I Have received your Papers, bea­ring date May 25. which are stufft with much wrath, and more confusion. Plain dealing I perceive is a great stranger with you, for that you give it such course entertainment when it cometh within your doors: So accustomed are you to the cap and the knee, to greetings in the Market­place, and to be called of men Rabbi; that he is presently be­come your enemy, who durst (without a complement) tell [Page 2]you the naked truth: Such smooth things as you Prophesie to the People, you expect from others, but to have a Lie, Deceit, or Hypocrisie, called by their proper names, must be at least rayling and reviling. But (be you pleased or be you more angry) I must yet deal more plainly with you; for terrible is the Lord to all flatterers, and such as speak de­ceitfully to their neighbours.

And first I shall begin with the Proem to your Papers.

I am sorry that what others will think good coun­sell, hath been so ill bestowed on you; when you have got more piety and humility, you will have other thoughts; and when you have recovered your civility, you will write other Letters.

That counsell that directeth my minde towards the true counsellour (though from the lips of my man-servant or my maid-servant) I dare not despise: but counsell against truth (under the affrighting notion of error) I esteem not good. Piety, humility, and civility, it seems I have lost: But why? Because I did not swallow down what you first writ me, as unquestionable Oracles of Heaven, but proved what you sent me by the Scriptures of truth, and from them bore my testimony against your deceit. This is no judging from you, presently to conclude that man a brute (for so he is that hath lost piety, humility, and civility) that doth not presently bow down and cry Hosanna to the mutable directi­ons of the Pulpit.

I confesse I have been something put to it to deter­mine whether I should say any thing to you or no.

Truly as good you had said nothing as to no pur­pose: neither were you more put to it, then I have been, what to make my reply to, in your last Papers; so full are they of confusion, falshood, contradictions, impertinences, and grosse absurdities, as herein after will be made manifest to any that are sober minded: And had I not received them signed with your name, I should rather have judged them compiled by some old superstitious Episcopall Priest, then by one that professeth himselfe a Minister of the Gospel, and an emminent Doctor of the times.

I shall say something to the matter of your Letter, the rather because in some parts of it you pretend to reason; though much of it be stufft with that clamor, which is the character of that company with which you close.

To tell a Clergy-man of his wickednesse in plain­nesse of speech, is clamor: Were not Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Micha, clamorous fellowes, that durst cry out against the abominations of the false Prophets, and wicked Priests of their times? If this be such a black character that rendreth my Companions unlovely in your eyes, I shall yet choose those who are more unlovely. As the fear of God and working of righteousnes, are the character of such whom he accepteth, so are they of those with whom I close: But as for those that cry the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, and yet have their hands full of unrighteousnesse, that Preach to others the things that themselves contradict in their practice, with such I desire to have no fellowship.

In defence of whom you bring the examples of Moses, and Ezekiel; but though such men quaked occasio­nally now and then (as Gods servants still doe) yet you doe not finde that they received a denomination from it, or made a trade of it.

I brought nothing in defence of those whom you intend; I onely quoted my own practice, and the reason of it (viz.) that I did close with such as (from a principle of holy fear) did tremble before the great God of Heaven and Earth; such as were Moses, Ezekiel, and other holy men of God mentioned in Scripture. And was this that which nee­ded a defence? Are you so fierce an Antagonist against such as tremble at the word of the Lord (as Moses and Ezekiel did) that they need be defended against your rage? I doubt not but if Moses and Ezekiel were now living, they would finde the same measure at your hands, as they did at the hands of the false Prophets of old; since they that walk in their steps, need a defence against your fury. It sufficeth for me that you grant the thing that I intended, (viz) That the servants of God of old did, and still occasionally doe quake and tremble before the Lord. But you say they received no deno­mination [Page 4]from it, nor made a trade of it.

Did I ever assert either of these things? if not, whom doe you contradict? to what end doe you produce such pittifull stuffe as this? for my part I cannot imagine what you could intend by it, unlesse it were to fill up paper, and keep your pen in action. What would you conclude thence? unlesse you would reason thus, Because they that now trem­ble at the word of the Lord, as Moses and Ezekiel did, are by the world in scorne called Quakers, therefore trembling at the word of the Lord is a hatefull thing. Because we read that the Disciples from their faith in Christ, and profession of his name received the denomination of Christians, can that be brought as an argument against faith in Christ, and a serious profession of his name? And as for making a trade of trem­bling, or quaking, I never mentioned any such thing, neither doe I understand what you intend by this impertinency of speech, unlesse to reproach those that dayly walk low in the fear of the Lord; and if so, I say to you, let the scorner cease to scorne, lest the dreadfull day of the Lord overtake him un­awares, and give him his portion with scorners in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. Sure I am that you never read that the holy men of God of old made a trade of Preaching as you and other men doe, who (just as the handi­crafts man maketh his wares and exposeth them to sale in the Market, so you) doe compile your Sermons, gathering a shread out of one Author, and a shread out of another, and thereunto add your own inventions, and then sell them unto the people for money, some for one hundred, some for two hundred, others for three hundred pound per annum, accor­ding as you can make your Market.

So much of the Proem to your Papers: Now to your rea­sonings, and arguings.

And first you begin with the Scriptures; quoting this as one of the detestable Doctrines of those called Quakers, that they say that the Scriptures are not the Saints rule, con­trary you say to these Scriptures, Gal. 6.16. James 2.8. Deut. 5.32, 33. 2 Pet. 1.19. to which you say I make an­swer, that no Scripture that I remember saith so in ter­minis, [Page 5]and therefore its a false charge.

That which I said was, that I did not finde the Scripture in terminis, so called, in either of those you quoted, and therefore you charged them falsly in saying they reject the Scriptures, because they deny that which the Scriptures never said. In which I said truth: for he that chargeth ano­ther man with the denyall of Scripture, because, he denyeth that which the Scripture no where faith, I say he chargeth him falsly. Now let any man of a sober understanding judge whe­ther any of those Scriptures you produce doe speak any such thing as you would have them to speak, and consequently whether you are not found bearing false witnesse, of which you accuse others.

But you reply three things to salve this mistake.

That is Scripture which is necessarily deduced from it, though it be not in so many words contained in it; to prove which you produce the example of Christ, who pro­ved the Resurrection of the dead from that Scripture, I am the God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob.

So then you grant the thing that I said (viz.) that the Scripture in words doe not say any such thing, and therefore you appeal from the expresse Scripture to your own conse­quences and deductions thence which you make the lame shift (when the Scripture will not help you any longer) by which to patronize all your miscarriages, and deviations from the truth. Here is the refuge that all the blinde guides of the Na­tion make to themselves, when as they are driven by plaine Scripture from their strong holds, and cannot stand before that which they pretend to be their rule, they fly to their own meanings, and interpretations; and whoso durst not own them for infallible rules are presently sentenced to be Here­ticks, and deceivers, and denyers of Scripture. But will you indeed stand to what you have said (viz.) that that is Scrip­ture which is necessarily deduced from it, though it be not in so many words contained in it? Then let me ask you, and many others in this Nation, who have been Teachers, some tenne, some twenty, some thirty years; were those things that you have taught so many years together necessarily de­duced [Page 6]from Scriptures? if not, then by your own confession, you have taught falshood: if they were, then all that you have so taught is infallible; for you say it is Scripture, and the Scripture is infallible; and dare you say that what hath been so Preached by them and you, for these twenty years past, hath been infallible? why doe you not then adjoyne all your Sermons to the Scripture, for if necessarily deduced thence, they are Scripture, and a part of the Saints rule: But what a sad condition would many poor soules be in, whose small estates would not amount to the purchase of a Bible? so voluminous would it be by that time, all the necessary de­ductions that you and others have made from the Scripture these many years past, were added to it they must sit down in despaire of ever obtaining that which is their rule, and if they could, what have they but a pack of confusion and con­tradictions.

And whereas you quote Christ his proving the Resurrecti­on of the dead, &c.

I answer, that what Christ spake was infallible, he nei­ther did nor could erre in what he said; and were you as infallible in those meanings and interpretations which you force upon the Scriptures, as he was in what he spake from the Spirit of the Lord, I should readily close with them as the Oracles of God; but till then, think it not much, that I em­brace his interpretations, and disowne yours. But how long will you deal thus fraudulently with the world, in crying out against such as deny your meanings, as if they denyed the Scriptures, and yet dare not say you are infallible in the mea­nings you give of them? Either say to the people plainly that you are infallible (if you so esteem your selves) that so they may minde so great a concernment of their soules, as is the receiving of your deductions from Scripture for true Doctrine, nay for Scripture it selfe; or else say you are (what indeed you are sufficiently) fallible, that so they may take liberty of proving both your actions, and your Doctrine, and not be damned as Hereticks, if they condemn that in you, which the Scriptures of truth doe condemn. Suffer therefore them that must die for themselves, and account to the Lord [Page 7]for themselves, to interpret for themselves, and believe for themselves; and not tell them they must credit your deducti­ons from Scripture as the Scripture it self, when as you that call your selves Divines doe so much disagree in your own de­ductions. Take six of you that esteem your selves the most able Doctors, and a portion of Scripture being given you to interpret, shut your selves up in six severall roomes, and after some time, give your interpretations thereof, to one that shall receive them from each of you apart from the rest, and per­haps not two of the six shall agree in the same interpretation: and would you have poor people adventure their soules on the truth of such mens deductions from Scripture, who dwell in such vast confusion, and difference, in their de­ductions.

Next you urge that Scripture, Deut. 5.32, 33. (viz.) You shall not turne aside to the right hand or to the left.

And doth this Scripture say that the Scripture is the Saints rule? or can you without blushing produce it to prove any such thing? could Moses intend this in relation to the Scripture, the greatest part of which was not then writ­ten? was all, or any of those things that were said, and done, by the Prophets, Jesus Christ, and the severall Apostles, then recorded? if not, what a manifest wresting is it of Moses words, to say that by them, he mea'nt, that which was not written, till severall hundreds of years after? unlesse you ex­clude all the Prophesies, the sayings of Jesus Christ, and the Epistles of the severall Apostles, from being part of the rule, which I suppose you dare not doe, in word, though you doe in a great measure in your practice.

Add here unto that Gal. 6.16. the word rule ( [...]) is expressed

Because the word rule is expressed in Pauls Epistle to the Galathians, therefore the Scripture is the Saints rule? Is this reasoning like to such as should come from a Minister of the Gospel? May not a Heathen Philosopher reason as logically thus, the word [...], ( Anglice a Rule) is used in Aristotles polliticks, therefore Aristotles polliticks are the Saints rule? If you did indeed live by that rule the Apostle [Page 8]there speaketh of, (viz.) the new Creature) you would not write and act so irregularly as you doe.

Saints must walk by one rule or another. I ask then, what rule is there if Scripture be not the rule, &c.

I know no new rule, nor own none but the same that Abel, Encch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, and the rest of the holy men of God walked by; to which I much fear you are a great stranger, for if the tree may be known by its fruit, your fruits declare a great deal of ignorance thereof. And by the same touchsone that those holy men proved the light they walked by, whether it were of God or no, the same and no other doe I own still.

Next you spend time in taking exceptions against a word inserted in a Querie I put you, which was this.

Because they deny them to be the Saints rule, doth it fol­low they wholly reject them? To which you answer.

That (wholly) was not my word, it's of your own putting in, and therefore if you doe not like it you must thank your selfe. That that I said was that the Quakers in this and their other Doctrins, though they doe not professedly reject the Scriptures yet really they doe.

I did not say it was your word, I only put it in a question to you: And therefore by way of just retortion I may say to you, you have made work for your self, and please your self with descanting upon it when you have done; yet let any sober understanding judge, whether your speech can intend any lesse then I asked you; for when you say indefi­nitely they reject the Scriptures (not quoting any particu­lars) whether can it be any other way taken, but that they throw them off in generall: Besides, that you did intend their rejection of the whole Scripture, I prove thus. The Scripture as the Saints rule you say they reject, now whether is a part of Scripture, or the whole the Saints rule? If the whole Scrip­ture be the Saints rule, and you goe about to prove they re­ject the Scripture because they deny it to be the Saints rule; then nothing more plain then this, that they reject the whole Scripture. However we will take your own words with your [Page 9]own interpretations, by which you give us to understand, that they whom you call Quakers doe not reject the Scripture in generall. But forasmuch as you grant that they doe not re­ject the whole Scripture, and yet have not mentioned any one particular Scripture they doe reject, untill you charge them with particulars, I shall take your indefinite charge for no o­ther then a slander.

You proceed from this to charge me with censuring, be­cause I doe affirm that they doe deny the Scripture, who say in word it is the Saints rule, and yet they themselves deny it to be their own rule, by violating it in their pra­ctise.

If speaking plain truth without complement, or flattery, be censuring, I shall study to be more a censurer. And whereas you take your selfe as concerned in that which you call my censure, as reflecting in particular on you, (it seemeth there is something in your conscience cryeth guilty) you took my words as they were intended; neither would it be an unjust censure, but a true charge, if I repeat what I said in my last (Viz.) That while you talk much in word, of the Scriptures being your rule, you disown and deny them by your practise, in doing many things for which you have no rule in them at all. And let me say farther, that you that pre­tend your selves Ministers in the Nation, crying The Scrip­tures, the Scriptures, doe of all men most abuse them, by serving your lusts upon them: Where you have no Plea for your Coveteousnesse, Pride, and Formality; there you wrest the Scriptures to plead for you, putting such Interpretations on them as will best serve to Patronize your lusts; and where they doe condemne you, or crosse you in your wickednesse, there you strive to divert the stroak of them, either by silen­cing them, or fathering your own corrupt meanings upon them.

And that you and all that shall peruse this my Reply, may see that I doe neither passionately, nor groundlesly, but justly impeach you of playing fast and loose with the Scripture, I shall particularly scan your answer to two Queries I put you, the first was this.

By what rule in Scripture doe you (pretending to be a Minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ) receive Tithes for preaching?

Faithfull Ministers neither preach for Tithes, but for soules; neither doe they take Tithes for preaching, as if that were a fit exchange, or as if they would leave preaching if that were not.

The plain English of your Answer, is, That you have no rule in Scripture by which you take Tithes. Will any, save those whom the Lord hath given up to believe lyes, any longer credit you, when you shall avouch the Scripture to be your rule in words, and yet being asked what rule you have for your practice, you can quote none. Would you be estee­med such a valiant Champion in behalf of the Scripture, and yet doe that for which no rule is to be found therein? Is, this lesse then plain hypocrisy, to goe into your Pulpit (where all men lye at the mercy of your bitter tongue) and there powre out damnation on those that deny that the Scripture saith it is the Saints rule, and yet your selfe in practise disown it for your rule? But since you wave the Scripture, as that which cannot speak for you, we shall a little examine what it is that you have to speak for your self.

Faithfull Ministers, you say, doe not preach for Tithes, but for soules.

Then from your own lips I may conclude, That they that doe preach for Tithes, are not faithfull Ministers; and how few are there of those many you make mention of in the Nation, which can escape this sentence? A father put­teth his Son to the University for some certain years, to learn the Trade of Sermon-making, and when he cometh thence, what is the first thing in the eye of the father and Son? why this, where is the best vacant living, the richest Benefice to be had? When that is found out, then the young Divine must come and give the people a Sermon, as a sample of that ware he intendeth to sell them, when he is setled. The people they like not either his person or his wares, and refuse to trade with him; Away goeth father and Son, hasten to some Committee or Superior power, and there by bowing and faire speeches, [Page 11]and by the helpe of some old Practitioners in that art, they gaine that by power which they could not obtaine by the peoples consent. Being once in, to work he goes, for the Tithes of all their graine, cattle, garden fruits, and for smoke pennies, summoning such as refuse to satisfie his covetous ap­petite, before Magistrates; suing others at the Law, recove­ring of them treble dammages, casting them into Prison in case of non-paiment: and is this Preaching for Tithes or for soules? If for soules, surely it is onely to lead them down in­to the pit, by such wicked examples as these; and to make them seven fold more the children of the Devill then they were before: Besides this, how few are there of you, that call your selves Ministers, that are not as ready to chop and change your livings, as men are their cattle for outward ad­vantage? If any man die posessed of a rich Parsonage, how many of you have presently a call to it, especially if there be more plenty of Tithes, and more acres of Glebe land, then in your own Parish? then dayes of fasting and humiliation must be kept, pretending to seek God to know who hath the clea­rest call; and though you are all resolved in your hearts be­fore hand to get it if you can, yet the name of God and the prayers of some well-meaning people must be made use of by every one of you, as a cloke, least your deceite should be too plainly discovered. I know you will call this clamor, because I speak plaine truth; but for all that, I shall not spare to tell you, that it is damnable hypocrisie for a man to resolve first to remove from a mean to a rich Benefice, and then seem to consult with the Oracle whether he shall remove or no. I shall not positively charge you in particular with trading of this nature, but if report be not an egregious liar, you did stre­nuously endeavour to shew your selfe a faithfull Minister by your Preaching rather at Wells for Tithes, then at Ʋbley for soules. You say farther

Neither doe they take Tithes for Preaching, as if that were a fit exchange, or as if they would leave Prea­ching if that were not.

They take not Tithes for doing nothing, and is not Preaching the consideration for which they take them? Then [Page 12]either confesse plainly that more then four parts of five of those called Ministers are unfaithfull, because they take Tithes for Preaching, or else take shame to your selfe for asserting a thing so notoriously untrue, That they take not Tithes for Preaching; when as well nigh all the Parishes in England are witnesses against you. But in that you judge Tithes no fit ex­change for their Preaching, I say the same, for that they are just so much more then they deserve. And whereas you say they would not leave Preaching if Tithes were not; I pre­sume there are scarce two, among two thousand, through the whole Nation of your opinion in that, save onely those that are themselves Tithe-gatherers. How few are there of the Teachers of the Nation that will settle themselves in any Pa­rish untill they have made firme Indentures for their hire? is not what will you assure me of by the year the first question that is propounded? besides is there any thing more usuall then to remove from that place, where Tithes, augmentati­ons, or some equivalent maintenance ceaseth? But above all, who is he among you that will in conscience betake himselfe to a poor Parish to Preach for soules, where there are no Tithes, nor other yearly stipend to be had? And what should be the reason that among all the struglings that are among you Teachers for severall places, you are never found to strive who shall come into a Parish where you can expect no mo­ney? Neither have I ever heard that any man pretended a call to a people, who through meanesse of estate, could give him but a mean, or no reward. So that, it is more then pro­bable that that vote which shall ever throw down Tithes, will strike well nigh as many in this Nation dumb, as Sampson did of the Philistims strike dead, by removing the pillars of the house of Dagon their God.

Ministers take Tithes because that for the present is the maintenance alotted them, which they may justly claime and lawfully take.

But by whom are they alotted them? not by Jesus Christ whom they pretend to be their Lord; and therefore they ought not to take them, much lesse can they justly claim them: neither doe the Scriptures you bring at all give coun­tenance [Page 13]to them that doe wickedly extort from the people Tithes for their maintenace: You doe not read that Paul forced a maintenance from any, nor that he dregged any be Courts of Justice, and Committees, or took any poor men by the throats, who had great families to maintaine, threat­ning them with bonds if they would not give them the tenth part of all their labours. Let all that fear the Lord judge whe­ther you are not condemned out of your own mouth, when as you say in word the Scripture is your rule, and yet thus trample it under foot by your practice.

Whether he that receiveth Tithes for Preaching do not deny Christ to be come in the flesh?

When you prove that the taking a maintenance from the fruits of the Earth, in that proportion, was a shadow whereof Christ was the body, you say some­thing, &c.

Your impertinent Answer doth intimate, that I have said something more already in my Querie, then you know well what to say to; otherwise I presume you would not so shamefully wave it. This I doe say which is according to the Scriptures of truth, That the Lord of old appointed Tithes as an inheritance to the Priests and Levites for their service in the Tabernacle, and the Temple; which being con­sidered, let me ask you three things.

• 1 Qu: Whether Christ was not the end of the Leviticall Priesthood?
• 2 Qu: Whether he that upholdeth that which was to have an end in Christ, doth not deny Christ to be come in the flesh, and consequently is Antichrist?
• 3 Qu: Whether they that claime the maintenance appoint­ed particularly to the Priests and Levites, ought not to doe their worke, (Viz.) Prepare the Sacri­fices, slay Oxen, Sheep, Goats, &c.

Therefore doe you and your brethren either own the name of Jewish Priests, and doe their service, and instruct the peo­ple in the Jewish Rites and Ceremonies, or else for ever quit claim to their maintenance.

Thus much of your Answer to my first Querie. [Page 14]My second was this, By what Rule in Scripture doe you sprin­kle Infants, and call it an Ordinance of Jesus Christ, who ne­ver commanded any such thing, nor was it ever practised by any of the Saints after him.

Inquire again whether you never heard of any Saint since Christ that sprinkled Infants?

Doth this ridiculous quibble deserve the name of so sober an Answer as should proceed out of the lips of one that esteemeth himself a grave Divine? Was I not demanding of you a Rule in Scripture grounded on the Command of Christ, or the practise of the Saints there, for sprinkling of Infants? And could you imagine that I intended the practise of any without the Scripture, when that only was spoken of? What weight is there in what you say? Or to what purpose did you produce this senslesse inquiry? Unlesse you intended it to prove that we may practice any thing that is brought to us by Tradition, though we can shew no Rule in Scripture for it, either from Christs Command, or the Saints pra­ctise.

Christ by the Apostle Paul commandeth to render to all their dues, Rom. 13.7.

But Baptism is an Infants due.

And is this your Rule in Scripture by which you sprinkle Infants, and call it an Ordinance of Jesus Christ? Do not call it railing if I ask you whether that Scripture be not fullfilled at this day, Isa. 44.25. which saith, The Lord ma­keth the Diviners mad, and turneth the wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish. Consider seriously whether you have not manifested the darknesse of your mind to all the Children of light, to be even like that of Aegypt, which might be felt. If the Lord had not smitten you with blind­nesse of heart, could you ever produce that Scripture as your Rule for sprinkling of Infants? Will this be a sufficient Plea for you to produce for your practice, in the day that Jesus Christ shall ask you, Who required those things at your hands? If this be all you can say, you will never be able to escape that wo which is on them that teach and practise for doctrines the traditions of men.

But to your Arguments; and here I must confesse my self non-plust, for that there is such a heap of confusion, incon­gruities, and illogicall Conclusions, that I know not where to begin, or where to end.

We ought to render to all their dues; Ergo, In­fants ought to be baptized.

Was it ever heard, or did it ever enter into the heart of any sober-minded man to conceive, that Paul intended the 7 Verse of the 13 Chapter to the Romans, to prove the sprink­ling of Infants faces with water, to be an Ordinance of Jesus Christ? For shame forbear thus to abuse and belye the Scrip­ture, wresting it to the patronizing of your sond and unwar­rantable practises.

Your Argument runneth thus.

If we ought to render to all their dues, Custome to whom Custome, &c. Then Infants ought to be baptized.

But we ought to render to all their dues.

Which Argument amounteth to as much as this. Children ought to be baptized, because they ought to be baptized. And this is your Scripture by which you throw water on the faces of Infants, and call it an Ordinance of Jesus Christ.

You said before, That necessary deductions from Scripture are Scripture, and consequently this deduction of yours is Scri­pture. When the letter of Scripture is against you, in any of your will-worships, then you strive to avoid the stroak of it, by giving your own imaginations for an Interpretation; and where the Scripture is silent, there you make it to speak what will serve your own turns; and all the while cry out against such as own the Scripture (but disown your corrupt interpre­tations of it) as Hereticks. Let me tell you, the Lord is now discovering the deceit and hypocrisie of all such as say they speak the word of the Lord, when he hath not spoken to them; and of all those blind guides that have for many years caused the people to erre.

You proceed to prove Baptism to be an Infants due, but you attempt it by a heap of such lame, confounded. Argu­ments, [Page 16]that there is neither order nor reason to be found in them.

First you begin with Infants indefinitely, and doe endea­vour to prove that they ought to be sprinkled; then you change that tearm and put in the Infant of a believing parent; and so as you list you fill up your Arguments with such stuffe as you use to bring forth to your people, whether such lan­guage as the Scripture knoweth or not, I perceive is all one to you.

The Infant of a believing parent is a holy Child as soon as it is born.

Paul saith, that he with others were by nature the Children of wrath, Ephes. 2.3. But he that is holy is no child of wrath, and consequently no believers Infant is born a child of wrath. Christ saith, That which is born of the flesh, is flesh: You say that which is born of the flesh is holy; your proof is, 1 Cor. 7.14.

To which I answer, If the holinesse there mentioned be the foundation on which you build the sprinkling of Infants faces and call it baptism, then may a declared unbeliever be baptized also; for the same holinesse that the Child had, the unbelie­ving parent had; [...]. for the same Greek word that is used for sanctifying the unbelieving parent, is used for the holinesse of the Child; which you might have considered, before you had so rashly asserted the holinesse there spoken of to be a sufficient ground for Infant-baptism. And will you say, that the declared unbelieving parent had a right to baptism, being holy with the same sanctification the Child had? Therefore either grant that the holinesse there spoken of, doth not ren­der the Child capable of baptism; or else doe not barbarously with-hold the same from the unbelieving Parent, who might justly claim the same priviledge (as you call it) by virtue of the same holinesse.

You goe on, and call Baptism—

That mark by which Gods people are outwardly distingished from heathens, and the initiating seale of the Covenant, which declareth an Infant to be one of [Page 17]Gods, and solemnly putteth him into the number of Gods people.

Many that are Drunkards, Swearers, and Whore­masters, and professed Enemies of the Lord, have received this mark; and call you these Gods people? If so, who are the Heathen they are distinguished from by this mark? Is a drunken, swearing, covetous, prophane English-man, by this mark di­stinguished (as one of the people of God) from a drunken, swearing, covetous, prophane Indian in America, as a hea­then? Dare you rank all the wicked of the Land (who are the people of the Curse, and who are by expresse Scripture shut out from the Kingdome of God) among the number of Gods people? This is the saplesse chaffe with which you feed your poor blind people; who, it seemeth, doe seldome seri­ously scan what you confidently assert to them in the Pulpit for truth; if they did, surely you would blush and tremble, to expose such pittifull ware to sale to them as this is. This is that Orthodox doctrine, which whosoever doth not professe subjection to, must presently be damned as an Heretick. Doth the Scripture any where say that the sprinkling water on the face of an Infant, is the initiating seale of the Covenant? But you are priviledged to put the stamp of Divine authority up­on your own irrationall deductions, and sottish inventions, and call them Scripture.

Could the poor Infant that is barbarously kept from baptism, and left like a Heathen, but plead its right, no believing parent would ever be able to answer the with-holding of that Ordinance and priviledge from it.

Could the Infant plead his own right, no better then you doe for him, his Plea would soon be answered: And could the poor Babe speak as well with his tongue, as his tears, he would impeach him for a barbarous Priest, who durst cruelly throw cold water on his face in the frosty weather (sometime to the hazard of his life) and call it his priviledge. And as for your calling this sottish invention an Ordinance, either produce that Scripture which calleth it so, or else be not angry if I say, That it's a shame for one that calleth him­self [Page 18]a Minister of the Gospel, to be found with a lye in his mouth.

While therefore you would fasten this upon Mini­sters, that they practically deny the Scripture, either you must bring better grounds, or else fear the ninth Com­mandement.

If to practice that which the Scripture requireth not, be to deny the Scripture, then I doe still say, That you and others that would be esteemed Ministers of Jesus Christ, doe deny it; for that you doe practice many things, which the Scripture owneth not; against which, your deceit and hypocrisie, I doe, and ever shall bear my testimony, and not fear the ninth Commandement. They ought to fear that Commandement, who make Paul, and Peter, and other the Saints in Scripture, to speak that which they never intended, and wrest their words to Patronize those things they never practised.

Thus have I made my Reply to that which concerneth your practice, in preaching for Tithes, and sprinkling In­fants. Which Reply you may (if you think good) shew to your Disciples in the Country, to whom (I am very credibly informed) you have falsly and very wickedly suggested, That I deny the Scriptures: And let them, or as many of them as are sober-hearted, judge, whether you or I deny the Scrip­ture; and let your shame and folly be laid open before them, in that you cry The Scripture, The Scripture, and yet are not able to produce one Scripture to prove, that ever the Mini­sters of Jesus Christ preach't for Tithes, or sprinkled Infants.

The next thing that I asked you in my last, was this.

Where is it written that the Scriptures are the ground of Faith?

That the Scriptures are the ground of faith, is ne­cessarily deduced from the ensuing Scriptures, John 3.33, 34.

If the Lord hath not given you up wholly to disin­genuity and blindnesse, I appeale to that of God in your con­science, whether this be an Answer to the Question propoun­ded? and whether it be not manifest huxtering, and falsifying [Page 19]the Scripture, to offer your own deductions for Scripture? What shifting and shuffling is here to support the vain ima­ginations of your own heart? Either it is written that the Scriptures are the ground of faith, or it is not; if it be writ­ten, why had you not quoted the particular Scripture in which it is written? If it be not written, why had you not given a plain Answer to my Question, and have confessed that it is no where so written? However, taking your Answer as you have laid it, you thereby grant that which I said, (Viz.) That it is no where written that the Scriptures are the ground of faith. Notwithstanding which, you labour much with your dead deductions, and dark reasonings, and all to force the Scripture to speak that which it never spake; in which paths of cloudy confusion, and horrible absurdities, I shall not spend time to follow you; for the folly and ignorance of your lines will be sufficiently discovered to any enlightned eye, by the bare reading of them: I shall only point at some of your most monstrous abuses offred to the Scripture, and horrible blasphemies against the Lord Jesus Christ; by your setting up the letter of Scripture above him, and the testimony of his Spirit.

How wretchedly doe you abuse that place, 1 John 5.10. in saying that the record & witness there spoken of, is the Scrip­ture? when as the very Scripture it self giveth you the lye, say­ing, that the witness and record there spoken of is within the Saints; which record the very next verse there expresseth to be eternall life, which God hath given to the Saints: And is paper and Ink within the Saints, or are they eternall life? To this you add.

I must first believe, and ground my faith on that written word, and I must first believe and rest upon that written word, and I must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, because the written word tells me so.

If your conscience be not seared with a hot iron, can you read over these lines again, and not see the blasphe­my that is in them stare in your face? Was there not faith, and was not Jesus Christ before the written word? and yet must that be first believed on, and be the ground of faith? Is [Page 20]rest only to be found in Jesus Christ the eternall Son of God, and yet the written word must be rested on first? Did not Abel, Enoch, Abraham, and other holy men of God, be­lieve that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, long before the written word was, and could they then believe it, because that told them so? What starved soules have those Sheep whose Shepheard handeth to them no better food then this? Doth not the witnesse of God in your conscience condemne you for horrible iniquity, for receiving so much money yearly of your Parishioners, and give them in exchange nought but such unsa­voury husks as these?

From this you proceed to put another Scripture upon the Rack, to make it confesse that which is neither expressed, nor was ever intended in it, Ephes. 2.20. Yee are built upon the foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.

There it is said in terminis that the Scripture is a foundation.

Was the fear of the Lord before your eyes when you pen'd this Assertion, so manifestly contradictory to the truth? Is the Scripture so much as mentioned in that whole Chapter, and yet is it in so many tearms called there a foundation? Is not the foundation there spoken of, that same Jesus which was both preach't, and believed on, by the Pro­phets, and Apostles, and had you the impudence to say that it's the Scripture? Could you so confidently give Paul the lye, who saith expresly that other foundation then Jesus Christ none can lay, and yet you would make Paul himself to lay another? Doth not Calvin Intelligit Je­sum Christum cui Testimoniū tulêre Apostoli & Prophetae. Cal. in locum (one of your Comentators with whom you trade for matter to sell to the people) as ma­nifestly conclude you to be a lyar? who saith in terminis, That the Apostle doth in that Scripture intend Jesus Christ, to whom the Prophets and Apostles did bear witnesse? Nay which is more (see the heighth of your deceit) doe not you your self say but a few lines after, that the foundation on which the Prophets and Apostles built, and we build, is Christ? You tell me in your last papers, of my Out-cryes: But let me say to you, That I shall never cease to cry aloud against such hor­rible [Page 21]falshood and deceit as this. Can you (without a blush­ing conscience) accuse others for denying the Scripture, and yet you your self in the mean while thus trample it under foot, by averring that it saith that in terms, which it doth not once mention?

You proceed labouring in the dark, seeking by a coyned distinction (which the Scripture knoweth not) to prove your own conceptions.

You say.

There's a double foundation. 1 Personall, or re­all, that is Christ. 2 Doctrinall, or declarative, that is the Scripture.

If the Scripture be no reall foundation, is it then imaginary? for that which is not reall is imaginary. Is not the Scripture beholding to you for calling it a foundation, and yet opposing it to that which is a reall foundation? Is the Scripture acquainted with this distinction? when you shew it me there, I shall speak more to it.

Now enquire again whether I have made the Scrip­tures assert that which they no where doe.

I am not now to make enquiry touching that: a little enquiry will serve the turn, to find you a notorious fal­sifyer of the Scripture, in saying it is written so and so, when as no such thing is written. And I doe still say, that were you not past blushing, you would cover your face through shame when you reflect on your wresting of the Scripture, endeavouring to produce it as a testimony to your false as­sertions.

You goe on to distinguish between Gods Testimony, and Gods Truth.

Have you at once lost your honesty, as well as your understanding that you should create an opposition be­twixt Gods testimony, and Gods truth? Is not his testimony truth? Thus you jumble things together, to fill up your pa­pers, just as you multiply words to fill up your houre in the Pulpit, whether you speak things true or false it matters not.

If the Scriptures be corrupted, they must be pur­ged, [Page 22]cleared, and the true words and sense held forth, and maintained, which is the Churches Office, 1 Tim. 3.15.

Would not any man be ashamed, but he that is past shame, to offer this Scripture to prove that the Scripture must be purged and cleared by the Church, when it's corrupted? Is the Scripture, or the corruption, purging, or clearing of it, mentioned, or so much as intended in that Scripture? This is just such a wild proof as you use to bring for the dead Do­ctrines you raise from Scripture in your Pulpit.

But the ground of faith you say may be corrupted; nay you say further, that faith may be lost.

Let all that fear the Lord judge whether you speak like a man acquainted with the faith of Gods elect: Is the faith of Gods elect bottomed upon a corruptible foundation? and may their faith be lost? The Scripture saith that He that believeth shall never be confounded; but if the ground of faith be corruptible, shame and confusion will certainly cover the faces of those that believe.

When I tell you that the Scripture could not be the ground of Abel's, Enoch's, and Noah's faith, because they were be­fore the Scripture was, &c.

You Answer.

Though they had not those Scriptures which now we have, yet the word of God was made known to them then, and that word of God is the ground, and was the ground of their faith.

I hope you own no other Scriptures then those we now have, and if they had not those, then they could not be the ground of their faith. And thus are you constrained to Answer, and confute your self out of your own mouth; for whereas you have spent much time, and produced many blind Arguments, to prove that the Scriptures are the ground of faith, now you confesse that they were not the ground of A­bel's, Enoch's, and Noah's faith; and if they were not the ground of their faith, then neither were they the ground of any of the Saints faith since them: for that they and all the Saints since have the same foundation, and are built on the [Page 23]same Rock, which can never be removed, nor corrupted, as you doe most absurdly assert.

And whereas you say the word of God was made knowne to them then, and was the ground of their faith: what need you have said this? for, whoever denyed it? was this the thing in controversie betwixt you and me? or did ever any of those called Quakers say, that the word of God was not the ground of Abrahams faith, and still is of the faith of all Saints? Did you not in your first Letter to me accuse them for denying the Scriptures, because you said, they denyed the Scriptures to be the ground of faith, and now doe you con­fesse, that before the Scriptures were, there was a ground of faith? Let all that are wise-hearted judge, what horrible con­fusion you labour in; for if there were something that was not the Scripture (because it was before it) which was the ground of Abells faith, and Abrahams faith, and still is the ground of faith, then what more manifest then this, that you doe most ignorantly accuse those called Quakers for denying the Scripture, because they assert that which you your selfe doe here grant, and acknowledge to be a truth.

You proceed hence to tell me of my Out-cryes; and why Out-cryes? because I tell you the plain truth without faltte­ry? I trust I shall never be ashamed to cry yet louder, against all Idol Shepheards, that eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and cloath with the wool, but feed not the flock.

When you say that the word of God was ever the ground of faith, even before it was written: I ask, did you by the word of God intend the Scripture or not? If you did, then that which I said to you thence doth justly fall upon you; if not, then to what end did you spend half a sheet of paper to prove the Scripture to be the ground of faith, calling it all along the word of God? And yet now to save your self out of the mire of confusion, and contradiction, you create an opposition betwixt the Scripture, and the word of God.

Thus you write as you Preach, say and unsay, in the same houres discourse assert a thing and contradict it.

In what Scripture is it written that Christ directeth [Page 24]us to look for life in the Scripture?

In the present Scripture, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them you thinke you have Eternall life.

You will call it rayling if I say again, that it's a shame for one that pretendeth himself to be a Minister of Je­sus Christ, to be found with so notorious a lye in his mouth. But esteem it as you will, I must not forbear telling you plain­ly of so great a wickednesse. To what a height of wicked­nesse are you arived, who durst belye the Son of God, who is truth it self, in saying he saith that which never proceeded out of his lips? Have not the dayes of Jer. 6.15. Jeremiah overtaken us, in which he complaineth, that from the Prophet to the Priest, every one dealeth falsly; and when they had committed abo­mination, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush?

Because Christ saith to the Jewes, that they though they had eternall life in the Scriptures, did he therefore [...] to look for life in them?

Christ telleth his Disciples that the time should come that whosoever killed them should think he did God service; and will you thence gather this Doctrine (which is as true as the former) that Christ in that Scripture directeth men to kill his Disciples, that so they might doe God service? if you have not a conscience past feeling, how can you consider of this injurious dealing with Christ, and the Scriptures, and not blush and bewaile your folly?

From your abuse of Christ, and the forementioned Scrip­ture, you proceed to your reasonings, and arguings such as they are; but since they are all grounded on that which is fasly premised (Viz.) that Christ directeth us to look for life in the Scriptures, I shall not spend time to examine their strength, for that they fall of themselves, having no better foundation then a grosse untruth of your own invention.

Is not eternall life to be had in Christ alone, and is the Scripture Christ?

Eternall life is to be had in Christ alone, and there­fore in Scripture.

If you did not esteem your selfe licensed to blas­pheme the name of Jesus Christ, could you thus impudently derogate from his glory, in saying that eternall life which is alone to be had in Christ, may yet be had in that which is not Christ? Can that which is alone to be had in him be yet had in another? whence had you this rare peece of Logick, that that which is alone to be had in one thing may yet be had in another; nay therefore in the second, because it is alone to be had in the first? Is not this as good reasoning to say, That salvation is alone to be had freely by Jesus Christ, and there­fore by the works of the Law; we must pray alone to the Lord that made us, and therefore to graven Images. Minde feriously if the Lord hath not given you up to a spirit of slumber, that you should write such barbarous contradicti­ons, in stead of Doctrine, whiles you fight against the truth.

The Reason you give for your bold assertion is this.

Because the Scripture setteth forth Christ alone as the person in whom life is to be had.

That the Scriptures doe testifie of Christ, is true; and that there is no other Jesus, but that onely begotten of the Father of whom they testifie, is as true. But is life there­fore to be had in them? Is a declaration touching any thing, the thing it selfe? Old Jacobs sons made a declaration to their Father, of the great plenty of corne in Egypt to keep them a­live, and will you therefore say, that food, and sustenance, were to be had in their declaration? Many Philosophers have given a description in their writings, of the nature of bread, and doth it thence follow that bread is to be had in their wri­tings? Plinny, and others since him, have declared the na­ture of that sweetnesse which is in honey, and was ever any man so ignorant to conclude that therefore honey with its sweetnesse is to be had in the declarations of Plinny? For shame doe not assume to your selfe the name of a Divine, nor undertake to teach others the way to life, whilest you are not able to put a difference betwixt a declaration touching a thing and the thing it selfe; and so put the Scripture for Christ, and the letter for the life.

In the next place you speak of men that cannot or will not put a difference between word and word, between the Essen­tiall word and the Enuntiative word, and so accommodate themselves for the shaking off of Scripture, as if nothing were the word but Christ.

Must he presently be sentenced for a shaker off of the Scripture, who cannot adore every School distinction as an Oracle from Heaven? Where doe the Scripture make mention of the Essentiall word and the Enuntiative word? and if the Scripture knoweth not any such termes, pray tell us when you received your commission from Heaven to coyne distinctions and father them on the Scripture, and then accuse men for shaking off the Scripture, because they shake off the vaine imaginations of your own brain?

I would ask you this one question, whereupon must I believe that Christ is the true light, that lightens every man that comes into the world, (&c.)

I ask you againe, whether that all the holy men of God, from Abel to John, who spake those words, did be­lieve that Christ was the true light? If they did, then I de­mand on what ground did they beleeve it? and on what ground did John himselfe who spake the words, beleeve the truth of them?

Suffer the Scripture then to be the ground of faith.

I say to you, and the rest of those that call them­selves Teachers in the Nation, doe you suffer the Scripture to abide pure, as it was spoken, and doe not darken it by your corrupt glosses, nor raise imaginations of your own upon it, which you call Comments; and so make the Scripture to swell into so many volumes, that a great part of a mans life time must be spent in perusing them: suffer the Scripture to be that which it declareth it selfe to be, and speak not that of it falsly, which it never spake of it selfe.

You proceed hence in your Papers, to descant on my testi­mony that I gave touching the Scriptures; and because you can therein finde no matter of quarrell (taking my words in that plainesse they were spoken) therefore you fly to making [Page 27]of meanings on them, and say, if I mean so, by this and that expression, then there is truth in it; but if so, then there is danger in it.

Are you troubled because my words were so plaine, and so spend time to seek a knot in a bull-rush? what would you have, would you make me speak what I intended not? Let it suffice that I tell you that I spake as I mean't, and did mean as I spake: Therefore you may forbear to impose your drousie Interpretations, on what I declared in words, sufficiently intelligible by any man whose minde is not dark­ned with ignorance, or passion. What Lordly spirit is that which lodgeth within your brest, that your Probatum est must serve for a stamp, under which my testimony must passe for truth, and without which it must be of necessity erronious? Much more stirre you make about meanings and sences in your discourse; but I shall not trace you in all your wilde divinations, but leave them, to be burn't up as stnbble, with the fire of truth.

But such words as these will serve a turne, being very taking with poor mistaken and seduced soules.

You told me but even now of deceit and danger, that were in my words, but it seemeth there is no great dan­ger in them, if they are like to take with none but those who are already seduced; for there is little danger of hurting them that are already under deceit and seduction.

When as in my last I declared my disowning of any mans testimony that was found contradictory to Scripture. You answer.

For ought I know then you must leave the most, or all, of your new Religion, which is upheld by a pre­tended inward light, that will never abide the tryall, (&c.)

For ought I know unlesse you prove me to have ta­ken up some new Religion, you may expect your portion among those that are shut out of the new Jerusalem, for ly­ars and false Prophets. I own no Religion, but that which teacheth a man to fear the Lord, and work righteousnesse, to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their affliction, and to [Page 28]keep himselfe unspotted of the world. Christ is the light of the world, which I own as the foundation of my Religion, who is within me unlesse I am a Reprobate; and dare you be so impudent as to call him a pretended light? You would be very angry if I should disown you for a Minister of Jesus Christ; but did he ever make such Ministers, or did ever any of the Apostles that were sent forth by him, in scorn call him a pretended light? If false Prophets may be known by their fruits, then let all that know the Lord, and walk in his fear, judge what you are, who doe bring forth such sowre Grapes as these.

And whereas you say my new Religion will never abide the tryall, as may appear in part by what hath been already said.

I answer, If wresting and belying the Scripture, if contra­dictions and confusion, be that, by which you prove my Re­ligion; I must confesse my Religion will not abide that tryall; but teacheth me to bear my testimouy against all such Romish filth and Babylonish rubble: But that you may know, that my Religion will bear the tryall of a greater then you, I doe hereby declare my selfe free, and willing, on seasonable no­tice given me, to appear in the midst of your Congregation, or in the presence of the whole County where you live, to have both my Principles and practises tryed by the Scrip­tures of truth; which if you shall refuse to doe, then take shame to your selfe for a false accuser.

In this testimonie you have given concerning Scripture, you know your own meaning and the sincerity of your heart in the declaration of it; I am afraid it will come to little else (if all were known) then the own­ing of that Spirit that breathed it forth, and that's to own the Author not the Scripture, or the living the life of Christ; and that's to expresse the effect and work of Scripture knowledge, rather then to owne the Do­ctrine.

You told me ere while after you had made a com­ment on my plaine expressions, that if I meant so and so, then my words did require my second thoughts: sure I am here [Page 29]are expressions that require your second thoughts; and if you are not past blushing, you will finde in them matter of great shame to your selfe: Dare you say that you are afraid that my testimonie touching Scripture will amount to little else then owning the Spirit that breathed it forth, or living the life of Christ? Can any man be said to own the Spirit that breathed forth the Scripture, and living the life of Christ, and yet disowne the Scripture which is the testimonie of that Spi­rit, and that Christ? Doth not he that disowneth the Scrip­ture, disowne the Spirit that breathed it forth, and disowne the living the life of Christ? and yet whilest you confesse that my testimonie amounteth to the owning of that Spirit, and the living the life of Christ, is it matter of fear to you, that I should yet disowne the Scriptures? doe not call it in­sulting if I ask you, whether ever such a parcell of language dropt from any sober mans pen? and withall tell you that if you and others that take the Scriptures of truth to make a trade on, and get a lively-hood by, did truly own the Spirit that breathed them forth, and the living the life of Christ, you would not Preach and write as at this day you doe. For close of this I shall repeat what I said in my former (Viz.) That I own the Scripture against all whose sayings and practi­ses are found contrary to it; such are those who say in word it is their rule but deny it in their works; that Preach it in the letter, and have a forme of godlinesse, but deny the power thereof; that talk of Christ with their tongues, but abide not in the Doctrine of Christ; that own him in outward profes­sion, but persecute him where he appeareth in life and power. Against such, and all others that live not the life of those Saints, and holy men of God, that spake them forth, doe I own the Scriptures.

For the Supper of the Lord the Scripture maketh expresse mention of it: but for the word Sacrament the the Scripture knoweth it not.

The Scripture knoweth such words as come very near it, as the word [signe] calling the old Testament Sacrament [...] a signe, or token, of the Covenant, Gen. 17.11. 2. The word seal: [...]. Rom. 4.11. [Page 30]1 Pet. 3.21. [...]. Heb. 8 5. [...].

I spake not of words that come near it, but of the word it selfe; And because it is not there to be found, therefore you spend time to prove thence some words that come near it. May you not as well prove a false Prophet (which is a ravening wolfe) to be a true Prophet, because he is in sheeps cloathing, which cometh near the true? But if you never come nearer the truth, then the words you have mentioned doe to the word Sacrament, you will dye very great strangers each to other. What Scripture is there that calleth circumcision the old Testament Sacrament? if you did not indeed esteem your selfe priviledged to write any thing without controll, you would not so confidently offer the in­ventions of men for Doctrine, and avouch the Scripture as your Author. What if circumcision be called by Moses a signe, and by Paul a seal, doth it therefore follow, that the Lords Supper is by them called a Sacrament? Or what though Baptisme be called an Antitype, and the Priests offe­ring gists according to the Law be called an example of Hea­venly things? will you thence conclude the other called a Sa­crament? Sacramentum ( Anglice, a Sacrament) you doe (or might) know principally signifieth that oath by which souldiers of old bound themselves to be faithfull to their Cap­taines, and is there such affinity betwixt this word, and the words signe, seale, Antitype, and Example?

What you speak therefore of adding to, and sub­stracting from the Scripture, savours more of calumny, then of charity, and hath in it more of censure, then of convincement.

Is it not a manifest adding to the Scripture, to at­tempt the fathering of the word Sacrament upon it, when it knoweth no such terme? doe not you your selfe confesse that it is not there to be found, and therefore doe labour to being forth words that are nere it? Is it calumny, and censu­ring, to charge you with the truth? I have not so much cha­rity as to call falshood truth, or darknesse light: and if tel­ling you the truth be an offence to you, expect that I doe more offend you. You are very angry for my speaking con­cerning [Page 31]those guides that go with the proud, envious, cove­teous, to eate bread, and drink wine: And you tell me that he had need be of more understanding, and judgement then my selfe, that shall undertake to determine what is to be done about Sacrament admission.

So far am I from boasting of my own understan­ding, and judgement, that I shall esteem it rich grace to be content to be yet much more a fool then I am: And yet you will doe well to call to minde, and consider, what Solomons judgement is of a man that is wise in his own eyes. And as un­derstanding as you and others are (whom you call godly guides) about Sacrament admission, as you call it (a terme that Christ and his Apostles never knew) yet this I know, and am well assured of, that it's no hard thing, to finde many Congregations in which Pastour and people come together to eate bread and drink wine with their hands full of wicked­nesse; a proud, heady, high minded Pastour, and like peo­ple, coveteous Pastour, and coveteous people, envious Pastor, and envious people; and is this to eate the flesh, and drink the blood of Christ? or is this to discerne the Lords body?

After this having spoken something touching the Lords Supper, you tell me.

Your modesty is good in regard of the mystery, but the full answering of your Queries, requires more leisure then I have, and more willingnesse to be infor­med then you have.

What a pittifull lame shift have you found to cover over your ignorance withall? had you not better have inge­nuously confessed, you knew not what to say to the Queries, then offer that for an Apology for your silence, which will never gaine credit from any that doe examine the truth of things before they receive them? will any sober minded man beleeve that you, that had leisure to write me three large sheets of paper, had not then, or have not had since, so much spare time as to answer six short Queries? And as for your assigning my unwillingnesse to be informed, as another cause of your not answering them; this is as manifest a pretence as the former; for if my unwillingnesse to be informed were a [Page 32]sufficient bar against your answering of my Queries, why did you answer severall other of my Queries proposed to you be­fore and after these? since I have manifested as much unwil­lingnesse to be informed in those, as in these, and that's just none at all.

You glance at one of my Queries and say

All Saints witnesse Christ to come, though not come.

Did not Paul and other Saints witnesse Jesus Christ come, when as he lived in them, and was in them, their hope of glory, their strength, their-life, and their peace.

From hence you proceed to speak to what I said in my last, touching Ministers. My declaration, touching whom, begin­neth thus,

The Ministers of Jesus Christ, who have received their Ministry from him, as the holy men of God of old did, I own; (&c.)

It were some comfort if you would tell us who they be that you judge to be made Ministers according to the will of God in Scripture, and that are so pretious to you.

By what I have said before touching Idoll She­pheards, you might well understand whom I judge to be the true Shepheards: But since it will be matter of comfort to you to know more of my mind in this particular, I shall be plain in making a discovery thereof unto you: I judge those Ministers of Christ, who run not before they are sent of him, and doe abide in the doctrine of Christ; who have re­ceived that gift (not by expence of money in a University, but) freely from the Lord, by which they are made able Mi­nisters of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; who preach him in words, and owne him by their works. But I doe not judge those Ministers of Jesus Christ, who abide not in his doctrine, who instead of being found carefull Shepheards to guard the Sheep, are themselves found Wolves persecuting and devouring the sheep; who make gaine their godlinesse, who covet other mens silver and gold, catch­ing those by the throats who put not into their mouths; who [Page 33]maintaine themselves and families in pride, by the sweat of other mens browes; who sue those at the Law, that refuse to pay them the tenth of all their labours; who take Christs words, and the Saints words, to gaine a livelihood, bypreach­ing to others what they themselves practise not; who tell the people that a heap of stones is the Church; and call those things the Ordinances, and that the worship of Jesus Christ, which never were of his institution. These (I say) I judge (and that according to the Scripture) to be such as have not received their Ministry from Jesus Christ, but are Ministers of Antichrist, builders of Babylon, but enemies to the glory of Zion, and the new Jerusalem.

Where is it written that one was made a Minister by ordinary Call, and another by an extraordinary?

The thing is written, Gal. 1.1. Acts 14.23.

Is there so much as mention made, in either of those Scriptures, of a Call ordinary, or extraordinary? and have you notwithstanding the confidence positively to assert, that it is so written in those Scriptures? Must your dreams, and drowsie meanings, passe for Scripture? and then dare you falsly say that it is so written? You told me ere while it would be some comfort if I would tell you who they were that I judged Ministers of Jesus Christ: Truly not such as belye the Spirit of truth, that spake forth the Scriptures, by the mouths of the Saints; wresting them any way to serve their owne ends; and to patronize such practises as have not truth for their bottome: Which thing if you did well weigh, would be to you no great ground of comfort.

And whereas you bid me consult my own reason, touching the tearms of ordinary, and extraordinary Call.

I answer, My reason is not the Scripture, nor judge thereof; and withall let me tell you, that to fly from the Scripture (which you would be thought zealously to assert) when no foundation can therein be found, for notions of mens crea­tings, and instead thereof to advise me to consult with my own reason, is plain shuffling.

Further, you say that this distinction of ordinary and extra­ordinary [Page 34]Call, doth not make two doores, but two wayes of entring in by the same doore.

In answer to which I ask you, Doth the Scripture know two wayes of entrance into the Sheep-fold? Doth that testifie of any more then one way, and that the same that is the way, is also the doore, even Jesus Christ the Righteous? And al­though you passionately deny that distinction to be of your own creating, but say that it hath ever been of use in the Churches of God. I answer, That forasmuch as the spirit of truth hath no where made mention thereof throughout the Scriptures, it is but just that you should be charged as the cre­ator of it.

And if (to use your own language) you knew and cared what you said, you would not proceed in your wonted bold­nesse to say that it hath ever been of use in the Churches of God, when as it was never used among any of the Churches mentioned in the Scriptures. Neither are the words so much as to be found through all the writings of Christ, or the Apo­stles: But it doth behoove those that dare not pretend to that Call which they had who were sent by Christ of old, to tell the people, they have yet another as authentick as that, that so, though they enter not in by the one true doore, yet they may save themselves from the sentence of Thieves and Rob­bers, by erecting a back-door, which the Scripture never knew, and then stile it with the name of another way, through the same doore.

Hence you proceed on, labouring by many words to prove your Call, but all to little purpose; for when you have said all, the Tree will still be known by his fruits; and they that are not found doing Christs will, will never be able to prove themselves Christs Ministers

For our Calling which you and others so much agitate, because it standeth, and will ever stand in your way, and against your erroneous wayes, I shall give this account.

I own but one way, which also is the truth; against which your Calling doth manifestly stand. But erroneous [Page 35]wayes I doe utterly deny; and doe charge him to be a lyar who doth assert that of me, which he neither doth or can prove to be true. Were my wayes erroneous, your calling would not stand against them, since it is such a calling as you received from Antichrist, who is the Patron of errors. Neither shall it ever stand in my way any o­therwise, then as a Romish ragge, which I shall ever have courage to tread on, as a thing deserving no better enter­tainment with me, then the salt that hath lost its sa­vour.

Our gifts, abilities, and fitnesse for the Mi­nistry (which are Gods inward Call) were first tryed, and testimonialls of our carriage were gi­ven.

Doth the Scriptures any where say, that gifts, abilities, and fitnesse for the Ministry, are Gods inward call? or that any of the Saints sought testimonialls of those among whom they lived, in order to their being made Ministers? Or did Paul, or Peter, keep any Chap­lains to try men, in order to their being ordained Mi­nisters? upon whose approbation they proceeded to lay hands on them. But who are those that tryed you? were they not such as are like unto your selfe? could they try your gifts, who had not the gift themselves? could those that were enemies to the Crosse of Christ, try who were fit to be made Ministers of Christ? Could cove­teous, proud, envious men, and such that were given to filthy lucre, try such as are qualified like unto them­selves? or could such tryers doe lesse then signifie to the Bishop, and Presbyters, their approbation of those men that lived in the same nature in which they them­selves lived.

And that there might be an outward Call, we were ordained by Bishops that were Presby­ters, and other Presbyters that were not Bishops, who were to be, and were joyned with them in our Ordination.

You have well derived your succession, and very learnedly acknowledged your selfe and brethren (for you speak in the Plurall number) to be Romes Emissaries, brats of Babylon, brought forth by an abo­minable conjunction of Antichristian Bishops and Pre­sbyters of their own creating. Is this your Call? and durst you own it as a Call from Christ? did ever Jesus Christ send those that were professed enemies to his truth and people, who were so far from having the po­wer of godlinesse, that they hated the very forme thereof; who persecuted Christ in his Saints from City to City; who (like ravenons Wolves) thirsted after the blood of the sheep. Did Christ (I say) ever send such to ordain Ministers to preach his Gospel. If the Scripture be your rule, shew where any of Christs Mi­nisters were thus ordained.

And being so ordained, we have exercised and executed that Calling, not without such a blessing from heaven upon our labours in this Nation, as was never given to any false and unwarranted Mi­nistry.

If it be a blessing from heaven to get money, and grow in riches, and worldly honour; to advance your estates by augmentations, and grinding the faces of the poore for Tithes; to live at ease, eating the fat, and drinking the sweet; having your bags and barnes filled by the sweat of other mens browes: Then I must needs confesse, that you, and many others of your Bre­thren, have had as large a share in the blessing of hea­ven, as any order of men I know in the Nation. But as for that blessing from heaven which attended the labours of the Apostles, consisting in turning men from darkness to light, from Satan unto God, how few are there among you that can boast of this blessing? for who is turned by your Ministry from the evill of his wayes? doe not those sins that reigned among your hearers many years past, remaine among them still? are not they that were [Page 37]proud, coveteous, envious, backbiters, double dealers, many yeares agoe, still the same? Read those words of Jeremiah, Chap. 23.31, 32. Behold I am against the Prophets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, he saith; Behold I am against them that prophesie false dreams, and doe tell them, and cause my people to erre, by their lyes, and by their lightnesse, yet I sent them not, nor commanded them, therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the Lord. And are the people profited by your Ministry? Nay are you not bitter enemies to those who have profited by the teachings of the Lord? Are not they in the Nation who are (through grace) pluck't out of the snare of the Devil, the chief mark against which you shoot? And as any (seeing through your thin co­vering of outward profession) doe come to bear testi­mony against your hypocrisie, and deceit, is not your fu­ry and rage increased against them? And are these things a blessing from heaven, and a proof of your Mi­nistry?

You charge me in the next place with closing with them who wander about the Nation, leaving their own places, and callings, and employing themselves in a way of witnessing (much whereof will be found to be a bear­ing false witnesse) whereunto they have no due, nor true call from God or man.

Is it wandring for any to goe too and fro to declare that which they have heard and seen of the word of eternall life; if so, what were Paul, and Peter, and many other Saints of old, but wanderers? and that not only about one, but many Nations, through which they passed, declaring what was revealed to them from the Lord. With such Wanderers I desire alwayes to close: And if this be the blackest character of reproach you have to fasten on me, I shall yet study to become more vile in your eyes; and shall esteem that my glory, which you intend for my reproach.

Might not the false Teachers of old, on as just ground [Page 38]revile the Saints for closing with Peter, and others, who left their callings, wandring too and fro, as the Lord di­rected them; and for closing with Paul, who (as the Scripture beareth record) travelled through many Nati­ons, and as he went continued Acts 26.22. witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things then those which the Prophets and Moses did say should come? As for such as bear false witnesse, doe but point them out, and prove their testimony to be false, and if I own them, then charge me with sin; but till then I shall esteem your words but the birth of a scornfull and unsavory spirit.

You are angry (but in vain) that the Lord hath rai­sed up so many to witnesse against the abominations of the Idol Shepheards in the Nation, who have a long time cau­sed the people to erre, teaching for doctrine the traditi­ons of men; having on sheeps cloathing, but are within ravening Wolves; who are such as their Predecessors the Scribes and Pharisees were, Painted Sepulchres, all glori­ous without, but within full of rottennesse. With those that witnesse against such doe I close, yea and am ready, with thousands more in the Nation, to bear my testimo­ny against them, even unto bonds, and unto death.

But why doe you not come where these false-witnesse-bearers are, as you all them, and manifest them to be such, that so the People may beware of them? You, and your brethren of the Clergy, have a rare faculty of con­quering men in the Pulpits, with whom you never spake, and riding triumphant over those who never had liberty or opportunity to return you an Answer

You are very excellent at confuting men at the great­est distance, and damning things and persons for errors, and Hereticks, in the absence of the concerned: And so you meet worse measure to many that are innocent, then Pilate and the Jewes did unto Christ (viz.) by con­demning them not only without a cause, but before they are heard.

I ask, did you receive that gift by the laying on [Page 39]of the hands of the Presbytery, which Timothy did, or did you only imitate, (&c.)

If Timothy received extraordinary gifts in that way, to that we doe not pretend, as being proper to those times, (&c.)

The gift that I asked you whether you had re­ceived, was that which Timothy received by the laying on of hands, which he was exhorted to stir up, which the Scripture doth no where call extraordinary. And if this be the gift you pretend not to, I thinke in that you doe well, not to pretend to that which you never re­ceived.

But why doe you then pretend to Timothy's Ministry, if you pretend not to his gift? And as for your distinction betwixt that laying on of hands that did confer extraor­dinary gifts, and that which did promote ordinary, I dis­own it, as that which the Scripture knoweth not, but is a distinction of your own creating. It's usuall with those that call themselves Ministers in the Nation, when they practice that which the Scripture alloweth not, to help themselves by some groundlesse distinction or other; and if they are demanded touching the qualifications of the Ministers of Jesus Christ in Scripture, then to disclaime any pretence to them, as such as were proper to those times; and were not the holinesse, patience, sobriety, meeknesse, freedome from the love of filthy lucre, and coveteousnesse, found in the Ministers of Jesus Christ mentioned in Scripture, also proper to those times? If you lay claime to them, it were well if you would shevv that they are indeed vvithin you, by bringing forth more of the fruits of them, in your conversations, then at this day you doe.

You call the ceremony of laying on of hands, a fit signe of your being appropriated unto God.

Many amongst you that received this ceremo­ny, are found vvalking in the paths of the Devil, being svvearers, drunkards, revilers, and openly prophane; and [Page 40]are you not ashamed to say that that ceremony is a signe of their being appropriated unto God? And as for the most of the rest of you, you are hardly come to so high a pitch of holinesse, as the Scribes and Pharisees (who drew the blood of Christ) in witnessing the outside of the Pot cleansed.

Is there among the most ignorant, any eye so blind, to whom your spots of pride, coveteousnesse, envy, op­pression, are not visible? And are you yet such as are appropriated unto God? They that are appropriated unto God, are found doing the will of God, and work­ing the works of God; but so are not most of you, who set up your owne wills in opposition to the will of God; and whose works are not such as were wrought by the holy men of God mentioned in the Scripture.

You say further touching Imposition of hands, that you own it as a very antient ceremony, and signe of con­secration, and of the blessing of God setling on them so consecrated.

Doe the Scriptures any where call that Imposi­tion of hands (of which we were speaking, used on those that were made Deacons) a signe of consecration? And is it also a signe of the blessing of God, setling on them that receive it? Hath not imposition of hands been used on those that are enemies to God, and goodnesse, such as are before mentioned? And doth the blessing of God settle on such? Is the blessing of God, or the woe and the curse to the Idol Shepheard, and slothfull Hireling, that maketh it his businesse to feed himselfe, and to per­secute the poor flock of Christ? You cannot avoid giving these the blessing also (who are for the curse) for these also had that mock-shew, and empty imitation of laying on of hands, by the Bishops and their Presbyters used on them.

Next you spend some time to prove that laying on of hands is not the foundation of your call.

To which I shall only say, That you esteem it so much [Page 41]the foundation of your call, that you judge him no Mi­nister that hath not received it; and whoso hath recei­ved it, you presently esteem him a Minister.

After this having demanded of you an example in Scripture, where any of the Saints or Ministers of Jesus Christ did persecute any man for conscience sake.

You Answer.

That bad Ministers should persecute, is no wonder, (&c.)

Then from your owne lips we may conclude, that they that doe persecute are bad Ministers. And then how few are there to be found that are good? Is not the blood-thirsty spirit of Saul, manifestly seen in the ge­nerality of those that call themselves Ministers in the Na­tion? Have not they who conscientiously refused to join with them in their will-worship for severall years past (yea and at this day) been the objects of their wrath, and violence? And what have been the obstacle to their execution of as great cruelty on the Saints in these dayes, as Saul did on them in those? save that as his commissi­on was of equall extent with his will, these have had their wills to persecute larger then their commissions.

And whereas you say that divers who assume to them­selves the name of Saints, doe persecute the generall com­pany of ordinary Ministers, and doe in their scolding Books cast all the reproach they can upon them.

I Answer, They who were Saints of old mentioned in the Scripture, did call an Idol Shepheard by his name, and a greedy dumb Dog by his name; and if any that are called Saints, doe at this day call the same persons by the same names, I know no reason why you should call it persecution, unlesse it were persecution in the Prophets of the Lord mentioned in Scripture who did the same. If any there be who charge those with that of which they are not guilty, I am no Patron of them, but doe judge them Revilers.

When I ask you in the next place for an Example in Scripture, where any of the Saints did call to the civill power to punish Hereticks, you quote me in answer the example of Elijah, 1 Kings 18.19, 20.

It seemeth that the practice of Christ, and his Apostles, will afford you no example, that you are feigne to goe so far back as to the practice of Elijah, which yet will not at all serve your turn; for,

• 1 How doe you prove the Prophets of Baal to be Hereticks? unlesse you will say that the poor Indians in America, who worship the Sun, and Moon, and other pieces of the Creation, are Hereticks.
• 2 Doth that Scripture say that Elijah called to Ahab to punish Baals Prophets, who was himself a worshipper of Baal? Or doth it onely say, that he bid him send and gather them together? And doe you read that Ahab did more then Elijah desired of him? You said ere while, that 'twas no wonder that the Apostles did not call to the civil powers to punish Hereticks, who could not hope that Heathen Magistrates could doe any thing in it: And must it not be a greater wonder, that Elijah should call to Ahab to punish those who worshipped the same Idoll with himself, with any hope to have his call answe­red.
• 3 Besides the Prophets of Baal were not executed by any order or command of Ahab; but what was done on them can be looked on as no other then the fruit of that compact made betwixt Elijah and the Prophets of Baal (with the consent of the people) signified by their choo­sing each a Bullock to slay; the consumption of whose flesh on the Altar by fire from Heaven, should be the cryterion by which the living God should be knowne in the view of all the people. Neither can it be imagined but that if Elijah's God had not that day been known to be the God that answered by fire, the portion of Baals Prophets had fallen to Elijah's lot.

But I wonder what calls to punishment you can specifie that are sutable to your complaint.

Nay I can specifie calls both from Presses, and Pulpits, that are much more then sutable to my complaint; the sound of which is gone up into the eares of the Lord of hosts, who will certainly avenge the blood of the inno­cent, that at this day suffer under the blood thirsty gene­ration of Idoll Shepheards in this Nation. Doe you ask me what calls to punishment I can specifie? Let almost every prison this day in England speak, and they will an­swer for me: where is there almost one, in which some innocent heart or other doth not lye in bonds for the testi­mony of Jesus Christ; and that at the instigation and pro­curement, of some or other of your persecuting generati­on? What doe your Pulpits more frequently breath, and belch out at this day, then threatnings against those that walk innocently, and uprightly in the land; stirring up, and conjuring the Magistrates to imprison and punish those as hereticks, and blasphemers, whom the Lord doth stir up to bear testimony against your deceit and abomina­tions. Is it not at this day as it was of old? when the single voyces of the people could not, then did the voyces of the Chiefe Priests (added to them) prevaile, for a sen­tence of death against innocent Jesus; in whom although Priest-ridden Pilat could finde nothing worthy of bonds or of death, yet to gratifie the impetuous lusts of that murderous Crew of Scribes, Pharisees, and Chiefe Priests, he must be given up to their mercilesse cruelties, as a blasphemer, and deceiver, to be crucified. And as the witnesse of God in Pilats conscience (bearing testimony to the innocency of Jesus) made him unwilling to sen­tence him to the Crosse; but yet was overcome by the incessant urgings of the Chiefe Priests and Pharisees: So I doubt not but the same witnesse of God in the consciences of most in Authority, would keep them from executing wrath, and violence, on many that are in­nocent (as at this day) were they not hurried on by the cla­mor [Page 44]and out-cryes of that same generation that drew the blood of Christ at Jerusalem. And I doe believe, that were the hand that holdeth the sword, as ready to strike, as the blinde guides of this Nation are to call for executi­on, the cruelty of Queen Mary's dayes would soon be out-done by them; and as much as in them lyeth, the name of Israel would be cut off from the land.

And let me tell you withall that Christians will one day rue the liberty of these dayes.

So difficult a thing is it for any man to have a viperous, persecuting; spirit lodging in his breast, and not discover it by the fruits thereof. Do you gnash your teeth for anger, and are you tormented in your spirit, because others have a tast of that which you injoy at the full? Would you have liberty of conscience, and would you not give it? are you of so barbarous a spirit, that having your selfe but a few years past, gotten your neck from un­der the woodden yoaks of the Bishops, you are now an­gry that iron yoaks are not prepared, and laid upon the neeks of others? Are not you of the number of those who (not many years since) Preach't and Printed Parliament and people into armes and into blood, for the rescuing of you from under the tyranny and oppression of the Bishops? and are you now acted by so unrighteous a principle, that being got into the Chaire, you would be­come Judges of what liberty others should have? to whom you would measure out no more, then would well consist with the support of your own Diana? Was it ty­ranny in the Bishops to persecute those that were in their dayes called Puritans? and may the then Puritans now persecute others and be held blamelesse? were not you and the most zealous of your brethren, as grosse heriticks in the eyes of the Bishops then, as they whom you invo­cate the civill power to punish as hereticks at this day, are in yours? And if it were oppression in them, to punish you for conscience sake, is it not the same (aggravated) in you, on the same ground to punish others? What, was [Page 45]all that precious blood, and vast treasure, spilt, and spent in the late wars, hazarded onely for the redemption of li­berty of conscience, to the imperious Clergy? will no­thing satisfie your unsatiable lusts, unlesse you can have the necks of all men under your feet, and become carvers at discretion, of that to others, in the purchase of which their blood have had a far greater share then yours? Is it not sufficient that you usurp Authority over mens estates (con­trary to the Law of Christ) unlesse you can also sit as Lords and Kings ruling over their consciences? I know no li­berty in these dayes, that Christians will on juster grounds ever rue, then that liberty, which you and your brethren assume to your selves, to take away the liberty of others more righteous then you.

For though liberty be a good thing, yet it is not good for children; its weaklings temptation, and seducers advantage.

Why had you not spoke out plaine English, and said, that liberty is a good thing for us (that are called) Ministers; but it is dangerous for the people, to have any more then we alot them. When you cryed of old to your fathers the Bishops for liberty of conscience, would you have judged it a reasonable answer for them to have said, Liberty is a good thing for us that are Bishops, but its not good for you that are our children of the Pres­bitery; for some of you are weaklings (of whom we are wofully tender) and liberty is your temptation; others of you are hereticks, and seducers, and it will be your ad­vantage; therefore good children be content to have no more of this dangerous good thing called liberty of con­science then we your spirituall Fathers shall think meet to alow you. This would have been a stone in stead of bread, and a Serpent in stead of fish then; but now it's whole­some meat for the children in these dayes. But why is not liberty good for the children? is any thing to good for the children of the Lord? your judgement is very false in this thing, and not according to truth; for the Lord by [Page 46]the mouth of Paul giveth his children liberty of proving all things, and (on proofe) to hold fast that which is good; and can there be greater liberty then this? I shall close this with this Querie,

Whether doe you and the rest of the teachers of this Nation, judge your selves, to be of the number of those that are children, or not?

If not, your portion is sad, and you are shut out from entrance into the Kingdome of God. If you are, then neither is liberty good for you; for though it be a good thing, yet it is not good for children.

If prejudice have not blinded your eyes, you may see that there are a very considerable company of Ministers, that through the grace of God, are such as Paul speaking to Timothy, 1 Tim. 3. requireth they should be. I mean as humane infirmity will beare.

The Lord is my record, that what I writ for­merly, and doe now write, relating to those called Mini­sters, proceeded not at all from prejudice against any mans person; but from that deep sence I had, and still have, of all that deceit, hypocrisie, and abomination, that reigneth in the midst of them; against which I shall esteem it a mercy to be ever found faithfull in bearing my testimony.

And whereas you speak of a very considerable compa­ny of them which are such as Paul in his Epistle to Timo­thy requireth they should be. Let me desire you to weigh what you have said, and let us prove them by those quali­fications, the Apostle there mentioneth; and then see, if thousands of Saints in the Nation will not appeare as witnesses against you for speaking a thing so utterly false.

The qualifications there required are, that they should be blamelesse, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitallity, apt to teach: Not given to wine, no strikers, not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient, not brawlers, not [Page 47]coveteous. Now doe you and the rest of you that call your selves Ministers prove your selves by these qualifica­tions, and then let that of God in your own consciences be judge, whether there be a considerable number of such in the Nation.

And whereas you come in with a save-all at last to help the matter, saying, that they are such, as Paul requireth, as humane infirmity will bear.

I answer, that this hath no weight in it at all, for ad­mit that for a plea, and the filthiest Idol Shepheard in the Nation, may be judged so qualified as Paul required. For if you meet with one that is full of spots (of which there is too great a number) he will tell you that he is blame­lesse, as humane infirmity will bear. Take others that are unsober, and of very evill behaviour (with which the Nation doth swarme) and they will tell you they are so­ber, and of good behaviour, as humane infirmity will bear. Ask a Hireling that is a common drunkard, or stri­ker, or greedy of filthy lucre, or a brawler, or coveteous, (from some of all which scarce a corner of the Nation is free) I say, ask them whether they are so qualified as Paul required the Ministers of Christ of old to be qualifi­ed, and they may all say, they are so, as humane infirmity will bear. And thus humane infirmity will serve for an Asylum to shelter the most abominable Priests in Rome, and be for a covering to all of the same generation in this and all Nations throughout the world.

Upon the whole let me seriously remember you of this, that it hath ever been the Devills grand designe (wherein he hath palpably played his part in our late changes) to throw down the Mi­nistry.

That Ministry by which the Kingdome of Jesus Christ (who came to destroy his works) is advanced, the Devill ever designed against; but that Ministry by which the Kingdome of Antichrist is upheld, and the works of the Devil maintained, hath him for its patron. Where [Page 48]this Ministry is, and whether the Devil hath been an in­strument designing the throwing down, or the upholding of this Ministry, let all that are wise hearted judge.

It's not enough for him ( viz. the Devill) that Bishops be taken away branch and root, unlesse he root out the Ministry also.

I never heard before that the Devil took away the Bishops And if it was he that did it, sure I am he was not alone in the act, but had many co-workers with him, who doe in words bid great defiance to the Devil; I could soon call more then a cloud of witnesses to prove, that many of the most zealous Teachers of those times had an eminent share in that work of removing the Bishops; in which if you allow the Devil also a part, either he wrought by them or they by him, but whether of the twaine I shall leave you to determine.

And whereas you speak of Bishops being taken away root and branch; if you accuse the Devill for being an agent in the businesse (as plainly you doe) you doe him wrong, in bearing false witnesse against him; for they were not pluck't up root and branch; if they had, he had sure enough at the same time rooted out your Ministry also, as a plant of the same root.

No, no, the Devil is wiser then so; if he did take away the Bishops, it was onely as men take away the withered tops of trees, that so a number of young sprouts might grow in their room. It's requisite sometimes that old trees should be removed, which shade and keep down the young plants, that by the others removeall they may the more thrive and flourish Have there not upon the removeall of one Bishop in a Diocesse, many scores grown up in his room? whose little fingers prove far heavier then the Bishops loynes? so that they that cannot worship the Beast in the Nation have onely changed their task-masters; and whereas of old they had but one in many miles, now they feel the scourge of one almost in every Parish. And if the Devil did play his part in these changes, he acted like [Page 49]himselfe (viz.) very subtilly, in making a great noyse a­bout the taking away of names, and offices, but leaving the things and power still standing.

Neither need you fear the Devils designing the root­ing up your Ministry, for he was never found lesse then a friend to that which is a support to his own Kingdome: and whilest that the works of the flesh are practised, and patronized, his work is not hindred. Certainly the Devil will contribute the help of both his hands to the upholding of that Ministry, that can cover over the filthiest lusts, both in themselves and others, of pride, envy, coveteous­nesse, and bitter persecution, with the spetious vaile of hu­mane infirmity.

I shall wish you so far a Quaker, as to fear and tremble to act this designe.

Doe you wish me evill, or good, in wishing me a Quaker? if evill, you break the law of Christ, in wish­ing that to another, you would not have him wish to you: if good, then it's a good thing to be a Quaker by your own confession; to fear and tremble to act that which is evill. And how much doe you contradict your selfe, in striving to make it matter of reproach to me, that I close with those called Quakers, when as I close with no other then those that fear, and tremble, before the mighty God of Jacob, which you cannot but own as a good thing. But what is the designe I must fear and tremble to act? is it to endeavour the rooting out of your Ministry? And why fear and tremble at it? Is your Ministry such a precious plant, that it may not be pluckt up, under the same pe­nalty as was in eating the forbidden fruit? are you such holy things, that you may not be toucht, but it must be esteemed a prophanation? This is a fine scar-crow to af­fright ignorant soules from taking up the skirt of your co­vering, and viewing your hidden abominations that lye under. But as for my selfe, know that my trust is on the Lord for power to be made able, and willing, to seal my testimony with my blood, against the horrible wicked­nesse [Page 40]of those that calls themselves the Ministers of Christ, but are not: who under their faire vizards are full of fil­thinesse, and polution; who Preach in words against what they approve by their works: and whose hearts are full of blood, and violence; which they manifest by their bitter persecution of Christ, in his innocent lambs.

And let me tell you further, that if God love this Nation, and intend to shew us mercy, you shall finde that he will hold these stars in his right hand, (&c.)

Stars full of filth, and polution, that shine not with the pure light of the Lord; that serve rather to set the Nation on fire, then to lead it to peace, and rest, the Lord holdeth not in his right hand; for he is of purer hands then to touch such unclean things: Neither can it be esteemed the fruit of his love, and mercy, to this or a­ny other Nation, but of his sore displeasure, that such stars are, and doe multiply in the midst thereof. And let me also tell you, that were not the fals Prophets, held faster in the hand of the beast, then in the hand of the Lord, they would soon drop down from the firmament of this worlds pomp, and glory, into the bottomlesse pit, out of which they did at first arise.

From hence you proceed to mention five Queries, pro­posed to you in my last; to which you returne no direct Answer, but instead thereof you offer a heap of imperti­nent words, and many groundles distinctions: to which (be­ing not to the things spoken to) I shall not spend time to make Reply; onely by the way I shall note two things with which you falsly accuse me.

1. The first is, that I inveigh against humane lear­ning.

To which I answer, that I neither did, nor doe inveigh against humane learning: Let it stand where it should, and I am very well content. If any man say a tile-stone is not fit for to make a foundation stone for a building, must it presently be concluded that he denyeth the use of tile-stones? [Page 51]The greatest measure of humane Learning cannot render the carnall man spirituall (which you your self are constrained to acknowledge) but doe leave him still car­nall, who is shut out for ever from discerning the things of God. The Mysteries of the Kingdome of God are hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed unto Babes. Paul with all his learning persecuted Jesus Christ (as many doe at this day) neither did all that which he had got­ten at the feet of Gamaliell, advance him one step nearer to the knowledge of the Son of God, of whom he was as ignorant as the most unlearned person under heaven, un­till the Lord revealed him unto him. The knowledge of the father and the Son (to know whom is eternall life) can never be gained by study: For no man knoweth the Son but the father, neither knoweth any man the father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveale him. There is nothing more manifest then this, that many in this and the by-past Ages, which have pretended to seek Christ by much study, have and doe imprison, and crucifie him where they find him.

2 You accuse me with seeking to justifie absurd Te­nents.

To which I shall only say, That I seek to justifie no Tenents, but such as also the Scripture doth justifie: And if you call such absurd Tenents, I doe then indeed seek to justifie Tenents that are absurd.

It's no rare thing with you that pretend your selves Leaders to the people, to esteem any thing an absurd Te­nent (though never so clearly owned by the Scripture) that crosseth your gain or your glory. And therefore (un­till you can prove that whereof you accuse me) I shall passe it over as a scandal, that you have ready to throw up­on any man that hath so much honesty and courage, as to bear Testimony against all your false wayes and worships.

Many more expressions you add touching Learning, which doe not at all Answer my Queries; repeating again that distinction of an ordinary and extraordinary [Page 52]Call; to which the Scripture being wholly a stranger, I shall passe it over as that which deserveth no other An­swer but to be disowned.

After this you come to speak of the light within, its leading to Justification those that are taught by it; upon which you come to suppose a meaning, and say, That the light they speake of, they make to be a light enlightning every one that comes into the world.

To which I Answer: That if they make no more of that light then the Scripture maketh of it, they are not therein found erring from the truth. Now whether doth not the Scripture testifie that Christ is the true light that enlightneth every man that cometh into the world? And also, that he that followeth that light, shall not walk in darknesse, but shall have the light of life?

And whereas you quote that place, Rom. 10.14. How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? You might have found an Answer if you had looked a little further, (viz.) in the 18 Verse, where it's written, But I say have they not heard? yes verily, their sound went in­to all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world. To which I shall only add these foure following Que­ries, and close this.

• 1 Querie. Whether had not the Lord his witnesse in the Hearts of those of whom Paul speaketh in his first Chapter to the Romans, convin­cing them of, and condemning them for sin, though it was kept under, and held in un­righteousnesse?
• 2 Querie. Whether that which left them without excuse, did not also reveale to them the way to life? which if it had not done, whether had they not been excusable?
• 3 Querie. Whether were they condemned, because [Page 53]they knew not God, or for disobedience against the light they had, in that they glorified him not as God, according to the measure of light they had received?
• 4 Querie. If they had obeyed and glorified God according to that measure of light and know­ledge they had received, whether had they been condemned?

And now I am come to your last Dart you shoot at me; which you discharge with so much passion, as if you had reserved the very bottome of the rancor of your spi­rit, as the sharpest stone to throw at me; in conclusion, accusing me of rayling, and using groundlesse and inso­lent exclamations; with many other expressions savoring of much fury and bitternesse.

Now whether I am become thus your Enemy for tel­ling you the truth, or the contrary, I shall leave to be determined by all that live in the fear of the Lord, from what followeth.

The thing that I charged you with, was the denyall of Jesus Christ to be within us; which charge I grounded on these words of yours, (viz.) The Scripture saith, That we are justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption and righteousnesse of Jesus Christ, which is not within us, but without us.

Now the thing in controversie betwixt you and my self is, in which of these two orders these words must be read; either thus, Which redemption and righteousnesse is not within us, or Which Jesus Christ is not within us. You would have them (to save your self out of the mire) to be read in the former order, (viz.) Which redemp­tion and righteousnesse is not within us. Which being sup­posed, I demand of you two things.

1 What number is the word Which, the Singular, or the Plurall? The Singular you cannot say, unlesse you [Page 54]will destroy your Grammer, which saith, That many An­tecedents singular having a conjunction copulative co­ming between them, will have a relative Plural. This being granted that the word which is the Plurall number: I de­mand

2 What is the Nominative Case to the Verb Is? for whom you can find no other, but the word Which, and that being the Plurall number, and the Verb Is the sin­gular number, pray produce me some Rule in your Grammer that alloweth any Concord betwixt a Verb of the singular number, and a Nominative Case of the Plu­rall? So that I doe appeal to all that are sober-minded, whether any man (taking your words plainly and ho­nestly as they lye, without altering or wresting them) could or can read them any otherwise then as I did, in the second order, (Viz.) Which Jesus Christ is not within us, but without us.

All which being considered, had you in your last Let­ter (upon a serious perusall of what you had written, and of what I had charged you with) acknowledged your error to have proceeded from your forgetfullnesse of your Syntaxis, or the scape of your pen; I should have been contentedly silent, (as knowing my selfe not ex­empted from all mistakes) but since you stand to owne the expression as it lyeth, and doe throw much dirt of re­proach and false accusation upon me, for taking your words aright, according as they are written; let me tell you again, that whatever you intend, yet your lines as they are written, doe blasphemously deny Jesus Christ to be in us. And therefore you might well have spared your following words, which are these.

Whereby it clearly appeareth, that I never said that Jesus Christ is not within us; but only that the redemption and righteousnesse of Christ, by which we are justified, is not within us, but without us; and against that you say (you can say (no­thing.

Whether you did say that Jesus Christ is not within us, or not, I shall leave to all that are serious, to be determined: And also, whether your repetition of your owne words be not sufficient evidence against your self. And therefore I shall spare to speak ought more touching that, and shall admit your expression to be ac­cording to what you say you intend, (viz.) That the righteousnesse and redemption of Jesus Christ, are not with­in us, but without us.

Against which you say (that I say (I can say) nothing, Of which your expression I would gladly make the best interpretation: And therefore shall not take it as intend­ing thus much, That I said I could say nothing against those words of yours; for that never proceeded out of my lips; and consequently, it would have been a false Charge. But I shall take it as importing thus much; That I neither did, nor could say any thing against what you spake concerning the righteousnesse and redemption of Jesus Christ. Which most favourable Interpretation of your words, doe yet argue, that you speake rather from a spring of presumption, then knowledge; for because I did say nothing against them, doth it truly follow that I could say nothing? Is it faire or sober reasoning, A non esse, ad non posse? because a thing is not, therefore it can­not be? This I can say, that in vain doth he talke of, or professe Christ in notion, that doth not witnesse him a destroyer of the works of the Devill within him. And if you preach Christ in word all dayes of your life, and doe not witnesse cleansing and redemption within you, you will dye polluted, and no unclean thing shall ever en­ter into the Kingdome of Heaven. It's a very pleasing Religion, that helpeth a man only to talke of a righteous­nesse beyond the Stars, and he in the mean time live in filthinesse and pollution. I know no swearers, drunkards, covetous, or prophane persons, but will embrace that as very Orthodox doctrine, which teacheth them to pre­tend to a righteousnesse, and redemption, a far off from [Page 56]them, when as they cannot witnesse a washing, and clean­sing, from their mire, and uncleannesse within them.

And since you are so confident that I can say nothing against what you did so peremptorily assert; I shall fur­ther offer to you by way of inquiry, as followeth.

• 1 Qu: Whether Christ be separable from his righteousnesse? if not, whether (he being with­in the Saints) his righteousnesse Be not there also? And consequently, whether he that de­nyeth the righteousnesse of Christ to be within the Saints, doth not blasphemously deny Christ to be there also?
• 2 Qu: Whether Christ be not made of God unto the Saints, Wisdome, Righteousnesse, Sanctifi­cation, and Redemption; and whether is he so made to them within them, or without them?
• 3 Qu: Whether redemption and righteousnesse must not be there witnessed, where the seat of sin and uncleanness is? And whether is that seat of sin and uncleanness within or without?
• 4 Qu: Whether doth not the Scripture witness, that Christ gave himself for his, that he might redeem them from all iniquity, and purisie them unto himself? And whether is that redemption and purisying from their iniquity, and poluti­on, within them or without them?

As you draw nearer the conclusion of your Papers, you wax more fierce and furious; casting out a great deale of folly, and froth, from your unsavoury spirit, charging me with laying foule hands on you, and reviling of Protestant Ministers, (&c.)

To which I Answer, That it was never my Principle, neither is it my practice, to lay violent hands [Page 57]upon any man. And as for that spirit that teacheth men to revile, I doe abominate it, as such, betwixt whom and the Spirit of the Lord (which is the Spirit of meeknesse) there is no fellowship. If I were inclined to be led by ex­ample, I must needs say, that I might ere this, perfectly have learned how to practice both these, from the exam­ple of your brethren of the Clergy, and their enraged Disciples, who are at this day very frequent in laying their bloody hands on the innocent; beating in, and cast­ing out of their Synagogues, and haling before Magi­strates, and Rulers, those, that bear testimony against the same deceit, and hypocrisie in them, that Christ bore testimony against, in their Predecessors the Scribes and Pharisees, crying out to those in Authority, Crucifie them, trucifie them, for they are not fit to live; foaming out mire and dirt, speaking all manner of evill causlesly for the truths sake. And are these the Protestant Ministers you say I revile, because I speak the plain truth of them? You pretend the Scripture for you rule, then let me ask you (and let that of God in your own conscience judge betwixt you and me) Doth the Scripture judge those to be true Shepheards, or Wolves, that worrie and per­secute the poor sheep? Are they ever numbred among Christs sheep, that devoure his innocent Lambs? Is it the badge of the Dove-like Disciples of meek Jesus, to be Persecutors, or Persecuted? Christ before he left the world foretold what should be the Portion of his Ministers and Disciples, (viz) They should be beaten and scourged in the Synagogues, be brought before Rulers and Magi­strates; be cast into bonds and Prisons; hated of all men; nay be killed by those that zealously intended the service of God thereby. And if this be the portion of Christs Ministers, and Disciples, to be thus evilly entreat­ed by others; can they be other then the Disciples and Ministers of Antichrist, who doe themselves beat, and scourge, or cause others to be beaten and scourged in their Synagogues? who doe bring before Rulers and Magi­strates; [Page 58]who doe cast into bonds and into Prisons; who doe hate, nay who doe (for want of power in their own hands) stir up the Magistrates to proceed to take away the lives of those, whom they condemne for Hereticks, because they cannot bow down, and worship the golden Calf which they have set up. Now then judge (if you can) righteous judgement (the Tree by his fruits) and say, if such as these be your Protestant Ministers, for speaking truth of whom (without flattery) you accuse me of reviling; and tell me if these be Ministers of Christ, who doe not abide in the doctrine of Christ, who never per­secuted any man, nor gave any such Commandement to those that were his; but instead thereof, did strive to fore­arm them against all the sore persecutions they should un­dergoe from the hands of the false Teachers, and their zealous Proselytes. And therefore whatever the doctrine of these your Protestant Ministers be, sure I am, their deeds are evill, and may expect the reward of those that say, and doe not.

Thus have I traced you (even unto wearinesse) through the dark and crooked paths of your arguings, and asser­tions conteined in your last Papers. And now a few words by way of Reply to your Satyricall Monitorie ad­ded in your conclusion, and I shall close all.

In which you charge me very highly, but prove no­thing. Specifie some of those wayes of practice, or opi­nion in which I live contrary to the truth, and I shall soon disown them. Otherwise you beat the wind, in ma­king a great noise with your Rhetorick touching dange­rous Practises, and Opinions; but neither have quoted, nor can prove any upon me. With comfort and confi­dence shall I dye, living in the fear of the Lord, and being found faithfull to the teachings of that Jesus whom you persecute. That many are found passing from one fancy to another in these changing times (as you call them) is no wonder; for they learn it from the practice of their Teachers, who own, and preach, some one fancy, some [Page 59]another. I know no seducers in the Nation, but such as draw men from the light, love, and fear of the Lord, to listen to their own fond dreams; stilling him who is the only sure Teacher of the Saints, a pretended inward light. And therefore (by way of retortion) let me advise you, not to trifle in those things that are of eternall concern­ment, calling darknesse light, and light darknesse. Put not far from you the Son of God, because of the meannes of his Garb. Stumble not at his coming, because not at­tended with the pomp and splendor of this decaying world. The worldly-wise- Jew expected him from the Pallace, but the great God (whose habitation is in the contrite spirit) called him from the Manger. This was the stone which the wise builders refused; this was the Rock against which the learned and the mighty dashed themselves in pieces. What the Religious Scribes and Pharisees esteemed the (Deliriaor) mad whimsies in the lives and teachings of the Saints in those dayes, the same doe you judge now; but the persons and things which they judged base, the Lord hath made honourable; and what proud man would root out of the Earth, or shut up in the grave of silence, he hath caused to flourish as a branch of renown, which shall out-live all the Idols set up by the wisdome of the World. Therefore look well to your standing, and build not on that Religion which con­sisteth only in outward profession, crying, The Temple of the Lord, The Temple of the Lord, lest you be found in the great day of the Lord, to be of no Religion, but that which must be burned up as Hey and stubble. I desire you nor to become a Disciple to any practice, or opinion, be­cause mine, but unto the truth; turn not unto me, but return unto the Lord, against whom you are now found fighting. You utterly mistake me, in judging that I en­deavour the bringing you over to any opinion, for I dis­own that Religion that consisteth in opinions; and doe desire in singlenesse and seriousnesse of spirit, to wait for that power to which all Opinionists are strangers.

Therefore doe not esteem me studious to prevaile with you to be of this Opinion, or that Sect; no, my hearts desire unto the Lord is, that he would prevaile with you to come down from the heighth of your vain imaginati­ons, and wait to be made wise with the Wisdome of God, to live low in his fear, which is the beginning of that Wis­dome; to become a foole that you may be wise; and finally, to abide faithfull in that measure of light which you have received, which would lead you out of the by-paths of deceit, and hypocrisie, and bring you to witnesse singlenesse of heart, which leadeth unto that peace which the world knoweth not; and to that joy, which none should be able to take from you. I wish eter­nall good to your precious soule, and rest