IF ever the My stery of Iniquity, or Iniquity in a myste­ry, did work in the hearts and mindes of men: or if ever the devil did manage a Designe under ground, surely be doth it now by the men called QUAKERS, who, like so many Apes, do imitate many of the Faithful in some circumstances, that they may the better deceive in matters that are most sub­stantial. And this (through the help of God) I shall make appear, by shewing, that their Quaking, and their Doctrine, Ministery, and Lives, is a meer deceit. And first, I shall speaking somewhat touching their Quaking: and therein, I shall first speak something touching their Name; and se­condly, something touching their Practice, viz. Quaking; and the Scriptures they urge in favour to such a practice.

I Shall in the first place speak to that Name or Title by which they are known to the world, viz. QUAKERS. In this they would make men believe they are nick-named; as appears in a book of James Nayler's, called, The disco­very of the first wisdom from beneath: where in the Title­page he subscribes himself, One whom the world scornsully nick-names, and calls Quaker. Again, in another book of his, called, The power and glory of the Lord shining out of the North; in the title-page he subscribes himself One whom Ishmael's brood calls a Quaker. I could bring many instances of this kind, to shew how they would make men believe they are greatly wronged when they are distinguished from other men by this term Quakers. Now see their deceit; they say Ishmael's Brood and the world calls them so, and yet they take paines to prove themselves so: see page 16 and 17 of the last fore-mentioned Book: he saith, But search the Scriptures, and holy men of God do witness quaking and trembling. See likewise Parnel's Shield of Truth, p. 1. and a Book of theirs, called Sauls Errand to Damasew, p. 32. It being asked by a Justice, How it came to pass that people quake and tremble; James Nayler answered, that the Scriptures witness the same condition in the Saints formerly, &c. Now pray observe, the Christians of old were never offended at that which the Scriptures did witness them to be: as for instance, the Scripture calls them believers, because they believed; disciples, because they had learned; Saints, because they were holy; and they that prayed, were called a praying peo­ple. [Page 3]Now where do the Saints of old anywhere call these Nick-names, when they were call'd according to what they either believed or practised? Is it any more a Nick-name to call a man a Quaker that quakes by the power of God, (if that be true that they say) then to call a righteous man a righteous man, that is made righteous by the power of God? or is it any more a Nick-name to call a man a Quaker, that wit­nesses to quaking, and owns it, then it is to call a man a Christian, that witnesses to Christ, and owns him? I believe a man may deridingly be call'd a Christian, as doubtless some of these are call'd Quakers; and so many are deridingly call'd Saints and holy men; yet these are no Nick-names: if they are so, the people in captivity were deridingly bid to sing one of Sion's songs, yet these were not Nick-names to those songs. By this you may see that they are Lyers, in saying that they are Nick-named Quakers, when themselves say they witness quaking: and though themselves witness quaking, yet they say that they are Ishmael's brood that calls them so. But I pray tell me, if a man be fre­quently found in railing, whether this be a Nick-name to call him a Railer. In like maner, if these people (as themselves confess) do frequently quake, what Nick-name is it to call them Quakers?

But now to their Scriptures alleadged for quaking, shaking and trembling: it is true, that some good men do say thus of themselves; as Heb. 12.21. Ezek. 12.18. Jer. 33.9. Acts 9.6. Psal. 119.6. and many other places. To all which I answer, first, This doth not prove that all were good that did quake and tremble: for the de­vils were quakers and tremblers, James 2.19. Again, good men made use of Scriptures, to exhort and in­struct; [Page 4]yet some do make use of them to deceive and tempt, as the devil did Christ, Matth. 4.6. In like manner may Deceivers fall into quaking fits, that so they may ho [...] [...]me resemblance with the servants of God, (that did tremble for fear of God) though the fear of God be departed from them: for the devil, ma­ny times, and his ministers, that they may the better effect their deceits, do transform themselves into the likeness of the ministers and servants of Christ.

2. None of the Saints of old did ever foam at mouth in this their trembling; but some of you do, as many are able to witness, and as your selves cannot deny. When it was objected against you in the West­moreland-Petition, that your practces did exceedingly savor of Sorcery, because of the swellings, quakings, and roarings, and foamings that were among you at your meetings, but espe­cially of young children; you deny no part of the Charge in your Answer, but Blasphemy and Sorcery: by which it plainly appears, that swellings and foamings could not be denyed, else you would as well have replyed to that, as Blasphemy and Sorcery. For this, see their Book in answer to the West morland-Petition, p. 35. where they make no reply to foaming and swelling, though it is charged upon them to be in yong children as well as old folks. Whereupon I demand, Whether any of the Saints of old ever foamed at mouth when they trembled? 2. Whether any young children did ever foam at mouth, quake, swell and tremble, in the Saints meetings? 3. Whether such kinde of trem­bling that is accompanied with foamings, do not ra­ther argue a man to be possess'd with the devil, then with the Spirit of God? according to that of Luke 9.39.

Lastly, Whether this be a good Argument: viz. Some of the Saints did quake, and that by the impulse of the Spirit of God: Therefore every one that quakes and trembles is a Saint of God, and doth it by the impulse of the Spirit of God.

The next thing I shall speak to, is their Doctrines: And though I confess they preach somewhat that is true, yet in this they are but the greater Deceivers. For what Heretick is there, but preaches some truth? and what counterfeit silver will pass in pay, if there be not some appearance of real silver? So these men, to put off their bad ware, which other wise would not vent, do usher it in with many truths. But, that the Reader may see that All is not gold that glisters; take notice, in the first place, that these men will allow nothing to be call'd God's Word, but Christ. This is their first Errour in Doctrine: which I thus prove: 1 Error.

First, because God hath but one onely-begotten Son Jesus Christ; but he hath many Words. That he hath but one Son Jesus Christ, I prove, from Joh. 3.16. 1 Cor. 8.6. Eph. 4.5. That he hath more words then one, I prove from Deut. 8.3. Man liveth not by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Prov. 30.5. EVERY word of God is pure. Jer. 23.36. the complaint is, that the false Prophets had perverted the WORDS of the living God. So that from this Scripture this Argument may be drawn against this Error: viz. If God have plurality of words, then somewhat else may be called the Word of God beside his onely Son Jesus Christ. But God hath plurality of words: Therefore, somewhat else may be call'd Gods Word, besides his onely begotten Son [Page 6]Jesus Christ. And the fallacie of the Argument for the contrary, is thus detected: Jesus Christ is called the Word: Ergo, Nothing else must be call'd the Word but Jesus Christ. May not a man as well say, that Jesus Christ is call'd God's Son; Ergo, No one else may be call'd Gods son but Jesus Christ? When we read that men are the sons of God by saith; and ( Joh. 1.) As many as believed, to them be gave porter to be­come the sons of God; though I confess they are not sons in the same sense that Christ is: so likewise nothing is call'd the Word of God in the same sense the Scri­ptures call Christ so, but himself. Again, the Scri­ptures call Christ a vine, a door, a shepherd: but would it not be madness to say, Where-ever we read of a vine, a door, or a shepherd, it must be understood of Christ?

Their next Errour that I shall name, 2 Error. (and which is a consequence of the former) is this, That they say the Scriptures may not be call'd the word of God: and in many of their books they blame the Ministery of the Nation, and others, for saying the Scriptures are the word of God; when Christ calls the written Law of Moses the word of God, which he said the Pharisees had made of none effect by their traditions, Mark 7.13. But see the horrible deceit of these men! The Scriptures (they say) must be call'd a declaration of the minde of God, but at no hand they must be call'd the word of God: see their book call'd A cloud of witnesses, in the Title-page, and also in pag. 3. of the same Book, toward the later end of it, and the beginning of pag. 4. you have these words: But the blinde guides, the Priests of England, that Preach for Tythes, hire, gists and rewards, they do teach the people, and [Page 7]say, Hearken to the Word of the Lord, as it is in a chapter and a verse: and many other passages, which I forbear to cite, because it is a thing so generally preached and received by them, viz. That the Scriptures are not the word of God, but a declaration of the minde and will of God. See now their deceit! they would make the world believe, that it detracts from the ho­nour of Christ to call the Scriptures the word of the Lord, and the word of God: when in truth, the designe is to raise up the honour of their own Pamphlets, by the ruines of the Scriptures reputation in the hearts and mindes of men. And therefore do but behold their impudence: The holy Scripture (say they) must not be call'd God's word; no, no: but see if they do not give the same titles, and as great, to their own bumbasted, contradictious, lying Pamph­lets. And for the proof of this, let me give thee a re­cital of some of them, among many.

They have one book, called Love to the lost: which is a Title proper to none but God and Christ; yet this is given to one of their books.

Another is called, A discovery of the wisdom from be­neath: which none but the word of God can do, by their own confession many a time.

Another book is called, The power and glory of God shining out of the North. Is not this Title as great, as if they had call'd it the word of God? Read, and judge you, whose light is not darkness.

Another is call'd, The Royal law and Covenant of God; which is as great a Title as the word of God.

Another is call'd, News out of the North, written from the mouth of God.

Another is call'd, The Vials of the wrath of God upon the seat of the man of sin.

Another is call'd, A warning from the Lord to Teachers and people.

Another is call'd, A true prophecie of the mighty day of the Lord. Now if by the mighty day of the Lord, they mean that there shall be such a day; which they can hardly do, because some of them have said, The day of Judgment is past already: but if that should be their meaning, it could be no Prophecie: for what prophe­sying is it for men to foretel such a thing shall be, if others have said it before them? for do not many, by the writing of the Scriptures, believe there shall be such a day? yet these cannot be said to prophesie of it. But if by prophesying of the mighty day of the Lord, they mean to foretel the very day, then they presume to know more then Christ, or the Angels, or any man, according to that of Mark 13.22. But to proceed.

They have another book, that is called, A Trumpet from the Lord sounded out of Sion.

Another is call'd, A whirlwinde of the Lord, given forth as a flying fiery roll.

I would from all this, ask but one question, Whe­ther these Titles which they give these books, are not equipollent to the Title we give the Scriptures, viz. The Word of God? and yet these men blame us for this, and give as great to their own Pamphlets. But what shall we say? they stop not here, but at last call their own writings The Word of the Lord, and A Word from the Lord; as you may see in a book of theirs, called, A prophecie of the mighty day of the Lord, p. 13. and the like in a book called The vials of the wrath of God, p. 57. p. 9. p. 10. and in a book called News out of the North, p. 10. and p. 24. and in p. 1. of a book called The pure language of the Spirit; and many other places, where [Page 9]they do readily in words at length, give those Titles to their own books, they will not give to the Scriptures. Doth not this plainly shew, that the designe of this generation is, to do by the Scriptures, as Judas did by Christ, viz. betray them with a kiss, even by making men believe they do own the Scriptures, when indeed it is, that they may have the fairer oportunity to cruci­fie them in the croud of their pernicious Pamphlets?

The third Errour in their Doctrine, is, 3 Error. That they (say they) are immediately sent of God: see this in James Parnel's book, called A shield of Truth, page 12. He saith, They can witness an immediate call from God, to go from their Countries and Callings, &c. to go to preach the Gospel. I could shew this out of many of their books; but I spare that labour, because it is day­ly owned by them, and they frequently assert it in pub­like conferences. The substance of two of them I shall give you a brief account of: one was in last May 1656. in Beech-lane London; at which time, I did pro­pose Question to James Nayler, viz. Whether ever any was immediately sent of God to preach the Gospel, but either God did bear witness to them from heaven, or else he did enable them to work Miracles, by which they might evince the truth of their authori­ty upon earth? To this James Nayler replyed, That God might send men, for ought I knew, to whom be bare no such witness. To this I replyed, That God did never immediately send any, but he did either from heaven demonstrate the truth of their authority, or else gave them power to work miracles upon the earth. James Nayler told me I could not prove what I said. To which I replyed, That the saying proved it self, unless he could give an instance of some so sent, to whom God [Page 10]bare no such witness. Hereupon James Nayler tells me, That Matthias was so sent, and yet did no Miracle. To this I replied, That the 2d of the Acts tells us, That the holy Ghost fell upon them, and they all spake with Tongues, to the amazement of the beholders *And as for Matthias, he was not sent immediately, for he was chose by lot, Acts 1. latter end: So that he hath told two lyes; first, that Matthias was immediately sent; secondly, that he could not work Mira­cles: both which are false, as the first and second of the Acts declare.. To which James replied, So can I speak with Tongues that thou canst not under­stand. I told him, I thought so he might, in their Canting dialect; but could he speak varieties of Languages, that was natural to several Countreys. To which he replied, That he was not bound to answer to my demand, being an un­believer: for (saith he) Christ told the Jews, That a foo­lish and adulterous generation did seek a Sign. To which I did reply, That if he could shew as good a Sign for his immediate Call, as Christ did shew that genera­tion, to prove he was the Me ssiah, we would believe all he told us: for Christ said, That as Jonas was three dayes and three nights in the Whales belly; so should he be three dayes and three nights in the heart of the earth: This Sign, he said, should be given to them. I challenge all the Quakers in England, either to shew us such a Sign of their immediate sending, or else never use that Text to reprehend them that ask a Sign: For, though Christ did reprehend them, yet he shewed a Sign unto them. Nayler did further reply, and say, That though Christ did mighty works, it was not at or upon the time that they demanded it. To which I replied, That if he would but say he had done it at any time, we would believe him. Hereupon he tells us of his Call from the Plough. To which I replied, and told him again, This doth no more prove that which was de­manded [Page 11]then (as the story goes) the Man that left his fishing to be a Priest, and afterwards came to be Pope, was immediately sent of God. To which he replies, and tells me, That when Paul was brought before the Civil Magistrate, he gave no other account, but onely told him how God call'd him. To which I answered, That if James Nayler could give any history of as good autho­rity (as the History of the Acts of the Apostles is) for the proof of his Call, we would believe him. He hereupon calls me Lyer: For (saith he) didst not thou tell me, thou would st believe, if I would but say it? To which I answered, That I did not say I would believe he was immediately sent of God, if he did but say it, for then I should give away the cause; but if he said, that he had at any time done a Miracle, we would be­lieve him. Hereupon he told us, That he would prove his extraordinary Call, both by himself and other Witnesses: And to make this good, he gave us a Narrative how be was before the Magistrates of Appleby, and told them how God call'd him in the field at Plough, &c. To which I did reply, He was not before me to give an account to me as to a Magistrate: And secondly, I told him, That this was a meer deceit; for we expect­ed he should prove the truth of his Call, and he goes to prove, That he told the Magistrates of Appleby he was thus call'd: And I told him, That I did not want proof that he did tell them so, but that that which he told them was true, which was the main thing in que­stion. Hereupon, several of his Proselytes stands up to witness, how he had turned them from darkness to light. I told them, that was a begging of the Que­stion: for the great question is, Whether that be not Darkness they are turned to, and that the Light they [Page 12]are turned from: I therefore did tell them all, that it was horrible presumption for such as they, to proclaim both in City and Countrey, that they were sent of God, when indeed the Pope can say as much for his Infallible Chair, the Turk for his Alcaron, and the Jew for his Talmud, and a great deal more. Hereupon he desired me to dispute some other Points of Do­ctrine, viz. Whether Faith were the gift of God, and the like: To which I answered, That if he could prove that he was immediately sent of God, we would believe all he said; and if he did but that, it would save us a labour to dispute other Points: for if he did prove, That God sent him to check and controll all the Religions of the World, we would willingly be con­trolled by him: which we did once and again call for proof of, but could not have it. I therefore bade him either renounce this pretended Call, or else prove it, before I would dispute any other Point of Doctrine with him. Hereupon he told us, he was immediately sent of God, because he could prophesie. I asked him, of what? He told me, Of our breaking to pie­ces, and dividing among our selves. I told him, That breakings and dividings had been, and it was like might be among the Churches; but unless he could precisely tell us when such disasters should befal us, he was no more a Prophet then (as the story goes) the Fool, who having seen many a rainy day, did use to cry in fair weather, because it would rain, though he knew not when. This was the sum of the first Con­ference. Some dayes after, I was at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate, where at that time they had a Meeting, at which Meeting the former Question was revived, viz. Whether James Nayler was able to prove he was [Page 13]immediately sent of God? for I told the people, That the Light within me, taught me not to quit my Reli­gion, to imbrace another that was able to shew no better, not scarce so good proof for its Authority, as either the Jew could for his Talmud, the Turk for his Alcoran, or the Pope for his Infallible Chair. To this James Nayler reply'd, that I said true, that if they had no better proof for their authority, then those they cried down, they were not to be believed: But (saith he) I will shew better proof: and the first was, That they were of God, because they taught, that the Faith by which a man was sa­ved, was the gift of God; which (saith he) thou deniest. I hereupon replied, That to fall into that question, How Faith might be Gods gift, and how it might be acquired, would lose the first question: and therefore I told him, That if Faith (in his sense) were the gift of God, yet it did not follow, that they that so prea­ched were immediately sent of God: My Reason was, Because then all the Ministers of the Nation, or at least the most part of them, are immediately sent of God: for they say, both in opposition to the Pelagi­ans as well as Papists, That Faith is the gift of God: So that if his words were put into a Syllogism, they would run thus, viz. Every one that preaches, Faith is the gift of God, is immediately sent of God: But James Nayler preacheth so; Ergo. But may not a a man as well conclude from the same premises, Eve­ry man that saith, Faith is the gift of God, is imme­diately sent of God: But the Ministery of the Na­tion and others, whom thou criest down for Antichri­stian, do preach so; Ergo, they are immediately sent of God? If this be a true and undeniable Argument, the thou art a Lyer in Folio, to cry down these and [Page 14]others for Antichristian: but if it be not true, thou hast not proved the question: for if some one may be Antichristian that preaches thus, thou art as like to be he as any. His next Argument was this, viz. They (meaning the Ministers of the Nation and others) did but SAY so. To which I replied, He did no more. He told us then, that he could prove it further by their fruits: I asked, what were they? He told me in the first place, Their leaving their Countreys, to go up and down to preach the Gospel. To which I replied, That this was to a greater degree found among the Jesuites, who did travel to Rome for Orders, and after come and preach here in England, though there was a standing Law that made it Treason. I question much, if such a Law were against Quakers, whether they would ven­ture so much for their Religion as the Papists do; and if they did, they could not do more then lose their lives, which the Jesuites frequently do. Now I de­mand, If this be a good Argument, viz. They that leave their Callings and Countreys to preach, are immediately sent of God to preach: Whether the same premises doth not every whit as well prove (if not much better) That the Jesuites are immediately sent of God? For what though Christs Apostles left their Countreys and Callings, doth this prove, that every one that doth so is Christs Apostle? No: the contrary to this is seen in Matth. 23.15. that the Pha­risees did compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when be is made, be is more the childe of the Devil then themselves: The like proof you bring; for they could not compass Sea and Land to make a Proselyte, with­out leaving their countreys: and if this proves the Quakers are sent of God immediately, it as well [Page 15]proves the Pharisees were so sent. Again, we reade in the Acts, of one that led into the Wilderness four thousand men: This man also left his countrey. By all this you may see, that that which these men talk most of, they can say least to, viz. That they are im­mediately sent of God. Again, another Argument, by which James Nayler would prove his immediate sending, was grounded upon their denying themselves in point of Apparel. To this I did answer, First, that many Orders of Fryars did deny themselves in mat­ters of Apparel, more then they: who (some of them) will not wear their clothes of any other colour, then wooll that comes off the sheep is of, and save the char­ges of dying it; others of them wear hair-shirts, whereas you wear fine linen comparatively; nay, are they not generally known to be more self-denying, both as to eating, drinking, and apparel, marrying, and other worldly delights, then any of your Tea­chers? how then for shame can you urge this as an Argument to prove your immediate call, when the same is found among them whom you call Antichri­stian? but these men will play at small game before they will give out *But if this be a good ar­gument, then every one of them are immediately sent of God to preach, for they all are self-deniers in these things. Another Argu­ment was taken from the number of Proselytes they make, which, say they, they have turned from darkness to light: But, as I said before, how do they prove this? for we doubt not, but the Pharisees would have said as much of their Proselytes, which were made more the children of the Devil, then they were before. But further, and as I then told him, some may be sent of God, that may not turn people, as Ezek. 33. and Isa. 53.1. The Prophet saith, Who bath believed our report? [Page 16]Again I told him, That as many might preach that God sent, who might possibly not be received: so mul­titudes might receive a man that God never sent See Mat. 24.5. MA­NY shall come in my Name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive. MANY.; and that is rather a sign that God never sent you, then that he did send you: for Christ saith, That he came in his Fathers Name, but they received him not; but he tells them, If one should come in his own Name, him that would receive. And the Apostles themselve did shake the dust off their feet against some places that received them not: But James Nayler saith, That he never came to a place, but be was received, and converted some in it. But our Lord Christ, though he did mighty work in Corazin and Bethsaida (he saith) they repented not: Which ve­ry Argument of yours is so farre from proving you are sent of God immediately, that it rather proves the contrary: for, who hath made more Proselytes, then the Roman Priests and Monks have? as for instance, Austine the Monk, who was sent to the Saxons by the Bishop of Rome, converted 10000 in a few dayes. See Speeds Chronicle, pag. 291, Sect. 8. And who is there that is acquainted with the proceedings of the Spa­niards in the West-Indies, but can tell, that thousands are daily reduced from Heathenism, to sober and up­right lives by the Roman Ministery? and yet this draw­ing of multitudes, is an Argument, That Quakers are sent of God; but must not be urged by others, though they are able to say more at this turn, then all the Quakers in England. By this you may see, that the Quakers are shaking, and would gladly make every Straw a Staff to lean upon.

But lastly, if it be as they say, That very man hath a Light within him, that would turn him, if he do follow it, to what purpose do they preach one to [Page 17]another: So that they have no cause to impute the converting of men to their Ministery, for they might convert without it.

The last Argument to which I said little then (by reason I was interrupted with their Women-prea­chers) was this, viz. That it did appear they were imme­diately sent of God, because they did not give respect to per­sons. I answer, first then, All the Quakers, both men and women, are sent of God immediately to preach the Gospel, for none of them give respect to persons. But secondly, is not this an abominable piece of wic­kedness? for by the rule of contraries, Paul was not sent of God, for he did respect Festus, and call'd him, MOST NOBLE FESTUS, Acts 24.3. and 26.25. Now all the people were not Most Noble; for the Scripture saith, Not many Noble are called: by which it appears, that some were more Noble then others, and had that respect given to them, that was not common to all: But I shall say more to this a­non.

My last answer to this Argument (if I may so call it, and James not judge me for a Lyer) is, That if their not sitting up, and giving civil respect, be an argument that these are sent of God; then Austin the Monk was sent of God, and many others that I could name: but let me trouble you with the recital of one story con­cerning Austin the Monk; and upon the reading of it, you will think (if James saith true) that Austin was a man sent immediately of God. Austin, 561 yeares after Christ, in the time of Ethelbert King of Kent, was sent by Pope Gregory to convert the Saxons; who, some time after call a Synod, unto which resorted seven British Bishops, and other learned men, saith Beda in this History, [Page 18] Book 2. Chap. 2. These men now ready to go to the Synod, came first to a certain holy wise man to ask his counsel (which some think was bishop of York) Whether they ought at Austins Preaching and Exhortation, to leave their Tradi­tions (Austin being come a stranger among them) The good man answered, If he be a man of God, follow him; but (said they) how shall we know that? He answered, Christ (saith he) said, That we should learn of him, for he was humble, and meek of heart: If therefore (saith this good man) this Austin be milde and bumble, it is like he is of God; but if he be proud, no proud man is of God. Then the Bishops inquired, how they might know that? The man answereth, Provide (saith he) that he and his company come first to the place of Meeting; and if it be so, that when you approach near him, he arise and salute you, then think him to be the Servant of Christ: but if he do not vouchsafe to rise at your presence, let him be despised. They hereupon took the old mans counsel, and when they came in, Austin the Monk sate very still in his Chair, and stirred not: here­upon they judged him a proud man. See Speeds Chron. pag. 291. I do urge this to shew, That if this be an argument a man is sent of God immediately, surely this man, viz. Austin the Monk, was so sent of God, and so are all the Popes at this day, that will not reve­rence any Monarch under Heaven; so that these Ar­guments are so slender, that if Christ and his Apostles had had no better, they had never made any Prose­lytes to the Kingdom of Heaven to this day, how greatly soever you brag of your Converts.

I now come to their next Error, 4 Error. and that is, That every man hath a Light within, that will teach a man to Worship God rightly. This is so common a prin­ciple of theirs, that to go about to prove it, were but [Page 19]to hold a candle to the Sun: therefore taking this for granted, that they thus teach, as I hope I may without wrong to them, I shall now shew, That this is false Doctrine, and is taught to no other end (I fear) then to thrust out the Authority of the holy Scri­ptures.

1. For first, what need is there of Scripture to declare the Minde of God, if it may be known with­out it every whit as well? But now the Scripture saith, that what was writ afore-time, was writ for our Learning, Rom. 15.4. and John 20.31. But these things were writ, that you might believe: 1 Cor. 10.11. These things were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

2. I demand, Whether by the Light which is in the whole world, or in every one that comes into it, all men may come to know a Virgin had a Son, with­out any other external means?

3. I demand, Whether the Light in every man, without the Scriptures, can bring every man to know Christ dyed, and rose again in three dayes?

4. I demand, What favour it was to the people of Israel, to have the written Law of God, in such a man­ner as it is said of them, He had not dealt so with any Nation, if all Nations by the Light within them, might have (with the like facility) understood to serve and worship God as well without them?

5. Whether all men by the Light within them, be­fore the coming of Christ, could ever have under­stood, that he should be born in Bethlehem, as it was written?

6. Whether the Name of Jesus Christ may be knowne to all the World, by the Light within [Page 20]them, without Scripture or Traditions?

7. I demand, if the Light within can inform all men into the Divine Worship and Service of God, without the Scriptures, Whether it may not do it without your Books? If so,

8. Whether or no you that will not be prodigal of your Apparel, and who will not lay out money up­on needless things, are not at this turn very prodigal, to buy candles to light them to the Sun? My meaning is, to lay out hundreds of pounds to print so many Books, when the world (if your Doctrine be true) might have known as much without them?

9. Whether this is not as great superfluity and prodigality, as wearing any thing that is not needful; viz. your paying great Rents for places to meet and preach in, when you say you know so much by the Light within you, as you need no Teacher? as ap­pears by a Book of James Nayler's, call'd, A Discovery of the first Wisdome, pag. 8. where he makes it the cha­racter of the first man (or carnal man) to know God by rela­tion from others, either by word or writing. And to this purpose they apply 1 John 2.27. and Heb. 8.11. and in thee same page he makes it a note of a Spiritual man, that he knows God from his dwelling-place, and not by rela­tion from others, &c.

10. Whether there is not the like vanity in your spending your precious Times and Moneys to go a­bout the countreys, if the Light which is within the countreys, could have shewed them the same things without you?

11. Whether you would not count it as vain a thing, as wearing any thing that is needless is counted by you, if any of you should be at great cost to car­ry [Page 21]a Bushel of coals to Newcastle, where there is coals enow already?

12. Whether the Moneys that is thus needlesly laid out, would not be better bestowed where is more need, viz. upon the hungry and the naked.

The fifth Error I shall name, is, 5 Error. That there was one Jo: Lawson accused for saying, The day of Judgement was past; which he in stead of disowning of the charge, goes about to prove it from Matth. 12.20. and saith not one word touching the untruth of it. See a Book of theirs, called, Sauls Errand to Damascus, pag. 35. where you have that very Errour objected against them, with their answer to it. I should not have char­ged this Errour upon them all, it being but the wri­ting and the saying of one man, did not all of them received and own it, as appears by the printing of it in a book, wherein many of them are concerned. Now is not this a consequent of that devilish Doctrine, taught by Hymeneus and Philetus, which said, that the Resurrection was already past, and destroy the Faith of some? 2 Tim. 2.17, 18. For if the Judgement-day be past already; Resurrection, that goes before Judgement, must be also past.

The sixth Errour I shall name, is, That George Fox, 6 Error.whom all of them own, professeth himself to be the Eternal Judge of the World: and being charged with it by the Petitioners of the County of Lancaster, makes no denial of any part of the Charge, but saith, The Saints shall judge the World: See pag. 6. of a book of theirs, call'd, Sauls Errand to Damascus.

The seventh Errour I shall mention, is, That George Fox, 7 Error. whom they all own, said, He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and being charged with this by the Peti­tioners [Page 22]aforesaid, he denies not a syllable of it; though it is observable, that many things that the said persons do object, they in their Replies do deny that ever they said so; yet to this he makes no denyal, but saith, The Old-Man cannot indure to hear the New-Man speak, which is Christ. This you may finde to be his answer in pag. 7. of Sauls Errand to Damascus.

The eighth Errour I shall charge them with, 8 Error. is, That the said Fox said, That he which took a place of Scri­pture, and made a Sermon of it, or from it, was a Conjurer, and his preaching was Conjuration. This he is charged with by the men aforesaid, and in his printed answer denies not one syllable, but saith, He that raiseth the Spirit out of the Letter, is a Conjurer See p. 7. of the last mentioned Book.. First, doth not the Scripture say, Acts 8. that from that place of Scri­pture which the Eunuch was reading, i.e (viz.) Philip preached unto him Jesus? and did not the Eunuch reade the Letter, and did not Philip preach the Christ? was not that the Spirit, as your selves notion it? and yet you say, They that raise the Spirit out of the Let­ter, are Conjurers. Oh horrible Profaneness!

The ninth Errour is, 9 Error. that being charged with say­ing, The Scriptures are carnall: In the book and page last mentioned, he answers, The Letter of the Scripture is carnall. How now George! what is the Letter of the Scripture carnal? and do not you tell the people that you walk according to them? But why should you walk after a carnal Rule, since you profess to be such a Spiritual man? But by this the world may see, if their Candle be not put out, that this cunning Fox can run with the Hare, and hold with the Hound.

In the ninth page of the last mentioned Book, 10 Error one [Page 23] Leonard Hill is charged with saying, Christ had no body but his Church: which he denies not, but saith, There is one Body and one Spirit, even as ye are called.

The eleventh Errour is, 11 Error That John Lawson said, pag. 35. of Sauls Errand to Damascus, that he had been in Hell, but now was in Heaven: Of this he is charged, and denies it not, but cites that place out of the se­cond of Jonah, where Jonah saith, Out of the belly of Hell he cryed to the Lord: Doth this prove Lauson was ever in this Hell, or in any other? but he may come there before he thinks of it, if he repent not; and his Hea­ven he is in, will not shelter him.

The twelfth Errour is, 12 Error That they say they are per­fect, and sin not. See a Book of theirs in answer to Hen: Haggar and Tho: Pollard, pag. 9. where they charge the men aforesaid for lying, because they said, The Quakers boast of perfection; and yet in the same page they say, They own perfection, but do not boast of it. Oh strange! What, that men should be telling and prea­ching of their perfection, and in print proclaim they own it, and yet call men Lyers, for saying, that they loast of it! I pray resolve me this Question: If any man should by word or writing, or both, publish his estate to the world, that he is thus and thus rich, would not your selves call him a proud boaster, espe­cially if he shall boast of that he never had? and that you do so, I shall make it manifest in due place.

The thirteenth Errour is, that James Nayler said, 13 Errorthat None can come to God nor Christ, but they that come to perfection: See Naylers Book, call'd, Love to the Lost, pag. 23. If this be true, Paul was not come to God nor Christ; for he saith, Phil. 3.12. Not as though I had already attained, or were already PERFECT: And [Page 24]in the seventh of the Romans, the same Apostle saith once and again, That sin did dwell in him; and doth not Christ call sinners to come unto him? and yet you are so impudent as to say, That None can come, but they that come to perfection.

The fourteenth Errour is, 14 Error That James Nayler in his book call'd Love to the Lost, p.23. speaking of the Lords Supper, saith, That at all seasons, whensoever they eat or drink, they were to have communion with the Body and Blood of the Lord in their eating and drinking, though it were at the Gentiles (or Unbelievers) Table: alluding to that place of Scripture, 1 Cor. 10.27. And another of them in a Book of theirs, call'd, Truths Defence against re­fined Subtilty, pag. 100. calls a man Carnal Sot, for ask­ing whether Paul did administer the Lords Supper with Bread and Wine; and thereupon demands, Whether the Apostles did give to the Corinthians Bread and Wine.

The fifteenth Errour is, That James Parnel, in his Book call'd A Shield of Truth, hath these words, viz. That he denies all Baptism, but that of the holy Ghost and Fire: See page 12. Another of them in a Book call'd Truths Defence against refined Subtilty, hath these words: he being asked, Whether Christ did com­mand his Disciples to baptize with water? or, whe­ther they did baptize with water? he answers, That the querent had shewed his subtilty, in being ignorant of the Letter: alluding to that place, Matth. 28.19. But I demand, Why these perfect men cannot speak per­fect sense? for what subtilty is it for a man to be ig­norant? yet he tells his querent, he hath shewed his subtilty in being ignorant. But to the thing it self, viz. That there is no baptism, but that of the Spirit and Fire; when as the Scripture tells us of a baptism [Page 25]with water, which is also required of them that do believe. But to evade the force of the Scriptures that speak in the behalf of water-baptism, they use to say, That water-baptism did end, when other Cere­monies of the Law ended; but after the Resurre­ction of Christ, it was not to be practised.

To which I answer, That it was by Christ com­manded, after that he rose from the dead: See Mat. 28. and Mark 16.16. But if any shall say, This was to baptize with the Holy Ghost; I demand, First, Whether that this baptism was not peculiar to Christ himself, as appears by John's words, Matth. 3.11. HE (meaning Christ) shall baptize with the holy Ghost and fire?

Secondly, Whether that if the command of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. be for to command the Apostles to baptize with the holy Ghost and fire, they did ever obey it? if they did, shew when and where.

Thirdly, Whether we may not judge, that the ba­ptizing men and women in water in the Name of Christ, which the Apostles frequently did, was not in obedience to some Commission they had received from their Lord? If so,

Fourthly, Do you shew us where and when their Lord gave them a command so to do, if this of Mat. 28. and Mark 16. was not it: If you shall say, They did it in order to the peoples weaknesses, as Paul's cir­cumcising Timothy was; then I demand,

Fifthly, Whether Paul did in the Name of the Lord Jesus impose Circumcision upon Timothy? if not, How doth this parallel with the case in hand, viz. water-baptism, which Peter, Acts 10. doth command in the Name of the Lord? But if you shall say, That [Page 26]baptism with water was not commanded, but left to liberty: I demand,

Sixthly, Whether to command a thing to be done in the Lords Name, which he commands not, be not to sin, & take his Name in vain? See to this purpose Deut. 18.20. But the Prophet that shall presume to speak a word in my Name, which I have not commanded him to speak, &c. even the same Prophet shall dye.

Seventhly, And whereas it is alledged, That wa­ter-baptism is a thing of indifferency, that may be done, or lawfully left undone; I demand, Whether it was not then as great a sin in Peter, Acts 10. to com­mand the doing of it in the Name of the Lord, as it was for men to forbid to marry, or to command to ab­stain from meats, 1 Tim. 4.2, 3. seeing that to com­mand the doing of that which God hath left to liber­ty, is a sin of equal extent with the forbidding of that he hath left to liberty?

Eighthly, But if it shall be said (as sometimes it is) That they in the Primitive Times did receive wa­ter-baptism, because they had a command immediate­ly so to do, and therefore we are not to be baptized till so commanded: I answer, First, how will this be proved, that all they that were then-baptized, were so commanded? is not the contrary to this easily made manifest, from Acts 2. and Acts 8. and many other places, where the people were mediately, by means of the Apostles preaching, put upon this duty, and not by extraordinary Revelations?

But to the main Question, and that is this, Whe­ther or no that this very Principle doth not lay all o­ther Precepts waste, and excuse the observance of them till I am immediately inspired thereto? I believe, if a [Page 27]man did owe a Quaker a sum of money, he would be loth to be served as he would have men serve Christ: As for instance, Suppose I did owe James Nayler a sum of money; and he should desire me to pay him, and should urge this Scripture, Owe nothing to any man, as an argument to perswade me to pay him; what if I should say, It is true, James, this was a command to them that could witness it in themselves; and when by an immediate power they were inspired to the ob­servance of it, then they were to do it; but till then they did not sin in omitting of it: and therefore when I can witness this Text within me, I will pay thee thy money: Do you think they would count this fair dealing? yet in this manner would they have men deal with the commands of our Lord Jesus: and the truth of it is, this evasion of the command of ba­ptism doth as forcibly evade all other Precepts in the whole Bible. By this the Reader may see, that these men would make the commands of God of none effect by their tradition.

The sixteenth Errour that I shall insist upon, is, 16 ErrorThat though they say they are perfect, yet they are inconsistent with themselves; as appears, First, in as much as they make it their daily practice to preach, That every man in the world hath a light within him, according to that Text, John 1. And yet one of their Scribes asketh a Minister of the Nation, Whether he had that light which doth lighten every one that comes into the world See for this a book of theirs cal'd Truths defence, p.3? Oh horrible blindness! Did ever any man in his right wits ever ask such a question; having over and over asserted, that every man hath that light spo­ken of John: 1, and yet to ask a man, Whether he hath that light spoken of John 1. Surely this man did not [Page 28]understand, that the party of whom he demanded the question, was a man, or else he was not of age to un­derstand, that universals do include all particulars of their species; and yet these are the men that witness perfection. Let me tell thee, Reader, whoever thou art, that these men are the saddest spectacles of Gods Spi­ritual Judgements, that ever any Age hath heard of: And surely, if ever any people were given up to be­lieve a lye, these are the men: for was it ever heard of, that a man should profess to be immediately sent of God, and to be infallibly guided by him, and to have attained to perfection, as these would have it, and yet not know common sense? What think ye, if after Paul had told the Athenians, Acts 17. that God did give to all life and breath, if afterwards he should ask the Areopagite, Whether God had given him life and breath? Do you think he would ever have cleaved to Paul, as the 34 Verse of the aforesaid Chapter, doth declare he did? and yet such are the injudicious mindes that many in our dayes are given up to, that though an Angel from heaven should detect their vanity, yet some would resolve to be vain.

A second instance of their inconsistency, is, That though they say the letter of the Scripture is carnal, as appears by a Book of theirs call'd Sauls Errand to Damascus; yet, for the justifying of their conceited New-light, they make use of the first of John, and many other Texts in the letter, though therein they stretch it beyond its line.

But further, at another time they say, That it is a sign of a dark minde, to think the Scriptures should have an­other meaning See a Book of theirs cal'd Truths De­fence, p. 1.. And yet in the Book call'd, Sauls Er­rand to Damascus, they say, The letter is carnal: and yet [Page 29]for all this, a little before in the same book, they say, He that raiseth Spirit out of it, is a Conjurer; as I have already mentioned upon another occasion.

What miserable confusion is here? doth this look like perfection? One while the letter is carnal, and another while its conjury to raise Spirit out of it; and another while its a sign of a dark minde, to think the Scriptures should have another meaning; and ano­ther while they will give other meanings to them, then what is exprest in the letter.

A third instance of their inconsistency, (and by which, all that I have said is justified) is, That though they say they own the Scriptures, and will talk a few words sometimes in their behalf; yet one of them said in a book call'd Truths Defence, pag. 2. in answer to Parson Camelford of Stavely-Chappel, That he might as well have condemned the Scriptures to the fire to be burned, as his Quares that be sent unto him; or, that he might as well have said the sayings of Christ and his Apostles were absurd, as to say those Quares were absurd, they (meaning his Quaeres) being given forth by the same Spirit the Scri­ptures were.

A fourth instance of their inconsistency, is, That one William Tomlinson, in a book of his call'd A word of Reproof, p. 11. doth blame the Ministers, for praying before or after Sermon, and saith, What, did Christ or his Apostles fall short of what they ought to do, and leave it to you to mend it? And yet in other cases we must not follow Christ's and the Apostles example; and yet he would bring them to disprove the lawfulness of praying before or after Sermon, because they did not so.

But further, he inveighs against the Ministers for so [Page 30]doing; yet one of their own Merlins prayed after Ser­mon, at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate, before hun­dreds of people. I pray judge, if any thing of this look like perfection: nay, are not these things Strong symptomes of the greatest degrees of defection, that can befal the sons of men?

Now I come to the next Errour, 17 Error and that is, They study and devise deceitful terms, that look with two faces, like the Oracles of the heathen Gods, that they may the better effect their deceits: as for instance, one of them, namely, Farnworth, being charged by Hen: Haggar and Tho: Pollard, for saying, Paul was not converted, when be spake those words in the 7 to the Ro­mans, where be cries out of a Body of Death: To this they answer in a printed book, call'd Scriptures freed from Scandals, pag. 12 & 13. That there is not such an Affir­mative in the whole Book. Now mark: the charge is a Negative Proposition, viz. That Paul was not con­verted when he spake those words in the 7 of the Ro­mans, concerning a Body of death; they answer, That there is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book.

Reader, had these words fallen from the mouth of a man that were conscious of his imperfection, Cha­rity would have taught me to have over-look'd them; but now I cannot: for such a speech as this, either ar­gues the speaker to be imperfect, and so discovers his deceit, in saying he is perfect; else if he be perfect (as believe it who's will) how could such a thing fall from his pen? and on the other hand, if he understood what he writ, then it follows, that he writ that to rescue himself from the force of the charge, that so sim­ple people, that know not a Negative from an Affirma­tive, [Page 31]might think he was not guilty of such a charge; by his saying, There is not such an Affirmative in the whole Book.

But Oh the impudence of these men, that dare to say, That one might as well burn the Scriptures, as their Papers; when, if the Scriptures had let fall Ne­gatives in stead of Affirmatives, and Affirmatives in stead of Negatives, how could they have been for our learning, upon whom the ends of the world are come? I dare challenge all men in the world, either Quaker, Atheist, or Anti-Scripturalist, to shew me such a piece of Non-sense from any of the Pen-men of old, who were inspired by the holy Spirit. Who will believe that these mens tongues and pens are infallible Ora­cles, that know not I from No, and that put Nay in stead of Yea: for is it not the same? he is charged for saying, Paul was not converted, and he saith, There is no such Affirmative in his whole Book: but then it seems there is such a negative; and if so, then how dare they call those honest servants of Christ lyers, viz. H:Haggar, and Tho: Pollard? By this you may see, that these are the greatest Seducers that these latter Times have produced; and the Lord grant, that these things that I do bring to thy minde concerning them, may be as warnings to you that stand, to take heed left you fall; and you that know God, delight to glorifie him, left he give you over to a reprobate minde, to do the things that are not covenient: Take heed there fore, and be warned of turning the truth of God into a lye (as these men have done) left God in his Justice give you up to believe a lye.

The next thing I have to present the Reader with, 18 Erroris, their Lying: and that, first, in saying, They are per­fect; [Page 32]when all the fore-cited imperfections are found in them, besides many more, as shall be named.

The second Lye is, that they say, They are immediate­ly sent of God; which nothing is more false.

The third Lye is, That one Fox writ a book, and in the Title-page said, The world did not know his Name; and yet in two several places of the said Book, he sub­scribes himself, Known by the Name of GEORGE FOX.

The fourth Lye is, That one Edward Boroughs said, His Book was sealed by the Spirit of the Eternal God: and being demanded to prove it, he asked, If any thing he writ in it was false? it was replyed to him again, If he proved that God sealed his Book, we would believe all that was in it: which I am sure he can never do while the world stands.

A fifth Lye is, That James Nayler in a written Pa­per which he sent to me, calls me shameless man, for tempting him to deny the Lord: when I said no such thing; but that I did say, & to which he alludes in his Paper, was, That either he should prove he was immediately sent of God, as he profest, or else that he should re­nounce it: and thereupon he calls me shameless man, in tempting him to deny the Lord.

A sixth Lye is, That James Nayler in the said Paper saith, If he had come in his own Name, I would have re­ceived him, as (he saith) I did plainly confess. I do be­lieve this man hath bent his tongue like a Bowe for lyes: for I dare appeal to all the company (which I believe were at least two hundred) if I said any such thing.

A seventh Lye is, that being charged with writing such falsities in his Paper, by a friend that read it, [Page 33]and knew what was in it, he (at a Meeting at the Bull and Mouth at Aldersgate in London) did utterly deny it; and while the said friend ran from them to my house (which is not farre) to fetch the said Paper, to prove that he had writ those untruths that he had charged Nayler with, in the mean time he slips away, and was gone. If these are tokens of perfection, sure one may as well say the Devil is perfect: but sure if these men are perfect in any thing, it is in the art of decei­ving, lying, and equivocation.

These are but few of those legions of Lyes and In­consistencies that their Writings and Preachings are stust withall, as the judicious may perceive, that will but strictly weigh what they either write on speak, in the balance of the Sanctuary.

Having now been in the place of a Respondent, to shew the Fallacies, and Non-sequiturs, and absurd Contradictions of the Arguments that these men bring for their Quakings and Infallible Preachings; together with other their vain Conceits of the Scri­ptures, and of the Ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ: I shall now assert something briefly by way of opposition to these mens conceits, and endeavor the proof thereof from Scripture and Reason, as God shall enable me.

And first of all, I shall affirm, That the written Precepts and Promises of God, together with his Threatnings of Judgements, and Exhortations to a­mendment of life, they are, and ought to be esteemed the Words of God.

That his written Commands may and ought to be so called, I prove from Mark 7.10. for Moses said, Honour thy Father and Mother, &c. which was the wri­ting [Page 34]of Moses, Exod. 20.12. And Christ saith, their making this written Law of none effect, in doing nothing for their Father or Mother, was To MAKE THE WORD OF GOD of none effect by their Tradition, John 10.35. and Jer. 36.2, 5. And Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, all the WORDS OF THE LORD: and ver. 8. He was reading in a BOOK the WORDS OF THE LORD. Again, the Apo­stle calls the Law of Moses, which contained Pre­cepts, Promises, Threatnings, and Exhortations, The Oracles or WORDS OF GOD, Rom. 3.2. But it is objected, The written Word did not make the World. To which I answer, That if they mean the Ink and Pa­per, we make one minde with them. But yet further I reply, That the same God whose Word made the World, and whose Word preserves the Fabrick of the World, did speak those words that are written, for the admonition of the World; and therefore they may truly be call'd Gods Words, according to the fore-cited Scriptures, and many other that may be named.

Again, it is objected, That the Word of God a­bides for ever, but the Writings may be burned: To which I answer, That this doth not prove that which they would have, viz. That the Commands contained in the Scriptures, may be burned, or any of Gods Promises to him that sears him, or his Judge­ments upon them that do not fear him: No, these re­main like Mount Sion, that shall not be removed: As for example, the Words of God were writ upon Ta­bles of Stone; yet the breaking of the Tables did not put a dissolution to those words that were contained in them, but they were as truly to be observed, as if the Tables had been whole.

Reader, I should not urge these as arguments to those that disown the Scriptures in words at length; but sure I am, that they will serve to confute these men, that in words own them, yet in works deny them.

Again, I prove the Scriptures as aforesaid to be the VVord of God out of their own mouthes, though it may be they may deny the consequent: for they, though they deny them to be the VVord of God, yet they say they are a declaration of his Minde and VVill.

VVhence I thus argue, That which declares Gods VVill, is Gods VVord: But the Scriptures declare Gods VVill; Ergo, it is Gods VVord. The major I prove out of their own mouthes; for they all say, that Nothing can inlighten but the Word; and, that Nothing can bring us to know Gods Minde, but the Word: though it may be they mean somewhat else by Word then I do, yet that matters not: for, if nothing can manifest Gods Minde, but Gods VVord, and the Scriptures by their own confession do so; then it follows, That by their own Principles (if they have any) that the Scriptures may be so called, though in words at length they do deny it. By which you may see, how misera­bly these men contradict themselves, in saying, The Scriptures are not Gods Word, and yet say, They are a declaration of his Will: when at another time they say, Nothing can declare Gods Will, but his Word; which they say the Scripture is not.

Secondly, I do assert, That the Light which every man hath, doth not direct him into the worship and service of God: and though Christ be the true Light, that inlightens every man that comes into the world, or that doth that which in its nature and property hath such a [Page 36]tendency; for so the Scriptures speak sometimes, Ezek. 24.14. Because I have purged thee, and thou wast; not purged; that is (as if God had said) I have done that which was sufficient for thy purgation; And the like in Joh. 1.29. Christ is called, The Lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world; though he that be­lieves not, shall dye in his sins: the meaning then must not be, that every man hath his sins pardoned. In like manner then when the same pen saith, that as he ta­keth away the sins of the world, ver. 29. so he doth in­lighten every one that comes into the world, ver. 9. which is as much as if he had said, Jesus Christ by his bles­sed mediation, hath done that which is able to effect pardon of sins for the world, and which also is able to inlighten and inform the world into the knowledge of it: How then doth this Text prove, That every man hath this Light within him, any more then the other Texts proves every mans sins were took away? the latter of which, themselves will not allow.

But further, if every man hath received this Light, Joh. 1. then every man hath received Christ: for he is that Light, ver. 9.

But every man hath not received Christ: Ergo.

The minor I prove from the 11 ver. of the same Chapter; He came to his own, and his own received him not; and the Builders were said to refuse him, Matth. 21.42. and many other places: But if they shall think to be relieved at this turn with this distinction, viz. That it is one thing to have the Light, and another thing to receive it: Then I demand, If this Light was not received, how can it be in all men, unless they are born with it? Secondly, whether men HAVE ANY THING, but what they have RECEIVED, accord­ing [Page 37]to I Cor. 4.7. especially any Light or Knowledge of Jesus Christ. Lastly, whether the Scriptures do make a distinction between a mans having the Spirit of Christ, or the Light of Christ within him; and his receiving Christ, and receiving of the Spirit within him, or in his heart, as the Apostle phrases it, Rom. 8.

But to proceed: Doth not the Scripture say, John 11.10. That He that walks in the dark stumbles, because there is NO LIGHT in him? And Isa. 8.20. If they speak not according to this rule, it is because there is NO LIGHT in them? and yet these say, Every man in the world hath the Light within him, spoken of John 1. which Light is Christ.

Thirdly, In opposition to another of their Er­rours, I shall prove, That the day of Judgement is not past; which I prove thus:

If the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the Fire of that Judgement-day, then is it not past al­ready: But the Heavens and the Earth are reserved to the fire of that day; therefore that day is not past already.

The major is unquestionable: For if they are yet kept from the fire of that day, and are reserved to the fire of it; then it followeth, That none bath seen that day, because the Heavens have not felt the heat of it. The minor is proved out of 2 Pet. 3.7.

Again, if the day of the perdition of the ungodly be not past, then the day of Judgement is not: But the day of the perdition of the ungodly is not; there­fore the day of Judgement is not.

Again, if in that day all must give account of the deeds done in the body, and there are thousands, and [Page 38]ten thousands that have not given an account; then it follows, that the day of Judgement is not past: But there are thousands, and ten thousands that have not given an account of the deeds done in the body; therefore the day of Judgement is not past al­ready.

Again, if the day of Judgement be past already, then the Resurrection is past already: But the Resur­rection is not past already; Ergo.

The major I prove from John 5.29.

The minor I prove thus: In the Resurrection they neither marry, nor give in marriage: But now men do both; therefore they are not in the Resurrection.

Fourthly, They say, There is no Baptism but that of the Spirit. In opposition to which, I do affirm a Baptism with water; which I prove from Mark 16.16. and Matth. 28.19. Act 2.38, 41. & 8.3, 6. & 10.4, 7. And that the baptism here comman­ded was water-baptism, it appears by what I have already said, by way of Reply to this notion: Also the Scripture tells us, Heb. 6. of the Doctrine of BAPTISMS. And whereas it is objected, That the Scripture tells us of one Lord, and one Baptism: I answer, First, this is not exclusive; for there are Lords many; yet he saith, There is but one Lord Jesus: So in like manner we reade of divers baptisms; as of water, and afflictions, and the holy Ghost: yet there is but one properly so call'd, to wit, That of water, and the other are metaphorical baptisms.

Fifthly, That the Lord Christ did administer bread and wine, in token of his blood-shedding and body­breaking; which they deny: This I prove from Mai. 26.27, 28. where Christ did use both bread and wine upon that occasion: and that the Apostles did so, ap­pears from 1 Cor. 11.23. where he saith, That that [Page 39]which he received of the Lord, he did deliver unto them, how that Christ when he was betrayed, took bread: and ver. 25. In like manner (saith the Apostle) he took the Cup when he had supped, &c. All which shew, That bread and wine was instituted by Christ, and practised by the Primitive Christians, in remembrance of the dy­ings of the Lord Jesus.

Sixthly, That civil honour and respect is due to some persons more then other; which they deny: First, from the childe to the father, as Exod. 20.12. Eph. 6.2. Secondly, from the wise to the husband, Eph. 5.33. and 1 Pet. 3.6. Sarah obeyed Abraham, and called him LORD. Thirdly, this is due from servants to their Masters, 1 Tim. 6.1. Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their Masters worthy of All honour, &c. Fourthly, it is due from young solks to the aged, Levit. 19.32. Thou shalt rise up before the boary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: or as Beza hath it, Thou shalt honour the PERSON of the old man. Fifthly, this respect is due to persons in Authority; as not onely the Apostle exhorts, I Pat. 2.17. but as Paul himself practiseth (as I have said) when he calls Festw, Most Noble: and our Lord Christ notes the unjust Judge for one that did not reverence man, Luke 18.2. and yet the Quakers make it a note of their infallible Ministery, that they do not reve­rence men; when Christ makes it a character of a wicked man. This was urged by James Nayler at the Bull and Mouth near Aldersgate, viz. That their not re­specting persons, was a sign they were immediately sent of God, as I have already minded.

Again, was not Jacob a faithful man, and doth not the Scripture say, that he called Esau LORD, Gen. 32.18. [Page 40]Gen. 33.13, 14, 15. And Luke calls Theophilus, Luk. 1.3. Most Noble Theophilus: And Christ himself bids his Disciples, Not to covet the uppermost rooms at feasts, lest a MORE HONORABLE person come in, and then they be bid sit lower, Luke 14.8. By all this you may see, that though we must not respect persons in Judgement, or do any thing for a rich man, because he is rich, with­out respect had to the equity of the cause; or give flattering Titles to men, to whom it is not due, as to call one Master, and say, I am his Servant, when I owe him no service: yet this doth not hinder, but a man may and ought to acknowledge himself a Servant, when he is really and truly so: And though it be flat­tery to give Titles that are not due; yet it is a duty to give them where and when they are due.

Seventhly, they are not Infallible, as they pretend: This I prove, because if one propose a question to one of them, he shall give one answer; propose the same to another, he shall give another answer, quite con­trary to the former: and so if you shall go on to a fourth or fifth, not one of five, nay (I dare say) not one of ten shall give the same answer with the first: and yet sometimes these men do make the harmony that is among them, an argument that they are infal­lible; when no Trumpet that sounds forth any thing of Religion to the world, gives a more uncertain sound then theirs. And truly, I know nothing wherein they were ever so well agreed, as they were office at their Meetings in Kent, wherein they all agreed to meet to­gether many times, and said nothings Truly, if this dumb spirit had alwayes been among them, it had been happy for many thousand souls in this Nation, who are now miserably deluded with their fair words.

Eighthly, I shall further prove, in opposition to another Errour of theirs, That Christ had, and yet hath, another Body besides his Church: And my first Argument is this, viz. If Christ had a Body that was broken for his Church, then he had a Body be­sides the Church: But he had a Body that was broken for his Church; Ergo.

The major is unquestionable; or else Christ gave the Church to be broken for the Church, if he had no Body besides the Church; which is absurd.

The minor is proved from Matth. 26.26. Luke 22.19. where Christ saith of his Body, that it was broken for them. By this you may see, these men either cannot or will not distinguish between the Body of Christ, which is glorified in the Heavens, and the Church of Christ, which is his Mystical Body upon Earth, and who (if they continue faithful) shall have their vile bodies made like unto his glorious body; according to that of the Apostle, Phil. 3.21.

Thus, Reader, thou hast an account of a sew of those many vain Errours that are profest by this ge­neration of men, who go up and down to subvert whole houses, and congregations, and to pervert the right and straight wayes of the Lord. But I hope the Lord will put a stop to these mens careers, that they may proceed no further, that their folly may be made manifest unto all, that every one may take heed, that he be not led away wit the errour of the wic­ked, and fall from his own stedfastness.

I shall now proceed to shew the Reader, that these conceits, though they are newly risen among us, yet they were such wherewith the Churches of Christ have been pester'd, even in the Primitive Times; and that [Page 42]not onely in the dayes of the Apostles, but in the A­ges following, wherein men did rise up, and say, They were sent of God; and afterwards grew into such Blasphemous Opinions, as these men are now fallen into; some saying, They are the Eternal Judges of the World; others saying, The Day of Judgement is past; O­thers saying, They have Divine Revelations; others say­ing, They are Christs; and, That they are the Way, the Truth, and the Life, &c.

And that these men do agree with most of the He­reticks both Ancient and Modern, I shall mention some few among the rest.

As first, they have affinity with Hymeneus and Phi­letus, who said, That the Resurrection was past already, 1 Tim. 2.18. in that they (as I have already shewn) say, The Day of Judgement is past already.

Secondly, they have affinity with the Gnostici, which said, They knew all things: See Epiphan. Haeres. 26. So say these men: and thereupon one of them, name­ly, Farnworth, being asked, If he knew what two men spake one to another, being apart from them? he an­swered, That though he did know, yet he was not bound to answer the question, because (saith he) it is an unbeliever that, asketh it. Again, they agree with the fore-cited He­reticks, inasmuch as they taught, That Christ did not take flesh really, but in a figure; so say these; for one of them being asked this question, answers, That Christ was but a figure: See Sauls Errand to Damascus, pag. 54.

Thirdly, they have affinity with the Manichees, whose Ring-leader Manes, call'd himself, The Com­forter, and said, He was Christ, Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 30. So do some of their Teachers, saying, They are the Way, Truth, and Life.

Fourthly, they have affinity with the great Here­tick Seleucus, who denied the Humanity of Christ to be in Heaven, and Water-baptism: He lived in the time of Theodosius Magnus. See August. lib. de Haeres. Both which Errours are maintained by the Quakers, though they are repugnant to holy Scriptures.

Fifthly, they have affinity with the Papists, in the great Master-veins of Popery: As 1. the Papists do introduce all their vain conceits by this Maxime, That the Church cannot Erre: and from thence it is, that the Quakers do usher in all their Dreams, viz. That they are perfect, and cannot erre. 2. The Papists do make the writings of their General Councels of equal Au­thority with holy Scripture: So do the Quakers make their pernicious Pamphlets. And at this they exceed the Papists; for the Papist will not say, That none of their Priests have erred; neither will they say, That the Writings of any particular man (except the Pope) is Infallible: but these Quakers say, That their Writings are of equal Authority with hely Scriptures, al­though they are the private conceptions of either par­ticular men or womens brains. 3. They agree with the Papist Priests, in that they would make the outside of their conversations, an argument to demonstrate the truth of their Apostolical sending. In like manner (as I have formerly said) James Nayler and Boroughs, and divers others of their false Apostles, be­ing asked, How they could prove they were sent of God? answered, That their lives did make it manifest, be­cause they denied themselves in point of Apparel, &c. By this it appears, that the Quakers are compounded with most of the grossest Errours that the Church of old were incumbred withall.

Sixthly, and lastly, they do in many of their fore-mentioned Errours, agree with their lorefathers the Familists, who were great perverters of the right wayes of the Lord in the dayes of Luther, and Cal­vin, especially in the Netherlands, and many places in Germany; as these are in our dayes (to our grief we may speak it) in many places in England.