FIrst, when the Ministers came to the Church or Meeting House-yard, Iames Nayler was there with his company, but seemed unwilling to goe into the Church or Church-House, yet at last went into the lower end, and stood there. But when Mr Billingsley Mini­ster of Chesterfield, began with praier to God for a bles­sing upon the meeting, Nayler and his fellowes went forth againe, pretending some plot might be against them. But after praier, assurance given there was none, they came in againe.

Secondly, Mr John Billingsley began to read the Questions; But after Nayler read them in the Paper sent to him (as I take it) and then began to read his Answer in writing, and when he had read his Answer to the first Question, it was desired that that Question, [Page 2]and his Answer to that, might be first Argued, and so the rest afterwards in order.

Question. 1 The first Question was, Whether the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, bee the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. Mr Bourne shewed Nayler the Bible, and asked him if he would owne that as Gods word, he answered, part of it, or to that effect.

First, For the state of the Question. By the Spirit, was meant the Spirit of God, 1 Iohn 5.7. the third Person in Trinity, one with the Father and the Sonne.

Secondly, by the Scriptures, the Canonicall books of the Old and New Testament.

Thirdly, By the Spirit of God speaking in the Scrip­tures, that voice or speaking forth of Gods Spirit recor­ded in Scripture, which is there now to be found; so whether the holy Scriptures, or Spirit in them be judg. This state was not so fully opened by reason of distur­bance even in the entrance, Nayler endeavouring to avoid this Question.

Naylers Answer Nayler in his Answer, owned the Spirit that did speake in the holy men, who gave forth the holy Scrip­tures to be Judge; and said that Spirit was Judge be­fore the Letter was written, and all Controversies were judged by that Spirit, but hee did not owne that Spirit that doth now speak in the Scriptures: Hee said hee granted the Spirit was Judge, and would have avoided the Question.

Mr Bournes Re­ply. But Mr Bourne pressed to go on with the Question, and affirmed it was one thing to say the Spirit that did speake in the holy men that gave out the Scriptures was Judge, and another to say the Spirit of God speak­ing in the Scriptures, was Judge, or that the holy Scrip­ture was Judge. Therefore pressed to go on with the Question, and began (as I remember) with this Rea­son.

Mr Bourns 1 Argument. Whatsoever was and is the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost himselfe, that was and is the chiefe Judge [Page 3]of Controversies of Faith, but the holy Scriptures are the speaking forth of the holy Spirit himselfe, therefore they are the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. The first proposition was not denied, and the second was proved, Acts 1.16. the Scripture which the ho­ly Ghost by the mouth of David spake concerning Ju­das. Here it is evident what Scriptures David writ, or spake by writing, that the Holy Ghost spake; Therefore the holy Scripture is the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost, and so judge of Controversies. The same again witnessed by the Spirit, Acts 28.25. wel spake the Holy Ghost by the mouth of Isaias the Prophet, saying, &c. Here you see the Holy Ghost is witnessed (by the Apostle Paul) to speak by the mouth of Isaias; and that Scripture which Isaiah writ, was the speaking forth of the Holy Ghost, and so the supreme Judge of Contro­versies, &c.

Naylers Answer Nayler gave no direct answer, but he wrangled, and said, he did owne the Spirit to be Judge, but not the written word, or to that effect; and that the Spirit did speak not in the dead, but in the living; which was (as I did understand him) not in the dead letter of the Scripture, but in living men, and vapoured as if he had said much, but yet would have avoided the Question, as needlesse to be further disputed on, since he did yield the Spirit to be Judge, although he denyed that the Spirit speaking in Scripture, was the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith; But Mr Bourn went on to press another Argument.

Mr Bourns 2 Argument. Whatsoever Christ himselfe did appeale unto, as to a chiefe Judge, and send his hearers unto, as to a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith, that is and ought to be esteem'd the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith: But Christ himselfe appealed to the Scriptures, and sent his hearers to the Scriptures, as to the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith, therefore the holy Scriptures are the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. The first not denyed, the second witnessed by the Spirit in John [Page 4]5.39. in that great controversie of Faith, whether Christ were the Sonne of God, or equall with God? Christ appeales to the Scriptures, Search the Scriptures, for in them you thinke to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of me, therefore the Scriptures are the chiefe Judge.

Naylers Answer Nayler did not give any answer to satisfie the Argu­ment, but said still, the Spirit was the Judge, not the written word, and cried out, liar, liar, hold thy peace, the Spirit is Judge, not the written word. Mr Bourne bad him yield the Question, since Christ himselfe appealed to the Scriptures; But he cried out, and one of his fel­low Quakers, away lyar, the Spirit is Judge. Mr Bourn replied, The Spirit is Judge, but not the Spirit speak­ing in any man, but the Spirit speaking in the Scrip­tures, and pressed a third Argument.

Mr Bourns 3 Argument. Whatsoever is the very word of God himselfe, that is, and ought to be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith; But the holy Scriptures are the very word of God himselfe, and therefore they are the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith.

The first not denied, the second proved, John 10.34, 35 Jesus said, is it not written in your Law, I have said ye are Gods: If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, &c. Here our Saviour calleth the Scriptures the word of God, therefore the holy Scripture is the word of God. And the like againe, Marke 7.12, 13. Ye make the word of God of none effect by your traditions. Christ plainly calleth the Scriptures the written Law of God, the word of God, therefore the holy Scriptures are the very word of God himselfe, and so the chiefe Judge of Con­troversies of Faith.

Naylers Answer Nayler cavilled still and cried out it is false, it is false, the word is not the Judge, and sit downe liar. But Mr Bourne pressed him to answer; And Nayler said, the word was God, but the Scripture was the letter, and that was not Judge.

Mr Billingsleys 1 Argument. Mr Billingsley pressed an Argument, to prove that the written word, of which the Question is made, is not God. That which is the word of Christ, who is God, that is not Christ, nor God; But the holy Scrip­tures, and word preached, and written by the Apostles, is the word of Christ; Therefore the holy Scripture is not Christ nor God.

First, that Christ is God, that is evident, Rom. 9.5. of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Therefore by this testimony it is evident, Christ is God.

Secondly, that the holy Scriptures and word preach­ed by the Apostles, is the word of Christ, that is wit­nessed, Col. 3.16. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, in all wisdome. The Apostle doth not say, let the word Christ dwell in you, but let the word of Christ; Therefore the word of Christ is not Christ nor God, so neither the holy Scriptures which are the word of Christ, and of the spirit of Christ, which holy men spake and writ, as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Naylers Answer Nayler instead of a better Answer, still quarrelled, and cried out, liar, liar, the word is God, and God and his word are all one, but the letter was in time.

Mr Bourns Re­ply. To this Mr Bourne replyed, that was not so; for al­though God and his written word were one in respect of that agreement of truth, was in the written word, and in God; yet that word of God and God, were not all one essentially, as the naturall word or Son of God, was all one and the same Essence or Being with God.

Naylers Answer To this Nayler cried out, away with thy dark word, Iohn [...].12, 14. I do not owne that word essentially, and so rejected the distinction of Gods written word, and essentiall word.

Mr Bourns Re­ply. Mr Bourne replied, that the written word of God was not of the same Being with God.

Naylers Answer Nayler, and one of his fellow Quakers by him, cried out, liar, liar, stop thy mouth for shame, stop thy mouth, God and his word are all one.

Mr Bournes Ar­gument. Mr Bourne bad Nayler hearken to an Argument to [Page 6]prove it by Scripture, and told Nayler he was the bra­zen fac'd, foule mouth'd fellow he had heard, when his owne mouth was stopped, that he could not answer an Argument, he still cried out, liar, liar, stop thy mouth, stop thy mouth.

Mr Bourns Ar­gument. And Mr Bourne pressed this Argument: No word which was written in time, part by God himselfe, and part by Moses, and other holy men of God, was or is all one with God essentially, or of the same essence or being with God; but the holy Scriptures were written part by God himselfe in time, and part by Moses, and other holy men of God; Therefore that word of God was not of one or of the same Essence and Being with God.

The first Proposition is evident of it selfe. The se­cond is witnessed, Exod. 31.18. where God gave un­to Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him, two Tables of stone written with the finger (or by the power) of God. And Exod. 34.27. God com­manded Moses to write all the words of the Cove­nant, for after the tenour of these words, I have made a Covenant with thee, and with Israel (And this was written two thousand yeare after the Creation of the world which God made) therefore God and that writ­ten word was not all one, or of the same Essence and Being with God, and so not the rest of the holy Scrip­tures which was written in after times.

Naylers Answer But Nayler with a loud voice, still cried out, liar, liar, is not God and his word all one? and bad the people beare witnesse, hee saith God and his word are not all one.

Mr Bourn. For Reply, We distinguish there is a unity of agree­ment, so God and his written word are all one, and a unity of Essence or Being, so God and his written word, the Scripture, are not all one.

Mr Gardiners Argument. Mr Gardiner Minister of Eckinton, being present, when he saw him so audaciously impudent, called to Nayler to hearken to an Argument to the contrary; [Page]which was to this effect. Whatsoever is all one with God, is eternall, but the holy Scripture or written word is not eternall, therefore it is not all one with God.

Naylers Answer The Quaker Nayler presently cried out in a scorn­full manner, away liar, away, stop thy mouth, the word is eternall, and God is eternall. And one of his fellow Quakers that stood by Nayler, called Mr Gardiner lyar, lyar, both with a loud voice, stop thy mouth, thou art a liar, thou art a liar.

But let any indifferent man but read and consider the Argument, and see if the Quaker be not proved the liar, and justly deserved that shame himselfe, which he so unjustly cast upon Mr Gardiner, and the other Mi­nisters.

Then Mr Godfrey Watkinson of Brampton (an under­standing Gentleman not a Minister) being present, Mr Godfrey Watkinson of Brampton Moor neer Chesterfield cal­led to Nayler, and told him he had lost the Question, and he himselfe was the liar; for even now he said the letter or written word was in time, and so not eternall, and now he saith the word is eternall, and God and his word is all one, when as the Question and A [...]gument is about the written word, which is not eternall, and therfore he was the lyar, & lost the Question, or words to this effect (for I cannot remember every particular, but I endeavour to keep the sence and words as well as I can remember.)

Naylers Answer But Nayler kept on his loud mouthed pace, and gave Mr Watkinson some unfit disrespective speeches, and said he owned the Spirit speaking in holy men to bee the Judge, but would not own the Spirit of God speak­ing in the Scriptures.

Mr Bournes Re­ply. Mr Bourn began to presse other Arguments, but Nay­ler would not hearken, but cried, stop thy mouth, liar, liar. Then Mr Bourne called to another Question.

But let any man truly consider the Arguments, and see if Naylers mouth was not most fit to be stopped, and if Nayler was not the great liar, accusing others [Page]wrongfully for that, of which hee was so justly guilty himselfe.

Nayler did not then give his answer to the Question in writing, but sent it to us the day after the Disputati­on; In which he falsely applieth divers places of Scrip­ture, to prove (if he could) that it is not the Spirit of God speaking in the holy Scriptures, but the Spirit in holy men that is the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. I shall only in briefe, give some answer to his Allegation of Scripture, and some observations by the way, and then proceed to the second Question.

Naylers Allega­tion. 1. The first Scripture Nayler alledgeth, is that, Exod. 18.16. When they have any matter (saith Moses) they come to me, and I judge between one and another, &c. Therefore thinks Nayler, it is not the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, but the Spirit speaking in men, that judgeth. To which for answer.

Reply. First, I observe with what spirit the Quaker doth agree in this Allegation, Cardinalis Bel­larmin. de judi­ce Controversi­arii fidei. lib. 3. cap. 3. and this is with the Spirit of Antichrist in Cardinall Bellarmine, who brings the selfe same place of Scripture, to prove an outward Judge of Controversies of Faith, and to bee interpre­ter of the holy Scripture.

The Question he proposeth is, whether the interpre­tation of Scripture, be to be sought from some one visi­ble common Judge, which he affirmeth, and endea­vours to prove from this Scripture; That as Moses did answer to all doubts arising about the Law of God, so there must be an outward visible Judge of all Contro­versies: And this is the Church, and the Spirit in the Church, or in the chiefe Pastor (the Pope) with his Councill of Pastours (saith Bellarmine) and the Spirit speaking in holy men (saith Nayler) that is, in himselfe, and his fellow Quaker: And thus you may see, from whom the Quakers received this Doctrine, even from the popish seducing Jesuits, or some seduced Socinians, or other Heretickes, who seeke to disgrace the holy Scriptures, that they may more easily set forth their [Page 9]owne errours with faire pretences of the spirit. But to answer Cardinall Bellarmine and James Nayler both together.

1. Moses was an extraordinary man, and had an ex­traordinary measure of the Spirit, and yet Moses did not take upon him an infallibility of Spirit and Judge­ment, but did make known to the people, the statutes of God, and his lawes. Thus, what God had or did re­veale, that was the Judge, not his own Spirit, nor any Spirit in him, but the voice of God in his law, or Gods own direction to end the Controversie. This is evident, if you consult these places of Scripture, which wit­nesse what Moses did in the cause of the womans son that cursed God, Lev. 24. Lev. 24.11, 12, 13, 14. And about receiving the Passeover by the men that had touched the dead body of a man, Num. 6.9. Numb. 9.7, 8. Numb. 32.33, 34, 15, 32. And concerning the man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day, Numb. 15. he consults with God in all those. Thus Moses and holy men before the Law written, they enquire of God to know his mind and pleasure, and follow that which God taught them. But after the Law, and word and will of God was written, then to the Law and to the Testimony, If they speake not according to this, it is be­cause they have no light in them, Isaiah 8.20. as the Prophet Isaiah doth witnesse.

2. Observe what matters they were which Moses did judge, they were not matters of Faith, but matters of Fact, Controversies between man and man, he did judge between one and another (saith that Text) which Nayler himselfe alledgeth nothing to the purpose (if he speak of the Question) For this is whether the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, Exod. 18.16. be the chiefe Judge of controversies of Faith, not of actions between man and man. And this the Reader, whose eies are open, may easily discerne that this place of Scripture will neither fit Cardinall Bellarmine a Papist, nor James Nayler a Quaker. Nayler doth alledge divers other Scriptures of the same nature, to the same purpose; As [Page 10]that in Solomons prayer, 1 Kin. 3.9. 1 Kin. 3. That God would give him an understanding heart, that he might judge Gods people, to which the former answer may give full satis­faction.

3. 1 Cor. 2, 15, 16. Nayler alledgeth that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2. He that is spirituall judgeth all things, yet he himselfe is judged of no man; for who hath known the mind of the Lord that he might instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ. Therefore (if Nayler may judge) it is not the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, but the Spirit speaking in such spirituall men as he is, which is the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. And herein the Quaker exceeds Cardinall Bellarmine by far; for the popish Cardinall would have infallibility of spi­rit, only in the Pope and his company; but the Quaker maketh every particular spirituall man, a spirituall Pope, to be a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith, otherwise Naylers Scripture is nothing to the Questi­on, for the Question is not concerning a private inferi­our, or particular Judge, but concerning a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith, as Nayler himselfe repea­teth it. Question the first. To give an answer to this and divers other Scriptures alledged by Nayler. But that he cannot away with a Distinction, he might know that there is a twofold Judge of Controversies. First, A Magisteriall Judge (as I may so call it) a supreme highest directing publike Judge, to judge and discerne and direct, and finally, sentence in the Church, all Con­troversies of Faith. And this is the holy Scriptures, and the Spirit of God speaking in the Scriptures, to which Christ himselfe did appeale and direct his hearers, to appeale unto in that great Controversie of Faith, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of me (which we noted before.)

Againe, there is a Ministeriall, inferiour, more private Judge of spirituall things, and so of Controversies of Faith. And this may be every particular spirituall rege­nerate [Page 11]man or Christian, according to the measure of that light of the Spirit and grace of Faith he hath recei­ved from Christ, and for the satisfaction of his owne conscience, by the light of the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures, and the light of Christ within him, he may so far as he is able, judge of opinions and doctrines of men, whether they agree to the doctrine of Christ in the holy Scriptures, I say to the satisfaction of a man or womans owne conscience, in what they are to believe; yea those to whom God hath given a more excellent measure of understanding in the mystery of Christ re­vealed in the Scriptures; these may in some measure judge, or be inferiour Judges of spirituall things, and of private mens opinions in the Controversies of Faith; For the Spirit of the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.32. is subject to the Pro­phets; but all private spirits of men in the world, yea the Pope himselfe and all the Quakers, they are and must bee subject one day to the voice of Gods Spirit speaking in the holy Scriptures, and that word of Christ recorded in holy Scriptures, shall judge them all at the last day, witnesse our Saviour himselfe, John 12.48. The Quaker abuseth other places of holy Scripture. But the Answers I have given, may satisfie any under­standing Reader; I shal name only one more from Nay­ler and his fellow Quakers, which seems to conclude a­gainst the Scriptures excellency and authority, of being chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith, calling the holy Scriptures a dead letter, and the letter that killeth all, to discountenance the credit of the Scriptures, & to exalt their owne private spirit. The place of Scripture they pervert, is that of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 3.6. Who hath made us able Ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. I might answer at large, & shew how the letter is taken in severall places of Scripture, and evi­dence the falshood of Naylers application of this place also; but in briefe. The letter is taken 1. Propperly for the first Elements or beginnings of learning for the let­ters [Page 12]in severall languages, from which by spelling and putting together, are made syllables, and words and sentences, in and by which the mind of God and men is held forth to our understanding, as in those letters of Greek and Latine and Hebrew, which were written over Christ upon his Crosse, Luke 23.38. And these letters may be called dead letters, because of themselves they signifie nothing to declare the mind of the writer, except they be joined and put together in [...] syllables words, and sentences.

Againe, Improperly and more generally, letters are taken severall waies in Scripture, for Epistles private or publick, 2 Cor. 3.6. &c. And in that place alledged, The letter kil­leth. The Apostle doth speak of the Law which he op­poseth to the Gospell, which is the ministration of the Spirit, as will appear plainly, if the Chapter be truly loo­ked into, yea the Law it selfe doth not properly kill of it selfe, but is said to kill when men break it, and so are become subject to death by sinning against it; Rom. 7.12, 13. Rom. 6.27. Psal. 119.50. for the wages of sinne is death, otherwise the Law and word of God doth quicken, as David found by experience, Psal. 119. And the written words of God, are lively oracles, Acts 7.38. Heb. 4.12. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17 as the blessed Martyr Stephen witnessed; yea mighty in operation and able to make us wise to salva­tion, and therefore most fit to be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith, whatsoever the deluding Qua­kers pretend to the contrary. Thus I have done with the first Question, I come now to the second Que­stion.

Mr Bourns Ar­gument. The second Question: Whether the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. This was denyed, and Mr Bourne proved the negative by this Argument. No Spi­rit which is subject to tryall it selfe, can be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith; but the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, is subject to tryall it self, therefore the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Qua­ker, cannot be the chiefe Judge of any Controversies of [Page 13]Faith. The first proposition was not denied; and the se­cond is witnessed, 1 John 4. Beloved, believe not eve­ry spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God, for many false Prophets are gone out into the world. And here you may see the Evangelist giveth a generall rule for Christians to try the spirit, all spirits in any man, yea all that pretend to the Spirit of God, as the Pope and the Quakers doe, therefore their spirits are to be tried, and so are not fit to be chiefe Judges of Controversies of Faith.

Naylers Answer James Nailer wrangled about the Spirit, but gave no satisfying answer to the Argument, but said the Spi­rit was not a private spirit, if he was but in one against a hundred, and said the Spirit was in them, and he was Judge in them, as if the Spirit in the Quaker were a publick infallible Spirit, and so fit to be the chief Judge of Controversies of Faith, which cannot be; for if the Spirit of the Prophets be subject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.32. then much more the Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, subject to tryall, and therefore they cannot bee the chiefe Judges of Controversiies of Faith.

Mr Bourns 2 Argument. Then Mr Bourne pressed a second Argument. No Spirit which is a Spirit of Errour, lying and false accusation, is or can be a chiefe Judge of Con­troversies of Faith. But the Spirit in the Quaker, and in James Nayler in particular, is a Spirit of Errour, lying and false accusation, therefore that Spirit in them, can­not be a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. The first proposition is cleare, because a chiefe Judge must and ought to have in him a Spirit, not of errour, lying and false accusation, but a Spirit of truth and righte­ousnesse, that he may bee directed to give true judge­ment, and not to wrest or give wrong sentence; for this is contrary to the Law of God, Exod 23.6, 7. Thou shalt not wrest the judgement of the poor in his cause, and keep the farre from a false matter, &c. Therefore a Spirit of lying, and Errour, and false accusation, is not fit to be a chiefe Judge of Controversies, especially not [Page 14]of Controversies of Faith. And for the second proposi­tion, that the Spirit in the Quaker, and in James Nay­ler in particular, is a Spirit of Errour, lying and false ac­cusation. Mr Bourne proved it by these Arguments.

Mr Bournes Ar­gument. Whatsoever Spirit did or doth affirme, and falsely accuse the Ministers of Christ in England, that they erre and are false Teachers, because they say, the books of Matthew, Marke, Luke and John, are the Gospell, that is a Spirit of Errour, lying and false accusation. But the Spirit that is in James Nayler, and some of his fel­low Quakers, did or doth accuse the Ministers of Christ in England, that they erre, and are false Teachers, be­cause they affirme the books of Matthew, Marke, Luke and John, to be the Gospell; therefore the Spirit in the Quakers, and in James Nayler in particular, is a Spirit of Errour, lying and false accusation, and so not fit to be chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. To evidence the second proposition, Mr Bourne did shew a book, the Title of it was concerning a threefold Antichrist, or to that effect. The same in effect by Rich­ard Tarnworth, in his discovery of Faith, or ra­ther of infideli­ty, page 13. This was set out by some Quaker, and in page the 13. in the very leafe, in which beginneth a Letter of James Naylers, to severall friends about Wake­field, when Nayler was prisoner at Appleby. There is Printed this false accusation of the Ministers in Eng­land, as of Errour, because they say the books of Mat­thew, Marke, Luke and John, are the Gospell, or con­taine the glad tidings of salvation through Jesus Christ, therefore the Quakers are not fit to be the chiefe Jud­ges of Controversies of Faith

Naylers Answer Nayler answered, hee did owne that Letter writ to his friends about Wakefield, and said the books of Mat­thew, Marke, Luke and John were not the Gospell, but Christ was the Gospell.

Mr Bourns Re­ply. Mr Bourne went on to prove, that the books of Mat­thew, Marke, Luke and John, were the Gospell by this Argument.

Whatsoever book the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evangelist Marke, calleth the Gospell; that is the [Page 15]Gospel; but the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evan­gelist, Marke, calleth the book of Marke the Gospell, therefore that book of Marke is the Gospell. The first proposition is unquestionable, The second is witnessed, Marke 1.1. Marke 1.1. The beginning of the Gospell of Jesus Christ, the Sonne of God, as it is written in the Pro­phets. Observe first, That the Evangelist affirmeth, that the Gospel was written in the Prophets. Secondly, that he calleth the beginning of that book, the begin­ning of the Gospell; not that the Gospell was not be­fore, for the Gospell was preached to Adam and Eve in Paradise, after the Fall, Gen. 3.15. But the seed of the woman shall break the serpents head; but that it was the beginning of that book of the Gospell, of that history of Christ, and declaration of salvation by Christ Jesus. For what is the Gospell, but good newes or good tidings of a Sa­viour, as that Angell speaketh, Luke 2.10. And good tidings of Christ, is not Christ himselfe, and so the Go­spell is not Christ himselfe, but good newes of salvation by Christ. This is the book of Marke, the Gospell; and thus are the books of Matthew, Luke and John the Gospell; and the Quaker denying this, and accusing the Ministers of Christ, as of Errour; for affirming it, this assertion is plainely proved, that the Spirit in the Qua­ker, is a Spirit of Errour, lying and false accusation, and so not fit to be the Judge of Controversies of Faith.

Naylers Reply. Nayler had nothing to answer, but lyar, lyar, hold thy tongue, and sit downe, for Christ is the Gospell, the books of Matthew, Marke, Luke and John, are not the Gospell.

Mr Bournes Argument. Mr Bourne began to presse another Argument out of a booke of one Nicolas Cowlings, Nicol. Cowling his word to 52 London Mini­sters, p. 15, &c. A word to the 52 London Ministers, pages 15, 16. whereing he blasphe­mously compareth Christ that dyed at Jerusalem, to a woodden leg. Let me be bold, saith he, to impart unto you my former experience in the mystery of Christ. I thought a long while, a faith in Christ that died at Je­rusalem, was the top gallant of a Christian; but since it [Page 16]doth appeare, I Answer, There was a twofold Faith in the person of Christ. 1. Erring of an outward Redemption from Roman ty­ranny, of which Luke 24 21. Acts 1.16. 2. True Faith of an eternall Re­demption from sinne, &c. and purchase of li­ternall happi­nesse for his peo­ple in Heaven, of which, Mat. 1.21. Iohn 1.29, 6, 47, 14, 1, 2, 3. The Erring faith died with Christ, but the true faith in Christs person, did not dye, as the Blasphemer imagineth. &c. that faith the Disciples had in the person of Christ, died with him, &c. therefore it is Christ in the mystery that will save. A woodden legge (saith he) that is tyed on, may do some service, but it is the legge naturall that is usefull for all occasions. Thus doth this blasphemer, make Christ our Saviour that died for us at Jerusalem, but as a woodden legge. But it is not that Christ that died at Jerusalem mighty to save, not only by the work of sanctification in us by his Spi­rit through Faith to purifie our hearts, but by the worke of justification by his blood, and merits of his death and passion, by which he hath made our peace, even by the blood of his crosse, and righteousnesse imputed to us for our justification before God, as by our holinesse and good workes, we are declared to be justified before men: For God made him to be sinne for us, who knew no sinne, that we might be made the righteousnesse of God in him. But this Spirit in this deceived Quaker, or Erring Sectary, who glories in his perfection, and dis­gracefully calleth Christ that died at Jerusalem, a woodden legge, it is an Erring spirit, and therefore not fit to be judge of Controversies of Faith.

Naylers Answer James Nayler would give no Answer to this, but said he would not answer for any but himselfe. Yet certainly James Nayler needed not then to have dis­owned that, or denied to answer; for it is nothing but what he himselfe did owne before, Read the Per­fect Pharisee, p. 8. position. 5. as appeares by that expression of his, in a Letter sent by him to one in Lan­cashire; That he that expected to be saved by him that died at Jerusalem, should be deceived. This witnessed by those reverend Divines, who writ that book, called the Perfect Pharisee. And it seemeth it is their common opinion, as may appeare by that speech of another Qua­ker neer Bristoll, who said, he was not such a foole, as to hope to be saved by Jesus Christ that died at Jeru­salem sixteen hundred yeares agoe, Mr Farmer in his mystery of godlinesse and ungodlinesse. witnessed by Re­verend Mr Farmer, a Reverend Minister in Bristol. This spirit in the Quaker cannot be the chiefe Judge of Con­troversies of Faith.

Mr Billingsleys Argument. Then Mr John Billingsley to prove that the Spirit in the Quakers, and in James Nayler in particular, was a lying scandalizing Spirit, and so not fit to be Judge of Controversies of Faith, brought an Argument to this purpose.

That Spirit whatsoever that did or doth affirm, that Bul-baiting, swearing, cursing, and such like, are the fruits of John Billingsley's Ministrie, that is a lying scan­dalizing Spirit; but the Spirit that is in thee James Nay­ler, or thou thy selfe James Nayler, diddest affirme, that Bul-baiting, swearing, cursing, and such like, is or are the fruits of John Billingsley's Ministery, therefore thy Spirit is a lying scandalizing Spirit, and so not fit to be Judge of Controversies of Faith. For the first proposition, I John Billingsley doe appeale to all the Congregations which have heard me preach in Che­sterfield, or else where, if ever I preached any such do­ctrine, or did ever countenance any such thing neither was I at home at Chesterfield, when the Bul-baiting was, nor did I know any thing of it, but am altogether innocent. And for the second proposition. That thou James Nayler diddest falsely accuse me, John Billings­ley, it is evident by thy owne hand writing in this pa­per, which thou diddest send to me, subscribed with thy name, in which are these words, viz. This day is the fruits of thy Ministry manifest in the open streets, a multitude gathered together, to sport themselves in setting one of the Creatures of God against another to torment & thy people thou teachest, whooting, yelling, Mr Billingsley did then read these words, written by Iames Nayler to him, &c. swearing, cursing, and blaspheming the dreadfull name of God; Is this thy Ministry? &c. Thus diddest thou falsly accuse me and my Ministry; therefore thy Spirit is a lying, and false accusing Spirit, and so not fit to be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith.

Naylers Answer To which Nayler said, he did owne that paper, and shuffled to excuse himselfe, and said, he did not say so, but that the people to whom he did preach, were so doing, viz. swearing, cursing, &c.

Mr Billingsley's Reply. But Mr Billingsley read the paper to all the congre­gation, wherein it did appeare, that Nayler had writ, that Bul-baiting, swearing and cursing, were the fruits of Mr Billingsley's Ministry. Naylers Answer At which Nayler knew not what to say for himselfe, but still persisted with an audacious face to justifie himselfe, and called Mr Bil­lingsley liar, liar, and bad him hold his tongue.

Mr Billingsley's Reply. Upon which Mr Billingsley said, what a desperate fellow art thou, so shamelessely to deny that which thou hast writ with thy owne hand, and dost now a­gaine prove thy selfe to be a lyar, and a false accuser, and wilt not confesse thy Errour, or to that purpose.

Naylers Answer But Nayler vapoured, and called Mr Billingsley lyar, and said he had accused him to be a lyar, and a persecu­tor of the Ministers of Christ. Mr Billingsley's Reply. But Mr Billingsley did justifie, that Nayler was a lyar, and a persecutor, and that his false accusation was a persecution, or to that effect. And I might now add, well so he might; For may not all men see, that the Quakers and James Nay­ler himselfe, are as malicious persecutors of the Mini­sters of Christ in England, as ever they had? And would they not be as bloody as ever any, if it lay in their pow­er? witnesse their cruell threatnings both in their prin­ted Pamphlets and by word of mouth against us, wit­nesse their labouring by all meanes, to pull downe the very Calling and Ministeriall Office, witnesse their en­deavour to hinder the people to pay us any mainte­nance, though due unto us both by the Law of God and the Nation. Ierem 18.18. Do they not smite us with the tongue? as Jeremies enemies did him, and disswade our people from giving heed to any of our words; And what are these but persecutions? Rev. 12.10. or what is persecution if this be not? and who are lyars if these be none? and who is a diabolicall false accuser, Iohn B [...]nting en Elder of the Church in Ash­over. if James Nayler is not? John Bunting an honest Yeoman (of more true spirituall understanding, then many Quakers) sitting by Nayler at this disputation, writing in short hand what Nayler said, Nayler seeing him write, said to him, thou writest [Page 19]lyes there: To whom John Bunting Replyed, Nayler, thou art the father of them then, for I write what thou speakest. Whereupon I may observe and argue, what may be argued from what St Paul did affirme of the Cretians, and of the vain talkers, and deceivers amongst them; That one of their owne Prophets said, The Cre­tians are alwaies lyars, evill beasts, slow bellies, Tit. 1. Tit. 1.10, 11, 12. And if the Cretians were lyars, then that Prophet was a lyar that said so, because he was a Cretian, and if the Cretians were not lyars, then he was a lyar for saying they were lyars when they were not. In like manner, if Iohn Bunting did write lies, then Nayler was and is a lyar, because Iohn Bunting did write that which Nayler spake; and if Iohn Bunting did not write lies, then Iames Nayler is the lyar, because he falsely accused Iohn Bun­ting for writing lies, when he did not; so that Iames Nayler is proved the lyar out of his owne mouth and pen, and having a spirit of lying, he is not fit to be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith.

Thus I have done with the Disputation upon this Question, Whether the private Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. I shall only add one Argument more, and passe forwards.

Mr Bournes ad­ditionall Argu­ment. No Spirit that is a Spirit of Errour and Blasphemy, is fit to be or can be the chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. But the Spirit in Iames Nayler, and other Quakers, is a Spirit of Errour and Blasphemy; There­fore the Spirit in Iames Nayler, and other Quakers, is not fit, nor can be a chiefe Judge of Controversies of Faith. For the first proposition, certainly the Quakers themselves will not deny it, and (if they doe deny it) no honest Christian will deny it; and for the second it may be witnessed by these instances. 1. Blasphemy against God, whilest they doe affirme they are equall with God; See Saules Er­rand to Damas­cus, p. 5, 6, 7, 8. This was witnessed against George Fox (as is confessed by Fox and Nayler, one or both) (If that Booke they call Sauls Errand to Damascus be theirs [Page 20](as their proselytes boast it is) and seek after it to learn their wicked doctrines. It was objected (say they) That George Fox professed and owned that he was equall with God. S [...] the Perfect Pharis [...] p. 3. And in the: Perfect Pharisee it is witnessed, That George Fax being asked by Dr. Marshall in the presence of two Justices of Peace in Lancashire, namely, Mr Thomson and Mr Lawry, whether he did believe himselfe to be equall with God; the said Fox in answer thereunto, positively affirmed, thus I am saith he equall with God; and this was deposed by Dr Marshall and Mr Altham School-Master of Lancaster, at the gene­rall Sessions in Westmerland, and was deposed againe before the honourable Judge Puleston at Lancaster the next Assises after, witness that booke called the Perfect Pharisee, Perfect Phari­see by Mr T [...] ­mas W [...]ld, Mr R [...]chard Pri­d [...]a [...], Mr Samuel Ham­mond, Mr Willi­am [...], Mr Will. D [...]rant. The Perfect Phar [...]see. p 3. &c. made by those five Reverend Divines nere New Castle, p. 3 which declares part of the Quakers blasphemies, in the page before recited. And in the same book it is witnessed against Iames Nayler, that he be­ing asked by William Baldwinson of Underbarrow in Westmorland, whether he believed that any could be as holy. Just, and good as God himselfe, Nayler answered, that he himselfe was as holy, just, and good, as God himselfe. And this Mr Baldw [...]nson did offer to depose to Colonell Briggs, who is a man fearing God, and of e­minent trust in the Common-wealth; and what is this but presumptuous blasphemy, both in Fox and Nayler, so proudly to boast of their owne perfection, and that not by the imputed righteousness of Christ, for that they deny, but by their own inherent holiness (which they pretend to be Christ within them) and yet so base­ly to manifest themselves notorious lyars? The briefe vola­tion of the irre­ligion of the Northern Qua­k [...]rs wherein their h [...]d principles and practises, do­ctrines and manners are discovered, read page 24 25. As in that Pamphlet, called Saul's Errand to Damascus, in which there are a hundred untruths, as may be proved by a hundred witnesses, testified in that booke called A Briefe Relation of the irreligion of the Northern Qua­kers, page 24. Many of them (saith that Author) will be as ready to say and unsay any thing, as if lying were a vertue, and they make no conscience (saith he) of [Page 21]raising false reports against those especially, who doe any way oppose them; and he goeth on further. Thus wholly by lies, lying doctrines: lying wonders, lying reports, they endeavour to build up the Kingdome of the Father of lyes amongst us. Thus farre and further that reverend Author. I might add many more of their errours lies, and abominable blasphemies: But these are sufficient to witnesse the Spirit in James Nayler, and divers of his fellow Quakers, to be a Spirit of Errour and Blasphemy, and therefore not fit to be chiefe Jud­ges of Controversies of Faith. Other their Errours and Blasphemies are so abominable, that I hold them fitter to be buried in silence, then to rake them up out of the Devils dung-hill, to be an odious noisom stinke and of­fence to the people of God.

Now for Naylers answer, and his crosse interroga­tories, upon this and other Questions. I have answered them fully in every particular, which with my Reply to his Quaeries and discoveries of many of his abomina­ble lies, increased in my written hand, prepared for the Presse, to above threescore sheets of paper, which I have ready by me, the which I was resolved by Gods grace, to have printed in Defence of Christ, the Gos­pell, and the faithfull Gospel-Ministers of Christ in England, and their maintenance. But comming to London, I finde these things so sufficiently answered, and truth so sully satisfied against the Quakers and their errours, by so many godly and learned Divines, that I conceive to add more, is but to cast water into the sea; and therefore I have thought good to print only these few sheets, and to let the rest of my labours rest un­printed untill God shall give me a further call unto that worke. I now therefore proceed to the third Question Disputed.

3 Question Disputed. Whether every man be bound to looke to the light within him as sufficient for his ditection to attaine salvation? This we denyed.

The state of the Question. The sence of the Question is, Whether every man [Page 22]and woman in the world, have a sufficient light within them, for their direction to attaine eternall life, so as he or shee needeth not to looke to the outward light of the written word of God, or to the light of the Gospell revealed in the holy Scriptures, or to any outward tea­ching by man whatsoever, although it be agreeable to the Scripture of truth.

This in effect was the opinion of Nayler, as it is of divers of his fellow Quakers, witness Nayler himselfe, in his answer in writing, sent to us the day after the Di­spute, and since printed. The light of Christ saith hee, which hath enlightned every man that commeth into the world, is ourlight, and to that is every one bound to look for direction to attaine Salvation, and that he affirmeth as sufficient, or to that effect. And the same did Nayler affirm before, in his discourse with Mr Will. Cole at Kendall; See the Perfect Pharisee, the subscription to the Epistle, and pages 17.18. Richard Tarn­worth, p. 51. &c To whom he said that every man in the world had a light within him, sufficient to guide them to salvation, and this he extended to the Indi­ans that never heard the Gospell, witnesse that booke called the Perfect Pharisee, written by those five Re­verend Ministers nere New Castle, named before. And thus James Nayler, and divers others of his fellow Quakers in other Pamphlets, which for brevity sake I omit.

Mr Bournes Argument. But I did prove the contrary by this Argument. No man whosoever is darknesse, is bound to looke to the light within him, as sufficient to direct him to attaine Salvation; but every naturall man is darknesse, there­fore no naturall man is bound to looke to the light within him, as sufficient for his direction to attaine sal­vation, and so not every man that commeth into the world. The first proposition is evident, because it is in vaine to look for light in darknesse. And the second proposition is witnessed by the Apostle Paul, Eph. 5.8. Ye were once darknesse (saith he) to the Ephesians, but now ye are light in the Lord. In the state of nature corrupted by Adams Fall, they were darknesse, having [Page 23]their understandings darkened through the ignorance that was in them, because of the blindnesse of their minds. And what light then had these within them, sufficient to direct them to Salvation; or what sufficient light hath any naturall man in the world? and there­fore all are not bound to looke to the light within them, as sufficient for their direction to attaine Salva­tion.

Naylers Answer All Naylers answer was, it is false, it is false, lyar, lyar, all are enlightned, and have a light within them sufficient to direct them to Salvation, or to that ef­fect. Mr Billingsley's Argument: And after some wranglings by Nayler, Mr Bil­lingsley called to Nayler to heare an Argument, and gave this, or to this effect.

None of those to whom Paul was sent to turn them from darknesse to light, and from the power of Satan to God, had a light within them, to which they were bound to looke, as sufficient to direct them to attaine Salvation. But there were some Gentiles, to whom Paul was sent, to turn them from darknesse to light, and from the power of Satan to God; therefore some Gen­tiles had not a light within them to which they could looke, as sufficient to direct them to attaine Salvation, and so not every man in the world. The first proposition is manifest, because if those Gentiles had a light within them sufficient to direct them to attaine Salvation, then what needed the Lord to have sent blessed Paul through so many dangers, to turne them from darknesse to light, and from the power of Satan to God. And for the second, the Evangelist Luke doth witnesse it, Acts 26.17, 18. Acts 26. Delivering thee from the Gentiles, to whom I send thee to turne them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. And thus againe it is evident, that all have not a light within them sufficient to direct them to salvation, and therefore are not bound to looke to that as a sufficient light, which is weak and insufficient, as the light of every naturall man is.

Nailers Answer. To which Argument, Nayler gave his common An­swer, [Page 24]crying out aloud as before, lyar, lyar, all have a light within them, to which they ought to looke as suf­ficient to direct them to Salvation.

Iohn Buntings Argument. Upon which Iohn Bunting of Ashover, named be­fore, an understanding Christian, sitting neer Nayler, Replyed to him, Dead men have no light in them, but every naturall man is a dead man, dead in trespasses and sins, Ephes. 2.1, 2, 3. [...]s witnesseth the Apostle, Eph. 2. and what light is there then in a naturall dead man, sufficient to direct him to attaine salvation?

Naylers Answer Nayler Answered not to the Argument, concerning naturall mens blindness, but said Christ had enlightned all men, Iohn. 1.9. and alledged that place, Iohn 1.9. He is that light that lightens every man that commeth into the world; and thence he would inferre, every man is en­lightned, and hath a light within him sufficient to direct him to attaine Salvation, or to that purpose, so neer as I could remember.

Mr Bournes Answer to this Scipture, alled­ged, A first light. Unto this Scripture I did then answer to this effect, by distinguishing of light, and said, there was a two-fold light. The first the light of nature, the remnant of that created light of the knowledge of God in man, by which men might know so much of God by the Crea­tures, Rom. 1.19, 20. as may make them without excuse, Rom. 1.19. And which is a sparke of light naturally in every mans conscience, Rom. 2.14, 15. Rom. 2. And with this light Christ the Creator (God, equall with God the Father, by whom this light and all things were made) he doth enlighten every man that commeth into the world; that is into this habitable world, in which we dwell; and all that are borne into this world in their right mind and sen­ses, Christ doth enlighten with this naturall light. But this light of nature, since the Fall, is so darkned, that al­though it may be sufficient in some respects, to make men without excuse; Rom. 1.20. yet it is not sufficient to reveale Christ, or to give sufficient direction to attaine Salva­tion by Christ Jesus, as that light which revealeth Christ in the Gospell. Againe, there is a second light, [Page 25]and this is the light of speciall grace given outwardly by the preaching of the Word, and inwardly by the Spirit of God, by which a soule is enlightned with such a speciall light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, as he owneth, 2 Cor. 4 6, 7. and by faith em­braceth Christ, Rom. 5. not only as a Justifier by his blood and merits, but a Sanctifier by his Spirit and grace in the soule, and so a perfect Saviour both from sinne here, and from wrath to come hereafter, as due to sinne. And this in ward light of speciall grace, every man (to whom God hath given it) is bound to look unto it in a speciall manner; yet not so as to neglect the outward light of the Gospell, revealed in the holy Scriptures, for the get­ting of more light, because we know here but in part, 1 Cor. 13 9, 10, 11, 12. and therefore should waite for more light of grace, un­till we come to enjoy a perfection of light in glory. Be­cause this speciall light of grace held forth in the Go­spell, is not given to all, for all do not know the mystery of the Gospell; nor is it given unto all, witnesse our Saviour, Mat. 13.11. To you it is given (saith he) to know the myste­ries of the Kingdome of God, but to others it is not given. And the Evangelist, John himselfe in the same Chapter, Iohn 1.9, 10, 11, &c. in which he affirmeth, that Christ is the true light that lightneth every man that commeth into the world, in the very next verse he affirmeth, that Christ was in the world, and the world did not know him; yea he came to his owne, and his owne received him not. But if all in the world had this speciall light of grace within them, they would have known Christ; Iohn 18.35. yea if all his owne people, the people of the Jewes, his owne Na­tion, had received this speciall light of grace, they would have received Christ; But many of them were in blindnesse, yea darknesse it selfe, and did not know Christ; for had they knowne him, they would not have, crucified the Lord of Glory, witnesse the Apostle, 1 Cor. 2.7, 8. Th [...] answer was delivered logically in more briefe termes, but to the same effect, and more fully and largely expressed now for weak brethrens sakes, that [Page 26]they may more easily understand Naylers deceits in his answer, who gave that more largely also in his written paper, then at the Disputation for that was commonly very short; It is false, it is false, and lyar, lyar. And this was Naylers Reply to this Distinction of light given by me, It is false, lyar, hold thy peace and sit downe, there is but one light that lightens every man that com­meth into the world, and in a vapouring manner doub­led it againe, there is but one light which lightneth every man that commeth into the world.

M. Maud [...]sl [...]y Mr Maudsley (as I remember) Minister of Dron­field, sitting neer Nayler, asked him what world he did meane, Nayler. Question. Nayler answered, there is but one world, and that is the world of men; he was asked againe, whether he himselfe was in the world, or out of the world, Answer. to which Nayler answered, that he was out of the world; unto which Answer, some one replyed, it were well if thou wast out of the world, that thou mightest not spread thy errours as thou dost in the world. Nayler wrangled still about the world, and said, there was but one world, and that was the world of men, which were all enlightned. Then one that was neer Nayler, asked Nayler what world that was into which Christ came, Iohn 16.28. when he came out from his Father, and which he left when he went to his Father againe. And Nayler shufied, and would have avoided the Question; upon which there fell out a wrangling, and other passages impertinent to the Question in hand, which for brevi­ty I omit here, and shall remember them in my Ani­madversions upon Naylers false Relation. Mr Bourne. Whiles they were wrangling, Mr Bourne did call to Nayler to leave wrangling, and hearken to another Argument, to prove that all men had not a light within them, sufficient to direct them to attaine salvation, and was giving forth an Argument. Mr Moors Argument. But Mr Moor Minister of Brampton, stept in and gave this Argument, or to this effect. If there be some men that have no light in them, then all men have not a light within them, sufficient to direct them to at­taine [Page 27]salvation. But there are some men that have no light in them, witness the Prophet Isaiah, chap. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not ac­cording to this rule, it is because there is no light in them. Therefore all men have not a light within them, suffi­cient to direct them to attaine salvation.

Naylers Answer James Nayler vapoured, and said, that place made most against us: But he gave no answer to shew how that place did make against us, but cryed out, all are enlightned by Christ, and that light of Christ is in them all, lyars, lyars, all are enlightned. Thus in a proud con­temptuous manner, did Nayler behave himselfe; and as his manner was when hee could not answer, turned aside, and talked to those that were about him, and at last affirmed againe, that all had a light within them, sufficient to guide them to attaine salvation, Naylers Argument. because Christ said to the Pharisees, Luke 17.21. The Kingdome of God is within you, in you Pharisees, and therefore in all, and so the Kingdome of God being in all, all are sufficiently enlightned to direct them to attaine sal­vation.

Mr Bournes Answer. To which, Answer was given to this effect; That the Kingdome of God is taken diversly in the holy Scrip­tures.

1. For the Kingdome of Gods power, which is Gods soveraignty over all the world, and this King­dome of God is in every creature, and in, and over eve­ry man in the world; he sets up and puls downe, 1 Sam. 2.6, 7, 8, &c. Dan. 4.30, &c. kils and maketh alive at his pleasure, and ruleth, and over-ruleth all, when and how he will, and this Kingdome of God was in the Pharisees, as in all men whatsoever.

2. The Kingdome of God is taken for the King­dome of Gods Grace, and this diversly taken also. First, for the outward administration of the comming and Kingdome of the Messiah Christ Jesus, in the Gospell; of which the Pharisees questioned Christ in that place, Luke 17. Luke 17.20. Gen. 49.10. demanding when the Kingdome of God should come, that is, the Kingdome of the Messiah, [Page 28]which was prophecied and promised should come, Psal. 2. Psal. 45.6, 7. Luke 2.25, 26. and which the Saints and people of God did expect and waite for; And John the Baptist (the forerunner of Christ) told the people this Kingdome was at hand. This Kingdome is called the Kingdome of Heaven, Mat. 3.2. Mat. 13.24, 44. Acts 1.3. and it is taken for the Gospel, and Gospel. Administrations, and this Kingdome and comming of Christ, this King, not only the Scribes and Pharisees, Luke 24.21. but some of the Di­sciples, did think should come in outward pompe and power, to deliver the Jewes from the tyranny of the Romans, under whom they were tributaries. But Christ giveth them answer in that 20 verse. Luke 17 20. The King­dome of Christ the Messiah (which they enquired after) commeth not with observation, or with outward pompe; but saith Christ, the Kingdome of God is with­in you, not individually or personally, as if the King­dome of heaven (the Gospell) and Christ the Messiah had been in every one of them particularly, or in every Pharisee; but collectively, or as they were a company of Pharisees, or people of the Jewes. The Kingdome of God is within you, or rather amongst you, as the Greek word is well translated in the margin of our Bi­bles in that place. And thus Expositors agree, ye seeke the Messiah as if hee were absent, when hee is in the middest of you, Beza upon the Text. P [...]scator on that place. Thus Passor Iex con, &c. [...] in medio vestri intra gentem ve­stram with­in your nati­on. saith Beza. And Piscator, The King­dome of God is in the middest of you, in the bosome of your Nation. The Kingdome of God is within you, un­derstand it not as every one is looked upon, by and in himselfe, but as one body of many people, collected or joined together in one body or Nation. And the King­dome of God in this sence, was in and amongst the Pharisees and people, to whom Christ did preach at that time. Againe, the Kingdome of Grace is taken for the gifts and Graces of the Kingdome, or which Christ the King giveth to his subjects and servants, and by his Spirit worketh in them, as Knowledge, Faith, Love, Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost, and such like inward spirituall Riches, and Graces of the [Page 29]spirit, by which God doth rule and reigne in the heats of his children, and this Kingdome is in Gods Elect, his chosen and faithfull, and called ones, Rev. 17.14. not only amongst them, but in them; but this Kingdome or these graces of the Kingdome of Christ, the Messiah, and Christs Spirit, was not in the Pharisees, to whom Christ did preach, though it was amongst them, in such as were true beleevers, Gods faithfull servants. This Answer was delivered far shorter, but to this effect and purpose.

Naylers Reply. But Nayler according to his accustomed manner, cried out, lyars, lyars, it is false, Christ speaketh of the Kingdome of Grace, and that was in the Pharisees, and so in all, and all have a light in them, to which they may look, as sufficient to guide them to Salvation; or to that effect.

Mr Bournes Reply. Mr Bourne did Reply, Iohn 3.1. Iohn 19.38, 39 that some of the Pharisees may be were beleevers, as Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night, and was at cost with Joseph of Arima­thea, at the buriall of Christ, who was a Disciple, though secretly for feare of the Jewes. And if this Kingdome of Grace was in any of the Pharisees, they must be such as were beleevers, for other wise in unbe­leevers and wicked Pharisees, who kept men (to their power) from confessing of Christ to be the Messiah, Iohn 12.42. in them Christ was not, nor the Kingdome, nor the graces of Christs Kingdome. For in unbeleevers, where sinne, ruleth and reigneth in their mortall bodies, and they obey it in the lusts thereof, there or in their soules, Rom. 6.12, 16. the Kingdome of Grace is not; for Christ and sinne cannot reign both together in one soule. This answer was shorter likewise but to this intent.

Naylers Reply. But Nayler would not yield the Question for all this; but told the people the Kingdome of God was in the Pharisees, and we were lyars that denied it.

Mr Maud [...]sl [...]y's Question. Mr Maudesley (if my memory did not faile me) or some one neer him asked Nayler, what Kingdome that was, which Christ spake of after his resurrection, Acts [Page 30]1. Acts. 1.3. He was seen of them forty daies, speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdome of God.

Naylers Reply. Nayler did not answer what that Kingdome was, but said, Christ was not seene after his Ascension. In which Nayler did mistake; Answer. for it was not after Christs Ascension, but after his resurrection. After which it was demanded, what Kingdome Christ did speake of Acts 1.

Reply of another to Nayler. But some one neer Nayler Replied, Acts 9.5, 17. 1 Cor. 9.1. 1 Cor. 15.7, 8. that Christ was seen after his Ascension. For he was seen of Paul, as Paul himselfe doth testifie. Am not I an Apostle, have I not seen the Lord? And last of all, he was seen of me, as one born out of due time, &c.

Iames Naylers Answer. Nayler answered, Christ was seene, but he was seen invisibly.

Reply. To which one Replyed, that was a Bull or a sence­lesse Answer, for whatsoever is seen, must be seen vi­sibly, in what manner soever it is seene, whether by the eie of the body, or by faith the eie of the soule. If we see him that is invisible, as Moses did; yet he is visibly seen with those eies, Heb. 11.27. by which we doe see him, either in Grace or Glory.

Nayler. Yet Nayler still persisted in his confidence, that some thing might be seen invisibly, and continued his railing and reviling phrases, liars, liars, or to that effect. 4 Question Di­sputed. The time was farre spent; and Mr Bourn called to another Question, and that was taken, which was the last that was proposed, and the last that was disputed. This was, whether it bee lawfull to call any man Master or Fa­ther upon earth?

The sense and meaning of the Question, was, whe­ther it be lawfull to give any honour, or titles of ho­nour to men, to Father or Master, to Magistrate or Mi­nister, to Lords or Ladies, or the like.

The occasion was in part, the Qakers crying out against the Ministers of Christ, because they are called of men Masters; and in part the proud uncivill unchristian be­haviour of some Quakers towards their naturall pa­rents, [Page 31]and ordinary masters; some towards civill Ma­gistrates, honourable Judges and Justices of peace, be­fore whom being called, they have (some of them in my sight) kept on their hats in a contemptuous man­ner, and denied any outward honour, or civill respect to be given unto them; Iames Nayler in his answer to this Question, in his false Rela­tion. yea Nayler himselfe in his writ­ten Answer, calleth us the Ministers of Christ Anti­christ, because we are called of men Masters.

And Richard Farnworth another rayling Quaker, R. Farnworths discovery of Faith, and di­vers papers, page 2.3. and their common practice of refusing to give any out­ward respect to Magistrates, not only Fox and Nayler, but their seduced proselytes witnesse daily.

But Mr Bourne brought an Argument, to prove it lawful to call or be called Master or Father, and to give civill honour, and titles of honour, and respect to men, according to their place and dignity, to this effect.

Mr Bournes Argument. Whatsoever titles of honour, or respect the holy Pa­triarchs or Prophets, or Apostles, or other faithfull men have given unto or received from each other, which are no where forbidden in the Scripture, or written word of God, those are lawfull for Christians, now to give unto, or to receive from each other. But these titles of honour or respect, as Father and Master, and Lord and Lady, and the like, they have been given and re­ceived by the Patriarchs and Prophets, & Apostles, and other holy faithfull men, and are no where forbidden in the Scripture or written word of God. Therefore the same titles or names of Father and Master, Lord and Lady, and the like may lawfully be given and received by Christians in these daies, or in this age of the world. First proposition I conceive will not be denyed, except by such as will not be tried by the holy Scriptures. And for the minor or second proposition, we shall make that evident by an induction from singular or particular ex­amples of godly men recorded in holy writ.

First, if you read Gen. 23.6. You may finde, Example. 1 that when Abraham came to the children of Heth to ge [...] a burying place for Sarah his wife (shee being then [Page 32]dead) hee spake to the children of Heth, and bowed downe himselfe to the people of the land, to give un­to them, not any divine religious worship, which is due to God, but civill honour due to men; and three times is Abraham there called Lord by that people, and faithfull Abraham taketh that title to himselfe, with­out any reproofe of them, for giving that title to him, or any refusing of that title given him, which he would not have done, if it had not been lawfull to have re­ceived any such honour, nor would he have bowed downe himselfe to the people of the land, if it had been sinne to have done so. For Abraham was a knowing faithfull man, believing in Christ the Messiah to come, and rejoicing to see Christs day, witnesse our Saviour, John 8. Iohn 8.56. [...]

2 Againe, read Gen. 24. When Abraham sent his re­ligious servant to provide a wife for his sonne Isaac, Gen. 24.27: his servant putteth up his prayer to God, O Lord God of my Master Abraham, send me good speed this day, and shew kindnesse to my Master Abraham. And hee calleth Abraham Master, sixteen or seventeen times in that Chapter, which certainly he would not have done, if it had not been lawfull to call Master.

3 Thirdly, Gen. 32.18. read Gen. 32. And you may finde that Jacob calleth his brother Esau, Lord, in that direction of his to his servants, whom he sent before with a gift to his brother. When you meet my brother Esau (saith he) and he shall aske you, whose are these Cattell? you shall answer, it is a present sent to my Lord Esau; and he cals Esau Lord foure times in that Chapter.

4 Fourthly, 1 Kin, 18.7, 8. read 1 Kin. 18. When religious Obadiah (who did feare the Lord from his youth) met Elijah the Prophet; he calleth Elijah Lord. Art not thou my Lord Elijah. And verse the 8. The Prophet calleth wic­ked Ahab Obadiahs Lord: For thus speaketh hee to Obadiah, Go tell thy Lord, behold, Elijah is here. Thus doth that good Prophet, not only suffer himselfe to bee called Lord, but calleth wicked King Ahab Obadiahs [Page 33]Lord, which he would not have done, if it had not been lawfull; and if it were lawfull to call prophane Esau Lord, and wicked Ahab Lord? wherefore is it not law­full to call Master or Father, or to give honourable ti­tles to men now, unto whom they doe belong, both by naturall and civill respects, witnessed by the practice of the Saints & holy men in several ages of the world?

For, fifthly, if you read 2 Kin. 2. Did not the chil­dren of the Prophets at Bethel, call Elijah, Elishas Ma­ster? Knowest thou not that the Lord will take away thy Master from thy head to day? And againe, another company of the Prophets at Jericho? verse 5. Knowest thou not that the Lord will take away thy Master from thy head to day? And in the same Chapter, verse 12. When Elijah was taken up into heaven in a fiery Cha­riot, Elisha cryeth out, my Father my, Father, the Cha­riot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. Thus you see, titles of honour, Lord, Master, Father, are both given and received by holy men, and this without any re­proofe or check of the Spirit of God, recorded in the Scriptures, concerning any of these examples, there­fore sure it was and is lawfull, to give and receive ti­tles of respect and honour, to call or be called Lord or Master, or Father, according to every ones place and dignity. All these places of Scripture were not then alledged.

Naylers Answer. And James Nayler by his loud clamour, hindred the pressing and application of those places that were al­ledged (as much as he could) and cried out, that was in the Law, but now in the Gospell, Christ forbids to call any man Master, or to be called of men Masters or Fa­ther, and alledged that of our Saviour, Mat. 23. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren; and call no man your Father upon earth, for one is your Father▪ which is in heaven. And hence Nayler would infer, That now in time of the Gospell, it was not lawfull tocall any man Master, or to be called of men Master or Father, upon earth.

Mr Bournes. Reply. Then I replied, and bad Nayler read the context in the verses before, and if his eies were open, he might see the mind of Christ, that it was not absolutely to for­bid his hearers to call any man Master or Father, but to forbid the ambitious seeking of honor, and the ambi­tious love of honour, which was in the Scribes and Pharisees. This you may finde is that that he reproveth in them, in the 6 and 7 verfes. They love (saith Christ) the uppermost rooms at Feasts, and the chiefe seats in the Synagogues, and greetings in the Markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi: And this ambitious pride and love of honour from men, Christ reproveth in the Pharisees; and this he forbiddeth his disciples, but be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren, he would not have his Apostles to seeke superiority and power one over ano­ther in a proud ambitious manner, Diotrephes-like to love to have the preheminence, as 3 John 9. the Evan­gelist doth witnesle Diotrephes did. Yet our Saviour Christ here doth not simply and absolutely forbid all giving or receiving of honour, or of calling, or being called of men Master, or Father, or Lord or Lady, or the like. Yet it is certaine, our Saviour Christ doth forbid so to call Master or Father, as to make any man the Master or Father of our Faith, instead of Christ; or that any man should be called Master or Father, so as to take the honour of chiefe Master or Father, or Teacher, to him­selfe, which is due to Christ. This is that which Christ forbiddeth; and this is that which the Apostle Paul for­biddeth the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1. Now this I say (saith the Apostle) that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. One said he was Pauls Disciple; another, he was Apollos; a­nother, he was Christs. But what saith the Apostle, is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? Thus they made Paul the Master or Father of their faith. And this the Apostle Paul reproveth here. And this Christ our Saviour reproveth and forbiddeth, Mat. 23. And [Page 35]Christ doth forbid to give that divine honour which is due to God and Christ, that God-man our Saviour, to any man in the world; but hee doth not forbid to give or receive civill honour and respect one to another, according to each mans place and dignity, or so to be called of men, Master or Father, or the like.

To this effect was the Answer given, but more close and briefe then now I give it.

But Nayler, instead of any better Answer, cried out, lyar, lyar, hold thy peace for shame, doth not Christ plainly forbid to call Father or Master, and made a great clamorous noise, and bid, si [...] downe for shame, for shame.

Mr Bourns Reply. Then Mr Bourn called to Nayler, and bid him leave his loud shamelesse out cries, and hearken to an Argu­ment to prove the Exposition to be truth, and accor­ding to the mind of Christ, which was to this ef­fect.

Argument. 2 Whatsoever Christ himselfe, or the Spirit of Christ in the Apostles of Christ, doth approve of elsewhere in thenew Testament, as lawfull to be done, that Christ himselfe doth not forbid in that place, Mat. 23. But Christ himselfe, and the Spirit of Christ in the Apostles, doth elsewhere approve of the calling of men Masters, and Fathers, and of giving other titles of respect and honour to men: Therefore Christ in that place, Mat. 23. did not forbid to call any man Master or Father, as James Nayler pretendeth. The first proposition is wit­nessed to be clear, because Christ is truth, yea, the way, the truth, and the life, and he is no way contrary to himselfe. For Jesus Christ is yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever, Heb. 13. Therefore Christ doth not forbid that here, Mat. 23. which he alloweth else­where. And for the second proposition, that Christ and his spirit in the Apostles, doth approve and allow fit titles of honour to bee given to men, as is agreeable to their conditions in their severall places. This will bee evident, & if you read rightly consider, that of the Evan­gelist, [Page 36] Marke 7. Where Christ is witnessed to repeat the Commandement, Honour thy Father and thy Mo­ther; and in the next verse, Christ himselfe giveth the name of Father and Mother to the parents of the man, of whom he spake to the Pharisees. And (saith Christ) ye suffer him no more to do ought for his Father and Mother. Now Christ certainly would not have named Father and Mother, nor have approved of those titles and that relation, if it had not been lawfull. And the same also doth the Spirit of Christ in the Apostle Paul, in divers places, read Eph. 6. Col. 3. Col. 4. and you may finde, he giveth the titles of Father and Master. Ho­nour thy father and mother, and fathers provoke not your children, and masters give unto your servants that which is just and equall, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven. And the Apostle Peter to the same effect, 1 Pet 2. Honour all men, love the brother-hood, feare God, honour the King (the supreme magistrate by whatsoever title he be called) And servants be sub­ject to your masters with all feare, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward; so that here are earthly fathers and masters, as well as God and Christ is our father and master in heaven. And therefore it is evident, that our Saviour Christ in that place, Mat. 23. did not simply and absolutely forbid to call or to bee called master or father; for if he had, he would not have approved it himselfe, nor would the Apostles of Christ (who had the Spirit of Christ) have done it, as we have proved they did; to this purpose was the Argument, but shorter.

Naylers Answer. Then Nayler was constrained to acknowledge, that a naturall father might bee called father by his child, and a civill master might bee called master by his ser­vant; but that it was not lawfull for any other to give or receive such honour, or titles of honour, as father or master, or the like, or to that effect. Although this ac­knowledgement of Naylers was contrary to the Do­ctrine and practice even of Nayler himselfe, and divers [Page 37]of his fellow Quakers and proselytes, as the uncivill carriage of some of them towards their naturall pa­rents, and civill masters, and of others towards Ma­gistrates and Ministers, doth witnesse at full. Mr Gardiner Minister of Eckinton. Mr Gur­diner (a good Disputant) as I remember, seeing Nayler wrangle, and endeavour to shift off from the Question, began to presse Nayler with an Argument. But before Mr Gardiner could speake out his Argument, Naylers Reply. Nayler would not heare him, but he and some other of his sel­low Quakers that stood by him, cried out aloud, lyar, lyar, stop thy mouth, and made a clamouring noise a­gainst him, to cause him to hold his peace. Mr Gardiner. To whom Mr Gardiner seeing Nayler's so uncivill, unchristian, and unreasonable behaviour; Replied, fie on thee thou unreasonable man, thou art not fit to be reasoned with, or to that purpose, and so turned his backe upon him.

Mr Bournes Argument. Then Mr Bourne called aloud to Nayler againe, and bad him leave his uncivill rayling and reviling speeches, and loud clamours, and hearken to an Argument to prove it, which was to this effect.

That title of honour which St Paul did give to Fe­stus, who was none of his naturall father, nor civill master, that it is lawfull for Christians, to give now to those who are neither naturall fathers, nor ordinary ci­vill masters. But read Acts 26. and you may finde, that St Paul stiled Festus, noble Festus, which is a title of honour, and high respect, and therefore it is lawfull now to give honourable titles, to such as are neither naturall parents, nor civill masters, and to be given by such as are neither naturall children, nor meniall or hi­red servants or to this end was the Argument.

Naylers Answer. Nayler answered those were noble Romans, and deserved honour, &c. But now, &c. as if he thought now we had none so worthy, to whom such honour should be given (for to my best observation, this was the sence of his broken speech) for hee did not speake whole sentences, but wrangled about giving honour, and said, howsoever honour might be given to naturall [Page 38]parents, or civill masters, yet how could we prove, that any that professed themselves Ministers of Christ, should be called master or father, contrary to that of Christ, Mat. 23. noted before, where he said, Christ did par­ticularly forbid his Apostles and ministers, to be so cal­led.

Mr Bournes Reply. To which Mr Bourne replied, Nayler, and bad him reade again that place, Mat. 23.1, 2. and thou shalt find, that Christ did speake there to the multitude, as well as to his Disciples, and what in that text he did not forbid others, he did not forbid them. Consider the Text fully, and thou maiest see it plaine, if thou hast eies to see.

Naylers Answer Nayler according to his custome, instead of other Answers, cried out, it is false, it is false, prove that any Minister of Christ should be called master or father, or have any such honour given to them or to that effect.

Mr Maudesley Mr Maudesly Minister of Dronfield, being neer to Nayler (as I remember) brought an Argument from that place, Eccl. 12.11. The words of the wise are like goads fastened by the masters of the Assemblies. And if by the Masters of the Assemblies be intended teach­ers of Gods people, and Ministers of Christ, then it is lawfull for them to be called masters, because the Spirit of God in Solomon, calleth them so. But this is apparent, that by masters he meaneth teachers, therefore it is lawfull to call the ministers of Christ who are teachers, of Gods people, masters, or to that purpose.

Naylers Answer But James Nayler sings still his old song, liar, liar, no such thing is intended there, and wrangled igno­rantly about the sence of that place, as nothing concer­ning ministers in the New Testament.

Mr Bournes Argument. Then Mr Bourne bad Nayler to heare an Argument out of the New Testament, from that place of the Apostle to Timothy, 1 Tim. 5.17. Let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour, espe­cially them that labour in the word and doctrine to this effect. If preaching Elders that labour in the word and [Page 39]doctrine be worthy of double honour, then the faithfull labouring ministers of Christ, are worthy of honour; but preaching Elders who labour in the word and do­ctrine, are worthy of double honour, witnesse the Apo­stle in that place, 1 Tim. 5. therefore the ministers of Christ, who labour in the word and doctrine, are wor­thy of honour, and so may lawfully have honour given them; yea, that honour which is due to them, that is, not only the honour of maintenance, but the honour of reverence and esteem; let a man esteem of us as mini­sters of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God, 1 Cor. 4.12.

Nailers Answer This was not so fully pressed then. But Nayler an­swered and said, The ministers of Christ they must bee honoured in the Lord, but not be called master or fa­ther, and have any outward honour. And still Nayler wrangled, and turned to those people neer him, not an­swering the Argument, but railed at ministers for suffe­ring our selves to be called masters, vapouring in con­temptuous termes, but bringing no word of proofe at all.

Mr Bournes Argument. Mr Bourne bad Nayler leave off his vapouring, or to that effect, and hearken to another Scripture, 1 Cor. 4.15. where St Paul did take to himselfe the name of father of the Corinthians, their spirituall father, though you have ten thousand instructers (saith he) yet yee have not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have be­gotten you through the Gospell. Now if Paul as a mi­nister of Christ converting soules, did lawfully take to himself, the name of father; Then the faithfull ministers of Christ who convert men and women to Christ, may lawfully take to themselves the name of father; but this was lawfull for blessed Paul, therefore it is lawfull also for all the faithfull ministers of Christ Jesus, who turne men to God, to take to themselves the name of father and so to be called masters or sirs, which is a title of honour and respect: For what title was lawfull to that blessed Apostle, and Silas, preachers of the Gospel, [Page 40]to receive from men, and they did accept that as law­full now to Gods faithfull ministers: But it was lawfull for the Apostle Paul and Silas, to receive the title of sirs or masters, [...] Domini, Sirs or Masters, a title of honour. and they did accept of that title of ho­nour from the Jayler, Acts 16. He came trembling, and fell downe before Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, or Lords or masters. what must I do to be saved? there­fore it is lawfull for the ministers of Christ, now to be called sirs or masters, and to receive such titles or re­spects, which are due to their ministeriall place, and honourable calling. The Argument was not then so fully and largely given, but to this effect Mr Bourn was pressing to prove this truth, But James Nayler like the deafe Adder, turned away his eare, and would not an­swer, and according to his practice, when he was not able to answer an argument, Mr Bourn and Mr Billingsley stood in the reading seat, and James Nayler was in a seat neer Mr Major, a good distance from the reading seate. looked aside, and spake at randome to the people, in a bragging vapouring man­ner, what he could doe; and while we were pressing him to answer, we did see Mr Major, and some other nere him, going forth of their seats, and Nayler and others following, and so the Disputation ended ab­ruptly.

But if any understanding Christian, who is not by­assed by misinformation of his judgement, consider these Arguments, they are sufficient to prove that ho­nourable respect that is due to the ministers of Christ, not that Christs ministers should ambitiously seeke after honours or honourable titles, for that Christ for­bids, and that Gods faithfull Embassadours affect not, endeavour not. But yet when false teachers seeke to disgrace, and prophane persons with their wicked plots and designes to dishonour us, and our honourable ministeriall calling, we are bound in conscience with St Paul, to magnifie our office, and to vindicate our selves from such wicked practises of erring Quakers, and of prophane ungodly malicious men, who neglect and contemne the Ordinances of Jesus Christ. Thus, as neer as I can remember, out of my notes taken, and [Page 41]what I could learn of others, I have given a just and true relation of that Dispute at Chesterfield, if it were worthy of that name, being a wrangling by that man, who had not artificiallie, scarce naturall order of rea­soning, but like a boisterous railing fellow, who by loud out-cries, little or nothing to the purpose, sought to de­ceive the people. A witty honest Gentleman who was present at the Dispute, asked his name, and one told him his name was James Nayler; to whom (as I was informed) he replyed, certainly his name should no more be called James Nayler, but James Rayler; for (said he) I never heard a more bawling, railing, revi­ling fellow talke; or words to that purpose. The Lord give him repentance, if it be his will. I have said suffici­ent to the Question, to prove the lawfulnesse of giving honour to Christs Ministers. That it is law­full to give ha­nour. Now I shall only add a few Arguments to prove the lawfulnesse, yea, duty, of giving outward honour, as well as inward honour to Magistrates and others, according to their place and dignity, whatsoever these Quakers gatrulate to the contrary. It is lawfull to give the title of Lord and Lady, and the like, and to declare our due respect by outward testimonies of the honour and due regard we doe owe unto them as to superiours. Iames Nuyler. It is true, James Nayler be­ing examined upon an indictment of blasphemy a­gainst him, at the Sessions at Appleby, in January. 1652. See the briefe reply to some part of a scur­rilous and lying pamphlet, called Sauls errand to Damascus, printed 1653. kept on his hat before the Bench; and when Justice Pearson, one of the Justices, commanded to put off their hats, James Nayler answered, I doe it not in con­tempt of authority. And he being asked againe by Co­lonell Briggs, If hee were in the Parliament House, wouldest thou keep it on? To whom James answered, if God should keep me in the same mind I am now in, I should. Then Colonell Briggs replied, I knew thou wouldest contemne authority. The same hath been the practice of divers other of the seduced, seducing Qua­kers, before the honourable Justices of the Peace in severall Countries. And Naylers pretence of giving [Page 42]honour inwardly, when they refuse to give any out­ward civill respect, what is it but pharisaicall dissimu­lation, instead of sincere humility and obedience, or duty to those whom the Lord hath set over us in pow­er and authority, for his glory, and the good of his peo­ple: For shall we not judge the tree by its fruits? But let me evidence duty a little in this respect.

Argument. 1 1. Those who by Gods Ordinance are set in place above others in Gods stead, for the peoples good, they are to have honour given to them above others, to be declared outwardly, as well as setled inwardly in the hearts of men.

But Magistrates supreme and inferiour, Judges and Justices, and such as are of higher or lower place and power, they are by Gods Ordinance, set in place above others in Gods stead for the peoples good: Therefore they are to have honor given unto them above others, to be declared outwardly, as well as setled inwardly in the hearts of men. The major or first proposition, is most agreeable to reason and order even in nature it selfe. The herbes and grasse of the field, which are infe­riour, and have but a vegetive life, they doe service, and give a kind of obedience in Gods Ordinance, for the nourishment and service of the beasts and cattell, which are superiour in nature, and have besides a vege­tive or growing life, a life of sence also, which is more excellent. Againe, these brute creatures which have only the vegetive and sensitive life, they are infe­riour unto, and doe service, and yield obedience unto man, which is a more noble creature, superiour to the other, as having not only a vegetive and sensitive, but also a rationall life, and more excelling inferiour crea­tures; and man hath yet the great God, and Creator of heaven and earth, above him, to whom he doth owe honour and service both in soule and body, Rom. 12.1. Thus in order of nature, and thus in order of govern­ment, the Comm-wealths and governments of Nati­ons, there is and ought to be order of superiour and [Page 43]inferiour; 1 Cor. 14.33. for as in the Churches of the Saints (so in Common-wealths) God is not the Author of Confu­sion, but of peace and good order in all; And so an orderly respect is to be had to every superiour, accor­ding to their place and power. The Apostle Paul giveth evidence to this at full, Rom. 13.1, &c. Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no pow­er but of God, and the powers that be ordained of God, they are Gods Ordinance, and hee is the Minister of God to thee for good. For this cause pay you tribute also, for they are Gods ministers attending continually upon this very thing; And hence he concludes, render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custome to whom custome, feare to whom feare, ho­nour to whom honour. Thus honour is a due as well as tribute or custome, or any other service. I might call in the Apostle Peter to witness the same, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 17. but I refer the Reader to the Scripture it self, these testi­fie an honor due to our superiours. And for the minor or second proposition; That magistrates supreme or infe­riour, are Gods Ordinance set and approved by God for government above others; the places alledged might suffice, but if you read Exod. 18.21, 23. when Jethro, Moses Father in law, gave him that good counsell, to provide out of all the people able men, such as feare God, men of truth, hating covetousnesse, and to place them over them to be Rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And if thou doe this thing, and God command thee so, then shalt thou be able to en­dure, and this people shall goe to their place in peace. And Moses did so, and God himselfe doth approve of this order of government, of superiours and inferiours, and giveth Moses order to gather to God seventy El­ders, and the Lord taketh of the Spirit of government, that was upon Moses, and gave it to the seventy El­ders, as you may read Numb. 11.16, 17, 25. Thus are Governours over the people, of Gods owne ordination, as superiours, and so a higher honour and respect is due unto them.

Argument. 2 Againe, that outward manifestation of honour, and those titles of honour, which have been given by holy men in Scripture, to Princes, Magistrates and Judges, and others according to their places and dignities, which are not reproved by Gods Spirit, that may law­fully bee given now to Princes, to Judges, Magi­strates, Governours and others, according to their pla­ces and dignities. But outward manifestation of honour and honourable titles, have been given by holy men in Scripture, to Princes, Judges and Magistrates, and others, according to their place and dignities, therefore they may be given now to such without sinne; yea, it is our duties so to doe. Psal. 82.16. Doth not the Scripture call them Gods as in Gods stead? And to evidence both proposi­tions, Example. 1 I shall give you severall examples. If we read that place; Numb. 11.28. when the Spirit of God rested upon Eldad and Medad in the campe, Joshua in his zeale speaks to Moses to forbid them, and cals him Lord, and Joshua said, my Lord Moses forbid them; he giveth him an honourable title, my Lord Moses. And did not wise Abigal call David Lord, when he was comming with his Souldiers to destroy churlish Na­bal for his ingratitude? 1 Sam. 25 24, 25, &c. Yea di­vers times in that Chapter, she giveth David the ho­nourable title of Lord. And did not good David cry after King Saul, and giveth him this honourable title, my Lord the King? 1 Sam. 24.8. And doth he not then give outward reverence to Saul, to witnesse his hono­rable respects to Saul, as to his superiour in place and power; the text saith, David stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himselfe? This is far unlike Naylers and his quaking companions carriage, even to Princes, Magistrates, and Judges, and Justices of the peace, to stand with their hats on their heads, and to speak to them in an irreverent manner; thou man, or thee man, who sittest in the place of judgement, do this or that, as some of them have said and done. May I not say the same of Abner, who (as David testifieth) was a Prince, [Page 45]and a great man in Israel, yet when he came to David, he gave him titles of honour; I will goe saith he, and gather all Israel unto my Lord the King, 2 Sam. 3.21. What need I tell you of that great Prophet of God, Elijah, doth he not call Ahab Obadiahs Lord, goe tell thy Lord, behold Elijah is here, 1 Kin. 18.14. Though Ahab was a wicked man, yet hee doth not take from him his title of honour. And doth not the Spirit of God give the title of Lord to that noble man, on whose hand the King leaned? 2 Kin. 7.2. What need I tell you, that in the New Testament, the blessed Evangelist Luke, in that his history of the Gospell which he did write to Theophilus, he giveth him that honourable title, most excellent Theophilus, Luke 1.3. a title of great honour and high esteem given to Theophilus; And blessed Paul calleth Festus the Governour of that Province, noble Festus, Acts 26.25, 27. And in the same Chapter, when he was before King Agrippa, to answer for himselfe, he doth not in a proud or blind ignorant sottish man­ner, call Agrippa thou man, or thee man (as the Quakers doe) but King Agrippa, believest thou the Prophets, I know that thou believest. Thus do these Saints give ti­tles of honour according to mens place and dignities; I will name but one more, and that is the blessed Evan­gelist St John, that beloved Disciple of Christ John 19.26. in his second Epistle, hee giveth that gratious woman, to whom he writ her title of honour and re­spect, verse 1. The Elder (saith he) to the elect Lady; And againe verse 5. I beseech thee Lady, Thus doth the blessed Apostle, give titles of honour, to whom honour belongs. And these certainly, are witnesses sufficient to justifie this truth against the Quakers; that there may be some kinde of respect, civill respect I mean, though not to corrupt or flatter, yet to know and owne diffe­rence of persons, and to give to each that honor which is due to them in their severall places.

Againe, as it is a duty to give honour and respect, so it is lawfull for Princes, Judges, Justices and others, to [Page 46]this honour, when in a right and due manner it is given unto them. I shall call in only one witnesse to evidence this truth, besides those whom I named before, to whom honor was given of men, none of w ^ch godly men did re­ject that honor which was ascribed & given unto them which had it been unlawfull to have received, they would certainly have refused. The witnesse is that holy man Job, one that feared God, and eschewed evill, and what doth he testifie of himselfe? you may read, Job 29.7, 8, &c. when I went out of the gate (saith he) through the City, when I prepare my seat in the street, the young men saw me, and hid themselves, and the aged arose and stood up. Righteous Job was an honourable and just Judge, he was eies to the blind, and feet to the lame; he was a father to the poor, and the cause which he knew not, he searched it out; he did break the jawes of the wicked, and plucked the spoile out of his teeth, therefore was Job honourable, and both old and young did honor Job, not in their hearts only (as the Quakers would have magistrates honoured) but outwardly also, in giving all civill outward honour unto them, accor­ding to their severall place and dignities; and good rea­son it should be so: For who more honourable, pro­fitable, and necessary, then good religious, just and righteous Judges and Magistrates, in a Common­wealth? When justice is rightly executed, it exalteth a a Nation, Prov. 14 34. but sinne is a shame to a people: The want of magistracy and government, prepareth a people for destruction, Iudges 18.7. My Text the 2d time I preached before the ho­nourable Iudges at Darby Assises, in which I pro­ved the necessity of, and honour due to Magi­strates, at full. witnesse that City Laish, who perished suddenly: And this is one reason given. There was no Magistrate in the Land, which might (punish, or) put them to shame in any thing. And this shall suffice to witnesse against all adversaries whatsoever, and cleare up and resolve the Question into this conclusion, That it is lawfull to call Master or Father, and to give honour to every one, even to the highest powers, and to infe­riour Magistrates, to the honourable Judges and Justi­ces, and to all others, according to their severall places [Page 47]and dignities whatsoever; yet so as the honour and glo­ry of God is to be exalted above all.

And thus I have ended these foure Questions dispu­ted. There were three more Questions; but for these and Naylers answers, and his crosse interrogatories, I have given my sufficient answer before, and my reason wherefore I print no more, namely, because they are so fully answered already by many learned divines, that it were but to cast water into the sea, as I have expressed in the one and twentieth page of this my Defence of the Scriptures, &c. to which I refer the Reader.

I shall only give some briefe Animadversions upon Naylers most false relation of that Dispute at Chester­field, and passe to a conclusion.

1. It is an approved observation, Rectum est in­dex sui & ob­liqui. that a true and right rule will discover it selfe, and that which is false, and so will a true relation; therefore I need doe no more here, but refer the Reader to what I have before expressed; yet to draw the curtaine a little, that you may see Nay­lers picture the better, I shall number up a number of his untruths, in that most false relation of that Dispute.

Naylers un­truths. 1. In the very title, Nayler calleth it a dispute be­tween James Nayler, and the parish-Teachers of Che­sterfield. This is an untruth, for there was but one of the Parish-Teachers of Chesterfield, who had any hand in that Dispute.

2. In the next line he addeth, By a challenge against him. This is a second falshood; for the challenge was on his side, not only by John Prith boasting of Nayler, but by other of his fellow Quakers.

3. He saith, the simple may see the bloody minds of these men. This is a third untruth; for there were no bloody minds, nor thought of any persecution against him, but of a Christian Conference.

4. He saith, when we speake faire, war is in our hearts. This is a fourth untruth, we had not war in our hearts, nor any desires, but of peace, and that peace and rruth might dwell together.

5. He saith, swearing and cursing, and blaspheming the dreadfull name of God, are the fruits of John Bil­lingsley's Ministry. This is a fifth untruth; for Mr Bil­ingsley never preached any such doctrine, nor approved of any such practice, nor did know of the Bul-baiting Nayler spake against. There was a poore man of Win­gerworth neer Chesterfield, his name (as I was infor­med) was William Frost; who having heard Naylers desperate doctrine, and read some of his books, despai­red, and went and drowned himselfe: Was this the fruits of thy Ministry, Nayler? thou wilt not confesse it was.

6. Nayler cryeth out, and calleth Mr Billingsley man-pleaser; O thou man-pleaser (saith he.) This is a sixt lie; for it is evident Mr Billingsley is not a man­pleaser, for he refuseth to baptize children, except the parent will come unto him and be examined of the knowledge of his Faith. And doth not give the Lords Supper but to such as he examineth and approveth, by which too many are displeased, which they would not, if they did know what was good for their owne soules.

7. (For I let passe divers) he saith God is risen to cut us off, and it had been good we had never been borne. And I hope this is a seventh untruth, and a false prophecie. But Nayler manifesteth his bloody mind, he would cut off all the faithful Ministers of Christ if it were in his power. The Lord rebuke him.

8. Hee saith there was another plot against him. Which is an eighth untruth; there was not any plot, (as he pretended) as God and our conscience can wit­nesse for us.

9. For I omit againe divers abominable untruths observed by Mr Billingsley, in that part of Naylers false relation. Nayler againe saith, he was shewed the many plots laid, to have cast him in prison, and to prosecute our bloody intents. This is a 9 ^th untruth from the father of lies; if any shewed thee any such thing, they were inventers, and thou art a publisher of an abominable untruth.

10. Nayler at the Disputation, did most falsely ac­cuse me, that I did sweare by Mary, when I did not so much as name Mary, as all that could heare me can witnesse at full, nor did I sweare at all; as in my letter I writ to him the next day, I justified sully, and wished him to repent his lying accusation; which let­ter he hath most falsely printed, heaping up one lye af­ter another, in a most shamelesse manner; as if the Spi­rit of lying and slander, had taken ful possession of him, which I leave off to rehearse, as being unwilling to blot my paper with so many of his odious stinking untruths; yet I shall mention one more most abominable. Nayler saith, page 10. That these Priests set themselves with all their strength, to prove swearing lawfull, &c. which is a most hellish lie. This was the truth, when Nayler wrangling, denied it to be lawfull to take any oath be­fore a lawfull Magistrate, upon any occasion, Mr Bil­lingsley proved it lawfull by divers places of Scripture, both out of the Old and New Testament, which Nayler basely perverteth, and according to his custome, raiseth that most wicked slander, and here he fully maketh good that which is justified against him and his fel­lowes, in that briefe Relation of the irreligion of the Northerne Quakers, noted before, page 20. basely to manifest themselves notorious lyars; as in that Pamph­let called Sauls errand to Damascus, in which there are a hundred untruths, as may bee proved saith that Author, by a hundred witnesses, and many of them saith he, will be as ready to say and unsay any thing, as if lying were a vertue; and that they make no conscience of raising false reports against any that oppose them. And this I now finde to be most true in lying Nayler by this experience. But if the adversaries of Christ called the Master of the house Belzeebub, no marvell if these Quaking adversaries like the devil (that grand Quaker) do belye and scandalize the ministers of Christ. The Lord forgive them if it be his will, if they have not sin­ned that sinne unto death, of which St John witnesseth. [Page 50]There is a sinne unto death, I say not that thou shoul­dest pray for it, 1 John 5.16.

Now for thy twenty Quaeries Nayler, which thou sentest and addest towards the end; I have in part an­swered them already in what I have writ, and part of them are such Questions against which St Paul speak­eth, as tending not to edification of those who are weak in the faith, Rom. 14.1, 2. but rather to their di­straction, if not destruction, therefore more fit to be si­lenced and buried in darknesse, then to be revived or brought to light. Secondly, some are hypocriticall, like that of Herod to the wise men, Mat. 2.7, 8. Thirdly, some are curious Questions, to satisfie curious busie minds, such as thou art, which being answered, will not profit to godlinesse or edification, contrary to the rule, 1 Cor. 14.26 Fourthly some of them are tempting cap­tious Questions, like those of the Pharisees (thy Fa­thers) to Christ our Saviour, which he either answereth by Questions to his adversaries againe, or else wisely rejects or avoids to escape their treacherous designes against him, as Mat. 21.23, 24, &c. Mat. 22.16, 17, 18, &c. Fifthly, some are foolish and unlearned Questi­ons, which gender strifes, not love, or any benefit to soules, and which the Apostle directs Timothy to avoid, 2 Tim. 2.23. and giveth the same command to Titus, because saith he, they are unprofitable and vaine, Tit. 3.9. And I had rather follow St Pauls counsell, then sa­tisfie thy folly. It is the counsell of the wise man, in some such cases to be silent, Prov. 26.4. Yet if thou wilt have an answer to thy twenty Quaeries, and to thy chal­lenge and brags, lest thou be wise in thy own conceit, or any of thy generation, Prov. 26.5. know that all or most of them, or those that are fit to be replyed unto, they are sufficiently answered by divers religious learned men, Ministers of the Gospell, and others. If any desire to see, First let them read learned Mr Baxter's answer to the sixteen Quaeries, The Worcester petition d [...]fen­ded, printed 1653. upon the Wostershire Petition; to which is added seventeen Counter-Quaeries, not yet answered [Page 51]by thee and thy fellowes that I have seen. 2. Read Mr Baxters Quakers Catechism, The Quakers confuted, prin­ted, 1654. and the Quakers Questions answered there, printed 1655. 3. Read godly Mr Eaton, in his book called the Quakers confu­ted, being an answer to nineteen quaeries of thy com­panions, in which your weaknesse and erroneous wic­kednesse is discovered, and the truth vindicated. 4. Read that book called the Perfect Pharisee, The Perfect Pharisee, prin­ted 1654. in which by way of position and proofe, your wandring quaeries are learnedly and religiously answered, by those five godly Ministers nere New Castle. 5. Mr Fowler, &c printed 1655. Read solid and accute Mr Fowler's book, called Satan at Noon Day, of the seve­rall sorts of Quakers and Familists, And there you may see the matter of these familisticall quaeries answered, and errors confuted to their sorrow, if they had grace to be sensible. 6. The mystery of ungodlinesse, printed 1653. Read judicious and zealous Mr Far­mer of Bristol, in his book entituled the Mystery of Godlinesse and ungodlinesse, in which the Questionist ungodlinesse, is there discovered to their shame. 7. Reverend and succinct Mr Sherlock's answer to twen­ty seven of the Quakers wild Questions, Mr Sherlock printed 1654. and his lear­ned discourse of the Spirit annexed, which might stay these erring wandring spirits, from their false preten­ces to the spirit of Christ. 8 Read that profitable book, A brief relation printed 1653. of that observant Author called A Briefe Relation of the Irreligion of the Northern Quakers, wherein their horrid principles and practises, doctrines and manners, are exposed to the view of every intelligent Reader, and the Quakers Sauls errand to Damascus, in which are said to be an hundred lies replied unto. 9. Antichrist in man, printed 1655. Witness that booke entituled Antichrist in man, the Quakers Idoll, by Mr Joshua Milner a servant of Christ in the Gospell, in which is an answer and confutation of some of the Quakers dangerous and damnable doctrines. 10. Mr Prins Qua­kers unmasked, printed 1656. witnesse godly and learned Mr William Prinne Esquire, detecting these Quakers to bee but the spawne of the Romish Frogs, Jesuites, and Franciscan Fryars, sent from Rome to seduce poore soules in this English Na­tion; [Page 52]with his reply to John Audlands rayling paper, by which, and what I have proved in my Answer and Arguments upon the Questions before, which were Disputed, any Christians seeing eye, may see that James Nayler and his wandring fellow Quakers, are but poor pedlers for the Priests of Rome, and the Jesuits servants, carrying up and downe the Nation, their packs of er­rours, and bags of paper-quaeries, invented and hatched in Antichrists and the devils warehouse, which they of­fer at every door or place where they come, like brai­ded, baused, rotten wares, to deceive and couzen poor soules, and to disturbe the peace and quiet of the Nati­on, that this common enemy may more easily wheele us about to Rome, and Romish Tyranny, and so bring us to confusion, from the highest to the lowest; from which, God of his mercy protect us. And for Ministers maintenance, Gen. 14.20. Gen. 28.22. Lev. 27.30, 31. Numb. 18.21. Deut. 10.8, 9. Mal 3 8 9. Mat. 23 23. 1 Cor. 9 13.14. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 7.8. Printed for Mr Iohn Wright in the Old Bayly, 1646. Mr Deacons discovery, prin­ted 1656. read Dr Carleton, Dr Tillesley, Dr Slater, Sir Henry Spelman, Sir James Sempel, Mr William Prin Esquire, my owne sixt book (I have printed) called a light from Christ, leading unto Christ; and divers o­thers, who have sufficiently proved Tythes not only lawfull, but due by divine Right to Christ, and the Mi­nisters of Christ in the Gospell, and that the taking them away without due redemption, is that sinne of sa­criledge. Last of all (for I let passe others) Read Mr John Deacon, a solid and sharp Questionist, Replyant and Demandant, In his publike discovery of a secret deceit, or the man of sin unmasked, and Satan transfor­med into the resemblance of an Angell of light, in that Sect or Society, commonly called Quakers, in which you have nineteen quaeries sent to the Quakers Speak­er, at the bull and mouth neer Aldersgate, and miserably answered by James Nayler, whom he calleth justly, the grand fomentor of heresie; and replyed unto by Mr Deacon, and fourteen more returned by Nayler, and fully answered by Mr Deacon; and foure and twenty more proposed by Mr Deacon, which nor James Nay­ler, nor any of his fellow Quakers (I believe) can truly [Page 53]and plainly answer, but they must denie the holy Scrip­tures, or forsake their owne false erronious and hereti­call principles. And thus I have said enough to direct James Nayler, and all his deceived, deluding Antichri­stian pharisaicall company of Quakers, where they may finde Answers to their so much bragged of quae­ries. It would be happy for them, if they could leave their errours, and enquire after the knowledge of Christ, that they may be taught by him Eph. 4.20, 21. as the truth is in Jesus, which I desire I may pray for. And now dear soules, if any of you that belong to Jesus Christ, have been drawn away with the errour of these wicked perfect pharisees (as they are rightly called) return againe to your first Husband, Christ your Saviour, Hos. 2.7. you will finde it will be better with you so, then now it is, and fly the society of these de­luding, equivocating, Antichristian Quakers, who speak sometimes of the Scriptures, but deny them to be the word of God, and make use of them in shew, but not in sincerity and truth. Who pretend to a Christ within them, but deny the merits of Christs blood and righte­ousnesse of Christ imputed to beleevers for Justifica­tion and salvation. Some who proudly boast, George Fox Iames Nayler, &c. proved before. Read their books, and where doe you read of asking forgivenesse of sin for Christs sake. they are equall with God, and as holy, just and good, as God; that they are perfect, and without sinne, and therefore ask no forgiveness of sins at Gods hand, for Christs me­rits sake, casting away both the Article of Faith, in which we profess we believe remission of sinnes; and that petition of the Lords prayer, in which our Saviour teacheth us to pray, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. Yea they endea­vour to draw poore soules from Christs publike Ordi­nances, and to forsake the plain straite way to Heaven, Mat. 7. like cheating thieves draw them into by waies, Mat. 7.14. that they may-more securely rob and spoil them of the rich treasure of the Gospell, and blessed way to glory.

Seek then my friends to Christ, who is the wisedome of the Father, Prov. 8. Col. 2.3. for wisedome and power to de­part [Page 54]from the tents of these wicked men, Numb. 16.16. and to turne againe unto the Lord, that ye perish not in their Aposta­cy from Christ. And for you my honoured pretious soules, and well beloved in the Lord Jesus, who by strength from Christ, have withstood the temptations of these deluding Quakers, and are established in the Faith of Christ, Watch still, and beware ye be not drawn away with the errour of the wicked, and fall from your owne stedfastnesse, and labour in the use of all good means; publike in the congregations of the saints, private in your families, and secret in your closets, by the power of Christ, and assistance of the Spirit of holiness, John 15.5. Phil. 4.13. to grow in grace, and in the know­ledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2 Pet. 3.17, 18. To whom with God the Father, and God the bles­sed Spirit, be glory both now and for ever.

Amen.