Defense of the Scriptures, Text

Defense of the Scriptures · Text

p. 1A Defence of the Scriptures, and of the Holy Spirit of God ſpeaking in them as the chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith, &c. In a Diſputation at Cheſterfield in the County of Darby, Jan. 3. 1654.

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

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

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

Firſt, For the ſtate of the Queſtion. By the Spirit, was meant the Spirit of God, 1 Iohn 5.7.1 John 5:7the third Perſon in Trinity, one with the Father and the Sonne.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Bourns 2 Argument. Whatſoever Chriſt himſelfe did appeale unto, as to a chiefe Judge, and ſend his hearers unto, as to a chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith, that is and ought to be eſteem'd the chief Judge of Controverſies of Faith: But Chriſt himſelfe appealed to the Scriptures, and ſent his hearers to the Scriptures, as to the chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith, therefore the holy Scriptures are the chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith. The firſt not denyed, the ſecond witneſſed by the Spirit in John p. 45.39. in that great controverſie of Faith, whether Chriſt were the Sonne of God, or equall with God? Chriſt appeales to the Scriptures, Search the Scriptures, for in them you thinke to have eternall life, and they are they that teſtifie of me, therefore the Scriptures are the chiefe Judge.

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

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

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

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

p. 5Mr Billingſleys 1 Argument. Mr Billingſley preſſed an Argument, to prove that the written word, of which the Queſtion is made, is not God. That which is the word of Chriſt, who is God, that is not Chriſt, nor God; But the holy Scriptures, and word preached, and written by the Apoſtles, is the word of Chriſt; Therefore the holy Scripture is not Chriſt nor God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Moſes was an extraordinary man, and had an extraordinary meaſure of the Spirit, and yet Moſes did not take upon him an infallibility of Spirit and Judgement, but did make known to the people, the ſtatutes of God, and his lawes. Thus, what God had or did reveale, that was the Judge, not his own Spirit, nor any Spirit in him, but the voice of God in his law, or Gods own direction to end the Controverſie. This is evident, if you conſult theſe places of Scripture, which witneſſe what Moſes did in the cauſe of the womans ſon that curſed God, Lev. 24. Lev. 24.11, 12, 13, 14.Lev 24:11Lev 24:12Lev 24:13Lev 24:14And about receiving the Paſſeover by the men that had touched the dead body of a man, Num. 6.9. Numb. 9.7, 8. Numb. 32.33, 34, 15, 32.Num 9:7Num 9:8Num 32:33Num 32:34Num 32:15Num 32:32And concerning the man that gathered ſticks upon the Sabbath day, Numb. 15. he conſults with God in all thoſe. Thus Moſes and holy men before the Law written, they enquire of God to know his mind and pleaſure, and follow that which God taught them. But after the Law, and word and will of God was written, then to the Law and to the Teſtimony, If they speake not according to this, it is becauſe they have no light in them, Iſaiah 8.20.Isa 8:20as the Prophet Iſaiah doth witneſſe.

2. Obſerve what matters they were which Moſes did judge, they were not matters of Faith, but matters of Fact, Controverſies between man and man, he did judge between one and another (ſaith that Text) which Nayler himſelfe alledgeth nothing to the purpoſe (if he ſpeak of the Queſtion) For this is whether the Spirit of God ſpeaking in the Scriptures, Exod. 18.16.Exod 18:16be the chiefe Judge of controverſies of Faith, not of actions between man and man. And this the Reader, whoſe eies are open, may eaſily diſcerne that this place of Scripture will neither fit Cardinall Bellarmine a Papiſt, nor James Nayler a Quaker. Nayler doth alledge divers other Scriptures of the ſame nature, to the ſame purpoſe; As p. 10that in Solomons prayer, 1 Kin. 3.9.1 Kgs 3:91 Kin. 3. That God would give him an underſtanding heart, that he might judge Gods people, to which the former anſwer may give full ſatisfaction.

3. 1 Cor. 2, 15, 16.1 Cor 2:151 Cor 2:16Nayler alledgeth that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 2. He that is ſpirituall judgeth all things, yet he himſelfe is judged of no man; for who hath known the mind of the Lord that he might inſtruct him? but we have the mind of Chriſt. Therefore (if Nayler may judge) it is not the Spirit of God ſpeaking in the Scriptures, but the Spirit ſpeaking in ſuch ſpirituall men as he is, which is the chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith. And herein the Quaker exceeds Cardinall Bellarmine by far; for the popiſh Cardinall would have infallibility of ſpirit, only in the Pope and his company; but the Quaker maketh every particular ſpirituall man, a ſpirituall Pope, to be a chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith, otherwiſe Naylers Scripture is nothing to the Queſtion, for the Queſtion is not concerning a private inferiour, or particular Judge, but concerning a chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith, as Nayler himſelfe repeateth it. Queſtion the firſt. To give an anſwer to this and divers other Scriptures alledged by Nayler. But that he cannot away with a Diſtinction, he might know that there is a twofold Judge of Controverſies. Firſt, A Magiſteriall Judge (as I may ſo call it) a ſupreme higheſt directing publike Judge, to judge and diſcerne and direct, and finally, ſentence in the Church, all Controverſies of Faith. And this is the holy Scriptures, and the Spirit of God ſpeaking in the Scriptures, to which Chriſt himſelfe did appeale and direct his hearers, to appeale unto in that great Controverſie of Faith, John 5.39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think to have eternall life, and they are they that testifie of me (which we noted before.)

Againe, there is a Miniſteriall, inferiour, more private Judge of ſpirituall things, and ſo of Controverſies of Faith. And this may be every particular ſpirituall regenerate p. 11man or Chriſtian, according to the meaſure of that light of the Spirit and grace of Faith he hath received from Chriſt, and for the ſatisfaction of his owne conſcience, by the light of the Spirit ſpeaking in the Scriptures, and the light of Chriſt within him, he may ſo far as he is able, judge of opinions and doctrines of men, whether they agree to the doctrine of Chriſt in the holy Scriptures, I ſay to the ſatisfaction of a man or womans owne conſcience, in what they are to believe; yea thoſe to whom God hath given a more excellent meaſure of underſtanding in the myſtery of Chriſt revealed in the Scriptures; theſe may in ſome meaſure judge, or be inferiour Judges of ſpirituall things, and of private mens opinions in the Controverſies of Faith; For the Spirit of the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.32.1 Cor 14:32is ſubject to the Prophets; but all private ſpirits of men in the world, yea the Pope himſelfe and all the Quakers, they are and muſt bee ſubject one day to the voice of Gods Spirit ſpeaking in the holy Scriptures, and that word of Chriſt recorded in holy Scriptures, ſhall judge them all at the laſt day, witneſſe our Saviour himſelfe, John 12.48. The Quaker abuſeth other places of holy Scripture. But the Anſwers I have given, may ſatisfie any underſtanding Reader; I ſhal name only one more from Nayler and his fellow Quakers, which ſeems to conclude againſt the Scriptures excellency and authority, of being chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith, calling the holy Scriptures a dead letter, and the letter that killeth all, to diſcountenance the credit of the Scriptures, & to exalt their owne private ſpirit. The place of Scripture they pervert, is that of the Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 3.6. Who hath made us able Miniſters of the New Teſtament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. I might anſwer at large, & ſhew how the letter is taken in ſeverall places of Scripture, and evidence the falſhood of Naylers application of this place alſo; but in briefe. The letter is taken 1. Propperly for the firſt Elements or beginnings of learning for the letters p. 12in ſeverall languages, from which by ſpelling and putting together, are made ſyllables, and words and ſentences, in and by which the mind of God and men is held forth to our underſtanding, as in thoſe letters of Greek and Latine and Hebrew, which were written over Chriſt upon his Croſſe, Luke 23.38. And theſe letters may be called dead letters, becauſe of themſelves they ſignifie nothing to declare the mind of the writer, except they be joined and put together in… ſyllables words, and ſentences.

Againe, Improperly and more generally, letters are taken ſeverall waies in Scripture, for Epiſtles private or publick, 2 Cor. 3.6.2 Cor 3:6&c. And in that place alledged, The letter killeth. The Apoſtle doth ſpeak of the Law which he oppoſeth to the Goſpell, which is the miniſtration of the Spirit, as will appear plainly, if the Chapter be truly looked into, yea the Law it ſelfe doth not properly kill of it ſelfe, but is ſaid to kill when men break it, and ſo are become ſubject to death by ſinning againſt it; Rom. 7.12, 13. Rom. 6.27. Pſal. 119.50.Rom 7:12Rom 7:13Rom 6:27Ps 119:50for the wages of ſinne is death, otherwiſe the Law and word of God doth quicken, as David found by experience, Pſal. 119. And the written words of God, are lively oracles, Acts 7.38. Heb. 4.12. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17Acts 7:38Heb 4:122 Tim 3:162 Tim 3:17as the bleſſed Martyr Stephen witneſſed; yea mighty in operation and able to make us wiſe to ſalvation, and therefore moſt fit to be the chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith, whatſoever the deluding Quakers pretend to the contrary. Thus I have done with the firſt Queſtion, I come now to the ſecond Queſtion.

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

Naylers Anſwer James Nailer wrangled about the Spirit, but gave no ſatisfying anſwer to the Argument, but ſaid the Spirit was not a private ſpirit, if he was but in one againſt a hundred, and ſaid the Spirit was in them, and he was Judge in them, as if the Spirit in the Quaker were a publick infallible Spirit, and ſo fit to be the chief Judge of Controverſies of Faith, which cannot be; for if the Spirit of the Prophets be ſubject to the Prophets, 1 Cor. 14.32.1 Cor 14:32then much more the Spirit in the Pope, or in any Quaker, ſubject to tryall, and therefore they cannot bee the chiefe Judges of Controverſiies of Faith.

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

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

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

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

Whatſoever book the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evangeliſt Marke, calleth the Goſpell; that is the p. 15Goſpel; but the Spirit of God by the mouth of the Evangeliſt, Marke, calleth the book of Marke the Goſpell, therefore that book of Marke is the Goſpell. The firſt propoſition is unqueſtionable, The ſecond is witneſſed, Marke 1.1.Mark 1:1Marke 1.1. The beginning of the Goſpell of Jeſus Chriſt, the Sonne of God, as it is written in the Prophets. Obſerve firſt, That the Evangeliſt affirmeth, that the Goſpel was written in the Prophets. Secondly, that he calleth the beginning of that book, the beginning of the Goſpell; not that the Goſpell was not before, for the Goſpell was preached to Adam and Eve in Paradiſe, after the Fall, Gen. 3.15.Gen 3:15But the ſeed of the woman ſhall break the ſerpents head; but that it was the beginning of that book of the Goſpell, of that hiſtory of Chriſt, and declaration of ſalvation by Chriſt Jeſus. For what is the Goſpell, but good newes or good tidings of a Saviour, as that Angell ſpeaketh, Luke 2.10. And good tidings of Chriſt, is not Chriſt himſelfe, and ſo the Goſpell is not Chriſt himſelfe, but good newes of ſalvation by Chriſt. This is the book of Marke, the Goſpell; and thus are the books of Matthew, Luke and John the Goſpell; and the Quaker denying this, and accuſing the Miniſters of Chriſt, as of Errour; for affirming it, this aſſertion is plainely proved, that the Spirit in the Quaker, is a Spirit of Errour, lying and falſe accuſation, and ſo not fit to be the Judge of Controverſies of Faith.

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

Mr Bournes Argument. Mr Bourne began to preſſe another Argument out of a booke of one Nicolas Cowlings, Nicol. Cowling his word to 52 London Miniſters, p. 15, &c.A word to the 52 London Miniſters, pages 15, 16. whereing he blaſphemouſly compareth Chriſt that dyed at Jeruſalem, to a woodden leg. Let me be bold, ſaith he, to impart unto you my former experience in the myſtery of Chriſt. I thought a long while, a faith in Chriſt that died at Jeruſalem, was the top gallant of a Chriſtian; but ſince it p. 16doth appeare, I Anſwer, There was a twofold Faith in the perſon of Chriſt. 1. Erring of an outward Redemption from Roman tyranny, of which Luke 24 21. Acts 1.16. 2. True Faith of an eternall Redemption from ſinne, &c. and purchaſe of liternall happineſſe for his people in Heaven, of which, Mat. 1.21. Iohn 1.29, 6, 47, 14, 1, 2, 3. The Erring faith died with Chriſt, but the true faith in Chriſts perſon, did not dye, as the Blaſphemer imagineth.Luke 24:21Acts 1:16Acts 1:2Matt 1:21John 1:29John 1:6John 1:47John 1:14John 1:1John 1:2John 1:3&c. that faith the Diſciples had in the perſon of Chriſt, died with him, &c. therefore it is Chriſt in the myſtery that will ſave. A woodden legge (ſaith he) that is tyed on, may do ſome ſervice, but it is the legge naturall that is uſefull for all occaſions. Thus doth this blaſphemer, make Chriſt our Saviour that died for us at Jeruſalem, but as a woodden legge. But it is not that Chriſt that died at Jeruſalem mighty to ſave, not only by the work of ſanctification in us by his Spirit through Faith to purifie our hearts, but by the worke of juſtification by his blood, and merits of his death and paſſion, by which he hath made our peace, even by the blood of his croſſe, and righteouſneſſe imputed to us for our juſtification before God, as by our holineſſe and good workes, we are declared to be juſtified before men: For God made him to be ſinne for us, who knew no ſinne, that we might be made the righteouſneſſe of God in him. But this Spirit in this deceived Quaker, or Erring Sectary, who glories in his perfection, and diſgracefully calleth Chriſt that died at Jeruſalem, a woodden legge, it is an Erring ſpirit, and therefore not fit to be judge of Controverſies of Faith.

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

p. 17Mr Billingsleys Argument. Then Mr John Billingſley to prove that the Spirit in the Quakers, and in James Nayler in particular, was a lying ſcandalizing Spirit, and ſo not fit to be Judge of Controverſies of Faith, brought an Argument to this purpoſe.

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

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

p. 18Mr Billingsley's Reply. But Mr Billingſley read the paper to all the congregation, wherein it did appeare, that Nayler had writ, that Bul-baiting, ſwearing and curſing, were the fruits of Mr Billingsley's Miniſtry. Naylers Anſwer At which Nayler knew not what to ſay for himſelfe, but ſtill perſiſted with an audacious face to juſtifie himſelfe, and called Mr Billingsley liar, liar, and bad him hold his tongue.

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

Naylers Anſwer But Nayler vapoured, and called Mr Billingsley lyar, and ſaid he had accuſed him to be a lyar, and a perſecutor of the Miniſters of Chriſt. Mr Billingsley's Reply. But Mr Billingsley did juſtifie, that Nayler was a lyar, and a perſecutor, and that his falſe accuſation was a perſecution, or to that effect. And I might now add, well ſo he might; For may not all men ſee, that the Quakers and James Nayler himſelfe, are as malicious perſecutors of the Miniſters of Chriſt in England, as ever they had? And would they not be as bloody as ever any, if it lay in their power? witneſſe their cruell threatnings both in their printed Pamphlets and by word of mouth againſt us, witneſſe their labouring by all meanes, to pull downe the very Calling and Miniſteriall Office, witneſſe their endeavour to hinder the people to pay us any maintenance, though due unto us both by the Law of God and the Nation. Ierem 18.18.Jer 18:18Do they not ſmite us with the tongue? as Jeremies enemies did him, and diſſwade our people from giving heed to any of our words; And what are theſe but perſecutions? Rev. 12.10.Rev 12:10or what is perſecution if this be not? and who are lyars if theſe be none? and who is a diabolicall falſe accuſer, Iohn B…nting en Elder of the Church in Aſhover.if James Nayler is not? John Bunting an honeſt Yeoman (of more true ſpirituall underſtanding, then many Quakers) ſitting by Nayler at this diſputation, writing in ſhort hand what Nayler ſaid, Nayler ſeeing him write, ſaid to him, thou writeſt p. 19lyes there: To whom John Bunting Replyed, Nayler, thou art the father of them then, for I write what thou ſpeakeſt. Whereupon I may obſerve and argue, what may be argued from what St Paul did affirme of the Cretians, and of the vain talkers, and deceivers amongſt them; That one of their owne Prophets ſaid, The Cretians are alwaies lyars, evill beaſts, ſlow bellies, Tit. 1. Tit. 1.10, 11, 12.Titus 1:10Titus 1:11Titus 1:12And if the Cretians were lyars, then that Prophet was a lyar that ſaid ſo, becauſe he was a Cretian, and if the Cretians were not lyars, then he was a lyar for ſaying they were lyars when they were not. In like manner, if Iohn Bunting did write lies, then Nayler was and is a lyar, becauſe Iohn Bunting did write that which Nayler ſpake; and if Iohn Bunting did not write lies, then Iames Nayler is the lyar, becauſe he falſely accuſed Iohn Bunting for writing lies, when he did not; ſo that Iames Nayler is proved the lyar out of his owne mouth and pen, and having a ſpirit of lying, he is not fit to be the chiefe Judge of Controverſies of Faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of thoſe to whom Paul was ſent to turn them from darkneſſe to light, and from the power of Satan to God, had a light within them, to which they were bound to looke, as ſufficient to direct them to attaine Salvation. But there were ſome Gentiles, to whom Paul was ſent, to turn them from darkneſſe to light, and from the power of Satan to God; therefore ſome Gentiles had not a light within them to which they could looke, as ſufficient to direct them to attaine Salvation, and ſo not every man in the world. The firſt propoſition is manifeſt, becauſe if thoſe Gentiles had a light within them ſufficient to direct them to attaine Salvation, then what needed the Lord to have ſent bleſſed Paul through ſo many dangers, to turne them from darkneſſe to light, and from the power of Satan to God. And for the ſecond, the Evangeliſt Luke doth witneſſe it, Acts 26.17, 18.Acts 26:17Acts 26:18Acts 26. Delivering thee from the Gentiles, to whom I ſend thee to turne them from darkneſs to light, and from the power of Satan to God. And thus againe it is evident, that all have not a light within them ſufficient to direct them to ſalvation, and therefore are not bound to looke to that as a ſufficient light, which is weak and inſufficient, as the light of every naturall man is.

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

Iohn Buntings Argument. Upon which Iohn Bunting of Aſhover, named before, an underſtanding Chriſtian, ſitting neer Nayler, Replyed to him, Dead men have no light in them, but every naturall man is a dead man, dead in treſpaſses and ſins, Epheſ. 2.1, 2, 3.Eph 2:1Eph 2:2Eph 2:3…s witneſseth the Apoſtle, Eph. 2. and what light is there then in a naturall dead man, ſufficient to direct him to attaine ſalvation?

Naylers Anſwer Nayler Anſwered not to the Argument, concerning naturall mens blindneſs, but ſaid Chriſt had enlightned all men, Iohn. 1.9.John 1:9and alledged that place, Iohn 1.9. He is that light that lightens every man that commeth into the world; and thence he would inferre, every man is enlightned, and hath a light within him ſufficient to direct him to attaine Salvation, or to that purpoſe, ſo neer as I could remember.

Mr Bournes Anſwer to this Scipture, alledged, A firſt light. Unto this Scripture I did then anſwer to this effect, by diſtinguiſhing of light, and ſaid, there was a two-fold light. The firſt the light of nature, the remnant of that created light of the knowledge of God in man, by which men might know ſo much of God by the Creatures, Rom. 1.19, 20.Rom 1:19Rom 1:20as may make them without excuſe, Rom. 1.19. And which is a ſparke of light naturally in every mans conſcience, Rom. 2.14, 15.Rom 2:14Rom 2:15Rom. 2. And with this light Chriſt the Creator (God, equall with God the Father, by whom this light and all things were made) he doth enlighten every man that commeth into the world; that is into this habitable world, in which we dwell; and all that are borne into this world in their right mind and ſenſes, Chriſt doth enlighten with this naturall light. But this light of nature, ſince the Fall, is ſo darkned, that although it may be ſufficient in ſome reſpects, to make men without excuſe; Rom. 1.20.Rom 1:20yet it is not ſufficient to reveale Chriſt, or to give ſufficient direction to attaine Salvation by Chriſt Jeſus, as that light which revealeth Chriſt in the Goſpell. Againe, there is a ſecond light, p. 25and this is the light of ſpeciall grace given outwardly by the preaching of the Word, and inwardly by the Spirit of God, by which a ſoule is enlightned with ſuch a ſpeciall light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jeſus Chriſt, as he owneth, 2 Cor. 4 6, 7.2 Cor 4:62 Cor 4:7and by faith embraceth Chriſt, Rom. 5.Rom 5not only as a Juſtifier by his blood and merits, but a Sanctifier by his Spirit and grace in the ſoule, and ſo a perfect Saviour both from ſinne here, and from wrath to come hereafter, as due to ſinne. And this in ward light of ſpeciall grace, every man (to whom God hath given it) is bound to look unto it in a ſpeciall manner; yet not ſo as to neglect the outward light of the Goſpell, revealed in the holy Scriptures, for the getting of more light, becauſe we know here but in part, 1 Cor. 13 9, 10, 11, 12.1 Cor 13:91 Cor 13:101 Cor 13:111 Cor 13:12and therefore ſhould waite for more light of grace, untill we come to enjoy a perfection of light in glory. Becauſe this ſpeciall light of grace held forth in the Goſpell, is not given to all, for all do not know the myſtery of the Goſpell; nor is it given unto all, witneſſe our Saviour, Mat. 13.11.Matt 13:11To you it is given (ſaith he) to know the myſteries of the Kingdome of God, but to others it is not given. And the Evangeliſt, John himſelfe in the ſame Chapter, Iohn 1.9, 10, 11, &c.John 1:9John 1:10John 1:11in which he affirmeth, that Chriſt is the true light that lightneth every man that commeth into the world, in the very next verſe he affirmeth, that Chriſt was in the world, and the world did not know him; yea he came to his owne, and his owne received him not. But if all in the world had this ſpeciall light of grace within them, they would have known Chriſt; Iohn 18.35.John 18:35yea if all his owne people, the people of the Jewes, his owne Nation, had received this ſpeciall light of grace, they would have received Chriſt; But many of them were in blindneſſe, yea darkneſſe it ſelfe, and did not know Chriſt; for had they knowne him, they would not have, crucified the Lord of Glory, witneſſe the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 2.7, 8. Th… anſwer was delivered logically in more briefe termes, but to the ſame effect, and more fully and largely expreſsed now for weak brethrens ſakes, that p. 26they may more eaſily underſtand Naylers deceits in his anſwer, who gave that more largely alſo in his written paper, then at the Diſputation for that was commonly very ſhort; It is falſe, it is falſe, and lyar, lyar. And this was Naylers Reply to this Diſtinction of light given by me, It is falſe, lyar, hold thy peace and ſit downe, there is but one light that lightens every man that commeth into the world, and in a vapouring manner doubled it againe, there is but one light which lightneth every man that commeth into the world.

M. Maud…ſl…y Mr Maudſley (as I remember) Miniſter of Dronfield, ſitting neer Nayler, asked him what world he did meane, Nayler. Queſtion. Nayler anſwered, there is but one world, and that is the world of men; he was asked againe, whether he himſelfe was in the world, or out of the world, Anſwer. to which Nayler anſwered, that he was out of the world; unto which Anſwer, ſome one replyed, it were well if thou waſt out of the world, that thou mighteſt not ſpread thy errours as thou doſt in the world. Nayler wrangled ſtill about the world, and ſaid, there was but one world, and that was the world of men, which were all enlightned. Then one that was neer Nayler, asked Nayler what world that was into which Chriſt came,Iohn 16.28.John 16:28 when he came out from his Father, and which he left when he went to his Father againe. And Nayler ſhufied, and would have avoided the Queſtion; upon which there fell out a wrangling, and other paſsages impertinent to the Queſtion in hand, which for brevity I omit here, and ſhall remember them in my Animadverſions upon Naylers falſe Relation. Mr Bourne. Whiles they were wrangling, Mr Bourne did call to Nayler to leave wrangling, and hearken to another Argument, to prove that all men had not a light within them, ſufficient to direct them to attaine ſalvation, and was giving forth an Argument. Mr Moors Argument. But Mr Moor Miniſter of Brampton, ſtept in and gave this Argument, or to this effect. If there be ſome men that have no light in them, then all men have not a light within them, ſufficient to direct them to attaine p. 27ſalvation. But there are ſome men that have no light in them, witneſs the Prophet Iſaiah, chap. 8.20. To the Law and to the Testimony, if they ſpeak not according to this rule, it is becauſe there is no light in them. Therefore all men have not a light within them, ſufficient to direct them to attaine ſalvation.

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

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

1. For the Kingdome of Gods power, which is Gods ſoveraignty over all the world, and this Kingdome of God is in every creature, and in, and over every man in the world; he ſets up and puls downe, 1 Sam. 2.6, 7, 8, &c. Dan. 4.30, &c.1 Sam 2:61 Sam 2:71 Sam 2:8Dan 4:30kils and maketh alive at his pleaſure, and ruleth, and over-ruleth all, when and how he will, and this Kingdome of God was in the Phariſees, as in all men whatſoever.

2. The Kingdome of God is taken for the Kingdome of Gods Grace, and this diverſly taken alſo. Firſt, for the outward adminiſtration of the comming and Kingdome of the Meſſiah Chriſt Jeſus, in the Goſpell; of which the Phariſees queſtioned Chriſt in that place, Luke 17. Luke 17.20. Gen. 49.10.Luke 17:20Gen 49:10demanding when the Kingdome of God ſhould come, that is, the Kingdome of the Meſſiah, p. 28which was prophecied and promiſed ſhould come, Pſal. 2. Pſal. 45.6, 7. Luke 2.25, 26.Ps 2Ps 45:6Ps 45:7Luke 2:25Luke 2:26and which the Saints and people of God did expect and waite for; And John the Baptiſt (the forerunner of Chriſt) told the people this Kingdome was at hand. This Kingdome is called the Kingdome of Heaven, Mat. 3.2. Mat. 13.24, 44. Acts 1.3.Matt 3:2Matt 13:24Matt 13:44Acts 1:3and it is taken for the Goſpel, and Goſpel. Adminiſtrations, and this Kingdome and comming of Chriſt, this King, not only the Scribes and Phariſees, Luke 24.21.Luke 24:21but ſome of the Diſciples, did think ſhould come in outward pompe and power, to deliver the Jewes from the tyranny of the Romans, under whom they were tributaries. But Chriſt giveth them anſwer in that 20 verſe. Luke 17 20.Luke 17:20The Kingdome of Chriſt the Meſſiah (which they enquired after) commeth not with obſervation, or with outward pompe; but ſaith Chriſt, the Kingdome of God is within you, not individually or perſonally, as if the Kingdome of heaven (the Goſpell) and Chriſt the Meſſiah had been in every one of them particularly, or in every Phariſee; but collectively, or as they were a company of Phariſees, or people of the Jewes. The Kingdome of God is within you, or rather amongſt you, as the Greek word is well tranſlated in the margin of our Bibles in that place. And thus Expoſitors agree, ye ſeeke the Meſſiah as if hee were abſent, when hee is in the middeſt of you, Beza upon the Text. P…ſcator on that place. Thus Paſſor Iex con, &c. foreign in medio veſtri intra gentem veſtram within your nation.ſaith Beza. And Piſcator, The Kingdome of God is in the middeſt of you, in the boſome of your Nation. The Kingdome of God is within you, underſtand it not as every one is looked upon, by and in himſelfe, but as one body of many people, collected or joined together in one body or Nation. And the Kingdome of God in this ſence, was in and amongſt the Phariſees and people, to whom Chriſt did preach at that time. Againe, the Kingdome of Grace is taken for the gifts and Graces of the Kingdome, or which Chriſt the King giveth to his ſubjects and ſervants, and by his Spirit worketh in them, as Knowledge, Faith, Love, Righteouſneſs, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghoſt, and ſuch like inward ſpirituall Riches, and Graces of the p. 29ſpirit, by which God doth rule and reigne in the heats of his children, and this Kingdome is in Gods Elect, his choſen and faithfull, and called ones, Rev. 17.14.Rev 17:14not only amongſt them, but in them; but this Kingdome or theſe graces of the Kingdome of Chriſt, the Meſſiah, and Chriſts Spirit, was not in the Phariſees, to whom Chriſt did preach, though it was amongſt them, in ſuch as were true beleevers, Gods faithfull ſervants. This Anſwer was delivered far ſhorter, but to this effect and purpoſe.

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

Mr Bournes Reply. Mr Bourne did Reply, Iohn 3.1. Iohn 19.38, 39John 3that ſome of the Phariſees may be were beleevers, as Nicodemus, who came to Jeſus by night, and was at coſt with Joſeph of Arimathea, at the buriall of Chriſt, who was a Diſciple, though ſecretly for feare of the Jewes. And if this Kingdome of Grace was in any of the Phariſees, they muſt be ſuch as were beleevers, for other wiſe in unbeleevers and wicked Phariſees, who kept men (to their power) from confeſſing of Chriſt to be the Meſſiah, Iohn 12.42.John 12:42in them Chriſt was not, nor the Kingdome, nor the graces of Chriſts Kingdome. For in unbeleevers, where ſinne, ruleth and reigneth in their mortall bodies, and they obey it in the luſts thereof, there or in their ſoules, Rom. 6.12, 16.Rom 6:12Rom 6:16the Kingdome of Grace is not; for Chriſt and ſinne cannot reign both together in one ſoule. This anſwer was ſhorter likewiſe but to this intent.

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

Mr Maud…ſl…y's Queſtion. Mr Maudeſley (if my memory did not faile me) or ſome one neer him asked Nayler, what Kingdome that was, which Chriſt ſpake of after his reſurrection, Acts p. 301. Acts. 1.3.Acts 1:3He was ſeen of them forty daies, ſpeaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdome of God.

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

Reply of another to Nayler. But ſome one neer Nayler Replied, Acts 9.5, 17. 1 Cor. 9.1. 1 Cor. 15.7, 8.Acts 9:5Acts 9:171 Cor 9:11 Cor 15:71 Cor 15:8that Chriſt was ſeen after his Aſcenſion. For he was ſeen of Paul, as Paul himſelfe doth teſtifie. Am not I an Apoſtle, have I not ſeen the Lord? And laſt of all, he was ſeen of me, as one born out of due time, &c.

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

Reply. To which one Replyed, that was a Bull or a ſenceleſſe Anſwer, for whatſoever is ſeen, muſt be ſeen viſibly, in what manner ſoever it is ſeene, whether by the eie of the body, or by faith the eie of the ſoule. If we ſee him that is inviſible, as Moſes did; yet he is viſibly ſeen with thoſe eies, Heb. 11.27.Heb 11:27by which we doe ſee him, either in Grace or Glory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firſt, if you read Gen. 23.6. You may finde, Example. 1 that when Abraham came to the children of Heth to ge… a burying place for Sarah his wife (ſhee being then p. 32dead) hee ſpake to the children of Heth, and bowed downe himſelfe to the people of the land, to give unto them, not any divine religious worſhip, which is due to God, but civill honour due to men; and three times is Abraham there called Lord by that people, and faithfull Abraham taketh that title to himſelfe, without any reproofe of them, for giving that title to him, or any refuſing of that title given him, which he would not have done, if it had not been lawfull to have received any ſuch honour, nor would he have bowed downe himſelfe to the people of the land, if it had been ſinne to have done ſo. For Abraham was a knowing faithfull man, believing in Chriſt the Meſſiah to come, and rejoicing to ſee Chriſts day, witneſſe our Saviour, John 8.Iohn 8.56.…John 8:56

2Againe, read Gen. 24. When Abraham ſent his religious ſervant to provide a wife for his ſonne Iſaac, Gen. 24.27:Gen 24:27his ſervant putteth up his prayer to God, O Lord God of my Maſter Abraham, ſend me good ſpeed this day, and ſhew kindneſſe to my Maſter Abraham. And hee calleth Abraham Maſter, ſixteen or ſeventeen times in that Chapter, which certainly he would not have done, if it had not been lawfull to call Maſter.

3Thirdly, Gen. 32.18.Gen 32:18read Gen. 32. And you may finde that Jacob calleth his brother Eſau, Lord, in that direction of his to his ſervants, whom he ſent before with a gift to his brother. When you meet my brother Eſau (ſaith he) and he ſhall aske you, whoſe are theſe Cattell? you ſhall anſwer, it is a preſent ſent to my Lord Eſau; and he cals Eſau Lord foure times in that Chapter.

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

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

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

p. 34Mr Bournes. Reply. Then I replied, and bad Nayler read the context in the verſes before, and if his eies were open, he might ſee the mind of Chriſt, that it was not abſolutely to forbid his hearers to call any man Maſter or Father, but to forbid the ambitious ſeeking of honor, and the ambitious love of honour, which was in the Scribes and Phariſees. This you may finde is that that he reproveth in them, in the 6 and 7 verfes. They love (ſaith Chriſt) the uppermoſt rooms at Feaſts, and the chiefe ſeats in the Synagogues, and greetings in the Markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi: And this ambitious pride and love of honour from men, Chriſt reproveth in the Phariſees; and this he forbiddeth his diſciples, but be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your Maſter, even Chriſt, and all ye are brethren, he would not have his Apoſtles to ſeeke ſuperiority and power one over another in a proud ambitious manner, Diotrephes-like to love to have the preheminence, as 3 John 9. the Evangeliſt doth witneſle Diotrephes did. Yet our Saviour Chriſt here doth not ſimply and abſolutely forbid all giving or receiving of honour, or of calling, or being called of men Maſter, or Father, or Lord or Lady, or the like. Yet it is certaine, our Saviour Chriſt doth forbid ſo to call Maſter or Father, as to make any man the Maſter or Father of our Faith, inſtead of Chriſt; or that any man ſhould be called Maſter or Father, ſo as to take the honour of chiefe Maſter or Father, or Teacher, to himſelfe, which is due to Chriſt. This is that which Chriſt forbiddeth; and this is that which the Apoſtle Paul forbiddeth the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1. Now this I ſay (ſaith the Apoſtle) that every one of you ſaith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I of Chriſt. One ſaid he was Pauls Diſciple; another, he was Apollos; another, he was Chriſts. But what ſaith the Apoſtle, is Chriſt divided? was Paul crucified for you? Thus they made Paul the Maſter or Father of their faith. And this the Apoſtle Paul reproveth here. And this Chriſt our Saviour reproveth and forbiddeth, Mat. 23. And p. 35Chriſt doth forbid to give that divine honour which is due to God and Chriſt, that God-man our Saviour, to any man in the world; but hee doth not forbid to give or receive civill honour and reſpect one to another, according to each mans place and dignity, or ſo to be called of men, Maſter or Father, or the like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Magiſtrates ſupreme and inferiour, Judges and Juſtices, and ſuch as are of higher or lower place and power, they are by Gods Ordinance, ſet in place above others in Gods ſtead for the peoples good: Therefore they are to have honor given unto them above others, to be declared outwardly, as well as ſetled inwardly in the hearts of men. The major or firſt propoſition, is moſt agreeable to reaſon and order even in nature it ſelfe. The herbes and graſſe of the field, which are inferiour, and have but a vegetive life, they doe ſervice, and give a kind of obedience in Gods Ordinance, for the nouriſhment and ſervice of the beaſts and cattell, which are ſuperiour in nature, and have beſides a vegetive or growing life, a life of ſence alſo, which is more excellent. Againe, theſe brute creatures which have only the vegetive and ſenſitive life, they are inferiour unto, and doe ſervice, and yield obedience unto man, which is a more noble creature, ſuperiour to the other, as having not only a vegetive and ſenſitive, but alſo a rationall life, and more excelling inferiour creatures; and man hath yet the great God, and Creator of heaven and earth, above him, to whom he doth owe honour and ſervice both in ſoule and body, Rom. 12.1. Thus in order of nature, and thus in order of government, the Comm-wealths and governments of Nations, there is and ought to be order of ſuperiour and p. 43inferiour; 1 Cor. 14.33.1 Cor 14:33for as in the Churches of the Saints (ſo in Common-wealths) God is not the Author of Confuſion, but of peace and good order in all; And ſo an orderly reſpect is to be had to every ſuperiour, according to their place and power. The Apoſtle Paul giveth evidence to this at full, Rom. 13.1, &c. Let every ſoule be ſubject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, and the powers that be ordained of God, they are Gods Ordinance, and hee is the Miniſter of God to thee for good. For this cauſe pay you tribute alſo, for they are Gods miniſters attending continually upon this very thing; And hence he concludes, render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, cuſtome to whom cuſtome, feare to whom feare, honour to whom honour. Thus honour is a due as well as tribute or cuſtome, or any other ſervice. I might call in the Apoſtle Peter to witneſs the ſame, 1 Pet. 2.13, 14, 17. but I refer the Reader to the Scripture it ſelf, theſe teſtifie an honor due to our ſuperiours. And for the minor or ſecond propoſition; That magiſtrates ſupreme or inferiour, are Gods Ordinance ſet and approved by God for government above others; the places alledged might ſuffice, but if you read Exod. 18.21, 23. when Jethro, Moſes Father in law, gave him that good counſell, to provide out of all the people able men, ſuch as feare God, men of truth, hating covetouſneſſe, and to place them over them to be Rulers of thouſands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens. And if thou doe this thing, and God command thee ſo, then ſhalt thou be able to endure, and this people ſhall goe to their place in peace. And Moſes did ſo, and God himſelfe doth approve of this order of government, of ſuperiours and inferiours, and giveth Moſes order to gather to God ſeventy Elders, and the Lord taketh of the Spirit of government, that was upon Moſes, and gave it to the ſeventy Elders, as you may read Numb. 11.16, 17, 25. Thus are Governours over the people, of Gods owne ordination, as ſuperiours, and ſo a higher honour and reſpect is due unto them.

p. 44Argument. 2 Againe, that outward manifeſtation of honour, and thoſe titles of honour, which have been given by holy men in Scripture, to Princes, Magiſtrates and Judges, and others according to their places and dignities, which are not reproved by Gods Spirit, that may lawfully bee given now to Princes, to Judges, Magiſtrates, Governours and others, according to their places and dignities. But outward manifeſtation of honour and honourable titles, have been given by holy men in Scripture, to Princes, Judges and Magiſtrates, and others, according to their place and dignities, therefore they may be given now to ſuch without ſinne; yea, it is our duties ſo to doe. Pſal. 82.16.Ps 82:16Doth not the Scripture call them Gods as in Gods ſtead? And to evidence both propoſitions, Example. 1 I ſhall give you ſeverall examples. If we read that place; Numb. 11.28. when the Spirit of God reſted upon Eldad and Medad in the campe, Joſhua in his zeale ſpeaks to Moſes to forbid them, and cals him Lord, and Joſhua ſaid, my Lord Moſes forbid them; he giveth him an honourable title, my Lord Moſes. And did not wiſe Abigal call David Lord, when he was comming with his Souldiers to deſtroy churliſh Nabal for his ingratitude? 1 Sam. 25 24, 25, &c. Yea divers times in that Chapter, ſhe giveth David the honourable title of Lord. And did not good David cry after King Saul, and giveth him this honourable title, my Lord the King? 1 Sam. 24.8. And doth he not then give outward reverence to Saul, to witneſſe his honorable reſpects to Saul, as to his ſuperiour in place and power; the text ſaith, David ſtooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himſelfe? This is far unlike Naylers and his quaking companions carriage, even to Princes, Magiſtrates, and Judges, and Juſtices of the peace, to ſtand with their hats on their heads, and to ſpeak to them in an irreverent manner; thou man, or thee man, who ſitteſt in the place of judgement, do this or that, as ſome of them have ſaid and done. May I not ſay the ſame of Abner, who (as David teſtifieth) was a Prince, p. 45and a great man in Iſrael, yet when he came to David, he gave him titles of honour; I will goe ſaith he, and gather all Iſrael unto my Lord the King, 2 Sam. 3.21. What need I tell you of that great Prophet of God, Elijah, doth he not call Ahab Obadiahs Lord, goe tell thy Lord, behold Elijah is here, 1 Kin. 18.14. Though Ahab was a wicked man, yet hee doth not take from him his title of honour. And doth not the Spirit of God give the title of Lord to that noble man, on whoſe hand the King leaned? 2 Kin. 7.2. What need I tell you, that in the New Teſtament, the bleſſed Evangeliſt Luke, in that his hiſtory of the Goſpell which he did write to Theophilus, he giveth him that honourable title, moſt excellent Theophilus, Luke 1.3. a title of great honour and high eſteem given to Theophilus; And bleſſed Paul calleth Feſtus the Governour of that Province, noble Festus, Acts 26.25, 27. And in the ſame Chapter, when he was before King Agrippa, to anſwer for himſelfe, he doth not in a proud or blind ignorant ſottiſh manner, call Agrippa thou man, or thee man (as the Quakers doe) but King Agrippa, believeſt thou the Prophets, I know that thou believeſt. Thus do theſe Saints give titles of honour according to mens place and dignities; I will name but one more, and that is the bleſſed Evangeliſt St John, that beloved Diſciple of Chriſt John 19.26. in his ſecond Epiſtle, hee giveth that gratious woman, to whom he writ her title of honour and reſpect, verſe 1. The Elder (ſaith he) to the elect Lady; And againe verſe 5. I beſeech thee Lady, Thus doth the bleſſed Apoſtle, give titles of honour, to whom honour belongs. And theſe certainly, are witneſſes ſufficient to juſtifie this truth againſt the Quakers; that there may be ſome kinde of reſpect, civill reſpect I mean, though not to corrupt or flatter, yet to know and owne difference of perſons, and to give to each that honor which is due to them in their ſeverall places.

Againe, as it is a duty to give honour and reſpect, ſo it is lawfull for Princes, Judges, Juſtices and others, to p. 46this honour, when in a right and due manner it is given unto them. I ſhall call in only one witneſſe to evidence this truth, beſides thoſe whom I named before, to whom honor was given of men, none of w^ch godly men did reject that honor which was aſcribed & given unto them which had it been unlawfull to have received, they would certainly have refuſed. The witneſſe is that holy man Job, one that feared God, and eſchewed evill, and what doth he teſtifie of himſelfe? you may read, Job 29.7, 8, &c. when I went out of the gate (ſaith he) through the City, when I prepare my ſeat in the ſtreet, the young men ſaw me, and hid themſelves, and the aged aroſe and ſtood up. Righteous Job was an honourable and juſt Judge, he was eies to the blind, and feet to the lame; he was a father to the poor, and the cauſe which he knew not, he ſearched it out; he did break the jawes of the wicked, and plucked the ſpoile out of his teeth, therefore was Job honourable, and both old and young did honor Job, not in their hearts only (as the Quakers would have magiſtrates honoured) but outwardly alſo, in giving all civill outward honour unto them, according to their ſeverall place and dignities; and good reaſon it ſhould be ſo: For who more honourable, profitable, and neceſſary, then good religious, juſt and righteous Judges and Magiſtrates, in a Commonwealth? When juſtice is rightly executed, it exalteth a a Nation, Prov. 14 34.Prov 14:34but ſinne is a ſhame to a people: The want of magiſtracy and government, prepareth a people for deſtruction, Iudges 18.7. My Text the 2d time I preached before the honourable Iudges at Darby Aſſiſes, in which I proved the neceſſity of, and honour due to Magiſtrates, at full.Judg 18:7witneſſe that City Laiſh, who periſhed ſuddenly: And this is one reaſon given. There was no Magiſtrate in the Land, which might (puniſh, or) put them to ſhame in any thing. And this ſhall ſuffice to witneſſe againſt all adverſaries whatſoever, and cleare up and reſolve the Queſtion into this concluſion, That it is lawfull to call Maſter or Father, and to give honour to every one, even to the higheſt powers, and to inferiour Magiſtrates, to the honourable Judges and Juſtices, and to all others, according to their ſeverall places p. 47and dignities whatſoever; yet ſo as the honour and glory of God is to be exalted above all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p. 485. He ſaith, ſwearing and curſing, and blaſpheming the dreadfull name of God, are the fruits of John Billingsley's Miniſtry. This is a fifth untruth; for Mr Bilingsley never preached any ſuch doctrine, nor approved of any ſuch practice, nor did know of the Bul-baiting Nayler ſpake againſt. There was a poore man of Wingerworth neer Cheſterfield, his name (as I was informed) was William Froſt; who having heard Naylers deſperate doctrine, and read ſome of his books, deſpaired, and went and drowned himſelfe: Was this the fruits of thy Miniſtry, Nayler? thou wilt not confeſſe it was.

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

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

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

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

p. 4910. Nayler at the Diſputation, did moſt falſely accuſe me, that I did ſweare by Mary, when I did not ſo much as name Mary, as all that could heare me can witneſſe at full, nor did I ſweare at all; as in my letter I writ to him the next day, I juſtified ſully, and wiſhed him to repent his lying accuſation; which letter he hath moſt falſely printed, heaping up one lye after another, in a moſt ſhameleſſe manner; as if the Spirit of lying and ſlander, had taken ful poſſeſſion of him, which I leave off to rehearſe, as being unwilling to blot my paper with ſo many of his odious ſtinking untruths; yet I ſhall mention one more moſt abominable. Nayler ſaith, page 10. That theſe Prieſts ſet themſelves with all their ſtrength, to prove ſwearing lawfull, &c. which is a moſt helliſh lie. This was the truth, when Nayler wrangling, denied it to be lawfull to take any oath before a lawfull Magiſtrate, upon any occaſion, Mr Billingsley proved it lawfull by divers places of Scripture, both out of the Old and New Teſtament, which Nayler baſely perverteth, and according to his cuſtome, raiſeth that moſt wicked ſlander, and here he fully maketh good that which is juſtified againſt him and his fellowes, in that briefe Relation of the irreligion of the Northerne Quakers, noted before, page 20. baſely to manifeſt themſelves notorious lyars; as in that Pamphlet called Sauls errand to Damaſcus, in which there are a hundred untruths, as may bee proved ſaith that Author, by a hundred witneſſes, and many of them ſaith he, will be as ready to ſay and unſay any thing, as if lying were a vertue; and that they make no conſcience of raiſing falſe reports againſt any that oppoſe them. And this I now finde to be moſt true in lying Nayler by this experience. But if the adverſaries of Chriſt called the Maſter of the houſe Belzeebub, no marvell if theſe Quaking adverſaries like the devil (that grand Quaker) do belye and ſcandalize the miniſters of Chriſt. The Lord forgive them if it be his will, if they have not ſinned that ſinne unto death, of which St John witneſſeth. p. 50There is a ſinne unto death, I ſay not that thou ſhouldeſt pray for it, 1 John 5.16.

Now for thy twenty Quaeries Nayler, which thou ſenteſt and addeſt towards the end; I have in part anſwered them already in what I have writ, and part of them are ſuch Queſtions againſt which St Paul ſpeaketh, as tending not to edification of thoſe who are weak in the faith, Rom. 14.1, 2. but rather to their diſtraction, if not deſtruction, therefore more fit to be ſilenced and buried in darkneſſe, then to be revived or brought to light. Secondly, ſome are hypocriticall, like that of Herod to the wiſe men, Mat. 2.7, 8. Thirdly, ſome are curious Queſtions, to ſatisfie curious buſie minds, ſuch as thou art, which being anſwered, will not profit to godlineſſe or edification, contrary to the rule, 1 Cor. 14.26 Fourthly ſome of them are tempting captious Queſtions, like thoſe of the Phariſees (thy Fathers) to Chriſt our Saviour, which he either anſwereth by Queſtions to his adverſaries againe, or elſe wiſely rejects or avoids to eſcape their treacherous deſignes againſt him, as Mat. 21.23, 24, &c. Mat. 22.16, 17, 18, &c. Fifthly, ſome are fooliſh and unlearned Queſtions, which gender ſtrifes, not love, or any benefit to ſoules, and which the Apoſtle directs Timothy to avoid, 2 Tim. 2.23. and giveth the ſame command to Titus, becauſe ſaith he, they are unprofitable and vaine, Tit. 3.9. And I had rather follow St Pauls counſell, then ſatisfie thy folly. It is the counſell of the wiſe man, in ſome ſuch caſes to be ſilent, Prov. 26.4. Yet if thou wilt have an anſwer to thy twenty Quaeries, and to thy challenge and brags, leſt thou be wiſe in thy own conceit, or any of thy generation, Prov. 26.5. know that all or moſt of them, or thoſe that are fit to be replyed unto, they are ſufficiently anſwered by divers religious learned men, Miniſters of the Goſpell, and others. If any deſire to ſee, Firſt let them read learned Mr Baxter's anſwer to the ſixteen Quaeries, The Worceſter petition d…fended, printed 1653.upon the Woſterſhire Petition; to which is added ſeventeen Counter-Quaeries, not yet anſwered p. 51by thee and thy fellowes that I have ſeen. 2. Read Mr Baxters Quakers Catechiſm, The Quakers confuted, printed, 1654.and the Quakers Queſtions anſwered there, printed 1655. 3. Read godly Mr Eaton, in his book called the Quakers confuted, being an anſwer to nineteen quaeries of thy companions, in which your weakneſſe and erroneous wickedneſſe is diſcovered, and the truth vindicated. 4. Read that book called the Perfect Phariſee, The Perfect Phariſee, printed 1654.in which by way of poſition and proofe, your wandring quaeries are learnedly and religiously anſwered, by thoſe five godly Miniſters nere New Caſtle. 5. Mr Fowler, &c printed 1655.Read ſolid and accute Mr Fowler's book, called Satan at Noon Day, of the ſeverall ſorts of Quakers and Familiſts, And there you may ſee the matter of theſe familiſticall quaeries anſwered, and errors confuted to their ſorrow, if they had grace to be ſenſible. 6. The myſtery of ungodlineſſe, printed 1653.Read judicious and zealous Mr Farmer of Briſtol, in his book entituled the Myſtery of Godlineſſe and ungodlineſſe, in which the Queſtioniſt ungodlineſſe, is there diſcovered to their ſhame. 7. Reverend and ſuccinct Mr Sherlock's anſwer to twenty ſeven of the Quakers wild Queſtions, Mr Sherlock printed 1654.and his learned diſcourſe of the Spirit annexed, which might ſtay theſe erring wandring ſpirits, from their falſe pretences to the ſpirit of Chriſt. 8 Read that profitable book, A brief relation printed 1653.of that obſervant Author called A Briefe Relation of the Irreligion of the Northern Quakers, wherein their horrid principles and practiſes, doctrines and manners, are expoſed to the view of every intelligent Reader, and the Quakers Sauls errand to Damaſcus, in which are ſaid to be an hundred lies replied unto. 9. Antichriſt in man, printed 1655.Witneſs that booke entituled Antichriſt in man, the Quakers Idoll, by Mr Joſhua Milner a ſervant of Chriſt in the Goſpell, in which is an anſwer and confutation of ſome of the Quakers dangerous and damnable doctrines. 10. Mr Prins Quakers unmasked, printed 1656.witneſſe godly and learned Mr William Prinne Eſquire, detecting theſe Quakers to bee but the ſpawne of the Romiſh Frogs, Jeſuites, and Franciſcan Fryars, ſent from Rome to ſeduce poore ſoules in this Engliſh Nation; p. 52with his reply to John Audlands rayling paper, by which, and what I have proved in my Anſwer and Arguments upon the Queſtions before, which were Diſputed, any Chriſtians ſeeing eye, may ſee that James Nayler and his wandring fellow Quakers, are but poor pedlers for the Prieſts of Rome, and the Jeſuits ſervants, carrying up and downe the Nation, their packs of errours, and bags of paper-quaeries, invented and hatched in Antichriſts and the devils warehouſe, which they offer at every door or place where they come, like braided, bauſed, rotten wares, to deceive and couzen poor ſoules, and to diſturbe the peace and quiet of the Nation, that this common enemy may more eaſily wheele us about to Rome, and Romiſh Tyranny, and ſo bring us to confuſion, from the higheſt to the loweſt; from which, God of his mercy protect us. And for Miniſters maintenance, Gen. 14.20. Gen. 28.22. Lev. 27.30, 31. Numb. 18.21. Deut. 10.8, 9. Mal 3 8 9. Mat. 23 23. 1 Cor. 9 13.14. 1 Tim. 5.17. Heb. 7.8. Printed for Mr Iohn Wright in the Old Bayly, 1646. Mr Deacons diſcovery, printed 1656.Gen 14:20Gen 28:22Lev 27:30Lev 27:31Num 18:21Deut 10:8Deut 10:9Mal 3:8Matt 23:231 Cor 9:131 Cor 9:141 Tim 5:17Heb 7:8read Dr Carleton, Dr Tilleſley, Dr Slater, Sir Henry Spelman, Sir James Sempel, Mr William Prin Eſquire, my owne ſixt book (I have printed) called a light from Chriſt, leading unto Chriſt; and divers others, who have ſufficiently proved Tythes not only lawfull, but due by divine Right to Chriſt, and the Miniſters of Chriſt in the Goſpell, and that the taking them away without due redemption, is that ſinne of ſacriledge. Laſt of all (for I let paſſe others) Read Mr John Deacon, a ſolid and ſharp Queſtioniſt, Replyant and Demandant, In his publike diſcovery of a ſecret deceit, or the man of ſin unmasked, and Satan transformed into the reſemblance of an Angell of light, in that Sect or Society, commonly called Quakers, in which you have nineteen quaeries ſent to the Quakers Speaker, at the bull and mouth neer Aldersgate, and miſerably anſwered by James Nayler, whom he calleth juſtly, the grand fomentor of hereſie; and replyed unto by Mr Deacon, and fourteen more returned by Nayler, and fully anſwered by Mr Deacon; and foure and twenty more propoſed by Mr Deacon, which nor James Nayler, nor any of his fellow Quakers (I believe) can truly p. 53and plainly anſwer, but they muſt denie the holy Scriptures, or forſake their owne falſe erronious and hereticall principles. And thus I have ſaid enough to direct James Nayler, and all his deceived, deluding Antichriſtian phariſaicall company of Quakers, where they may finde Anſwers to their ſo much bragged of quaeries. It would be happy for them, if they could leave their errours, and enquire after the knowledge of Chriſt, that they may be taught by him Eph. 4.20, 21. as the truth is in Jeſus, which I deſire I may pray for. And now dear ſoules, if any of you that belong to Jeſus Chriſt, have been drawn away with the errour of theſe wicked perfect phariſees (as they are rightly called) return againe to your firſt Husband, Chriſt your Saviour, Hoſ. 2.7. you will finde it will be better with you ſo, then now it is, and fly the ſociety of theſe deluding, equivocating, Antichriſtian Quakers, who ſpeak ſometimes of the Scriptures, but deny them to be the word of God, and make uſe of them in ſhew, but not in ſincerity and truth. Who pretend to a Chriſt within them, but deny the merits of Chriſts blood and righteouſneſſe of Chriſt imputed to beleevers for Juſtification and ſalvation. Some who proudly boaſt, George Fox Iames Nayler, &c. proved before. Read their books, and where doe you read of asking forgiveneſſe of ſin for Chriſts ſake.they are equall with God, and as holy, juſt and good, as God; that they are perfect, and without ſinne, and therefore ask no forgiveneſs of ſins at Gods hand, for Chriſts merits ſake, caſting away both the Article of Faith, in which we profeſs we believe remiſſion of ſinnes; and that petition of the Lords prayer, in which our Saviour teacheth us to pray, Forgive us our treſpaſses, as we forgive them that treſpaſs againſt us. Yea they endeavour to draw poore ſoules from Chriſts publike Ordinances, and to forſake the plain ſtraite way to Heaven, Mat. 7. like cheating thieves draw them into by waies, Mat. 7.14.Matt 7:14that they may-more ſecurely rob and ſpoil them of the rich treaſure of the Goſpell, and bleſsed way to glory.

Seek then my friends to Chriſt, who is the wiſedome of the Father, Prov. 8. Col. 2.3.Col 2:3for wiſedome and power to depart p. 54from the tents of theſe wicked men, Numb. 16.16.Num 16:16and to turne againe unto the Lord, that ye periſh not in their Apoſtacy from Chriſt. And for you my honoured pretious ſoules, and well beloved in the Lord Jeſus, who by ſtrength from Chriſt, have withſtood the temptations of theſe deluding Quakers, and are eſtabliſhed in the Faith of Chriſt, Watch ſtill, and beware ye be not drawn away with the errour of the wicked, and fall from your owne ſtedfaſtneſſe, and labour in the uſe of all good means; publike in the congregations of the ſaints, private in your families, and ſecret in your cloſets, by the power of Chriſt, and aſſiſtance of the Spirit of holineſs, John 15.5. Phil. 4.13. to grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jeſus Chriſt 2 Pet. 3.17, 18. To whom with God the Father, and God the bleſſed Spirit, be glory both now and for ever.

Amen.

Immanuel Bourne.

FINIS.

End of the text · Immanuel Bourne, Defense of the Scriptures (1656)