STABLISHING AGAINST SHAKING: OR, A Discovery of the Prince of Darkness (scarcely) transformed into an Angel of Light, powerfully now working in the deluded people called, QUAKERS:  
WITH A sober Answer to their rail against Ministers for receiving maintenance from their people.  
Being the substance of one SERMON preached Feb. 17. 1655. at Shalford in Essex.  
BY GILES FIRMIN (Pastor of the Church there) upon occasion of the Quakers troubling those parts.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for Nathanael Webb, and William Grantham, at the black Bear in St. Paul's Churchyard near the little North-door. 1656.   

To the Worshipful DUDLEY TEMPLER Esq. Justice of the Peace in ESSEX.  
SIR,  
I Should be very ungrateful, now this Sermon comes to be read, if I should forget you, without whose assistance it had scarce been 
* Twice I was interrupted, as I was preaching.  heard. I wished much for your presence, though I did not request it: but what I feared yourself apprehended, and seasonably coming in, stopped those mouths by your Civil power, which neither reason, nor the solemnity of the Ordinance would have silenced: had you been an Anabaptist, an enemy to the Ministry and Learning (as some have unjustly reported) you might have spared this care: if this act will not clear you, let my pen answer for you; (for I think no Minister hath more inward acquaintance with you than myself) I never heard him so much as question his own Baptism, but I have heard him disapprove of persons for being rebaptized, and two of his Children myself have baptised; how then is he an Anabaptist: When a Minister was nominated to succeed his deceased Pastor, because it was told him, that he was a Minister that would admit Tradesmen into his Pulpit, he told me he should never come there; and for Learning, such an enemy he is unto it, that I have heard him say, Take away Learning, and England becomes a dunghill: This I am sure, be a Minister Classical, or congregational, so he be learned, able, and godly, holding to the old sound Divinity, he makes no difference, but can embrace both, beteaming them not only amaintenance, but an honourable maintenance. How then men will prove their reports, I know not, unless thus, He is a Soldier; Ergo: but it is easily answered, Non sequitur, unless this Proposition be true, All Soldiers are Anabaptists and enemies to the Ministry, etc. which I am sure is false of some, though true of too many. Go on then, good Sir, let not these reports trouble you (though I know they have done) God will in time clear up your innocency more by your actions than by my pen, and give his Church as much cause to bless him for your faithfulness to it, as the Commonwealth hath cause to bless him, for the  integrity, and painful diligence, which you have manifested in the execution of your Office as related to it: What I have here presented to you I pray accept, as a testimony of that honourable respect I bear unto you, subscribing myself,  
Feb. 28. 1655. Your servant GILES FIRMIN.   

To the READER.  
NO man, I think, was more resolved against meddling with this Sect than myself, insomuch that though they came into divers Towns about me, yet I let them alone, judging silence to be best, and was apt to blame other Ministers that kept Fasts against them, being a generation not worthy the taking notice of: but I saw at last, when I would not trouble them, they would trouble me, sent divers of their Books into our Town, invited my people to come and hear, and prevailed with some to hear; now I was forced to change my resolutions, Dury calling upon me now to speak: twelve of their Books were brought to me, (besides Toldervy's, who said, his foot was out of the snare, but I could not so judge of him, and what I said of him is since come to pass) which when I had perused, I made one Sermon to discover this generation, and I bless God for the good success I found of it. Some people desired my Notes, but my Sermon being very long, it was too tedious to write over my Notes; and some friends counselling me to print them: I chose this as the easiest way: some passages I have added, which I would not use in a pulpit: when will the blessed God remove these spiritual judgements from this poor Nation?   

Stablishing against Quaking, etc.  2 Cor. 11.14. 
And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of Light.  
THis Chapter may be divided into four parts:  
1. Is a Preface the Apostle makes to his Apology, desiring the Corinthians to give him audience, and weigh well what he had to say from the● to the 6 verse.  
2. He answereth to what they had alleged against him; from the 6 to the 13 ver.  
3. He makes a little digression, and points out these false Teachers in their colours, from ver. 13 to v. 16.  
4. He compares himself with these false Teachers.  For the first he giveth divers reasons why they should hear him, and that carefully. 
1. The ardent, holy love he bore to them, ver. 2. taking his Metaphor from the jealousy in Conjugal relations; he speaketh as a wooer, though he did not woo for himself, but for Christ; and so explicates this in the next words, For I have espoused you, etc.  
2. From the holy fear he had, illustrated by a comparison, what the Serpent was to Eve, the same he will be to you if he can. ver. 3.  
3. 
Verba haec quandam qua●i irontā prae se ferre videntur quâ Corinthios, novitatis avidos false ridet, Wein●: in loc.  If your new Teachers can bring another Christ, a more excellent Gospel, or confer more excellent gifts of the Holy Ghost, then let them be heard; but since this is impossible, they cannot preach Christ, nor open the Gospel, nor confer such gifts; therefore hear me, ver. 4.  
The same we will say to these Quakers, or any despisers of the Ministers, if they can open the Gospel, can teach Christ, have better gifts than the Ministers, then run after them, but if not, then stay with those who first taught you Christ, the Gospel, etc.  
4. I am not only superior to these false teachers, but I am equal with the best of the Apostles, therefore hear me, and thus, ver. 5.  
From Paul's using thus many Arguments to get audience, observe: When once people have lent their ears to false teachers, they will hardly lend them again to true.  
True Teachers must plead hard for their people's ears, and it is well if they can with entreaties prevail: it was so then, and to be sure we find it so now.  
2. He answers what they objected against him:  
1. They object, that he was rude in speech, ver. 6. He did not lard his Sermons, nor Epistles with Athenian eloquence, nor flourish with gallant strains of wit: yet surely not so rude as they made him, he could speak so well that (Act. 14. ver. 12.) the heathens took him to be Mercurius, one of their gods. Well, he answers, am I so rude, but examine me in my knowledge, consider me in all things that are requisite to an Apostle, and so if I have not manifested myself in all things to be a true one.  
The same we say to these Quakers, and all others, if by their knowledge, and all things else requisite to Ministers or Apostles, [if there be any more to come, for they tell us they are sent out with an Apostolical spirit] they can manifest themselves to us to be Ministers, or Apostles, we will listen to them; but by all we can find in their Books, they scarce appear to be rational men.  
2. The second Objection was, the humility of his person, ver. 7. he abased himself, wrought with hands, taught the Gospel freely. To this he answers, you need not object this against me, for my humiliation was but your exaltation; for I spared you: but how then maintained? by other Churches, ver. 8, 9 the Churches of Macedonia supplied my wants. But as for you I have not been burdensome to you, neither will I be, ver. 9 to the end. In the Regions of Achaia none shall stop me of this boasting: which he confirms with a kind of an oath, as Calvin, Piscator, Weinrichius, and others judge of the words, As the truth of Christ is in me, ver. 10. as I am a true Minister of Christ: or let me not be esteemed to have any truth. To be sure this is more than Yea, yea, and Nay. Which the Quakers make so much use of.  
But why will you take no maintenance of us, it is because you do not love us? ver. 11. So my enemies may suggest to you, I love the Macedonians, but not you. But this is not so, God knows, he appeals to God: this is more than Yea, yea again. True here is a weighty case why Paul useth these expressions. But why then will you not & c? I will give you the reason in v. 12. because first I would cut off occasion that is, should I take maintenance of all Churches, my enemies your false teachers, would tell you that all my preaching is but for money, profit; but now they cannot say so, for I take nothing of you. Again, your false teachers they glory that they teach freely, they require nothing of you, no more do I, nor will I in the regions of Achaia: Now you have the Reasons.  
Before I go any further, I have here as fit a place as I could desire (I did not think of it when I chose my Text, but I see Providence hath fitted a place for me) to take up that great clamour which with one mouth all the Quakers make against the Ministry. I must name them all if any, for all their Books are full of it, (and with the Quakers the Separatists) we are no true Ministers; but why? we teach not the Gospel freely as did the Apostles: we preach for hire, divine for money, we are covetous, and much of this strain, divers of their pages have little else but this kind of stuff. Thus the silly Women told me in the Church, I was a Hireling, etc.  
To all these I answer:  
1. False teachers may and have preached freely: then be sure free teaching could not prove us to be true Ministers. 
Yet the Quakers teach not freely, for at one Town by me, I hear that one of these Quakers had about five pounds gathered for him, besides his entertainment.  This is plain from the Apostle here in ver. 12. for the false teachers did glory in this, and therefore Paul he would teach freely to Corinth, and be even with them in glorying. Thus Parnell, who tells us he is sent from Christ, (if any man could believe him, but the youth thinks others have as few brains as himself) he teacheth freely (and well he may:) but this doth not prove him to be a true Teacher, nor none of his Sect, or any other Sect whatever: but he is a false teacher, though a free teacher, as were these: (but [Teacher] is a word he deserves not.)  
2. It is false, that All the Apostles taught freely, and wrought to maintain themselves. This is plain, 1 Cor. 9.6. in which Chap. the Apostle proves by no less than seven Arguments, that the Ministers may take maintenance, ver. 14. speaks as fully as can be, being the winding up of his arguments: Even so hath the Lord ordained, etc. Here is an Ordinance from heaven for the maintenance of right Gospel-Preachers, if the authority of the LORD who made it, be as good as the authority of the Quakers and Separatists, and by virtue of this Ordinance we claim our maintenance. How learnedly the Quakers talk of these arguments you shall hear anon. But to come to the 6 ver. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? The word [Only] plainly carries it, that the other Apostles, who were married, and were trained up to fishing (divers of them) those did forbear: but what have all the Apostles thus power to leave of, take maintenance, but I only and Barnabas, & c? No, no, we have the same power as well as they. But ver. 15. I have used none of these things, etc. Again, in the 12 ver. If others be partakers of this power over you, etc. Their own Officers, it seems, or others did take maintenance. So could he.  
3. It is false also that Paul took no maintenance: for in the 8 & 9 ver. of my Chap: he saith, He took wages of others to serve them, i. e. the Church of Philippi. Paul could take his liberty where he saw cause. If Paul, than we.  
4. We desire none to speak for us, more than Paul, whom these Quakers object against us: For we have his own example, he did take wages. Secondly, he as moved and guided by God's Spirit, doth not only show it is the mind of God, but he proves it also, by divers reasons, 1 Cor. 9 Add to this, 6 Gal. 6. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth, (or catechizeth, as the word properly signifies) in all good things.  
Will the Quakers allow this Text to be Scripture? then let Him, be he or she what they will, high or low, 
It's possible the Quakers will object against the she, but I will let them alone to see if they will do it.  master or servant, is he or she taught; catechised? then communicate in All, what All? this word will not be liked: yea all good things, fit to be communicated, or communicable. So 1 Tim. 5.17. one part of the honour Ministers must have is maintenance, the 18 ver. proves it: mark, it is honorarium, the maintenance of the Elders is not as the pay I give for a servants work, but it is honour, an honourable maintenance. The same Apostle saith, 2 Tim. 2 4. 
So 1 Tim 4.15. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be in these things.  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, etc. But how then shall he live? I shall add no more, God hath provided for us expressly in the New Testament; though the maintenance we have fall short abundantly of what the Priests had in the Old Test:  
5. The LORD did never upbraid any Church-Officer for taking tithes or maintenance who did his work; nor ever thought the worse of for that: nay, how often he blames the people for not bringing in the tithes, Mal. 3.8, 9, 10. and other Texts. The Lord did ever beteame his Ministers honourable wages Whence you do but wickedly to upbraid us with those Texts, unless you could prove us to be no workers. I doubt not but Christ in glory doth take himself to be faithfully preached by the Ministers of England, (I will not say every one) why then not maintained?  
6. But observe these Quakers how they provide for themselves by Scripture. Naylor: Saluta: etc. p. 37. 38. he speaks against the Magistrates because they imprison some of their Sect, calling themselves Pilgrims, and tells them, that God foreseeing their do, hath commanded all that own him to entertain strangers, and made a Law for it, which you have made a Law against, and quotes Levit. 19.34. Heb. 13.2. Observe how they have provided for themselves, when they wander up and down, to misled souls, and trouble the Churches; yet you must entertain them: they have two Scriptures for it. But Naylor;  
1. Do the Spirit that is infallible teach men to lie as you do against the Magistrate? hath he made a Law against God's Law in this point? no true stranger will say it but idle persons, Vagabonds, Rogues, persons who work not in their callings, what should become of the Nation else?  
2. Will two Texts serve to prove that Naylor, or others, when they wander up and down, yet they must be entertained, men must provide you lodging, food, etc. and will not five Scriptures that speak for Minister's maintenance, be as strong for them to require it? are not the people bound as well to provide for us, as men to entertain you? you are the persons who oppose God's Law, not the Magistrate. For shame leave off quoting of Scriptures thus.  
3. But Naylor you might have read a little further, to the 7 & 17 ver: there you shall find that these Hebrews to whom the Apostle writes, had Rulers over them, and they were to obey them: their duty to entertain strangers, so to have Rulers and obey them: but your Sect, and so others with you are not such as those Hebrews, from whom you fetch your proof, for you rail at those who are such, and at the people who have such.  
Thus then by the Quakers principles, I hope we may yet call for our maintenance.  
7. Our Lord Christ, who Mat. 10.8. bid his Disciples, that as they had received freely, so give freely: that is, as Christ had freely given them those gifts of healing, etc. by which they might have soon been very rich (the 1 & 8 ver. show what they had received,) yet Luke 10.7. he bids them eat and drink, for the labourer is worthy of his hire. If they must carry no purse with them, ver. 4. he intended they should be maintained, and show plainly it was their duty to maintain them; for he could have furnished them with money, but would not.  
For Paul, 
Magd. ●en●. 1. l. 2. p. 451.  it plainly appears by Acts 18.3. that though he were brought up to Learning (which at that time was so famous in Tarsus that it excelled Athens, Alexandria, and other Universities, and so Paul was learned, acquainted also with heathen Poets, as appears) yet withal he was also taught a Trade: he was of the same craft with Aquila, he did not learn it of Aquila then, but before he came Paul had his trade: for Paul being of the Tribe of Benjamin, though he were learned, yet he could not come into the Priesthood, and so had none of the Tithes to maintain him, he must maintain himself. So those Elders of Ephesus, Act. 20. and other Elders, they all had their trades by which they maintained themselves before ever they heard of the Gospel; then no wonder though Paul, and those Elders did sometimes work: Paul being a single person might easily maintain himself.  
2. Paul having the Spirit in that manner, need not trouble himself, to attain any thing needful to his work; and I doubt not the ordinary Elders at that time, yet had another manner of assistance than we have now, for to have them men so able to teach, and convince gainsayers, Tit. 1. these gifts could not be reached so quickly: but though they did labour and study for them, yet the Spirit might assist more than now he doth for the speedy fitting of persons.  
3. It was a free act in Paul that he for this time upon some reason moving him did suspend his power, 1 Cor. 9.12. if he were absolutely bound to it, why not others also? v 6. So if any now who have means sufficient for themselves and their posterity will preach freely they may: but nevertheless there remains a duty on the people's part to maintain them, as such that preach the Gospel, v. 14. though they be otherways able to live. Neither hath the Scripture given any such caution, that if Ministers have good estates of their own, than the people should not give them the double honour. Though the Priests were never so rich, yet that did not hinder them from taking Tithes. Though Kings have great Lands, yet the people pay Customs. So in any other Art, or place whatever men are in; for the reason holds, The labourer is worthy, etc.  
But what are these things to us? when first, our fitness to this work is not so easily attained; those Languages wherein the Scriptures were writ, which cost us much time to attain to, as without which no man can be a good Text-man, they never bestowed any pains about. The customs to which the Apostles allude often, they knew them because their own, but we cannot till we read and know them by Learning. The Errors which Ministers are to oppose, are abundantly multiplied over they were in the Apostles time; thus I might speak for the necessity of Arts, without which men cannot be sufficient Ministers, all things put together prove, that he who will be a Minister, had need give his whole time; let him study, and pray, as bard as he will; let him live a hundred years in his strength, yet he that will be a Minister indeed, will say he finds all little enough: if it were no more to be a Minister but to step off a shopboard, and get into a Pulpit, and speak some honest practical things, which people have heard from others, and know something it may be from their own experience, than it were easy work indeed, and well might the people grumble at the maintenance of such. Hence we see Paul in his Epistle to Timothy who was not bred up, as others, he must give himself wholly to these things, Chap. 4. ver. 15. not entangle himself with the affairs of this life. Chap. 2. ver. 4. Then must Timothy be maintained by the Church, or beg, if he have not enough of his own estate to keep him.  
2. Is your offence at Tithes?  
First, it is well known if the Magistrate (who is to do what in him lieth, that the people under him may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, 1 Tim. 2.2. why else should the people pray that they might do so; and to this end takes care that according to God's Institution, Ministers be provided who may teach the people all godliness & honesty, he in the mean time a Nursing Father to them, Isa. 49. see that they may have an honourable maintenance according to the word: I say if the Magistrate) could find a better way for the maintenance of the Ministry every way, you shall see how easily Ministers will part with Tithes. But now we take them as that which the Supreme power of the Nation for many years have allotted to us.  
You have the least cause to be offended at Tithes, because Tithes are no man's own, but the Ministers many hundred years since the Parliament of England (not the Pope, as learned Parnel saith in his books) did set apart the Tithes, for the maintenance of the Ministry, and the supreme Magistrate is but the Feoffee in trust, to see that what the people of England in their representative, with the King and house of Lords, had given to the Ministry, be duly paid them; let this convince you (if your hearts be sober) that Tithes are no man's own, but the Ministers; for let a man be to hire a Farm, his Landlord cannot let him a Farm that shall pay no Tithes; let a man buy a Farm, or sell a Farm, he can neither buy nor sell a Farm that shall pay no Tithes; if a man have a Farm to sell of an hundred pound per annum, this Farm may possibly pay twelve pound a year for tithes, if this man could fallen this farm tythe-free, would he not raise the price in the sale of it accordingly? So, would not Landlords let their farms accordingly, if they could let them tithe-free? the Tenant should soon find it: But neither the Landlord, nor Tenant, do look upon the tithes as theirs, but the Ministers; whence men let, hire, buy, sell lands as still looking upon them to pay tithes, and so none of all these are wronged at all: whence tithes are as duly our own, as any man's estate is his; and that is the reason why when people deny our due, we go to the supreme Magistrate (who, as I said, is the Feoffee in trust) in his Officers, and Courts, to help us to our due, as any other man wronged, goeth for right to any Court; whence it is evident, it is mere blindness, (if not madness) which makes people talk thus against Ministers taking of Tithes, for we take only what is our own, and no man's else.  
As for lands, so for houses, we observe the long Parliament made two Acts (it may be more that I know not of) one for Bristol, another for Colchester, that according to the rents of houses, so men should pay, not exceeding a certain sum, (a very little one I am sure.) I know wicked spirits rail at the Magistracy for doing this: but herein the Parliament did what was equal and just before God and man: For (as I said in my first) if the Magistrate be bound to take care that the people under him do lead a life in all godliness etc. which comprehends the first Table of the Law, than the Magistrate must set up able men (no slight fellows) that may answer the qualifications in the Word, to teach the people; then reason, besides the Word, saith these must be fed, maintained, and that as become their places, surely the Magistrate who hath power to raise a tax, when the good of the Commonwealth requires it, hath as much power to cause people to pay towards the upholding of the Officers, and Ordinances of God, unless Religion do nothing concern the interest and good of the Commonwealth, which to affirm is to fall below Heathenism.  
As for such as affirm that the Magistrate hath nothing to do in the Church; the care of it doth not at all belong to him. I think such devilish principles deserve not an answer, (yet they are answered) though such own not the Scriptures; yet let them but go to the Heathens, and they will shame them.  
3. It is well known there are abundance of Ministers, who take not their tithes in kind, but compound with the people for their tithes: I would feign see the enemies of the Ministers prove that ever the Priests in the old Law, could do such a thing: then still we take not our Tithes as the Priests. All Ministers would do thus, would people be reasonable in their compositions; but we find they defraud us.  
4. For Tithes, it is impossible that the Supreme power should ever settle a more equal and easy way for the maintenance of the Ministry, than this way of Tithes, already set.  
1. Not more equal: for therein we rise and fall with the people, we share with their blessings, and crosses; we have little or more, as they have little or more.  
2. Not more easy: because, as I said, neither the buyer, nor seller, neither he that hires, nor he that lets, do look on Tithes as theirs, and is it a burden for men to pay for what is none of their own, and they esteem none of their own? as in my second I have opened.  
Object. But you should trust God, for your maintenance.  
Answer. So we do, and desire to do, but we will not, nor dare trust you: if your corruption be touched, or your rotten opinion be opposed, if your covetous lust stir (and that reigns) what is next? we must seek for maintenance.  
2. We see God hath taken care for us already, many hundred years before we were born, in settling an estate upon us by the Supreme power of the Nation.  
3. You would have done well, had you lived in the Primitive Churches, when the Magistrate was an Heathen, and so took no care for the Church but to destroy it; but yet even then they were so free to maintain the Officers, and Ordinances of Christ, &c: that they could have Church stocks, to maintain all with, the poor, the sick, strangers; yet then were Bishops besides Presbyters; and none of these were to meddle with Secular cares, for if they did, they were to be cast out; 
Can. Apost. 7.80.  as the Canons than made declare. Had that spirit that is now amongst professors, been in those days, it had been very ill with the Church, as it is now, and should be worse might such Christians have their wills.  
To gather up all then: since Christ in his word, hath commanded that we should be maintained; since the Magistrate being Christian, hath long since appointed us maintenance, and that such as none can call his own, but the Ministers, are we the covetous persons who require that which is our due by the Law of God and Man, or are you the covetous persons, yea and sacrilegious, who deny it? Certainly if people were not acted by a very Satanical spirit they could not thus open their mouths, in such base language against us, as they do. Why do you not charge us rather with idleness, if you can, and so in that respect prove we ought not to be maintained? Why do you not speak against the Impropriators? You pay tithes to them without such clamours, only the Ministers are they who trouble you; but we know whose hand is in all this, Hell and Rome would be glad if your designs might prevail.  
So much for the Minister's maintenance, which because my Chapter gave me so fit an occasion, I have first answered.  
The third part of the Chapter, contains a description of these false teachers, and adversaries to Paul: 1. He calls them false-Apostles. 2. Deceitful Workers. 3. They transform themselves, etc. like stage-players, they personate the Apostles of Christ.  
But how can this be? (say the admirers of these false teachers) we cannot believe it. The Apostle answers, yes this may very easily be, and proves it à majore. Do not wonder at this, for Satan himself is transformed into an Angel of light, which are the words of my Text, and but the antecedent part of the Enthymeme, the consequent part is in the 15 verse: Satan is, ergo his Ministers, etc. Parnel several times in his Book (he entitles, the Watcher:) calls Logic, filthy Logic: & pag: 30. tells us what Logic is: Logic is only to make a false word true. That is thy master's Logic indeed Parnel, Satan's, but the true Logic we own, (for to give you a definition of Logic is in vain) is that whereby the Lights of your master Satan, are by the help of the Scripture, discovered to be false. But why doth thy mouth call that filthy, which the pure Spirit of God useth? In these words he useth both parts of Logic, Invention and Disposition. We use no Logic but such as God himself hath made.  
SATAN, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Adversari, odio ●abere.  the Adversary, the hateful enemy of mankind, is transformed: what is he got on the stage too, and put on the robe of an Angel of Light? Surely a Tragedy we must expect.  Light is taken properly, or improperly. 
1. Properly, he that hath his sight knows what we mean when we speak of light; to have any Philosophical discourse about it, is neither profitable, nor proper to my Text.  
2. Improperly, it is taken several ways, I shall name but a few and leave the rest: 1. For the true and saving doctrine of the Word, Prov. 6.23. Psal. 119.105. 2. For knowledge, Acts 26.18. Isa. 60.3. 3. For good works, Mat. 5.16. 4. For joy and comfort, Psal. 97.13. 5. For Christ, Isa. 42.6. joh. 8.12. I name no more, I shall make use of some of these; the Observation is plain: Observe: Observe: It hath been of old, and it is the practice still of the Prince of darkness, to transform himself into an Angel of Light. Good Angels did use to appear lightsome and glorious unto persons; well, Satan will do as they do. Cor: à Lapet: upon this Text tells us many stories of persons to whom Satan thus appeared in a visible shape, they saw him, and conversed with him, as if he had been an Angel of Light, and they discerned him by his discourse to be but the black Prince transformed: but this is not the thing Paul chief means; he hath another way to act, when he went to Ahabs' prophets, and persuaded them, it is more than I know that he appeared visibly to them; some Politicians will do much, and yet are little seen, I am sure it is so with him: Light useth to discover things, but never is Satan less seen than when he acts as an Angel of Light. This hath been his practice of old, and I am sure he hath not laid down his trade now in our days, he hath found so much success by this policy towards the advancement of his kingdom, that so long as Christ's Church is upon the earth, and hath rest from persecution, till he come to be bound up, we must look for him in this shape.  
For the doctrinal part I will dispatch it briefly, because I will make haste to what I aim at: I have but two things to open: 

1. How doth Satan thus transform himself, how doth he work, what garments (as the word is taken from Stage players, that put on garments suitable to the person they act) puts he on, that make him appear thus?  
2. Whence comes it, that he doth thus?   For the first:  
1. By taking the Scriptures, which are the true light, and making use of them, for the doctrine he would have received: if Satan would have any error take, he must not fetch his proof, his light from a Turkish. Alcoran, or Plato, or Aristotle, etc. these have no Authority in the Church: no, no, he will bring his Scripture, that which is called the Lamp and the Light, to you, is not here Scripture? Search the Scriptures, yea so he doth, and can bring Christ Scripture also: if Christ answer him, and turns him off with a For it is written, Mat. 4.4. the very next tentation he will prove with a For it is written, ver. 6. He seems to be even with Christ, and what he quotes is to the purpose, so much as he quotes. Clothes, Bays, etc. use to have seals hung upon them, than they pass for currant: when he can hang the seals of Scripture upon his doctrines, who will now question them? Hath not this been the practice of him in all the Heretics since Christ his time? 
Credunt scripturis ut credant adversus seripturas, Ter●ul. p. 77.  had not the Arians Scripture? Hath not the Pope Scripture? Have not the Socinians Scripture? though Reason is their Rule, yet hath not Crellius at last found our Scripture against Christ's Divinity? The least Scripture that I know any error or practice have to prove itself, is the practice of the Separatists (with these Quakers) who have cast off the soundest Ministers, and all our Churches. It is observable how these Quakers, who have done the most mischief to the Separatists and the Anabaptists societies do tell them, they are in Babylon; that which they have cast upon us is now cast upon them, and will be as easily proved against them, as they can prove it against us.  
2. When he becomes a Preacher of righteousness, good works, these are called light, Mat. 5. should he preach, that men should whore, swear, (when not justly called to it) lie, steal, be drunk, etc. though men love these deeds of darkness, yet should they hear them taught as things that ought to be done, though their hearts love the actions, yet their judgements would conclude, this were no true light: whence observe the next verse to my Text, they are transformed as the Ministers of righteousness, not Ministers of unrighteousness, he will hold equipage in many things at least. Thus these Quakers, because they taught people, they must deal justly, do no body wrong, not lie, etc. Some of the people took it for granted these Teachers came from Christ, (as they told me) and why do not we come from Christ as well, for I hope they have heard the same from us and more? (but this was the business, we were Priests, and divined for money because maintained.)  
3. When not only he will be a Teacher of righteousness, but also of higher degrees of mortification and holiness than other men do teach, and most Christians practise: not that it is mortification or holiness, but it seems to be so: as the 2 Coloss●ult: that which answers the rule is holiness and mortification. Thus the Friars and others of that Popish generation, by their course habit, hard lodging, fasting, abstaining from marriage, 
One of this Sect, n●e● me, burnt up ten pounds worth of lace, grounding her act upon Act. 19.19.  etc. these have a show, saith the Apostle. Thus the Quakers must wear no lace, drink water, (before others, at least one of their teachers did) fast. J. Toldervy tells us, he knew some who fasted 30 days, the sincerity of their discourse against sin, and sebriety in their appearance took with him. Who would suspect a Devil in these, to teach things thus cross to the flesh, to deny our natural appetites? Yes even here he is, for all his specious shows; if it be a thing cross to God, to set up some way of our own, we can then cross ourselves: so true is that which blessed Herbert in another case hath said, 
Oh what were man, might he himself misplace! 
Temp: Sat Poemi, p. 1.   
Sure to be cross, he would shift feet and face.  Christ could not be in the Pharisees esteem a Teacher of righteousness, Matth. 11.19. He is a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, etc. God alloweth us to take comfort in the creature after a Christian manner, Eccles. 5.18, 19 with many Scriptures which show the practices of the Saints that they did so.  
4. When he can begun some who may be truly the children of light, hath got some of them in; these are the Duck-coyes to draw in others. Lo! you who follow these teachers, who are taken? not the rascality of the Country, as Christ had Publicans and sinners to attend on him, sometimes, but there are such men, and such women, whom all know to be godly persons: would they countenance, and follow such if they were were unsound? This hath been alleged to me, as a proof on the Quakers side, because such men entertained them: this becomes a great stumbling block. I shall speak a word to this afterwards.  
5. When he can get into men's consciences, (a tender thing that must not be touched) and plead that for their rule and refuge: for a man to follow the dictates of a true enlightened conscience, and to have a true tender conscience is very good; but how often gets he in here, our miserable days have proved sufficiently. The Quakers cry up conscience very much, calling men to attend more to that, than to the Scriptures, (as anon I shall show) but it is manifest that Satan is got into their consciences.  
6. When from true light he will draw dark conclusions, this is not true Logic, for ex vero nil nisi verum, but it is such Logic as he useth, hath done of old; where sin hath abounded, the grace of God abounded. What then? thus now; men are not to take up their rest in the Ordinances, but to look beyond Ordinances, Christ is the end of Ordinances, as in Baptism, the Supper, etc. What then? hence the Quakers and others tell us they have got Christ, (the thing signified) what should they do with signs? so cast away the Ordinances: they are grown so Spiritual, that they live above these Carnal, (as Naylor calls the Ordinances) things. There is some light in the Antecedent, and as much darkness in the Consequent part, for the consequence is false.  
7. And this shall be the last: when to the Light of his doctrine, he addeth the Light of comfort, helping the heart to spiritual joys, quiet, and ease: this he is as good at, as at the other: it is that which he commonly welcomes people withal into his by-paths, when he hath drawn them out of the right way. Some could never find comfort while they attended upon the Black coats, but off and on was the best they had: since they have cast them off, and gone into their new ways, now they are established, comforted, and settled for ever. This he can do two ways, (but I intent not to enlarge.)  
First, by withdrawing those tentations, doubts, scruples, which he threw before into their minds, making a cessation: as also by drawing them off from the quick searching power of the word, which coming close, made conscience to jog them, and trouble their false bottoms where they would be resting.  
2. By false application of the Promises, in which this Teacher hath an admirable skill; as he can sink the honest heart with misapplying of some terrible Texts, so he can as well cheer a false heart, with the misapplication of comfortable promises: what his skill is in this, I have opened upon other Texts.  
So much for the first Question. The second I will dispatch also in a few heads. Whence comes it, or why doth he thus transform himself? etc.  
The Reasons may be taken, First, from himself. Secondly, from God.  
1. From himself: because this is the way for him to attain his ends. Can he do the mischief he doth in the Church where the Candle is burning, Light shining, if he did not put on this garb? No verily; this is a notable way for him to lead people into darkness, by light: should he come into the Church with his Wolves skin, he might scare the Sheep, they would run from him, but not follow him. When I was coming from Spain into England, we had two sheep aboard our ship, which were bought that we might have fresh meat by the way: when one of the sheep was killed, the Seamen put the skin of the sheep over the dog which belonged to the ship; the sheep that was left alive, would continually follow the dog, where the dog lay down, the sheep would lie down by him, and would not leave the dog though the dog would guerne at the poor sheep; but thus the sheep would not do before. Thus Satan must do, if he will have any sheep follow him, he must get on his sheep's skin, and so he hath done, we see the effect. Thus his enmity against Christ in his kingdom, against the comfort and peace of the true members of the Church, against the souls of people is driven on, Revel. 20.3. Deceive the Nations: A Deceiver is not the person he is taken to be; no more is this Angel of Light, who works by deceit.  
2. God hath his ends in this: it is not his pleasure that Satan should ever be an Angel of Light again, but it is his pleasure (I know no false Divinity in the word) that Satan should have liberty to transform himself into an Angel of Light.  
First, what terrible ends he had in giving Satan commission to go to Ahabs' prophets, in sending strong delusions, 2 Thes. 2.11. the Texts declare: and certainly there are the same reasons still, when people have lived under light, but they love it not, secret rottenness lie at bottom, they love darkness, they shall have Lights at last, which shall suit their principles, and certainly lead them to what they love, and that freely.  
Secondly, he doth by such providences try and make discovery even of his own people, Deut. 13.3. A Prophet riseth up, giveth a sign, and the sign comes to pass, who would not follow him? take heed, I do it to prove you. How much miserable ignorance and vanity of heart have these times discovered: wherein Satan hath thus acted even in those who gave hopes, and we dare not absolutely deny but they may belong to God: those who we hoped had been men, have discovered themselves to be children, yea the weakest of children carried about with every wind of doctrine.  
Thirdly, he doth exercise his own who do stand: here is room for patience, watching, studying, prayer: I believe there is more discouragement upon the spirits of sound Ministers and Christians, than there was in those former days, which they so much prayed against and are answered. Now our hearts (but why do I measure other men's hearts by my own) do even die, the Spirit of prayer is gone; and what can we look for, but a suitable reward to our abused liberty? More heads I could have added, and enlarged, but I have done with the doctrinal part.  
Use. For Uses I will make but one, for time will not let me handle more. Let people then look to their Lights; be they Lights of doctrine, or of comfort, the Prince of darkness is transformed into an Angel of Light, he walks in the Churches, he that taketh light from him will be sure to find it end in darkness; take heed that you be not deceived.  Object. Deceived? Have we not a word that tells us, There is an impossibility of the Elect being deceived, Mat. 24.24? 
Answ: 1. It is true, and are you Elect? do you know it so certainly upon grounds infallible, (not imaginary) that you are one of them? I think we must go backwards, to prove Election, by the effects which the execution of that Decree produceth: One which I am sure is to make the Elect vessel careful what doctrines it receiveth.  
2. An Elect vessel cannot be deceived so as to miss of salvation, yet he may take such courses and go in those paths which in themselves would lead him to perdition, (after effectual calling I mean) but that the mercy of the Lord fetch him back by repentance out of them.  
3. An elect Vessel may be so fare deceived, as to dishonour God exceedingly, grieve the Spirit of God, wound the hearts of the children of God, which should not, nay cannot be small things in the eyes of one who is indeed Elect.  
4. Though an elect Vessel cannot be deceived as to ruin his soul, yet he may be so fare deceived as to lead others also into deceitful paths, and may be truly an occasion why they lose their souls. God may show the Elect mercy, and recall them, but not those it may be whom the Elect hath misled.  
And here look to it ye Separatists, that have cast off the Ministry with so much scorn, at your door must lie the cause why so many persons are turned Quakers; you now rise up against them, (some of you) but the people that hear you and them argue, tell us, you are run down, you cannot answer them, and no wonder. But who may it thank that so many are carried away into such vile errors, as yourselves can judge? only yourselves; while the people kept to God's Institutions, waiting upon Official preaching, there was no such do. Whither come these Quakers? but to Towns where you dwell, and have drawn away the people from the Ministry, there these Foxes find their preys. Had the people kept close to the Ministry, they had been preserved from these miscarriages, and been in the way, God useth to save by, but now they are gone.  
Quest. But how shall we know this transformed Angel of Light, how discern him?  
Answ: This is a hard thing, because an Angel of Light: Angels do excel man in wisdom abundantly, whence we may well think it is not easy to find him out. When David asked the woman of Tekoah whether Joabs' hand was not with, etc. She answers, My Lord (not Thou man, as the Quakers) is wise according to the wisdom of an Angel of God: I may say, that man had need have wisdom near to the wisdom of those true Angels of Light, who would be able to discover all the falsehoods of this transformed Angel of Light, both in doctrine, and in comforts, etc. As for the Light of comfort it is not my purpose to touch that here, I intent only the Light of doctrine: and truly the generation I am now to take in hand, are so gross, that an ordinary assistance of God's Spirit is enough to discover these, to whom now I shall address myself: and because I am to speak to plain people, and to those only I intent this Sermon, (because that sort is so misled) I shall desire them but to observe this:  
First, I lay down that which I know is the Light of Christ: which I call the Major Proposition.  
Secondly, I lay down the doctrine of the Quakers, as being quite cross to that Light, which I call the Minor Proposition: and because I would not wrong the Quakers I writ down their own words, out of their own Books, with the page where you may find them, if you have the books: so that when you see Major or Minor you may know what I am proving; if I do prove the Major to be the Light of Christ, and the Quakers be cross to that Light, than the Conclusion is you may be sure the Quakers light come from Satan transformed etc.  Argument 1 
Major. That light which will not admit of, nor endure the trial, that light is Satan's light, and not the light of Christ.  
Minor. But the light of the Quakers will not admit of, nor endure the trial.  
Ergo. the light of the Quakers is the light of Satan, and not the light of Christ.  
Major. The Major is thus proved, because the light of Christ will admit of, and endure the trial: as, Take Christ himself, who is the Light of the world, if the question be, whether he be the Christ? he will come to the trial, joh. 5.39. He had others to bear witness of him, in the verses before, but he offers himself to be tried by the Scriptures, Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me. If you do find that I answer not those Scriptures which speak of the Messiah, throw me by: who of his enemies could by the Scripture-triall find him to be false? So joh. 10.37, 38. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. etc. Thus Mat. 115. when john sent to him, his answer is the proof, Tell john what you hear and see. i e. The prophecy in Isa. 35.6. fulfilled; then let john (or you rather) judge what I am. Thus Paul, 2 Cor. 12.12. Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders and mighty deeds. I gave you sufficient proof that I was an Apostle, by all the signs of a true Apostle. Thus Isaiah 8.20. teach the people how to try all false spirits, bring them To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Let them talk of their Lights what they will, if they speak not according to this word (the touchstone for all spirits) they are but delusions.  
Our Major then is true light, according to the Scriptures.  
Minor. The Minor: But the light of the Quakers will not admit of, nor endure the trial. This I prove from their own Books.  I. N. against F. Harris, p. 10. the Question is, 
Whether that can be the way of God, which hath nothing to warrant it but the bare words and affirmation of men, which they call infallible?  To this I.N. answers: 
Answ: That Spirit of God which is infallible is the sufficient ground; and to preach, that is the way of God, neither had this ever any other testimony, but what is of itself: For the world's wisdom, and carnal natural man, can neither receive it, nor bear testimony of it, only such who believe it, etc. The sum is this, the Quakers have the Infallible Spirit, they believe the testimony of it: and this is all the proof.  
But could not CHRIST, who is the Light of the world, answer thus more truly than any Quaker? what need then of searching Scriptures, or observing his works, his infallible Spirit is proof enough. Can not Paul say as much, he had the infallible Spirit, and what need of the signs of an Apostle?  
Can not those Apostles, Rev. 2.2. whom the Angel of Ephesus tried, have said as much, they had the infallible Spirit, and if this were proof enough, how could the Angel try them?  
Zedekiah can say, Thus saith the Lord, 1 King. 22.11. and smite Micaiah on the cheek, etc. ver. 24. Hananiah can say, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Jer. 28.2. And if their saying, they have the infallible Spirit, be proof sufficient, than they are as good Prophets as Micaiah or jeremiah.  
God will not judge men's doctrines or conversations according to their infallible spirit (which they boast of) at the last day, but according to his Law, written or not written, (as the Heathen had not the Law written, but yet the Law they had) Rom. ch. 2.12. then by the same Law now try and judge Doctrines and Conversations. The Quakers shall be judged by the Law written.  
Conclusion. Since then the Quakers light will not admit of, nor endure the trial, hence we conclude the Quakers light is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  Argum: 2 
Major. That Light which puts out the Light of Nature is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. But the Light of the Quakers puts out the Light of Nature.  
Therefore the Light of the Quakers is the Light of Satan, not of Christ.  
By the Light of Nature, 
Major proved.  I mean, that Candle, or inward Law which God set up in the heart of all mankind after the loss of his Image in the Pall, checking many sins against God, but more against men, God having made a fuller and greater revelation to Nature in the things of the second Table, than in the first. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, etc. So, Honour thy father and thy mother; without this light, no Societies could hold: but Christ his Light doth not put out any part of this Light: no, we find him Matth 5. opening these Commandments in a larger sense than the Pharisees did.  
Minor. But the Light of the Quakers puts out part of this Light, For, they deny honour to all Superiors; yea, nor will own any distinction of Relations.  
Honour is but the expressing of the inward respect we bear to persons, by outward signs, speeches, and gestures; without the outward signification of it thus, no man can tell who is honoured: and as is the custom of the Nation, so we express this, whether by uncovering the head, bowing the body, etc. But the Quakers deny this. Let a Master be in a house, with ten other boys, the servant comes in, he stirs not his hat to his Master, no more than to the boys; his language to his Master is, Thou man; to the boy, Thou boy: what honour hath the Master above the Boys?  
I. N. against F. Harris, pag. 6. Did ever any Saints use any other language but Thee and Thou, to God or man?  
Yes that they did, better Saints than the Quakers are, though they say they are perfect.  
Paul was a Saint, Acts 26.25. He saith not, Thou Festus, or Thou man; but Most noble Festus: so, King Agrippa.  
Daniel was a Saint, yet when he speaks to Nabuchadnezzar, Dan. 2.37. he saith, O King, thou art a King of Kings!  
Hannah was a Saint; when she speaks to Eli, 1 Sam. 1.15. no, My Lord. ver. 26. Oh my Lord! not Thou man.  
Sarah was a Saint; 1 Pet. 3.6. she called Abraham, Lord.  
Rachel, if the Quakers can prove her to be no Saint let them, but she to Laban, Gen. 31.35. My Lord, and risen up; there is language and gesture.  
Solomon risen up from his Throne, went to meet his Mother, and bowed himself to her, etc. 1 King. 2.19. Read also Prov. 31.28.  
Eliazer is a good servant, yet in his prayer to God, Gen. 24.12. O Lord God of my Master Abraham.  
Abraham was a Saint, Gen 18.2. when he saw three men, (as he thought) he bows himself: in ver: 3. his language is, My Lord. So Abigail to David.  
Yea, they will acknowledge no Relations. I. Toldervy, when he was of that number, relates of himself, pag: 17. that he took his Master by the arm or cloak, and bade him sit down William Webbe; not Master, nor pulling off the hat. Afterwards saith he, I denied all relations, from the words of One, He that liveth in the light will see no difference. And in pag 16. he tells, how through his disobedience (from this principle) his Mother and many little ones do suffer, having in his charge the redeeming part of an estate for his Mother, possibly in a short time to have been effected, which he deserted: and adds, the workings of this power was so predominant, that I refused the least acknowledgement, much less performance of duty to any.  
Parnel. Goliahs' head etc. p. 68 speaking about Ornaments, Moderation in every thing I own, but what is waist is for the lust. both in Kings, Princes, and great Personages (as thou callest them) but with us there is no respect of persons.  
Conclusion. Since then the Light of the Quakers do put out this Light of Nature, I conclude, their Light is the Light of Satan, not of Christ.  Argum: 3 
Major. That Light which teacheth men to forsake the Scriptures, setting up a Spirit in man which shall not be examined by the Scriptures, is the Light●● Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. But such is the Quakers Light, Ergo.  
The Scriptures are left by God to be our Light and our Rule, 
Major proved.  Prov. 6.23. Psal. 119.105. The Prophets bid us go to them, Isa. 8.20. Christ bids us search them, joh. 5.39. The men of Berea. Act. 17.11. Tried Paul by these; for Paul to tell them of his infallible Spirit, and so they might believe him without searching the Scriptures, he had as good say nothing: those men were commended for this action. Apollo's a mighty man in the Scriptures, Acts 18.24. convinced the Jews by the Scriptures, ver. 28.  
Minor. But the Light of the Quakers teach men to forsake the Scriptures, setting up a Spirit in man, which shall not be examined by the Scriptures.  
If you ask me before I go to the proof, Do the Quakers cast off the Scriptures? I answer, when they can find any thing which they think make against us, than they will urge the Scriptures very much; 
Golich. p. 63.  yea, they will run to the Apocrypha rather than fail to help themselves, as Parnel to evade the strength of Levit. 19 32. runs to Chap. 4 of the Book of Wisdom, v. 8, 9 but mistakes. Yea further, when Satan hath gotten strong hold of persons in their way, yet he will then provoke them to read the Scriptures much, but casteth strange glosses upon the Scripture, 
p. 21. 21.  as I. Told: confesseth when he was in that snare. Herein he worketh like an Angel of Light. But to speak truly, the Quakers make nothing of the Scriptures, miserably abusing that text, 2 Cor. 3.6. You shall hear them speak:  
1. I. Toldervy, p. 6. reporteth of that Quaker who was the means of his seducing; that he, expressed with firm confidence, that searching of the Scripture was not the way to find out the knowledge of Christ, but the turning the mind to within: quite cross to Christ, why did not Christ bid them turn to that?  
2. Mason, pag 12. in his defence of Craven: Thou sayest (to his Opponent) the Old and New Testament is thy rule, the same was writ for thy imitation. He answers, But did Paul or any of the Aposlles walk by any literal rule, or was not their rule a ●●asure of the Spirit of God committed to every one of them? but it were well if these pecuniary Priests would walk answerable to the precepts left upon record in the Letter. By this you may see what Mason makes of the written Word.  
3. Parnel. Watcher, pag. 8. where you may have a learned discourse how the profession of the Christian Faith & Religion came into England, two pages before. Let those who are ignorant read it. But p. 8. he adds, and those had the writings of the Prophets and Apostles which is called Scripture, and so was the Keepers of the Letters, and that they took to be their rule to walk by, as they do now, but knew not that which gave it forth, to lead them unto the life, but had the letter and the form. To the same purpose he speaks, p 40. and in his Goliath, p 77.  
4. Naylor against I. Reyner, p. 3. speaking against us, hath these words, Whose Law is without, Light without, their Word without, their Church without, Baptism, Prayers without; All which we witness to be within. Farewell then the written Word.  
Naylor, Saluta: etc. p. 29. tells those that will follow their doctrine, than you shall not have your Light and Life to seek in a Book without you, etc.  
Naylor against F. Harris, p 9 speaks out, The Infallible Spirit, by which the Scriptures were given forth is the sole tryer of spirits and doctrines, neither hath it need of any addition where it is: you bring the letter to oppose Christ, and so deny the end of the Scriptures, which is to see up the Spirit of God for Judge, and not themselves, etc. So then the Scriptures must not judge of his Spirit, but your spirit is Judge of the Scriptures.  
5. Priest's Ignorance, p. 4, 5.  
The sum is this, it is all one to them, Scriptures or no Scriptures; for they have the Spirit that did give forth the Scriptures. As for the written Word, you see how they contemn it, and condemn those who make it their rule to walk by: when they do use it, it is at the pleasure of their infallible spirit what shall be the meaning of it. Here I will give you a taste of their spirit.  
Parnel entitles one of his Books the Watcher, and tell us in his Title-page, of the stone, that struck the feet of the Image, quoting Dan. 2.31, 32 etc. By this title we shall ●●pect some great matter about the Image, p. 21, 22. 
It is one thing to allude to a scripture, another thing to interpret it, as doth Parnel, here.  his spirit interprets the Image. Now the head of the Image which is of gold, and (are) those that have had a light shining into them, and have seen the emptiness of many Forms, and have gotten the thing in their comprehension: (with more of this stuff, which I am loath to transcribe) and the breast of the Image which is of silver, and the thighs of brass are the rest of the sects and forms, and the legs of the Image which is of iron is the beast, and the feet of the Image which is part of iron, part of clay, are the Priests and Pharisees, joined to the powers of the earth, etc. But Parnel, the Spirit in Daniel gave another Interpretation of this Image in the same Chapter, and we have seen it fulfilled in the greatest part; How darest thou then set down thy Interpretation thus cross to his? Oh that any Christians should admit such a Fellow into their houses!  
Let us hear Deusbury's spirit interpreting Revel. 
pag. 20.  17. Babylon is within you, the Beast is within you, which all the world wonders after (what a wonder is this, 
I hear there is a Doctor of Divinity in London hath given the same interpretation of this Beast, etc.  that all the world should wonder after that which none of the world ever saw!) is your wills: your wisdom is the great Whore that sits upon the Beast. But why do you stay here Deusbury, go on to 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, verses, and tell us what they are? when you have done, turn to the last clause of the 19 ver. of the 1 Chap. and 1 ver. of the 4. Chap. there see how neatly your spirit have interpreted this 17 Chap. John was shown things that were to be hereafter: but it seems there were no such wills, hearts, nor wisdom before john, but all the wickedness of men was to be after john. Is this the best Interpretation your spirit can make?  
Conclusion. Since then the Quakers Light teach men to forsake the Scriptures, and set up a spirit in man which shall not be examined by the Scriptures: Hence I conclude the Quakers Light is the Light of Satan, etc.  
The Quakers divide the Spirit from the Scriptures.  Argum: 4 
Major. That Light which maketh the Scripture to cross itself, and that in things known by the Light of Nature, that Light is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. 〈◊〉 such is the Quakers Light. Ergo.  
Major. The Major is clear: For if the same infallible spirit gave out all the parts of the Scripture, then to have one Scripture plainly and truly to contradict another, and that in things known by the Light of Nature, would argue high imperfection in the Spirit of God: which is blasphemy to impute unto him.  
Minor. But the Quakers Light do make the Scripture cross itself. and that in things known by the Light of Nature.  
Thus all the Quakers, and Bishop in particular, p. 24. quotes the 2 of james to overthrow all respect to persons. Then where is the honouring of Parents, and Superiors, as in my second Argument I opened. The very first verse will give the meaning of the Apostle, Have not the Faith of the Lord jesus etc. with respect of persons. If you like the faith of our Lord Jesus when it is in a rich man, but despise it in a poor man, this is sinful: yet there are good reasons to be given from the 6 & 7 ver. that the rich man S. james mentions was not a believer, but rather an Heathen; and to have a rich Heathen preferred before a poor Believer is sin: however take the 9th, if you have respect to persons, etc. One way it is true, another way false. Take the words Divisim, thus, may I, or must I show civil respect to a rich man that is much above me, though wicked, (much more if a Magistrate, Father, etc. for these relations are not founded upon Grace?) yes that you must, else you transgress the Royal Law, Honour thy Father etc. But take the words, Conjunctim, thus, may I show civil respect to rich persons, etc. and despise a poor man that hath the Faith of our Lord Jesus? No, if you do, you sin.  
God will allow no such respect of persons: thus the Scriptures are preserved in their harmony, and Natures Light not offended.  
Take another instance, the glory of the Lord, etc. put out by such as the world call Quakers, p. 10, 11, 12. He takes the words of our Saviour, Mat. 5.34. Swear not at all, to overthrow all swearing; there he brings in several holy men who swore, Abraham, jacob, David, the Angel, Rev. 10. & jerem: 4.2. All that he answers is, but Christ saith, Swear not at all.  
I observe he doth not mention Paul in 2 Cor. 1.23. I call God for a record upon my soul; and other places where Paul swears, yet he was after Christ; did Paul, and the Angel sin? It is not my purpose to enlarge upon this; but a few words, ver. 33. Thou shalt not forswear thyself. 1. But Christ doth not quote the Deut. 10.20. & 6.13. where it is joined to the command of fearing God and serving him, Thou shalt swear by his name. Indeed by the Earth, Heaven, or jerusalem, etc. thou shalt not swear, no nor by the name of God vainly, but when thou art called to it upon just and weighty causes, than the old command holds, else I must destroy a part of the Law, and not fulfil it, verse 17.  
2. In an oath there is some religious worship performed to God, declaring him to be the Omniscient God, and the Punisher of such as dare speak falsehood; would Christ take away this honour from his father?  
Thirdly, There is as much need of an Oath in regard of the end of an Oath now after Christ, as ever there was before Christ. 22 Exod. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, men do swear, not men did swear before Christ, but now left it since he spoke those words; there is strife still.  
Object: But where there is strife they are without, p. 12.  

Ans. 1. It were well for you if you were within.  
2. There may be difference between those who are in Christ, and yet the difference so fairly carried as no sinful strife, but an Oath will put an end to it.  
3. But may a Magistrate give an Oath to those who are without? surely no: if that be true, must not swear at all. How then shall strife be ended?  
4. We know the Quakers are not so perfect, but strife will be among them.   
Fourthly, The Quakers bid men be guided by their Consciences the Light of God within: but that Light within, doth lead men to swear in great cases, to put an end to strife: we find it so among the Heathen, Abimelech etc. both before and after Christ. The Light of Nature teacheth this, why then do you oppose it?  
Fifthly, I wonder Paul should so forget himself, to sin so fearfully in swearing as he did: yea, and an Angel also: Isa. 65.16. relates to the times after Christ.  
Conclusion. Hence than it follows, the Quakers Light is the Light of Satan, not of Christ.  Argum: 5 
Major. That Light which takes men off from that rule which is perfect and cannot err, and sends them to be guided by a Light which is imperfect, and may and doth err, that is the Light of Satan, not the Light of Christ.  
Minor. But such is the Light of the Quakers. Ergò.  
Major. The Major cannot be denied, for will the Light of Christ teach men to leave his own perfect rule, and go to an imperfect one? then if men walk by it, how can they be blamed? he must then approve of sin.  
The Minor need proof, which is this:  
That Light which takes men off from the Law of God, his Word; and send them to the Light of Conscience to be guided by it, that Light take men off from a perfect rule, and send them to an imperfect one, etc.  
But thus do the Quakers. Ergo.  
The Word of God is perfect, Psal. 19.7. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. But the Quakers do not send men to the Word, but to their Consciences. I grant it were well if men did attend to the dictates of a true enlightened Conscience, and it will be fearful damnation that they do not. But this is not all the Quakers mean.  
But however the Light of Conscience is (1) but Imperfect. (2) It may err. It is imperfect: here I will take occasion to examine the Text, the Quakers make so much use of, 1. Joh. 9 This was the true light, which lighteth every one that cometh into the world. But I would feign know, why these Quakers confound this Light, with Conscience, as if they were both one, is the Conscience and Christ all one? what folly is this.  
Secondly, But what do they mean, that Christ lighteth every one who cometh into the world, with saving light, 
Fruits of fast, pag 23.  as Parnel his 29 Querie intimates? this is manifestly false.  
For how great a part of the world is there who know nothing of Christ, Redemption, Justification by Christ's righteousness, Original sin, Saving faith, etc. They never heard the sound of these things.  
The next Verse confutes this; for the 10 ver. saith, The world knew him not: How then doth he lighten every one with such a knowledge, when the Text saith plainly the world knew him not?  
What miserable blind Consciences do we find where people have lived under the revelation of Christ! I am confident many know not the essentials to salvation.  
The meaning than is:  
1 If we speak of the Light of Reason, Understanding, so Christ lighteth every one who cometh into the world.  
2. Or if we speak of Saving light, As many, or every one who hath that saving Light, it is Christ who illightneth him.  
3. So we may say of Common Light; Christ giveth that also. As Psal. 136.8. The Lord raiseth them that are bowed down. What every one? we see the contrary; but those who are raised, it is he who lifts them up, none else can.  
Again, Conscience may and doth err; this is a further proof of the imperfection of it, Acts 26.9. Paul was there guided by his Conscience, but it erred. Did not of old, Do not now all Errors, and Heresies plead Conscience, Papists, Socinians, & c? I doubt not Queen Mary would say, her Conscience led her to burn the eminent servants of Christ.  
Now let us hear what the Quakers say:  
Quakers glory, etc. p. 2. They exhort the Magistrates to let the Priests alone, and to receive the Law of God which is perfect according to that in the Conscience: herein have truth in all ages suffered by them who made Laws contrary to that in the Conscience. No matter for the Word then.  
Fell. pag. 5. The Priests of thy high places (Oh England!) bear witness before my face against thee, which thou hast set up contrary to my will which I have made manifest in every man's Conscience. No, not every man's, you are not perfect, Fell. So once before in the same page.  
Wooddrove. p. 15, 16 Turn your mind within you to the pure Light of Christ in your Consciences, see by this light within you, who rule within you. No matter for the perfect rule without you, to try the light within you, nor to help it.  
J. N. against Harris, p. 15. Make our Light within, to be the Light of the Covenant of Grace. How many millions of souls know nothing of it!  
Bishop p. 21. Sink down to that of God in every one of your Consciences, the light of Christ. In all their Books the Word of God written is made of no account.  
But while the Quakers thus call on all men, to turn to that within them, (their Consciences) why do they so cry out upon the Magistrates for sending them to Bridwell and Prisons, since they do as the Light within them bid them? They practise their doctrine, but the Magistrates have the Light without them in the perfect rule, to guide Conscience within them. What a woeful Nation should we have where Consciences are so blind, erroneous, sleepy, benumbed, and some cauterised, if men should lay by the perfect rule, and go to that? the Prince of darkness would make strange work.  Conscientia est regula regulata, non regula regulans 
This Argument differs from the third.  Argum: 6 
Major. That Light which destroyeth the Institutions of Christ, is the Light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. But the Quakers light destroy the Institutions of Christ, [his Ordinances:] Ergo, it is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Major. The Major is clear, for then Christ must oppose himself, if he hath left Ordinances wherein people shall attend upon God, till the end of the world, and now have a light to destroy them, Christ hath changed his mind. 1 Cor 11.26. In the Lord's Supper we show the Lords death till he come. Christ is not come yet: Christ bid them eat and drink in remembrance of him: his words at the Institution of the Lords Supper. What were the Apostles only to remember him, or the Corinthians, and those first Churches? Must not all Churches till he comes so remember him? Mat. 28.19, 20. Teach and Baptise, I am with you to the end of the world. What do you limit this teaching and baptising, to the Apostles? They are dead many hundred years since, yet the end of the world is not come; how then can these words be fulfilled, but in the ordinary Officers, who succeed the Apostles, is the rule of Christ, Mat. 18.15, 16, 17, 18, etc. come to an end? I am sure there are offences still, and you perfect ones are as vile offenders as any, but you have taken a course to prevent all discipline, for your Church is within, so shut up that none can come at it, no nor believe it.  
Minor. But the Quakers light destroy all the Ordinances and Institutions of Christ.  
Parnel: Wat: p. 8. They (who brought the profession of the Christian Faith into England first) had two Sacraments, Infant's Baptism is one, that which they call the Supper of the Lord is another; and they had the carnal bread and wine as the Priests and people hath now. See what esteem this youth hath of the Ordinances, against the Baptists he talketh much for their baptising with water, but I will not transcribe his babbling.  
Naylor against I. Reyner, pag. 3. Church, Prayers, Baptism, Singing, we witness to be all within. None of these outward.  
Naylor, Saluta: p. 7. Is not Christ the Ordinance (no that he is not) and the end of all Ordinances? I here is truth in this and it overthrows the former, for if he be the end of the Ordinance, how can he be the Ordinance itself? are the means, the end? a few lines after. Is not he the Sabbath, Baptism, Supper? No that he is not.  
In p 33. there we have the bottom: he will not deny but these Visibles (as he calls them) had their place and time, but what are they now? He meets with an Objection of ours, which is this, They are commands of God, and there is no Scripture for taking them away. This is an Objection indeed: to which he answers, I say those carnal things are but commands, as Circumcison, and the Passeover were, and many other, yet were they taken away without letter, by that spirit that gave them, when they were abused: what letter had Hezekiah to take away the brazen Serpent? what scripture had Paul to cry down Circumcision etc.— so runs on. But why doth not Naylor make up his answer fully, applying what he faith to the Objection, thus, So we the Quakers having the infallible spirit which gave these commands, d●e by the same, seeing you abuse them, without scripture take them away. Now your answer is complete. But  
First, I say, those carnal things (as you call them) are so spiritual, that all the perfection the Quakers brag of, will not be sufficient to perform one of them in the holy manner the letter (as you call the Word) requires.  
Secondly, You talk of the Infallible spirit, but you have not given us the signs of it as Paul did, 2 Cor. 12.12. nay the Satanical spirit by which you are acted, hath not given you so much wit, to carry yourselves cunningly, but you do so manifestly cross Christ and the Apostles, that people must throw away their Bibles, and natural Light before they can believe you.  
Thirdly, You mistake in the brazen Serpent, for it was not ordained as a means of worship in the Church, but only for the time while Serpents stung them in the Wilderness, they were to look to it, typifying Christ; but when they were past Serpents in Canaan there was no use of it: yet Hezekiah wanted no means whereby he might certainly know the mind of God.  
Fourthly, The worship then instituted was not taken away, because abused; but because the Ceremonial part was fulfilled.  
Fiftly, Jesus Christ the Lord of the Church may institute what means of worship he pleaseth, his Apostles did converse with him forty days after his resurrection, Acts 1.3 speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: They had order what to do; but I hardly think the Quakers were there then with him, and heard that doctrine, they teach us.  
Sixtly, Then the Spirit of God teach us to deny God that which he hath had since the world began, viz: Externall worship: for prayer, sacrifices, and the teaching of the family by the Father of the family, these parts of worship we find at the beginning: after that, more. But now God must have none at all; how shall we know there is a God in the world if we take away his worship?  
Seventhly, Christ must then be a great destroyer of the Law, and not a fulfiller, Mat. 5.17. for he must quite blot out the second Commandment; as the fourth, and fifth, by these Quakers.  
Eighthly, The right performing of the worship of God, will cost pains, and exercise of graces; but the spirit in the Quakers have taken them off from that burden.  
Conclusion. Since then the Quakers Light destroy the Ordinances of Christ, hence I conclude, their Light is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  Argum: 7 
Major. That Light denyeth a great work of Christ in the hearts of them who believe in him, that is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. But so do the Quakers light: Ergo.  
The Major, is so clear, that it needs no proof; for to deny a a saving work, a great part of his redemption, this cannot come from Christ.  
Minor. But the Quakers light denyeth a great work of Christ in the hearts of them, who believe: I mean such a work as must necessarily be in all such: that is, a work of inherent holiness, the new creature distinct from Christ's person, and from his imputed righteousness to our Justification: The Quakers in these Books I have, have spoken confusedly, and covertly, yet this must be their doctrine, or some other notion, being Christed with Christ, Godded with God; which I verily think they aim at.  
Naylor, Saluta: p. 20. hath these words, But say you, this is that righteousness we believe in, and by which we are justified, by that blood which was shed at Jerusalem, and by that obedience that was in him, and by that holiness: but that the want of his righteousness in us, or that want of Christ, or his blood in us can hinder our Justification, that we deny, and look upon it as heresy, it is Christ without us that hath satisfied for sin, his righteousness, faith, patience, love, obedience, etc. it's these without us that whoever believes in shall be saved, and by this faith the ungodly is justified.  
Pag. 23. We can do nothing, neither do we desire to do any thing, yet can we do all things that he wills, through him that is in us.  
Pag. 2. While you live, sin lives; and if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves (this is well) but where he alone lives, there is no sin, etc.  
I deny not, but we are justified, by the righteousness, satisfaction of Christ without us, as opposed to Inherency in us. But I utterly deny that God ever imputes that righteousness to us, but withal he works inherent righteousness in us, so as no man can be in a state of Justification, or shall ever see God, who hath not this inherent work of holiness in him, Heb. 12.14.  
I deny also, that a person whom the Lord actually justifieth is an ungodly person; in that instant its true, he is ungodly, if you compare him with the Covenant of works, he is a transgressor of it, which is the scope of the Apostle, in the Rom. 3.4. 
Rom. 3.4.  To cut all men off from seeking life in that Covenant, and to bring them to the righteousness of Christ: but look on him in reference to the Covenant of grace, he is now a believer; or else he cannot be justified, and such a believer as hath received Christ to Union, and now trusts to Christ for Communion of benefits, whereof justification is one. He that prates of his justification before this Faith, he doth but prate of that which he shall never find. That absurd notion of faith justifying only Declarative, I would have opposed, had this place been convenient.  
I affirm also, that the work of inherent holiness which maketh us new Creatures, is a distinct thing from Christ his person; though among our New-England notions, this was received when the errors raged there, that Christ was the new Creature; but for the 2 Cor. 5.17. they made miserable Grammar of the verse, undertaking to be the Interpreters of the Original, read it thus, if any man be in Christ the new Creature, and thus indeed Christ being perfect, no wonder though the Quakers are perfect; for there is nothing in them but Christ. And thus we see the meaning of that which we have so wondered at, that men and women, who could not tell how to live honestly among men, keep promises, keep from pilfering. deal justly (no nor can scarce do it at this day) since these Quakers came are on a sudden mounted aloft, and tell others they are perfect. No wonder, for if Christ be the new Creature, the new Creature than cannot grow, for Christ cannot be more perfect than he is, I affirm also that those who desine to do nothing, as saith Naylor, they are not in Christ, (if we speak of adulti) Rom. 7.21. and their wills are renewed.  
I know not what to make of that phrase, While you live, sin live, to take it in our sense, they cry out upon us.  
Mason p. 11. reproves Mr. Scortrith with scorn, because he affirmed that God and a Saint are not one, Christ and a Saint are not one, then quotes against him, Joh. 17.11. (which is nothing to his purpose) 21.22. and 2 Cor. 6.16. 1 Cor 6.17. yet (saith he) is there not a real union between them, is not Christ the head of the body, & c? I believe Mr. Scortrith did never deny this, for it is the common received truth among Divines, that the union is real, that is, it is not Ens rationis, 'tis not an imaginary thing, and that Christ is the head Mysticè, who denies it? Dr. 
* Saint's persev: p. 189.  Owen hath gone as fare as a man can go with safety (I think) in this point; and yet not spoken more than some others have before him, both Bucanus, and Polanus: so that it was another kind of union which Mr. Scortrith denied, and with him also, all sober men.  
Parnel. fruits fast. p. 25. propounds these two queries to Priest Stalham, Sparrow, and among the rest 48. What is your own righteousness, and what is the righteousness of Christ, and how do you distinguish between them? What a hard question is this to answer, in a sound way also? but then 49. Whether he that is justified by the righteousness of Christ, doth not dwell in it, and it in him, and whether he that dwells in the righteousness of Christ doth sin, yea or nay? Is this the way whereby you come to be so free from sin? You say below, these things (i. e. the 61 Queries) I do not ask as if I knew them not, but for the satisfaction of the simple, etc. The simple are beholden to you, but had not you been both proud and simple you would not have moved such queries as you have done. But I answer: for the righteousness of Christ dwelling, etc. I deny that the righteousness of Christ whereby a believer is justified doth dwell in him: 
Saluta: etc. p. 20.  your fellow Quaker Naylor is against you: (unless you carry this secretly, that we are Christed with Christ, than something you may gather) by dwelling, I mean it is not inherent in us. Bellarmine makes difference between the satisfaction of Christ, by which we are pardoned, (this he will not admit to be in us) and that righteousness by which we are justified; this he saith is inherent in us. But I dare not accuse the Quakers of being guilty of so much knowledge, and I presume you do not aim at his doctrine.  
For the other phrase, The justified person dwelling in the righteousness of Christ, and so not sinning; I confess my simplicity cannot understand this, unless it had more sense in it. I have read 2 Pet. 3.13. wherein dwelleth righteousness, but I have not read, where a Believer dwells in Christ's righteousness, nor of so dwelling as not to sin.  Argum: 8 
Major. That light which teach men to omit their duty to God, that light is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. But so do the light of the Quakers. Ergo.  
The Major need no proof, Christ doth not teach men to omit their duty, than he is a teacher of unrighteousness.  
Minor. But the Quakers light teach men to omit their duty to God, viz. Prayer.  
Parnel Watch, p 46. speaking against one, Then thou went on with thy deluding spirit, pressing the wicked to pray, whereas Prov. 15.8. the prayers of the wicked are abominable; and thus thou didst that which was abominable in the sight of God, in praying thyself, and teaching the wicked to pray.  
Parnel Gol: p. 15. The Apostles did not teach the wicked to pray.  
Answ. 1. It is true, while men go on in a course of wickedness, and are resolved to do so, yet in the mean time think to heal themselves, and make God amends by their Prayers, the Lord saith, he abominates their Prayers: Yet this denyeth not Prayer to be their duty, to acknowledge their Lord and Creator, upon whom they depend.  
2. Why do the Quakers so much call all people to sink down to the light of God in the Conscience [as before] yet now exclaim upon men for being guided by it? the light of God in the Conscience doth teach men to pray, bids them pray: should they not obey their Conscience? 1 Jonah 6.14. the Conscience of the Heathens did dictate Prayer.  
3. Must not the wicked pray because they sin, and so it is abominable? then they must not blow neither, for that also is sin. Prov. 21.4. but all sin is abominable to God: what then, must not the wicked plough? I hope then the Quakers will keep their families.  
4. Was Peter no Apostle, was not Simon Magus wicked? read Acts 8.22. The Apostle Iames, 5 Chap. 13. Is any among you afflicted? Let him pray. But suppose a wicked man (though I love Charity well, yet I believe there might be one or two among those Tribes he writes to) what must he do? Surely, Any will reach him. If he may pray when afflicted, why not at at other times: observe the Epistle, and you will find there were some wicked among them.  
5. What mean those words, jer. 10.25. Fury on families that call not on his name.  
Naylor Saluta. p. 19 to the question, must we not pray? Answers, I say wait for the spirit of prayer. But where learn you this? This is your spirits Divinity, suppose the Spirit comes not this month or year? Then it seems the duty must lie by: for God to give his Spirit is his free act, for me to pray is my duty, as a Creature; let me do my duty, and wait there for the free Spirit of God.  
p. 20 Your times are in your own hands: (a little after) but the times of Sons and Daughters are not in their hands, no, it's true, if you mean those times David speaks of, Psal. 31.15. But the times of prayer you speak of. Daniel was a Son, yet he Chap. 6.10. three times a day prayed. so David, and others had their times. But for times to sin we abhor them, we hope, more than you.  
Conclusion. Since then the Quakers Light teach people to omit prayer, I conclude, their light is of Satan, etc.  Argum: 9 
Major. That light which teacheth men to say, they have no sin, that light is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. But so do the Quakers light, Ergo.  
Major. Christ his Light teach us that for the Dominion of sin, all his people are freed from it, Rom. 7.12.14 but he that saith he hath not the being of sin, and doth not sin, the truth is not in him, 1 joh. 1.8.  
job had more holiness in him then all the Quakers, God saith of him that he was perfect, ch. 1. i. e. Evangelically, not Legally, for Chap. 9.20. he speak other language, so 30. & 31. verses.  
job 14.4. 1 Kings 8.46. Eccles. 7.20. Prov. 20.9. jam. 3.2. a relative perfection in our justification, an inherent perfection of parts, in our Sanctification, a striving after perfection in degrees; such perfection we own, i. e. uprightness; but for the Quakers perfection let them keep it: Paul found a body of death, Rom. 7. and saith he was not perfect, Phil. 3.12. Where sin hath no dominion, that man is perfect, i.e. Evangelically, Psal. 19.13. the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall be perfect, or complete, upright. yet such an one may have sins, ver. 12. so not perfect legally. Who knows his errors? not David, but the Quakers.  Minor. But the Quakers light teach people to say they have no sin, they are perfect (not in our sense.) 
This their books are so full of that it were tedious to transcribe. Mason spends the seven first pages of his book about this, quoting some texts for it where perfection is mentioned, (which we own in a sound sense) then railing upon the Priests, and damning them to hell because they cross them.  
Mason. p. 3. makes great use of Ephes. 4.12. etc. perfecting of the Saints, etc. thus he argues, if the Saints could not be perfect in this life, were not these Apostles and Pastors, put upon a needless employment? Can the Priests of the nation prove that Saints are tossed in heaven? Were England's blind watchmen commissionated from Christ, they would not prate thus against perfection.  
But if Mason had well understood the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here rendered perfecting, he might have known that the word is translated by others, For the gathering together of Saints, by others, the Coagmentation, joining, gluing together of Saints, to Christ by faith, to the body by love: not noting the perfection of the growth, but such a perfection, as when a body hath all its members. He adds presently for the Edifying of the body of Christ. What need of Edifying when there is complete perfection, so that till this Mystical body have all its Members, the Ministry must last. When a body hath all its Members, none wanting, broken, or out of joint, yet then those Members must grow.  
If he will fetch his strength from the 13. v. a perfect man, etc. and that perfect man, to be meant of every singular believer, to what I have said before about perfection, I add, we acknowledge there are thousands (through mercy) of perfect men, in England, as perfect is opposed to children tossed to and fro in ver. 14. saints who stand so unmovable, and firm, that all the winds of Quakers and other Heretics doctrines cannot shake them here upon earth.  
But by the former words, Till we all come or meet etc. he seems to speak of the whole mystical body, which shall be a perfect man, when they meet All in the unity etc. and of the knowledge of the Son of God: But I do not believe any man hath that perfect knowledge of him, in this life, which they shall have.  
There are abundance of these true members, who die before they are perfect in inherent holiness I am sure, or else you must cut off most of the members (nay all) which your friend Castelio in this point dare not do, but hath so much charity to say, that such shall be saved: but there are no Pastors in heaven to perfect them: then the Pastors' work is not needless, though the members come not to the perfect growth in this life. Nay the need of Pastors argue imperfection; for when perfection is come, there will be no need of these: what need of Nurses, Tutors, Schoolmasters, etc. when perfection is attained? More may be said, but I forbear.  
Another Text the Quakers use is Phillip 3.15. But what say they to the 12 ver. Paul saith he was not perfect. Here appears a contradiction: But, Perfect men may be considered two ways:  
1. Either with reference to the perfect rule; so no man is inherently, and legally perfect.  
Or 2. Comparatively, with other men; thus some are but young scholars, they understand not the fullness of the righteousness of Christ, etc. but are troubled about Circumcision, v. 3. and other Jewish matters; others are more grown in the knowledge of Christ, and his grace, more solid in judgement, who are perfect in comparison of others, and this perfection he means, as the next verse, and the observation of the Chapter proves; thus some little children, young men, Fathers, 1 Joh. 2.13.  
Some think he calls the false Teachers, the perfect men, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Zanch: in loc.  speaking ironically, and nipping them for their boasting.  
Musculus upon this Text tells us of a debate he had with a Franciscan, who with great impudency boasted he was perfect: but saith of him, he did so rage, that he seemed perfect in fury and madness: the same is evident in these Quakers, when crossed; for fierce countenances, fury, raging, railing, I have not read nor seen the like, of such as talk of perfection. By what I have said, you may answer all they allege for perfection.  
Thus also Priests ignorance, p. 4. Parnel. fr: fast: p. 24. But stay Parnel, are you perfect too? have you no sin? do you so dwell in the righteousness of Christ? I omit thy abominable pride which thou manifestest in thy Books; with other sins easily to be proved. I only turn thee to 1 Pet. 2.23. When Christ was reviled he reviled not again. Do you show this Spirit of Christ? Let any read your Reply (as you call it) to Dr. Draton, where you have cut off Goliahs' head, than judge: as you have printed your adversary, yet any one shall see what he speaks is with reason, scripture, and sobriety; but what is your return to a man of his quality and years? Impudent liar, blind sot, blasphemer, liar, hypocrite, deceiver, the book is stuffed with this language.  
Come to the Civil power, and see how your infallible spirit carry you there. Fru: fast. p. 10. in your reply to your Mittimus (as you call it) thus you speak to the four Justices, naming them. In the Mittimus you find several lies, slanders, etc. I shall reply to the same, and return the venom upon your venomous spirits, etc. This is the perfect man, without sin; such also is Naylor and Mason. I will give you leave to brag of your perfection: but read Judas 8.9. 2 Pet. 2.10. Concluson. I do conclude both from your doctrine and your practice that your light is from Satan.  Argum: 10 
Major. That light which teacheth people to revile, and throw filth upon the true Ministers, and true Churches of Christ, that is the light of Satan, not of Christ.  
Minor. But thus do the Quakers light teach people, etc.  
For the Major none will question that, 1 Tim. 5.17. There is double honour allowed the labourers in word and doctrine: For the Churches, they bear such an honourable relation to Christ, that sure Christ will not thus teach people to revile them, 2 Cor. 11.2.  Minor. But the light of the Quakers teach people to revile and throw filth on the true Ministers and Churches of Christ; even all in England, and the world that differ from them. 
This they avoid, by denying with greatest abhorrency that any of the Ministers are such, or the Churches.  
Priests igno: p. 2. Wooded p. 16. but especially Parnel twice in his Fr●fast, tells us of the Church in God, 1 Thess. 1.1. and Parnel saith he owns that Church, and amongst his Queries to the Priests, he would have them tell him what Church that is.  
I wish Parnel had set down the interpretation from his infallible spirit, I believe we should have found a blasphemous one. But let us examine the Text, this Church of the Thessalon. which was in God, ch. 5. ver. 12, 13. had Rulers over them, and they were to esteem them highly, etc. But Parnel, you deny all Church Officers, so do all your sect; than you are not in God, as this Church was.  
In the 14 ver: they were to warn the unruly: in the 2 Epist: 3. ch: 11. there were disorderly walkers, how can unruly, and disorderly persons be in God? tell us this. This Church was taught to pray without ceasing, but you bid stay till the spirit moves.  
But note this by the way, a Church may be said to be a Church in God, and yet there may be some unruly, and disorderly persons amongst them. If you say, but they must be exhorted, warned etc. that is true, and so do we exhort, warn, etc. this will help save our Churches, (some at least I am sure.)  
But what is it to be in God still? should I say (as some, hyperbolically, but very harshly and unsavourily) After a sort Deified? this I believe would please the Quakers, but how are unruly and disorderly persons Deified? shall I say, Church in God? so this Church (and others) is differenced from the Assemblies of Pagans, as they were before, not in God, but Idols. And in Christ, so differenced from the jews, who refused Christ. They professed the Faith of God and Christ, or they had an inward fellowship (some of them) and union with God and Christ, as I joh. 1.3. Our fellowship is with the Father and his Son, etc. Others had an outward fellowship, as owned the faith, partaked of his Ordinances, and so visibly did profess themselves to be the body of Christ.  
But let M. Mason observe, the Apostle makes a distinction here between God the Father and Christ; but he p. 8. saith, to make God, Christ, and Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, 
Afterwards p. 9 he calls it a bold and a blasphemous assertion.  is such a piece of Divinity, as was never known till the Merchants of Babylon broached it: then quotes 14 joh. v. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. But what will M. Mason gather from hence, that Christ as he is the eternal Son of God, is of the same Essence with the Father, so that the Essence is but One? this we yield. But I pray what do you make of the Humanity of Christ? was it real or imaginary? if real, what, is the Humanity of Christ the same Essence with the Godhead? this is new Divinity indeed; what, is there no difference between Christ, and the Divine Essence subsisting in the relation of the Son (if the word Person be so offensive?) you say, for the simples sake, p. 9 you will set down what the Lord gives you in vindication of his honour.  
Then quote the 14 of joh. the simple ones are much obliged to you and Parnel, but you have shown yourself but simple in this, and have notably vindicated the honour of God, to make Christ, who is God-Man, and without the Manhood is not Christ, that the Manhood also must be one Essence with the Godhead.  
But to return to Parnel, I have already given one ground from the Church of the Thessalon to prove there are some true Churches in England. I scarce think Parnel know what a Church is, for if he define it right, he must overthrow divers of his own principles. I wish his infallible spirit would have let us known his mind, that we might have tried the Quakers Church: but I will leave this with all the Quakers, Seekers, Separatists in England, that if they will own the Church of Corinth to be a true Church, than I will prove there are now many Churches in England that are true also.  
For the Ministers whom you and others call Priests, and say, we run before we were sent, (you do well to begin first to cast that upon us, which you know will fall upon your own heads:) no, we can prove our sending: Bishop. p. 23. he brings against us the 1. Tit. 7. Well, and are there not many Ministers who do in a good measure walk up to those rules though they dare not brag of your perfection? Covetousness is the great thing you object; but to this I have answered before. As for anger, we may be angry; and if an excess in anger sometimes, will cut us off from being true Ministers, than Paul and Barnabas were not true Apostles. Read Acts 15.39. if infirmities cut us off, than Peter was no Apostle who the second time halted, Gal. 2. Then jeremiah, jonah, were no true Prophets. But G. 
Dicitur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prepriè qui adhaeret alicui, velut unguibus affixus, nec seize finite avelli. Bulling. in loc  Bishop:.. why do you leave out the 9 ver: where a Bishop must hold fast the faithful Word: here is no mention of the infallible spirit which he must forsake this faithful Word, to listen after: Then he must be able by sound doctrine (not Quakers dreams) to exhort, and convince gainsayers. Where are these quaking Pratlers, and others also, if these rules must try them, who do not know how to speak sense, but their reason is railing, and their answers, you lie, etc.  
Also G. Bish: why did you not quote the 5 ver. where Titus a Church-Officer was left to Ordain other Church-Officers: these persons so qualified. Lay these together, and here is the true sending of a Minister (the people's choice supposed, which we we also have.)  
Thou dost quote also 1 Tim. 3.3. Take in the 2 v. also, there is one apt to teach: take in the 6 ver. And though Parnel be fare enough from the abilities required in a Bishop, many miles short, yet as he is a Novice lifted up with pride, so let him take heed of the next words. And why did not thou quote the 4 chap. of this Epist: 14 ver: & 5 chap: 22. Lay hands suddenly. etc. and there you should have seen how these qualified men came into their places.  
Try us then for abilities, if you can, all you Quakers and Separatifts in England; then see what is required by the Aposties' example to bring us into the Ministry, and prove we have it not.  
Object. You are Ordained by Bishops.  
Answ. To this I have answered at large in another Book, though it be false of abundance of us, we received no Ordination from the Bishops; yet I wish that the Separatists would think of one thing, in Rev. 6.9, 10, 11. there is mention made of many slain for the Word of God, etc. these had white robes given them, &c these who were slain must needs fall under the X Persecutions under the heathen Emperors, and may well in a special manner look to that horrible butchery under Dioclesian, but if you know those times, you will find there were abundance of Bishops slain in those times (I mean Bishops who were above Presbyters in the Church) and you shall find abundance of ceremonies, humane inventions in those times in the worship of God, yet we find God doth not show such disdain of them as you do now, he gives them white robes. Thus Bp: Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, and abundance of Ministers ordained by those Bishops, but suffered gloriously for the testimony which they held, the Lord will own them with honour in the Day of Judgement; how then you come to cast off so many Ministers of Christ, so able in the work of the Gospel, (as none have been more able since the Apostles days, no nor so able) so godly in their conversation, to whose Ministry God hath sealed, in the spiritual children he hath given them, and only because they were ordained by Bishops, (who yet were Ministers and did Ministerial work) do you provide to answer for this at that day.  
Some men will scarce own any man's Ordination but that which is by such Bishops, and you will own no Ministers who are ordained by such; if you two should meet, who would be the strongest?  
Parnel Gol: p. 26. makes this a proof against our Ministry, that it is earthly, because in thus many years we have wrought no better reformation.  
1. But Parnel, the English Ministry (through grace) will show the greatest reformation in the world, and yet none in the world opposed like it. We can show the souls who confess by us the Lord enlightened them, turned them, and hath built them up.  
2. Then isaiah's, and jeremiahs, with other of the Prophet's Ministry was earthly, for I am sure they wrought but little reformation.  
3. What, was Christ's Ministry earthly also? he complains Isa. 49.4. that he had laboured in vain.  
4. What? you will have many called, and many chosen? Christ saith the contrary.  
Conclusion. To conclude, I dare affirm that there is as true and as able a Ministry in England this day, as ever was since the Apostles died: and if any Quakers or Separatists will undertake to prove the contrary, so they will argue and not babble, they shall soon find those who will answer them. While therefore you cast filth upon these (I plead not for every particular Minister) and upon all the Churches, you show your light to be of Satan, etc.  Argum: 11 
Major. That Light which brags of the infallible spirit, and yet cannot speak good sense or reason, that Light and Spirit must come from Satan, not from Christ.  
Minor. But such is the Quakers light and infallible Spirit. Ergo.  
Major. The Spirit of Christ is a Spirit of wisdom, but he that speaketh irrationally, nonsense, he doth not speak wisely: the Spirit of God is a most rational Spirit, and where it speaks, it speaks like itself, Acts 6.10. They were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which Stephen spoke. Thus Paul, Apollo's, etc. they spoke rationally, carried such strength, that none could answer them.  
Ministers must be men able to convince, 1 Tit. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. those that talk irrationally will never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
I know Satan can speak rationally, & sense also, which makes us wonder what he means to take such instruments, unless it be because he is at the last, seeing witty Jesuits cannot do the business, now try if foolish Quakers can do it: this also I know, that reason being a beam of God, there can be no true reason for sin or error. Also, though abundance of God's people are weak and shallow, yet they never speak truth, but they speak sense, and reason.  
But here we have a pack, mightily insulting over the Ministers because they do not assume to themselves the infallible Spirit, in that notion which the Quakers boast they have it, and yet cannot speak rationally. Let us hear a little.  
Qua: gl●: of God, p 3, 4. there they undertake to answer the arguments the Apostle brings, 1 Cor. 9.9, 10, 11, etc. to prove the maintenance of Ministers: They that preach on the Gospel must live upon the Gospel. This scripture shames you, and shows your Gospel will not maintain you, but you seek to Magistrate s●● and the Ministers of the Gospel are ashamed of such a pack of teachers. This is his answer, so, He that thresheth, thresheth in hope: Oh how have they threshed in hope all this while, and got forth no corn, but are feign to seek to the Magistrates for me●nes and food. So, Thou shalt not muzzle the month of the Ox: Oh you shameless teachers, your mouths must be muzzled, have been treading all this while, and no corn trodden out to feed you, but are feign to seek to the Magistrates. Do not these men speak gallantly? Is not here evidence of the infallible Spirit? But if these Quakers would have spoken like men, thus ye should have said: True, those who preach the Gospel, those who thresh, those who tread out, etc. that is, those who do perform the work of the Lords Ministers, in teaching, jabouring faithfully, they may challenge maintenance by these Scriptures. But you do not thresh, labour, etc. in the Lords work. Therefore you cannot claim maintenance from these Seriptures; now you had spoken rationally, and there had been matter of shame indeed that we should have called for corn, and not wrought: but now you have cast all the shame upon the people, that we preaching, labouring, threshing, etc. are denied our corn, our maintenance, and are forced to go to the Magistrates our nursing fathers, Isa. 49 v. 23. for it. Like a man who hath been ploughing and threshing half a year for another, when he comes to demand his wages, he is denied: the man goeth to the Magistrate to be helped, the Quakers cry out, Oh thou shameless man, hast thou been ploughing and threshing so long, and now art fain to go to the Magistrate? etc. Doth the man deserve shame, or he who deny him his due? So here.  
Thus, Priests Igno: p. 2. The teachers of the world sprinkle Infants, telling people its an Ordinance of God, which is contrary to the Scriptures; and quotes in his margin Gal. 3.1. Luc. 1.26.36. Let any one read those Scriptures, and see how they oppose it: he quotes no other Scriptures.  
In the next: The teachers of the world call people unto a Sacrament, for the which there is no Scripture, here they act contrary to the Scriptures: quoting Gen. 29.28. the words are these, and jacob did so and fulfilled her week, and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also, and Gen. 10. but no verse. These are all the Scriptures. Here you see the Priest's ignorance, and the Quakers knowledge laid together.  
So let any one that hath reason read Naylor his Answer to Io: Reyner's Queries. Parnel against Dr. Draton, and then see if it be not a woeful judgement of God to let a Nation be overrun, and people catched, with such witless, brainless fellows, besides their gross, abominable principles, that destroy Scriptures, Ordinances, Churches, civil States, etc.  
Conclusion. Since then the Light which the Quakers boast come from the infallible Spirit in them, is thus, irrational, brutish, etc. I conclude, their Light is from Satan, not from Christ.  Argum: 12 
Major. That Light which affirmeth sound believers, walking (evangelically) in obedience to God's commandments to be in a state of condemnation, that Light is from Satan, not from Christ.  
Minor. But so do the Light of the Quakers: Ergo.  
The Major is plain, 3 joh. 36.18.16. & 16 Mar. 16. If faith and holiness shall go to hell, what shall go to heaven?  
Minor. 
They do not say this in so many words, but by consequence; for the persons who are such, and they cannot disprove it, they affirm to be in that condition.  But the Quakers Light affirmeth sound believers, and persons who walk in obedience etc. to be in a state of condemnation.  
For we are assured there are hundreds of sound believers in Christ in England, that fear to sin, walk with the Lord, (and that more close than the Quakers) who do detest and abominate the Quakers doctrines, principles, and practices; but the Quakers say of those who come not amongst them, that they shall be damned, perish, etc. This is their common language about us.  
Thus J. Toldervy, Ep. 17.18. told his Master Col. Web. Thus Mason p. 8. speaking to the Ministers, whom he calls Merchants of Babylon, bid us read our doom, in Revel. 18.7.8. yet among these I am sure are very sound believers, and very holy men, if they may be tried by the word: which shall try them, yea and you Mason, and all your Quakers, notwithstanding your boastings of the infallible Spirit.  
Thus I. N. p. 17. F. Harris makes this Querie, Whether it be safe for Christians to forsake and let go those Gospel-dispensations of the Spirit of Truth, in which God hath blessedly appeared, & c?  
The sum of his answer is this, that all those who deny the light of Christ, and the infallible spirit (in their sense this must be taken, else we do say, some truth is in this) have nothing but the spirit of delusions: but then adds, without the infallible spirit there is no promise nor word, but what is stolen from others, or out of a book, and had thou had no book thou had no voice nor promise. Here is brave stuff: the promises then in the Bible, are little worth; if I N. can find any promises out of this book, let him take them for me.  
Thus Parnel and Naylor call the Ministers, Magicians.  
Let the Quakers tell us what is faith, according as the Lord Christ declares it in his Word, (not their infallible Spirit without the Word) tell us what it is to walk holily, as the holy men in Scripture have done, and see if there be not many hundreds that answer that faith and holiness.  
And let me desire the Quakers but to tell me of one man in the Word of God that was holy, who embraced the Quakers doctrines, principles, and practices?  
Conclusion. Since then the Quakers light condemn such, as the light of Christ approves of; hence I conclude, their light is from Satan, etc.  
Jam. 3.1. Be not many Masters, knowing we shall receive the greater condemnation. Who so masterly as the Quakers, Mat. 7. ver: 1.  
Argum: 13 As for their shaking in that strange manner, which some report of them, and their books defend, it is manifest enough to every one, whom the God of this world hath not blinded, whence it comes, and prove their doctrine to have the same Author: it is a thing so known amongst them, that J. Toldervy saith p. 28. He had long waited for it, than had it to purpose: My whole man was so shaken, torn, and rend, that had I not by a great strength been enabled, I could not have continued: also it did work in me as though I had taken a strong purge, pag. 29. yet I. N. against F. Harris p. 18. abuseth the holy examples of Daniel, Moses, and David, to defend these Diabolical actings; nothing like those holy men, neither in the causes, nor effects. Let the Reader observe the History at the end of the book.  
I shall conclude all with transcribing a few lines out of him where he relateth what one of these Quakers, who was of his former acquaintance, 
pag. 7.  spoke to him, (with Answer to one of Parnels Queries) He gave me to understand that they were sent forth to preach the Gospel by the same Christ the Apostles were, and that the person, that Son of God which died at Jerusalem, was not the Redeemer of man from sin. Oh fearful! but the redeemer was in every particular man, that light by which he was given to see sin, and enabled by it, if obeyed, to be redeemed from sin: which Christ had redeemed them perfect, and now lived in them Lord of all things, by which they were made the sons of God, and so what was manifested to them by that substance, from that substance were they moved to speak, which was the same holy Ghost, by which the Apostles were endued, sent forth and enabled to preach: so he declared how sometimes in the night they were immediately commanded by the eternal spirit to go forth and preach, etc. Here is enough said to make us all quake: I intent not to open the wretchedness that lieth in these words, only this is worth the observation; that whereas some have cast off all Officers, and Churches, because we are out of order, say they, and therefore they wait for Apostolical men to be sent from God (I know not how) to bring us into order: here you have them, I hope your expectation is answered, by a fearful judgement of God.  
But let us hear what is Parnels opinion, though propounded by way of query, Whether any now ought to preach in the name of Jesus, but who are called to it, and fitted for it the same way as the holy men of God were, spoken of in Scripture?  
What holy men he meaneth, the next Querie to this will interpret: Whether do you own immediate revelation now, yea or nay? q 8.9. The question would be, what he means by immediate revelation? but by comparing their spirits we may know his meaning. Bishop p. 24. proving that we are not the Ministers of Christ, brings in this for one proof, Gal. 1.12. the Ministers of Christ, received not the Gospel by man, nor the will of man, nor were they taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ in them. We may see what Parnel aims at: but in this sense? no, we own no such revelations.  
1. For, what should such Revelations concern? Faith, or Manners? If Faith; All that we are bound to believe Christ hath perfectly revealed in his Word: If Manners; Christ also hath perfectly revealed the whole will of God for our obedience, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. The Scripture, etc. There it is to be found in the Scripture, whatever is requisite to make the man of God perfect. Since we have a perfect rule, what need we more? What if there be a revelation that cross an Article of faith, or rule of obedience in the Scripture, (as do the pretended revelations of the Quakers) what shall we judge of it? Surely the Devil is the Author of it.  
2. The foundation upon which the true Church of Christ is built, hath long since been perfectly laid; Ephes. 2.20. and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Cornerstone. No Church need any better foundation to be built upon than the Church of the Ephesians was built upon: that was built upon, not any of our new, mad, Diabolical Apostles; but the Apostles which the Lord Jesus himself called, fitted in a glorious manner, that the servants did show who was their Master: and Paul one of these Acts 20.27. tells the Elders, I have not shunned to declare to you All the Counsel of God, which concerneth our salvation. If the Quakers bring any more, than Paul did not declare All: but whether Paul or the Quakers speak truest, we will not dispute: show us now such men as those Apostles were.  
3. I pray tell us, what Scripture have you to prove that any men now in these days should have such revelations, and that now we must look again for Apostles? It may be you will make a tush at Scripture, and tell us your infallible Spirit tells you so: but we can upon better grounds make a tush at your Spirit, and curse you by the authority of the Spirit, for adding to his Word, Deut. 12.32. Rev. 22.18.  
4. Before you brag of your Apostleship and Revelations, show yourselves to be, I will not say Christians, but Men, rational men, which as yet you have not done.  
5. As after those Prophets under the Old Testament whom God raised up, no man dared to assume to himself that Name and Office (I know there were those who were called Prophets in the N. Test. but they differed from the Old) or dared to be a Penman: so after the Apostles whom Christ himself chose, fitted, and authorized to be his Penmen in the New Testament, let none dare to be so devilish to assume that Office, or Name unto themselves.  
6. The testator is dead, who then shall make any other Testament? or what need is there of any other, than what himself hath made?  
For the infallible Spirit the Quakers so much prate of, abusing the Ministers because they do not boast of it, (and Mason in particular, pag: 15. abuseth Mr. Scortrith, and bid his people take heed of him) I shall speak a few words. Mason adds this, Take this along with you too, 

The Spirit of Truth is the infallible Spirit.  
But George Scortrith confesses he hath not the Infallible:  
Therefore George Scortrith preaches from the Spirit of Error.    
What now? what do Quakers make Syllogisms? then we look to ourselves; but Mason the next time you make a Syllogism, desire your Master to learn you so much skill to make a true one, for the Priests do laugh to read such a false one. You might have indeed disposed the predicate of your question in the Major proposition, with some words altered, but now it is not where disposed. But to the business:  
1. If the Quakers would have us affirm that all Ministers must have the Spirit in that manner as the Prophets, 1 Pet. 1. v. 11. and Apostles, v. 12. So 2 Pet. 1. ult. than we professedly say, we have it not. If the Quakers say they have it so, than I say, the Spirit in the Prophets and Apostles was not the infallible Spirit, for the Quakers spirit is cross to that.  
2. I affirm that Ministers (I mean not every particular man who calls himself a Minister) have that Spirit which is Infallible, to some a Spirit of gifts and grace, to some only gifts. We pray to the Lord for it, and that we may be guided by it.  
3. True Ministers do by that Spirit from his word, teach to their people the infallible truths of Christ, they build them upon such foundations for doctrine and practice, that not one who follow their preaching shall ever miscarry, but shall honour God here, and be infallibly saved hereafter.  
4. Those who have forsaken this Ministry, the Spirit of God hath left them, and let them fall into corrupt errors, and some damnable heresies, with practices grievous, and offensive to the Spirit.  
But yet to say that this Spirit which (with reverend humility) we dare say we have, doth, or is bound to teach us every one in every jota of truth, so that not in any particular whatever we may mistake, this we do not affirm, no more than he doth, or is bound to expel every relic of corruption out of our hearts: we know but in part. Peter might boast of this Spirit more than Mason, but whence then doth he walk so, Gal. 2.11.14. as to deserve a reproof.  
Nay go to others who were guided extraordinarily: Isaac by a prophetical Spirit, and infallible, blessed jacob, but he mistook in the person whom he blessed, he thought it had been Esau: the infallible Spirit did not guide him there to know Jacob, but he erred as to his own purpose. Samuel went to anoint David by an infallible Spirit, but he mistook in Eliab. So Nathan a Prophet, but he mistook in his counsel to David about the Temple building. Then why the Spirit should so teach every Minister that in no point whatever he should mistake (so long as in nothing that concern the salvation of his people) I know not.  
Much more might be gathered out of their Books, whereby it may appear by what spirit these Quakers are led, truly by Satan, scarce transformed into an Angel of Light.  
And now to you who are my people, and have chosen me to be your Officer, having thus opened the wickedness of this Sect, I exhort you to beware of them: for you who have understanding so as you are able to oppose them, I do not fear your going to hear them, or conferring with them, they are scarce men in reason: for you who are of the weaker sort, I exhort you again, come not near them so much as to hear them, (since warning is given what they are) but if you will do it, know assuredly, the Church will proceed against you for so doing, as for any other sin.  
FINIS.   

A Minister now in Essex gave this Narration to a friend of mine, written with his own hand, and his name to it; the Copy is true that I here offer to the Reader.  
The 8th Month, 19th day. 1654.  
AT the earnest desire of some friends, I went with John Ward and Anthony Hunter to a meeting of the deluded souls called Quakers, at John Hunters of Benfield-side in the County of Durham, where we found about twenty persons sitting all silent: after we had sat awhile (all being mute) the Lord moved me to arise, and call upon his name by prayer. I was no sooner up, but my legs trembled greatly, so that it was some difficulty to stand: but after I had prayed a short space the trembling ceased: while I prayed to GOD as a Creator, there was but little disturbance, but when I cried in the name of JESUS CHRIST my Mediator, God in my nature, now in the highest glory appearing and interceding for his Saints, than the Devil roared in the deceived souls in most strange and dreadful manner, some howling, some shrieking, yelling, roaring, and some had a strange confused kind of humming, singing noise.  
Such a representation of Hell I never heard of, nothing but horror and confusion.  
After I had done praying (not opening my eyes before) I was amazed to see about the one half of those miserable creatures so terribly shaken, with such strange violent various motions, that I wondered how it was possible some of them could live.  
In the midst of this confusion, one of them asked if I were come to torment them? To whom I applied this word, Mat. 8.29.  
And while I spoke something of Faith, they declared that they were come to the faith of Devils, Jam. 2.19. but said we were not attained to such a faith.  
After two hours, as we were departing out of the house, one of them cursed me with these words: All the plagues of God be upon thee. Whereupon, I returned and prayed for such of them, as had not committed the unpardonable sin. Thus fare this Minister.  
Lately in a Town near me, when the Quakers were met together, there appeared one amongst them in such a shape, as caused them to break up their meeting, with no small trouble to divers of them. I cannot learn the perfect manner, for the Quakers will not reveal it; only so much some of them have affirmed, and I will not publish more than I am certain of. I wish it may turn to their good.