knowledge : and if the Spirit cease to teach, (as it can never teach, but by inspiration or revelation) then the administration of Christ and his apostles is ceased indeed: and so not the Quakers, but their adversary overturns the gospel ministration, as begun and preached by Christ and his apostles. And be it known to all the world, we think revelation no disgrace to. our cause. Parrots may learn scripture, but can never experience it. And those know little better, who know not by experience: they are unprofitable canters indeed, who confidently talk of what they never felt; and idle boasters, who buoy up themselves unto the reputation of ministers and Christians, with a loud talk of their travels, trials, inspirations, and experiences, whom they plainly mock in their posterity; concluding all blind, because themselves cannot see. In short, let it be the character of the despised Quakers, (and we glory in it) that all the councils, synods, universities, doctors, scholars, and the most unanimous decrees, learned books, and whatever the power and art of the spirit of man can produce, will never be able to give, or rule, that true faith which overcomes the world: for “that which may be known “ of God is manifest within man:” and though outward records may testify of and direct to that unerring light and spirit, by. which man comes both to know God, and to be made conformable to his heavenly image; yet nothing below the discoveries, convictions, and effectual operations of the Eternal Spirit, can give man the certain knowledge of God, nor that daily ability by which alone he may be enabled to obey him.

Pag. 16, 17, 18. But he opposeth to us · Miracles ļ and reason; insinuating that we have no more of the ? last than the first, and therefore not to be believed.' To the first, I say, we pretend to no other religion, than what was professed and practised by the apostles, and therefore need no new miracles after that manner to confirm that which has been confirmed by miracles already; especially to those who believe those mira,

cles: and to deny revelation where there are no miracles, is to discard many of the prophets, and to deny the pouring forth of the spirit upon the primitive Christians. But, above all, hear the man's interpretation of Deut. xviii. 22. “ When a prophet speaks in " the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor “ come to pass;” that is, faith this horrible perverter of holy scripture, if he do no miracle;' whereas the verse intends no such thing. Is this to rant over the Quakers for ideots, as if he were some doctor of the chair, that where the scripture speaks of prophecy, he should render it miracle ; as if he that is a prophet, is a worker of miracles, and that miracles and prophecy are equivalent? But (argumentum ad hominem) let us see how it will hold. i He that is a true prophet 'must necessarily work miracles: but the priests of

England cannot work miracles; therefore, the priests

of England are all false prophets.' A true conclufion, yet false premises: a paradox. Now for the reafonableness of our doctrine: he thinks a very mean

capacity can find none in it; for how should there

be any reason in what they teach, when they thems felves,' says he, deny the use of reason. (pag. 18.) But none have less than they which pretend to so much. This man dares swagger for reason, and yet cries out, heresy, as soon as he sees it. His reason is, the authority of his church; the say-fo of some university doktor ; finally, the works of some learned men: and offer never so much reason and conscience against them, and your reason is fophiftry, and conscience, enthusiasm. The justest separation in the world is with such but schism; and, which is the last stratagem, such persons must be enemies to Cæfar. But I may say of those men, as Heraclitus said of their forefathers, If blind

men were to judge of fight, they would say blindness

were sight.' God is the fountain as well of reason as light: and we assert our principle not to be without reason, but most reasonable; whence it is frequent with us, in our reproof of cruel men, to say they are unreasonable, whether it be to man or beast,

making

I 4

making good what the prophet faith, “ For his God « doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach « them.” Again, “ Come and let us reason together. And Tertullian will have the first verse of John thus rendered; “In the beginning was reason, and that “ reason was with God, and that reason was God; by " that were all things made,” &c. And this seems no foreign interpretation; for in the roth verse of Jude we have “ sensual men not having the Spirit," called arogar fásc, unreasonable creatures; according to which the apostle speaks, étoldos orgós átoroziav alište aby ou, “ to him that alks reason, be ready to give it."

Thus much (to overlook our own translation in Paul's second epistle to the Thessalonians, where he calls fuch“ Unreasonable men that have not faith,)” concerning reason: so that it is very evident by our adversary's denying, and the Quakers asserting an unerrable principle to be in man, and the refusal of the one, and the readiness of the other, to be governed thereby, that not the Quakers, but their enemies, are unreasonable, both in their faith and practice.

$. 3. Of forms of prayer. Our adverfary spends two or three pages in proving the necessity of bodily worship;' and he doth it la lamely, that if it were so much my judgment to deny it, as it is to practise it, I know nothing he has said to incline me to it. This he makes an introduction : to that agreement, he says, there is between D, G. H. N. and the Quakers, in their mutual renouncing both bodily worship and visible ordinances. For bodily worship, I need say no more, than that our publick meetings judge him guilty of great dishonesty. For his visible ordinances, we shall proceed to consider them. The first is concerning a form of prayer; hear him.

« With the like silly and weak confidence they ex- : claim against forms of prayer, when as our blessed : « Saviour taught his disciplesą form.' Mat. vi. 9.

« After

137 « After this manner therefore pray ye,” &c. • And

left,' says he, we fhould think that this was only • a pattern, Saint Luke, chap. xi. expresses it, “ When ye pray, say, Our Father,” &c. ' that is, do • it in these words, Moreover, John taught his disciples; and one of Christ's disciples desired that he would teach them: where we are told first, that John delivered a form of prayer to his disciples. • 2. That Christ's disciples besought him that he I would also give them fome form of his making.'

Anf. But can this man have the vanity to plead the necessity of the use of this form, much less of those that are of mens invention and appointment, from those quotations? Has his religion brought him no farther? Can he believe that Matthew writ by the Holy Ghost, and yet imply an absolute reproof in his so much more commending Luke's account, which, he thinks, requires the express words, and not others like them? But let it be considered, that this was a time of infancy; and that it was before the more full pouring out of the Spirit is certain ; and that they knew not gospel - prayer, as afterwards, is undeniable. Besides, it is either sufficient, or it is not: if insufficient, it reflects on Christ. Besides, who can supply its defect? If fufficient, why do you use any other? Whatever it is upon our principles, you must confess it to be “ a setting of your posts by “ God's posts;" your invention by his institution. It is mere deceit to attempt the defence of the Popish English mass book from Chrift's prayer. forms to be of divine institution, and that God by his Spirit now requires them, and the debate will end; otherwise, we reject the allusion, as improper and incoherent. The Spirit is not confinable to set forms; though in times of ignorance he hath administered comfort in them to those who were sincere, and knew no better : but forms are not therefore to be perpetuated; for that were to obstruct the more free operation of the Spirit, and our expression by it: it is at beft but a state of weakness to be condescended to,

but

Prove your but never to be pleaded for: God's Spirit will be unlimited; as well as the words, he prompts us to, must never by another be confined.

" Go,

§. 4. Of baptisin. He says, we both deny baptism (by which I un

derstand water); because Christ, finding it among (the Jews, adopted it into his religion ; a ceremony s neither burthensome nor offensive, and the only door 'set open under the gospel for salvation. For which he brings three fcriptures, Mat. xxviii. 19. “ and reach all nations, baptizing them in the name « of the Father,” &c. To the same purpose by Mark, chap. xvi. ver. 15, 16. And Christ's saying, John iii. 5. Except a man be born of water and ic of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom < of God.”

Ans. If baptism was ever Jewish, as our adversary grants, then because Christ came to end all Jewish ceremonies, water-baptism can bear no evangelical perpetuity. And if it should be objected, that it was used after the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost, I anfwer, so were circumcision, vows, purification, forbearing to eat things strangled, and blood : and the common practice of Christendom, so called, fufficiently tells us what is become of those observations. Using and instituting are two things. The apostles condescended, where they never commanded.

In the two first scriptures, which contain a commission, there is no water mentioned : that there is

baptilin of the Holy Ghost,' I hope, all will grant: that such a baptism admits of no outward water, is plainly implied: and that it was the baptism of the Holy Ghost (and therefore not of water) which Christ intended, I will briefly prove.

First, This commission was some of the last words Christ spoke: that it is to be fulfilled, is certain: that they could not do it without power, is clear: that neither of those chapters mentions any such endow