with the whole world. And, laftly, how many churches were gathered by the apoftles before the New Testament fcripture was all in being; which is fo much more beneficial, proper and advantageous to Chriftians, both as to faith and worship, than that of the Old Teftament: and yet without that, for feveral years, in which time, doubtlefs, many fell asleep, they lacked no rule: they had that which was fufficient, viz. the grace of God, which taught them and led them in the way to bleffedness.

Your third proof, Is our equalling apocrypha with fcripture,' and quote S. F. Ruft. p. 77. But if we do not equal fcripture with apocrypha, it does not shew we flight the fcripture, to have more of it than ye allow that title to: did we make the fcripture apocryphal, you had hit the mark, in your sense thereof.

However, firft, your communion frequently use it to confirm their doctrine, both in pulpit and in writing; and particularly the prefent archbishop, in his late fermon before the queen, upon Pfal. lxxiii. 25. and that with a more than common emphafis. And if it were fpurious, and a by-blow, as you are pleased to call us in respect of religion, why fhould fo many eminent poets of your own choofe to vouch the truth of religion from thofe books, rather than Plato, Philo, &c?

3. Remember, if you please, that they were firft left out by the council of Laodicea, which was three hundred fixty-four years after Chrift; and received again by the council of Carthage, anno 399; which, at the beft, is but an indifferent foundation for your exception. Alfo pray take along with you, the complaints of Ferom and Epiphanius, among others, of the partialities that had been, even by the orthodox, committed upon the New Teftament, under pretence of the ill ufe fome hereticks (real or fuppofed) made, or might make, of them. Jer. ad Luc. Epift. 28. Epip. in Anc. 7.2.

4. Your fourth part of the affumption to prove your charge, is, That we equal our own writings unto the

fcripture,

fcripture, and that it is the ready way to make it both blafphemy and nonfenfe:' and from thence you are pleased to call us God's ape. Waving all your reflections, that edify very little, and cannot honour you, pray obferve your proofs. G. Fox, Mystery, pag. 12. and Francis Howgil, Anti. Volunt. defeated, without a page, affirm the "Neceffity of an infallible fpirit "for gofpel minifters." O friends! Whither would you drive things? What, make that herefy, which is the root of all true religion, as well as true miniftry? Can a fallible spirit bring people into the truth, or turn them to God? Is not the fpirit of God an infallible fpirit? And are not the children of God led by it? Rom. viii. 14. And we are not ashamed to fay, That by that holy spirit, we are often conftrained to exhort, rebuke, and inftruct, as it giveth utterance; ⚫ and that God has owned our labours with a comfortable harvest, bleffed be his name:' but for equalling our writings with fcripture, we have no fuch expreffions or thoughts: it is a word of your own, and a conceit and inference of our old adverfaries. There are degrees, as well as diverfity, of manifeftations and operations, but the fame Lord, and the fame fpirit: yet, if it will fatisfy you, we have ever preferred the Bible to all books and writings of faints and good men. You have other proofs, you fay, that G. Roff writ to Oliver Cromwell "Thus faith the Lord." And that branded blafphemer Nayler (whom we, you fay, to this day imitate, defend and admire) says, in his Love to the Loft, "The word of the Lord to "his beloved city;" though the holy fcripture must not have that honour.' Now, know ye, if ye please, that we own the ftile, and blefs God his word is among us, and when it lays a neceffity upon us, we can fay in truth, The word of the Lord: and it is, or ought to be, well known to this nation, that we have spoken it in truth; it having been fulfilled more than once upon thofe to whom we have been fent with it. And it is a blindness, and a thick apoftafy, that has overtaken fuch as count it monftrous to have a vifion,

or to know the word of the Lord in gofpel-days; the days of light and life, the difpenfation of fpirit and power, and of the word of the Lord, according to that notable paffage, Ifa. ix. 21. "As for me, this is my covenant with them, faith the Lord, my fpirit that is upon thee (fpeaking of Chrift) and my "words which I have put into thy mouth, fhall not depart out of the mouth of thy feed, nor out of "the mouth of thy feed's feed, faith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever," Alfo that of Joel ii. 28. In the latter days I will pour out my spirit upon "all flesh;" without refpect to nation, age or fex. But you are very difingenuous to thrust into your citation of J. Nayler's words, by parenthefis, whom you fay we imitate, defend and admire; thereby fuggefting, that we defend him in blafphemy; which is more than you can prove by any warrantable authority: however, hereby you juftify that piece of cruelty, done in that unhappy age, and ufurped power (as you fuggeft) which many eminent and fober people were grieved at: this is abufive, and out of all bounds of equal dealing, and we wish you may repent of it: for we are so far from imitating, defending, and admiring him in that refpect, wherein he gave occafion of offence and stumbling, that we did not only at that time difown his proceedings, but he very folemnly condemned them himself, which was printed to the world; and he lived an humble, contrite, and exemplary life, and died, we believe, in peace.

That we read our own epiftles in our meetings, and not the fcriptures.' is not from difrefpect to the fcripture, but because of a particular occafion, and a word of exhortation thereby communicated. If it were customary to read our friends writings, as the fcriptures are in the publick places of worship, and yet we did not read the fcriptures, we fhould deferve your reproof, but that is not the cafe, far be it from us.

The laft part of your affumption, by which you would prove us to condemn the fcripture, is, Our

ufing, with the Papifts, detracting expreffions, as a dead letter, a nose of wax, a Lesbian rule;' and for this you quote S. F. pag. 48. It is low with you, that you have no more evidence. But now be ingenuous; can you think we call the fcriptures fo, or that we fay men make them fo, or use them fo? Lay your hands upon your hearts, and think again. Is there any thing more proverbial, than to fay, That men ⚫ make a nofe of wax of the fcriptures?' But herein to join us with the Papifts, ftill is more uncandid; for the very place you cite makes an exception to the Papift's practice, who ufe fuch speeches tauntingly, that is, in flight, in contempt of the fcripture. But S. F. doth it not in any fuch fenfe; why then fhould you make him do it tauntingly, and with Papifts, when he fo particularly provides against them both? You would make ill jury-men with fuch latitudes. The fcripture, of itself, is a dead letter, for all letters are fo in themselves; and you grant as much in fpeaking of the word of God: but if they are made alive to any foul, by the application of God's holy and quickening fpirit, they become living to that foul, as much as if the holy penman had fpoke them in his ear: and indeed no words are living to any man, whether written or fpoken, but as they are made fo by the fpirit, in the heart of fuch a man. But Gregory Nazianzen, whom we fuppofe you reverence, fpeaking of the Bible, faid, Is religion placed in a leaf? Fearest

thou (paper, or) parchment more than God? This had been heinous in us, and yet it is true. A Lesbian rule he ftiled it, ad hominem. The truth they declare is ftable and certain; but men twift, fhift, and wring them, and fo they become like the Lefbian rule, that ferved all turns; and for that reafon he urged, That • men fhould come to the spirit of God, to receive the mind of the spirit in the matter therein doubted ⚫ or controverted."

That the Quakers will by fcripture to be the word of in no sense too, you would G g 4

have

have gone too faft; and yet your intention in your words looks that way. Let us not differ, pray you, more than needs muft, to fupport the credit of your charge. You confefs Chrift is called the Word of < God, but fo is the fcripture.' And we fay, Chrift is, but fo is not the fcripture: you produce, Jer. xxxvi. 4, 10, 12. We fay, at that rate, there are an hundred words of God, because it was the ftile the prophets ufed for every message. But you go, I confefs, a great way to help out the matter, when you allow, ‹ That it is ridiculous to fay the very letters are the word of God, but the fenfe and divine truths therein contained, and conveyed to us by the co-operation of God's fpirit:' for in that fenfe, every paffage thereof, given forth by divine infpiration, is the will, mind, command, and, if you please, so far the word of the Lord; and fo we do not, as you fay, contradict ourselves in ufing the fame phrase to our own writings. But, nevertheless, primarily and excellently, we attribute that ftile to "Chrift, the word, that "was with God, and was God, and made all things:" and we do not fee but you yield it to us.

For your third charge, Of turning the facred truths of fcripture into jejune allegories,' fince you refer your proof to another place, we alfo do our anfwer.

Your fourth charge is, That we speak not very honourably of our Saviour.' But how does that appear? Do we fay he is no Saviour, or that he is a deficient Saviour, and leaves men as bad as he finds them? As too many fhew that call him fo; and, which is worfe, plead to be fo as long as they live, because, fay they, He did not come to take away the nature

of fin,' which must be left for their probation, and to fhew forth God's mercy to forgive; as if fin were ferviceable? We have not thus difhonoured him, I hope. How is it, pray you, that we difhonour him? Why, firft, you fay, We make him a monfter:' that is bad indeed, or you are very irreverent, as well as unjuft, in your expreffion. Robert Barclay, pag, 306.*

you