A SOBER ANSWER To an angry EPISTLE, Directed to all the public Teachers in this Nation, and prefixed to a Book, called (By an ANTIPHRASIS) Christ's Innocency pleaded against the Cry of the Chief Priests. Written in haste By THOMAS SPEED, once a public Teacher himself, and since revolted from that Calling to Merchandise, and of late grown a Merchant of Souls, trading subtly for the QUAKERS in Bristol. WHEREIN The Jesuitical Equivocations and subtle Insinuations, whereby he endeavours secretly to infuse the whole Venom of Quaking Doctrines, into undiscerning Readers, are discovered; a Catalogue of the true and genuine Doctrines of the Quakers is presented, and certain Questions depending between us and them, candidly disputed, By Christopher Fowler & Simon Ford, Ministers of the Gospel in Reding,  
LONDON, Printed for Samuel Gellibrand, at the Ball in Paul's Church Yard, 1656.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE Colonel WILLIAM SYDENHAM, One of his Highness' Council, and one of the Commissioners for the Exchequer, and Captain for the Isle of WIGHT.  
Right Honourable,  
THe Author of the Paper we herein deal withal, having by his Apostasy to the damnable Doctrines of the Quakers, and written Apology for them in the said Paper, endangered divers of our Town, and the parts adjacent, where he was formerly in some esteem; and withal in the same Paper, form into the model of an Epistle directed to them, insolently challenged all the Public Teachers of this Nation; and particularly us, who now appear against him, by sending two of the Pamphlets to us by name; we dared not betray the Truth and Glory of our Lord Jesus, nor the precious Souls of the People, by neglecting to publish a timely Antidote against the Poison of such a subtle and insinuating piece, as your Honour, if you will vouchsafe to look on it, and compare it with this Answer, will easily discern it to be. We perceive the design of the Author, is by false suggestions to reproach the Ministry, and by Jesuitical Equivocation, to sweeten the Doctrines of the Quakers to the Public Magistrates. And upon that account, we thought it meet to present this our necessary vindication of that, and discovery of these, to some Person in Authority, of Honour and Conscience; that under such a shelter, we might gain it a more facile admission to others, of those unto whom we are necessitated to appeal. And because we can assuredly suit that Character to yourself; and withal are persuaded, that by reason of your equability of carriage to dissenters in late times, our Adversary himself cannot reasonably quarrel at us, for our choice of a Patron; and lastly because we have both of us in some measure (but one of us more largely, by divers years' experience) known you a cardial friend to a Godly Ministry, and the Doctrine which is according to Godliness; we therefore humbly put it into your Honour's hands. Sir, as to the Cause we maintain, we need not any Creatures Patronage, nor dare we submit it to any Creatures Umpirage; for we are assured it (mainly) concerns such foundations of Religion, as deeply engage the honour of our Lord Jesus, and therefore we are assured, he will not suffer them to be moved; and such as will stand, when all Persons and Doctrines shall be judged finally, and everlastingly according to the purport of them. But as to our candour and integrity in the managery thereof, and the proportion of satisfaction which we give therein, we are contented to stand to your Arbitration, wherein however we may far, yet it shall suffice us, that our Consciences tell us, that we have done our endeavour to defend the Truth, and that with meekness and moderation, beyond our Antagonists deserts, or the merits of his cause; and our experience tells us, that you will not disdain to accept from us this small Testimony, that we are very much,  
(Right Honourable) Your Honour's affectionate Servants for the Interest of Christ our Master, 

Simon Ford.  
Christopher Fowler.     

AN ANSWER TO AN EPISTLE OF THOMAS SPEED, Directed to all the Public TEACHERS in this Nation, and prefixed to a Book of his called by an ANTIPHRASIS, Christ's Innocency pleaded, etc.  
SIR,  
NOT many days since, we received each of us a Book as from you, by the hands of a Friend of yours, living in this Town, Entitled Christ's Innocency pleaded, etc. which although it be particularly directed to a Godly and able Minister of the Neighbourhood, yet it seems you thought fit to disperse it into these parts, as well as over the rest of the Nation, in Print, to confirm those that are already gained to your belief, and reduce others either to an entertainment of, or moderation to, the principles thereof. And we must confess, that you have acted the last part of this design with a great deal of Artifice, not without (as we conceive) a concurrent aim of your own, to show how much credit your wit could give to an evil cause, and how (if not amiable, yet) tolerable, you could render an ugly face, by a decent dress.  
For our parts, we are sorry you can find no better exercise for your parts, than the maintaining of absurd Paradoxes in Civility, and blasphemous Heresies in Religion; for so we dare call the Doctrines you undertake to shelter under the wing of your Patronage; and make no question but that Judge, who, we are assured, will one day make that written Law, which you refuse to own as the rule of your lives, the ground of his proceed upon you, and all others that live within the sound of it, after death, will then call them so too, when all the rhetorical veils you put upon them, will be pulled off, and you be found, except you repent, one of those that daub a rotten Sepulchre with untempered Mortar, and cover Violence with a 
Mal. 2. 16.  Garment of subtle and Jesuitical equivocation.  
And indeed, that which makes us the more compassionate towards yourself in this sad delusion you are under, is the repute which you have had (till of late days) for soundness and Orthodoxy in Doctrinals, and some kind of moderation, beyond others of your Brethren in separation, towards those you separated from: And this, because we fear that the influence of your Apostasy may occasion the ruin of many others, whose former esteem of your person endangers them to follow you blindfold into your Errors.  
This, we assure you, is not the least cause (together with the preservation of those of our own charges from the infection likely to be spread among them by your name, and the reducement of those of them who may (we fear) call you Father, in other respects, as well as the relation of Affinity) which induceth us to put Pen to paper in this Quarrel. Not that we intent hereby to take the Cudgels out of the hand of that Reverend man who is more nearly concerned, and better able to manage them then ourselves; for (as to that concerns his Papers so brokenly quoted by you) we believe his own publication of the entire Copies (which you think fit to conceal, not without some ground of suspicion, that you were rather willing to pick out what you could best sport yourself, and your credulous Reader withal, then to give a solid answer to his Arguments as they come from his hand) with such animadversions, as he is sufficiently able to make to the disingenuities of your reply, will abundantly vindicate him, and the Truth. Only, we cannot but acquaint you, that you have mistaken the mark very much in the arrows of bitter words, which your discourse levels with too much virulency against that holy man. Had you dealt with one of those sorry things in black, whose Doctrine and life are scandals to the Gospel; and blemishes to their holy Profession, you might have promised yourself an easy belief from the Readers of your Book, to whatsoever load of reproaches, you should have laid upon him: but the man you deal withal, is so well known for Piety, Meekness, Humility, heavenly-mindedness, tenderness of conscience, and all other Ministerial Qualifications, that you may as well persuade them the Snow is black, as fasten those reproaches upon him with any hope of gaining credit to yourself, or your book, except amongst those who are either totally strangers to him, or given up to so potent a prejudice against all that bear the name of Ministers, that they can easily admit into their Creed, whatsoever evil can be said of them. But to more sober Readers, and especially those of the parts where he lives, you might be easily convinced (had you any principles left to bottom a conviction upon) that the unjust imputations you every where bespatter him withal, will render you suspected, in all the rest of your book, for the falsehood detected in them. And we must tell you withal, that we cannot prevail with our reasons or consciences to persuade themselves that you have that infallible Spirit, which you pretend to dictate to you; seeing we know you to be so grossly mistaken in the censures you spend upon him, and divers of his fellow-labourers. Nor can we judge that language inspired by the holy spirit of God, when we consider, that there is no Gall in that Dove, & that those holy men of God who wrote as they were moved by the H. Ghost, tell us, that Saints must put away all clamour and bitterness; and evil speaking, 
Ephes. 4. 31.  and wrath: That the wisdom that is from above is gentle; 
Ja. 3. 17. Ja. 1. 16.  and that if any man bridle not his tongue, his religion is vain.  
And lastly, that if you be not a better Master of Language than Michal the Archangel, or we deserve worse usage than the Devil himself; the light in which the Apostle Judas spoke, will tell you (but that you think him too low a Scholar to instruct you, that have gotten through the School, wherein he was a Disciple) that it ill becomes you to bring against your Antagonists a railing accusation. But if that convince not you 
jude 9  and your brethren of the incivility and irreligion of your tongues and pens in this way, we shall refer you from Michael's Dispute to enoch's Prophecy, wherein you will find, that hard speeches will bear an Indictment at the last Assize, as well as 
Vers. 14.  hard blows: And in the mean time, we hope God will hear our prayers, and free us from the mercy of your Hands, who find what cruelty there is in the tender mercies of your 
Prov. 12. 10.  Tongues  
Mean while, in hope that a soft answer will turn away wrath, 
Pro. 15. 1.  and that we may set you a fairer Copy to write after, when you next put pen to paper, we shall endeavour by God's assistance, 
Pro. 26. 4, 5.  to answer so much of your papers, as concerns us in common with other Ministers, without answering your passions.  
And Sir, upon our first view of your Pamphlet, we cannot 
Sect. 1.  but tell you, that if your Title-page were calculated for the Meridian of your Book, you mistook yourself extremely: For 
Tituli remedia, pixides venena.  (to let pass the Title itself, wherein you abuse the glorious name of Christ's Innocency, to patronise your own guilt) we cannot but wonder how Seneca (an Heathen) comes to be so great in your esteem, that you that will not allow us to quote Hierome, Augustine, Calvin, or Luther, yet think your Book 
Epistle p. D.  credited by the wrested Testimony of a Pagan Philosopher prefixed thereunto. 
Sect. 2.   
But to let that pass, and proceed to your Epistle, which only because you direct it to the whole body of the Ministry, we suppose ourselves concerned in. The rest of your Book, because we are assured from your Adversary that he will speedily take it in hand; we suppose you will give us leave to be so ingenuous as to leave to his able Pen, without interpreting it any wise to proceed from any consciousness of our own weakness, that we meddle not with it.  
And here in the first place, we con you many thanks for the charitable advice you begin withal, and assure you, that the more we think of the day and hour, which in your entrance you mind us of, and that account we must hereafter therein give to the righteous Judge of Heaven and Earth, the more are we excited to the conscientious discharge of that office, which (however you revile) we are sufficiently assured he will own at that day to be held by commission from him: and the more are we encouraged against all that evil entertainment, which (for the discharge thereof) we meet withal, from men of corrupt minds, 
2. Tim. 3. 8.  reprobate as concerning the Faith. And we hope, we shall take warning (even from an Adversary) to walk worthy of our high and holy calling, and not wear our Livery to the disgrace of our Master. But we are jealous, that whatever use we may make of your counsel, you intent it to far another purpose; to wit, rather as a sly way of casting reproach upon us, by insinuating that we stand in need of being so advised, then out of any intention to do us good by that advice. [I wish you were] (in your language) is no other, then [I proclaim your are not:] 
Sect. 3.  And although you tell us immediately after, that you will not undertake 
Epistle, pag. 2.  rashly to judge us, or accuse us to the world (from which crime of rash judgement you think yourself sufficiently secured by comparing our works with our rule, the Scriptures) and then proceed (as you think cum privilegio) to misapply Scriptures, to slander us, yet we must retort upon you that which you give in way of advice to us, that the hour is coming, when all cover shall be removed, and the veils plucked off from 
Ep. p. 1.  all faces; and then we doubt not but you will be found, not only a rash, but a false accuser, and that to the world (in Print) notwithstanding that colour and covering which you hid it withal.  
For do you believe in earnest, that those Prophets of whom 
Sect. 4.  Micah speaks, that teach for hire, and divine for money, or those 
Mic. 3, 11. Mar. 23. 5, 6, 7.  whom our Saviour notes, for doing their works to be seen of men, for standing to pray in the Synagogues and the corners of the streets for loving the uppermost rooms at Feasts, etc. are characters suiting the men of your indignation, whom you endeavour to degrade from the esteem they have, as Ministers of Christ, by such intimations as these? You pretend to something of Scholarship and reason, and cannot but know, except your new light have quite put out the old, that the Priests and Prophets that Micah speaks of were such, as made their hire the end of their teaching and prophesying, and accordingly accommodated their Doctrines to the corrupt humours of those, from whom they expected their reward; a thing which a fixed maintenance, by Tithes, or otherwise by Law established, secures our Ministers from the tentation of.  
It is you, and your brethren that would make us such as you slander us to be, by reducing us to voluntary contributions, which would be quickly detained from us, as often as we should dare to differ from the opinions, or reprove the Vices of our Neighbours.  
And who are you, Sir, that judge our hearts, when you tell 
Sect. 5.  us, what we aim at, and set up as our end in teaching, which you do more than once, and twice in your Epistle, and Book? How long have you been seated in the Throne of the most high God, and made a Judge of the secrets of men's hearts, that you tell us that we preach for hire, and do our works to be seen of men, and that we love the upper-most rooms, etc. As for standing to pray in the Synagogues, if you consult the place whence you pretend to draw that parallel between the Pharisees and us, you will find that the action is not condemned, but the end, to be seen of men; they neglecting in the mean time to pray in their 
Mat. 6. 5.  Closets, where man could not take notice of their devotion. And so this charge (except you will say, with some of your companions, that you know the heart) comes under the same 
G. Fox see the perfect Pharisee, p. 49. and 4.  condemnation of slander with the rest.  
The corners of the streets, if they be used by any persons in these days, for religious uses, we know not who herein resemble the Pharisees, more than those of your own Fraternity (and Sisterhood too) who, though they meddle little with prayer, (it is to be seared) any where, yet choose the streets, and Market-places to vent their pretended Declarations from God.  
Your next Paragraph endeavours to fasten upon us the imputation 
Sect. 6.  of Persecuters, and upon yourselves the character of Christian sufferers. To which, we shall say only thus much in this place, That we adore that gracious Providence which keeps us out of the reach of your malice; otherwise we are assured we should not be long without that persecution which you make the badge of true Ministers, for better Doctrines and practices, than those, which some of yours suffer for.  
In the mean while, we have our shares sufficiently in the persecution of your tongues, and hands, as far as you can, by impoverishing us, and our Families, by detaining our just and legal subsistence, disturbing us in the exercise of our public worship, etc. which we suffer constantly from those of your fellowship and communion. What further needs to be spoken to this head, as it concerns your usage from us, will be taken up in its due place, and more largely debated with you hereafter 
See Sect. 9, 10.   
That we are not the Ministers of Christ, because we indent 
Sect. 7.  for our maintenance, where we sit down in a charge, and that we sue for the tenth of their increase, those that own us not for their Pastors, is the sum of your charge. To the first branch whereof, we can, divers of us, reject it as a mere slander: many Ministers in this Nation living upon as free a contributionmaintenance, as any of yourselves, but in a more orderly way; Their people contribute to those Pastors that reside among them, and not to wandering Preachers, whose faces they seldom see, and from whose standing converse with, or inspection over them they can receive no benefit. And others of us maintain many Lectures, either simply, or jointly, for which we receive as little, as the Quakers themselves would wish. And as for those that either indent for maintenance, or enter upon the maintenance already settled by Law; we are sure they are not blame-worthy, for that, to gain the repute of Ministers, they do not prove themseles worse than Infidels, in not providing for themselves and their Families, which the Apostles light makes a badge of one that hath denied the faith (the proper 
1 Tim. 5. 8.  character of some of yours, who wander up and down to the manifest and apparent ruin of themselves, and those that they are bound to provide for.) Nor are we at all startled at the practice of the Apostles under an extraordinary command, so confessed (in effect) by yourselves in your own practice, (for why else do you not travel about to declare without Purses, or Shoes on your feet, or Staves in your hands, commands immediately subjoyning to that of giving freely what they had 
Mat. 10. 8, 9, 10.  freely received, in the same place of Scripture) and appearing to be such; if we compare Luke 22. 36. where Christ in another exigency of time allows them to make that provision for themselves, which in the former command he forbade them. For we are sufficiently assured, that the Apostles themselves were maintained by the Church in which they laboured, excepting only the Apostle Paul, and his companion Barnabas, and that only 
Act. 20. 34 See 2 Cor. 11. 7. v. 9 and 2 Thes. 3. 8, 9  at Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica, where (little to their credit too, if we mark the tart reflections of the Apostle upon their sordidness) they wrought with their hands, for special reasons assigned in the Texts themselves; yet withal the said Apostle asserts it as an Ordinance of God (and that founded upon reason, and Scripture too) that they that preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel; and withal affirmeth his own and his brethren's power to have claimed the same from them, which they received from other Churches. We forbear transcribing Texts, you may find this and more, 2 Thes. 3. 9 and 1 Cor. 9 from verse 6. to the end of the 14. which Scripture we observe in most of the Pamphlets published by the Adversaries of Ministers maintenance, is passed over with deep silence; and so expect it will be by you and your brotherhood, or answered by (the common refuge of Heretics) the decrying of interpretations, and inferences upon Scripture. When you further urge the same Apostles practise, against coveting other men's silver and gold, or apparel; We have nothing to object against you, provided that you will not call requiring that which is legally our own, a coveting that which is another's: Surely no man holds the nine parts, by firmer Law in these Nations, than the Minister claims his tenth by: And how can it then be more covetous in a Minister to sue for that which is his by Law, then in others to detain it from him without Law? so that we fear the coveting other men's silver and gold will lie at yours and your brethren's doors, and you will never be able to sweep it away.  
The claiming a maintenance from those without, and exacting it of those that never hear us, which you further object against us, as a disparagement to our Ministerial calling, comes under the 
See Sect. 18, 19, 20, etc.  consideration of maintenance in the way of Tithes, which we refer to its proper place, where it falls in your discourse.  
That some who bear the name of Ministers (and such 
Sect. 8.  as we no less disown, than yourself) live in darkness, swearing, etc. (the declaiming against whom is the substance of your next Paragraph, and your fifth proof against our Calling;) we confess and bewail, and did the anger that dwells in you and your brethren extend to none but those, who may justly come under that charge, we should willingly join with you in the prosecution of them; and do it where any such come within our reach. Yea we further must profess, we should be very glad, that some men in power among us, who are very favourable to your party, were as zealous against them as we. We must freely declare that those that are indeed such, have been sheltered (upon prosecution) under the wings of some such among us, & we verily believe it is in their hearts to wish us all such, that they might have some colour to strike off the neck of the whole Ministry at a blow.  
But we must tell you (whilst we are not all such, and now fewer such then formerly) that it is an injurious procedure in you, to reflect disparagement upon a whole Profession, for the fault of some that against their wills join themselves to them: Should all the swearing, drunken, and otherwise disorderly companions, that frequent the Quakers Assemblies, be reckoned among them, and all be judged by some, you would think it hard usage. We hope you will be contented to buy by the same Bushel you sell withal.  
But you are fain to come off from this charge as too gross to be generally laid upon the whole Ministry, with [are there not a great sort of you such?] and [are your hands all clean from this filth?] only you come in with an after-charge against the rest in another Quaere, Viz. Among those of you that have escaped that open pollution of drunkenness with Wine, are you not yet intoxicated with wrath, and rage against the innocent. And you proceed, enquiring, Whether in the Prisons and Dungeons of England, Jesus Christ doth not as truly lie bound by our instigation and procurement (to wit, in those dear Servants of his the Quakers, who account it no robbery to be at least equal with their Master) as he did by the procurement of Saul in Damascus? And yet further, Whether if any poor Jeremiah came from the Lord to bear witness against our abominations (to wit, in those abominable practices of instructing the people against the delusions of the times, which is the greatest Antidote against that Plague of Error and Heresy, that is dispersed over all the Nation; and worshipping God according to the rule of his blessed word, and the light of our own consciences) Whether there be wanting among us a Lordly Pastor, who (in case the Magistrate be so honest, (to wit, through cowardice, or lukewarmness) as to refuse) will not with his own hands put his feet in the Stocks? To which we say, we know none of our Profession that take so much upon them, if you do, you may do well to discover them; and we should be well contented for their pains, to see them set there a while themselves, till they learn to do their own business. And then you catechise, us further in our rule (as with scorn enough you often call the Scriptures, for which we must reckon with you at large anon.) Whether ever the true Prophets of the Lord did persecute or imprison any that were differing from them in matters of Religion? And Whether they be in Christ's esteem Shepherds, or Wolves, who worry the Sheep instead of feeding them, & c? After which you spend a great deal of rhetoric in anticipating the Judgement of Christ at the last day, as if you were already bespoken to be Clerk of the Arraignments against that Assize: In answer whereunto we say no more but this; Judge not, that ye be not judged: And we make no question, that if no better evidence be brought against us at that day, than any you yet offer, to prove those high Criminations; that our Not-guilty will be as good a plea (though without a distinction) as your charge of Guilty will be an Indictment without a proof.  
But supposing we were (indeed) the Persecuters, the Sect. 10 Worriers, the Imprisoners, of those men of your right hand, provided, we were legally commissioned thereunto (which we hope we shall never desire for ourselves, nor allow in others of our Function) yet why all distinctions should be a plea so inconsistent with the Justice of that Court (as you intimate to us it will be) we know not. Nay, we have a little light from (our low rule) the Scripture, that persuades us there 
P. 4, 5.  may be some use of them then. For in that short description of the last Judgement, whence you draw out a Copy of our Arraignment, not without some aggravating expostulations (viz. Mat. 25 41, 42. &c) we find the Judge distinguishing upon the Bench, to conclude the Offenders within the reach of the Law; For the wicked there indicted are brought in pleading their Not guilty, as to the neglect of relieving and visiting Christ in his own person. To take off which plea, and clear the equity of his condemnatory sentence; he distinguisheth between himself in his person, and himself in his little ones, or Members; and granting their plea as to the former, rejects it as to the later. Now, surely we cannot believe that the Judge of the whole World will not at that great and solemn day, give us the latitude he takes to himself. If he distinguish upon the Law, he will allow us to distinguish upon the Indictment. We know not if we be indicted for worrying the Sheep; why we may not plead the Scripture distinction between Sheep indeed, and Wolves in Sheep's clothing; and if we can indeed prove that we worry no other, but disguised Wolves (upon which proof indeed we are contented to lay the whole stress of our present, and (we hope) future justification in this whole matter now in debate between us) we cannot but expect the same discharge at the Bar, which we should not doubt from humane equity, in case, being indicted for assaulting and beating a true Subject upon Salisbury plains, we could make it appear, that we beat only a Thief, and that upon our own necessary defence: So that indeed, all that outrageous cry which you afterward make against the poor Presbyters for justifying the Scribes and 
P. 5.  Pharisees, and the Lordly Bishops in former times (who, you persuade yourself) had the same distinction to plead, for crucifying the Lord of Glory, and his precious Saints, and persecuting the Puritans, etc. to wit, that they used them thus under the notion of blasphemous Heretics and Deceivers) falls to the ground, if we can prove those whom we are charged to persecute, such as we take them to be. And this we doubt not to make good against you, and your brethren in the way of Quaking, in the process of this our book, and then shall leave the whole matter to our Lord, and yours, to judge between us at the great day of his appearing. But than you will allow us Sect. 11 (we hope) not to suffer you to phrase your own Indictment, as you do very dextrously and artificially, in favour of yourself and your Generation, in the following Section of your Epistle; wherein you make yourself, and your Reader pretty sport, by drawing up a ridiculous charge against yourselves, and then set our names to it, as if we had made so great a cry (as you mention) for so little wool, and had no matters of greater moment to exhibit against you, than those which you will confess against yourselves. And yet we must tell you, that you were not very well advised (if you meant wholly to clear yourselves from those imputations) to confess so much as you do in many passages of your Book, which we shall deal with anon. Mean while we dare not let you alone to cousin the World into a good esteem of your opinions by your ambiguous expressions, and therefore we must crave your patience, if we come after you, and sift you, that by being first in your own cause, 
Pro. 18. 17.  you may not seem uprighter than indeed you are.  
First, you take it ill to be charged as Blasphemers, for Sect. 12 affirming, that Christ is the light that enlighteneth every one that cometh into the world, and that he that followeth that light (your 
Jo. 8. 2.  Text (by the way) saith, He that followeth me, and the words [that light] are your interpretation and meaning, which (were we as peevish as those of your way) we might reject) shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life; adding further, that that light is sufficient to teach them and guide them to the Father: and thence ask for a close, What need then of our teachings?  
We hope (seeing you stand upon your purgation) you will give us leave to ask you a few questions upon this Article.  
1. Q. What light is that with which Christ enlightens every man? It is Christ himself (we would say, if you would give us leave for distinction sake) personally, or is it a light infused in him? If so,  
2. Q. It is the light of bare reason in a reasonable Soul, or is it the discovery of himself by supernatural revelation?  
3. Q. Whether the mere light of reason be sufficient to lead all men, Heathens and all, to the Father savingly; or only (as the place partially quoted in your next Article hath it) to that which may be known of him, by the things that are made, that they may be without excuse? or  
4. Q. Whether if any mere Pagan live up to the natural light of his own reason or conscience, God be bound to bestow upon him that farther light, which is sufficient to bring him to salvation?  
Q 5. If Christ be (in your sense) the light of every one that comes into the World; why is it that Judas saith Jo. 14. 23. Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not to the World?  
And when you have answered (plainly and without equivocations) to these quaeres; possibly you may retort your closing Quaere upon yourselves: What need then of our teachings, as well as the Priests?  
You would feign make us believe (in your next Article) Sect. 13 that you say no more in the case of the Heathens light, than the Apostle doth, Rom. 1. 19 20. which is (as you render it) That that which may be known of God is manifest in their consciences (where again, though we contradict it not, yet we observe you can interpret, and give your meanings upon Scripture, though in us it be adding to the Scripture; for the Text saith no more but in them, or (as in your Margin) to them. (God having, say you farther, revealed it to them) [shown] saith the Text, [revealed] is your meaning, because it makes more for your own turn; so that they not having a Law without them (interpretation again) they are a Law to themselves, etc. Rom. 2. 14, 15.  
Now you would insinuate, that you hold forth no more than the Scripture doth therein: Which whether you do or no, will appear by your plain and ingenuous answer to the former Quaeres. Mean while, we desire you to take notice. 1 That the words in the Text [That which may be known of God] implies, that there is something of God which may not be known to Heathens, as such; which is the way of being reconciled to him, and justified in his sight, through Christ Jesus, and other like Gospel discoveries of him, necessary to salvation. (2.) That the knowledge they have of him, is by the Apostle affirmed to be a light without them, as well as within them, for God shows it to them by the things that are made. (3.) That if the Heathens (as you say) have only a Law within them, and none without them, we are little beholding to your principles, that would reduce us to the condition of Heathens, by setting up a light within us to the exclusion of a light without us. As also, (4.) That Quakers and Heathens may shake hands, seeing both of them live by the same Law, and the same light too.  
You further insinuate (Artile 3.) that in the Doctrine 
Sect. 14.  of perfection here below; you are falsely accused by us for blaspheming: Whereas you say no more than our Saviour himself commands, when he bids us be perfect, as our Father in Heaven is perfect; which commands, you say, is not given in 
Mat. 5. 48.  mockery, or requires an impossibility. You add, that the same Christ spoke truth, when he bore witness of Nathaniel, that he was an Israelite in whom was no guile: and that Paul did not 
Io. 1. 47.  design an impossibility when he laboured to present men perfect in Christ Jesus. And you would suggest that you affirm no more: 
Col. 1. 28.  We answer, whether this be all you yourself hold of perfection, or no, we will not judge. But we shall show you anon, that those of your persuasion are not altogether so modest. It is well if yourself be so, when you will please to speak out, which we scarce believe you will do, in a charge against yourself of your own drawing up. But we hope, you will allow us to ask you a few questions upon this Article also, seeing you stand upon your justification.  
Q. 1. To what purpose is all this? Did any of your pretended Accusers ever accuse our Saviour Christ, for mockery or commanding impossibilities, in this command of perfection? or for falsehood in his commendation of Nathaniel? or the Apostle Paul for designing an impossibility.  
2. Qu. Whether the perfection commanded by Christ, or that which is commended in Nathaniel, or aimed at by Paul, be a perfection of degrees, and that as high as that of God himself; or a perfection of kind, truth, or sincerity? Say not that we coin distinctions of perfection out of our own brain. Doth not the Scripture call Job a perfect man, Job 1. 1. and yet chap. 3. gives us a sad instance of his imperfections, and Job himself renounceth perfection in himself, chap. 9 20, 21. Doth not the Apostle Paul himself, in one chapter, affirms and deny himself to be perfect, Phil. 3. 12. 15. And therefore (seeing, as we hope, you will not allow any contradictions in Scripture) there a necessity to distinguish of different senses, wherein they affirm and deny. And if we distinguish amiss, we wish you, or your companions would do it better. Nay, we suppose both these sorts of perfection necessarily held forth in the Scriptures of your own quotation. For the command of our Saviour says not, Be ye as perfect as your Father which is in Heaven, but Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. [Perfect as] doth not imply more than a perfection of the same kind, which perfection we profess, a perfection consisting in truth and sincerity of holiness, the perfection of Nathaniel [as perfect] denotes a perfection of degrees, which (in the comparison with an infinitely holy God) we deny to be attainable by any Creature, or to be asserted concerning any Creature, without highest blasphemy. But a perfection of degrees suitable to the capacity of finite Creatures, we hope for in Heaven; and a perfection of degrees suitable to the capacity of mortal creatures, we press towards yourselves, and endeavour with Paul, to present all our hearers unto Jesus Christ in the same at the last day.  
4. About your forth Article concerning rejecting all meanings 
Sect. 15.  and interpretations of Scripture, we shall take a more convenient time to reckon with you in a distinct Question subjoined hereunto. Only we make bold to ask you here also.  
Qu. Whether [to interpret Christ's and the Apostles say] be not injuriously reflected upon by you as a denial that they meant as they spoke? and whether a man may not mean as he speaks, and yet not to be understood without interpretation? we are so charitable to think that divers of the Familists and Quakers mean as they speak, and yet we cannot understand their meaning by their speaking, in divers odd phrases used by them, without interpretation; would you would give us a Lexicon of them.  
5. Your fifth Article, we shall speak more largely to in 
Sect 16.  this place. You say, that you and your Complices assert, that Christ did not speak one thing and intent another, when he commanded men not to swear at all, but to let their yea, be yea, and nay, nay: Whereas we that are (scornfully enough) by you called Orthodox, do both swear ourselves, and teach others so to do. And you add the reason (as good a one as you please to allow us) because otherwise we might happily go without our maintenance, for want of swearers in Courts of Justice, against those Heretics that refuse to pay us Tithes. And in your Margin (to give us a touch of your learning, that we may take it for an act of self-denial in your after-declared contempt thereof, and not an act of envious declaiming against the Grapes you cannot reach) you quote the Original in that prohibition, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with this note, That it is a prohibition so universal, that it admitteth of no exception. Upon which Article we first observe two things.  
1. That it was very warily done of the Founders of the Quaking Religion, who are by many judicious men supposed to be Papists, to insert an Article in their new Creed, to excuse them from being discovered, by refusing the Oath of Abjuration, which they may (under the shelter of your Principles) do, and yet pass undiscovered. Secondly we quaere,  
We observe secondly, that the Quakers refusing to swear according to the Ceremony now required in England, of kissing the Bible, and swearing by the contents of that Book, is suitable to their Doctrine; that the Scriptures are not our rule, and (by consequence that God will not judge us according to the contents of the Bible; so that to call God to witness according to the contents of that book, according to which they conceive he will not judge, were absurd. It may be if a new form of an Oath, such as by the light within them, were required, they might be persuaded to swear.  
Qu. 1. Whether our Saviour Christ spoke or intended any thing which might clash with the express command of God elsewhere? And if not, then surely Christ's words in this place must not be taken so unlimitedly as you say, seeing we find a command Deut. 5. 13. Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and swear by his name. So also Deut. 10. 20.  
Qu. 2. Whether our Saviour Christ forbidden any part of God's moral Worship, or no? If not, than we are assured he forbids 
See Jer. 4. 2. & Is. 45. 23. which peculiarly concerneth us, as referring to Gospel times, and is therefore quoted by the Apostle, Rom. 14. 21. with such a variation of the phrase swearing, into confessing, as plainly proves, that to swear by God is sometimes a necessary part of our confession and acknowledgement of him.  not swearing without any exception. For we find it frequently made a part of God's moral Worship to swear by his name, and it is also joined in the mentioned Scriptures with fearing and serving God.  
Qu. 3. Whether our Saviour Christ cut off by this command any necessary means of deciding controversies between man and man, or confirming truth in matters of testimony? If so, surely he would thereby have rendered his Doctrine justly obnoxious, as being destructive to humane society: If not, we are certain he forbids not all swearing without exception: for the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us that an Oath of confirmation is an end of all strife, Heb. 6. 16.  
Q. 4. Whether the Author in his former Article, setting forth God as a Pattern of perfection to us, doth not therein allow us in some Cases to swear? seeing we are told, Heb. 6. 17. that God himself allows himself to swear for those ends, for which an Oath is legally used by men, viz. for confirmation of his word.  
Q. 5. Whether without swearing upon the call of a Magistrate, all men's estates be not as liable to prejudice, as the maintenance of the Ministry? And whether cheating companions will not be as prone to take the same advantage against other men, in case there was no judicial Oaths required, as it seems (by the Author's confession) Heretics would against poor Ministers? except we must take it for granted, that every man's yea, yea, and nay, nay, is as a sufficient security in this case of testifying the Truth judicially, as a solemn Oath.  
Q. 6. Whether Abraham did well or ill, to require an Oath of his Servant, Gen. 24. 3. Jacob of Joseph, 50. 5. Nehemiah of the Jews, Neh. 13 25. Or (if you evade these examples, as being before Christ) whether the Apostle Paul did well or ill to swear, Gal. 1. 20. etc.  
In a word, this Doctrine of the unlawfulness of swearing in Sect. 14 any case, is a fragment of the old German Anabaptists, a Generation of men against whom the Magistrates saw sufficient cause to dispute with the Sword of Justice, for being public enemies to humane Society: and it concerns you to take heed that the Magistracy of England may never have the like provocation to follow their example against their genuine issue, the Quakers, and other Sectaries among us.  
But (lest you should seem justly to charge us with swearing ourselves, and teaching others to do so, contrary to the command of Christ) we must, in the close, let you know how we swear, and allow others to do so; and what swearing we forbear ourselves, and preach down among them, in obedience to Christ's command: We must tell you, that being lawfully called to witness to truth upon Oath, before a Magistrate, we shall not ourselves refuse to swear, that is (according to the form required in Law) to call God to witness that we lie not: But in our communication, or ordinary discourse, we desire, both we and our hearers, may keep to our yea, yea, and nay, nay, as Christ commands, and not to swear at all, because we dare not take, or allow others to take the name of God in vain. And this we suppose to be all that our Saviour intends in that Prohibition, that in our communication we should not swear at all. If any one be not convinced hereof by what we have said, let him reconcile our Saviour's Prohibition, to the precepts and examples before pleaded some other way, and  
— Phyllida solus habeto,  
He shall gain the cause in this point.  
Your following three Articles, viz. 6. 7, 8. are all concerning Sect. 18 Tithes and forced maintenance, wherein the sum and upshot of all, shows your charity to the poor Ministry, that you would feign have them reduced to the condition of the unjust Steward, that is, either to work, or beg. For working, we suppose (in such a Generation, as God hath now east us into) we shall not want) whilst besides the ordinary attendance upon our charges, which the Apostle Paul accounted a work, and a great one too, 1 Thes. 5. 13. Eph. 4. 12. and such as none will be too forward to intrude into, that sufficiently understands the weight of it, 2 Cor. 2. 16. The work of a Builder, a Sour, 
1 Cor. 3. 10. Mar. 4. 13: 1 Cor. 3. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 6. Jo. 21. 26. Heb. 13. 15. 2 Tim. 2. 3 P. 40.  a Planter, an Husbandman, a Shepherd, a Watohman, a Soldier:) We are called upon to answer every idle railing Paper, that you, and your companions send us. But (seeing you account this no work) it seems you would have us work with our hands, or beg: An hard Law, for men that have been bred in a way of humane Learning, which elsewhere, you seem to allow some use in the World, it may serve to tile the house, you confess, and in that place you are content it shall stand. But surely should this Law of yours take place [that those that have been bred to study, must have no subsistence but by handy work, or begging] I fear the next Generation would yield few Tiles to keep the house in repair, so that it would quickly drop through, and you, as well as others, would not be able to lie dry in it: For who will give his Children ingenuous Education at the Schools of Learning, and set them there to spend the flower of their youth in acquiring humane literature; when the highest preferment they could expect after ten or twenty year's Study, would be either to work, or beg? would not, every one conclude it better to set their Sons to some Trade or other, in their youth, that so at the end of seven years they might be able to get a livelihood at their finger's ends, or turn them a begging in their Childhood, rather than maintain them twice seven years at School, and University, to come thence to be preferred to a certain beggary, as being the only lot of the two, like to befall them, who are utterly to learn to work, having never been bred thereunto?  
But the measure you meet unto us, is harder yet: You that will have us work, or beg, will not allow us to carry so much as a Purse to put our Wages in, when we have earned it, nor a Scrip to put our Alms in, when we have begged it; but to live as the Sparrows do, that digest one meals meat in seeking where to get another. I suppose, should God call us to that condition either by an extraordinary command, as Christ did his 
Lu. 10. 7.  Apostles in the place you quote, or by an extraordinary providence (as we suspect in case you can compass your fifth Monarchy, it would befall us) we should not want faith to trust him, who feeds the Sparrows, and clothes the Lilies; whether in a way of working, as we are able, or ask the charity of others, when disabled: We have learned a distich of learned and honest Musculus, which he made when the fury of the German Anabaptists (your Predecessors) turned him out of his Pulpit, and maintenance, and enforced him to wove and dig for a subsistence for himself and his Family.  
Est Deus in Coelis, qui providus omnia curate,  
Credentes nunquam deseruisse potest.  
Which for the sake of your Brethren, who (whatsoever you are) are no great friends to Latin, we shall english.  
A God in Heaven lives, whose care extends  
To all, and therefore will not fail his friends.  
But we question yet further, whether you, that would require Sect. 19 us to follow precisely the Apostolical example in that Chapter, will not yet go further than this, in your rigorous exactions. Suppose we should work without a Purse, and beg without a Scrip at your command, what security will you give us, that you will not make us work, and beg barefoot too. For if your Text concern us, we cannot see how we may be allowed Shoes to our feet, more than Purses and Scrips; and then possibly we might please you better, seeing we should be more like your good friends, the Franciscan Friars, who are the only men that we have heard of, since our Saviour sent out the Apostles upon that extraordinary errand, who have thought themselves concerned to walk by that rule: Wherefore if you must have Ministers of that character, you are most likely to fit yourselves among them.  
For our parts, we bless God that yet provides better for us, and whilst he continues to do so, we shall not think a profession of voluntary Monkish poverty, our duty to undertake, seeing we dare not take God's Gifts, and throw them back into his face, by contemning the gracious allowance of his providence.  
As for the way of our subsistence by Tithes and forced maintenance, Sect. 20 you will needs make it unlawful as being (you say) a levitical Ordinance, and (as you add in your Book, where 
P. 13.  you again serve in this Crambo) appointed as an inheritance to the Priests and Levites for their service in the Tabernacle and Temple: and thereupon you proceed to ask these Queries in your Book.  

1. Whether Christ was not the end of the levitical Priesthood?  
2. Whether he that upholdeth that which was to have an end in Christ, do not deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and consequently is Antichrist?  
3 Whether they that claim Priests and Levites Maintenance ought not to do their work?   
And this indeed is the sum of all that you say to this point; (for as to forcing the payment of maintenance by Law, it will stand or fall with the maintenance itself:) Concerning this we shall have a little debate with you.  
And first, we desire you to understand, that Tithes were paid before ever the levitical Priesthood was appointed. Surely abraham's Victory over the Kings, and jacob's Vow were before the levitical Ordinances were set up, many hundreds of years.  
If you object (what we frequently meet withal from the men of your principles) that these were voluntary Acts in those Patriarches. However we observe it was lawful to give and receive them then; and it lies on you to prove when it became unlawful.  
But further, we demand by what light they walked in so doing? was it by a Light without them, some traditional rule received from their godly Ancestors? If so, than it was a voluntary obedience to a Law; Tradition being their Law: If by a light within them, some immediate motion from God so to do; then we say; that by the same inward light, were those Kings and Princes, and other Proprietors of Lands that gave Tithes in this Nation, long before Popery began, moved to dedicate the Tithes of their Lands to God for ever. And so we receive them by the same Title with those to whom they were then paid, excepting the consideration of Melchizedeck as he was a Type of Christ, which yet confirms our Title, as you shall see anon.  
And moreover we must tell you, that the very reason which God gives for his making that allowance to Levie's Posterity afterwards, is the Title that he had to them precedent to Levi's, whence the Levites themselves were first to offer them to the 
Numb. 18. 24, 25, etc.  Lord, and then they were to enjoy them as from God; and therefore Mal. 3 8. 9 when the people through covetousness than withdrew them, as now some do, God himself enters an Indictment against them: Ye have rob me, saith he, in Tithes and Offerings; not Levi, but Me: So that they were Gods by a peculiar claim and Title, and the Levites held them from him, not from the people; and therefore they were to bring them into a Storehouse in the Temple; as Mede a learned 
Mede on Act. 5. 34.  Antiquary well observes, and gives the reason from Philo the Jew, to wit, that he might thereby take away all occasion from the people, of upbraiding the Priests, as if they were maintained at their charge, God first claiming them, and then demising them to the Priests, their maintenance became (as Philo says) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Gift that reflected no shame upon the receivers, who thereby became God's Eleemosynaries, or Almes-men, not the People's.  
But it may be you will say, that the first claim which God Sect. 21 made to Tithes, was then, when he gave them to Levi, and so they were not more anciently Gods, than the other levitical Offerings. So that God claiming them then first, that he might bestow them on the Jewish Priests, they are since the abolishing of that Administration no more due than Sacrifices.  
For answer whereunto, we refer you to Mr. Ainsworth, a man very well versed in Jewish Antiquities (and one that should be 
Answ. on Gen. 14. 19  more esteemed by you being a friend to separation) who tells you expressly, that Abraham's and jacob's payment of Tithes was but according to their duty; as a sign of Tribute and Homage to God, as Sovereign Lord and King. And Abraham particularly in his payment of Tithes to Melchizedek, walked by the equity of that rule, which the Apostle afterwards left on record, in express terms, Rom. 15. 27. That it was but meet, that he being made partaker of Melchizedeks spiritual things, should minister to him in carnal things. And he further gives us some light to conclude that this Custom of Tythe-paying, was by nature implanted in the hearts of men, or at least derived by Tradition from the Patriarches. Because even the Heathens (who you say, have the light of Christ in them) paid Tithes to their Gods, which practise surely they did not take up of the Jews (they did not love them so well) but from some higher Original. He quotes the Athenians from Diog. Laertius, and the ancient Latins, from Pomponius Loetus, and Macrobius, for instances.  
Sir, we had not suffered our Pens to expatiate into this field Sect. 22 of humane Learning, but that we deal with you, who profess an allowance of it in its place; and we suppose it is not out of place, in the search of Antiquities, especially when the question is concerning the Origine, or beginning of Tithes, which you say (at least as commanded) is in the levitical Priesthood, we, before it.  
But we do not lay the weight of our dispute in this particular Sect. 23 upon this foundation. We shall debate the question with you a little more closely, from your own Chapter which you appeal to in this case, viz. Heb. 7. And because the strength of all the Queries thence lies in v. 12. which asserts a necessary change of the Law, upon the change of the Priesthood from the order of Aaron, to that of Melchizedek; we desire you first to consider, that it is not necessary to be granted, that by the Law there said to be changed must be meant the Law of Tithes, but the Law of Priesthood; that Law, that set up Levi's Posterity for Priests, which Law differs from that of Tithes very much. However, that Scripture will not stead you without interpretation, and that you renounce.  
But to gratify you, we will suppose your meaning and interpretation, Sect. 24 for once (though that be more favour than you will show us:) and upon your own supposition, try one Argument with you, and that is this.  
If the abolition of the Law of Tithes depend upon the abolition of the Priesthood, to which they were due; then (we hope you will allow us that) if the Priesthood to which Tithes were once due (and that before the levitical Priesthood) be not abolished, the Law of Tithes to that Priesthood is not abolished.  
But we shall prove that the Priesthood to which Tithes were once due, and that long before the levitical Priesthood was in being, is not abolished, which if we do, we hope we may be allowed to conclude  
Therefore there is no abolishment of the Law of Tithes, but it is still in force.  
That the Priesthood to which Tithes were originally due is not abolished, we prove thus from the same Chapter.  
The Priesthood to which Tithes were (before the levitical Priesthood) due, was the Melchizedekian Priesthood. But the Melchizedekian Priesthood, or Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek is not abolished, For it is Christ's Priesthood, Heb. 16, 17, verses. Therefore the Priesthood to which Tithes were originally due, is not abolished.  
All that we suppose herein is to be proved, is, that Tithes were due to Melchizedeks order of Priesthood, and so still remain Sect. 25 due to Christ, who is a Priest for ever after that order.  
Now for proof of this, we refer you higher in the same Chapter, viz. to v. 4. and thence down to the 10. And we desire you to consider with us these three reasons from the Text, to prove that Abraham paid Tithes to Melchizedek as a due.  
1. You pretend to skill in the Original Tongue, and therefore you will not be offended if we argue from it, as you do more than once, or twice. Abraham (in the Apostles phrase) 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. v. 5.  is said to be Tithed by Melchizedek, and Melchizedek to tithe him, v. 6. 9 which is the very same word Originally, with that which is used in the Sons of Levi's tithing of the people by commandment, v. 5. Now if the word as applied to the Levites, signify to require Tithes, as it doth, it seems unlikely it was used with relation to Melchizedek, to denote a receiving of Tithes by way of gratuity only.  
2. We desire you to consider the scope of the Apostle in that place, which is to advance Melchizedeks Priesthood, as an Order superior to Levi's. This the Apostle proves, because Levi himself in Abraham's loins paid Tithes to Melchizedek. v. 9 Now had Melchizedek received Tithes from Levi, in Abraham's loins, as of courtesy only, and not of debt; it would have been a poor argument to prove Melchizedek a greater Priest, which will as well prove a Beggar a greater man than a Prince, because the Beggar receives from him, it may be, a sum of money out of his courtesy.  
3. We desire you to consider that Abraham paid the Tithe to Melchizedek, with relation to his blessing of him, which was an act of his Priestly Office, and shown Melchizedek to be Abraham's, and so Levi's superior, v. 6, 7. So that Melchizedek as a Priest, received tithes of Abraham, and Christ in Melchizedek, received them from both Abraham and Levi: which (possibly) may be the reason, why God reserved (even under the Law) the tenth of the Tithes, as an acknowledgement or high rent to Christ, the Priest, after the order of Melchizedek, to show that Levi held them of him. Numb. 18. 26, 27, 28. which tenth therefore was to be given to Aaron the high Priest, who was a Type of Christ.  
Possibly you may (according to the garb of your Generation) Sect. 26 reject these things as our dark reasonings. But seeing your own Assertions and Quaeres lead us hereunto, we hope you will take them into your consideration; at least; so far as to show us the darkness of them. In a word, you may here gather our Answer to your three Quaeres before mentioned, viz. to the  
First; That we grant an end of the levitical Priesthood in Christ.  
To the second, That in upholding Tithes, we uphold not that which was to have an end in Christ. Tithes being no necessary appendent to that Priesthood, but Christ's.  
To the third, That we receive not Tithes upon that account, but as Ministers of Christ, live upon Christ's portion; which, till our former arguments be answered, we suppose Tithes to be: and therefore are not by receiving them obliged to levitical service, but Gospell-administrations.  
These things we have a little enlarged upon, to let you know Sect. 27 that we are not altogether so destitute of Scripture-warrant for receiving, yea, requiring Tithes, even in kind, as you (insultingly enough) insinuate us to be: Whether these arguments conclude the divine right of Tithes, or no, deserves the consideration of abler men, than you, or we, to whom we humbly submit our conceptions herein. However, supposing the Law of Tithes be as you say, levitical, and merely so, in its original and rise; yet how you will prove that Law repealed, so that it becomes unlawful for any Proprietor of Land since that administration ceased, to set apart the same proportion of the incomes and profits thereof, for the maintenance of a Gospel's Ministry, we know not; we are sure the Apostle Paul did not think the maintenance of the levitical Priesthood so Jewish as you do, when he makes it one of the grounds of that Gospel-ordinance for Minister's maintenance, 1 Cor. 9 13, 14. Do you not know, that they which Minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple? etc. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel; and that is neither by working, nor begging.  
But then say you, this maintenance should not be compulsive, Sect. 28 to be recovered by Law, especially from the poor and needy, etc. For the true Prophets and Ministers of Christ mentioned in Scripture, did not so live on forced substance, but eaten and drank what the people gave.  
We answer (1.) That any of us should force maintenance from the poor and needy by Law, we confess it in matter of fact, blameworthy, because in cases of indigency, and necessity, it is every man's duty to relax and remit a just debt; but in matter of right, no man's legal Title falls, because of any such inability. So that you must first prove, that Ministers have no legal right to their Tenth, and then to force it from any, were sinful; till which, we shall conceive it in itself as lawful for a Minister to sue for his Tenth, as for another man to put in suit a just Bond.  
2. That the Ministers of Christ mentioned in Scripture, did not thus, was, because they had not the same legal right, backed with the power of a Christian Magistrate: or, because they were enforced to forbear that claim among forbid people, who loved their Purses better than the Gospel, 1 Cor. 9 12. and truly some of us, to sweeten perverse Opinionists, are feign to remit much of our legal due to those that are able to pay well enough.  
3. What you call forcing by Law, if you mean it of the Law of man, you condemn not us, but the public Justice. If you mean it of the Law of God, you had best ask the Apostle Paul, what he means in the same verse, by using, or not using a power of claiming maintenance from the people. If others be partakers, saith he, of this power, Viz. Of requiring maintenance for teaching, are not we rather? nevertheless, we have not used this power. And when he tells the Thessalonians, That he might have been burdensome to them, as the Apostles of Christ, 1 Thes. 2. 6.  
As for your other objection against us, that we do not trust Sect. 29 Gods providence, but indent for a maintenance. We answer, That we do not understand, how dependence upon divine providence comes to be inconsistent with using humane. You will think it an hard case, if all the poor in the Country should come about you, and require you to lend your Estate among them, hoping for nothing again (which is as plain Scripture 
Luke 5. 34, 35.  as that you urge us withal in this case) and if you should deny them so unreasonable a request, they should tell you you are no Christian, because you do not trust God's providence; we doubt in such a case, you would take shelter under some distinctions or other, as ill as you like them in the men of your scorn and wrath, the poor Ministers.  
In the ninth Article, you excuse your bold censures of our Sect. 30 hearts, in calling us Hypocrites, upon some pretended reasons, as yourself calls them, and we for our parts believe them no other.  
In the first reason, you justify the charge with a mere slander, Viz. That we preach against pride, and yet live in it, and covetousness, and yet are greedy of filthy lucre, etc. Those that do so, we disowne, and those that do not so (as thousands in this Nations do not) you belie.  
Secondly, You say, we are Hypocrites, because we often tell people, we should have proceeded further if time had not prevented us, when as indeed we have no more to say. How many Ministers have told you, they have been drawn so dry, that you thus charge us? It may be you did so when you were a Preacher, so you measure other men's Corn by your own Bushel.  
Your third reason is, because in our prayers before Sermon, we frequently beg that he would put words into our mouths, and teach us what to say, where as even then we have our Sermon-notes either in our Pockets, or our Bibles, or the platform of our discourse prepared in our heads.  
As for our Sermon-notes, those of us that use them, are feign to do so many times, when they would not, because they have to do with such a captious Generation as yours, who would make no conscience of making them say, what they do not, by misreports, had they not their own papers to justify themselves. And yet we know not why we may not write Notes, as well as you writ Books; we suppose that posterity is no less beholden to some Ministers Notes, then to yours.  
But your quarrel is not against Sermon-notes only, but against all premeditated discourse. Indeed those that can give themselves liberty to talk. at the rate that your companions do, need not meditate much for what they say; A man may safely say that hears you, that you are not guilty of premeditated discourses. But we for our parts conceive Meditation a very Ministerial exercise, else Paul would not have required it from Timothy, 1 Tim. 4. 15. Immediately after his charge, v. 13. to give attendance to exhortation, doctrine, he subjoins, meditate on these things. It seems the Apostle and you are of several minds in this particular, as well as in point of Minister's maintenance.  
But we wonder (whatsoever may be said against those that have, and use written-notes) how this reason of yours militates against those that have only the platform of their discourse prepared in their heads, that they must needs be judged Hypocrites for praying to God to put words into their mouths. May not a man that premeditates his matter, sometimes be at a loss for words? And may he not pray, that God would furnish him with expressions, who finds himself so, without hypocrisy?  
And as for those that use Sermon-notes, might not they express themselves more aptly sometimes then they write? And why then may they not pray, that God would supply them with apt language, upon the service they are called unto, than they have prepared of themselves? We believe there are no godly Ministers, but find this assistance frequently, God directing their tongues to considerable alterations, and enlargements beyond what they have before them, and bringing many things to their memories, concerning which they had no actual pre-meditation.  
Your tenth Article brings in an Indictment of Felony against Sect. 31 poor Ministers, for quoting of the Fathers and Expositors of the Scripture; and this you think will justify you against an action of slander, for calling us Thiefs and Robbers. But we desire you to consider,  
Q. 1. Whether Augustine, and Hierome, and Calvin, and Luther, be more unlawful to be quoted by us, than Seneca, an Heathen Philosopher, by you.  
Q. 2. Whether our Saviour Christ quoting Moses and the Prophets, Peter quoting Paul, and Judas, Enoch, yea Paul himself quoting Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides, Heathen 
Act. 17. 28 1 Cor. 15. 33. Tit. 1. 12.  Poets, do not as much fall under your charge of Thievery, as we, for quoting those you mention?  
Q. 3. Whether a man may not receive that from the Lord, which he gathers from the writings of other men? Surely you suppose the Readers that can find leisure enough, to look over your Pamphlet, will receive some light thereby. If not, why do you publish it? If so, is that light from God, or from yourself, or from the Devil? We suppose you will not say, you writ either your own Dreams, or Satanical suggestions. And if you say, from the Lord, than we hope the Lord may as well speak to us, by Austin, Hierome, Calvin, or Luther, as by you to your Proselytes.  
Q. 4. Whether we may not as well quote the words of these men, and yet say, harken to the word of the Lord, as you receive your principles, rail, evasions, modes, and practices, from George Fox, and James Naylor? and yet cry the word of the Lord to your Proselytes?  
Q. 5. Whether you be not yourselves under the same condemnation, who superscribe your Quaeres (which you send us now and then) from the spirit of the Lord, and call them the word of the Lord to us, when we can produce the printed Books of others of your Fraternity, whence they are most of them stolen word for word. 
† T. C. his Quaeres to one of us, borrowed to a Title out of a Book directed to all that would know the way to the Kingdom, Excepting false english.  Sect. 32  
To your eleventh Article, wherein you justify your confidence, in advising us to preach no more to the people, than the Lord hath spoken to us, and then we ourselves witness the life and power of in ourselves. We say, that 'tis true, your are noted for confidence enough, and none more than your female Declarers, who for such a scolding religion, as yours is, are very well furnished with a Billingsgate confidence. Concerning whom (by the way) we will be bold to examine you upon a few Interrogatories.  
Q. 1. Whether the Spirit of God ever did act any persons with a boldness and confidence, that breaks the Laws of Nature, and Civility?  
Q. 2. Whether your Prophetesses that come to declare in public Assemblies, and some of them sometimes naked, 
* As at Whitehall not long since, and elsewhere. Jer. 3. 3.  do not break the Laws of Nature, and civility.  
Q. 3. Whether such immodest practices, be not too great evidences against many of them, that they are so far from Religion, that they have much corrupted the principles of common honesty? And whether such brazenfaced impudence in such, be not in the language of Scripture, an Whore's forehead?  
Q. 4. Whether Paul's light or yours be better, who saith, Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, 1 Tim. 3. 11. 12. Whereas you allow your women to teach in our Assemblies, and your own, and in the very Streets and Market-places, and to usurp Authority over us, who take ourselves to be men, charging us to speak no more in the name of the Lord, etc.  
And what confidence emboldens the rest of you to come into our Assemblies, and against the wills of the Officers, to deliver your railing charges there, to the disturbance of whole Congregations, yourselves best know. Only this we desire to know of you,  
Q. 1. Whether Christ, or his Apostles ever practised the like liberty, in the Synagogues of the Jews, without leave first obtained from the Rulers? We find not that our Saviour Christ at Nazareth, opened his mouth to speak to the people in the Synagogue till the Minister delivered him the Book, in token of the liberty granted him to teach there, Luke 4 17. 20. And we find the Apostle Paul, and his companion Barnabas at Antioch, sat down and were silent, till the Rulers of the Synagogue sent unto them and gave them liberty, Act. 13. 14, 15. And yet supposing they did; their miraculous gifts were a sufficient demonstration that they had an higher authority. We see no such in any of you.  
Q. 2. Whether you be not herein so confident, as to offer violence to that very Article of the Government by which you yourselves claim liberty; in disturbing those, who (as professing faith in God by Jesus Christ) are worshipping him according to their Consciences?  
Q. 3. Whether it be not an apparent design of Satan, to employ such confident men and women, to make such disturbances at such a time, when people should go home and meditate upon what they have heard, to hinder and divert them.  
But you think that you have warrant for all this confidence, Sect. 33 because you only advise us to preach no more to the people than the Lord hath spoken to us, etc. Which advice of yours, were it delivered in a sober, private, Christian way, we hope we should take well at your hands, and do assure you, that we will (to our utmost ability) practise accordingly. But we doubt, that so much will not satisfy, except we renounce what God speaks to us in the written word, and hearken for God's voice in unwritten revelations. In which sense, we must profess, we think it were great boldness indeed in you, to require us not to preach more than God hath spoken to us: Seeing you undertake to forbid what God requires, and our Saviour Christ and his Apostles accordingly practised. The Apostle to Timothy tells him and us, that, the Scriptures are given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, etc. To what purpose is the Scripture avouched to be profitable for Doctrine, if we may raise no Doctrines from it? for reproof, correction, and instruction, if we may not lay it as the ground of all these, 2 Tim. 3. 16. And in the same Epistle chap. 2. 2. he commands Timothy to commit what he had heard of him to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Had your quaking Generation been on foot then, would they not have had the confidence to charge Timothy to speak nothing to the people but what he had heard from God immediately? and those that received Paul's Doctrine at the second hand, from Timothy much more? But whether the Apostle Paul, or you be to be obeyed, let sober men judge.  
Sure we are that our Saviour Christ himself took for his Text, what the Lord had many years before spoken to the Prophet Isaiah, Luke 4. 17. 18. And for the Apostles and Apostolical men, we find them preaching those things which they learned from the Scriptures: Apollos, Act. 18. 28. shown by the Scriptures, that Jesus was the Christ. And when the great question concerning Circumcision, and the Mosaical observances, was started among the Apostles and Elders, Act. 15. James quotes the word of the Lord to Amos, v. 16, 17. in that Assembly. And the Apostle Paul, Act 26. before Agrippa and Festus professeth, He in all his Doctrine, witnessed, saying none other things, than those which the Prophets and Moses did say; So that he preached the word that was spoken to Moses and the Prophets, and yet none that we read of, charged him to cease from preaching more than God had immediately spoken to him. And we hope, we may safely disobey your counsels or commands herein, under the protection of such great examples.  
As for the other part of your advice to us, that we preach no more than we ourselves witness the life and power of, within our Sect. 34 selves: We would hope you mean Orthodoxly in it; to wit, that we practise what we preach; which if it be all you intent herein, we assure you we do, and we hope shall be enabled by grace to do so more and more. But when we look upon the papers of others of your brethren, we doubt you mean, we must not preach any thing of the Histories and Prophecies of the Scripture 
See faith full discovery of mystical Antichrist, pag.  in their literal sense, but only the experiences of the Allegorical senses their teachers fasten upon them, within ourselves. A brief Scheme of which Allegorical experiences, we find in two Quakers discourses, related at large by John Toldervy, 
Foot out of the snare, p. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc.  out of which, that it may be known, what the Quakers your brethren would have us witness in ourselves, and then preach; we shall draw a short Catechism, as faithfully, as according to our understanding we can.  
Q. 1. What is the word? 
P. 5.   
Answ. Life, or the substance whence the Scriptures are spoken.  
Q. 2. What are the Scriptures?  
A. A declaration from the word of life.  
Q. 3. What is this substance the word of life?  
A. The measure of God manifested in man; the Gift of the holy Spirit manifested in flesh, made known in all.  
Q. 4 What is the Garden of Eden? 
P. 1. 1   
A. The World.  
Q 5. What are the Trees of this Garden?  
A. All living beings.  
Q. 6. Why so?  
A. Because they have their being of God by somewhat of himself that proceedeth out of the earth, God the life.  
Q. 7. Where is Paradise?  
A. In man.  
Q. 8. How did man fall?  
A. By harkening to the weaker.  
Q. 9 What is that weaker?  
A. The fleshly mind.  
Q. 10. Did not the Woman tempt him?  
A. Woman is that silliest and weakest part.  
Q. 11. What was Adam?  
A. The earthly nature in man.  
Q. 12. What is the Redeemer of man?  
A. The light by which he is given to see sin, and enabled by it, if obeyed, to be redeemed from sin.  
Q. 13. Where is this Redeemer?  
A. In every particular man.  
Q 14. Is not that person the Son of God that died at Jerusalem, this Redeemer?  
A. No.  
These and the like are the Doctrines which in the sense of some of your companions we must witness the life and power of in ourselves, i. e. These Allegorical experiences of the mystery of Scripture, as they call it, before we preach to others. Whether you be of this mind or no, we know not. But we fear you deal as partially and subtly in drawing up this Article, as you do in many of the rest, to hid the grossness of your Doctrines from the people. What follows in this Article is a consequence fancied by you, that would follow, if we should herein follow your advice; Viz, That either constant silence or rare preaching would be found in our Congregations, etc. And we think so too, if we have hit upon your meaning in that advice: For we have no warrant to expect immediate revelations at all, much less constantly; and less warrant to allegorise Scripture into such odd and wretched conceits, and then preach them to the people.  
If your meaning be as you speak, and as at first sight we Sect. 35 were willing in charity to suppose, we believe your Congregations, would (should your teachers be tied up to the same Law) be in as deep silence as any of ours We cannot suppose that the Lord, or experience speaks to most of you, those mad doctrines of which we have given you a taste before, and shall give you more anon. And we know, that there are of you that preach down pride, and yet are proud, most insolently proud, most pharisaically proud, if Christ describe pride aright, Luke 18. 9 There are that preach down persecution, and yet are to their power the most malicious Persecuters of all that are not as themselves; divers of you that preach down idleness, and tell poor Ministers, that if they will not work, they must not eat; yet themselves walk up and down the Land, and like lazy Lurdens, or Drones, eat the fat, and drink the sweet at the charges of their deluded Entertainers, till (as we have had upon credible information, a sad example lately not far from this place) they eat their Wives and Families out of doors: So that if you preach no more than you witness the life and power of in yourselves, we should hear fewer declamations against the pride, and tithes, and persecution of the Ministry, and then what would your praters do for matter to entertain their Hearers withal?  
Your twelfth Article sets up (plain enough) the revelation Sect. 36 of the Spirit, in opposition to all humane studies, but especially to those which are used in our Universities. We for our parts, judge they may very well go hand in hand. We do not find but that learning and grace together, make the best Preachers. We do not say, that learning alone is sufficient to discover the mind of God; but yet we believe that (if his mind be to be understood by his words) the understanding of his words, may be some help to the understanding of his mind. And surely, some parts of his mind are not to be understood without the help of that Learning which we call humane learning, either infused, or acquired. He that can understand Paul's Epistles without Logic, divers parts of Ezekiell, and the Revelation without Mathematics; divers pieces in Moses and Job without natural Philosophy; Isaiah, or the Psalms, without Rhetoric, etc. we will believe is indeed inspired by God. But we consider your Generation allow no discovery of the mind of God by Scriptures, and therefore it is no wonder if you will not allow any use of learning to draw that thence, which you will not believe was ever there.  
But whereas you appeal to the practice of Paul and Peter, Sect. 37 as evidence against the usefulness of university-learning in this way. We know (for one of them) Paul he was bred at the feet of Gamaliel, and made good use afterwards of the great learning he got there, not only in his Epistles, which indeed exhibit the marrow of polite learning, as well as Divinity; but also in his discourses sometimes, as in that of his before Agrippa and Festus, which provoked Festus to cry out, that much Learning made him mad, Act. 26. 24. And therefore we suppose, we shall find him at least indifferent in this business.  
And as for the Apostle Peter, we gather this Testimony from him to the usefulness of Learning, that in the very reading of Paul's Epistles, and other Scriptures, it may keep a man from 
2 Pet. 3. 16  wresting them to destruction, which many that want it he tells us, too often do.  
We disparage not the revelation of the Spirit, we acknowledge Sect. 38 that all the learning of the world will not bring saving truth effectually home to the understanding and consciences of men; nay carnal reason backed with learning will dispute the light of the most glorious Doctrinal Truths of the Gospel, out of men's judgements (as is seen daily in the mysteries of the Person, natures, Incarnation, satisfaction, righteousness, merit, of Christ without us: which first heathen Philosophers, & Gnostics, and after them the Arians, Socinians, and Papists, and last of all, by the weapons borrowed from some, or all of them, the Familists, and their offspring the Jusuited Quakers, or Jesuits, and Franciscans under the disguise of Quakers, have endeavoured to dispute, & rail out of the World) and the most glorious practical Truths of the Gospel out of men's Consciences, as appears daily in those, whose learning Satan makes use of to defend and patronise their lusts: So that there needs another kind of learning to settle these Truths savingly in the minds and hearts of men, which the Scripture calls the revelation and demonstration of the Spirit. But yet we must own Learning sanctified by the Spirit of God, as a precious help and furtherance to the understanding of the Letter of the Scripture, confuting Heretical wrest of them, and convincing gainsayers. And we wonder, whence all these that dispute against Learning from the Scriptures, received those Scriptures whence they dispute, but from the help of humane Learning. Surely those holy men who brought down the Scriptures to our capacities, by translating them into our Mother Tongue, were not immediately taught the knowledge of the Original Tongues, by the revelation of the Spirit; but learned it in Schools and Universities, and most of the truths of the Gospel which have been preserved to us, from the violent hands of Heathen Philosophers, and Heretics, have been very much (as to means) preserved by the disputes of learned men. Julian the Apostate knew well enough that Schools of Learning were no small props of Christian Religion, and therefore when he had designed a total abolition of Christianity out of the world, he attempted it by two ways, which your Generation unhappily follow him in, suppressing Schools of literature among Christians, and taking away Minister's maintenance.  
And whereas you say, that the Apostles and Ministers of Sect. 39 Christ in Scripture did not serve an Apprenticeship in any University to learn the Trade of preaching (as you scornfully call it) we answer they needed it not, for they then received that by immediate inspiration, which since that time we know no person, Quaker, or other, ever attained in that way; they became Linguists, and Disputants, per saltum, which others since are feign to grow unto by degrees. If you say the same Spirit dwells in you, we say, look you to that as to the sanctifying and saving graces of that Spirit, for he that hath not the Spirit thus, is none of Christ's, Rom. 8. 9 But as to gifts of Tongues, and other parts of learning, which were then by that Spirit, bestowed in an instant on the first Planters of the Church, we want an instance of any of you, that can say so much of himself. If you know any, let us hear from you in the next, who it is, and if he be able to make it out to us, we will believe him.  
You say further, that they preached but the Gospel which Sect. 40 Christ by his Spirit revealed in them, and you quote two places of Scripture which speak of revelation indeed, but not such as is exclusive to humane learning, which is your drift. Indeed, in the first Paul saith, that God revealed those things which eye had not seen, etc. to him by his holy Spirit. And in the other 
1 Cor. 2: 10. Gal. 1. 16.  he saith, that God revealed his Son in him; but it is not proved, that in the last of those places the Apostle speaks of the Doctrine, much less the holy Doctrine of the Gospel that Paul preached, as if his humane learning contributed nothing to that; but only of those inward operations that Paul experienced; and therefore he shows the effect of the revelation, that it took him off from consulting with flesh and blood, which we before acknowledge as well as you.  
In the former of them, the Apostle speaks of such a revelation of the Gospel, as savingly enabled him to receive it, feelingly to preach it, as appeareth; by v. 14. where he opposeth the knowledge of a natural man, which is by mere learning, to that of a spiritual man, which is by revelation, yet not excluding learning. For by the way, you may observe that he doth not oppose a spiritual man, and a learned man [Paul himself was spiritual and learned too] but a spiritual man, and a natural, or unregenerate man, who hath nothing but natural faculties, and humane learning to improve them.  
And (as to your assertion itself) that they preached only Sect. 41 that Gospel, which Christ by his spirit rovealed in them; if you mean thus, that they preached nothing but what was immediately revealed from the Spirit without any external help, the plain Scripture will give you the lie. For how often did Christ instruct them, during his bodily presence among them? And how did he expound the Scriptures to them, going through all the Books then penned, even from Moses to Malachi, immediately before his Ascension? Luke. 24. 27. So that whatever may be said of Paul, who was called and enabled to his Apostleship in a singular way, untrodden by any of the rest, we are sure, all the rest were taught, otherwise then by the immediate revelation of the Spirit only.  
But we doubt yet another Snake in the Grass of this fair Sect. 42 expression [which Christ by his Spirit revealed in them] and suspect it bears some analogy with that in your former Article, of preaching no more than we witness the life and power of in ourselves; and which you call afterwards, witnessing the condition of the Saints, whose words we preach, of which anon. The best sense therefore, which comparing your words with each other, and all with the language of your other Brethren, we can pick out of your expressions here, is, that you suppose, they preached no more, than what by spiritual experience the Spirit revealed in their hearts: Which if it be that you herein intent, we desire you to consider whether the Apostles did experience in themselves the Histories of the old Testament, which yet they preached, and whether they did experience in themselves the resurrection of the body, the general judgement, and eternal damnation which they preached? Whether John experienced the Prophecies of the Revelation in himself, or no; as some of 
Foot out of the snare, p. 6. 13.  you cant, that the witnesses are slain in us, and must be raised to life in us, and Babylon in us, etc.  
And of this stamp, we doubt, is that uncouth and odd expression of witnessing the Saints conditions (which is one of the Sect. 43 phrases we told you before, that we conceive needs interpretation) though possibly you speak what you mean, yet we know not what you mean by what you speak) especially if we compare those papers which we often receive from your Disciples in these parts, with what you here say.  
But we will take you in the best sense, and so to witness, we suppose in your sense, is, to feel by inward experience the Saints conditions, whose words we preach. And without this qualification (in your judgement) we must pass for Ministers of the Letter only. We doubt you understand not, what a Minister of the Letter means. We are sure, by a Minister of the Letter, the Apostle means not such an one as expounds and applies the written Word, but either one that preached up the Jewish ceremonies according to the Letter, which were the veil that hide the Gospel, instead of Christ the substance of them; or else, that preached the duties of the Law for justification, and so your generation are the Ministers of the Letter, who preach up a righteousness of works, under the notion of Christ in us, to the decrying and blaspheming of the righteousness of Faith, in Christ's person without us. And you yourself speak scornfully enough of it, though covertly, p. 55. of your Book, as of a righteousness beyond the Stars, and a far off from us; so that we fear your heart is the same with them, though you be more wary in your expressions.  
In a word, if we mistake you, you must impute it to your darkness, and ambiguity of expression, which you affect in this Epistle, that you may (like a Carp) by running your head in the mud of uncouth and ambiguous language, avoid the Net of a just discovery and confutation: and to your undertaking, which being the justification of the people called Quakers, we are necessitated to interpret you by what we know of them.  
To your thirteenth Article, concerning the unprofitableness Sect. 44 of talking and professing Christ in Orthodox notions, except we witness (we will suppose you understand, find, and feel by experience) the life of Christ in us: We would hope you mean as you say, and no more; and if so, we mean and say as you do, that it will not avail us or our hearers to talk of Christ's dying for us, and our being justified by his righteousness, except we receive a spirit of holiness from him, and be taught by the grace that appeareth to us, to deny all ungodliness, and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. But we 
Tim. 2. 12.  must tell you, that we do not make our mortification of sin, or resurrection to newness of life; or any of the fruits growing upon those roots (though we could be as holy as ever any Saint was upon earth) any part of our righteousness in the presence of God, but in matter of justification, we renounce them all as abominable and filthy rags, dross and dung to the righteousness which is of God by faith, and desire to be found in him alone, who 
Isa. 64. 6. Phil. 3. 8, 9 Jer. 23. 5. Gal. 2. 16.  is the Lord our righteousness. We say with the Apostle, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law. Whether you be of this judgement or no, we desire to know more fully in your next. Those of your generation are not, as we shall show anon, from their own papers, which speak out, what we see you have a mind to conceal.  
In your fourteenth Article, you confess that you both publish Sect. 45 and practise, an unmannerly disrespect of all persons, in which (because you scruple swearing) we would (as well as we may) credit you without an Oath. And that you publish and practise it as truth, we will believe. But Omne simile non est idem, as you may very well know. Many of your quaking doctrines (as you colour them) are very like truth. But we have in part shown they are not what they show for, and shall do more ere we have done with you: Mean while we will a little dispute it with you; Whether Religion destroy civility and good manners? For our parts, we humbly conceive, that the fifth Commandment is not yet repealed, that commands us to honour our Fathers and Mothers. And Solomon we suppose walked by that Law when he bowed to his Mother, 1 King. 2. 29. Nor do we dare condemn the bowing of Abraham before the Sons of Heth, Gen. 23. 7. 12. Nor do we think that cursed Canaanites are more capable of civil honour and respect, then civil Magistrates. And how far the examples of Luke, dedicating his Book to the most excellent Theophilus, Lu. 1. 3. Paul's Titles of [King Agrippa and most Noble Festus] and 
Act. 26. 7. 25. 1 Pet. 3. 6.  Sarahs' calling Abraham Lord (practised in the old, and commended in the new Testament) will justify the practice of those who bestow Titles upon men according to their quality, from that respecting of persons which the Apostle James condemns, it 
Jam. 5. 1.  may be your own second thoughts will better inform you. Surely, the Apostle James doth not deny the distinction of Magistrates, and others in their Seats and Benches. We do not find the Apostles when they were called before Magistrates, justle with them for their Chairs and Cushions, or set themselves down cheek by jowl with them upon the Bench. Nor was 
1 King. 2. 19  Solomon to be charged with respecting persons, for calling for a Chair for his Mother Bathsheba, and not for all others as well that came to present Petitions to him. For a close, we are persuaded; that this levelling humour never lasted longer in any person, then till he himself got into the Chair of Magistracy: We know no Prince in Europe that ever Kinged it with that state as John of Leyden did, when he acted his part at Munster, and yet he and his Generation were as much against respecting of persons a while before, as any of our Quakers at this day.  
In a word, we are no friends to that great distance which mere wealth makes in the esteem of the world between man and man, especially between godly poor, and ungodly rich men. And we hope we can say in the sincerity of our hearts, that we know no godly poor man whom we would not, and do not prefer in our esteems and respects, as we have opportunity to show it, before any wealthy men, that are not so. But where the goodness is equal in both, we suppose the modesty of the inferior will not suffer him to be aggrieved, if his Superior in any sort sit above him, or go before him; nor do we think it any token of humility (which is one of the most eminent graces in true Saints) for such an one to justle for the wall with another, to whom in common courtesy and civility, founded upon the Law of God, Nature, and Nations it is more due.  
We shall not dispute against you the consequences of this Sect. 46 your Doctrine, if it should take place as they touch ourselves. Let it follow (as you say) that we shall hereby be stripped of the Titles of Doctors, or Divines; we persuade ourselves (as wellpleasing, as you think they are to us) we have learned of our Master to be contented to be made of no reputation, & if God think fit to abase us among those with whom we have to do, that we should receive as little respect from others, as we do from you; we are able through grace, to contemn those poor things as dirt and dung: And if instead of Doctors and Divines, we meet with the Titles of Serpent, Cain, Esau, Satan, yea, Belzebub himself (which are the honourable Titles your Generation in their great civility, or Christianity afford us.) In a word, should men call us Dolts instead of Doctors, and Devils instead of Divines, we hope we can say without vanity, we should esteem it our Crown, so the name of Christ might be exalted by the fall of our own. The Titles that men give us, we hope some of us can say, we procured without ambition and receive without pride, and can lay down without discontent.  
But we wonder however, how the name of Doctor, or Teacher Sect. 47 should come to be so Apocryphal with you, who know it was a name of Office in the Primitive times, Eph. 4. 11. And why your brethren should quarrel so unmercifully against the name Master, or Sir, when they might know how often it is given and taken by the Apostles of Christ, who, surely, knew their Master's mind in that prohibition better than they, and why (if Titles be thus unlawful) do yourself give the Sirs, to your Readers, and Sir to your Antagonist, which is all as much as Master? Nay, why your Son should call you Father, any more than our Hearers call us Masters,, seeing one Text prohibits Both, we cannot imagine: And we know not whether it was upon this account, that a Son of yours lately told one of us, that he disowned you.  
But (to let this pass, and shut up this Article in a word) We suppose your other consequence of this Doctrine which you Sect. 48 mention; to wit, the stripping the Magistrate of his Titles of honourable, and worshipful, shows some worse blood than that that boyles in your Veins against the poor Ministers. We doubt that you that would strip them of their Titles, have no great (or it may be too great) mind to their Offices. For surely, there is less express Authority in the new Testament for Christian Magistracy itself, then for the Titles bestowed upon them? What security then will you give them that you will not quarrel with their Robes and Maces, and afterwards with their Offices as well as with their Titles. We read of most excellent Theophilus, and most noble Festus, Titles as high as honourable and worshipful applied to men in Magistracy. But of Christian Magistrates, not a word of Precept or practice; would you dared speak out! why do you nibble at Titles? tell us plainly, you aim at the thing itself, most think you do.  
And now we are arrived to the last of your Articles, wherein you take some pleasure to show how you can criticise on the words Thee and Thou, which you would feign justify to be the only proper terms to any single person A doughty undertaking! and very fit for your learning to manage: We should scarce think it worth the while to dispute such a trifle with you, but only to let you know, how unfit you are to dispute down Universities, that manage a Grammatical Question so childishly: Should a School Boy of ten years old be bid translate, How do you Sir into Latin, would he not render it Quomodo vales tu? It seems your new Grammar would correct him with a Quomodo valetis vos? A learned piece of Pedantry! Are you so silly as not to know that Translators respect the usage of words in the Tongues they make use of: If the Translators of Hebrew or Greek, had rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by you, as well as thou, to a single person, might they not have done as well to an English ear, seeing both words are used indifferently by English men? you should not be ignorant of the old Rule, Loquendum ut vulgus. And Horace (if you have read him) tells you, that 'tis use (Quem penes arbitrium est, & vis, & norma loquendi.) that words are to be regulated by.  
But why then do we not (say you) use the word you to the Sect. 50 great God as well as to men? We answer, it is not necessary we should give you any answer hereunto, but that you have received already. Words are proper, or improper, as use makes them. And yet we conceive we well vary the phrase to God upon this account, because in our prayers we address ourselves to God in the Unity of his nature, and therefore we use a word that is not capable of importing plurality, as you is. [And whereas you add lastly, that the rich think it proper to say Sect. 51 [Thou] and [Thee] to a poor man, whereas we condemn the poor man for saying [Thou] or [Thee] to a rich man.  
We answer, for our parts, we ourselves can say, we know not ourselves guilty of often making any such distinction, and when we do, it is rather in a way of familiarity, than otherwise, seeing we have used in common custom of speech, to look upon the word [Thou] spoken to men as the more familiar word. But we insist not much upon these things, as supposing them beneath our study or notice, but that you will engage us in them whether we will or no; only we must tell you at parting, that you may do well (in your great acuteness) to correct Sect. 52 the French Tongue, whence we suppose this manner of speaking came into England, as well as our own, for the French use [vous] that signifies [you] to a single person, as well as we. And you after that to exercise your pedantical Ferule upon the royal stile of most or all the Princes in the civil World, who (with as great a Grammatical impropriety) writ in their own persons [Nos] and [We] instead of [Ego] and [I] which is the stile of ordinary persons. And we suppose you may maintain as learned a dispute with the Lord Protector about [Nos Oliverus] [We Oliver] as you do with Mr. Thomas, p. 58. of the Book about the Nominative case, and the Verb.  
These are all the Articles, it seems you will confess against Sect. 53 yourself, and your quaking party; and because you are willing to flatter yourself, and persuade your Readers (especially the Magistrate to whom this part of your Epistle is intended) that these bloody persecutors the Ministers, have no higher matters to charge you withal, you sing Io triumph, the day is our own; for These (say you) are the horrid blasphemies and damnable Doctrines against the abettors of which you do at this day discharge so much passion and rage, both from Press and Pulpit; calling upon the civil Powers for Bonds and Prisons, nay Fire and Faggot, against all those who (fearing the Lord) do fear to call darkness light, and light darkness.  
But stay, Sir, we have some other matters than these to charge upon your Generation, which we will in the next place give you a short Catalogue of, collected out of such books as are either published by yourselves, or justly charged upon you by those Witnesses who we are assured will stand to their words whenever they are called to make them good.  

[The Quakers Doctrines.]  
1. That they are equal with God, as holy, just, and good, as Sect. 54 God himself. Affirmed by G. Fox, and J. Nayler, before Witnesses 
Perfect Pharisee, p. 3. See also the Relation of the irreligion of the Northern Quakers.  who attest it, in a Book called the perfect Pharisee, published by five Ministers of Newcastle.  
2. Suitable hereunto was the blasphemy of one of your Shee-Quakers lately in hold in this Town, who being convented before the Major of this Corporation, and asked what she was, and what was her name, roundly answered (and stood to it again the next day) I AM THAT I AM, which will be attested upon Oath, by the Major and one of the Constables.  
3. Suitable to this was the blasphemy of another of your Brethren, who meeting with a godly Londiner occasionally being in this Town on a Lord's day lately, and ask him the way, as he met him, to one of our Churches, answered him in these words, The Church is in God, and the Church is God.  
4. That the being of God is not distinct from them that are begotten by him. [Sword of the Lord by James Atkinson Quaker.]  
5. That the Nature and Glory of the Elect, differ not from the Nature and Glory of the Creator. For the Elect are one with the Creator in his Nature, enjoying his Glory. That the Elect is not distinct from the Creator. [howgil and Burroughs two Quakers in an answer to Reeve.]  
6. And that God is not distinct from living Creatures; for in him living (reatures lives, moves, etc.  
7. That God is three persons, or subsistences (they say) is a lie. That there is no distinctions of persons in the Godhead. [Sword of the Lord by J. Atkinson: G. Fox Errand to Damascus.  
8. That the Soul is a part of the Divine Essence. [See perfect Pharisee, p. 6.]  
9 That Jesus Christ is God and man in one person (they say) is a lie.  
10. They deny and detest this Doctrine, That Christ being the only God and man in one person, remains for ever a distinct person from all Saints and Angels, notwithstanding their Union and communion with him. [Sword of the Lord by James Atkinson.]  
11. That the person that Son of God which died at Jerusalem, is not the Redeemer of man from sin; but the Redeemer is in every man, that light by which he is given to see him, etc. [The discourse of a Quaker with Jo: Toldervy. Foot out of the snare, p. 7.]  
12. That Christ is in every man, even Heathen Indians, and in the Reprobates he is held under corruption. [J. Nayler. See perfect Pharisee; p. 7  
13. That Christ was a man, had his failings, for he disinherited God upon the Cross. [Rob. Collison. See Gilpins Book, p. 2.]  
14. That we are not justified by that Righteousness of Christ which he in his own person did fulfil without us. And that whosoever expects to be saved by him that died at Jerusalem, shall be deceived: For Christ in the flesh was in all, that he died and suffered a Figure, and nothing but an example.  
15. That we are (therefore) to be saved not by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, but by the righteousness of Christ inherent in us. [See both these in the perfect Pharisee, with their Testimonies, p. 9, 10, 11. And howgil and Burroughs Answ. to Bennet Q. 9]  
And another to the same purpose saith, That the faith and justification which stands in the comprehension of Christ without, will stand us in no stead. [Fr. Gawler to Mr. Miller of Cardiff.]  
16. That God and man cannot be perfectly reconciled till he be brought into the state of the first Adam, and able in his own power to stand perfect. And that holy works and lives of Saints are not excluded from justification. [howgil, etc. Answ. to Bennets 11, 12. Queries.]  
17. That no man that is not perfectly holy, or commits sin, can ever enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, except there be a Purgatory. And there is no Saint but he that is so perfectly holy in this life without sin. [Nayler perfect Pharsee, p. 1. 112. 13.]  
18. That to preach the impossibility of such a freedom here on earth is to preach up sin while the world stands, and to bring men into Covenant with the Devil for term of life. [See also J. Parnell Shield of faith. p. 29. to both these Nayler in his answer to Mr. Baxter, p. 28.]  
19 That Christ took not humane flesh upon him at any time, otherwise than he daily doth; and that Christ is now conversant on earth among men since his ascension, as he was in the Apostles times. It is the sum of Howgills and Burroughs answer to two Quaeres of Mr. Bennet. [See howgil, etc. in their answer to Benéts 18, and 19 Qu.]  
20. That the Scriptures are not the word of God. This is their constant judgement though they dare not profess it for fear of the Law, as one of the most eminent in these parts, confessed before the Magistrates here, in the hearing of one of us; ask Whether if the Bible were burnt, the word of God were burnt? or words fully to this purpose. [See the proof, Perfect Pharisee, p. 23. T. C. parnels book, p. 10. saith, He that saith, the Letter is the word, is a deceiver.]  
21. That they had a light in them sufficient to lead them to salvation, if they had never seen or heard of the Bible. The substance of this was affirmed before some Magistrates of this Town, and one of us by the same party. And this light extended to Heathen Indians, by him. Suitable to the assertions of James Nayler in a discourse of his in the book quoted here. [And he that saith, the Letter is the rule and guide of the people of God, is without, feeding upon the Husk, etc. p. 11. See way to the Kingdom, p 8. See perfect Parisee, p. 17. 18]  
22. That the Scriptures are not the Saints Rule of knowing God, and living unto him, but that which was before the Scriptures were written. This is also your own, concerning which, anon, more at large. [Atkinson ubi supra., p. 1. Parnell, p. 11.  
23. That there is no need of outward teachings by reading or hearing of the Scriptures opened and applied. [See perfect Pharisee, p 20.]  
24. That not men's interpretations of the Scripture, or Arguments from them are to be received, except those that give them be infallible. [See Quakers Cat. published by Mr. Baxter, where the Quaerists require Infallibility in a Minister. And Perfect Pharisee, p. 27.]  
This is generally their strain. We renounce and deny all your meanings, interpretations, arguments, calling them adding to the Scriptures. And concerning it we must have a brush or two with you anon.  
25. That the light in them is the Gospel, and the more sure word of Prophecy; so sure, that some of them say, That it is a like for to take a sentence out of their Letters, and preach from it, as to take a sentence out of Paul's Epistles. [Discovery of mystical Antichrist displaying Christ's Banners, p. 15. and 33.]  
26. That there is no call to the Ministry but an immediate Call, which is generally proclaimed by them. [See perfect Pharisee, p. 29. J. Parnell, p 16.]  
27. There is no Baptism of Christ, but with the H. Ghost and fire. And no Supper of the Lord, but in the spiritual part: for as for the visible part, The bread which the world breaks is carnal and natural. See perfect Pharisee, p. 28. and I Parnell, p. 12. 13.]  
28. That singing David's Psalms in English Meeter, is to sing the Ballads of Hopkins and Sternhold King James his Fiddlers. And to sing them is to turn the Scriptures into lies and blasphemies. [One of them in a Letter here at Reading. Henry Clark in his description of the Prophets, p 9]  
29. That God made not man to be Lord over man, but over other Creatures; and therefore amongst them there are no Superiors after the flesh. But are there any Superiors over them (then) that are not among them? See in the next article. [J. Parnell, p. 22, 23.]  
30. That Christ comes to fulfil and end all outward Laws and 
Ja. Parnell p. 18, 19  Government of man. The righteous are from under the outward Law, for they are a Law to themselves. Especially if Magistrates be wicked (that is, not of them) the Author quoted in the Margin denies them utterly.  
31. That there is no Sabbath now, but an everlasting Sabbath, and that our Sabbath is but a shadow of which they have the substance. 
Ja. Parnell p. 37.  And that the first day in the week is no Sabbath.  
32. That we may not pray before and after Sermons, or at set times, days, and hours, because these things were in the Generation which were enemies to Christ. [Quaeres scent to the Congregation at Stopport, printed in a Book of Mr. Eton.]  
33. That the Ranters themselves had a pure convincement which did convince them. And what their convincements were, most men know. To wit, that there is no Heaven, Hell, Resurrection, Judgement to come; that there is no sin, but what a man thinks to be so; that all that they did was done by the Eternity in them, etc. [G. Fox, and J. Nayler in a book called A word from the Lord, p. 13.]  
34. That that word, 1 Jo. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, was spoken by the carnal man. [Fr. Gawler. See Antichrist in man by Mr. Miller of Cardiff. p. 7. Idem. ibid.]  
35. That if a man hath sin in him he hath none of Christ.  
36. They will not acknowledge that Christ ascended with his body into Heaven. [Idem. ibid.]  
THus you see, Sir, how much pains we have been at to satisfy you, that those men you join yourself unto, have matters of greater moment, than those you mention, justly chargeable upon them: So that we are no way in fear of the judgement you pronounce against the Offenders of Christ's little ones in your next lines. For if such as these be Christ's little Ones, we know not who are the Devil's great Ones. And when you have any such things justly to charge upon us, we shall not cry out of hard measure, although we suffer more than any of you yet do. Let the Magistrate do so to us, and more also, if we thus deserve it.  
As to what we lay to your charge, whether he will take notice of it or no, we have learned not to be over solicitous, seeing we are not out of hope that deliverance will arise for Gods reproached Ministers, Truths and Ordinances, some way or other: And yet we cannot but desire he would vouchsafe this honour to those that are now in Authority over us, that Truth and peace might flourish together in our days under their wings. And truly, Sir, did you know our hearts (whatsoever Monsters of persecution and blood you judge us to be) you would see, that as it is no private interest of our own, that draws us out to appear against you, but the mere concernments of God's Glory, and precious Truth; so we desire nothing more than the conviction and reduction of you, in a Gospel-way. And this we can clearly say, that of all those that have suffered any thing, in, or near the places where we live, we know none of them, but have drawn it upon themselves, by first making such public disturbances, as brought them within the reach of the Law, and then refusing to give bail, out of a fond ambition they had to be imprisoned, when they might have avoided it.  
And yet we cannot but wonder, how an handful of you, Sect. 55 bidding defiance to whatever of public Religion is professed in this Nation, should think, or with any reason expect to be protected in the disturbance of all others, who, as the present constitution of affairs stands, are under an equal liberty with yourselves; and if you be denied to persecute all others, or by process of Law restrained from it, complain of persecution. So that indeed, if the Magistrate grant you such a protection, walking by the principles you do, he denies it to all else; seeing no society of Christians whatsoever would enjoy the freedom of their Worship, without distraction from you. And to persuade the Magistrates to give you liberty of tearing up all the professed Religion in England, and blaspheming it publicly where ever you come, we suppose it will in reason be required, that you show some extraordinary Authority or commission from God, testified by some real sign to convince them that it is not counterfeit; and yet even then, as you shall see anon (your Doctrines being such as they are) they may see just cause to lay some restraint upon you therein.  
In the mean while, we must tell you, that however you may please yourselves in your sufferings, and vent your passions against the men from whom you conceive they arise, as so many saul's and bloody Persecuters, yet God judgeth not Martyrs by the suffering, but the cause; and you had need examine in whose Errand you go, when you run yourselves upon suffering, as well as others to examine upon what Warrant they inflict it upon you. If every one be a Martyr, who makes a loud cry of Persecution, surely the Jesuit will not be behind hand, in putting in for his share, as well as you; and if every one be a Persecutor that curbs and restrains unruly and disorderly Consciences, woe be to those Judges who arraign, and condemn Fauxes and Ravilliac's, who plead conscience for what they do, as well as yourselves. The truth is, both you, and we, and all persons, must be able to plead, that we suffer not as evil doers, and then suffering will be a comfort and a crown; otherwise what we suffer we suffer in our own wrong, and shall when we have suffered our Estates out of our Purses, and Souls out of our bodies, meet with no other entertainment, than an Who hath required these things at your hands? And we desire you particularly to consider what the Apostle Paul tells you, that if a man give up his very body to be burned, and have not charity, 
1 Cor. 13. 3.  it profits him nothing: And surely if your generation be sufferers, you are the most uncharitable sufferers that ever were; and Martyrs, that have been in the World, from Christ's time till the starting up of your new Apostles, within these 3. or 4. years; & are so far from that charity which other sufferers in Scripture have had to their bloodiest Persecutors, that your mouths are full of railing, reviling, cursing, and bitterness, to those that do not meddle with you further than it concerns them in their places, to preserve others under their charge from the infection of such abominations as those . However We have not so learned Christ, as to render evil for evil, but desire to suffer under the sharp Arrows of your tongues, as he gave us an example, not reviling again when we are reviled by you, but committing our Cause, Callings, and Maintenance to him that judgeth uprightly. And to instruct even the worst of Opposers in meekness, trying if God will at any time give them repentance, to 
2 Tim. 2. 25. 26.  the acknowledgement of the Truth; and that they may recover them out of the snare of the Devil, who are taken captive by him at his will, which we yet (with pity towards, and prayer for you) are assured to be the condition of yourself, and your Clients in this Cause.  
ANd now, Sir, after a tedious pursuit of you, through all Sect. 57 the windings and turn of your subtle insinuating Epistle, it may be expected we should proceed to your Book itself; But we shall wave it, as we before told you, for these reasons.  
First, Because a great part of it hath been once served up in the Epistle, and because we found it not seasoned with salt, by us already discovered and rejected as unsavoury. So that we shall not cloy the Reader with a second course of it.  
Secondly, Because that we find that it is wholly made up of personal contests with Mr Thomas, and insolent reflections and reproaches upon him, into whose harvest we desire not to thrust in our Sickle; besides that we are advertised, that he intends to take that task in hand himself, and we are assured that he will not need any assistance from us, or any other, to answer it as it deserves. Only because you so often call the Scriptures (in scorn) [our Rule] in your Epistle, and therein expressly reject all Interpretations and deductions which we draw from them in preaching, or dispute; we will here subjoin these two questions.  
Q. 1. Whether the holy Scriptures be the Saint's ground, and rule of faith, and practise?  
Q. 2. Whether it be lawful without an infallible spirit, to interpret Scripture, or draw consequences and deductions thence?  
In both these you defend the Negative, we the Affirmative.  
As to the first of them in your Book, you stand only upon Sect. 58 your defence against some Texts quoted by Mr. Thomas; concerning which we leave you to his second charge, wherein we doubt not but he will fetch them off without loss. Mean while, we cannot but take notice of the Artifices of yourself, and others of the generation you close withal.  
(1.) We observe, that in most or all matters of difference betwixt us, you put us upon the proof of our Principles and practices, and offer none for your own; which is a sly way of hiding your own weakness, and discovering our strength, that so you may make your advantages of it: Which is, as if a man should sue another at Law, to produce his evidences by which he holds his Land, to be canvassed by his own Counsel, without exhibiting any thing in his own behalf, to justify his claim to it.  
(2.) We observe also, that you reserve to yourselves a liberty of excepting against the Jurisdiction of the Court, in which the cause is depending; not allowing it a power to decide the case, if you see you selves likely to be cast in Judgement, although you will own it so far as you suppose it may serve your turn against us. For you call us forth to a trial by the Scriptures, and yet will not allow them to be the rule to decide the controversy.  
(3.) We observe thirdly, that you will have the choice of the Weapons in this encounter, not only for your self, but us also, setting up a Star-chamber Court of your own first, to damn our Evidences, and then, forsooth, you will fight with us when you have disarmed us. You will dispute with us from the Scripture, and yet will allow us no Arguments to dispute withal. A valiant undertaking, and worthy piece of Chivalry, for which you deserve to be recorded among the chief Champions of the Quaking Knight Errantry.  
But we hope, upon second thoughts, you may be persuaded Sect. 59 not to disparage your own achievements upon us, by keeping yourself within the security of an Irish bog, where it is harder to come at you, then conquer you, and come forth into the plain field, where we may encounter you upon even terms. If otherwise, we shall take it as an Argument of your Cowardice, and yet rather swallow any inconvenience, than not dislodge you, and set up the Banners of Truth upon your own ground.  
And first we will try you with a few Queries, which (seeing Sect. 60 they are your own familiar way of arguing) we hope you will admit into your consideration.  
Q. 1. Whether you will receive the Scriptures Testimony concerning itself, or no? If you will, than Q. 2. Is it not the rule of faith by your own confession? For it is that to which you submit your saith in this question. If you will not, then Q. 3. To what purpose do you require of Mr. Thomas to produce a Scripture 
P. 4.  that saith, in Terminis, it is the rule; when if he do, the question is as far from being decided as before?  
In the next place, we will state the question between us, that Sect. 61 we may understand one another.  
First therefore the question between us is not, Whether the Scriptures, or written word, have been the ground and rule of faith and practice, in all ages of the World, but whether in every age of the World, since any part of them was written, so much as was written in any age, were not the rule by which those of that age were to be regulated? and consequently, whether to the ages that have been, and shall be, since the whole was completed, the whole be not so, and to continue so to the World's end? So that you are quite besides the Cushion and the Question, in the instances of Abel, Enoch, and Ahraham, and all the Patriarches before Moses, who wrote the first Scripture. We are not so silly as to affirm the word as written, to have been a rule before it was written. Although we shall not doubt to prove, that those Patriarches had the same foundation to build on, and the same Law or Rule to walk by, though they were not then committed to writing. The Apostle tells us, Gal. 3. 8. that the Scripture preached the Gospel to Abraham; where it is observable, that Abraham's light was Scripture light, before the Scriptures were written.  
2. The question between us, is not, whether the Scriptures be the personal or real ground of faith; but whether (as Mr. Thomas well distinguisheth) it be the Doctrinal or declarative ground, or foundation of faith? This distinction, whether you will admit or no, we must premise, because we would not be engaged to fight with a mere shadow. If you will own the Scriptures to be a doctrinal foundation or ground of faith, i. e. to hold forth from God those Doctrines, which, and which only we are bound to believe, our dispute is at an end, for we are of a mind; we own Christ alone to be the foundation or ground of faith, personal or real; that is, to be the person, or thing, that our faith is built on; and the Scriptures to be the only ground and foundation, by way of Doctrine or declaration, what we are to believe concerning Christ, and how to believe on him. We hope you will understand us, we speak as plain as we can to avoid cavils about terms.  
All therefore that we are to prove in this question is, that all things which we believe and do, as necessary in order to salvation, are to be such as are contained in the Scripture, and to be judged by it, whether they be so or no.  
We say, All things which we believe and do as necessary in order Sect. 62 to the salvation of our Souls, are to be such as are contained in Scripture.  
If not (because to please you, we must not argue from Scripture) we desire you to satisfy us.  
Q. 1. What thing necessary to be believed or done, in order to salvation there is, which we may or must receive from any other Rule, or build on any other foundation, and what is that Rule or foundation. We suppose you are bound either to allow our rule, or show us a bettor. Or,  
Q. 2. Whether what the Scriptures contain, be sufficient to guide us to salvation, or no? If you affirm it; then we shall think ourselves well enough with our old Rule, seeing we may be saved, and yet admit no other.  
If you deny it, you must outstare these plain Texts, 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. From a Child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation. And all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work. And that of John, wherewith he closeth his twentieth Chapter. These (speaking of the signs which Christ did) are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through his name. Say not, that this concerns only the Gospel of John, or if more, only the Histories of the Evangelists. For than we shall make bold to conclude our Position à fortiori. If there be enough in one, or at most four Books to work faith, and thereby bring us to salvation, much more in all the Scriptures.  
Q. 3. Whether the Scriptures of the old and new Testament be the word of God, or no? or do you own no word of God, but Christ? We suppose here you will answer us, as your brethren here do: We dare not deny it for fear of the Law; we dare not affirm it, for than we deny our own principles.  
We know not how you will answer it: But we must tell you, if you deny it, we are sure the Scriptures affirm it of themselves; else we desire to know, what it is that is called the Word of God in the places following Mar. 7. 13. 2 Cor. 2. 17. 4. 2. What it is that David so often calls by the name of thy word, Ps. 119. whether Christ spoke himself, or the declarative word of God, Lu. 5. 1. If you affirm it, We ask further;  
Q. 4. Whether it be not the duty of the Creature to believe and be guided by the declared word of God, rather than by any others word whatsoever?  
Q. 5. Whether there be any such thing in the World as Heresy, or Error? If there be not, to what purpose are all those Prophecies that foretell, and Cautions that forewarn God's people against them in the Scripture? If there be, may they be discovered, or no? If they may not, how can it be a duty incumbent upon Saints to avoid them? is there any avoiding of an undiscoverable evil? If they may, by what rule but the written Word?  
Q. 6. Whether there be any duty, or sin in the World, or no? The affinity your Sect hath with the Ranters in Principles (which G. Fox acknowledgeth) makes us believe, that some of you, would they speak out, must answer, No, but what a man thinks to be so. We will not judge the thoughts: But if you be more sober, we only ask you?  
Q. 7. What rule we have to judge of what is Duty, or Sin, but the written Law of God?  
Is it the light of every man's private bosom? This is the forementioned Ranting Principle.  
Is it immediate Revelation? For to this your brethren incline (as may be seen in the Queries sent to Mr. Baxter of Kiderminster, one of which was, Whether he owned Revelations, or no? And nailers Answer to his Quakers Catechism) and that very strongly; yea, they pretend to the same mission from God to this or that place, to do this or that errand, which the Prophets had of old, and to be limited in their stay in, and departure from such places, by the immediate commands of God 
* See Deusberies' discovery, and his own confession therein, That at Derby he answered the Major, that he would stay there till the Lord ordered him to go out of Town, and when he was put out, returned, and stayed till he was free in his spirit to departed, p. 8, 9   
If you be of their mind, we further inquire.  
Q. 8. What certain token you have to know the commands of God from the commands of Satan, seeing he can easily insinuate his suggestions by inward voices, as commands of God. According to the old Law of God to his people the Jews, Pretenders to a Spirit of Prophecy, though they gave evidence of their pretended mission from God by signs and wonders (and those coming to pass too) yet were to be discovered and judged by the written word, Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. etc. And in the new Testament, the Doctrine of an Angel from Heaven is submitted (under a curse) to the Doctrine preached by the Apostles, Gal. 1. 8. And we desire to know whether you will submit your Revelations to this Touchstone, or no? If so, you yield the question: If not, than whatever Commands or Prohibitions you receive in the way of revelation, you must obey, whether agreeing, or disagreeing to the written Law of God. And then how far the examples of Abraham offering up his Son, and Phinehas executing vengeance; yea (and when time serves) ehud's message from God to Eglon, may be witnessed in you (as you speak) we know 
Judg. 3. 19  not, and shall pray we never may, by experience.  
Q. 9 Whether the Scriptures do not establish itself as the rule of Faith, in referring all pretenders to new light, to the Law and the Testimony, and telling us expressly, That if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in 
Isa. 20. 8.  them. And whether the light in you and in your companions be not darkness, that will not undergo this trial?  
Q. 10. Whether the phrases of walking in the Law of the Lord, keeping Gods Testimonies, taking heed to a man's, way according to God's word, not wandering from God's Commandments, 
Ps. 119, 1, 2. 9, 10. 21. 30. 35. 51. 102. 110. 133. 157.  laying Gods Jugdments before him, going in the path of God's Commandments, not declining from God's Law, not departing from God's Judgements, not erring from his Precepts, ordering his steps in God's word, not declining from his testimonies; Are not clear evidences, that David made the written word that then was, his Rule? And you own David's Rule for yours, p. 8.  
Q. 11. Whether you think in your conscience, that Deut. 5. 32, 33. doth not convincingly prove the Scripture to be the Saints rule? The words are, Ye shall observe to do therefore, as the Lord your God hath commanded you (and before we have the repartition of the written Law) You shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left, etc. Your answer in your book, is in sum, 
P. 7.  that all the Scripture was not then written. But did not Moses therein establish as much as was then written, for the rule the Saints of those times were to walk by. Besides these words immediately refer to the Moral Law, before repeated in the same Chapter. And will you exclude that from being the Saints rule, as well as other Scriptures? Then indeed there will be no duty or sin, but as a man thinks.  
Q. 12. Whether you deal honestly with Calvin in that 
P. 20.  Scripture, Eph. 2. 20. whilst you tell your Readers that he saith in Terminis, That the Apostle doth in that Scripture intent Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets and Apostles did bear witness. Whereas Calvin saith expressly, It is without doubt that the [foundation] in this place is taken for the [Doctrine] of the Prophets and Apostles. And therefore Paul teacheth, that the 
Quin fundamentum hic pro doctrina sumatur minime dubium est. Et itaque docet Paulus, fidem ecclesiae, in hac doctrina debere esse fundatam Calv. in l.  Church's faith ought to be founded on this Doctrine. And there is not any mention at all of those words in Calvin, which you quote from him. To say the truth, we much wonder how you could have the brazen face to father a saying upon Calvin which he never said: till we looked upon Marlorate, whose mis-quotation, or rather the fault of his Printer (it seems) deceived you, for there we find among other things there ascribed to Calvin, this passage you mention. But it concerned a man of your acuteness, not to have taken up a report from another, when calvin's work are so common in every Shop and Study, that with a little pains more, you might have conversed with the Original Author, whence Marlorate makes his collections. But it seems you were willing to snatch at any thing that seemed to support your cause, where ever you found it. And yet you shown no part of ingenuity in your usage of Marlorate himself, who together with that passage which you quote, and under the same note by which he distinguisheth calvin's words, citys Calvin point blank against you, saying, that the Apostle shows in that place how the Ephesians were made fellow Citizens with the Saints, Nempe si fundati sint in Prophetarum & Apostolorum Doctrinâ, to wit, If they be founded on the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles.  
These words and others to the same purpose immediately precede your own quotation, which renders your dis-ingenuity the more culpable, as showing a wilful design of abusing so reverend a name to delude your Readers.  
Q. 13. In a word, tell us ingenuously, Whether we must, or must not believe the Doctrines which the Scriptures lay down upon their own authority? If we must, why do you quarrel at those that call them the rule, ground, foundation of faith; seeing every intelligent man will tell you, that it is the same thing, to believe the Doctrines of the Scripture upon the Scriptures authority, and to make the Scriptures the ground, rule, foundation of faith.  
If we must not, then tell us, what, superadded to the Scriptures own Authority, renders their Doctrines more credible? We observe the Papists state this question as you do. But they will answer us ingenuously, That they believe the Scriptures, because the Church hath confirmed them. And the Socinians are of your mind also; but they deal fairly too, and speak out, That they will believe the Scriptures as far as reason votes with them. Would you speak out, we doubt you must confess you are very near these last in your judgement: Why do you not tell us plainly; that you believe the Doctrines laid down in the Scripture, as far as the light within you concurs with them? And then we shall know what you mean, in denying the Scriptures to be the rule and ground of faith, Viz. That as much as pleaseth you you will believe, and what dislikes you, shall be cashiered as an old Declarative, or an Almanac out of date, as some of your Catercosins, the Familists have blasphemously called the Bible.  
Q. 14. Lastly, Whether God will not judge every man, who lives within the sound of the Gospel, by the written word? If not, what means the Apostle Paul, when he saith, that as many as have sinned in the Law, shall be judged by the Law, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel, Rom. 2. 12. 16.  
And seeing we are upon this subject, give us leave to inquire yet a little further; what are those Books out of which the dead shall be judged, and whence one day God will draw the rule of his proceed in the day of Judgement, as you may find, Apoc. 2. 12.  
If God will judge us out of the written word after death, surely, we are not to be blamed, if we study that Statute-Law, and labour to conform our belief, and practise thereunto whilst we live, which must judge us when we die. Or else, we pray you tell us, whether we must live by one rule here, and be judged hereafter by another?  
In your answer to these Queries, we must desire you not to play Child's play with us, and endeavour to put us off with trifling fallacies, which every Sophister can discern, as you do frequently in your particular contests with Mr. Thomas, which we doubt not you will here of with both ears, when he is at leisure to reply upon you: but deal candidly and positively as becomes a Scholar, and a Christian, with those who assure you they will with all possible fairness examine whatsoever of that nature you shall think necessary to rejoin hereunto.  
And here we shall put a period to our first debate with you, Sect. 63 concerning the Rule, ground, or foundation of faith: Which we say is the Scriptures, you (that we can find) yet say not, what it is, but say roundly it is not they.  
Our next friendly collation is about the way of drawing those Doctrines from the Scripture, which are to be believed and practised. Concerning which, your declared judgement is (as 
P. 5, 6. 19 etc.  well as we can gather it from your own expressions) That it is unlawful to interpret, or give any meaning of Scripture, or to draw any deductions and conclusions from it; but that we must rest satisfied with the bare words of Scripture, insomuch that nothing (according to you) is proved from the Scripture, but what is there in so many words.  
Concerning which Tenet we have a little knocked Shins with you before at arms end, but we shall now wrestle a fair fall, and come as close as we can, to give you a downright Cornish hug.  
First, therefore we must inform you, that your Generation Sect. 64 are not the first that have started the question, or so held it. We know not whether you understand French, or no, but if you do, we refer you to a discourse of Mr. Daillé, as learned a French man as any this latter age hath bred; who in a Book 
Lafoy fondee sur les S. Escritures, par Jean Daille.  printed about sixteen years since, hath a large dispute with certain Popish Methodists, who undertook to teach their deluded Proselytes, the same way of confuting the French Protestants, which you now principle your Disciples withal, to gravel those of this Nation. They deem (saith he) that there needs no more ado to baffle us, but to demand of us an express formal Text for every Article of our confession. This facile way (saith he further) hath produced a rabble of Disputants among them: and whereas at first they fled and declined all conferences of Religion, and permitted none but their Clergy to speak of it; now all sorts of people will adventure to engage with us, even Seamsters, and Carters Boys, being created Doctors in an instant by this handsome Method.  
The same Author derives the rise of it higher than that age too: But from such a Family, as neither they nor you have much cause to boast of. Eutiches the Heretic, that confounded the Natures of God and man in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
* Act Concil. chalcedon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Athanas. Ep. de Synod. Arim. & Seleuc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Et Dialog cont. Arianum. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Aug. Ep. 174. & 178. Id. Contra maxim? T. 6. fol. 144. G.  required an express Scripture to affirm, that in Christ there are two Natures. The Arians in Athanasius his time and after, denied the consubstantiality of the Son of God; Viz. That he was of the same substance with the Father (asserted by the Council of Nice, to express the Eternal Deity of the Son) as you do the word Sacrament, because it is not in so many Letters found in the Scripture. And concerning the very Godhead of Jesus Christ, in a Dialogue between Athanasius and an Arian, Let alone Syllogisms, saith the Arian, and show it us written that the Son is the true God.  
So Pascentius an Arian requires of Augustine to show him the word consubstantial in Scripture, without Argument. And in a like dispute between him and Maximinus, concerning the Godhead of the H. Ghost, when the Father proved it from the Scripture, that tells us, He hath a Temple, the proper adjunct of Divinity; the Heretic replies, Truth is not concluded by Argument, but proved by certain Testimonies. These things we have the more largely transcribed out of that learned Author, to let you know, out of what Forge that Weapon is hammered wherewith you encounter us. Fellow you now (if you please) the ancient Heretics, and modern Papists. For our parts, we are glad that we insist upon the same way and method of disputing, which the sounder part of the Church hath ever used to encounter them withal.  
Surely our Saviour Christ better knew the way of proving Sect. 65 conclusions from Scripture, than you or we: And yet he never thought it necessary to tie himself up to express Texts, but allowed himself the liberty of the interpretations and deductions. When Satan tempted him to turn stones into bread, he thought it sufficient to repel the Tentation, by that Text of Moses, Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word that 
Mat. 4. 4. Deut. 8. 3.  proceedeth out of the mouth of God. The force of which Answer lies in this Syllogism.  
If God be able to supply the want of ordinary food, that a man's life shall be sustained without it, whilst God hath work for him to do, then should I do ill, if (in distrust of him) I should command these stones to be made bread.  
But God is thus able; for man lives not, etc. Therefore I should do ill, if I should command these stones to be made bread.  
Had one of your Brethren been at the Devil's elbow, he would have taught him more wit then to take such an answer, and have turned him to put our Saviour upon the producing of an express Text of Scripture that forbade Jesus the Son of Mary to command stones to be made bread.  
So in the second Tentation, both our Saviour and the Devil Sect. 66 also (if no meanings or deductions be allowable in urging of Scripture) might have gone to School to you. The Devil urgeth Scripture to our Saviour, to conclude the lawfulness of his casting himself down from the Pinnacle: For (saith he) it is written, He shall give his Angels charge concerning thee, etc. We do not find our Saviour so well versed in your way of disputing, as to deny his proof, because it was not expressly, God shall give his Angels charge over Jesus the Son of Mary, and in their hands shall they bear him up, etc. But answers by another Scripture, to show that that Text was not to be understood of protection in ways of tempting God, by running ourselves upon unnecessary dangers.  
Nay, when our Saviour had answered him with that place, Deut. 6. 16. Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God, Satan also was to seek of that plea which you could have suggested to him, Viz. That that Scripture did not expressly forbidden Jesus of Nazareth to throw himself down from the Pinnacle.  
And in the third Tentation (according to your Tenet) our Sect. 67 Saviour had been hard put to it, to prove that it was unlawful to worship the Devil himself; had Satan been disciplined by your principles, and required of him an express Text, That it is not lawful to worship the Devil. Whereas it seems for want of your Artifice, the silly Tempter was put off with a Scripture that requires us to worship and serve God only, and concludes the unlawfulness of Devill-worship by this Argument,  
If we must worship and serve God only, ergo not the Devil.  
But we must worship and serve God only, therefore not the Devil.  
And the Sadduces afterwards were very silly animals, that Sect. 68 they would let our Saviour go away in triumph for putting 
Mat. 22. 32. Exod. 3. 6.  them to silence, by so weak a proof of the Resurrection, as the words of God to Moses in the Bush, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Why had they not required (in so fundamental an Article of faith especially) a positive and express Scripture, affirming in so many words, that the dead shall rise again.  
But you think our Saviour's example will not bear us out in Sect. 69 our interpretations and deductions, because he was infallible in 
P. 6.  what he spoke, and neither did nor could err in what he said; which, you suppose, cannot be said of us, or our meanings, and arguments. To which we answer, we do not compare ourselves with our Saviour in point of infallibility (although your generation do, who account themselves equally perfect with him.) But this we say, that our Saviour in these places and others, where he argues from the Scriptures, doth not urge his own infallibility, as the ground upon which he requires belief, neither did Satan or the Sadduces acquiesce in the acknowledgement thereof, but in the conviction wrought in them by the strength of his Arguments. And we must tell you, that any one who can draw an Argument rightly from Scripture, is no less infallible in the conclusions so deduced thence, than our Saviour was in his. The question therefore will be, Whether any person in interpreting and arguing from Scripture be infallible? but whether such interpretations and deductions be truly, and bona fide according to the mind of the H. Chost in Scripture, whether they be drawn by a person that is fallible or infallible? For be the person never so fallible that gives the interpretation, or draws the argument, yet if the interpretation be sound, and the argument rightly concluded, he is therein infallible: For you cannot be altogether ignorant of that common Maxim, That nothing 
Ex veris possunt non nisi vera sequi.  but truth can rightly follow from truth, and a false conclusion can never be regularly drawn from true premises.  
So that all that flourish which you afterwards make, is but a mere rhetorical vapour, and signifies just nothing to an understanding Sect. 70 Reader. For whereas you bid us either tell the people 
P. 6.  plainly, that we are infallible, that they may receive our deductions from Scripture, for true Doctrine, nay Scripture itself; or else say, that we are fallible, that so they may take liberty of proving our actions and doctrine.  
We answer, we need not tell the people we are infallible; and yet they are no less bound to receive our deductions (if rightly drawn from Scripture) then if we were indeed so. Because although we be not infallible, yet so far as we regularly argue from Scripture, we are not deceived, nor can deceive them. The authority of our deductions from Scripture, depends not on our fallibility or infallibility, but upon the evidence they carry in them, of their necessary connexion with the truth we argue from. And this because we own ourselves fallible, we allow our hearers to use their own judgements, and consciences to prove and try whether it be so or no. God forbidden but they who (as you say) must die for themselves, and account to the Lord for themselves, should interpret for themselves and believe for themselves? But what then? will it therefore follow that they must not receive our interpretations, or believe our deductions? Or that we may not help them to interpret, or draw deductions, which they cannot so well do themselves? They interpret for themselves, that by the light of the Scriptures, and their own Judgements led by them, see cause to own our interpretations. And they believe for themselves, who are (upon a serious weighing of our Arguments) convinced that they ought to admit them as just and lawful deductions from Scripture.  
What you add in the close of that Paragraph, that it may so Sect. 71 fall out, that six of those that esteem themselves the ablest Doctors, if shut asunder, shall so vary in the interpretation of one Scripture, that scarce two of the six shall agree in the same interpretation; Whence you would infer how little credit is to be given to our deductions: we might take for an unsavoury scoff. and so pass it by. But we shall forgive you this, and many more such, if it will do you any good, and vouchsafe to answer, even where you deserve no answer but silence and scorn. Be it therefore as you say (which yet in Scriptures that contain matter of saith and practice, we cannot suppose; most of us, we conceive, in such, are, at least (till the new-fangled conceits of these times infected some of the Ministry, as well as others) were, of the same mind in most of them) yet herein we are no more to be blamed then the Apostles and other primitive Teachers themselves, who differed as much in those times of clearest light about the Scriptures that enjoined the observation of Jewish Ceremonies; whilst some of them earnestly contended, that they extended to converted Gentiles, and others affirmed the quite contrary. And will you thence conclude, that there is little credit to be given to any of their deductions, because they disagreed among themselves? All that can be hence solidly inferred, is no more but this, that therefore it concerns God's people to search (with the Noble Beroeans) whether the things, the one or the other saith, be most consonant to the Scriptures.  
But you that will not believe our interpretations, or deductions, Sect. 72 because we are not in all things agreed; will you believe them in those things wherein we are all, or the greatest part of us of a mind: Surely, if so, most of the quaking Doctrines will fall to the ground; for very few, if any of us, shall dare to interpret Scriptures to the countenance of those horrid Doctrines before mentioned.  
In a word, this whole discourse about infallibility, and differences Sect. 73 among ourselves in interpretation of Scripture (as one hath very well observed before us) smells rank of your Popish 
Baxtet, Quakers Catechism.  Tutors. For are they not the very same things which they object against us? That we have not an infalliable Spirit to interpret Scriptures, and that we differ among ourselves in our interpretations; and therefore when we appeal to Scripture, as the only Judge of Controversies between us; they (as you do) deny it upon this account, because we have no infallible Spirit to interpret the Scriptures controverted, and thereby give an Authoritative decision of them. And what we answer to them, we therefore say to you in a word, The Scripture we own as our only Rule, and Judge in matters of faith; and we own no interpretation of Scripture, nor desire others to own any, but such as hold proportion with other Scriptures; and such interpretations and deductions are so far infallible, as they do necessarily agree to them, or follow from them.  
But (say you further) You have some of you been Teachers in Sect. 73 this Nation, ten, twenty, thirty years: were those things that you have taught so many years together, necessarily deduced from Scripture? What then? If not (say you) then by your own confession you have taught falsehood. But stay, Sir, every deduction that is not necessarily drawn from Scripture, is not falsehood. A true conclusion may have but a probable consequence sometimes to infer it from the premises. It's truth is never the less for that, but its evidence. But suppose we should confess (for once) that all which we deduce from Scripture is not true? We know not what use you will make of it, except this, that those that do not always speak truth, are not to be thought at any time to do so. And if so, we know whom this inference will hit as well as ourselves. What think you of the Apostle Peter, whom Paul withstood to his face, Gal. 2. 11. for countenancing the false brethren in the Doctrine and practice of the Mosaical Ordinances among the Gentile Churches, and compelling the Gentiles to live as the Jews? was he never in the right, or not to be believed to be so, because he was then in the wrong? Nay, doth not God himself suppose a possibility of being deceived in the best of his Ministers, when he bids hearers prove all things, 1 Thes. 5. 21. and commends the Beroeans for searching the Scriptures, whether the things that Paul and Silas preached, were so or no? Act. 17. 11. We suppose that no godly Minister will preach that, which he knows to be false. But if without his knowledge (yea, or with his knowledge) any one should do so; it is the hearers fault if he be deceived thereby, because he hath a certain rule whereby to examine what he teacheth; and we profess we desire no further to be credited then the Scripture will bear us out in what we say.  
But suppose there be some of us possibly to be found, who Sect. 74 will justify all that they have preached for so long time, to be truth necessarily deduced from Scripture: What of that? Why? then (say you) all that is so taught is infallible. True; And what then? Forsooth, then (you add) why do you not then adjoin all your Sermons to the Scripture; for if necessarily deduced from Scripture, they are Scripture, and a part of the Saints rule: And so (you go on) it would become so voluminous a Book, that many poor Souls Estates would not buy a Bible. We shall give you a brief account why we do not, if it may do you service, And that is, because we do not judge ourselves so immediately inspired in our Sermons (although we deliver the same truths) the holy Penmen of God were in penning of the Scriptures. The sacred Writers of Scripture, did not only write the things they left upon record to the Church, by immediate inspiration, but the words and phrases in which they expressed them. Whereas the best Ministers that since have been, have been feign to express those truths in notions and terms of their own; yea, and the Apostles themselves in their popular Sermons. And therefore, we suppose, the H. Ghost thought not fit to record all the popular Sermons which were preached by the Apostles themselves, but only appointed them to draw up the sum of the Doctrine they generally taught in expressions of their own, into a form of sound words of his own inspiration, to be a Standard of Doctrine and expression to succeeding ages.  
And yet, supposing the Apostles always preached as they Sect. 75 wrote (by immediate inspiration) as to matter and form; then we ask you, Why they did not bind up all their Sermons with the Canonical Scriptures, seeing all they taught was infallible? Whatever you answer hereunto, will be applied to our case. But we suppose John gives you a sufficient reason in the close of his Gospel, There are many other things (saith he) which Jesus 
Jo. 21. 25.  did, which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the World itself would not contain the Books that should be written. So that God therefore thought fit to keep from after Ages, part of the History of Christ, that the Bible might not be too voluminous. And we hope, the same reason will serve for us, if we do not bind up our necessary and infallible deductions with the Bible.  
In a word, this question is proposed with no greater measure Sect. 76 of discretion, then if you should ask, Whether all the Bushels, and Yards, and Pints in every man's house or shop in Bristol be exact measure, or no? If all, say ye: than you further inquire; Why they do not all bring them into the Market-house, or public place appointed for that purpose, and chain them all to the common Standard, seeing they are all alike exact with it? Surely to such a wise question, the answer will be easy, Viz. Because one public Standard is enough to measure private Measures by; and the several Tradesmen according to their several employments, having once had their private Measures tried by that, can make profitable use of them at home. We shall leave you to make the application to the Question in hand.  
But before we dismiss this captious Argument of yours, Sect. 77 you shall give us leave to retort it upon you, and then see whether you can give a wiser answer to your own question in your own case, than we have done in ours. We ask therefore. Is all that George Fox, James Nayler, or yourself teach, writ, and pronounce as from God (For from Scripture you will not say you speak, seeing that it is not your rule of Doctrine) necessarily true, or no? If not, then (by your own confession) you have (if your own Argument be good) taught falsehood; if so; then all you and they have taught is infallible; for you say, it is dictated by the same Spirit that indicted the Scriptures, and so equal to them (your Epistles are as good as St. Paul's is before-said by some of you.) And then why do you not adjoin all your Preachments and Pamphlets to the Bible? etc.  
Thus you see the practice of our Saviour Christ (notwithstanding Sect. 78 his infallibility, which we pretend not to) is and aught to be herein our example. But we need not defend our practice with so great a name, having the examples of so many Apostles, and other primitive Teachers to plead for us. We pray you tell us (otherwise) how the Apostles proved by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ? Did they, or could they bring any one Text in all the old Testament that saith so in terminis, That Jesus the Son of Mary, barn in Bethlem, is the 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 17. 2.  Messiah? No, but the Text tells us; that they opened the Scriptures, and laid them one by another in a way of reasoning, (as the word rendered alleging signifies in the Original) and so convinced the Jews. How will you dispute with a Jew, that owns not the infallibility of the Penmen of the New Testament, and so will question the truth of what is there affirmed, that this Jesus is the Christ? you have no Weapon to encounter him withal, but Argument and deductions from the old Testament: For did the old Testament expressly say so any where, the question were at an end between us and him.  
We entreat you further to tell us, how the Apostle Paul Sect. 79 makes good his assertion concerning the lawfulness of his and Barnabasses requiring, and receiving maintenance out of the Law, 1 Cor. 9 8. Say I these things as a man, i. e. by mine own private judgement, or saith not the Law the same also. We pray you tell us where the Law saith in so many words, that Paul and Barnabas might lawfully forbear working, & expect to eat the fruit of the Vineyard they planted? etc. Sure we are, the place quoted by him out of the Law, saith no more but this, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth out the Corn, v. 9 Here is not a word of Paul and Barnabas, except Paul and Barnabas be Oxen (would a Quaker reply.) But though the Text speak expressly of Oxen, yet the Apostle finds Paul and Barnabas, in the reason and equity of that Law; and so makes a strong Argument of it, vers. 10.  
And surely it will prove an hard matter to yourself, or your Sect. 80 Companions, to draw forth to any rational man the Dectrines of election and reprobation, out of Gen. 25. 23. & Mal. 1, 2, 3. quoted for the proof thereof by that Apostle, Rom. 9 11, 12, 13. and the righteousness of these decrees out of Exod. 33. 19 and many other Doctrines of affinity with them, in that Chapter, out of the rest of the old Testament Texts there alleged, without consequences; We are sure none of them all are in express terms in those Scriptures brought to prove them. We might add the proofs that the Author to the Hebrews brings for the Godhead of Christ, from Psa. 45. 6, 7. 102. 25. & 110. 1. quoted, Chap. 1. 8. 9 10. 13. and the Eternity of Christ's Priesthood from the History of Melchizedek, and Psa. 110. 4. quoted Chap. 7.  
But we foreseee, that the question will still be between us, Sect. 81 Whether we be infallible (as the Apostles are supposed to have been) in our interpretations and deductions? For answer whereto, we refer you to what was even now said on this point. Only here we crave leave to add, that we have reason to think our infallibility and yours is much at a rate: And yet we find you very frequently taking that liberty which you deny us. For how do you conceive the Prophecies of Micha against those that taught for hire, and the woes of our Saviour, against those that do their works to be seen of men, and stand praying in the Synagogues, and love the uppermost rooms at Feasts, and greetings in the Markets, etc. and the commands given to the Apostles of Christ that then were sent by him upon a special errand, of giving freely what they freely received, etc. concern us, whose names are not expressly mentioned in those Texts, but by deduction or argumentation, such as it is? Nay, how do you bring down the prohibitions of calling men Masters, respecting of persons, etc. to be obliging to you, and your Proselytes, but by consequence? Were it not easy for us (were we minded to play the same Child's play with you which you do with us) to require of you an express place of Scripture, forbidding Thomas Speed by name, to do thus and thus: or at least every Christian or Disciple? and yet then you would need a deduction to bring down the prohibition to yourself in particular, such as this,  
No Christian, or Disciple of Christ must call men Masters. But T. S. is a Christian. We wish he were.  
Therefore T. S. must not call men Masters.  
Nay (to go yet further with you) we might very well require Sect. 82 of you an express Scripture for your two fundamental Articles, That Christ is the light that enlightens every one that comes into the World; and that Christ is the word of God, and not to the Scriptures. A good friend of yours in a discourse 
T. C.  with one of us, having before denied all consequences and deductions from Scripture, as you do; was pitifully gravelled, when he was required to produce express Scriptures to prove these propositions, and was told that the Texts he produced, which were Jo. 8. 12. I am the light of the World, and Jo. 1. 9 That was the true light which enlighteneth every one that comes into the World, had not the name of Christ in them, but it was to be concluded by Argument, that those words are spoken of Christ; and that the place, Jo. 1. 1. did not expressly affirm that Christ is the word: but is only inferred thence by deductions. And (as for meanings and interpretations) it was none of the best, which the same party gave of that Scripture, which forbids the Disciples to carry shoes, as well as a Purse or Scrip (whence he was told, that it as much concerned G. Fox to go without shoes, as us without Purse or Scrip) Viz. That the Text forbids to carry shoes, but not to wear them. A learned interpretation, and such as becomes your infallibility! And yourself, however unlawful you judge it in us to interpret Scripture, yet Sect. 83 more then once undertake it very Dictator-like; as p. 8. where you interpret the word Rule, Gal. 6. 16. for the rule of the new Creature, not the Scriptures (as if the Scripture, and the rule of the new Creature were opposites:) and so p. 19 where you interpret the Record spoken of 1. Jo. 5. 10. to be eternal life, not the Scriptures: and again, p. 20. you interpret the foundation spoken of, Eph. 2. 20. to be that same Jesus, who was preached by the Prophets and Apostles. So hard a matter it is for men that undertake to give Law to others, not to transgress it themselves; and not to conceit the case altered in their own concernments, from what they rigorously pronounce concerning others!  
We have not yet quite done with you, and therefore we must Sect. 84 crave your patience a little longer, whilst we ask you a few plain Questions upon this subject now at hand.  
Q. 1. Sir, you will admit of no interpretations of Scripture, we entreat you therefore to tell us. Christ saith, he is the true Vine, and his Father an Husbandman, Jo. 15. 1. Are they properly so, or Metaphorically? If you say metaphorically, or improperly, you interpret; for the Texts express words are not, I am a metaphorical Vine, and my Father a metaphorical Husbandman. If you say properly, you blaspheme.  
Q. 2. Christ saith, I am the door, Jo. 10. 9 You believe, you 
Epistle, p. 7.  say, that Christ means as he speaks, and therefore you deny our meanings and interpretations as needless. Is Christ then that which we in propriety of speech call a door? If you say, he is in a spiritual sense a door; who interprets now? Do we offend, if we interpret this Text, of a spiritual door to a mystical building, and you though you give the same sense, not so?  
Q. 3. Nay, what say you further to those two places of Paul and James, which in words flatly contradict one another. Ye see, saith James, that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only, Ja. 2. 24. But we know, saith Paul, That a man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, Gal. 2. 16. You will allow (we hope) that the Scriptures are truth, though they be not the word of God. Now truth, and truth, contradict not each other; so that we must find a different sense from the contexts of both places, wherein the one affirms that works justify not, and the other that they do.  
This reconciliation is usually made by our Divines thus; St. Paul denies works to constitute any person just before God, and James affirms, that works declare a person just. How you (without interpretation) will reconcile them, we know not; especially when we consider that you are a greater friend to constitutive justification by works (if you be of the mind of your fellow Quakers than we believe James was, and so are more concerned to study how to come off fairly with Paul than we.  
Q. 4. And now we are upon the point of reconciling Scriptures, we shall make you a little more work in this kind. Christ saith, The Father is greater than I, and yet he saith again, I and the Father are one: And Paul saith of him, That he accounted it no Robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2. 9 The Apostle John saith, There are three that hear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the H. Ghost, and these three are one. Show us (without interpretation) how Christ can be equal with the Father without robbery, and one with him, and yet the Father greater than he, how the Father, the word, and the H. Ghost can be three and yet one.  
And we might here also put you the question that our Saviour put to the Pharisees. Mat. 22. 41. How Christ, is David's Son, and yet David's Lord? and we suppose with the same success that you will never be able to Answer us a word, if you hold your Principle of denying all interpretations, but that your forehead possibly may be harder than the Pharisees.  
Q. 5. What will you say to a Papist, (but that you own not the Scripture, as a rule of Doctrine, which indeed is a quick way of Answering all difficult Texts) when he tells you that he finds Transubstantiation in this is my body? Is the expression proper, or figurative? was the bread his body indeed, or a Sign of it? if you say his body indeed, you are a Papist, if not you interpret.  
Sir to be short, we shall take leave to mind you of these particulars, and we have done.  
1. As to that un-christian passage of yours [viz. a righteousness beyond the Stars, a Righteousness far above us] as you call the Righteousness of Christ in a slighting manner (and we have just ground to fear, some of those you plead for speak to that purpose in a spiting way) we hearty advise you to take heed what you do, that you may not be found in the number of those who by wicked hands labour to pull the Crown from the Head of Jesus, and destroy the very being of Holiness amongst men, for all the works of such Persons at the best are but beautiful deformities, and although they may be highly esteemed amongst men, yet they are abomination before the Holy God; for our parts we are not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, and have (through mercy) determined not to know any thing amongst our People but Jesus Christ, and him crucified: and we judge it a special duty in this season (the Lord help us in it) that the more you and your complices do either wretchedly reflect upon, or down right Blaspheme and speak against that Glorious Righteousness, the more to exalt, and make mention of that Righteousness, even that only.  
2. Whereas you say [could the Scripture be a rule before it was Scripture?] We answer, the word now written, even the self same word was the very same, and had the same Office viz. to be a Divine ground of faith and rule of life before it was written; as for instance, enoch's Prophesy quoted by Judas 14. 15 concerning the judge, the attendants, the Persons to be judged, the judgement itself, the deeds and words for which they are judged, is the very same with the written word; and God's word to Abraham Gen 17. 1. I am God all-sufficient, waelke before me, and be upright, is the same with, nay is the sum of the written word, yet this was spoken four hundred years before a word was committed to writing, it being generally agreed upon, that Moses was the first holy man that did write by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost Pray Sir tell us what difference was there between the Law as spoken by the mouth of God, and afterwards written by the finger of God? When Moses being provoked in the business of the Golden Calf had broken the two Tables, God commanded him to make two Tables of Stone more, and the Text tells us that God did write the very self same words that he had written before in the first Tables Exod. 34. 1. the Truth is you do but trifle in your Quaerie, yet we fear you border not far from Blasphemy, you nursle up your quaking friends in their horrid rejecting of the Scriptures to be the rule, and so make them listen after inspirations, you would make void the word of God through your pretended Revelations, and pull that pure and perfect clear Light out of the Firmament of Assembleis, that men might follow the ignis fatuus of their darkened minds, and deceitful hearts.  
3. You quaere, Whether our Sermons are infallible, and if so, why they are not bound up with the Bible, and if so, how huge a Volume would it make, and how few could buy it? we reply, the Doctrine which we Preach is not ours, but Gods, and therefore infallible, but must they therefore be bound up with the Bible. what think you of the Sermons of Jesus Christ Luke 4. 21. Luke 5. 3. were they not infallible? or the Sermon Philip Preached to the Eunuch out of Esay 53. Acts 8. 53. or that Paul Preached at his farewell Acts 20. 7. were they not infallibly true? yet these were not bound up with the Bible, why do you thus from your inward darkness cavil at outward Light? we call it your darkness, hoping that you do not knowingly oppose the truth.  
4. As for Minister's Maintenance, upon which you harp so much, as knowing the sound to be very welcome to the ears of your gang and others, we desire this favour at your hands, either soberly to answer our reasons, or else to be so ingenuous as to forbear your scoffings.  
5. As for your defence of the Language [thee and thou] we refer you to what is said a 'bove, we shall only add this, we cannot think it to be any such great Crime to speak in this one case the plural you for thou, for the singular, as when Saint Paul says we for I, as Heb. 6. 9 we are persuaded better things of you, and though we thus speak, and again, we desire v. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Lastly, whereas as you say in favour of your dear Quakers [these are the Practices for which they are hated] as though they were so innocent: we reply, besides their Blasphemies, of which before, and their rail, curse, slanders, untruths, we desire to know what you think of four or five instances we shall propose; first, what do you think of the Quaker that acted that most abominable, unnameable sin with a Mare? what do you think of it, was it not from his light within? or what is your opinion of another poor wretch, that hanged himself? these two you may find at large added to the relation of Gilpin of Kendal, and confessed by the Prime of that way to be true; what may be your thoughts of those Quakers that killed their Mother? it was thus, they were taught to hearken to, and follow after the Light within them, this Light taught them they ought to destroy the Original of Sin, and by the said Light they apprehended their Mother to be the Original, and from thence still by the said Light they most wickedly embrued their hands in the blood of their Mother, this you may read in Mr. William Keyes Minister of Stokesly his Answer to eighteen Queries who was with them in Prison.  
What may be your judgement of Nicholas Kate of Harwell in this County of Berks? who about ten months since came into Newberry between eight and nine in the Morning on the Lord; day, stark naked in a most immodest manner, even beyond the Pagans, and so walked through a long Street, only with an enchanted belt about him (which belt we have ground to call enchanted,) this man did not converse or live as a Husband with his wife for many months before this, we will tell you what his Doctrines were.  

1. That Marriage was made by man.  
2. That Christians were worse than Beasts.  
3. That any woman was as free to him as his Wife:  
4. That his wife was no wife of his, she was a limb of the Devil.  
5. That he was holy, and all things that he touched were holy, as his very Hatchet, his pot, his knife.  
6. That when the fullness of time was come he should work miracles.   
This man hath left his own family his Land and stock of a very considerable value, entered upon by Persons whom the Country esteemeth Ranters, his wife a weak diseased woman, who brought him a valuable portion, left to the mercies of these Persons, which are cruel enough to her, the farmer Kate himself since his departure was never heard of by his wife or any of her friends, if any Person can tell where he is, or what is become of him, they may do a charitable Christian Office to inform his much distressed Wife. Lastly, what do you think of one of your neighbours of Bristol who lately even the 29. of April last at Marleborough in the County of Wilts in a discourse with a Godly, discreet, and Learned friend, held out this Light,  

1. He knew no such thing as the resurrection of the body.  
2. That the body of Christ was not in Heaven, neither should he come thence with a body.  
3. He defended those that went naked, but as yet, he had no command to do so.  
4. That of late he went to bed with a woman who was not his wife, and that he did it without Sin.  
5. That that very Christ crucified at Jerusalem, was indwelling in him.  
6. That he was confident of his perfect holiness, and on that account went to bed with the woman, and yet afterwards excused himself saying, there was a necessity for it, there was no other spare bed in the House.   
Sir, these, with those before recited, are the Doctrines and Practices that we according to the measure received contend against; all the hurt we wish you is this, that God would give you the spirit of truth love, and of a sound mind, that you may not go on to vilify the Lord of Glory, to slight the word of life, truth and salvation, and shoot your Tart, indeed bitter speeches like darts against men that fear God, and desire to prize and keep close to the word of his grace; for our parts we have a witness within, that what we have done, is for the truth, which we pray, that you and we may receive in the love of it, and in so doing, we shall subscribe ourselves,  
Reding this 12 of May 1656. Your Friends, 

Christopher Fowler.  
Simon Ford.     
FINIS.