent to the Letter in respect of assistance and ability which he gives to obedience. And whereas you affirm, none can walk in the Letter, till they walk in the Spirit, if walking in the Spirit be meant of special assistance 'tis false, for many walk in many things according to the Letter, without the Spirits indwelling, as Paul, while a Pharisee▪ was touching the righteousness of the Law blameless, Phil. 3.6.  Mr. F. 
I will prove the Lette● of the Scripture is not our Rule: if there was a rule before the Scripture was written, then that is not our rule; but there was a rule before the Scripture, Therefore.  T. D. 
Your Argument concludes nothing against us, for we assert the matter contained in the Scripture is a standing Rule, your argument proves but that there was a rule before this writing, we grant that God revealed himself by visions, dreams, etc. yet it was the same matter: Since the Gospel preached to Adam, there have not been any increase of truths quoad essentiam, sed tantum quoad explicationem (as the Learned speak of the Articles of our Faith) The manner of conveyance is different then and now, but the matter or doctrines conveyed still the same. All this while you go about to delude the simple, as if you denied only this way of writing to have always been the only way of conveyance, and you magnify the Spirit, that with more security you may throw down the Letter of the Scripture. And if you would speak out plainly, as some of your friends (as you call them do) that which you call the Spirit would be found to be the dictates of your own Conscience (blind and corrupt, as they are the Lord knows) and you are no further bound to obey the Letter of the Scripture than you are willing to obey it.  Mr. F. 
I am sure your Scripture is not the Word of God, for that is within, but your Scripture is without. This I prove out of R●m. 10.8. The Word is nigh thee, even in thy heart.  T. D. 
You read not all, 'tis in thy mouth too, so that 'tis without as well as within.  Mr. F. 
This is meant of the Light which is in every man's Conscience. 'Tis a word which every man ha●h heard, v. 18. But I say have they not heard? yes verily, their sound went into all the earth.  T. D. 
It seems then the Light within is the Spirit you pleaded for to be the Rule, in opposition to the Scriptures. But 'tis plain enough that v. 18. speaks of the Gospel, for it relates to the Preacher spoken of v. 14, 15. who were Prophets and Apostles. And though the words are taken out of Psal. 19.4. yet they intent not that natural knowledge of God which David speaks of, but the Apostle would intimate that the knowledge of Christ by th● Gospel should be of as large extent in the publication, as the knowledge of God by the Ministry of the heavens and Firmament, which are David's Preachers, Psal. 19.1. And 'tis evident that the word spoken of in the heart, Rom. 10.8. is meant of the matters contained in the Scriptures, for the Apostle says expressly, That is the word of Faith which we preach, and Acts 26.22. We say none other things than those which Moses and the Prophets did say should come; which sayings are contained in the Old Testament. And as for your odd notion of the Words being within not without, I say but this, that it remains without when it is within, as the matter in a Book does to instruct others, when the Reader hath throughly digested it in his memory and understanding. And that as to the Saints somewhat of the word is always without, when some is within, that is, the Word prevails but in part over their corruption, and so far as it does prevail, it is within, so far as it prevails not, it is without.  Mr. F. 
In Col. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; that which is the word of Christ dwells within, whereas that which ye call the Word is without.  T. D. 
The Word spoken of was without, or it was the Letter of the Scripture, and his exhortation was to get acquaintance therewith, and he prescribes means to that end, in teaching and admonishing one another, and singing Psalms which were part of the Word of Christ, as the subject matter and author of them.  Mr. F. 
Now thou talkest of sing●ng Psalms, it is a fond custom you get to make the people sing David's conditions, who have not his spirit, as to make a proud man sing, O Lord I am not puffed in mind.  T. D. 
Though it be besides our business, yet I shall answer to your cavils against our practice in a word. Your objection holds as strongly against the use of them in the times of the Old Testament, as against our use of them; for the matter of them was no more all the singer's conditions then than now, and yet they were part of public Temple-worship, 2 Chron. 29.25, 30. and the matter of many of them is doctrinal, and prophetical, and such as cannot be sung with particular application; and I know no particular application necessary to singing that 131 Psal. more than to reading of it, nor is it more a lie to sing than to read them.  Mr F. 
Whereas thou sayest Thomas Danson that the teaching and singing was a means of the words dwelling in them; therein thou art out (as in many other things) for the word of Christ dwelled richly in them, and thence they teached, admonished, and sung.  T. D. 
The words are an exhortation to get the word of Christ dwell richly in them, or to grow in the knowledge of Christ (as elsewhere 'tis expressed) and there is none that hath so much of the knowledge of the word, but it may admit of increase; and therefore though they might teach and admonish from a stock of the word, that hinders not but that the use of it in those duties might be the means of adding to it.  
In the next place Richard Hubberthorn undertook to prove his Call in a discourse wh●ch you have in his own Book, to which I refer you; the main thing he insisted on was his Infallibility in teaching, and the falsehood of our Ministry, who are not Infallible.  T. D. 
You are much mistaken in thinking you are infallible, it appears otherwise to us by the false doctrines which you teach; and as for your participation of the infallible Spirit (if that were granted, which we cannot grant) that infers not a participation of the spirits infallibility, for that is as incommunicable, as omnisciency or omnipotency.  R. Hu●berthorn. 
The Apostles had a power of working miracles in them.  T. D. 
That i● denied; God himself was the sole subject of that power by which they were wrought, and their faith was the means or sign of exerting it, Acts 3.16. His Name, through faith in his Name hath made this man strong, etc. Matth. 21.21. If ye have faith and doubt not, etc. ye shall say to this mountain be removed, and it shall be done.  Mr. Fisher. 
The man Christ Jesus whom ye call God-man, was omniscient, Joh. 2.24. Jesus did not commit himself to them, because he knew all men, etc.  T. D. 
Pray sir, Do not you call the man Christ Jesus God-man too?— Your silence is not consent, but dissent. Omnisciency agreed not to Christ as man (for he says elsewhere, the son of man knows not when the day of judgement shall be) but as God. You know well enough what communication of Idioms means. And the Apostles themselves did not partake of that divine property of Infallibility, for than they would have been infallible at all times, and in all things, which they were not, as appears by the instance of Peter, Gal. 2.11. But in the delivery of what was to be a standing rule to us, they were so guided that they d●d not err, as you may find. 2 Pet. 1. ult. The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost.— As for our want of infallibility 'tis no valid plea against our Ministry, Acts 20.30. the Apostle speaking to the Elders of Ephesus, ●. 17. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away Disciples after them. And yet he says the holy Ghost had made these fallible men Overseers over the Church, v. 28. 1 Thef. 5. Quench not the Spirit, vers. 19 Despise not prophesying, vers. 20. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, v. 21. The connexion of these verses imports, that that prophesying must not be despised, nor can be, without neglecting the Spirit in it, which may teach us somewhat which is not good, an● not to be received. And both these instances are of an ordinary Ministry, which is set in the same universal Church with the extraordinary, 1 Cor. 12.28. and for the same end, viz. to convert and build up, Eph. 4.12. [Note that when we had gone thus far, I gave a brief account of my Call, for which you are referred to Hubberthorns account of the Conference, and my answer hereto annexed.]   

A short ANSWER to a trifling Pamphlet entitled, The Difference of that Call of God to the Ministry, etc. published by R. Hubberthorn.  
IN the Epistle to the Reader, the Questions debated on are falsely stated, as will appear by the Narrative hereto annexed.  
In the Book itself, you have his Call to the Ministry, which is not worthy a further Reply than I made by word of mouth. And an account of my Call, which except two or three passages, was the sum of what I spoke.  
One passage is, He said, I said 'tis none sense to say that a man is made a Minister by the gift of grace.  
Reply. My words were, that he had spoken a great deal of nonsense in his discourse, not that that particular passage was none sense. Yet I said, and do still stand to it, that if by gift of grace he means qual●fications for the Ministry, more is required to a mission than them.  
Another passage is, That I said, my qualifications were such, that I might have been clothed in Scarlet.  
Reply. I said not so of myself particularly, but in general, that many of us who had chosen the Ministry for our calling, were capable of other callings, and had opportunities of entering into them, which might have clothed us with scarlet, as they did other men who followed them.  
Whereas he says, that T. D. provoked his Church to laughter, rudeness, etc.  
Reply. I confess the Assembly did laugh oftentimes at their sorry shifts, and poor evasions in our discourse, but that I did compose them, I have many witnesses: And I deny not but that now and then I could not forbear smiling at them, which I presume as justifiable in me, as Elijah the Prophet's scoffing at Bauls' Priests, 1 Kings 18.27.  
Whereas he says, that none of my people can set to their seal that my Ministry hath brought them to a perfect man, etc.  
Reply. 'Tis readily granted, nor was the Ministry intended for that end, but only to br●ng the Saints to that degree of Grace in this life, which might make them immediately capable of perfection in the next life  
Note that R. H. brings in several passages as mine, some of which I own, and others which I own not, I shall name them briefly.  
That every individual man is not enlightened by Christ; and he complains that I brought two meanings of that Scripture, and know not which is the meaning of the holy Ghost.  
Reply. I still affirm the Proposition mentioned; and I would have him to know, that both the meanings are the Holy Ghosts, though but one is intended in that place: the phrases will bear either senses, and either of them cross his Interpretation.  
That the whole body of the Gentiles was not enlightened.  
Reply. He leaves out what I added, viz. by Christ, or with the knowledge of salvation. As for his answer, I refer you to the dispute upon that principle.  
That the Gospel is an external Light, and not invisible, and that it is not the Light within.  
Reply. My wo●ds were that the Gospel is an external L●ght, as that of the Sun, and that there is an inward Light created in the soul (c●ll'd an understanding given us etc. 1 John 5.20.) which is as the Light in the eye; and that the light of the Gospel is not the light which every man naturally hath with in him.  
That Christ is a propitiation but for the world of believers intended, 1 John 2.2.  
Reply. I explained my meaning when I so interpreted the phrase, by comparing it with Rom. 3 25. Whom God hath set for●h to be a Propitiation through Faith in his blood; the phrase Propitiation intends not the price, but the actual atonement, and this latter is not without the intervention of Fa●th: So th●t John intends as Paul, that the terms of actual reconciliation w●th God are the same to all the world, viz. believing in the blood of Christ.  
T●at we must reconcile Scriptures, and he says I gave two contrary meanings of one Scripture.  
Reply. I have said enough to this in the D●spute, the Scriptures are not at variance among themselves, but they s 'em so to be, and 'tis part of our wo●k to l●t people see how well they are agreed. And I dare leave it to any Readers judgement, whe●h r these two interpretations which R. H. intends be contrary to one another, viz. that Christ enl●ghtens every man who is (spiritually) enlightened, or that he enlightens a number of every Nation, which were the two meanings (to use his phrase) of John 1.8.  
That the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ, was not the Law of the Spirit in the Saints, but that they were two Laws, etc.  
Reply. My words were, that by the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8 2. was not meant our personal righteousness, but Christ's imputed to us, and that though the righteousness in Christ, and in us, are of the same kind yet they have not the same use, the former being alone our justification, the latter our sanctification.  
That there are two righteousnesses of Christ, the one without the Saints to justify them, and the other within the Saints, that did sanctify them.  
Reply. My words were, that there is a righteousness whereof Christ is the subject and the efficient (viz. that of his Humane Nature) and a righteousness whereof he is the efficient, but not the subject, nor was it ever formally existent in him (as the spirits were in the brain, which are communicated thence to other parts of the body) and that is the righteousness in the Saints, and that these are two righteousnesses (though of one species) in respect of the subjects, and use of them.  
That I denied, that the Saints were justified by that Christ hat was in them.  
Reply I may say to thee, R. H. as David to Doeg, Thou lovest lying rather than to speak righteousness, Psal. 52.3. I denied that the Saints are justified by Christ within them (i. e. by the works of Christ within them, which have in that phrase the name of the efficient given to them by a metonymy) but not that they are justified by that Christ that was in them; and when one of the Quakers prated to the same purpose with this man, that I made two Christ's, I expressly told him my meaning to be not by Christ as in the Saints; but as far were the words from my mouth, as the thoughts from my heart, to say that it was not one and the same Christ that justifies and sanctifies.  
That David when he was guilty of adultery and murder, was not in a condemned state, but in a justified estate.  
Reply. I grant the whole, and have said more for the proof of it, than this man or any of his Brethren can answer.  
That I said the passage Heb. 12.23. Spirits of just men made perfect, was meant of them in Heaven, not on earth; which says R. H. cannot be, because the Apostle wrote to them on earth, and did not write to men after they were deceased.  
Reply. The Apostle intends, that 'tis the privilege of the Saints on earth, who are unperfect, to be one body and society with them in Heaven, who are perfect, and this he might say, though the persons he wrote to were living.  
That any creature that holds that principle of being Justified by a righteousness within, living and dying in that principle, cannot come to Heaven.  
And against this R. H. urges that Christ is the Justifier of them that believe, and his Doctrine is I in them, and they in me, so Christ and his Righteousness is in the Saints.  
Reply. Put in any man instead of any Creature which was not my phrase, and add to within, but us, and I acknowledge the whole sentence, and to your argument from the union between Christ and the Saints, I say but this, that if it makes us to be the subject of whatever Christ was the subject, because he is in us, than I hope it will make Christ the subject of whatever we are, because we are in him: and then Christ is a sinner by inherent defilement, (unless all who are united to him, be from the fi●st moment of that union free from sin) which is a Doctrine as false as falsehood can make it.  
That that which fitted men for the inheritance of the Saints in Light, did not entitle to the inheritance, which says R. H. is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine, Col. 1.12. And the Father both fitted them for the inheritance, and did entitle and give them a part in the inheritance.  
Reply. See the baseness of this man, he would make the Reader believe, that I denied the Father's giving right and possession, and making meet for it, when as I spoke of things, not of persons, of the cause of our title, and of that which made us meet for possession (without which Heaven would not be a place or state of bliss) and that the righteousness in Christ as a subject, was the cause of our title, and the righteousness wrought in us by Christ, makes us meet for possession.  
That we cannot contain an infinite righteousness in us. To which R. H. replies, than you cannot contain the righteousness of God, for it is infinite, and then you cannot contain Christ in you, who is God's righteousness, and who is infinite.  
Reply. The righteousness whi●h God works in us, is but finite, as well as other effects, and the mystical union between Christ and the Saints by Faith, does no more conclude their participation of incommunicable attributes, than the hypostatical union between Christ's humane and Divine Nature does infer that what was before such union proper to one, should be common to both natures; as Omnipotency, Omniscience to the humane, weakness, mortality to the Divine Nature.  
That it was false Doctrine to say that a man must first partake of the righteousness which justifies, before it can be imputed to him as his. To which R. H. replies, that the Saints did partake of God's righteousness through Faith, except that this Dr. would count that to be a man's, which he hath no right to, nor part in.  
Reply. Mark the juggling of this fellow, who would intimate that I denied a participation of God's righteousness through Faith, when as that was the thing I contended for, and which they denied, that we did partake of God's righteousness by Faith to justification. That which I affirmed to be false Doctrine, was, that the righteousness which justifies is in us, and I asserted that we being justified by the righteousness of another, there can be no way of conveying such righteousness, but by imputation, and thereby the benefit of another's righteousness may redound to us, as if we were the subjects of it.  
That God offers salvation to all men, but he intends it only to a few, which Doctrine says R. H. makes the offers to no purpose to thousands, and is a belying of God, and makes God a respecter of persons, and how then is Christ given to be salvation to the ends of the earth, etc.  
Reply. I did not affirm that God offers salvation to all men, for many ages and generations never had one offer of it, 1 Tim. 3. last. The Apostle makes Christ preached to the Gentiles, one part of the mystery of godliness; but I affirmed, and do, among those who hear the Gospel, salvation is offered to more than to whom it is intended. And as for your cavils, I answered them in my discourse with Mr. Fisher: The offer is to some purpose, to the same with natural light (viz.) to leave men without excuse, Rom. 1.20. So that they cannot say (as we may suppose Heathens might) had we known of a remedy for our misery, we would have used it; and to other purposes, but one instance shall suffice; you belly our Doctrine, in saying 'tis a belying of God, for God does not pretend, to intent the benefit offered to all to whom it is offered, R●m. 11.7. The Election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded. And besides, he offers it to all upon condition of acceptance, and could you suppose that all would take him at his word, and accept his offer, they should have the benefit thereof. And this last answer will suffice (though other considerations might be added) to that Objection of making God a respecter of persons. Did God give salvation to some who accept not of it out of particular fancy to them, but exact of others that acceptance, and for default of it deny them salvation, than there might be some ground for the cavil; but now that 'tis offered upon equal terms, there is none. And for Christ being given for salvation to the ends of the earth, that imports not so much as that the offer, much less the benefit should be of su●h extent in all ages and generations (as I shown before) but the fulfilling of that prophecy bears date from the Apostolical Commission, Mat. 28.19. and it intends that no Nation how remote soever from Judea, should want the offer, nor some of it the benefit of salvation.  
That a Minister of the Gospel doth not know who are elected. And to this R. H. says, there he hath belied the Ministers of the Gospel, for they could discern the elect from the world, as 'tis written, Ye shall discern between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not, and these Teachers who know not the elect, and yet exhort all their hearers to believe, their preaching is in vain.  
Reply. I see you are hard put to it for a Scripture, to bring that Mal. 3. ult. I could have fitted you with one that would have been more specious, 1 Thes. 1.4. Knowing Brethren beloved your Election of God. As for Mal. 3. ult. 'tis not strictly true till the day of judgement: Solomon says, No man knows love or hatred by all that is before him. I should rather think our preaching is to more purpose because we know not who are elect, for the ignorance of that gives us a ground to hope well of any man; and indeed it were to no purpose to preach to those who are not elected (unless that of leaving them inexcusable) did we certainly know who are elect, and so who are not, for the latter would have no ground of hope (which now they have in the indefinite promise, made of none effect through their unbelief) did we let them know they were excluded out of God's purpose of salvation.  
That the sword of the Spirit is ineffectual without the Letter. To which R. H. says the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God, which was effectual before the Letter was.  
Reply. This man is so used to speak nonsense himself, that he can understand it as well or better than good sense. I did not say as he relates, but that the Spirit was not wont to be ●ff ctual without the Letter, or that he wrought upon the souls of men in and by the Letter of the Word, and I gave that instance, Rom. 10.17. Faith (which is the Spirits work) comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. As for what he says, that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God, if he means like a man in his oppositions, he must mean Christ (who but once is called the Word of God) Rev. 19.13. And Christ cannot be intended, Eph. 6.17. because he is not the sword of the Spirit, but the Spirit his sword rather, for by the Spirit he works in the hearts of men, and therefore Gen. 6.3. he says, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, which is meant of the holy Ghost, as will appear by comparing it with, Act. 7 51. where Stephen tells the Jews, Ye do always resist the holy Ghost. Christ by the common operations of his Spirit strives with men, and by the special operations thereof prevails with them.  
That there was no Scripture written, but what is extant, and in the Bible. Against which assertion R. H. produces the book of Nathan, Iddo, etc. mentioned in the Bible, which he says were written for the same end and use.  
Reply. It does not appear that any of the Books mentioned in the Old Testament and to which we are referred for further satisfaction in historical matters, were of Divine Inspiration, but we may rather conclude, that the Holy Ghost mentioning no more of History than was necessary for our Instruction, refers us for the rest, which was not of the like necessity to books of humane original. And though they are the Books of Prophets, yet it follows not that they were divinely inspired: For they might as well write from their own spirits, or upon humane credit, as sometimes speak from their own spirits, 2 Sam. 7.3. Nathan told David, when he spoke of building a Temple, Go, do all that is in thine heart, for the Lord is with thee, whenas God for bad him by the same Prophet, which prohibition is called, the word of the Lo d that came to Nathan, v. 4.5. plainly enough intimating that the encouragement he gave David before, was but the word of man. And indeed 2 Pet. 2. last. speaking of the motion of the Holy Ghost to write the Scriptures, seems to limit it to that which was intended for a sure word of prophecy, whereunto we should do well to take heed, etc. v. 19  
That there was no Scripture appointed of God to be a Rule of Faith and manners, but what is bound up in the Bible.  
Reply. That was my assertion, and besides what I spoke I shall add, that 'tis not enough, if it could be proved that other writings besides those we have were of Divine Inspiration: For besides such Inspiration, to make a Rule, is necessary God's appointment of a writing to that end. Hence 'tis observable that John is bidden to write what he saw and heard in the Book of Revelation, no less than twelve times; and some things of the like inspiration he was forbidden to write, because not intended for the same end, Rev. 10.4. And when the seven thunders had uttered th●ir voices, I was about to write, and I heard a voice from Heaven saying unto me, seal up, etc. and write them not. John 20.30.31. A●d many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his Disciples, which are not wri●ten in ●his book, but these are written that ye might bel●eve, etc. Those things which were not written might have b●en useful if they had been wr●tten, for th●y were done for the same end with tho●e which are left u●, yet because God thought that sufficient which we have, we can look upon no more wi●h such regard as we do upon that.  
That the letter doth antecede the Spirit in all that walked in the Spirit.  
Reply I opened my own meaning (as you may find in the dispute about the Scriptures,) and 'tis this, that the Spirits act of revealing the letter of the Scriptures, antecedes the Spirit's assistance, in walking according to it.  
That the works of Christ in some respect are not perfect. To which R. H. says that is false, for every gift of God is perfect.  
Reply. I spoke those words with reference to the work of sanctification, which I affirmed to be imperfect in this life, in comparison of what it is in the life to come. For which I produced Phil. 3.12. Not as though I had already attained either, were already perfect, which he ●ntends of the resurrection from the d●ad, v. 11. (as he calls the holiness of that state by a Metonymy of the subject for the adjunct.) I also quoted 1 ●or 13.10. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. And for the Scripture he quotes, intending I suppose, James 1.17. Every good and perfect gift is from above, are the words of the Holy Ghost, not every gift of God is perfect; and I suppose 'tis spoken of special grace, which is still in growth; every least degree of grace tending to perfection.  
That the Law requires more strict and exact obedience then the Gospel. To whi●h R. H. replies nay, the Law saith, Thou shalt not commit adul ery, but the Gospel saith, Thou shalt not lust, &c and so the Gospel requires more strict obedience than the Law.  
Reply. I spoke those words with reference to what the Law requires of us, as 'tis a Covenant of works, and to what the gospel accepts of us as 'tis a Covenant of grace; though the Law gives not life without perfect obedience, the Go●pel gives it upon imperfect ob dience. The words were not intended of the Leg l and Ev ngelical dispensations, as R. H. seems to understand them in his Socinian interpetat●on. And as for his interpretation, I affirm that Christ intended not to add any thing to the spirituality of t●e Law, for that under Mos●s was spiritual, as Paul speaks. Rom 7.14. for under the prohibition of the outward act, was also prohibited inward off ct●ons, desires, wh●ch appears by Gods promise's, of circumcising the heart, D●ut 30.6. and his comm●nd to w●sh their hearts from wickedness that they might be sav●d. But our Lord Chri●● v●●d●cates the Law from the corrupt glosses of the Pharisees, who interpreted those proh●bitions to extend no further than the letter, which is but to the outward act, as w●ll appear by the context, especially v. 18.19.  
That Chr●st choose a devil to be one of his Ministers in choosing Judas; and his pro f, says R. H. was, That the Divine nature did not see it good to communicate the knowledge of all things to the human nature, ●n●●herefore all hough he was a devil when he chose him, yet he known it not, which says R. H. is a charging of Christ with ●gnorance, contrary to John 2.24 25. and Christ says Judas had the spirit of the Father in him M●t. 10.20.  
Reply The occasion of my words was a little discourse I had with Mr. F sher about falling from grace; who urged that Judas had the Spirit of the Father in him, as well as the rest. To which I answered, that seeing he appeared to be a devil in the end, he was so from the beginning, according to 1 Joh. 2.19. speaking of Christians, They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us; but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us And that Christ spoke so to him, because he was a visible Christian; and it appears not that from the first moment of Christ's choice he knew him to be a Devil, and thereupon I urged the principle , and instanced in the Son of man's ignorance of the day of judgement. But whether Christ's humane Nature did know him or not, he was not openly scandalous, as appears by the Disciples suspicion of themselves rather than him, and therefore might be treated as one that had the Spirit.  
That the Spirit of God may accompany a Ministry, and the Minister not have the Spirit. Which R. H. says he never read in the Scriptures, and bids me prove it when and where it was so at any time.  
Reply. It is no great matter what you read in the Scriptures, for it appears by the dispute about them, that you care not for them, but only to beat us (as you think) with our own weapon; and to obey your command, I have an instance, Mat. 23. The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Mos●s seat, (i. e. sustain the place of Teachers) all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe, and do; but do not ye after their works, for they say and do not, v. 2, 3. This command imports as much as the Apostle elsewhere expresses, viz. to obey from the heart the form of Doctrine which was delivered to them, Rom. 6.17. and to be sure the Pharisees had not the spirit of holiness, though they had his blessing upon their Ministry.  
That the power that went forth in the Apostles Ministry, was in God, not in them, but as they have it communicated to them by the exercise of faith.  
Reply. You abuse me in the repetition of what I spoke, either through ignorance or wilfulness, for my words were, that the power by which the Apostles wrought Miracles, was not inherent in them, but that their exercise of Faith upon the promise of exerting it for confirmation of the Gospel, was the sign of the time when God put forth act, of Omnipotency. This appears by the places before quoted, Mat. 21.21. acts 3.16. To which I add, v. 12. Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power, or holiness' we had made this man to walk? He calls the power their own, not in respect of the Original (for all things are of God) but in respect of the subject of it.  
Thomas Rumsey said, that we preach a Doctrine of Devils, in saying, that men may be free from sin in this life. To which R. H. answers that the Apostle Paul then preached a Doctrine of Devils, Rom. 6.2, 7, 18, 22. And Christ preached the Doctrine of perfection, Mat. 5.48. 1 Pet. 1.16. And Paul preached wisdom among them that were perfect, 1 Cor. 2.6. And David preached that Doctrine, Mark the perfect man, Psal. 3● 37. Now David did not bid them mark such a man as ●here was not.  
Reply. You Quakers a●e an unmannerly Generation. You might have given a Magistrate the Title of Mr. As for Mr. Rumsey's speech he desires me to let you know that he is confirmed in his Opinion, notwithstanding the Scriptures you allege (which being unlearned and unstable, you wrist to your own destruction) and he desires me to return you an answer to each. As for Rom. 6. The expressions of freed from sin, do not note freedom from the being, but the dominion, vers. 14. Sin shall not have dominion over you, v. 12. Let not sin reign in ●our mortal bodies, etc. And that it cannot be meant simply, will appear by c. 14.10. Why dost thou judge thy Brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy Brother? The Apostle speaks of judging as the sin of weaker Christians, and setting at nought his brother, as the sin of stronger Christians. And if sin was consistent with that freedom from sin before affirmed of them, than the phrase denotes not freedom from the being of sin, as I have told you. As for Mat. 5. ult. The command intends the rule, not the degree of Grace attainable in this life, for this is reserved for our reward in Heaven, (as I have proved in the dispute) 1 Pet. 1.16. urges God's Holiness as an argument to enforce our endeavours after it; but that is no proof of your assertion. As for 1 Cor. 2.6. I have already answered it in the dispute And for David's Doctrines, the second clause, and behold the upright, is exegerical, or explanative of the first. Had David bid them mark a perfect man in your sense, he had bid them mark a man that was not (as you speak) for he himself was a Saul for spiritual stature in his generation (as appears, because he is made a pattern to new Testament Saints, Zech. 12.8.) and yet he was not free from the being of sin, but a sad instance of the power of it in real Saints. But take the meaning of it as I have given, himself was one of the men he spoke of.   

THE NARRATIVE.  
Reader,  
THou mayst please to understand, that these Quakers, who like the Scribes and Pharisees, compass sea and land to make one Proselyte, came to our Town, March 15, 1658. and made a challenge to the Priests (as they term Ministers of Christ) to defend their own Doctrine and Call, which they came to oppugn; whereupon I was much urged by some good people, Inhabitants of the Town, to appear at their place of meeting, which at first I was somewhat unwilling to, partly because I was informed that the men who intended to speak were such as the Apostle describes, unreasonable and wicked men, 2 Th. ●2. and partly because of the usual unsuccessfulnesse of disputes, especially with men who cannot feel the stress of an argument. But at length I resolved to gratify good people's desire, having given this solution to my own objections; to the first, that though the men would not admit of any orderly dispute, yet somewhat might in a more lose discourse be spoken, which might be an antidote to preserve from the malignity of their venom cast abroad at a venture, and so the devil might be beat at his own weapon, and outshot in his own bow, and a less rational way of arguing might God use for good, as the Devil did fo● hurt. And I did hope that ●f I did thus answer a fool echo ding to his folly, I should escape the censure of being also like him, P●ov 26.4. To the second Objection I replied, that want of success was no more cogent an argument against disputing than preaching; and I added, that God had not left disputes without witness of his approbation (if that must needs be measured by the event) Acts 6.9, 10. Then there arose certain of the Synagogue, which is call●d the Synagogue of the Libertines, &c, disputing with Stephen, and they were not able to resist the wisdom and spirit by which he spoke. And seeing the Quakers were Libertines (or worse) though I was not Stephen for like measure of wisdom and spirit, I need not altogether despair of his success. And besides these, other considerations offered their service, viz. that they are a people who triumph and brag when we decline dispute, forgetting the wise caution of King Ahab, a favourer of their way (I mean enmity against the true Prophets) Let not him that girdeth on his harness, boast himself as he that putteth it off, 1 King's 20.21. And many simple people are apt to suspect our Call and Doctrine, when we seem unwilling openly to m●●ntain them against opposers. And me thought that Scripture (which came to mind) did import a liberty, if not a duty. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit, Prov. 26.5 And I mu●t confess that the example of so Reverend and Learned a person, as Mr. Richard Baxte●, who yielded to a v●rb●l discourse with an unreasonable railing fellow, wa● not without its influence upon me, between whom and the Quakers, I was to deal with (though ignorant and unlearned men) the inequality is very inconsiderable, in c mparison or what it is between him and them. But especially the rea ●ns which he gives of printing against them, in his Epistle to the Quakers' Catechism, as al●o against other like wretch's, in the Preface to the Defence of t e Wo●c●●tershire Petition, did master my understanding, and he●p●d to fix my wavering thoughts, in a resolution to discourse with them. When I came among them, they asserted that there is a Light in every man, which is Christ; th●t in this life men may be perfect, and free from sin, that m●n are justified not by Christ without, but within them. Th●y all o urged several trivial arguments against our Ministry, as, ● king hire, being called Masters, wearing lo●● robes, adding meanings to the Scripture. To every wh●ch assertions I said somewhat, and replied to ●hei● a guments against our Ministry (as their unmannerly clamour would give leave) for they would ●ndeavour to drown my vo●ce by theirs, when I sp●ke anything that pinched them; and particularly when I urged 2 Cor. 5. ult. That look as Christ was made sin for us, so were we made the righteousness of God in him, but the former was by im●utation, not by inherence, Christ knowing no sin (by experience of its working ●n himself) and therefore so th● latter: I was interrupted by the two ●peakers, Luke Ho●●rd, and Stephen Hubberdy, with such rude language, as thou lie●t, thou l●est, and they did not once offer any other confutation, though I u●ged th●m to the attempt, and ●eld my tongue in expectation, but in stead of a reply, lo●ked upon one another like men astonished, and made so long ● pause that many of the hearers cried out, they are silenced, they have nothing to say. At length they recovered themselves, and talked on in a discourse so impertinent and independent, that I began to admire the men, for ordering their words so warily, as that they were all birds of a feather, and not one bird of another feather such as reason and pertinency to be found in the whole flock. At the end of the day, the former of the two men above mentioned (being conscious to himself how little he had done for his cause) made an open challenge of dispute between me and other of their friends (meaning their fellow-Quakers) to whom I replied that I would not appoint a time for discourse with such ignorant and railing men as himself and his companion, but if Mr. Fisher would undertake it, I would enter the lists with him. This Mr. Fisher (lest thou be ignorant Courteous Reader of the reason why I singled out him from the rest) was sometime a Minister, and well reputed of for his gifts in this County. And I had a little hope, that seeing he had more reason than the rest of that way, he would not let it lie dormant, but awaken it into exercise, and make some use of it. And according to my desire the challenger promised to procure Mr. Fisher to come and debate their Tenants that day month, being the 12th of April, 1659. (a time which he pitched, because his friends occasions (as he pretended) would not admit them to come sooner. The day being come, 
Witnesses, Mr. Oldfield, Mr. Foxton, etc.  Mr. Fisher appeared at Peter's Church in our Town, but pretended that he knew not whether the Lord would open or shut his mouth, and therefore declined any discourse; and I was fain to wait his leisure, and to talk with one Richard Hubberthorn, who needed a bridle as much as the other did a spur, and made good the Proverb, whoso bold as blind Bayard? A right Quaker, whose discourse wanted all the ingredients that should have made it savoury, viz. truth, sense, and pertinence. And when he was silenced, came in for a reserve one G●orge Whitehead, a man that seemed to have more mother wit, than the other, but as little of the Spirit of God (unless that be a Spirit of error and contradiction, and then I judge he had a plentiful measure.) At length Mr. Fisher came in to help him at a dead lift, and with him I discoursed till night. And though they had made themselves naked to their shame, especially by the Doctrines of perfection and justification by works, yet to set a good face on the matter, they urged for another dispute, which I granted them the next day at the School house. And the Saturday following, April 16. I received a challenge from Hubberthorn (who looked upon himself as contemned the other two days, because the people after they had heard him a while, cried out to him to hold his tongue, or speak to the purpose) to defend my own Call to the Ministry, and hear the proof of his, which I would not answer, but upon condition, that Mr. Fisher would also debate those two questions, Whether the Scriptures he the Word of God? and whether the righteousness of Christ God-man be satisfactory to the Justice of God for the sin of man? Which I confess I desired the people might hear their judgement in, that they might see them in their colours, and not mistake them for better men than they are. And accordingly we agreed to m●et at the School-house the Tuesday following April 19 I presume thou art now listening to hear the issue, and I will tell thee truly what it was, that many blessed God for the caution they received against their Principles, which now they understood plainly (though not without much ado, did I get them to speak, as that every one might know their meaning.) And some good people who formerly had a favourable opinion of them, and thought that they and we differed but in terms, in the Doctrine of Justification, and the Scripture● being the Word of God, do now loathe a●d d●rest th●m, as men that preach another Gospel, which y is not ●nother, and would p●●vert the Gospel of Christ, Ga. 1 ●. 7 8. And the truth is, we have reum confitentem, the Malefactors own Confession, for Mr. Fisher did openly declare to the people, 
Mr. S yli●rd, 〈…〉 D ●●le, Mr. Fox on Jur●●●.  the ●ast day of our dispute, that the Gospel which I preached, w●uld never br●ng th●m to Heaven plainly enough intimating thereby, that he preached another Go pel. And 'tis a passage not to be omitted, that as often as Mr. Fish●● had occasion to mention the N●me of our Lord Christ, 
Mr S●yli●●d. Mr. A ●●●●y Oldfield. Mr. Fox●on.  h● wo●ld call him The man Christ Jesus ●hom you call (speaking to me) God-man; and being o●ten a●ked whether he did not call him lo too, I could never g●t an answer, and truly hi● si ●nce may well be interpreted consent to the horrid A●ian Blasphemy. 'Tis al●o observable that Mr. Fisher would not discourse the point of Christ's satisfaction, 
M●. Seyli●rd, Mr. Rumsey.  but put me off w th' general terms, that all that Chr●st did was pleasing to God, and so s●te down, and ●ave way to his companion. And we h●v● j●st ground to b●liev● that he denies it, for many o● them do (as we find ●n m●ny of their printed Papers) and they pretend to have no differences in opinion among themselves. And thou canst not be ignorant that the denial of it in conjunction with their justification by works, does not only lop the branches, but grub up by the very roots the Gospel, which thou hast received. I cannot omit another remarkable passage, and 'tis this, that in the midst of our discourse, April 13. one of the Quakers (whose name I cannot learn) cried out for audience, 
Mr. Domsel, Mr. Tho Foxton, Mr. Tho. Rumsey.  pretending that he had somewhat to say from the Lord, and varying his phrase, In the Name of the Lord, but he was denied liberty, because he was none of the Disputants, but the man was so obstreperous, that upon promise of speaking br efly, we were glad for quietness sake to hear him. But what wouldst thou think was his message from the Lord? It was to accuse a godly Minister there present, of slandering Samuel Fishe●, 
Mr. Peter Domsell,  by affirming that the said S. Fisher had been at Rome, and received ● Pension from the Pope, and the accuser pretended to have a witness ready to prove it. The Minister stood up at the accusation, and demanded when and where he spoke these words? It was answered, the last night (meaning April 12.) between Sandwich and Staple (a Country ●arish about 4 miles distant.) To the answer, the Minister replied, that he was at that time in Sandwich, and was not out of Town that night. And (to save further trouble about defending and proving) the Quakers witness of his own accord cried out that it was not th● Minister accused, 
Mr. Rob. Wilkinson.  but the Minister of Staple, that spoke the words a● the time and place mentioned. 〈◊〉 suppose good Reader, thou wilt be ready to excuse the accuser, and to say, it was but a mistake of one man for another, and truly I should join with thee, if the man were of any other persuasion than Quakerism, for these men pretend to be immediately sent by God about trivial things, which if they really were, they could no more mistake in the persons to whom, than the message whereabout they are sent. And surely had God sent this Quaker to convince a man of slander, he would have sent him to the right man. And I think we may well conclude them as sar from infallibility in Doctrine, as in matters of fact. And 'tis worthy thy consideration, that when the accuser had nothing to say for himself, 
Mr. Foxton, Mr. Oldfield, Mr. Rumsey, Jurates.  but slunk down among his fellow Quakers, M. Fisher holp him with a Lie, and told us that the man did not say from the Lord, or in the Name of the Lord, but in the fear of the Lord, which the man hearing, plucked up his Spirits, and stood up again, boldly affirming the latter words to be his. When as he had no such plea for himself, till it was put into his mouth; and the generality of the people did then hout at Mr. Fisher, for a liar, and did then and do still affirm that the man spoke the former words. And as for the matter whereof Mr. Fisher was accused, part of it he denied not, namely, that he had been at Rome, but that he received a Pension from the Pope, he utterly denied, which yet that is probably as true, for I have it from very good hands, that in his late travel to Constantinople and thence to Rome, he had as good Bills of exchange, as most Gentlemen that travel, and yet 'tis well known that he hath no visible estate. And the Quakers who came to hear the dispute (who I suppose would not belly him) did report, that he did bear his witness against the Pope and Cardinals at Rome, and yet they suffered him not to be meddled with, which how unprobable it is, let all men judge, but how much more probable, that the true cause of his safety was his compliance with them, the Doctrines which he broaches among us, and (as he says) in all other places, being theirs, and a fair inlet to their Bag and Baggage. And to assure the Reader of the likelihood of his compliance with the Antichristian Faction, thou mayst please to know, that the 12. instant (English account) two honest, and credible men of Sandwich had some discourse with Mr. Fisher at Dunkirk, 
Mr. Tho. Foxton Jurate, Tho. Barber, Cooper.  and he told them that he looked upon the Jesuits and Friars there, to be sounder in Doctrine than those we call the Reformed Churches. This they are ready to testify at any time upon call.  
Another passage I have to acquaint thee with, viz. that the aforesaid Mr. Fisher, in conference with the  Sandwich men at Dunkirk, 
Mr. Tho. Foxton, Jurate, Tho. Barber, Cooper.  May 12. English stile, did affirm that he himself is above Ordinances, and that there is no more use of them in this life, to many persons, than there is of a Candle-light, when the sun shines, and he gave instance in the uselessness of Baptism, and the Lords Supper.  
And the same witnesses were credibly informed at Dunkirk, that Mr. Fisher hath great Bills of Exchange from a Quaking London Merchant, and may take up four hundred pound if he will.  
And hundreds of people can testify how light he made of the charge of Popery, on the first day of the Dispute, 
John Boys Esq; Mr. Ch. Nichols, Mr. Th. Foxton, etc.  when I plucked Amesius 4 Tome against Bellarmine, and offered to read part of it out of the Latin into English; and with a gesture of derision he replied, that Bellarmine held many Truths which must not be rejected because he held them, and he gave for instance that Christ was the Son of God. And as for the state of the Qu●stions, two of them, viz. The light of Nature, and Perfection, I need not produce any witnesses to prove, because they constantly affirm them, but as for the rest, they are wont to juggle & equivocate about them. 
Henry Oxenden, John Boys, Esq; M. Nath. Barry, Mr. Tho Seyliard, Mr. Ch. Nichols, Ministers.  The terms of the third Question were, Whether good works be the meritorious cause of our Justification? which was expressly affirmed by them.  
And this being so gross and Popish, Luke Howard one of the Quakers present at the dispute, 
Mr. Nath. Barry.  hath since denied that they did so affirm. And in the Fourth question Mr. Fisher denied that the Books commonly called the Old and N●w Testament were appointed of God for a standing Rule of Faith and Life. 
Henry Oxenden, Esq; M● Tho. Seyliard, Mr. Ch. Nichols, Min. Mr. Antho. Oldfield, Mr. Tho. Foxton, Mr. Tho. Rumsey. Jurates.   
And for the last, the infallibility of their Ministry the three Jurates of Sandwich in the Margin, will testify that they did affirm their Ministry to be infallible.  
To conclude all, I shall give thee a taste of the craft even of the female Sex, in evading Scriptures. One of them was challenged for breaking the rule, 1 Cor. 14.34. Let your women keep silence in the Church, for it is not permitted to ●hem to speak, etc. To which challenge she replied, that is spoken of the women that have husbands at home to learn of, v. 38. but I have none, but am a maid.  
Another (who was a wife) being also challenged for preaching publicly, 
Mr. Tho. Foxton.  and that Scripture urged against her, I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority ov●r the man, etc. 1 Tim. 2.12. She readily replied, that was spoken of the woman who was in the transgression, but I am not one of them, (meaning it seems that women who are perfect, had the liberty of teaching, which was denied to other women.) And I had some private discourse with a Gentlewoman a Quaker, 
Mrs. Dor. Gudderson.  and aging her with that Scripture, M●rk 7.13. M●king the Word of God of none effect, which is spoken of the fifth Commandment, v 9, 12. (part of the wri●ten Word) to prove that the Scripture calls itself by the name of the Word of God; and perceiving her at a loss, I pressed her for an answer, in stead whereof she put me a question, 
Mrs. Marry Paramour.  wouldst thou not have ●e imitate the man Christ in ●ll things? To which when I answered, yes, in such things as are intended for our imitation, she replies, the man Christ did not always answer such cavilling questions as were asked him, neither will I answer thee. And when she was urged with those Scriptures, Rom. 16 and other Epistles, which enjoin Saluta●ions, she pretended that she not being a Roman, nor Corinthian, what Paul wrote to them, was nothing to her, unless the Spirit within her did prompt her to do the same things. And that thou mayst see how great a stress they lay upon small matters, I will tell thee a true story (which perhaps may move thy laugh●er) that a Kinsman by marriage of the same Gentlewoman's making offer to salute her at his own house, April 12, 1659. she went two or three steps back with these words, I have renounced the Devil and the Flesh long since, prithee forbear that custom of the World.  
These things I thought good to add (at the desire of some worthy persons) which else I had omitted, that the world may take notice not only of the wickedness, but of the absurdity of these people's Principles.  
FINIS.   

BOOKS sold by John Allen at the Rising SUN in Paul's Churchyard. Viz.  
Mr. Caryl's 

5th. Vol.  
7th. Vol.  
8th. Vol.  
9th Vol.   on Job.  
Beza Novum Testamentum. Fol.  
Mr. Allens Scripture Chronologie. 4ᵒ  
Mr. Baxters Call to the unconverted. 12ᵒ.  
Mr. Lukins practice of Godliness. 12ᵒ.  
A Catechism of the chief Heads of Christian Religion, by Mr. Davenport & Mr. Hooke of New-England. 8ᵒ  
The Faith and Order owned and practised in the Congregational Churches in England, agreed upon and consented unto by their Elders & messengers at their meeting at the Savoy, Octob. 12, 1658.  
Mr. Cottons Treatise on the Covenant of Grace.  
Johannes Becoldus Redivivus, the English Quaker, the Germane Enthusiast revived.  
A Defence and Justification of Minister's Maintenance by Tithes, and of Infant-Baptism, Humane Learning, and the Sword of the Magistrate, which some Anabaptists falsely call four sandy Pillars, and Popish Foundations of our Ministry and Churches; written by Immanuel Bourne Pastor to the Congregation at Waltham in the County of Leicester.  
Presbytery and Independency vindicated in answer to Mr. John Tympsons Treatise of a free admission to the Lords Table. It's now in the Press.  
Mr. Gatt ker against judi ial Astrology.  
The vanity of judicial Astrology, written by Gassandus Mathemetical Professor to the King of France.  
Several Case● of Conscience concerning ASTROLOGY, and seekers unto Astrologers answered, bo●h from the Word of God, and from the Testimony of our most godly and eminent Divines; published by a Friend to the Truth, in which Book Judicial Astrology is proved to be  
1. Expressly forbidden by the Word of God as a grand offence, and ought not to be practised, countenanced, nor tolerated, D●u. 18.10, 11. Leu. 20.6. Isai. 47.13, 14. Jer. 10.2.  
The Reasons why it is so expressly forbidden, are:  
1. It is a practice whereby men do assume to themselves that which is peculiar unto God, viz. Judgement concerning future events either concerning Kingdoms or Persons, Isai. 41.22, 23.  
2. Because it draws the hearts of men from God the Father, and Christ his Son, from considering the Works of the one, & hearking to the words of the other, Isai. 5.12. Col. 1.8, 18, 19 Deut. 18.10, 16.  
3. Because it is false, delusive, and uncertain, Isai. 44.15.  
4. Because it nourisheth vain and forbidden hopes and fears, Jer. 10.2.  
All which Considerations published are to this end.  
1. As an alarm, that the Consciences of those that study it may be awakened, that they may be fully convinced of the great evil that is in it, that abhorring such an abominable evil that is so hateful to God, and a real trouble to the Consciences of good men; by leaving the sin, they may avoid the punishment.  
2. That Conscientious Magistrates may know how nearly it concerns them to do their duties, in vindicating the Glory of God, by putting a period to the study of Judicial Astrology, a practice indeed that brings the honour of God into so much contempt in the world.  
3. Lastly, That all those that have a desire to learn it, and those who inquire of Astrologers what good or ill Fortune (as they term it) shall happen to them in the course of their lives may through God's Grace stifle such unlawful desires; all which through the Grace of God shall be the prayers and supplications of him (put up in the name of the Lord Jesus) who is their friend to his power,  
JOHN ALLEN.  
He that converteth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and shall hid a multitude of sins, James ●. 20.