I Do not at this time write, because I would maintain Truth in maintaining any Sect, know­ing that there be many, in this age, who do owne, in their judgement, many parts of Truth, or severall sound Principles of Religion, as it were by piese-meal, who, notwithstanding in many more things, if not in the most, do erre. And therefore, as one having ceased from man, being dead to all Sects, I do, I say, I do at this time only vindicate Truth for it self, without all relation to the upholding of any Sect whatsoever, but in so far as they do owne any part of the Truth. Having premised these few lines, I shall lay down severall Principles of the Quakers, and, as I propound them, shall refute them: yet shall I speak of none of them but of such as be most known, that they may not have it to say that I do wrest their words and do belye them.

I. That man, as a creature, is not equall with God, but as he is joyned to the Lord, being one Spirit with him.

This is the Doctrine of Geo. Fox, as witnesseth Ja. Nailer, in an­swer to the Book called, The Perfect Pharisee, pag. 4. whose words [Page 2] be these, viz. — I was in the hearing of four Justices of the Peace, where he was asked (meaning Geo. Fox) whether he spake this of G. Fox. as he was a creature? i.e. that G. Fox was equall with God. To which he answered, I deny, G. Fox, he is dust and must to dust, but I and my Father are one: and he that is joined to the Lord is one Spi­rit. — At which the Justices were satisfied that he spake of the Spirit of Christ in him, and thereupon did acquit him. A subtile Answ. to an ill stated Question: for I do observe in it much of the depths of Sa­than, whereby the Justices were outwitted. No wonder: for in stating the Question they gave him a great deal of advantage. It doth ne­cessarly imply that there was something in Geo. Fox which was incre­ated, not a creature but a Creator. Otherwise to what purpose did they propound the Question thus? Whether or not (in saying that he was equall with God) did he speak this of Geo. Fox as he was a creature? even as if G. Fox had been any other thing then a creature. In this I desire that these things may be observed. First, that neither Fox nor Nailer do deny absolutely that Geo. Fox should say that he was equall with God: they deny not these words, only Geo. Fox shifts the Justices with his sense thereof as is abovewritten. Secondly, I desire any serious sober man whatsoever to consider, and I leave it with him to judge (take it in the best sense) if any man can call these the words of truth and sobernesse, for Geo. Fox to say that he was equall with God. I appeal him if ever any Scripture-Saint said so ex­cepting Jesus Christ, who was both God and Man. Thirdly, I desire George Fox to tell me what he meaneth by that, viz. I and my Fa­ther are one, and, he that is joined to the Lord is one Spirit. Either he understandeth it concerning a substantiall or a mysticall onenesse betwixt God and man. If a substantiall, then it is as much as if George had said that the very substance and essence of God is in him and one with him. Which being so, then without dispute there is something increated in him; and so equall with God. Howsoever the Scri­ptures which he alledgeth will not bear him out therein. Not the former: for it only speaketh of CHRIST, I and my Father are one, John 10.30. In which Chapter the Lord Christ laboureth to prove his equality with God. But will Geo. Fox make application of that Scripture to himself? he doth so by comparing it with Joh. 17.21, 23. Now take notice how he confounds Christs onenes with God, and [Page 3] Saints onenes with him. And seeing he puts no difference betwixt them, but makes application of that same very Scripture to himself, whereby Christ assents his equality with God; It follows by inevitable consequence, that the man understands Saints to be equall with God: Which is also evident from his own confession. For though he deni­eth G. Fox, as a creature, to be equall with God, yet he doth not deny it in respect of the Spirit of Christ in him: Whereupon he eva­ded the Justices of the Peace, as is above-written. Notwithstanding that, yet is it clear that Saints onenes with God, is nothing else but like the Husbands onenes with the Wife, or the Wifes with the Husband: as is most evident from that other Scripture, 1 Cor. 6.17. he maketh use of,— He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit. Would George compare this with the latter part of v. 16.— For two (saith he) shall be one flesh. He would needs alter his mind? for the Apostle in these words alludes to that onenes which is betwixt man and wife, spoken of, Gen. 2.24. Mat. 19.5, 6. Mar. 10.7, 8. Eph. 5.26. And so compares the onens of the Saints with God, in respect of one Spirit, with that onenes which is betwixt Man and Wife. But who can say, that the onenes betwixt Man and Wife is substantiall, and not mysticall? Will any say, that because the Scripture doth call them one, even one flesh, they do make up but one substance? Is it not evident notwithstanding this onenes, that they be different and distinct substances? So then, seeing the Scripture likeneth the onenes of Saints with God, thereto, may not I justly say, that as God and Saints are one, I say as they are one, so they are really and substantially distinct one from another? And that the substance and essence of God is not united to the creature? But if at last George shall say, that the oneness with God is only mysti­call and vertuall, i. e. in respect of Gods acting and working in Saints, by the power of that same spirit that is in himself, bringing them into a comformity to it self) then hath he nothing for himself to say, but must needs, in every respect without all exception, deny himself to be equall with God, whether he consider himself as G. Fox, or as sancti­fied by the Spirit of Christ in him: For so even his Sanctification, and the Spirit of Christ in him, are nothing else, but created things. And I desire George not to think this strange Doctrine: For doth not the Scripture comprehend all that is of God in Saints, under the notion of the New Creature? 2 Cor. 5.17. Gal. 6.15. And if it be a creature, [Page 4] then is it not increated, but created. But if George be tenacious, I de­sire him to tell me, What of God? What of the Spirit of Christ? did ever be experience beside that which is the New-Creature in him. Or rather I desire him to shew me where the Scripture doth contradi­stinguish the one from the other. Yea, the Scripture doth call all the works or appearances of God in the creature, a new man, implying that as is man, so it is a created thing. And therefore it is said to be created af­ter God, in righteousnesse, and true holinesse, Ephes. 4.24. So then George should not understand the Spirit of Christ to be any other ways in Saints, but in respect of the fruits thereof, Gal. 5.22, 23. or in re­spect of the power and operation thereof, Eph. 3.7. 2 Tim. 1.7. The Scripture doth no where say that God dwells Bodily in any, but in Christ, Col. 2.9. I confesse the Scripture doth speak of Gods and Christs being in Saints, in respect of the fruits of the Spirit; viz. faith, Eph. 3.17. hope, Col. 1.27. love, 1 Joh. 4.16. confession, v. 15. and obedience, ch. 3.24. Upon which account Saints very justly may be said to partake of the Divine Nature, 2 Pet. 1.4. in so far as they do partake of the fruits of the Spirit, and are acted by the power of the Divine Nature. But who will say that there is not a substantiall diffe­rence betwixt the tree, and its fruit? The Sun, and its heat? Will you say that he that hath the fruit of the tree, hath the substance of the tree? Or that the substance of the Sun is in a man, because he is made hote by the vertue of it? So no man hath reason to say that the Spirit substantially is in the creature, because it partakes of the fruits thereof, or that God in his substance and essence is in the creature, as being united to it, because he acts in it by his Divine power.

Secondly, That the soul is a part of the Divine Essence.

I shall not say that Nayler doth positively say so. Yet I shal leave it with any impartiall man to judge, whether it be not most apparent, yea, or not, that this is their Doctrine, at least his, these things being considered: (1.) Because in his answer to the Book called the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 6. he sets it down as a part of the charge against the Quakers, wherewith five of the Chief Priests dwelling beside New-Castle did charge them, as he saith: And in his answer thereto, he neither positively denieth it, nor confesseth it: But in stead of deny­ing it, he chargeth them of pleading for sin, to keep the soul at a di­stance from God. (2.) In other things he is very plain, positively [Page 5] denying those things wherewith he, and his are charged. Which make me say, that either he deals subtilly in the matter, or else that the charge against him and the rest, is true: Otherwayes, what may be his reason of not denying this charge, as well as other things that he and his are charged with? Put it on this issue, and I charge him (if there be any singlenesse of heart in him) on the behalf of the Truth, as in the presence of God, that errour may be discovered, and Truth manifested; either to affirm or deny the foresaid charge, viz. That the soul is a part of the Divine Essence, and not deal deceitfully in shifting the point. (3.) He backs his answer to the charge with this Scripture, — He that is joyned to the Lord, is one Spirit, 1 Cor. 6.17. O the depths of Sathan! If there be any spirituall or impartiall man, let him judge now, if this Scripture be not brought with a pur­pose to deceive. Can any man say, that this is brought by him to make it appear that he denies the soul to be of the Divine Essence? Considering how that not only the words thereof taken as they ly, without farther consideration, import the just contrary, but also G. Fox made use of the same in proving himself to be equall with God, in respect of the Spirit of Christ in him. But if he positively confesse that the soul of man is a part of the Divine Essence, then I leave it with you to judge, who know not the depths of Sathan as they do, if these grosse and blasphemous absurdities will not follow thereupon. First, That the Divine Essence is subject to changes as is the soul of man, it being of the same nature and substance. Secondly, That as is the soul of man, so a part of the Divine Nature is subject to be lossed. Third­ly, That as the soul, so a part of the Divine Essence shall be damned and tormented for ever. Beside many other horrid absurdities, con­trary to the Scriptures, which may make any ear to tingle.

Thirdly, That Christ is in all men, even in the most vile among men.

This is their common Doctrine: And therefore saith Nayler, — If Christ be not in the most vile in the world, there to see the hearts, thoughts, and intents, how shall he judge every one according to their thoughts, &c. — Answer to the Perfect Pharisee, pag. 7. To prove this he alledgeth, Joh. 1.9. That was the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Poor creature, he is much mistaken in this: He erreth not knowing the Scriptures. The [Page 6] Scripture doth expound this two wayes, First, In respect of the spirit of man: The spirit of man [is] the candle of the Lord, sear­ching all the inward parts of the belly, Prov. 20.27. Whence it is evi­dent that the spirit of man is not only the Lords lamp light or candle, but also that which searcheth the most secret and hidden thoughts of man. According to that, 1 Cor. 2.11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? — And thus the Lord Christ may very fitly be said to enlighten every soul that cometh into the world, in so much as that he creats in every one that cometh into the world a spirit, which is his candle: For all things were created by him, and by him do consist, Col. 1.16, 17. compared with Joh. 1.3. So then by the spirit that is in man, he doth search the thoughts and intents of the heart, it being his candle. I hope James Nayler will not understand by this spirit any other but that which is naturall, common to good and bad, and not that which is divine and supernaturall: For the Apostle expresly, positively, and distinctly contradistinguisheth the one from the other, I mean the spirit of man from the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2.10, 11. Secondly, In respect of that which by God is written in the heart of every man that cometh into the world. For when the Gentiles who have not the Law, do by na­ture the things contained in the Law, these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves; Which shew the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witnesse, and their thoughts the mean while accusing, or else excusing one another, Rom. 2.14.15. Whence may be observed, that God hath put a naturall light in every mans heart and conscience, by which they are not only accused in not doing, and excused in doing that which is contained in the Law, but also thereby are enacted to do the thing therein contained. Hence it is, that Paul in Rom. 1.28. saith, that persons not willing to retain this knowledge, and to improve it, were given up to fulfill their own lusts, bringing upon themselves ruine and destruction. Rom. 1.18, 19, 20, 21. And thus it is that the candle of the wicked is put out, Job 21.14, 15, 17. Prov. 13.9. ch. 24.20. Now as all things are crea­ted, and kept in being by Christ, so every one that cometh into the world through Christ, is enlightened with this naturall light. Hence you may see how true, and in what sense it is true, that Christ ligh­teth every one that cometh into the world. But what is all this to [Page 7] prove that Christ is in every man that cometh into the world? The Scri­pture denyeth Christ to be in the reprobate:— Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except you be reprobats, 2 Cor. 13.5. Thus reprobates are excepted from having of Christ in them: And good reason for it too. First, because those in whom Christ is, are dead because of sin, Rom. 8.10. But reprobates, wicked and ungodly men, are dead in sins and trespasses. Secondly, because those that have not the Spirit of Christ, are not Christs, Rom. 8.9. And those that have not the Spirit of Christ, have not Christ: for he is the Spi­rit, 2 Cor. 17. But who can say that wicked and ungodly men, repro­bate to every good word and work, that they are Christs? and conse­quently that the Spirit of Christ is in them. Thirdly, The Spirit is life, because of righteousnesse in whom Christ is, Rom. 8.10. and in such there is liberty, 2 Cor. 3.17. But who can say so of men of repro­bate minds? Fourthly, The Scripture doth say that Christ is in the creature, in respect of the faith and hope of glory that is in it, Eph. 3.17. Col. 1.27. But who will say that there is any such thing in the vi­lest of men. Fifthly, Persons in a carnall state are said to be without Christ, without hope, and without God in the world, Eph. 2.12. How then can it be said that Christ is in any in such a condition?

Fourthly, That some persons are come up out of the fall.

So saith Nailer. And this we witnesse, and all witnesse it who are come up out of the fall. Ans. to Perf. Phar. pag. 6. I desire James to deal singly with me in this, what he meaneth by the fall. Either he understands the first fall in Adam, or else such fallings as Saints are ly­able to. If the former, then it necessarily followeth that Saints may, and do recover themselves to that state of perfection without sin in which Adam was created, Eccles. 7.29. God hath made man upright, (or) pefect, — But since Adams fall, the Scripture concludes the best of men under sin, 1 Kin. 8.46. 2 Chr. 6.36. Psal. 130.3. Eccles. 7.20. Gal. 3.22. Jam. 3.2. Joh. 1.8, 10. Neverthelesse I do own a perfecti­on (of which I shall not speak now) though not without sin. Of which Paul speaks, owning himself in one sense to be perfect, Phil. 3.15. and denying it in another, v. 12. The latter cannot be the thing that James intends, for wicked men never knew what it is to fall so, seeing they never knew what it is to stand before such a fall be: And so they never lived nor were in such a fall. But he speaks with relati­on [Page 8] to wicked mens living in the fall, which must needs be understood in relation to that fall in Adam: for in him both good and bad did fall. But it is evident from 12. pag. and Answ. to 10. Posit. that James doth maintain a perfection without sin: For as there he doth not deny it, being charged therewith as an errour, so (as is said already) he main­tains a coming up out of the fall: And beside this, he charges those as pleaders for sin, who maintain that there is no perfection without sin in this life, whereas the Scripture in the places above-cited is most clear therein, as any man may read and observe at his leasure: I might appeal to any mans reading thereof.

Fifthly, No imperfect thing can be reconciled to God.

So saith Nayler. — That no imperfect thing can be reconciled to God, is plain in Scripture. Answ. To Perf. Phar. pag. 9. Though this be not so grosse as the rest, yet it is as strange and unreasonable as any of them: For in reason the contrary is true; viz. That no per­fect thing can be reconciled to God. And that because as a thing is perfect it needs no reconciliation, even as the whole needs no Physi­cian, and where no Law is, there is no transgression. A reconcilia­tion doth necessarily presuppose enimity and discord; which is never without offence either on the one part or on the other. Now it can­not be said that a perfect thing, as it is perfect, is guilty of any offence; and so cannot be at enimity with God, as it is perfect: And conse­quently in such a case, there is no place for reconciliation, as being that which it needeth not. Will you say that two persons who were never discorded, and never did offend one another are reconciled? No verily: But on the contrary, that such are reconciled one to ano­ther, who formerly because of offence, on the one part or other, discorded, and now are agreed. So that reconciliation is among ene­mies, and not among friends, betwixt the party offending, and the party offended. The party offending is man, on whose part the of­fence is, and the Party offended, is God, because of sin on mans part: And being sinfull, offensive, and imperfect, Christ reconciles him to God, according to that, Rom. 5.10. For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. — This recon­ciliation is, as we were enemies, as we stood in need of a Mediator, of a Reconciler, of a Dayes-man. And so the object of this reconciliato­ry grace, is we enemies, without Christ, without hope, and without [Page 9] God in the world; and so imperfect. But being reconciled, we are perfected through his grace, being compleat in him, Col. 2.10. For the Lord Christ reconciles enemies, even such as be imperfect, that he may present them perfect before God, without spot and wrinkle, Col. 1.21, 22. Therefore I conclude that that which is imperfect can be re­conciled to God, and is plain in Scripture.

Sixthly, That Jesus Christ is the only light, and no other light be­sides him for salvation.

So saith Nayler, — Jesus Christ is the only light, and there is none besides him to guid to salvation. — Answ. to Perfect Phari­see, pag. 12. Where also he saith, that this light — needs no out­ward light, and discovery. Thus he affirms that Christ is so the light to salvation, as if it did exclude all other light besides. But I would have this poor blind creature to observe, that the Scripture calls Christ the light, (i. e. by way of eminency) Joh. 1.8, 9. and it self a light, Psal. 119.105. 2 Pet. 1.19. as being subordinate to the light. And thus the one doth not exclude, but include the other.

Seventhly, That Adam in the state of innocency was not under the Covenant of Works.

Because that some Priests in, and about Newcastle, said, and wrot, that Adam in his innocent state was under the Covenant of Works. Therefore Nayler checks them: Giving this as a reason, Because (saith he) the Law wherein is the Covenant of Works was added af­ter, because of the transgression. Ans. to Perf. Phar. pag. 10. But they poor creatures (as all of them are) being as ignorant, or rather more then he, in propounding the thing loosely, give him much advantage in the matter. But to vindicate the truth, I shall offer this distinction. It can not be said, that Adam in the state of inno­cency was under the Covenant of Works, as being under a Law: For where no Law is, there is no transgression, Rom. 4.15. Yea, and the Law is not for the righteous, but for the rebellious, 1 Tim. 1.9. And so in this sense it is true (as Nayler hath minded) that the Law was added because of transgression, Gal. 3.10. Notwithstanding, A­dam was under a Law from within, i. e. he was subject to the Law within him, he himself being a Law to himself: For God having made him perfect, Eccl. 7.29. put the Law in its eminency and perfection in him, which in the relicts and tincture thereof is in all men by na­ture, [Page 10] Rom. 2.14, 15. being a Law to themselves, do the things con­t [...]d in the Law. And the Lord, to make him the more sensible of this Law within him, did not altogether leave him void of a Law from without, in commanding him to eat of all the trees in the Garden, ex­cepting that of the tree of the knowledge of good and evill. Which through covetousnesse, the root of all evill (a breach of the 10 ^th. Command) he brake, in coveting the fruit of the Tree, and being de­sirous to be like God: In doing of which, he lived, and transgressing of which, he died. Whence it is evident, that in a right sense Adam was under the Covenant of Works.

Eightly, That the Scripture is not the Word of God.

So saith Nailer. Now if the Scriptures be the Word which had their beginning since all were made, and did not become flesh, then there are two Words of God. Now prove that in Scripture; Or that the letter is called the Word in plain words, and the Apostle cals what he wrote a Declaration, 1 Joh. 1.3. Ans. to Perf. Phar. pa. 15. where he also saith that Christ is the Word. In answer to which, I shall desire this man with me to observe, that the Scripture doth no where call Christ the Word, though it be so translated. The Scriptures that speak of this are in Joh. 1.1. 1 Joh. 5.7. Rev. 19.13. Where Christ (as it is in the Greek) is called, [...]. Which ought to be rendered, The Reason: for I have not only found it so accented, (in the correctest Greek Copie that, to my knowledge, is extant in these times) as it im­ports such a signification, but likewise it is more then evident that Christ very pertinently and justly may be called, the Reason. And that because he is the very cause, ground and reason of all Gods actings and manife­stations toward the creature. If it should be asked, What is the rea­son of Gods electing us? The answer is, Christ is the reason thereof, Eph. 1.4. Or what is the reason why we are redeemed? Ans. Christ is the reason thereof, Eph. 1.7. Or what is the reason why all things are created, conserved and kept in being, enemies, yea and all things are reconciled to God? Ans. Christ is the reason thereof, Col. 1.13. to 21. Rom. 5.10 In a word, he is to us, all, in all. And therefore the Cause, the Ground, the Reason of all things to us. Moreover, is it not more agreeable to the nature of Christ, I say, to the nature of Christ, to be called the Reason, than the Word? Reason is a substan­tiall thing, having words as its fruits. Look seriously upon the words [Page 11] as they are in themselves, and you will find th [...] [...] more pertinent and significant to expresse the natu [...] [...] other. Yea John, having called Christ, [...], [...] things were made through him, and without him w [...] [...] made that was made, Joh. 1.4. Clearly implying him [...] of all things, why they are created and kept in being. [...] that God is well pleased in him, Matth. 3.17. as find [...] him, why God is well pleased in him. And thus it is that [...] enough of reason in him, why all things should be for him, and [...] him: for in him is all fulnesse, and in him dwelleth the fulnesse [...] God-head bodily, Col. 1.19. ch. 2.9. And thus, as Christ is the [...] son, we may therein clearly see, what God in Christ is. And whe [...] [...] Nailer saith, at least, avoucheth that, from plain Scripture, it can [...] be proved, that the Scripture is the Word of God. Give me leave t [...] say, he is mistaken: for saith Peter, The Word of the Lord endureth for ever: and that is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you, 1 Pet. 1.25. I deny not but Christ is preached by the Gospel: ne­verthelesse Christ is preached by words, in the preaching of the Go­spel: for holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. 1.21. Which words are the prophecy of the Scripture, v. 19, 20. And so this Prophecy of the Scripture, being that which was preached by the Apostles to the Saints of old, it must needs be the Word of God, seeing that is called the Word of God which the Apostles prea­ched to them. Again, I may say truely that those poor creatures do erre, not knowing the Scriptures: for through their ignorance they doe confound things that differ. Their conceit is, that in this place by the Word is understood Christ, because elsewhere he is called the Word, according to our common Translations. Give me leave to tell them, that there is a great difference bewixt [...], as it is in this of Peter, and [...], as it is in the places above-cited: For as the one doth properly signifie the Reason, so the other doth properly signifie the Word. Neither can they produce me one Scripture where Christ is called [...], as I can produce concerning the words of the Gospel, namely, Joh. 6.63. It may be they will call this Colledge stuffe [...] But truly I must needs say, that in this I do speak pure Scripture, as it was written by the Apostles: whereas they implicitely speak no more but other mens translations. But I admire why they say that the Scri­pture [Page 12] [...] [...]f God, seeing it is not only given by Divine [...] 16. of no private interpretation, the holy men [...] [...] [...]en it, as it was spoken in them by God, 2 Pet. 1. [...] it is called the foundation of the Prophets, and A­ [...] [...] 20. as being the ground of our faith. Which made [...] [...]at he hoped and trusted in the Word of the Lord, Psal. [...] 130.5. Thus it is plain in the Scripture, that the Scri­ [...] [...] only a Declaration of the will of God, but also the Word [...]

[...] [...]hly, That it is not lawfull to call any single person any thing but [...], or Thee.

[...] [...]his is known by all, to be one of their principles, as is evident from [...] their deportments. And for this they say, that all the Saints in Scripture did write and speak so in all their writings and speakings to single persons, and no otherwayes. But I may say, that they need not put such a stresse upon this, as if it were some absolute distingui­shing character of Saints, to speak, and write so: For this is also most sure, that all carnall men we read of in the Scriptures, in speaking, and in writing, whether to Saints, or to one another, did speak and write so to single persons, as any man may observe in reading the Scriptures. The reason of it is at hand: Because the Hebrew and the Greek (in which the Scriptures were first written) are regular Languages obser­ving the propriety and rigour of construction: And therefore to have spoken or written to single persons, but in the Singular Number, it had been barbarous and non-sensicall. Hence it is that all Epistles in Latine among very Heathens to single persons of whatsover rank is so. Whereas the propriety of our Language is of a larger latitude: So that those words which are translated Thou, or Thee, might very well have been rendered You. And had it been done so, I question much if any of those poor creatures should have had the wit to put any difference in the matter. Besides, do they not know that Mary called Christ Sir, or Lord? not knowing but he had been the Gardiner, Joh 20.15. She was one of Christs Disciples at this time: and they themselves pretend to no more. Yea, it is said that she loved much, because much was forgiven her: A greater testimony and approbation then is either seen or read of them. Moreover, John in writing to, and of one, calls her the E­lect Lady, which may be also translated the Elect Mistresse. Whence [Page 13] I observe, that it is lawfull to call a man Sir, [...] Lady, or Mistresse. How often do we read [...] great men, call them Lord, King, and such like. [...] most excellent Theophilus, and Paul most powerfu [...] [...] [...] slated) most noble Festus. And therefore I may jus [...] [...] lawfull to speak otherwise to single persons then as is [...] [...] stome of the Quakers, in saying thou, or thee.

As for their quaking and trembling, I shall only spe [...] [...] by the way, owning quaking and trembling in a Scripture [...] is, Psal. 119.120. Isa. 66.2. Hab. 3.16. Phil. 2.12. and [...] other Scriptures beside, of which possibly I could speak as m [...] [...] more then they, in my experience, though I cannot endure to [...] publick theatre thereof, as they do.

Tenthly, That it is not lawfull to salute any by lifting the Cap, [...] bowing the Body.

This likewise is publickly known to be one of their principles, which is not only against Scripture practice, but also Scripture precept. That it is commanded, See 1 Pet. 3 8.— Be courteous, which is not courtesie by way of charity properly so taken (as one of themselves did once in­sinuate to me) but courtesie by way of humanitie and civilitie: For the word in the Greek doth import no lesse then courtesie as it is com­monly taken and given among men. Beside, the same Apostle exhorts them to charity in a command distinct from this, 1 Pet. 4.8, 9. But will nothing please them? unlesse both commands be one. Besides, the Lord Christ exhorts and commands his Disciples in sending them forth to Preach, to salute every house they came into, Matth. 10.12 The word in the Greek doth import such a salutation as is commonly used among men: And therefore heathen Writers do make use of the same word to expresse the same thing. And consequently this saluta­tion must needs speak something else then their speaking of peace to any house they entered into: though Nayler will have it otherwise. Yea the Lord Christ will have his Disciples not only to salute their brethren, but their enemies also, Matth. 5.47. where the word in the Greek is one and the same with that of Matth. 10.12. Whereby Jesus Christ not only cautions his Disciples of partiality in their salutations (as Nai­ler himself saith) but likewise will have them to salute both friends and foes: For in the foregoing verses, he exhorts them to love their [Page 14] [...] toward them, as in blessing them, praying [...] good; and so among the rest, in saluting them. [...] could they have manifested their love in this mat­ [...] [...] their friends more then their enemies? Again, if [...] [...]d Nailer doth) that Christ only forbids partiality [...] [...]nd doth not allow the ordinary salutation among men; [...] as justly say that the meaning of these words in the fore­ [...] [...] ye love them who love you, what reward have ye, is [...] Christs cautioning his Disciples of partiality in their love, [...] allowing them to love, whether those that hated them, or [...] at loved them? I leave it with any rationall man to consider [...] [...]ner the one doth not follow as well as the other: And as for [...] [...]ture practice, it is most frequent in the Scriptures. So Abraham [...]wed twice on end to the Children of Heth, Gen. 23.7, 12. Of the [...]owing and obeisance of others we read also, as of Jacob, Gen. 23.3. Moses, Exod. 18.7. David, 1 Sam. 20.41. Abigael, 1 Sam. 25.41. and severall others that might be named. O! but saith Nailer, this was their sin, even as Josephs swearing by the life of Pharaoh, and Davids faining himself mad before Achish: For it crosseth a command of God which inhibites a bowing down to the creature, Exod. 34.7. Deut. 5.9. But truely he is very far mistaken: For these Scriptures do only forbid a bowing down to the creature to worship it as God, as is most clear in the Text. And so it rests upon him to prove that bowing to the creature by way of courtesie and civill respect, is a wor­shipping of the creature as God. And whereas he alledgeth it to have been the sin of these Saints abovewritten, and of others to have done so, it is sooner said thou proved. I desire him to let me see in all the Scripture one sin so frequently acted by Saints, as this is, if it may be called a sin. Not Josephs swearing by the life of Pharaoh, nor Da­vids faining himself mad before Achish: He cannot show me that either the one or the other is acted again and again by Saints in the Scripture, as bowing to the creature is. So that not only their practice, but also the frequently thereof doth aboundantly plead for the lawful­nesse of it.

Now to conclude the whole matter in few words (having but little time to spend in the businesse, being confined to a few lines) I do conclude them to be the Man of Sin, of which the Scripture spea [...]