Twenty-One Divines Cleared, Treatise · Commentary 1 – Accusation 1

Twenty-One Divines Cleared · Treatise · Commentary 1 – Accusation 1

p. 7IN your Preface to your Work, as all your good Notions (in themselves) are abused to set off a bad Cause, and put Deformity on those you intend to bait; so some parts of it (though fronted with Confidence) have that apparent untruth and miscarriage, as calls for Detection.

You say, The invincible Faith, and Patience, Page 3.and Hope of those holy Ancients, that so heartily espoused it (the Quakers Cause) stand before you as so many bright Examples and Encouragement….

I presume you mean by these holy Ancients, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the Prophets, and Apostles, Primitive Christians, and the Martyrs for Christianity, and its Purity in Queen Maries days; or at least you would have us understand you so. But is it not strange that all these should be Quakers, and but your Precedents, and not one of all the Enquirers into Antiquity should be aware of it, till you had found it out? But how came you by this Invention, especially you Mr. Penn, if you practice your own Doctrine? For you say; But I will assure them, W. Penn's Spirit of Truth, &c. p. 23.they shall yet grope in the dark, till they come into the daily obedience of the Light; and there rest contented to know only as they experience; and not from a ravening comprehending brain, that would in its unregenerated state, grasp at the p. 8clear Mysteries, (or Clean Mysteries, as you told me it should have been) of the Kingdom, into which fleshly Comprehensions and Notions can never enter: But all must be as unlearned from their First-birth, Education, and Traditional read-Knowledg, as he is unmanned, that is again become a little child, before the secrets of God's Work come to be made known.

Is this the voice of William Penn? If what you say be true, as you would have us to think; I doubt you are as counterfeit a Quaker, as you are a Christian. Have you been unlearned from Education, and Traditional read-Knowledg? I think not; unless, as your Bedlam Quaker Bookseller told me, you write all against me by Inspiration (if you would be better informed where he dwells, than in my last, I now tell you, he dwells right against the Burial-place wall) but then 'tis what you can give us no evidence of. But I must needs conclude, That seeing you know only by experience, you cannot know that those holy Ancients were Quakers, or bright Examples of what is your Religion, they being dead before you were born. But if you know them to be such any other way, we have your own word for it, that you grope in the dark: And so let it pass.

Mr. Penn, these, and such-like things of you and your party, make you the wonder of Wisemen: And if they have so much Charity for you, as to believe you say as you mean, or mean as you say, (which must be a great deal) yet at least, they judg of you to be an infatuated People. And if W. P. be such an one, what are the puny Quakers?

p. 9I must not let pass your next words, without an Arrest for Defamation; (I mean your words, not your body, for I must be so careful, having to do with the Captious, and such an one as will create ex musca Elephantem:) So neither P's Reb. &c. p. 3.have the many and great attempts of men of divers, yea opposite Interests, to render us unfit for the Earth. Where have they told you, that this was their design? Where did they say, they would have the World perswaded, that 'tis not fit the Quakers should be suffered to live? Sure I am, you must read me backward, if you intend to fix this Charge upon me; for I have told you, That it is far from my Principle, and Fald. Ep: to Quak. no Chri. in fine.natural temper also, to intend your Persecution; and that I know nothing that men who are your Adversaries can do more, to promote your Tenets and Party. Tell me, if you can, where I have retracted, or contradicted those words. It seems 'tis a Crime to interpret your words, who speak Barbarisms enough; but 'tis your right to interpret our hearts as you list. But thus you are an Ʋsurper of his Throne, who is the only Searcher of hearts: And that which is worse, you pretend his Authority for it. I shall prove what I say, from no less Author than your instar Papae, George Fox; who saith, And you that have not that which is infallible to Great mystery of the great Whore, p. 5.judg in you, know not the Spirit of Christ; neither can you judg of persons or things, that have not the infallible judgment, nor have the spiritual man; neither have you the Word of God in your hearts, nor Christ which is Eternal and Infallible: All which the Quakers have to judg persons and p. 10things. No wonder if the Quakers believe all you say, how apparently soever untrue. I do not judg a Turk, a Heathen, or a Jew not fit to be suffered to live upon Earth; though I judg them not fit to be esteemed Christians, and know them to be Enemies to Christianity as well as you; but yet something more fairly, as they are openly such, and you Treacherously. But I proceed to your Self-magnifying news, which never reached our eyes or ears, till your Pamphlet reported it; viz. We have been long P's Reb. p. 4.threatned with a report of the joynt-endeavours of many Ministers—But we no sooner received and look'd into the Book, than we saw our selves under a very great Disappointment. For, instead of some new Essay, behold an old Discourse new-vamp'd; or a new Impression of a Book twice largely considered, and as some think, effectually answered: I mean, John Faldo's Quakerism no Christianity.

It is more than possible, that this Report is but the Figment of your own brain. And if you dream, that the overthrow of your cause is so difficult a task, that it requires the joynt-endeavours of such in a new Essay; you may gratifie your self with your ungrounded fancy, and thank your selves for your disappointment. I think I have the means to know their minds and motions concerning your affairs better than you, or any of you, or all of you: And I assure you, I have never heard that it entred into their thoughts; but on the contrary, they are so well satisfied that your cause is determined, by what hath been done already, that they have thought p. 11fit to give their Attestation in the Epistle you have attempted to bespatter.

Yet 'tis strange (but like your self) that you should pretend an expectation of a new Essay, a new Book, containing the joynt endeavours of many Ministers; and then tell us you look'd for it: But where? in my old one new-printed and vampt (as you phrase it:) But why should such Gnosticks as you look for a new Book in an old one; and one that carried in its forehead the old Inscription of Quakerism no Christianity, and by the single old Author John Faldo? Who can suppose you not guilty of wilful mistakes, and free from the affronts of such disappointments, who go to work thus blind-fold-like? and lay your words so well together, that your next line calls you—for that which went immediately before it;

Oportet—esse memorem.

Having past your Preface, which deserves such a Censure; I now meet with your REBƲKE OF ONE AND TWENTY DIVINES, and must in the future passages of your Pamphlet, have still in my eye, that nauseous impar & Congressus, W. Penn, One and twenty Divines; W. Penn against One and twenty Divines; and that at no more fair, and modest a Weapon than a REBƲKE. A Rebuke from W. Penn a Quaker, a Youngling, a Boy, comparatively, to One and twenty men, to One and twenty Ministers of the Gospel, Elders by Office; such, whose Office set aside, are many p. 12of them, for Learning and Parts, men of Name; scarcely any of them but of years enough to be your Father, and near one half of them old enough to be your Grand-father. And not an implicite, or a Rebuke in general terms, but a down-right Rebuke to them by name, a Rebuke to their teeth.

I am sure if the Scripture had been your Rule (if not their Office, yet) their Age, and the hoary-heads of some of them, would have commanded a more respective behaviour, though putting off the Hat be accounted by you an irreligious and uncivil Ceremony. Methinks it had become you rather, to have fronted your Reply with a modest Enquiry into their Epistle; or a sober Expostulation. But nothing could suit your unbridled Passion, and scornful Spirit, but a REBƲKE. If the Light of Nature forbid a Saucy Deportment to our Elders, by far, this carriage is no Commendation of your Morality, which you presume we will allow you, while denying you to be a Christian.

Your Porch and Title being so Faulty, I suspect a foul house within. And your first Entertainment consists of Quibbles, and impious Censures and Insinuations: But let us hear P's. Rebu. p. 5.(say you) what use, you the great Men of Ʋses make of this Introduction. I say no more to you for this, but wish for your own sake, and theirs whom you influence, that you were rather a great Man of Ʋses, than a man so guilty of many, and the greatest Abuses; as will not be only said, but proved.

p. 13In the same Page you are at your sport again: Render the Quakers better than they are! There is little fear you will. You may turn Pelagian in the case, and exclude all Divine assistance: For I hope none are so ignorant in this Age, as to think Men of your Stamp need special Grace to keep you from the sin of rendring the poor Quakers better than they are. Verily Mr. Penn, if those Worthy Persons you scoff at were turned Pelagians, it would advance them by many steps nearer to Quakers. For herein the Pelagians and you are agreed: They held, That the powers of Nature Voss. in hist. Pela. lib. 3.were sufficient to preserve them from all sin, yet cried up Grace to keep them from publick hatred; while they meant no more by Grace, than God's bestowing on all men such a Vertuous Nature: And you cry up Inspirations, and Divine Assistance; and yet mean no more by it, than the Light and Power within, which every man hath; and is indeed no more but the Natural Faculties by you improved at a lower rate than the Heathens. This Principle of yours, you express out-right, in your ungodly Mockery at special Grace in these words; It is the Presbyterians special Grace that saveth; for Moralities P's. Rebu. p. 31.part, alas! she is a poor Heathen, an Alien, an Infidel, without the Pale of the Church, and Mercies of the Covenant; but then it is to be understood of the Scotch one. Whether you learn'd this Christian Drollery of your Admired Ben. Johnson, or our more Modern Railers, I know not: But the Scab is catching, especially by those nigh of Kin. I perceive corrupt Principles, and prophane Wit are your Darlings; and p. 14your Nature is as greedy to suck in the Poyson of the one, as of the other.

Your Censure of their Prologue (and their design in it) to the Epistle, little commends your Modesty or Charity: scil. Or else to give a greater Ib. p. 5.credit to your Work, than your selves perhaps believe it deserves. What is this but to insinuate, That they deserve to be suspected for a pack of gross and impious Hypocrites, who designedly abuse the holy and reverend Name of God; and pretend to a sense of it, but to cover their wilful lying? If this take with your Readers, and they believe their good words, excellent sayings to be (as you phrase it a little after) but a trick to decoy people, your work is done. But I doubt not ere I have done with you, to set this Brand on him who more deserves it, and discharge you with the Character of Homo literatus.

Now I come to those things of yours, which look like Arguments; but not being animated with truth, they will be of small strength. The first is no less than a pair of Dilemma's; but all your storms cannot wreck the Objects of your Fury upon the Scylla or Charibdis of those dangerous straits: Either (say you) you have read, or Ib. p. 5.not read the Book ye recommend. Very right; and what of either? If you have not, certainly you have done ill to recommend it. Thus far you are pretty fair: But what if they have read it? Why then you say, They manifestly entitle themselves to all the evil of it. But now Mr. Penn, I must stop your Career: For, if the Book answer the Recommendation, and have not in it, p. 15any thing that may be otherwise mischievous to the Reader, though there should be some lesser evils in it, they do not entitle themselves to them. And the most they say of the Book is, That in it the Quakers and their Principles Min. Ep. to Quak. no Christ. in fine.are more thorowly investigated, than in any Book which they have seen—And that for Matter, Proof, and Stile, they judg it to be especially useful for those who need or desire Information about the Quakers and their Principles. Now I will confess to you (if it will do you any service) that I have shewed much infirmity in the Management of it, to which I should be loth to entitle those Worthy Persons, you would deform with any Scars you can find there; and who, if they had undertaken that Work, might have managed it much better than I, and to the greater exposing your evil Cause. But for all the faults you have really found in it, they may give you your saying, without reaping to themselves any cause of shame or repentance; which will be proved, as the matter comes to hand.

Now I shall consider your second Dilemma; Reb. p. 6.which amounts to thus much, That if they have not compared the Citations, which are the strength of the Book, with the Books themselves, their Recommendation is by rote. If they have, you will prove, That they have offered great violence to their Ʋnderstandings, in giving their Approbations. Great words! which will shortly vanish into smoak and vapour. For the first of your Consequences (if I should grant that which I neither know, [nor you have proved) it is lame: For if p. 16they have not made that Compare, they may have read some, or many of your numerous Pamphlets, containing the same things. And they might have been present at the numerous Meeting, August 28. 1674. (I am sure some of them were.) They might have heard there, or from sure Testimonies, that I there offered my Citations to a personal Test, and a publick, whenever the Quakers would call for it: Whereas you have hitherto accounted it your prudence, not to take me at my word. They may also have read your Answer, or Rejoynder, wherein you acknowledg all you are pleased to recite, except three or four. They may have read my Vindication, wherein I provoked you to meet me with impartial Judges, and I would undertake to prove my Faithfulness, against the worst of your Calumnies: To which you are silent. Moreover, the truth of the Citations depends on matter of Fact; wherein to deal untruly, so oft as must be to enervate any of my Charges, must be so wilful a Treachery, as no man ought to suspect a Professor of Godliness guilty of, till he have merited it by some apparent miscarriage to discredit him. And I protest seriously, that if I did not certainly know, that ungodly Crime were your frequent Guilt, I should hardly be perswaded to disbelieve many falshoods in point of Fact, which your Books are cram'd with: But all this is said ex gratia. They have prudence enough to conduct their own affairs in this matter, and need not you or I to tell them what Evidence is a ground for them to go on; and you having proved nothing, p. 17I might have let this pass without further notice.

Your second Consequence you refer the proof Ibid.of till anon; and I shall attend till then for it. In the next place you charge me, That the most Ibid.of the Principles I charge upon you to be yours, are not so laid down by any one of you; nor say you, Sayable by any of you upon your real Principles. But should you not have proved this? You instance only in one Charge; which you say, I will defend but by Consequence; scil. That there is no other Judgment, Heaven or Hell, than what is within us in this life. And you add, That it is so far from being your Principle in your words, that it is as inconsistent with the truth of your Creed, as darkness is with light. But what a set are you at for an instance, out of the most of the Principles I charge you with, that you give one (and but one) which I no-where find charged upon you in those words, which you pretend to be mine. I have examined my Catalogue of your Errours, and there they are not; I have taken some pains in searching the Book for them, and there I find them not. And though you give us but a single instance, and in a different Letter, you tell me not where I may find it by quotation of Chapter, or Page. Is not this striking your own sword into your own bosom? Yet let me tell you, that though the matter of those words of yours (not mine) being in your Creed, render your Creed untrue with a witness: I shall not baulk at proving it to be necessarily your Creed, much more consistent with it.

p. 18If I prove, That neither the Bodies, nor the Souls of men shall be subjects capable of any reward after this life by your Principles; then I prove, That it is not only consistent with your Principles, but apparently necessary by your Principles, That men shall have no other Judgment, Heaven or Hell, but what they shall have in this life. And in the first place I shall prove, That you deny the Resurrection of the Body; and so, that that part of man shall be no more capable of a Heaven or Hell after its death, than that which is, and ever shall remain without life.

George Whitehead, in the presence of about an hundred persons, acknowledged, That he did not believe, that his Body should rise again after its death. This is plain English, and from a Quaker of no less esteem, but far longer standing among the Quakers than your self. These Part 2. p. 136. Answ. to Faldo, p. 200.words of his I cited in my Quakerism no Christianity, and you repeat them in your Answer, without denying them to be his words; which you would have done no doubt, if he had denied them to you. But on the other hand you say, But what if he did say so, and I should second him? would it follow that we deny a Resurrection? I acknowledg, that you profess the belief of an Allegorical Resurrection: But this is but a shuffle, and a silly evasion; the Question being of the Resurrection of the Body, and his Unbelief being of the Resurrection of his Body. Before I proceed any farther, I shall open the Readers eyes to the A Resurrection (which you say is not denied by Whiteheads words) from the Learned Fisher the Quaker, p. 19who went to Rome for somewhat. Ye have (saith he) Moses and the Prophets within; viz. This written, spoken, manifested in you, Quod tibi ne vis fieri, alteri ne seceris. And (retro) Whatever Fisher. Velata quaedam revel. p. 4.ye would that men should do unto you, so do ye even to them. This (saith Christ) is the Law, or Moses, and the Prophets. But if ye will not be admonished nor perswaded by Moses and the Prophets, neither will ye be perswaded by such of us, who were once dead in sin with you, but are now risen to life, by the Power of God, which is his Light, and in the same sent to speak unto you from the DEAD. Here your Resurrection is set out to the life, wither some other fine knacks of the Quakers, that serve for a shelter in a time of need. But I shall plow no farther into your infidelity in this point, but with your own Heifer.

Having thus far revolted from Christianity to Heathenism, or Atheism; you lay hand on their Weapons, where-with to fight against the power and revealed Truth of God, and the Religion you are apostatized from: Either (say you) the Resurrection of the Body must be without that (gross elementary) matter, or it must not: If it must, then it is not that same numerical Body, Penn's Answ. to Fal. p. 201.and so their proper and strict taking of the word Resurrection they must let go: If it must not be without that same gross matter it dyed with, then I affirm it cannot be incorruptible; because it will carry with it that which will render it corruptible ad infinitum. It is not now my business to examine the Philosophy or Logick of your Argument; but to discover your Opinion. And take you which way we will, you here deny the p. 20Resurrection of the Body. But you say further, that you may not be thought of our Opinion, after all this: I say, we cannot see, how that which is of dust should be eternal, whilst that from whence it came is by nature but temporal. And I believe you, so long as you leave the Light without, and above you, and are guided only by the Light within you, which is natural, and receiveth not th…se things of God.

Being thus plunged in the Dungeon of Darkness, you have the wit to tell me that, which a Boy understanding his Accidence, would be ashamed of; viz. And that which is yet most of all irreconcileable with Scripture, and right Reason, is, That the less and change of Nature from corruptible to incorruptible, natural to spiritual, should not make it another Body. In vain do such Ib. p… 202.dispute against the Popish Transubstantiation as an absurd and impossible thing, who themselves are guilty in a case of the like nature.

I wonder the less at your other absurdities, and your confidence wherewith you countenance them, seeing you talk so ignorantly of the Popish Transubstantiation. They say, That the Bell de …uch. l 3. c 18. C…ch. ad P…r…ch. ex …n. frui. p. 830.substance of the Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ, and into his Divinity; and that it ceaseth to be Bread, while the accidents of Bread remain: And we say, That in the Resurrection of the Body, the substance of the Body is raised, or quickned again; but its qualities and accidents are altered, or changed. I know not any of us are so ignorant, as to affirm. That by being made spiritual (i. e. rarified and made more subtile) that, it is changed into a Spirit.

p. 21Let it be observed also, That the Resurrection of the body which I affirmed they deny, and which Opinion you oppose, I gave an account of in these words: The raising again to life Quak. no Christ. part. 2. p. 122. last impres. p. 238.and from the dust and corruption, the bodies of men and women, however disposed of after their natural death or dissolution. This you have denied; and shew me if you can in any Quakers Writings, that they believe the body, after dissolution, or any part of it, shall be quickned, and raised to life in any manner or form whatsoever. Thus I have made good my first task, That you deny the Resurrection of the Body. I shall now prove, That you deny their Souls, after the death of their Bodies, to be subjects capable of reward.

My first Argument I shall draw, from what you affirm the Spirits and Souls of men to be. And first, I shall give you the testimonies of Fisher, Fisher. Velata quaedam revel. p. 17.an early Quaker, and a man able to tell his tale as punctually as any of you: And whereas ye Query, (saith he) Whether the said Spirit of manis mortal, or immortal? I answer, It is immortal, and neither mortal nor corruptible; but that immortal and incorruptible Seed of God, even something of that living Word which is said to be made flesh. And this he saith is essentially constitutive of Adam in his pure state, and of every Regenerate man.

But yet plainer and more general: And is Fox great M…st. &c. p. 16.not (saith Fox, your great Oracle) that of God, which comes out from God? is not that of his Being—and so Divine? (speaking of the Soul.) Again (saith the same Author) Is not the Soul p. 22without beginning come from God?—It is not horrid Blasphemy to say, The Soul is a part of God, for it came out of him; and that which came out of him, is of him. Magnus Bine saith, The Id in eod. p. 29.Soul is not infinite in it self: And Richard Baxter saith, It is a spiritual Substance. Now consider Id. in eod. p. …what a condition, these called Ministers, are in: They say that which is a spiritual Substance, is not infinite it its self, but a Creature. The same Oracle saith moreover, Is not the Soul without beginning, coming from God, returning INTO God again?—Hath this beginning or ending? And is not this Infinite in its self?

Now I will put it to the verdict of any rational man, Whether you in affirming the Spirits or Souls of men to be something of that living Word, which is said to be made flesh; to be of the Being of God, and so Divine, without Beginning, a part of God, Infinite in it self, not a Creature, do not render it a subject uncapable of any rewards; especially, considering, that 'tis said by you to be returning INTO God again. I shall not take notice here of your Blasphemies in talking of a part of God, &c.

Many of these passages, among others, I cited in my Book; and some of them you took notice of in your Answer; and but some, which you thought you could best warp to a tolerable sense; though when you had done all, a halfwitted man might pronounce you guilty from your own evidence.

I pray review the strong Contradiction of P's Answ. to Quak. no Christ. p. 192.your own, to what I charged you with: We do for ever (say you) renounce any such Principle, p. 22as that the Soul of man, simply as such, is the very Essence and Being of God. Do you deny here, the Soul of man to be the very Essence and Being of God? No; your Simply as such, is too simple a shuffle to blind a Reader, not blind before.

I having given you the matter of my Argument, I now give it in form thus; If (according to the Quakers Principles) the bodies of men after death shall never be quickned, and raised to life again, much less to a life that shall never end; and the Souls of men are of God's own Being, a part of him, and shall return into him again: Then (according to the Quakers Principles) there is no part of men, which after death, shall remain subjects capable of a Reward, a Heaven, or Hell: But the former hath been proved; threefore the latter.

When I had from undeniable grounds concluded by Consequence, That the Quakers deny or disown a blessedness or misery in another World; yet finding them confidently asserting, That they owned eternal Rewards: For the curing of my mistake (if I were under such a thing) I made this fair Proposition to them; Let them profess that they believe a happiness Quak. no Christian. part 2. p. 141. impr. ult. p. 248.to be enjoyed by men or women, after their bodies are rotted to dust, distinct from the Being of God, or that which they had not a thousand years before they were born (i. e.) to be IN God, from whom (as of his Being) they say the Soul came; and it will be news to me, and all that are acquainted with them. And was not this enough to engage you to profess your Faith in this matter, if you had any beyond p. 24what I apprehended? But all your Evasions being by this Proposal prevented, and the true state of your Faith about eternal Rewards, exposed, in your Answer you take no notice of my Proposal. In my VINDICATION I charged you with the neglect of it; and after I had repeated the former matter, I added, This Vindic. of Quak. no Chr. p. 90.I proposed for the evading of all their delusive terms, and that I might draw out of them an acknowledgment of the genuine truth, if they had any such in the Treasury of their Divinity. But as I charged Penn before, so I do now again (and with him all thorow-Quakers) that his silence to this matter, concludes them guilty of not owning a future Reward in another World, or a Life to come. One would have thought all this more than enough, to provoke you to speak out, if you had any thing to say to the purpose. But you Rejoyn in a Book of 437 pages, and are as dumb to this Proposal as ever, though as streperous as ever in Rants and Reflections. This being a matter of such moment, that it alone determines the Controversie, I took the occasion you gave me, to be thus full in its discussion. And now let sober men, yea, let the Lord judg between you and me, who of us are guilty of injury in this matter.

I shall now farther defend the justice of my laying down your Principles not always in your own words, although the like dealing with others would be really unjust.

Most Professors of Religion, and all that are not ashamed, or afraid to have their Principles generally understood, are plain and open in p. 25their expressions of them, and industriously design to be understood, and use such terms as others use, and understand by them what they mean: But you walk in the Clouds, and like Gypsies, have a Canting of your own, in which you speak to one anothers understandings; while strangers to your Opinions and ways, may as well understand Welsh, or Hebrew (though never bred or learned therein) as they can understand you. I know you have boasted of miraculous Gifts and Tongues too; but this plotted way of clouding your meaning, is all the Tongues that ever I could find you attained by Quakerism; and by which, your Conferences with persons unacquainted with you, hath rendred you deservedly Barbarians to them, while you esteem them Barbarians in spiritual Knowledg, for not understanding your uncouth phrases.

Some-newcoyn'd phrases you use, which are your proper and peculiar Mintage (except you had them from Jacob Behem) ex. gr. Miracles in Spirit, The Seed in captivity, A measure of God From the Spirit inwardly ravening, Ravening Comprehending Brain, fleshly comprehensions, Traditional Penn's Spirit of Truth, p. 23. Page 14.read-Knowledg, Vulturous eye; with many more. The four last are your own, and three of them are jumbled together within the compass of five lines. To these I may add a multitude of words and phrases you use in common with others, but your meanings by them, are not the same with the generally-received import of the words. For instance, By persons in Covenant with God, you mean such persons as p. 26are without sin; yea, that have no sin remaining in their natures, and no other.

This is verified by a great man among you (with most of your Leaders in their Writings:) Now (saith he) where sin is remaining in the Nature, Crisp's Alarm, p. 16.there the Covenant with Hell and Death is not broken, neither are such in Covenant with God. A hard, cruel, and untrue saying. By the being under the Devils power, you mean the same thing, as appears by the words next following the fore-cited: But are yet under the power of the Prince of the air, what-ever they profess. So by being in sin, you mean such as have any remains of sin in their nature: And the death of Christ is of no value unto them, because they are yet in sin. These words are annexed to the former, and applied to the same persons. I shall give you one loud proof more of this falshood, and fallacy. Be it known unto you, in the Name of the God of Heaven, that where sin remains, there the Devil is Prince and Id. in eod. p. 13.Ruler. Who understand these terms so, but your selves?

Let me give you a Demonstration, that such abused terms force me to give your Principles not alway in your own words. I find one of your chief Ministers writes thus, For this end is Christ manifested, to destroy the works of the Devil, and to redeem OƲT OF the fall. And this Parnel Shield of the Truth, p. 48.we witness, who through the Lamb our Saviour, do reign above the World, Death, Hell, and the Devil; but none can witness this, whose eye is outward, looking at a Redeemer afar off, and still live in sin. Now, Reader, suppose I were to p. 27give their Principle from these words, it will bear according to their true meaning, that they hold, That none can be redeemed from the Devil, from the fall, who look to a Redeemer afar off, which is no otherwise to be understood, but of the the Person of Christ ascended. But there being added these words, and yet live in sin: If we take it in our sense it clear them; for we hold, all that live in sin, to have no Gospel sincerity, no true faith; and so though they expect Salvation from the true Christ who is ascended, are not delivered and redeemed from the Devil and Law. But take living still in sin, in the sense of the Quakers, for a not-being freed from all remains of sin in our natures, and the cover is taken off, and the blind removed.

And that I may shew you how full of such strange meanings a short Sentence of theirs may be, take notice, that by We witness, they mean not a testimony to others; but their own experience, or having it by Inspiration: None of them will deny this. But there is a worse Snake in the grass: For by the Lamb their Saviour, they mean not the same numerical man, Jesus the Son of Mary, who was crucified at Jerusalem, for he is the Redeemer we look at afer off; but they mean, the Light within them. And because 'tis very strange, as well as very corrupt, I shall give a proof of it: Here was the Light shone out of darkness in John (John 1. 9.)—Then God sent him to bear witness unto Morning Watch, p. 5.the Light which in him (these two last words are put in a different Letter in my Author) was made manifest, that all in the Light might believe, p. 28and he called to others to behold him, and said, he was the LAMB OF GOD, &c.

Who that gives their Principles always in their own words, can possibly render many of their Tenets (especially those they most industriously hide from such whom they would not have to understand them) intelligible to others? What I have said are their own words, are such; and what I charge them with beside, I give in their sense, though not in their words; which is as necessary, as it is to render that in English to a mere English Reader (that he may understand it) which is spoken or written in another Tongue. And I have so far considered the Contexture of their sayings, as that I am very well armed to prove each particular to be their sense in the same place, whenever I am called thereunto.

By Election and Reprobation, they mean God's chusing of Christ, and rejecting the Devil and sin; which is proved by the following Citation. Quest. And doth Election and Reprobation …mith's Catech. p. 9.stand in the Natures, or Seeds of Light and Darkness? Answ. Yes it doth so; for the Seed of Light is Christ, whom God hath elected and chosen before the Foundation of the World; and the Seed of Darkness is the Devil, and Enmity, which is reprobated for ever. Is it not clear here as Sun-beams, what kind of things are the subjects of eternal Rewards or Punishments by their Principles? I should be too tedious, if I should here enumerate their illmeant phrases, and give the proofs at large; as, that by Carnal Ʋnderstanding and Imaginations, p. 29they mean the use of Humane Reason; by the Will of the Flesh, our choice and derermination, however rational, or according with the Scripture, if not by the Motion and Inspiration of the Light within; by Christ, the Light within; by being out of the Power of God, not adhering to the motions and impulses of what they call Christ, or the Light within; by the Man Christ, the spiritual Man, the Light within still; by Christ crucified, a Christ crucified within; by the Righteousness of Christ justifying them, the works done in their bodies by the strength (they say) they receive by the Light and Power within; by Christ's flesh and blood in their flesh, a body of spiritual flesh, blood and bones, which (they say) came down from Heaven, and tabernacled in the Son of Mary, while he was upon earth, and now dwells in the Quakers.

If they would please to give us a Dictionary of their Words, Phrases, and Interpretations, all their Murther would out: But in the mean time their Adversaries (I mean to their Opinions) must study them out of their Writings, and converse as they do, who give us the Interpretations in English of Foreign Languages; and this I have done faithfully (so far as I have expressed) in my Key to the Quakers phrases.

Now Mr. Penn, I shall follow you at the P's Reb. p. 7.heels, with less pains, and more advantage. You quarrel with the Reverend Divines (never the less Reverend for all the dirt you can fix upon them) for not consulting your Answers to my Book. I assure you, if you wish they all p. 30had read and weighed them throughly, you and I are agreed in somewhat: For I know not any more sure way to my Vindication, and your Condemnation, than a due comparing our Writings. But yet you only tell them what they should have done to render them blameless (at least with you) but you prove nothing with your Ifs and Ands, though you make bold Conclusions. But what should we expect more from a man, whose mettal is no where but in his words and flourishes?

They had been prudent indeed by the rule of Contraries, if they had followed your advice, and upon your strong Reasons; viz. But if you must needs be so liberal, methinks your Recommendation had better been bestowed upon his VINDICATION, since his writing that, proveth this wanted it; and if it wanted then, its wants Page 7.it still, and yet it seems the Book vindicated, must be the Defence of the Vindication, and all the return I am like to have to my Rejoynder, bating the Epistle, &c. Can you be sober, and believe that men of Reason will account this your reasoning sober? Must a Vindication be taken for a Condemnation of what it vindicates, without more ado? Are you not a cast and a condemned man, and the Quakers Cause with you, by your own Logick? For your writing in their Vindication, proves they want it. And doth not your attempts to vindicate your Answer, shew by this Figure of yours, that it was a defective or faulty thing? But farther, must not a Book be reprinted, but for its own Vindication? By your Logick, the oftner Books are reprinted, p. 31the worse, and more faulty they are proved to be. This came into your head, and then it must be let drop on your Book for a piece of wit that the World had need of, to fright them from reprinting good Books, especially against the Quakers. Why do you complain of my not answering your Rejoynder? Is this the way to provoke me to it, seeing such a thing must be for a Vindication of my first Book, and you tell me such a course proves it wants it? Well then, seeing I do not believe my Book wants a Vindication, or your Rejoynder deserves an Answer, I may take my rest with more prudence than you scrible; especially considering, that your credit will be Vindication enough of any thing against your reproaches.

You might with more prudence have told such a Block-head as I, you generally fling Infallibility Page 7.at us—as if it were a Capital sin to be assured, than so many Learned men: For your making Infallibility and Assurance to be the same thing, is a broad Symptom of your Ignorance. The next passage you transcribe (with your Reply to it) hath undone your Cause. The Quakers preach another Gospel, and endeavour to seduce well-meaning Souls, to whom they speak in unintelligible words; and from whom they hide the poyson of their Antifundamental Doctrines. What say you to this? Why, Here is a great deal in a little: And so say I too. But you say, 'tis very sowrely said: And I say, 'tis very truly and soberly said. But shall we take you at your next words, Were it as true, as it is false, the day were yours.

p. 32If it were no more true than you would have it accounted false, it were false and black enough. But I shall not be beholding to your grant; we are rich enough in Truth and Evidence, to live without your Alms; and strong enough to turn the Quakers out of their Usurpations, against their wills.

You may say, They make not the least offer to prove it. But you anticipate their Answer, of John Faldo's having done it for them, and make your Exceptions against him; as first, an Irreverent abuser of God. God forbid! But what God? Alas 'tis of the Quakers Gods or Idols, the Light within them, their Souls and Spirits, which they call by that name. Pardon me Mr. Penn, if when you set up a stock, and call it a God, I do not presently fall down and worship it. But you say again, I am an abuser of the Christian Religion. And who will expect you should say otherwise of any, who write against yours? But I suppose the greatest abuse you stomach is, my not reverencing the Quaker-Dutch woman's declaring in Dutch, to a Meeting of English Quakers, who confessed they understood not a word she spake, yet were confident she spake by the Spirit, for they all found refreshings. I pray pardon me this wrong, though I never repent it to my dying day.

But in the third place you say, And which is more to my contentment, whatever it be to his and yours; some, and no Quakers too, think I have prov'd him such. More to your Contentment! why was it at all to your Contentment, that I should abuse God, and the Christian Religion? p. 33But it seems, that some thinking you had proved me such, who were not Quakers, is exceeding grateful and contenting to you. Verily a small Approbation of your attempts, contents you greatly; for I doubt not but there are other silly people in the World besides the Quakers, who may at least, be so good-natur'd, and be so credulous as to think so. But would you not think it very strong and pertinent for me to tell you, that some, and neither Presbyterians nor Independants did tell me; that you did not write to confute me, but merely to shew your wit; so remote were you either from the matter, or the truth; and so much in love with Witticisms, that no hedge of exact Expressions would hold you, but you would break out the stake of one Substantial word or another for a passage. Yea, should I tell you, that some such said, that your Friends were so confident of all you said to be true, and well, that if you put out my Book in your name, they would take it to be a very good Book, and all in it very true: And I assure you, 'tis no less than some have said, and would not be perswaded to the contrary.

Give me leave in the next place to answer your Question, and I shall not need to be beholding to Rebuke, &c. p. 8.any to take my word that I answer you truly: And let me ask you (say you) if it be another Gospel to own Remission of sin, and Eternal Salvation by the Son of God; and both as he appeared above 1600 years ago in the flesh, and as he reveals himself within in Power and Spirit? If your Opinions in these matters, were the same with what is received by the generality of understanding and serious Christians, you would have expressed them in some or other of their Forms of Confession; but you love the p. 34Clouds and By-paths, that your sense may not be discerned. And in truth, you not only may, but do hold another Gospel, than what we affirm is the Gospel of Christ, for all the truth that is expressed or meant by you in this form of words. It is a sad thing that your Principles and Manners are so bad, that they that know them, will take all your words with suspicion.

What your Eternal Salvation is, I have proved already. That by the Son of God, you understand the Divinity only, or Godhead, is so common in …ox's …reat my…ery, p. 71.your Prints, that none who are acquainted with them, are ignorant of it; yet for the Reader's satisfaction, I shall cite some of your Authors. And first, George Fox thus: And Christ's Nature is not Humane, which is earthly, for that is the first Adam's. Next to him, take Pennington's verdict in these words: This we certainly know, and can never call the bodily Garment Christ; but that which appeared and dwelt in the body. Here, that which dwelt in the body, which was the Godhead, and that only, is allowed to be Christ. And in the former, Christ's Humane Nature is denied in so many words: Yea, you hold those to be false Ministers, that preach a …mith's Primmer, …. 8. 9.Christ without us; and those only true Ministers, who preach a Christ within. All this your great Author W. Smith saith in so many words, They that are false [Ministers] preach Christ without, and bid people believe in him as he is in Heaven above; but they that are true Ministers, they preach Christ within, and direct people to wait to feel him in themselves, and so to believe in him, as he makes himself manifest in them. The Child is made to reply (for you are to take notice, 'tis a Primmer or Catechism:) This is a great difference in their Doctrine, for one p. 35to preach Christ without, and another preacheth him within. The Father answers, Yes, it doth make a great difference, and hath no more fellowship than the East and the West. What think you of your Gospel now? or what do you judg those against whom you write will censure it to be, wherein such a Salvation, and such a Saviour is preached? and to preach Christ without, and Christ within too, hath no more Fellowship than the East and the West? What can you say, to put a colour on this, consistent with owning Jesus the Son of Mary, who rose, and is ascended above the visible Heavens, to be Christ? You know I gave you this Citation in my first Book; but you thought good (with most of the greatest weight) to let it pass without any notice. Let the Reader judg, if this be not excellent Doctrine to teach to young Children. While you tell us we must hearken to the Light within, to teach us what is necessary to believe and practise, and that is sufficient, you have Primmer and Catechism without, to teach your Children to deny the Fundamentals of the Gospel.

I shall now examine the other part of your Gospel; scil. And both as he appeared above 1600 years ago in the flesh, and as he reveals himself WITHIN in Power and Spirit. Your great fallacy lies in the word AS, which is a word of Likeness, or Comparison.

But to evidence as clear as light, that you hold that the Son of God appeareth now. AS he did then; and that you, or some others of you are, according to your Opinions, as truly, I say as truly, Christ, as Jesus the Son of Mary, I shall give suffificient proof.

In my first Book I wrote these words, They do Quaker. … Christian part 2. p 70. impr.not deny that there was such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary; and that God was in him, or rather p. 36Christ was in him: But this is no more than they profess of themselves, that Christ, as God, and the Eternal Word is in them. Would not any one judg, that you should deny this Charge with as great violence and exclamation, as any in the Book? and that many impertinent, frothy, and clamorous passages in your Answer, ought to have given place and room, for your clearing your selves of this charge, if it were not your due? You cannot say, you did not observe it; for in your Answer you repeat my words thus, He says they do not deny, that …s Answ. Quak. … Christ. 155.there was such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary; and that God, or rather Christ, was in him: But this is no more than they profess of themselves, that Christ, as God, is in them.

When I read this Repetition of my Charge, I expected to be overwhelmed with a floud of Revilings; but contrary-wise, I am not so stroaked by you for any passage in my Book: He hath done us (say you) right in two respects, which may a little answer for the ill language he giveth us in our Charge: First, That he acknowledgeth we own that there was Ib.such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary (in contradiction to abundance of our Adversaries) and that God was in him, which makes up our Christ. Here you are so far from denying this Charge, that you own it to do you right. And let it be observed, that God dwelling in Jesus, doth not make up (as you call it) your Christ numerically, as excluding any other than Jesus the Son of Mary; but specifically, which answers to my saying of your Opinion, which saying you commend. This were enough, but I proceed to Burrough's testimony.

A Christian soberly, and seriously proposing this Question to him, Whether the Word was made flesh p. 37more or oftner than once? He replies to him in this rude Burrou… Works Folio, p 29, 30.manner; In this Query thou art manifest what thou art, and where thou art, and what spirit thou art of, a Reprobate, a Child of Darkness.—this Query comes from thy polluted mind. The Light condemns thee, and all thy Generation eternally. The Word made flesh we witness, which dwells amongst us, and we behold his glory, whereby we witness thee, and all thy Generation to be in the Sorcery and Witchcraft.—But thou Dragon, that would devour the man-Child; thou the Dragon, with thy Angels, art cast into the Earth. For thy other nineteen Queries, thou hast conjured them up in the Black-Art, out of the bottomless pit. I shall not animadvert on every part of this Text, so pregnant with the Quakers mischievous Principles, and monstrous Manners. But was not this furious railing Reply, instead of answering the Question negatively, a strong evidence that you hold that the Word was made flesh more than once, as truly as he was at any one time? Moreover, if the phrase, We witness, be rendred into the English you mean by it, one Clause of his Answer should be thus read; The Word made flesh we experience, which dwells among us, and we behold his glory. This evidence amounts to no less than yours before cited.

I shall add one evidence more, out of your own Writings, which scarce needs an Interpreter: And W. Penn'… Re…oynder to Faldo, p. 311.those who at this day do feed upon the history of the bodily appearance (yet honorable in its place and know not a breaking through the Vail, by witnessing a measure of the same Divine Wisdom, Power, Righteousness, Grace, and Truth, revealed and born forth in themselves; they are but carnal, fleshly Christians, being unacquainted with the formation of the Christ of God IN THEMSELVES; which is the opening p. 38of the mystery of Christ, GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. The same Divine Wisdom relates to these words a few lines foregoing, Of which he is the fulness, whose transcending glory was vailed by that body of flesh he wore; i. e. the Divine Nature which dwelt in the Body of Jesus. What can be a more full proof that God manifest in the flesh (or appearing in the flesh, which is the same sense) spoken peculiarly of Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 3. 16. (and of him as his peculiar) is by you in your own words, made common to all, who are not (as you call them) Carnal, and Fleshly Christians. And you leave out the word WAS in the Text, to hide your Blasphemy.

I remember, that in some of your Answers to me (though I cannot readily find the place) you say, That you do not say that the fulness of the Godhead dwells in you. To which I answer first, that your phrase of a Measure of God, respecting his Essence, is your (peculiar) Blasphemy; for whereever God is essentially, there is whole God, the infinite God. But farther, I will prove, that you hold the Light in you to be as infinitely God, as can be expressed. Will. Smith tells his Child in his Primmer, of the Light within the Child, the Light in its Conscience, that All power in Heaven and …ith's …immer, 14.Earth is in it. So that here is the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in your bodies (by your Principles). But that I may give you full measure, pressed down, and running over, I will give you one Citation more: We believe (saith Smith) that Christ …ith's …techis. 64.in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice to God for us, by which the wrath of God is appeased to us—and this is he in whom our Faith standeth, the one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

p. 39Now let all impartial men judg of your hypocritical Equivocations, to hide your Anti-Gospel, and Antifundamental Doctrines. With what a forehead did you write such a Rebuke to such men, for writing so very a truth? I esteem this your unspeakable folly to be, what God hath permitted as a farther occasion to open your hidden things of darkness; for which I bless him, and I hope many others may do the like, for these Snares being more manifestly discovered: The wickèd is snared in the work of his own hands, Higgaion Selah, Psal. 9. 16.

The next work that comes to my hand is, to consider what you say hath a very bad Consequence. But I will transcribe your own words; viz. For the other part of your Accusation, That we should say P's Reb. p. 8.one thing, and mean another, it is by Consequence to call us the worst of Knaves: By how much a deception in matters of Eternal moment, is more impious than any cozenage about things of this life.

They have said it, I shall now prove it, and you have given us the Consequence. I doubt not but the Reader is so well satisfied already of the truth of this, That you say one thing, and mean another, that he will think farther proof needless. But I will add a little ex abundanti: The Quaker saith, That P's Answ… to Faldo'… Quaker. … Christ. p. …Light is in the Scriptures, prove that; or tell me what one Scripture hath Light in it. Here is the greatest denial that may be of the Scriptures, or any one Scripture having Light in it. But W. Penn gives the meaning to be, There is not spiritual, living, essential Light in the Scriptures; but a descriptive, and declarative Light they carry with them of the true Light. Now would any man take the Quakers phrase to mean as you say? What need had he to p. 40tell them there was not liying and essential Light in them, every body knows that; and his saying was a universal Negative in the highest terms.

Quaker: So amongst the words, you find how the Saints in some things walked, and what they practised; page missingorning-page missingatch, page missing45.and then you strive to make that thing to your selves, and to observe it, and do it as near as you can: and here you are found Transgressors of the just Law of God, who saith; Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing: Now what difference is there in the ground betwixt you and the Pope, though in the appearance there seem to be so great space. This, one would think, were very plain English. But you tell us, that he means page missings Answ. page missing Quak. page missing Chri. page missing 98quite other things: For say you, Take Will. Smith in his own sense and belief, and all is well.—He intended, that all those real Experiments of other persons (of which the Scriptures are full) talk'd unexperimentally over by ungenerated spirits, can be no ways beneficial. Nay, that what Idea's and Notions they may have to themselves of the holy Ancients enjoyments, while altogether unacquainted with them; are but a kind of Images, which their believing in, and bowing to as indispensible Gospel-truths, is to be reputed nothing below Idolatry it self.

Either he or you, must notably dissemble here. How doth what you say is Smith's sense, appear in his words? W. Smith speaks expresly of the Saints practices, and how they walked; and you give his meaning to be of their experiments and enjoyments. Smith calls their doing like them as near as they can Idolatry; and you give his meaning to be of unregenerate persons talking them over. If this were his sense, which is so far off from the true import of the words in the English Tongue, and we must p. 41have such Interpretations to understand the Quakers meanings, it is past all doubt, that you say one thing, and mean another.

But you say farther, And if you measure us by P's. Re… p. 9.our words, you must grant that either you understand us not, or we mean very good things; for you say elsewhere, that our obnoxious Tenets are usually maskt under expressions doubtful, unintelligible, or under Scripture, and Orthodox phrases.

Either you are very ignorant of your own sayings, or your understanding doubly dark and vitious. When you say, The Soul is not a Creature, is a part of God infinite in it self; That all power in Heaven and Earth is in the Light within; That they are false Ministers that preach Christ without us: Must we needs say you mean very good things, if we measure you by your words? yea certainly, if saying you abound with Blasphemies, be to say you mean very good things.

But in your Report, you let drop a material word, for you repeat it, That our obnoxious Tenets we usually mask, &c. whereas they say, Their Tenets which are most obnoxious to censure. There are many of your Tenets obnoxious to Censure, which you speak plain enough, about Perfection, the Scriptures not being the Word of God, or a Rule; also against the Sacraments. This is not fair dealing, but repeating your crimes, while you stand upon your Defence. And your inferences of their not being certain of your Principles, from their calling your Expressions doubtful and unintelligible, forget that which you repeat of their words; scil. that they are usually so; which leaves room enough for your Expressions to be sometimes plain and intelligible.

p. 42And they can tell you (for all your Illogical Triumphs) how they come to know your meanings to be contradictory to your sayings: And that the Conscience of a Quaker (granting you to be one) is not to be named with that of a Presbyterian, or Independant, or of any sort of People who pretend to Christianity.

But you are gotten into a vein of Self-applauding Rhetorick, and seem to be so airy, as to believe your wortb to answer your words; it cannot possibly arise from any other cause (if you mean as you say) that you dare meet with them upon a publique Test, Ib.to prove your integrity to God and men. What a strange briskness and confidence have you attained to on a sudden, who to all the Solicitations, and Provocations you have received from me, to meet me in the Debate of Thirteen of the most horrid Principles I charge you with, have been as cowardly as a Hare, and as cold as death? Canes timidi vehementius latrant quam mordent.

Is it your Ignorance, Pride, Arrogance, or the lax your pen hath catcht? or is it all of them together, that makes you talk at this rate? or is it the courage you take from the consideration, that it may be, that One and twenty more of them cannot shew …age 15.so much wit as Ben. Johnson? which is a Reflection of yours, favouring more of Ben. Johnson's Comical humour, than of either Wit, Modesty, or Honesty. Do you think your self a Match for One and twenty Divines, many a one of whom would think himself very idle to attend your wandring motions, and shuffling tricks? But I suppose you know that as well as I can tell you, and that makes you talk without fear.

p. 43Mr. Penn, I here tell you again, That I shall (if the Lord give me life and liberty) save them the trouble of contending with you, so far as proving what I have charged you with will amount unto. Or if you will, to make but one Question of it, and prove that you, and such as you, are no Christians. But I proceed.

You say, And though you would have the people P's. Rebu… &c. p. 10…think very severe things of us, with respect to the Scriptures of truth; by telling them the Quakers hold, That the Scriptures are not the Word of God, nor a Rule of Faith and Practice; yea, that we readily assert it in so many words. I must tell you, you have acted with us herein far from men of common Ingenuity. A man might at this rate by Scripture prove, There is no God, if he would but leave out, The Fool hath said in his heart.

But if this Charge of theirs (with others you as confidently contradict, and as vehemently decry) be proved true, and that out of your own Writings in your Defence; will it not be sadly implied, that you are the Fool that have said in your heart, There is no God? Certainly your carriage bespeaks you Atheum judicio; or at least, one who believes God seeth not, or regardeth not what you say or do? It is a most burthensom and nauseous thing, to have to do with a man, that will say any thing to slander and abuse his Antagonists and deny his own professed Principles, rather than fail of that end.

In your Answer to my Charge, That the Quakers deny the Scriptures of the Old and New-Testament to be the Word of God; you say, I will P's Answ. to Faldo, p. 24.allow to him, without going any farther, that the People called Quakers, do deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and therefore shall take for granted p. 44what he quotes out of J. N. i. e. James Naylor, &c. Dare you say I have left out any thing of your Sentence? I dare not promise you will not say, the most gross and wilful untruth; I am too well acquainted with you, to have better thoughts of you.

If you flee to your owning in another place, That Christ is the Word of God, and in that sence you deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, it will by no means help you: For the Question is about the Scriptures, and those you peremptorily deny to be so in any sense. And for the Christ you own to be the Word of God, when all comes to all, it is but the Light within; as will appear by the next evidence I shall produce against you. Whatever your own Friends (as you call them) may think of the matter, all wise-men will see you buried under the ruines of your lofty Fabrick, built without the Foundation of Truth.

I charged you in the Contents of my Fifth Chapter, with denying the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Life: But you, after many words, Quaker. no … Chri. p. 65.nothing to the purpose, confirm my Charge thus stoutly, Wherefore, said the Prophet, Hear the Word of the Lord. What word? That nigh in the heart, which Moses and Paul preached. Still the outward …'s Answ. … Faldo, …. 56.Instrument is not the Rule, much less are the Writings, being they are but all external Instruments. And this I will abide by against all the insults of our Enemies (by God's assistance) that both they are but such Instruments, and that such Instruments are not the Gospel Rule; but that Light, Life, Power, or Spirit which useth them. And who attributes that honour to the Instruments, which is due to the chief Mover in it, or by it, commits downright Idolatry.

p. 45Have you not here loaded them with a witness who take the Scriptures to be their Rule, by charging them to be no less than Idolaters for so doing? What can you say or add to make the sence of your Expressions tolerable? You tell us indeed, that you believe and know they contain many godly P's Reb. &c. p. 10.Rules. But will this mend the matter? I well remember, that one of your Prophets, who lived not long since (if not now) at the Peal in St. John-street, when I asked him, If that Text, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, were obliging to me, having read it in the Bible? I could not perswade him to P. M. W. H. M. F. W. W. &c.acknowledg it, or that it was my duty to love God; he having before denied, that I was an inspired person. This was before divers witnesses, both Quakers and others, some of the first letters of whose names are in the Margin.

It would be little for your Credit, that I should tell the World the occasion of that Conference, and how it issued. But it being a lewd practice (though pretended from your Principles) I shall forbear till it be farther called for, and conclude the present point with James Naylor's testimony (whom you Naylor's Light of Christ, &c. p. 19.own and honour still as none of your small Prophets) God is at liberty (saith he) to speak to his people by them [the Scriptures] if he please, and where they are given by Inspiration, he doth so. And so he is at liberty to speak by any other created thing, as P's Answ. to Faldo's Quaker. no Chri. p. 53.to Balaam by his Ass. These words of Naylor you own and justifie. Now let the World judg, whose ingenuity is to be preferred, yours, or those Worthies whom you have slandered? or, Whether your guilt is no better proved, than the Scriptures affirming, There is no God, by a disingenuous leaving out, The Fool hath said in his heart?

p. 46I find you in the next page, over-head and ears in your sportive-humour, upon the occasion of the phrase, Honey, or sweetness of Spirit, in the Ministers Epistle; which to make a gingle with, you turn into money by Interpretation: They [the people] toil, and you talk; they are the Bees, and you, so many cunning Hivers; at the tinkling of whose bells the silly Bees assemble, and when you have safely hived them, your next business is to take their honey from them. Here you smite the standers by, instead of the men of your Controversie. As the Madman, Prov. 26. 18. you cast fire-brands, not at the Non, but Conformists, who only have the Bells to ring-in the Bees (as you call them:) But you care not whose head you break, so you may but break your jest.

How they can say, that honest well-meaning souls may be judicially deserted of God, is not hard to reconcile; seeing they oppose them to you, and your crafty Leaders; they believing you, and the Principles they receive from you to be very good, while you (and many more of you) cannot but know that you delude. They follow you in the simplicity of their hearts, who (many of them) believe not that you hold what you do; and therefore hold not with you in many things. And the Ministers construe their word Honest, by well-meaning.

But this Apology is more than their Expressions need; for when they speak of honest well-meaning souls, they say, Divers of them (so far as we can understand) P's Rebuk. p. 13.who are honest well-meaning souls. But in your Report, you leave out the whole Parenthesis, which abundantly alters the sence. And where you say, That Christians, while such, may be judicially deserted of God, and hived by the Devil: Methinks p. 47such a contradiction beconceth not men of your stile and pretences. You take your own false consequence of their words, and put it into a different letter as their words, that they may fall under the burthen which you treacherously create out of your own brain. Moreover, they say not absolutely, that they are deserted of God, but that they seem to be so. And so did Peter while he denied his Master.

All this put together, renders you a habitual Falsifier in your Reports of your Adversaries words and sence; for were it not become natural to you, you would not be guilty of it in the very instant of accusing others for that crime.

In the next place, I find you much offended, Ib.that they should so much as imply that there may be some Socianiz'd Persons, or Papists among you, under the disguise of Quakers: And that is all that their words import. You affirm, That ye are neither Socinians nor Papists; and require at their hands, to produce one Socinian, or Papist that goes under the Page 13.name of a Quaker.

If there be either Papists or Socinianiz'd persons among you, the suspicion they imply proves a truth. Although common Fame say, That you have had Jesuites, or Romish Priests, helping under your disguise, to promote the Quakers work, I shall not build upon that Foundation: But certainly, your Principles for Doctrine, and your Resolves (as you call them) for Discipline, are so much of the Foundation and Superstructure of Rome, that he that suspects not the hand of the Jesuite in the Plot, is very ignorant in either the Romish, or the Quakers Principles.

p. 48I shall not repeat here what is done already in Quakerism no Christianity, Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and Chap. 12. Sect. 3. Thither I refer my Reader for farther satisfaction: These two Sections consisting of fourteen pages, being wholly taken up in the comparison of the Quakers and Papists, as such, in their Foundation and Doctrines. And for your Resolves for Discipline, I have printed it verbatim in my Appendix to the foresaid Book, with my parallel in your Order and Disciplines, as like almost as two Eggs of the same Crow.

I suppose you cannot be ignorant of the meeting of some of the chief Quakers and Papists in London, designed for a Consult to save the Romish Priest lately convicted; which hath done your Cause so much service, as to confirm many in the belief, that you are rowing hard to Tybur. I can tell you the place of meeting, and names of the Consulters, and also what great and rich man among you, stormed sufficiently, that you made thereby the smoak of Suspicion to flame out into a clear evidence, that your Leaders and the Papists are Confederates.

I know also, who among your Great ones, confessed the fact, but excused the guilt; by saying; that they were against the suffering of any upon the account of Religion, and did it upon that common Principle. But let me tell you, that your chusing the Papists, rather than any other who are liable to sufferings by the Law, doth loudly prove, what I told you of in my former Book, of a Romanist's saying, being demanded, which of all the Quaker, no …hri. p. 54. …lt impr.Sects in England came nearest the Church of Rome? he replied, The Quakers.

For a Socianiz'd Person, I will seek no farther, when I find you; nor for other testimony than your p. 49Book, entituled, Sandy Foundation shaken; where you make it the scope of your Book to deny, The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, Justification by imputed Righteousness, Original sin, and the Satisfaction of Christ for sinners. Though these Socinian Principles fill up the Volume of the Book, I will quote three of your Sentences: If God (as the Scriptures testifie) hath never been declared, or believed, but as the Holy One, then it will follow that P's San. … Found & p. 12.God is not a Holy Three—Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent, but impertinent distinction, That he is one in Substance, but three in Persons or Subsistences. The Second Person of the imagined Page 16…. Title.Trinity. So much for your denying the Trinity.

Imputed Righteousness, and Original sin you deny in one breath thus: Because sin came not by Imputation, but actual Transgression—therefore must the Righteousness Id. p. 29.be as Personal for Acceptance. In denying Christ's Satisfaction, you go beyond the Socinians; for you say, Nor let any fancy, that Christ hath so fulfilled it [the Law] for them, as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their Acceptance, but only for their patern. Id in Eo… p. 26.Let this be added to your saying of Justification, and it will explain you. Is not here enough to render you not only Socianiz'd, but also a Socinian? If you say, the Socinians deny the Godhead of Christ, but so do not you: I answer, That if it were so, it would only render you not a compleat Socinian, but not clear you from being Socianiz'd. But let me tell you, that you deny the Godhead of Christ as well as they; for, they deny him to be God by Nature; and you affirm, the Light within (which is indeed but a natural Faculty, or Qualification) to be Christ, or God.

So that the difference lies thus wide: The Socinians will have Christ to be but a Creature; and you p. 50will have that which is but a Creature, to be Christ. Verily, they who call you Socinians, and stop there, do you a great deal of undeserved honour: For your Religion and Principles are made up of almost all Ancient Errours, with such a Superfetation, as if Quakerism were the sink into which they empty themselves, and the womb that brings them forth more monstrous than their Progenitors.

I shall not be so idle and frivolous, as to give instances of the Quakers ensnaring ignorant persons to their Principles, by the good opinion their morosity in Garbs and Manners first obtained: For this were but to set up a Candle to mend Day-light. And that a Devotion to any pretended Religion, upon the consideration of mere outward appearances, is Monkish, Nunnish, and Irrational, needs as little proof.

If you think the little Bands, Cropt-locks, exceeding page missing's Reb. page missingc. p. 14.plain Apparel, severe Aspects of the Ancient Puritans, render them as obnoxious to Censure as the Quakers; you either know not them, or your selves. For that Garb was common in those days to men professing, or not professing the Puritanical Principles; yea, generally used by the Clergy, even by those who were most Prelatical, and the keenest Censors of the Puritans. Neither did they put so much of Religion into those Garbs, as to condemn such as were not so accoutred, for prophane and irreligious persons; which is your case: There being none esteemed Quakers with you, who wear any Lace, or Ribbands, or that will salute by putting off the hat; or that will put I and No, in the room of Yea and Nay; or that will say You to a Single person, and not Thou. And your account of all that are not Quakers, is no better than Infidels, Heathen p. 51(or Hypocrites, if professing the Christian Religion) out of the Life, and the Power. Phrases of yours, which by Interpretation import, ignorant of Christ, and Rebels to the Light, or no true Christians.

For your Aspects, the name of Severe is much too good; for they are generally Supercilious, Elate, Sullen, or Wanton. The three first are every mans experiment that hath to do with you. And if you take the Wantonness of your Aspects sometimes, to be a slander; I need no other evidence to clear me, than the frequency of your Females (whether Maid, Wife, or Widow) when they meet their Men-friends, in the room of the more Civil Salutations, which you decry, taking them by the hands, or wrists, continuing a considerable space, wringing them hard, and looking stedfastly in each others faces, without one word speaking: And as they meet, so they part, having taken their fill of this ugly and bad-natur'd Ceremony.

I doubt not but you will put a very good Construction upon this uncivil Posture, as you attempt to do upon the worst the Quakers say or do: But when you have said all you can to excuse, it will be esteemed a wanton temptatious thing, and an Ordinance from an ill Author, to destroy Modesty, and train you up to that Confidence and Fore-head your cause hath need of.

I know you make a great noise about your sufferings, which you render so inseparable from a Quaker, that you give us the Construction of the Ibid.word to be, to expose themselves to the bitter Anathema's of such High-Priests as your selves (the One and twenty Divines) the severity of their dearest Relations, the penalties of Magistracy, and to the general reproach of the multitude. When you have said p. 52thus much, you think you have said a great deal, to perswade people 'tis an inward Principle, and not outward appearance that prevails with persons to become Quakers. But what are all these sufferings you mention, but in themselves outward appearances? And yet your often glorying of them, is mostly but hanging out a sign of the Goodness of your Principle, and thereby to draw in Proselytes. But they who will take up in their Religion, where-ever they see the Sign of Sufferings at the door, may make a very ill choice.

I know you are not much afflicted with the Anathema's of the High-Priests (as you call them;) but if they should stir the old man, you can soon pay them in their own Coyn with interest, and avouch that kind of Retaliation to be from the Spirit, though from a very Revengeful one. For your other sufferings, paint them out in the bloodiest colours you can devise, and I will produce you a Papist, a Jesuite, a Turk, a Heathen, who hath equalled you, or outdone you in the behalf of their Delusions.

If we set aside an erroneous Conscience, which may produce violent and preternatural heats, to act and suffer in the behalf of its false Sentiments; experience teaches us, that men will maintain their more apparent Vices at a very costly rate. How many sacrifice their Health, Time, Parts, Estates, Wives, Children, Credit, and their Souls; and all for the gratifying those bruitish lusts of Drunkenness, Uncleanness, and other voluptuous Appetites! Although they more certainly know, those Iniquities will produce such ruines, than any of you are assured, that Quakerism will cost you any considerable losses?

p. 53How many run the like hazards to please an envious, malicious, or ambitious Humour? And I know not why Pride and Self-will (so predominant in most of you, and inseparable from your Principles) may not engage you to adventure your share of sufferings, without any Religion concerned in the business, much-less the true Religion. What think you of your haughty Tenents, of having in you the Light which is infallible, the Power that hath all the Power of Heaven and Earth in it: That your Souls are not Creatures, but a part of God, infinite in themselves: That you are perfect, without any remains of sin, so much as in your Natures: That you have somewhat, by which you are enabled, and priviledged to judg both persons and things: That all are Infidels, Ignoramuses, and Hypocrites (respecting Spiritual and Religious things) excepting your selves: That you must shew honour and respect to no man, by the usual tokens of Hat, and Leg, or Sir, or any other Titles or Names of respect, except what is Relational: By which every Clown, and very mean person, who is a Quaker, mounts all on a sudden upon even ground (in this case) with Elders, Betters, Magistrates, yea the Prince himself; with whom he will go Cheek by Jole, without any apparency in his Deportment, that he is his inferiour?

Would it not amaze a Reader to find your haughty opinion of your selves, and contempt of others, expressed in the following words? And here is the ground of all true Nobility, Gentility, MAJESTY, Parnel Shield o… Truth, p. 25.Honour, Breeding, Manners, Courtesie, and Civility; no more after the flesh, but after the Spirit. A few lines after, he gives us the practical Improvement ye make of this Elate Principle: Who are not sprung p. 54from the noble, gentle Seed; and to those honour is not due, neither can we bow unto them; for if we should, we should set the Devil in the room of God, and give unto him that which is due unto God. What do you conceit, according to the sence of these words (which never any of you disowned that I could hear or read, but the Book is owned by you, without exception, and its Author greatly praised:) Surely the sence of the words, without giving of Consequences, is, That you conceit your selves to be Gods, and others of all sorts and ranks, to be but Devils. What a blasphemous Bait is here to a proud man to become a Quaker!

It is become a Proverb, That not the Suffering, but the Cause makes the Martyr: Neither will the pretence of Conscience serve the turn, but a real good Conscience; which is a Conscience espousing Truth, and suffering for it in a righteous way. I have said the more upon this head, because I find that men espouse their Religion too often, upon the mere evidence of the sufferings of its Professors.

In the next Paragraph your pen runs glib, while your Reason halts, and stumbles at your common rate. The one and twenty Divines say, as you repeat it. And yet some of them being rich, and Reb. p 16.growing into Estates in the World, can, and do live in as flesh-pleasing fulness, as others, whom they have condemned. Now I shall repeat your Consequence, and leave it to the Reader to conclude, whose credit is in danger, your's or the Ministers. You say (say you) we condemn all but our selves. What is the Consequence but …bid.this, if you speak true? That there is not a person in the World, that is not a professed Quaker, hath either more ability to live flesh-pleasing, or p. 55that actually doth indulge himself more to a sensual life, than some Quakers can, and do. By others, you will needs understand all others: By being rich, that there is not a person in the World of greater ability: By some of you, indulging to a sensual life as well as others, that no man lives more sensually than some of you. If you can wrest words at this rate, which are under your Readers eye; how much more, when the words you construe are out of their reach?

I wonder (but why should I wonder at any thing you say) that you should tempt us to bring the names of your Grand-men on the stage, by your first Reply to the Ministers true Expressions; scil. I would willingly know (say you) these persons, who Ibid.they are? and where they live? Did you love the Truth, and your own Credit, ye would scarce be so lavishing of your words. Is there no flesh pleasing, but in a Ribband; or Lace, or Hat, or Congy? Are not your houses as stately, your meats and drinks as plentiful, various, and pallatable, your apparel as costly (Ribbands and Lace excepted) as some others whom you have condemned? Is this a matter hid in a corner, that we need to bring particular instances for a proof? But if I must needs be at namely, Let your self (who ride in your Coach, and have your men following, and standing bare to you, who live plentifully, and can bring out store of bottles of Wine for Entertainments, bidding your Guests to use their freedom:) I say, let your self be one instance.

Let John Osgood, William Mead, Roberts, be other instances; whose houses are large, furnished richly with Plate, and Tables with Provisions. I blame neither them nor you for living suitably to p. 56your Estates: But certainly, set those Bawbles of Ribbands, &c. aside, you are not guilty of much self-denial in your bodily accommodations, which is a thing you so much pretend to above others.

I had like to have let slip a passage of your Creed, which you bolt out, not very like the Doctrine of the Gospel; viz. And this I affirm, That all these …ge 15.endeavours many vigorously employ to vilifie an inward Principle, and disswade persons from believing in it, waiting upon it, and being guided by it, center in the rankest Atheism. How now Mr. Penn! Is this a time for you to profess faith in an inward Principle? Is it the truest Creed that renders Faith to be an inward Principle, and the Object to be without, and above us? or that which makes somewhat within to be its Object. Farewel then the Jesus that died at Jerusalem, and all your disguising pretences of owning him; for surely he is not so far metamorphosed, as to become a Principle within you. What should we expect of a Leper, but the breakings out of his Disease, yea, when he is most deeply engaged in defending his cleanness?

In the next place, you say your pleasure of those words, wherein they recommend my Book; viz. Wherein the Quakers Principles are more thorowly …ebuke, …. 16.investigated, than in any Book which we have seen. And we judg it for matter, proof, and stile, to be especially useful for those who need, or desire Information concerning the Quakers, and their Principles.

Upon these words you trumpet your Triumphs before the Battel, and would have it taken for granted upon your word, that the Divines have given you the h…lt, and themselves the point of the sword at their own breasts: Had we p. 57no other Weapon (say you) this were enough to wound your cause incurably. But let us see what your Cockle-shel Triumph comes to. Your first is, He hath laid down about twenty Principles in the Quakers name, eighteen of which are not only none of theirs, as so exprest, but not so much as by Consequence.

You have said it, and that is all. You said near as much once before, and attempted the proof by Page 6.only a single instance; wherein you so far failed, as not to give any Principle of yours, as it was laid down by me, but somewhat of your own in its stead; and as being conscious of your own guilt, you give neither Page nor Chapter where it might be found; which was as much as to say, if you would have me prove these to be his words, you may go look (for me) where to find them. But now, as if you suspected before the hard-hap your first attempt would meet with, you hide your head altogether, and suffer not one of the eighteen Principles (you say I have wronged you in charging upon you) to come into sight.

I commend your prudence now, in leaving the proof to the mere Authority of your denial, and reflections upon those who will not afford it credence. But let us hear you: That they are none of ours, it Page 17.is enough we say so, unless our Faith is not to be taken at our mouths, but at our Adversaries: He that tells me, I believe that which I do not believe, is either foolish or dishonest; and his Confutation is not of me, but of himself. That they are not our Principles by Consequence, I have abundantly proved, both in my IbidAnswer and Rejoynder.

But what if this fine Harangue be proved both foolish and false, yea, and dishonest too; Have you p. 58not forfeited your credit? That your case is no better, I shall demonstrate so plainly, that common Reason and Sense will be my Compurgators. That your Faith is not (alway) to be taken at your own mouths is apparent; not only from your denying at one time what you profess vehemently at another (which I have already evinced) but also from your industrious hiding your Principles from such, who you believe will have no very good thoughts of them. What means that rude dealing of E. Burrough with the sober Querist, who desired to be informed from his own mouth, what his Principles were in these, and such-like Questions?

Whether the Word was made Flesh more, or oftner than once?

To this (instead of better Satisfaction) he returns …urrough. …orks in …l. p. 29, …0.railing, and calls him Reprobate, Child of Darkness, of a dark polluted Mind, a stranger to the Life, without God in the World, the Light condemns thee, and all thy Generation eternally, thou art Darkness it self, in the Sorcery and Witchcraft, thou Dragon, thou the Dragon, thou hast conjured up thy Queries in the Black-Art, out of the Bottomless Pit.

The second Query was Whether did the man Christ slain (in respect of God's Decree and Efficacy) from the Foundation of the World, really and indeed suffer death, as upon the Cross at Jerusalem, more or oftner than once?

Take his Reply to this entire (for the first I gave it you before, and therefore spared to repeat the whole) as follows: In this Query thou Diviner art …d. in eod. …. 30.found adding to the Scriptures, the Divination of thine own brain, whereupon the plagues of God are to be added to thee, O thou Lyar! Where doth the Scriptures speak as thou speaks here? But in the Light thou art p. 59seen, and art for the Condemnation. The man Christ we own, and witness, and the Lambs Book of Life, which was slain from the Foundation of the World: We witness the Lamb of God, and thee to be the Beast that makes war with the Lamb; and thou Antichrist, which looks at Christ's death at Jerusalem alone: So let all thy Congregation see what they hold up that follows thee.

What think you of this? have we not great encouragement to expect an honest, plain account of your Principles at your own mouths, upon our most serious enquiry? Think not to put us off, and excuse this impertinent raving-way of Reply, by telling us, That they are Trepanning Questions; for so you will call any that we are capable of framing for your discovery. I shall add no more of Burroughs here; his Replies to the other Eighteen Questions are of the same make. And Burroughs (after all his Rant and Railing) concludes, Thy Burroug… Works in fol. p. 34.Queries are answered lovingly and plainly, and in the Scripture-Language and Terms; and with the eternal Light of God, set thee in thine own place, which thou shalt eternally witness. I believe my Reader will have no very good thoughts of your loving, plain Answers about your Principles.

I shall now produce out of W. P's own Writings, your great lothness to have your Tenets and way understood by us. You say upon the occasion Penn's Rejoynder to Faldo. p. 177.of my obtaining your Resolves for Discipline, If such inoffensive, nay Christian and necessary Resolves for the right disciplining the Church of Christ in the ways of Peace and Righteousness, cannot escape John Faldo's cruel hands, instead of rendering us Papists, I shall not wonder, if from a Non-conforming Priest, he turns a Spanish Inquisitor, or any thing else that p. 60can be worse. By this it appears, that for all the good Characters you give of your Resolves for Discipline, you would have them by all means escape my hands; and it grieves and angers you at the heart, that they cannot escape my Inquisition.

George Whitehead (as I have said before) could not with much importunity be brought to declare the Quakers Principle about the Resurrection of the dead. But at length he professed, He did not believe that his body should rise again. Yet this …enn's …nsw to …ldo, p. …00.extorted Confession you would have lick'd up again, and imply in your Answer to me, that it slipt out of his mouth at unawares. But to conclude, your great James Naylor hath sealed up your mouths, from an honest liberty to vent your minds to us, and that under a Curse: But the Mystery (saith he) …ames …aylor's …ove to …e lost, p. …9.is sealed with the sons of God, nor can any ever know with what bodies they shall arise; but who comes to the flesh of Christ, and discerns his body, the sight whereof in the life slays the Serpent, and opens the Mystery. Till then, cursed is he that reveals that which God hath sealed up, and hidden from the Serpents wisdom.

Here I have abounded with evidence, that your Faith is not by us to be sought at your own mouths; and that it is neither foolish nor dishonest to tell you, that you do believe that which you say you do not believe, and that my Confutation is of you, not of my self. And if you ask me how I come to know your hearts, if not at your mouths? I let you know, that I have it especially from your Writings; which were designed either for your own party, or for such Ignorants among others, who finding the great words, The Light, Life, Power, Manifestations, Measures of Christ, &c. think all p. 61the rest must needs be very good. And for all your Contradictions, I have in my Writings laid down your Principles in your own words; and aver nothing, but what I give my ground for in the same words to a syllable, which I find in your owned Authors.

I am now come to the main push; where you P's Reb. &c. p. 17…say, I will produce you ten Instances of notorious perversions, any one of which were unworthy of such poor Heathen as ye think us to be. I am very unwilling to tell you in plain terms, that you make no more Conscience of telling untruths, than the veriest Rake-hell, whose time is divided betwixt Cursing, Swearing, Drunkenness, and such reproachful Vices; or that your untruths have no cover but Confidence, which renders your heart hardned from the fear of God. But if a virulent Accusation of your Adversary will condemn him, and clear you, the present day's your own, and we must languish till the Day of Judgment, under your unjust prevalency. Yet, blessed be the Lord, my Integrity will find an evidence in your very Tests of my faultiness.

I expected, after such huge Criminations, that when you came to proof and instances, somewhat would have been offered at (at least) to prove me an Irreverent Abuser of God, and the Christian Religion, Id. in eod. p. 8.which you stoutly charged upon me; or that I had forged matters, and given them as your words, which yet were but my own invention. If you had found such a Crime in my Writings, it were as easie to be proved, as reading English. But behold, a few pretended Perversions, or false Consequences; all which will prove to be Will. P's Perversions, and worse too. In the Vindication p. 62of the Divines and my self from your Accusations, I shall distinguish your part from mine, by the titles of W. P's Accusation, and J. F's. Vindication, and dispose of your Quotations and mine in the margin respectively.

1. William Penn's Accusation.

JOhn Faldo affirms, That W. Smith had not one p. 17.Exhortation to read the Scriptures. Nay, that the main design of the Book was to deny them, and …k. no …rist. p. ….throw dirt upon them; Yet J. F. cites him concerning the Scripture thus:

Child.

Then the Scriptures are to be owned and believed, …y Answ. 42.&c.

Father.

Yes, they are to be owned and believed, and they that do not so are to be denied.

Observ.

Can any thing be more inconsistent than …ejoynd. … 60, 61, ….your Reverend Author? Is it this sort of proof you commend? Can you think this the way to convert such Infidels as you deem us to be?