week The Queen of dayes doth not prove that Lords day spoken of by John to be the first day so if Ignatius had been of this mind and had esteemed of it above other dayes that makes nothing against us we know this Superstition was creeping into the Church before Ignatius's time therefore the Apostle Paul warned the Galatians Gal. 4. 10 11. To prove this day spoken of by John to be the first day of the week he saith Christ appeared to his Disciples declared himself to be the Son of God upon the first day of the week That it is supposed that was the day the Spirit was poured forth And that Beza in an ancient Greek Manuscript did find the first day of the week called the Lords day But all this doth not in the least prove the matter in question except this may suffice for proof W. M. thinks this will infer the day of the Lord spoken of by John to be the first day of the week therefore it is so There may be Superstition-enough found in old Greek Manuseripts It is near fourteen hundred years since the Eastern and Western Churches were like to split about the observation of Easter and yet Protestants with good reason look upon that Controversie as both Superstitious and frivolous Now giving but not granting this day spoken of by John were the first day of the week How doth he prove from this that the first day of the week is come to Christians in place of the Jewish Sabbath or that it stands as an obligation upon them as a part of the moral Law whereunto we are bound by the forth Command which though it be the cheif thing in debate remaines yet unproved seeing then he has had very few proofs for these his supposed Ordinances but such as are onely bottomed upon his own affirmations the Juditious Reader may judge it is with out ground he concludes here that we deny the Ordinances of Christ and not the inventions of men His fourteenth Head Pag. 109 Is concerning Original sin so called which the Reader by comparing with Pag. 62 63 64 and 65. of mine will see that he makes no reall but a meer counterfeit shew of answer and I desire the Reader first to observe That neither here nor in his Dialogue he doth not so much as offer to prove that this phrase Original sin is to be found in Scripture and for all his pretences to make the Scripture his rule he hath no ground from this but from Popish Tradi ion Secondly That we grant a reall Seed of sin derived from Sathan which Adams Posterity is liable to But we say none become guilty of this before God nutill they close with this evill Seed and in them who close with it it becomes an Origine or Fountain of evill thoughts desires words and actions And as by granting all capeable of receiving this real Seed of sin we differ from the Socinians and Pelagians So by saying it is not the Childrens sin until they do close with it We agree with Zuinglius a famous Protestant who for this very Doctrine was condemned by the Council of Trent in the Art of the Fifth Ses. Cons. Trent lib. 2. Pag. 208. The acts of which Council not onely against us but against this famous founder of the Protestant Churches in Zuitserland is that which W. M. is here vindicating Thirdly I desire the Reader may observe That the thing he pleads for is that Infants are really guilty before God that Infants are guilty before God simply for Adams sin And that some of them who die in their Infancy and never actually sin in their own Persons do for this sin of Adam Eternally perish Now whither this Doctrine be sutable either to the Justice or Mercy of God I leave the Christian Reader to judge I shall examine the reasons he brings for it his cheif argument for this in his Dialogue Pag. 47. was That because Children die citing Rom. 23. The wages of sin is death now I shew him Pag 64. of mine how that made nothing because natural Death of the Saints is not the wages of sin for their sins are forgiven them c. this he hath not so much as mentioned far less answered And whereas he might as well argue that the Earth Trees and Herbs were sinners because they received great decay by Adams sin He slightly passes it over aledging It will not therefore follow that all mankind who suffer Death are not Sinners Now this is no answer but a meer shift and the thing I intended against his assertion doth very naturally follow from my argument thus If as W. M. sayes Infants be guilty of Adams Sin because they are subject to diseases and Death then the Beasts who are subject to the like and the Earth Herbs and Trees who have received their decay are sinners before God but this is absurd therefore the other let him answer this the next time more effectually The first proof he brings here is 1 Joh. 3. 6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh adding This intimates man by his natural Birth to be Corrupt and Fleshly But for this his gloss he bringeth no proof though That which is born of the flesh be flesh he showeth us not how it followeth thence that Infants are guilty of Adams Sin after the like manner he concludes this his doctrine from Job 14. 4. Psal. 5. 5. But as the words in these places do not plainly express any such thing so he brings no reason to make his consequences deduceable from them after the like proof-less manner he aledgeth Rom. 5. 14. By one mans disobedience many were made sinners Now though the matter in question be Whether these many were made sinners before they actually sinned in their own Persons He doth not so much as offer to prove it in the like manner though David said his Mother conceived him in sin he sheweth us not how it followeth from thence that David was guilty of sin before he actually sinned and here I observe how he asserts That men are guilty of the sin of their immoderate Parents contrary to the plain Testimony of the Scripture Ezek. 18. 20. The Son shall not bare the iniquity of the Father To prove Infants thus guilty he further addeth Rom. 5. 12. aledging these words For that all have sinned includes Infants but I shew him this includes not Infants because the Apostle clears it in the next verse saying Sin is not imputed where there is no law and that there being no Law to Infants they cannot be guilty of sin To this he replies There was a Law to Adam and that he represented mankind and stood as a publik Person Therefore Children had a Law in him But for this signification of his own he produceth no proof and it cannot be received as being direct contrary to the Scripture above mentioned The Son shall not bare the Fathers iniquity He aledgeth That those the Apostle speaks of who sinned
Spirit of God then the Testimony of the Spirit must be more certain then they according to the received Maxim of the Schools Propter quod unumquodque est tale id ipsum magis est tale That which makes a thing certain must be more certain then it and this arguing against the certainty of the Spirit checks not onely at the certainty of the Saints Faith now from the Light within and the assurance of knowledg but at the Faith and Knowledg which all the Saints and holy Prophets had not onely before the Scripture was writ but even in their writing of them We are in no greater hazard to be deceived now then they were then therefore the Apostle notably reproves such Pratlers against this certainty 1 Joh. 4. 6. We are of God he that knoweth God heareth us he that is not of God heareth not us hereby know we the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of error Page 48. He asks Why I complain for his improving Esa. 59. 21. But mentions not one word of that part of Pag. 32. of mine wherein I shew him how this Scripture made against him as holding forth Gods putting words in mens mouthes which they deny as a thing ceased This the Reader by looking to the place may observe that the Lord there Promises his Spirit and Word shall continue to direct his People is not denied In his Dialogue Pag. 16. He sayes That the Scriptures cannot be said to be a dead Letter because they are called killing and whereas I told him Pag. 31. of my answer That as dead things do kill if fed upon so if men feed upon the Letter of the Scripture without the Spirit which is the Life they will kill he shifts a reply to this telling me The Scripture is called killing as being the Ministration of the Law which threatens Death against the sinner What then doth it therefore follow that they are not dead and deadly to such as feed upon them without the Spirit which giveth Life it is an apparent Mallitious Passion to add That the drinking in of the Lifeless Poysonous Opinions of the Quakers will prove hurtfull to the Soul seeing he bringeth not the least shadow of proof for it I observe that he Intitleth this Section The Quakers way Inefectual to convince an Opposer And yet how is it that he and his Brethren are so affraid that it spread and are daily so much crying out and clamouring against it as dangerous intreating and beseeching People to beware of us and comparing our words and writings to Poyson as that which is so ready to gain ground I say how comes it that they are so pressing in their importunate and often reiterate Pulpit-exhortations to the Magistrates to Suppress Imprison us and break up our Meetings as such against whom their labours will prove altogether fruitless and ineffectual if not assisted by the external Sword Sect. 5. Pag. 49. He undertakes to compare us with Papists as having learned our Language about Scripture from them but herein he hath notably manifested both his self contradiction and Ignorance He alledgeth We agree with Papists in that we say if the delusion be strong in the Heart it will twine the Scriptures to make them seem for it and in that we say they are dead and occasion Sects and Janglings wherunto we allwayes add because the Spirit is wanting And yet in this sence he fully grants it himsef Pag. 43. saying It is granted that deluded Souls do wrest the Scriptures c. He concluds us one with Papists for saying there was a rule before the Scriptures and yet grants it himself Page 46. in confessing the Scripture was not a Rule to such Saints as lived before it was writ such then had some Rule before the Scriptures thus far as to his self contradictions As to his Ignorance can there be any thing more sottish to compare us with Papist for our preferring and calling the light within as that which onely makes the outward dispensation of the Gospel profitable and for our saying that the Spirit is both our Teacher and our Coppy according to which if we walk we may profit without going forth for a coppy seeing it is known none to be more enemies to these Doctrines then Papists and if we deny the Scripture to be the principal and compleat rule of faith that proves us no wayes to agree with Papists except we all agreed with them concerning what is the rule of faith wherein we differ wider from Papists then our opposers therefore that sentence of Tertulian Viz. That Christ is allwayes Crucified betwixt two Thieves is Impertinently objected by W. M. against us and if the Lord will it may in due time be made appear to publick view that it far better suits our adversaries He looks upon it as a great absurdity Pag. 51. To deny the more sure word of prophecie mentioned 2 Pet. 1. 19. to be the Scripture Alledging I should have confuted the Apostle who expounds it so vers 20. But before he had been so peremptory in his conclusion he should have first proved that the Apostle mentions these words by way of exposition to the former seeing he thinks himself so secure here why did he omit to answer that part of Page 31. of mine where I told him That seeing the Scriptures have all their sureness from the Spirit they cannot be more sure then it for to say that Scripture is more sure as to us being a standing Record then a Transient voice from heaven which may be mistaken or forgotten answers nothing seeing that more sure word we speak of is not a Transient voice but that Word of God which is allwayes with us nigh us in our hearts if we be willing to hear it and regard it and can far less be either forgotten or mistaken then Scripture for it speaks plain home and neer even to such somtimes who would willingly both mistake and forget it Heb. 4. 12. Though I could freely refer his 6 Head concerning Justification to be compared by the Juditious Reader with that which is contained from Page 32. of my last to Pag. 44. As being a confused mass which needs no further refutation yet because he makes a great noise here I shall subjoyn these few observations a little to unvail him in this matter And in His first Section from Pag. 52. to 58. I observe how hastily he passes over the Charges laid by me to his door Pag. 23. which because he cannot clear himself of therefore he hath not lesure to answer Secondly I observe how after he repeats my words Of our sence of Justification which the Reader may see at length Pag. 33. of my first he can say nothing against them but onely I seem to Insinuate they had no need of inward Righteousness It appears his guilt has made him so jealous in this thing as if I had been reproaching him where I onely gave an account of my own belief his accusing or suspecting me of
our selves to God as in Prayer and it is no less a lie to sing to God words that sute not our condition then to pray with them The Saints in Scripture used such expressions as did sute the present posture of their hearts in their Spiritual Songs See Luk. 1. 46. and 2. 29. he shall not find me in the whole Bible where they borrowed or sealed the expressions of others experience which no wayes suted their own condition this is a meer humane invention which has its original from the Romish Vespers and Mattins and from no other foundation Head 10. Concerning Baptism Page 81. He alledgeth That John distingisheth not the matter of his Baptism from Christ but only his work but his proof for this overthrowes himself for since as he sayes truly John could onely administer Baptism with water but Christ with the Spirit this sheweth them to have differed in the matter for without doubt John could administer the matter of his own Baptism and whereas I told him they differed in the end because the one pointed to the other even as the shadow pointed to the substance in stead of replying to this he tells me That the Scripture speaking of Johns Baptism calls it the Baptism of Repentance intimating its end was to signifie and Seal remission of sins which likewise is the end of Christs Baptism As this no-wayes answers my argument so it makes nothing to the purpose for it is one thing to signifie Repentance and remission of sins and far another to know and possess it which is the end and constant fruit of Christs Baptism Gal. 3. 27. As many of you saith the Apostle as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ And therefore it may be observed that without any proof he concludes that Johns Baptism and Christs agree both in the matter and end Pag. 82. As a reply to Act. 19. 2 cited by me to show that they differed in substance he sayeth The meaning is not that they were ignorant of the Person of the holy Ghost contrary to the very express Scripture words We have not so much as heard if there be any holy ghost He saith further That the Apostles did not anew baptize such Persons that had been baptized with the Baptism of John in direct contradiction to the Scripture words ver 5. When they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus And when Paul had laid his hands upon them the holy Ghost came upon them now vers 3. she weth That they were baptized unto Johns Baptism before so let him clear himself here of giving the Scripture the lie if he can Section 2. Pag. 83. To prove the perpetuity of water Baptism he begins with that often answered argument of the Apostles practice adding That though Christ Mat. 28. doth not mention Baptism with water so neither with the Spirit alledging That thus the one may be excluded as well as the other Answ. Seeing Christ commanded them to baptize it cannot be denied but it was with his own Baptism which is that of the Spirit He adds That if Baptism of the Spirit were intended it would infer a needless Tautology in the command of Christ as being all one with these words Go Teach Answ. Teaching and making men holy and Righteous are different things for he will grant that he and his Brethren have been teaching People these several years and yet he will have much adoe to prove all their Church-members are really made Righteous and Holy why then doth he account these two one reckoning it a Tautology to express them severally A little after he insinuates and that most falsly that I deny Peters commanding Cornelius to be baptized concealing my express words Page 50. which are these And though it be said ver 28. that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Christ yet it holds forth no command from Christ onely the thing being agreed upon that it might be done he bid do it this he hath left un-answered And whereas he adds That doing things in the name of Christ is as much as his command he bringeth no proof for giving but not granting it did hold so Mat. 18. 20. in the case of meeting that will not prove it is allways so taken To evict my objection against any determinate Commission the Apostles had of Baptizing with water because Paul said he was not sent to Baptize but to Preach he returns That if he had no Commission he would have Baptized none but he Baptized some which would have been of self-will Answ. He might object the same as to Circumcision that because the Apostle Circumcised Timothy therefore he had a Commission for it he would not have done it of self-will His inference from Hos. 6. 6. For I desire mercy and not sacrifice as if from thence Paul were sent principally to Baptize and not to Preach as God there required onely principally Mercy not excluding Sacrifice is most ridiculous and inconsequential nor is there any reason produced to show the party the Apostles were Commissioned to Baptize as principally as to Preach go Preach and Baptize are knit together but the question is Whether this be a Baptism with water which remains yet unproven And therefore his additions to the Scripture is no wayes Justified as if Paul had been sent to Baptize with water but not principally Pag. 86. He undertaketh to prove that Mat. 28. 19. is meant of water-Baptism and not of the Spirits-Baptism the reason alledged there Because the Baptism there mentioned is the action of the Apostles and that to Baptize with the Spirit is peculiar to Christ adding That it would be a confounding of the Duty commanded with the Promise of the blessing annexed to it from thence he concludes That Baptism with water is to continue to the end of the world Answ. The reasons prove nothing and might militate the same way against Teaching which is also there commanded as the action of the Apostles and though it be pecuilar to Christ to teach by the Spirit that did not hinder them to do it further the very Apostles by laying on of hands did administer the holy Spirit and so Baptize with the Spirit Act. 10. 44. 19. 6. And this is no confounding of the Promise with the duty for therein was the Promise and Blessing fullfiled that they did it efectually and therefore from hence he had no ground to conclude the perpetuity of water-Baptism Moreover whereas he cited in his Dialogue Pag. 39. Act. 2. 28. 1. Pet. 3. 21. Act. 22 16. Eph. 5. 26. Gal. 3. 27. as holding forth the excellent uses of water-Baptism though I shew him Pag. 5. of mine that these Scriptures are onely aplicable to Baptism with the Spirit and not to sprinkling with water When Pag. 87. he comes to reply againe he offers not in the least to prove that they are aplicable to Baptism with water which is the thing in Question but tells me That those Scriptures
strike against the Popish opus operatum quid inde what then doth it therefore follow that they are aplicable to sprinkling with water who is so blind as not to see through such silly subterfugies He addeth That I proceed upon a wrong supposition as if they thought Baptism with water were of it self effectual to cleanse the Soul Answ. I never proceeded upon such a supposition that which I proceed upon is this That they should call or account sprinkling with water the Baptism of Christ whereas the Scripture declares it not to be so 2 Pet. 3. 21. Baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh c. And also ascribe such Scriptures to sprinkling with water as are onely applicable to the Baptism of the Spirit now this as is said above he hath left unanswered Pag. 88. He saith That the one Baptism spoken of Eph. 4. 5. cannot be called the substance and Baptism with water the shadow because they are the same thing but this is pittifully to beg the thing in question And thus W. Ms. Arguments about Baptism runs round Baptism with water is the one Baptism because the one Baptism is commanded by Christ and the one Baptism is Baptism with water because Baptism with water is commanded by Christ he wholly passes by that part of Page 52. of mine where I shew how absurd and antescriptural their manner of baptizing is and thereby he comes the more easily to his conclusion in this matter Head 11. Concerning the Supper Pag. 88. 89. He begin confessing That Christs instituting of the Supper doth not prove its continuance and here he carps at my speaking of it with this addition The Lords Supper so called asking Why I give it not that name the Scripture gives it Answ. It is to be observed that where I speak of it thus Page 52. of my last that it is in my entry upon this matter addressing my self to him my words are Thou comest to prove that the Lords Supper so called c. where I intended not that which was Instituted by Christ and had its season in the Church but that which they call so but really is not so though they seek from this to draw a warrant for it and whereas I shew him that by breaking of bread Act. 2. 42. is meant their ordinary eating His Answer is That their eating is not ordinary but Scramental and the Text speaketh not of daily eating but a continuing daily in the Temple and that the Syriack exposition expounds it of the Eucharist but it is in vain he thinks by his Imaginations to overturn the plain words of Scripture Act. 2. 46. And they continuing daily in the Temple with one accord and breaking bread from house to house did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart can there be any thing more plain then that their breaking of bread here was their ordinary eating and as for his talk of Sacramental eating where doth he read of such a phrase in all the Bible It is ill argued to say I am ignorant of the way of some Protestant Churches who uses breaking of bread once a fortnight or once a month because I say their doing of it once or twice a year is not according to the example of such as of old used it Pag. 90. He adds That though this eating Act. 2. 46. be conjoyned with this that they sould their possessions c. yet we are to follow them in the one and not in the other because the one was to continue and not the other but for this he bringeth no proof save his own bare assertion After the like manner Pag. 91. He sayeth That though abstaining from blood and things strangled be commanded yet the Apostle Paul repeats it extending Christian Liberty to whatsoever is sould in the shambles but according to this he might argue That though abstaining from Circumcission be there commanded yet Pauls Circumcising of Timothy might now warrant it And whereas he asketh If Paul Circumcised any other what if he had not Church history tells us that many yeares after several Bishops of Jerusalem were Circumcised it will not therefore follow that was a repealing of the Apostles determination by the holy Ghost or that we should continue in the use of Circumcission He addeth That Washing of one anothers feet which was expresly commanded was not that we might practice it but only to teach us humillity for this he adds no proof it is onely his own conjecture upon all which I desire the Reader to observe how W. M. can find shifts to evict those above-said which are expresly commanded by Christ and his Apostles and yet make such a great noise of our forbearing water-Baptism and the external Supper which are not more particularly pressed as also how we can say far more against the perpetuity of these last then they against the former and yet they clamor against us as if so much as to call the constant use of them in question were to despise the Ordinances of Christ c. He asketh What clearer command there can be then these words let a man examin himself and so let him eat But this question does not at all prove these words to imply a command His folly is observeable Pag. 92. Where he desires It may be observed That the Corinthians were to be often in the use of it because it is said As often as ye eat c. a rare argument indeed by which he might conclude that to say as often as a man sins he offends God did import we should sin often It is badly inferred That this thing ought to continue by Divine Authority because the Apostle sayes 1 Cor. 11. 23. That which I received of the Lord have I delivered unto you seeing the very following words declare it to have been the account of the matter of fact which he so received Sect. 1. Pag. 93. He slimly passes what is contained Pag. 54. of mine alledging I let off my great Guns but make a noise without any spoyl The Reader by comparing these Pages together will easily observe his lurking in this particular To my Question What the one bread is spoken of 1 Cor. 10. 15 16. If it be the outward or the inward He Answers It is both the inward and the outward and yet but one in respect of the Sacramental Union which is between the sign and the thing signified Now to this I answered in the end of Pag. 54. of my last that it cannot be called one because of the agreement betwixt the signe and the thing signified else by the same Inference one might plead for the continuance of all the Sacrifices and Offerings and say they are all one with the one Offering mentioned Heb. 10. 14. because they signified that one Offering And whereas W. M. reckons this a pittiful evasion saying Any one may see a Non sequitur in it it would have become him better to have proved this by reason then by his
owne bare assertion though any may observe this to be his constant course when other Arguments fail him As he proceeds to prove the continuance of this practice he sayes It cannot be denied there was once a command for it and there is no repeal of it but the same recurs in washing one-anothers feet and anointing the sick with Oyl Jam. 5. 14. which were as expressly commanded and never repealed and yet W. M. can easily find a gloss to evict these rechoning it a small matter to forbear them he addeth That coming of Christ till which the Apostles were injoyned to be in the use of the outward Supper must be meant of his outward comming so many years after because such to whom Christ was come in the Spirit were found in the practice of it but this proves no more its continuance necessitate Precepti as he wordeth it then the Circumcising and being Circumcised under the Gospel will prove Circumcission to be binding upon us He concludes saying That surely we are great enemies to our Souls that oppose this Ordinance But answereth not one word of Page 56. where I shew how great reason we have to forsake it as also the many abuses where with they have corrupted it it suffiseth him to say That it is meeter to pass it by then to reply unto it for part of it being about the quallifications of Persons W. M. is loth to tell his Judgment least he should harp upon the old Independant controversy it is dangerous to touch this string especially while he injoyes his hire under the shadow of Episcopacy Head 12. Concerning the Ministry Pag. 96. He hath nothing to say against my affirming that the Quakers own the Ministry of the Word Pag. 97. speaking of Eph. 4. 11. where Paul saith Christ gave some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers He saith The first three are Extraordinary and Tempory the last two Ordinary and Perpetual for this he brings no Proof at all but that frequent Argument his own bare Assertion And whereas I tould him Pag. 58. of mine That the former three were not ceased citing for Proof Calvin who Inst. lib. 4. cap 3. avers That in his day God raised up Apostles and Evangelists to this he answers not one word As he goes on he repeats my words where I say That though we own the Ministry not to be common yet that doth not hinder but that any may speak as the Saints are met together according to 1 Cor. 14. 31. asking How I can make out that In that place is meant an ordinary Office though it might suffice for answer to ask what reason W. M. hath to frame here his distinction of Ordinary and Extraordinary yet it is obvious that the Apostle is here presenting the ordinary order of the Church he needed not present an order to extraordinary Offices for such as are extraordinarily sent are also instructed how to go about their Office and not limited to set Rules else it were not extraordinary Pag. 98. He goeth about to prove this distinction of Mediate and Immediate asking If the Prophets and Apostles were not called imediatly And if Timothie was not set apart to the work imediatly by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery What then as the Apostles being called by the Lord did not hinder them from receiving the approbation and Testimony of the Brethren yea laying on of hands as did Paul who without doubt was as imediatly sent as any of the rest Act. 9. 17. So Timothes having the hands of the Presbytery laid on him doth not prove he wanted an inward imediate call in himself it is without any proof at all what he subjoynes That Paul saying he was an Apostle not by man doth oppose himself to Ordinary Ministers He adds That seeing I say That those who come Preaching the Gospel not in speach onely but also in Power and in the holy Ghost and in the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit give sufficient proof that they are called of God he thinks I should have favorable thoughts of Protestant Ministers who have given such proofs of their Call Answ. He should have tould me what these Protestant Ministers are whom he sayes we impiously censure or by what Rule he or his Brethren would be laying such claim to be Protestant Ministers so as to exclude the Quakers from being such Pag. 99. Though he quarrel me for saying that with Papists he pleads for Miracles he is so far from vindicating himself from this charge that he giveth again new ground for it saying That such as assert an imediate call ought to give tokens of it by Miracles c. adding That though John did no Miracles yet his call was attended with extraordinary things at his Conception and Birth Now this was the very objection which the Papists made against the first Reformers to whom Luther and Calvin replyed That though they had an imediate call yet there was no need of Miracles and this objection of W. M. is no other then that which almost in totidem verbis in as many words was objected to Beza at the conference of Poizy in France by Claudius Dispensus Doctor of the Sarbone who urged this very argument of John the Baptist confirming his call by the Testimony of Maláchy c. Alledging That they ought to confirm there call by Miracles to whom these are Beza his express words Hist. Eccles. of France Pag. 581. And as to what dispence thou Alledge that extraordinary Vocation is allways aproved by Miracles or by the Testimony of the Prophets I deny that it is allwayes so verified but if we must come to Miracles do you not think that the changing of the Life the fruit which is seen to proceed from this Doctrine in our time by Persons so contemptable and so much persecuted by the greatnest of the world are not sufficient Miracles as said the Apostle to the Corinthians that they were the Seals of his Apostleship So the rational Reader may observe that notwithstanding of W. Ms. so often laying claim to the Protestant Churches and Protestant Ministry and crying out against us as opposers of them he so directly makes use of Popish arguments against us and how we defend our selves by no other but the very same answers the Protestants gave unto the Papists yea of late W. Rett present Preacher of Dandy in his Book against Papists printed but the last year at Aberdeen doth plead That Miracles are not needful instancing that John the Baptist did none And so W. M. though he compare us to the Jesuites in his Epistle is so far one with them himself that if his evasion may be esteemed of worth whereby he seeks to overturn this example of John when brought by us he will rather furnish the Jesuites with it to fight against his Brother W. Rett or rather borrow it out of their atillery whereby they fight against Protestants then miss to have a hit at the Quakers may we not