I Have formerly detected you of several Pernicious Opinions concerning the Scriptures, the Light within, the Person of Christ, and the Resurrection of the Dead, &c. which, I presume, by this time you have consider'd; What say you thereunto?

I say the Plagues and Judgments of God will follow thee, G. Whitehead.

Though your Conscience might be [Page 2] touch'd with the evidence of the things alledg'd against you, yet it would have been your prudence rather to have dissembled your Pain, then thus to vent your Passion in such furious Replies: But you must not think to baffle me with such Sarcasms, either confess the truth of what you are charged with, or else disprove it.

I have in print told thee, That thy Dialogue is an unchristian forgery, G. Whitehead, D. Plungd. Title Page.

Wherein hast thou proved it so to be?

Thou hast presented the World with a Quaker of thy own forming, making them to speak those impertinencies and falshoods that were never ut­ter'd by any real Quaker; therefore 'tis a forgery, G. W. Epistle to D. Pl.

You had done well, if you had produced some instances wherein I made them speak what was never utter'd by a real Quaker. But if I can prove that what is spoken under that name, is the language of a real Quaker, then thou hast confess'd that such may be guilty of Impertinencies and Falshoods.

That thou canst never prove, for I affirm, That the Quaker there represented to the World is of thy own making.

I wonder that you who pretend so much to circumspection in your Words, should yet be so extravagant in Print; 'Tis notorious, the Dia­logue mentions several that are, and were, appro­ved Quakers, (viz.) G. Whitehead, G. Fox, James Naylor, Crisp, Richard Hubberthrone, and Ben. Fur­ley, &c. If these be not, or were not real Quakers, then do you publickly deny it; or if those things [Page 3] quoted of them be not true, disprove them: But if that cannot be deny'd, nor this disproved, how dare you say, I have presented the World with a Quaker of my own making?

I say thy Dialogue is no other then un­christian forgery.

That obligeth thee to prove it, which as yet thou hast not done.

Have I not instanc'd in several particulars wherein thou hast wronged us, Dip. Pl. p. 16, 17.

Are those the onely things wherein the forgery consists?

What sayst thou to them?

I tax'd G. Whitehead, For affirming the light within to be God; And for saying, That the speaking of the Spirit in any is of greater authority then the Scriptures; and also for denying the resur­rection of this Body, &c. Crisp, for saying, He knew the beginning and date of that Christ I believed in; G. Fox, for asserting, The Soul to be part of God's Being, to be without beginning, and infinite: Ben. Furly, for saying, 'Tis the greatest error in the World that ever was invented, and the ground of all error, To say the Scriptures are a Rule to Christians: G. Fox and Rich. Hubberthorne for affirming, That it is dangerous for ignorant people to read the Scriptures, &c. G. Whitehead's silence herein, is in my judgment a plain concession touching the verity of these Quotations, which is a manifest giving away your Cause; nevertheless, if there be any thing wherein you judge your selves wrong'd, let me hear it.

Thou sayst we account the blood of Christ no more then a common thing; yea, no more then the [Page 4] blood of a common Thief, this is forgery.

If the meer light within, and obedience to it, be every way sufficient to bring every man to eter­nal life, as you constantly affirm, then the shedding of Christ's blood upon the Cross was needless, and to no purpose. Isaac Pennington (who I suppose is an approved Quaker) asks this question, Can out­ward blood cleanse? Therefore, saith he, We must enquire whether it was the blood of the Vail, that is of the humane nature, or the blood within the Vail, (viz.) of that spiritual man, consisting of Flesh, Blood, and Bones, which took on him the Vail, or hu­mane Nature? 'Tis not the blood of the Vail, that is but outward; and can outward blood cleanse? if not, then that blood which Christ shed upon the Cross, which was the blood of the Humane Nature, is no more then a common thing.

Secondly, If the sufferings of Christ were only exemplary, as you likewise affirm, then what more do you attribute to the blood of Christ, then to the blood and sufferings of other holy persons?

Thirdly, If the mystery of Iniquity lies in the blood of Christ, as Edw. Billing most wicked­ly said it did, then is the blood of Christ, in your esteem, worse then the blood of a common Thief: Farther, what signifies these words which fre­quently drop from your mouths, Dost thou look at Christs Death afar off? what will that Blood avail? Didst ever see any of it? That carnal blood, can out­ward blood cleanse? If thou hadst a great deal of it, would it do thee any good? Do not these Interroga­tories carry with them an open scorn and con­tempt of that blood which was shed upon the Cross? consequently that which is charged upon you is no forgery.

Thou sayst we make use of Scripture onely to stop their mouths who call for Scripture proof; this is a Slander.

If the Scriptures be no Rule; yea, if it be Idolatry to call the Bible a means, as Whitehead expresly sayes it is, D. P. pag. 13. Who also affirms, That faith grounded on the Scriptures is but an emp­ty Implicit Faith, and be-speaks such persons void of the Knowledge of God, Christ, Salvation, and to be yet in their Sins, and that such men walk by their own Fancies and Imaginations. Christ ascended, p. 11. Solo Eccles. (a great admirer of George Fox) dis­coursing with a Friend of mine in London, told him, The Scriptures were a lye; To whom 'twas replyed, Why then dost thou mention them? The Quaker answer'd, To silence thee.

Nicolas Lucas, a real Quaker, was moved to de­clare his mind thus, (to one I know very well) Thou mayst burn thy Bible, and when that is done, thou mayst serve God as well without it; and if thou hast a mind to have a Scripture, thou mayst write as good a one thy self. Many more instances might be produced, these may suffice to acquit me from for­gery in this particular; what more hast thou to say?

Thou sayst that Fox, Dewsberry, Crisp, Whitehead, and Pen, are exceedingly corrupt in their Morals, herein thou hast spoken falsly.

Hast thou bid adieu to common honesty? art thou endeavouring to prove me a Forgerer, and yet at the same time be guilty of it thy self? See the Dialogue, p. 43. which saith, Some of them are exceedingly corrupt in their Morals. If you think it your interest to put me on the proof here­of, [Page 6] you may when you please, and I doubt not (if well) but to give you full satisfaction herein, pro­vided that wilful lying fornication, and adultery may be accounted Immoralities; what further hast thou to alledge against me?

Thou reports that the Quakers deny the resurrection of the Body, which is false.

George Whitehead, in my hearing, before near a hundred Witnesses, did deny it, in these words, This Body of flesh and bones shall not rise again; who also saith enough in his Pamphlet to acquit me from forgery herein.

Thou insinuates, as if our sufferings were onely to satisfie our Wills and Lusts; herein thou dost greatly wrong us.

In this I onely queried what it should be that doth influence you to suffer, forasmuch as you deny that this Body shall rise from the dead, and consequently can be never the better for what you do or suffer. And G. Fox maintains, That the Soul is part of Gods Being, &c. and there­fore not capable either of prejudice or advantage, whether you suffer or not. Again, is there any people that ever boasted so vainly of their Suffer­ings as you do, that scarce a Pamphlet can come out from you, but the World must hear of your brags in this kind; which can have no other meaning, then to feed that Principle of Pride that reigns in you, and to gain Proselites to your errors, &c.

Thou also sayst, We deny any eternal ad­vantage to be reaped by persons after death; In this thou dost abuse us.

This is no other then the genuine and [Page 7] direct consequence of denying the resurrection of this Body. See 1 Cor. 15.13, 14. If no resurrecti­on, then is not Christ risen: If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith vain, and ye are yet in your Sins, ver. 17. Why stand I in jeopardy every hour? ver. 30. What advantageth me that I have fought with Beasts at Ephesus? Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we dye, ver. 32.

If we ask you whether a further happiness (then now) shall be injoy'd by the Saints at the last day, you will answer by another question. When thinks thou that will be? must all the Saints have their hope and faith unanswer'd till then, Whitehead Christ ascended, p. 34. If we inquire whether you do not wait for any thing further? you will tell us, That Death and Darkness hath power over our Minds, else we would never shew our selves such ig­norant Papists, in putting Salvation so far off, till we know not when, according to our carnal conceits, Whitehead, ibid. If hereupon we ask you, Whe­ther you injoy eternal life and felicity now? This is your answer, The recompence of reward, (viz.) eternal life and felicity is inwardly and spiritually received by those that now suffer for Christ, White­head, ibid. p. 37.

I suppose by this time thou art, at least may be satisfied, that in these instances I was not guilty of forgery, and consequently Geo. Whitehead's pre­tended answer to me carries a manifest lye in the front of it, as any may perceive, who compares it with the Dialogue.

I say thy Dialogue is proved an unchristian forgery.

It was inconsiderately and imprudently [Page 8] done by thee to put such words in thy very Title Page, since there is nothing in all thy Pamphlet that proves any such thing, but the contrary.

Thy Dialogue is not onely a forgery, but it abounds with contradictions.

This thou sayst, though the particulars thou hast taken notice of evince no such thing: However so it hath hapned (though I think not designedly by thee) thou hast fully justified that Answer in the Catechism, p. 72. You will make your Friends believe, we do nothing but contradict our selves: Wast thou advised and discreet herein thus to vindicate me, even whilst thou art endeavouring to prove me guilty of forgery. But wherein do I contradict my self?

Will any man (except a Quaker) say, That to deny the light within, to be a sufficient rule to Sal­vation, and yet in some cases appeal to it; and grant it ought to be obey'd, is a contradiction: I verily believe G. Whitehead knows not all things, and yet I believe he doth know some things, may I not appeal to him concerning that he knows, without being censured for contradicting my self; surely G. W. the contradiction is not in my words, but in thy dark mind.

Dost thou not affirm what any of us have said concerning the light within, is no more then what the Apostle speaks of the man of sin; and may as well prove Mahomet to be the true Christ, as the light within, Dip. Pl. pag. 5.

Herein thou dost onely confute a thing forg'd by thy self, and not utter'd by me: Is this the way to quit thy self from deceit and falshood, which thou knowst I have openly accused thee of? [Page 9] The comparison is not between the light within, and the man of Sin or Mahomet; but onely be­twixt those Signs and Wonders you boast of. And those that Mahomet, or the man of Sin, may and do likewise pretend unto, see the Dialogue, p. 11, 12.

Thou also say'st, That our obeying the commands of the living Word in us, is no other then a mystical Romance; Herein thou hast acted the pro­phane Romancer, and art a most irreligious, Miscreant, Dip. Pl. p. 5, 6.

If thou art not condemned in thy own Conscience for these wilful untruths, it will signi­fie very ill of thee: The Dialogue speaks on this wise, p. 10. you say, You own Jesus Christ, but then 'tis with such a mental and mystical reserva­tion, which is no other then a mystical Romance. Canst thou think that any ingenious and impar­tial Reader should conceive otherwise of thee, then a deceitful and impertinent Scribler. That the Christ you own is no other then a mystical Ro­mance, shall be fully proved in this Discourse fol­lowing.

As for those other things they are so frivolous, that I think them not worthy of any reply, be­lieving that not any man who hath not lost his reason, can conclude as thou dost. 'Tis one thing to say, another thing to prove a man contradicts himself; such an Antagonist as G. Whitehead, cer­tainly was never yet met with, who instead of attending to the matters in Controversie, con­tends onely with his own Imaginations.

Why speaks thou so slightly of George Whitehead, he is no such impertinent person as thou [Page 10] wouldst-represent him, we know his worth, &c.

No doubt you have too high a value for him, because you indeed know him not; what ever his errors, deceit, and hypocrisie be, your af­fection to his Person blinds your eyes, that you cannot, or will not see it: I must tell you, that had I been at his elbow when he was writing the Dip. Pl. I could not well have desired him to write more for my Vindication then he hath done.

Why sayst thou so?

Because the chief things objected against you he toucheth not, but manifestly falls under the whole charge, as before is hinted.

This is but thy own imagination.

I charg'd him for affirming the light within to be the Divine Essence; and he blames me for saying, 'Tis but a meer Creature, Dip. Pl. 13. In this then he clears me from any wrong done to him; I accuse you for denying the Person of Christ without you, And doth not he say, Christ Jesus a person without us is not Scripture language, but the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians, Ibid. Why then should it be believed that herein I have wronged either you or him, since he himself doth so fully acquit me: Was not that Answer in the Catechism, p. 73. very pertinent, and truly given in your name. Though we believe not that you have answer'd us, yet you will give it out, you have both answer'd and confuted us; and your Friends will believe what you say, which is enough to you. Is not the Dip. Pl. calculated onely for the humour of your own Friends; but are you so void of reason as to think it to be a solid answer to the Dialogue?

Thou art a Lyar, and dost thou think that thy particular Election will secure thee from the re­ward of lyars, G. W. Dip. Pl. Epistle.

Thou hast not proved one lye, neither do I hold such an Election as secures persons guilty of lying, from the reward of lyars. I see thou art driven to a strait, that since thou canst not rati­onally quarrel with the Dialogue, thou sets up a shaddow, a figment of thy own Brain to contend with.

Dost thou not hold a particular election of thy own Party, and but of very few (if any others) besides, &c. G. Whitehead.

I perceive thy Dictates are not infallible, for as thou hast not declared thy own, so neither hast thou written (nor indeed dost thou know) my belief in this matter: But what is all this to the Dialogue, why art thou concern'd so much about Election, who believes no such thing of per­sons, either absolute or conditionals; that Election you generally hold, is onely of the Seed, which is Christ himself; therefore thou dost but trifle, and fill up paper to no purpose; might it not there­fore have been of more advantage to your Cause, if William Penn had concern'd himself in the exa­mination of the Dialogue (as I expected he would). That what G. Whitehead could not do in his dull method and manner of reasoning, 'tis probable William Penn, with his Confidence and Rhetorique, might have done.

What real Quaker ever spoke thus, that they who will not believe our sayings, we will not spare to condemn, and stigmatize them, and it concerns us to render them as ridiculous as we can.

If you would have nothing charged upon you but what is indeed utter'd by approved Qua­kers, whether it might not be necessary to give us a Catalogue of the Names of such; or if you think not meet to do this, then to give us some certain intelligible Character how a real Quaker may be known; may that pass for a Character which Tho. Ruddyer gave in my hearing, viz. One that is come to the pure Language, to speak thee and and thou; then your Objection will be easily an­swer'd: Doth not one of your own tell us, that 'tis your manner to render such odious, and the more effectually to weaken their Testimonies, you will fix upon them scurrilous and contemptible Appellations: And do not all men that know you, know this is true. But that I may fully sa­tisfie you in this point, I ask whether Edward Bur­roughs was not an approved Quaker?

Yea, he was endued with the Almighty Power of God, which lived and reigned in him: This his own Works will in a large measure testifie the truth of, a man able to stop the mouths of all Gain-sayers; This is my testimony to this man of God, who hath been a blessing to the Lord in his Generation, Jo­siah Coale, his Epistle before Edw. Burroughs his Works in Folio.

Was this Josiah Coale a real Quaker?

He was so.

In what respect did the Almighty Power of God live and raign in him; and how was he a blessing to the Lord, for I must confess I do not well understand the meaning of this testi­mony.

'Tis no matter for answering such cavilling Questions.

Who else gives their Testimony to Edw. Burroughs and his Works.

These memorable Works of Edw. Bur­roughs (printed for the good of Generations to come, 1672.) is brought forth for us, and our Chil­dren, and such as are moderate, and well affected; greater desires hereof could not be in any, then in my own particular, I having travelled both to answer and serve the truth, and the desires of Friends herein; Let none condemn the honest plainness and harmless simplicity of any of his first Works here inserted, for many are living Witnesses that the Power and Wis­dom of God did then appear and shew it self through such plainness and simplicity, to the confounding of the wisdom of many that seemed high and lofty. And thus, dear Friends, as the Salvation of our dear Brother Edw. Burroughs, according to his desire, whilst in the Body, I recommend this Volume of his Books, being therein the Truths, and your Servant Ellis Hooks. See the Epistle Dedicatory to the Quakers.

Of what use and service do you judge these Works may be to you, and to your Chil­dren?

It may not be unnecessary for Friends and Children to read and peruse these Testimonies, Infor­mations, and Vindications of Truth, where they are in a way of Controversie given forth; the reading whereof may be of service to them, they being in the light and inspiration of the Almighty, from which all Scriptures, or Writings, that are given forth, are pro­fitable to the man of God for his accommodation; for though many of you are come to a particular satisfacti­on in the true Light, and know so much of Christ, so as [Page 14] to dye for him, yet cannot so well dispute for him: Though that be necessary, and few given up and ac­complished for that Service; therefore there may be need for more to apply their hearts to wisdom, Ellis Hooks, ibid.

If written Testimonies and Vindications be profitable to the Man of God, for his accom­modation, to help him to Dispute, as you plainly intimate: Doth not this interfere with that grand Notion of yours, which saith, You must do all by the immediate motion of the power within. But if the Light and Power which you and your Children have be not sufficient of it self to accomplish you for this Service of Disputation for, and vindicating of that you call the Truth, why then do you contend so much for its All-sufficiency? me-thinks you who pretend to infallibility, should be very careful to make one story agree with another, and not thus to be taken in different tales, to the manifest dis­paragement both of your selves and Opinions. But is this Ellis Hooks a true Quaker?

Thou needst not doubt that, forasmuch as be was imploy'd in that Service, for the collecting and printing these Works of Edw. Burroughs, and also allow'd to prefix his Epistle before it. And there are others, who were and are in the Ministry, that hath given their Testimony to this Servant and Prophet of the Lord, as thou mayst see in their Epistles before his Works.

Shall Dayes, Moneths, and Years, wear out thy Name? Shall not thy noble and valiant Acts which thou hast wrought through the Power of him that se­parated thee from the Womb, live in Generations to come? The Children yet unborn shall have thee [Page 15] in their mouths, and thy Works shall testifie of thee in Generations that yet have no Being, and shall ac­count thee blessed: When I think of thee, I am melted into tears of sorrow, because of the want that the In­heritance of the Lord hath of thee. Francis How­gill.

As for Edw. Burroughs our dear Brother and Companion in travel, suffering, and consolation for the everlasting Gospels sake, his Testimony lives with us; He was a Preacher of Righteousness, one who travell'd for the Redemption of the Creature from under the bondage of Corruption. The name of this Minister of Righteousness is written in the Lambs Book of Life, George Whitehead; His name is chronicled in the Lambs Book of Life, a righteous Plant, a valiant Warrier, more then a Conquerer; who is dead, but yet liveth amongst us, and amongst us is alive, George Fox.

Being well assured from these Testimo­nies that Edw. Burroughs was an approved Qua­ker; then for the satisfaction of you and others in this Point, whether I have feigned a Quaker, as Whitehead suggests, or made them speak other­wise then in their own proper Dialect. I shall transcribe twenty questions, which I find printed in the memorable Works of Edw. Burroughs, toge­ther with the force and import of his Answers to each Question, as you will find, if you consult his Works in Folio, printed 1672. wherein the Spirit and Principles of the Quakers is not a little laid open. The questions were propounded (as that Book informs me) by one Philip Ben­net.

1. Q. Whether the Word was made Flesh more or oftner then once?

In this Quere thou are manifested what thou art, where thou art, and what spirit thou art of, a Reprobate, a Child of Darkness: In this Quere thy spirit is seen and known in the eternal light; thou knowest not what thou askest, thy Quere comes from thy dark polluted mind: Thou art a stranger to the Life, without God in the World; 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; the light in thee will tell thee so, to which thou must be obedient before thou canst witness the Word made Flesh onc't, for thou art darkness it self; when thou canst witness the Word made Flesh onc't, then thou wilt know whether the Son of God was made of a Woman more or oftner then onc't: But thou Dragon that would devour the Man-Child, thou the Dragon with thy Angels art cast into the Earth. For thy other nineteen Queres thou hast conjured them up in the Black Art, out of the bottomless Pit, Edw. Burrough's Works in Folio, p. 29, 30.

Was ever Querist so rudely and uncivilly treated? or was ever question thus ridiculously answer'd? was this the honest plainness and harm­les. simplicity of this man? and was this his silen­cing all Opposers? Is there any thing in the que­stion to provoke to such Bedlam Rhetorick? to call a man Reprobate, Child of Darkness, a stranger to the Life, without God in the World; yea, and to damn him eternally, only for a modest and sober enquiry; was this his valour for the Lamb? what means he by witnessing the Word made Flesh? Is it any thing more then the Seed, Light, [Page 17] or Power within? But is this to the question? Doth the Scripture by the Word being made Flesh, intend onely the Light within? ma­ny thousands (that in all things walk not up to the light in them) do believe that the Word was made Flesh onc't, contrary to the bold assertion of this man, That they must be obedient to the Light within, before they can witness (or believe) this thing. 'Tis easie to guess what your notions are con­cerning the Word made Flesh; Burroughs saith, the Querist is darness it self; if so, then surely he had no light in him to tell him he was in the sorcery and witchcraft; If no light, how is your opinion true, That every man hath Christ, or his light in him; is it possible for that man (in whom Christ or his Light is) to be darkness it self? And how could he be obedient to the light within, if he had none to obey.

Again, is a serious proposal about the Word being made Flesh onc't, an argument of one being in the sorcery and witchcraft? O stupendious madness and folly! And if the Querist be the Dragon, and hath his Angels, I would willingly know (of some of them who have commended his memorable Works to the Ages to come) who or what these Angels are?

And since he hath already doom'd and pass'd sentence upon the rest of the Queres, as being con­jured in the Black Art out of the bottomless Pit; we may plainly foresee what Answers they are like to be attended with, nevertheless I shall pro­ceed.

(2. Q.) Whether did the man Christ, slain (in respect of God's Decree and efficacy) from the [Page 18] foundation of the World, really and indeed, suffer death as upon the Cross at Jerusalem more or oftner then once?

In this Quere thou Diviner art found ad­ding to the Scriptures the Divination of thy own Brain, whereupon the Plagues of God are to be added to thee: Oh thou lyar, where doth the Scriptures speak as thou speaks here? But in the light thou art seen, 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 Christs death at Jerusalem alone; so let all thy Congregation see what they hold up that follows thee, Edw. Burroughs, ibid. p. 30.

Can any man be the wiser for this An­swer? Is it Antichristian to look at Christ's death at Jerusalem? Doth the man Christ die in you? and must he be onely look'd at as so dying? The question is plain, whether the man Christ did re­ally suffer death as upon the Cross more then onc't? though Edw. Burroughs saith, 'Twas con­jured up in the Black Art, and accordingly in his canting way answers, We witness the Lamb of God: But what is this witnessing to the point? or is Diviner, Lyar, and Beast, a fit reply to so harmless an enquiry; I see, though you cannot, or will not answer a question in plain and intelligi­gible terms; yet you can and will freely curse and damn the Querist. And whilst you pretend to own and witness the Man Christ, &c. you suf­ficiently intimate your erronious thoughts con­cerning the Sufferings of Christ upon the Cross, [Page 19] though you are ashamed or afraid to speak them out.

(3. Q.) Whether did the Man Christ really and indeed suffer in his own Person for that end, and after the same manner which he did upon the Cross at Jerusalem, before that time or since that time?

Here thou full of all subtilty, hast manifested thy poyson and enmity; but thou art seen with the Light, and with it condemn'd for ever: Christ Jesus in his own Person doth, and ever did suffer by thee, and such as thou art, after the same manner: Thou blind Pharisee and Blasphemer, wouldst thou have Christ have more ends in suffering then one, Ibid. p. 30.

Whether there be more poyson and en­mity manifested in the Question, or in the Answer, I leave others to judge: Was Christ indeed actu­ally crucified upon the Cross by the Querist? and doth Christ alwayes suffer after the same manner, and for the same end, as he did when crucified at Jerusalem? If so, How is the Body of Jesus Christ said to be offer'd once for all? And why is it call'd an offering of one Sacrifice, Heb. 10.10, 12, 14. Be free and plain, let us know whether you do believe that Christ did, and doth suffer in his own person for the same end, and after the same manner as he did upon the Cross, both before that time, and since that time, or deny it; else say, you cannot, or that 'tis not convenient to give a positive an­swer.

(4. Q.) Was not that death which the Man Christ suffer'd once, and but once, upon the Cross at Jerusalem, so satisfactory for all the Sins of the [Page 20] Elect, as that the justice of God, did not, doth not require any suffering or working upon that ac­count, either from Sinner or Saint?

Here thou Jesuite art pleading for a Christ afar off thee, that Christ which died at Jeru­salem did not satisfie for thee, who art an enemy to him, and art under the woe, and from that woe thou shalt never flee. The death of the Man Christ we own, and witness; The same Christ that suffer'd, we witness made manifest. And here thou lyar, art made manifest to be a lyar, who said, We deny that Christ which died at Jerusalem; so let thy mouth be stopt thou lyar, who art for the lake: And whereas thou queries, whether the justice of God be not satisfied for the Sins of the Elect; let shame strike thee in the face, that thou should take upon thee to speak to any people, and knowest not the Scripture: where reads thou, that God requires satisfaction for the Sins of the Elect, or laid any thing to their Charge; Let all peo­ple see whether thou be not a blind ignorant sot, Ibid. p. 30, 31.

It seems by this Answer, 'tis Jesuitical to plead for that Christ which died at Jerusalem, which Burroughs calls a Christ afar off: Then in what sense must you be understood, when you say, You own the same Christ that suffer'd? If the death of the same man you do truly (and without reserved meanings) acknowledge, why do you stigmatize the Querist for pleading for that Christ? The Querist is accused for a lyar, for say­ing, You deny that Christ which died at Jerusa­lem, and yet Edw. Burroughs calls him Jesuit, for pleading for a Christ afar off; Is not this to acquit his Accuser, and plainly to condemn himself for a [Page 21] rash and peevishman. That Burroughs did really lye and dissemble in his pretences to own the same Christ, doth in part appear in his Answer, and will more fully in the sequel of this Dia­logue.

How did this Quaker know, that Christ did not satisfie for the Querist, and that he was under that woe, from which he should not escape? What means he by the Elect, for whom no satisfaction is required? and to whose charge nothing is laid? was not Christ's death for Sin? then either for the sins of the Elect, or for the sins of others; not for the Elect, nor for the Querist; for whose sins then? 'Tis evident enough, he intended 'twas onely for the Seed, which Seed is Christ; so that Sinners are no wayes concern'd in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ, unless you will say, That Christ in man is a Sinner: O the pati­ence and forbearance of God, that should bear with such Blasphemies as these are; that ever men pre­tending to infallible Teachings, should so render the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and his Sufferings, as to expose them to the greatest scorn and con­tempt.

(5. Q.) Whether you be reconciled to God by any other Obedience, then that very Obedience which Christ perform'd in his own Person, or by any suffering or death then that which Christ suffer'd upon the Cross at Jerusalem?

Silence Flesh, wouldst thou who art an enemy to God, know how we are reconciled to God, and by what Obedience; own the light in thy Con­science, and be obedient to that, then thou shalt know by what Obedience we are reconciled to God: For yet [Page 22] thou knowest no Obedience, but art an enemy to the Cross of Christ, and in the mystery of Iniquity, and in the dark power of the Man of Sin: What hast thou to do to talk of Obedience, thou art blind; and in the broad way that leads to Death, Ibid. p. 31.

Is this to give a reason of your Hope with meekness and fear? Suppose the Querist as igno­rant as his Answerer would represent him, ought he not to have endeavoured his Information; the question doth deserve a better reply then here is given to it; what inconvenience can there be in giving a serious and solid account, how we are re­conciled to God? Was not Edw. Burroughs either ashamed or afraid to speak out what that Obedi­ence is by which you are reconciled. William Penn, I must confess, herein is more free and inge­nious with us, He confidently affirms, Justifica­tion by that Righteousness which Christ fulfil'd in his own Person without us, is a Doctrine of Devils, Apolog. p. 148. I doubt not but Burroughs was of the same mind, though he kept it secret from the Querist as much as in him lay: Hitherto you see we have not one direct Answer to any Que­stion.

(6. Q.) Whether did not the Man Christ suffer as a publick Person in the Elects stead, or in their behalf, and for that end, That none who believed in him might die eternally?

Thou blind Guide makes it manifest, that thou knowst not the Man Christ at all, nor his Suffer­ings; A publick Person he is, not to thee, but a my­stery thou knows nothing of; and for the redeeming of the Elect from under such mouths as thine, Christ did [Page 23] and doth suffer, and those that believe, deny such dumb idol Shepherds as thee, Ibid. p. 31.

Still nothing but Impertinent Ravings, instead of a direct Answer? What doth the Qua­ker intend by the Man Christ, and his Sufferings, which he saith the Querist knows not at all? Is Christ a publick Person or not? did he die for this end, That all who believe in him might not die eternally, or did he not? who, or what is the Elect that is under the mouths of such as the Que­rist? for the redeeming of whom Christ did and doth suffer: And what is that which Christ doth now suffer for the Redemption of the Elect? and what that Bondage is from which he redeems? And what is meant by believing? and in whom? Is it in that Person who suffer'd upon the Cross? or the Light within? Do not equivocate, but 2speak to the Point directly, whether that Person that is distinct from all other persons; He that was in the World, and died upon the Cross, rose again, and is now at the right hand of God, be that very Christ we are to believe in? or that it is not our Duty and Interest so to do, but meer­ly to believe in, and obey the light within, as the onely Mediator between God and Sinners. Let us know your minds herein in down-right terms, and do not put us off with your witnessings, which to us signifie nothing.

(7. Q.) Whether the Sufferings of Christ, now in his Saints, be all the satisfaction that is made to, or which the justice of God looks for, for sins pasts, present, and to come?

Thou Blasphemer askest thou knows not what, Is not Christ the same as ever? and is not the [Page 24] Sufferings of Christ satisfactory where ever? what will satisfie, if the Sufferings of Christ will not sa­tisfie? Let all people take notice what a Blasphe­mer thou art, or what can they learn from such as thee, who knows neither the Justice of God, nor the Sufferings of Christ in his Saints, Ibid. p. 31.

In answer to the fourth Question, this Quaker deny'd the Sufferings of Christ to be satis­factory either for the Elect or others, and here he grants his Sufferings are satisfactory where-ever, but tells us not to whom, nor for whom they are so: And whereas he talks of Christ's Sufferings in his Saints, I would quere, whether his Sufferings in that sense be all the satisfaction that is made to, or which the Justice of God requires? Again, it may not be amiss to observe a little the policy of this man, who, that he might the better hide, and prevent any suspition of himself being a Blasphe­mer, he indites and arraigns the Querist as such, perfectly in this, imitating the Devil, who will charge upon another his own fault; that thus it is, consider the Quakers Opinion of Christ in his Saints, which is, 'tis God, and his eternal Power; but doth God and his Power Suffer and die in his Saints? Is this to exalt the Deity of the Son of God (which sometimes you pretend to do) to make him subject to death, and to death in you; but pray, how can an immortal, immutable Spirit die, and in what sense is such a death satis­factory? But the misery is, ask what question we will, in the plainest terms we can, the Quakers will answer equivocally, and not let us know their minds (as one of them said, We do not use to trust such with our Opinions) as if they were [Page 25] ashamed to own the things themselves be­lieve.

(8. Q.) Whether was not that Body of Jesus which was offer'd upon the Cross at Jerusalem, the one and onely Sacrifice for Sin God accepted, to which all the Saints did, and do look to be ju­stified without any other Works?

Here thou replyes thy sottish Queries, which rises out of thy dark mind, concerning the Body of Jesus, as the Devil did about the body of Moses; let thy mouth be stopt, for the Body of Jesus thou knowst not, nor what it consists on; and the of­fering of it up, thou knowst nothing of; Thou art none of the Saints, but without in the World, for thee the Body of Christ is no satisfaction: And thou Repro­bate, what hast thou to do to talk of believing, that is the condition of the Saints, whose Works thou knowst not; Thou disobedient one, upon whom God. will render Vengeance in flaming fire, Ibid. p. 32.

Oh the rudeness and unworthiness of this Answerer, who took no farther notice of the Que­stion, then to vent his rancour and spleen against the Querist: Surely the venome of Asps was under this mans tongue. 'Tis to be bewail'd, that a seri­ous question concerning that one and onely Sacri­fice, Christ offer'd, should be parallel'd with the Devils contending about the body of Moses; and that such who will be disputing about the Body of Jesus, must be branded for Reprobates (Naylors Love to the lost, p. 57. Printed 1656.) Had it not been better to have condemn'd such Dictates as these to perpetual Oblivion, then to print them for the Generations to come? And forasmuch as he saith, what the Body of Jesus consists of, and [Page 26] the offering of it up, the Querist knew nothing of, 'tis evident he intends another body then that which he took of the Virgin, but what that is, he acquaints us not.

(9. Q.) Whether there be any other Righte­ousness, by which Christ the Saints are justified in the sight of God, then that which Works in them and by them?

Thou art accursed, and made manifest, who preacheth another Gospel, and wouldst have ano­ther Righteousness then that of Christ: Thou Beast, to whom the Plagues of God are due, upon whom the Wrath of God must be accomplished, who would have another Righteousness then that which Christ works in the Saints, and by them; Thou wouldst be justi­fied, and live in thy sin, but thou art shut out from God for ever; we witness Justification by Faith, Ibid. p. 32.

There is nothing in the question impor­ting another Righteousness, then that of Christs; was it not then more then enough for him to cen­sure and damn the Querist, but must he needs in­sinuate a wilful lye to compleat his wickedness, that the Quakers, and their Children may be ac­complisht for dispute, and know how to answer their Opposers, as Ellis Hooks intimates in his Epistle. Burroughs saith, We witness Justification by Faith, which is no other then your usual can­ting, neither doth it in any wise conclude the question: Indeed, when he calls the Querist Beast, upon whom the wrath of God must be ac­complished, because he would (as the Quaker imagines) have another Righteousness, then that which Christ works in the Saints, and by them. [Page 27] Herein, I must confess, he plainly denies that there is any other Righteousness, and consequently all that Christ did and suffered without us, is utterly unconcern'd in this business of Justification, di­rectly repugnant to Rom. 5.18, 19. Isa. 53.5, 11.

(10. Q.) Whether doth Sanctification or Ju­stification in order antecede holiness of life, or Justification by Faith go before; or whether doth not God love man, ere man lov'd God?

Here thou dark blind Hypocrite hast shut out thy self from the knowledge of God in any mea­sure: Oh that people should be so blind, as to look to learn any thing of such as thee but Sin and Filthy­ness; what hast: thou been teaching, that neither knows Justification nor Sanctification, but art que­ring which goes before: Let all people Judge whe­ther thou be not a Teacher of lasciviousness, sin, and uncleanness. How darest thou mention a holy life? thou man which art Cain, God doth not love nor ac­cept thee, nor thy Sacrifice; and for Justification by Faith, thou knowst nothing of it, which we own and witness, Ibid. p. 32.

Was this the plainness and simplicity through which (you say) he did confound the wisdom of the high and lofty? was this your dear Brother in the Lord? as George Whitehead calls him. 'Tis too apparent he was under the Do­minion, rule, and government of a most wicked, lying, and reviling Spirit. Can any man or men conclude the Querist to be a Teacher of Lascivi­ousness, meerly for asking, whether Sanctifica­tion or Justification do not in order go before holiness of life? Certainly the Children yet [Page 28] unborn, if they should see these his Works, will have him in their mouths as a most ridiculous, impertinent, and railing person.

(11. Q.) Whether the Justice of God be fully satisfied for all the sins of the Elect, ere Christ appear to their Souls, or holiness appear in their Lives?

Here thou full of all subtilty art compre­hended, and with the light of Christ thou art seen, and with the life thou art judg'd and condemn'd: Who would lay Sin to the charge of the Elect, thou Sorcerer, doth the Elect of God sin? shall the Elect die? To that in thy Conscience I speak, Ibid. p. 32.

If the Elect of God neither do, nor never did sin; 'tis meet we should know who or what is meant by the Elect: who shall lay any thing to the charge of the Elect? 'tis God that justifies, who shall condemn? 'tis Christ that died, Rom. 8.33, 34. If by the Elect be intended per­sons, then either they are or were Sinners; but if by the Elect you mean a meer Principle, Spirit, or seed in man: Then I ask you, How God is said to justifie that? and in what sense did Christ die for this Seed? If Justification do suppose a guilt, I quere in what respect this spirit or seed in man may be said to be guilty? If you say, It ne­ver did, nor doth Sin, how then doth God justifie it? and what necessity was there of Christ's dying for that which was perfectly sinless? To that (as thy phrase is) in thy Conscience do I now speak.

(12. Q.) Whether the holy Lives and Works of the Saints be not excluded from the act of [Page 29] Justification from the guilt of Sin?

Thou dead Beast, thou art a stranger from the life of God, and is excluded from the holy life of the Saints, and their works, Thou art unredeemed from thy vain Conversation, ☞ and so art not justi­fied, nor never shall be: And by the same that the Saints are justified, thou art condemn'd into the lake for ever, Ibid. p. 32, 33.

This answer (like the rest) is full of pride, rage, and folly; who will believe that Testimony which you most unadvisedly have given of this man, That he was a faithful Servant and Prophet of the Lord: Did ever any foame out their own shame more then this your pretended Prophet, who impudently assumes to himself the authority of de­termining the eternal condition of the Querist; tells him, ☞ He neither is, nor never shall be justified; may it not be with respect to this cursing and railing humour, which was predominant in him, That you call him a Son of Thunder. But whether Edw. Burroughs hath spoken any thing pertinently, and properly to the question, I shall leave it to others, yea to that in thy Conscience to judge.

(13. Q.) Whether that Righteousness which is wrought by the Saints be every way answer­able to the Justice of God?

There again thy blindness is made mani­fest; Is there any Righteousness but that of Christ Jesus? and is not that every way answerable to the justice of God? But such polluted filthy Beasts as thou wouldst have another Righteousness; but thy Righteousness we deny, and the Righteousness of Christ we witness, which shall be reveal'd on thee in flames of fire, Ibid. p. 33.

Did ever man pretending (I will not say to perfection or infallibility, but) to reason or modesty, reply at this rate? Did every question affright him, and put him into such a consternation, as that he could express himself no otherwise then like one perfectly mad. There is not the least intima­tion in any of the foregoing questions asserting any other Righteousness but that of Christ's, and yet this wretched man had the confidence to say, Such filthy Beasts (as he was pleas'd to account the Querist) would have another Righteousness. Art not thou ashamed of this injustice and lying, which thy dear Brother Edw. Burroughs was guilty of? to talk of your witnessing the Righteousness of Christ, is no more but your common and idle prating, and nothing to the point in question: Must we be concluded onely by what you igno­rantly and impudently say you witness?

(14. Q.) Whether none be accounted righte­ous in the sight of God, in whom is any corrupti­on or failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice?

Here thou polluted Beast makes it mani­fest what thou hast been driving at all this while, which is, that thou wouldst have thy corruption and filthiness to be accounted righteous in God's sight, that so thou mayst wallow in thy filthiness: But John saith, He that commits sin is of the Devil; The Son of God was manifested, that he might de­stroy the works of the Devil, and thou man of Sin wouldst have it stand; ☞ God doth not accept any where there is any failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice, Ibid. p. 33.

This question (I do confess) hath the fa­vour of a direct and positive answer, though it be introduced with his wonted railing, together with a wilful lye; certainly had not Edw. Burroughs been desperate, and utterly destitute of any seri­ous respect either to God or man, or his own credit, he durst not have attempted to fix so no­torious an untruth upon the Querist, as that he would have corruption and filthiness to be ac­counted righteous in God's sight: There is not any thing of such an import in the question, which is not whether failing and corruption may be accounted righteous, but whether none in whom is any failing or corruption may be so; cor­ruption and failing is one thing, the person in whom it may be is another.

But to his answer, ☞ God accepts not any who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice; If so, woe be to you Quakers, as well as to any others, for certainly you cannot be saved according to this Principle; you are far (how­ever you flatter your selves) from fulfilling the Law, and answering every demand of Justice; with Edw. Burroughs agrees another of your Mi­nistry, namely William Penn, Sandy Foundation, p. 29, 30.

Obedience to Justification (saith he) ought to be as personally extensive, as was mans Disobedience to Condemnation; in which real (not imputative) sense those various terms of Sanctification, Righteous­ness, Resurrection, Life, Redemption, Justification, &c. are most infallibly understood; for impute or im­puting signifies no more in Scriptures, but to express men really and personally to be that which is imputed [Page 32] to them, whether as guilty, or remitted. For (saith he) any to be justified from the imputation of ano­thers Righteousness, is both rediculous and dangerous; whence came that usual saying amongst many Pro­fessors of Religion, That God looks not upon them as they are in themselves, but as they are in Christ. Ac­cording to the drift and scope of Penns Discourse, this usual saying must come from the conceivings of the dark imputarians of this Age: But I must tell Mr. Penn whatever his deluded fancy may be con­cerning himself, miserable will be his condition, if God do look upon him onely, as he is in himself: The time will come he may curse the day that ever he entertain'd such an opinion, or that it was his sad lot to fall amongst such a people, who render Jesus Christ in all his undertakings for Sinners, no more then a meer cipher. For saith Edw. Burroughs, ☞ God will not accept of any who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice. O ye wretched men, that should in such a day and Nation, have the face to utter such a Do­ctrine as this is, which casheers the whole Gos­pel, and turns it out of doors.

(15. Q.) Whether a Soul be justified before God by the non-imputation of Sin, and the im­putation of the Righteousness of Christ's Person to his Faith, or by a Righteousness wrought by Christ in the person justified, or to be justi­fied.

Stop thy mouth thou Sorcerer, which art gathering up a heap of confusion, fit for nothing but to be turn'd into the bottomless pit; wherein thou talks of imputation and non-imputation, and of a person justified and to be justified. Thy language is [Page 33] the language of Egypt, and in the mystery of Iniquity, which is condemn'd into the lake of Perdi­tion by the light of Christ: I own no Righteousness but what is of Christ, and is wrought by him; which Righteousness shall confound thee, and all thy un­righteousness and conjurations, the same that justifies us, shall condemn thee eternally, Ibid. p. 33.

If this was a man of God, who may we account a man of—. The memorable Works of this Edw. Burroughs may serve as Memorials to all men, to dread the Spirit and Principles of the Quakers, these instances being such Monuments of their folly and madness: He saith, That impu­tation and non-imputation, and to talk of a person justified and to be justified, is the language of Egypt, and is condemn'd to the lake of Perdition by the Light. But what kind of Light should this be, that should thus fatally doom such a question? and brand the person asking it for a Sorcerer? He saith, He owns no other Righteousness but what is wrought by Christ; But not one word, whether this Righ­teousness is wrought without us, or within us, or both, which is the thing the question aims at. If the Querist was, or if any person else be ignorant here­in, so they may remain, for any thing that Bur­roughs hath here contributed towards their infor­mation.

(16. Q.) Whether Christ be in the Saints in respect of that Nature wherein he suffer'd at Je­rusalem?

Here thou enemy of Christ wouldst know how the Saints enjoy Christ; the Scripture is fulfil'd on thee the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not; when thou comes to own thy [Page 34] Condemnation the light in thy Conscience, then thou wilt know that Nature that Christ suffer'd in: But now thou art in the nature that Judas was in that betray'd him & that they were in that crucified him, Ibid. p. 33.

Is there in this reply one word to the que­stion? could he not have answerd yea or nay, else where he grants that he who was slain upon the Cross is the very Christ of God, and that the very Christ of God was in him, Ibid. p. 149. From whence we may infer, That the light within was crucified at Jerusalem: Must this pass for an in­fallible dictate? surely not with any who are not under the influence of the Quakers delusions. But wherefore did Burroughs remain under such a Paroxism of fury, was it not because each questi­on did strike too closely at your vile Opinions?

(17 Q.) How and in what manner Christ, who in respect of his Divine Nature, is in all places, may be said to be in a Saint, and not in a Reprobate?

What hast thou to do to quere after the Divine Nature, who art the natural man, who knows nothing of God, but what thou knowest naturally as a bruit beast: The manner of Christs Divine Nature is bid from thy eyes; with that eye thou shouldst see, with that thou art blind: And the manner of his being in the Saints thou knowst not, who art a Reprobate, and shalt find him to thy eternal condemnation, Ibid. p. 33, 34.

It is a lamentable thing, that a man for asking, How and in what respect Christ may be said to be in a Christian? must be put off with such a taunting reply as this, What hast thou to do to quere, thou knowst nothing but as a bruit beast, thou Reprobate. Is this to instruct with meekness and fear? we see, that if we do not believe your [Page 35] sayings without farther enquiry what will come on't, namely, to be curs'd and damn'd eternally. 'Twas pity this question did not fall into the hands of a more judicious person then Edw. Bur­roughs, who neither treats the Querist, nor his question, like a Christian, or a sober man.

(18 Q) Whether doth Christ now in these days assume, or take upon him, the form of a Servant, & the seed of Abraham, that is our flesh, and whether doth not this assumption cause such a perfection of the Godhead and the Manhood, as that both of them together are united into one Person.

O thou dark Beast and Conjurer, quering with thy conjured words, that which thou knowst no­thing of, and is out of thy reach and comprehension: Thou Blasphemer, dost thou limit Christ to dayes, in taking upon him the form of a Servant, and the seed of Abraham; Is not he the same now as ever he was? for the union of the Godhead with the Man­hood, as thou calls it: Let thy mouth be stopt, for with thee God nor none of his Children hath any uni­on; God hath put an utter enmity betwixt thy seed, thou Serpent, and the seed of the woman. And the perfect union with Christ we witness, therefore are we separate from thee and thy Generation, Ibid. p. 34.

I perceive he that sate him on, carried him through; otherwise, by this time, we might reasonably conclude he should have been drawn dry of his virulent and undecent expressions: Be the question what it will, he was at no loss for words to stigmatize and vilifie the Querist; yet was at a real and marvellous loss to give a direct answer to the purpose, almost all the questions hath a fair, or rather (if you will) a foul go-by: [...] [Page 36] [...] [Page 37] [Page 36] Let me seriously ask thee, whether thou dost indeed believe that Edw. Burroughs was in the meekness, plainness and simplicity? when he did represent the person that asked, whether Christ doth now take upon him the form of a Servant, to be a dark Beast and Conjurer? Dost thou believe that Christ now in these dayes takes on him the form of a Servant? our Flesh, as once he did? Do not reply in equivocal terms, but speak honestly and plainly to the question; we ask you not, what you witness, we will not be determined by your vain boasts, or deluded fancies.

(19. Q.) Whether Christ is now conversant with men upon Earth, since his Ascension, as he was before, and in those times wherein the Apo­stles lived?

Thy quere bewrayes thee, thy language is the language of Egypt; thou makest it clearly mani­fest, thou knowst not Christ in any measure, where the first principle of truth is made manifest; it is the same that ever was: Thou askest whether Christ be not now conversant upon Earth amongst men, since his Ascensi­on, as he was in the Apostles times; dost thou know what thou askest? Did not Christ appear to his Apo­stles since his ascension in the most glorious manner that ever was? and is he not the same now as he was then? what? wouldst thou make of Christ, thou dark sottish beast, such a one as thy self, Ibid. p. 34.

This man took a liberty to say any thing, but what was to the purpose; 'tis amazing to think that a person under his Character, being under no surprize or provocation, should delibe­rately write such gross Errors and Untruths, to­gether with such a heap of scurrilous and filthy [Page 37] Railings, and cause these to be printed for the view of future Generations. Burroughs asks, whe­ther Christ did not appear to the Apostles since his Ascension? who denies he did: But what is this to the question, whether Christ be now conver­sant with men upon Earth since his Ascension, as he was before? To this the Quaker Replies, What would thou make of Christ, thou dark sottish beast? But whether this be a solution of the question, I sub­mit it to others.

(20. Q.) Whether Christ did not dwell amongst the Saints after another manner, and more visible then now he dwells in them?

Here thou shews thy ignorance, and for thy word visible he is not, nor never visible to thee, nor thy Generation; for those that did profess the Scrip­tures as thou, and thy Generation doth, crucified him: Thou Blasphemer, where saith the Scripture that Christ would dwell after another manner in his Saints? Ibid. p. 34.

In this Answer, the Quaker denies that Christ was ever visible to wicked men (such as he esteems the Querist to be) and consequently de­nies that person call'd in the Scriptures by this name, who convers'd here in the World, and suffer'd death openly and visibly at Jerusalem to be the Christ; for that Christ was visible to wicked men: But this bold man saith, Christ was never visible to such as the Querist is: Are not these things justly offensive to Christian ears? 'Tis too evident in your acknow­ledgments of Jesus Christ, you do but abuse your Readers, in owning that in words which in truth you really deny, and do steal away the truth from the less wary reader or hearer, even then when in [Page 38] words you seem to confess it. It is blasphemy (saith Edw. Burroughs) To say Christ dwells in another manner in the Saints, then once he did amongst them; which is as much as to say, Christ is not a person without them. Did Edw. Burroughs believe that these replies of his were proper an­swers to the questions.

Blessed be the Lord that hath discovered thee; so thy queries are answer'd in the eternal life and light of God, and Judgment is given upon thee and them, which thou shalt eternally witness: Thy queries are answer'd lovingly and plainly, and in the Scripture language and terms, and with the eternal light and life of God set thee in thy own place, which thou shalt eternally witness, Ibid. p. 34.

What horrid blasphemy, arrogance, and wilful lying, are these few concluding words guil­ty of? to say these queries are answer'd in the eter­nal life and light of God, is a most blasphemous in­tituling the Divine Majesty to all Edw. Burroughs his multiplyed Railings, Lies, and Impertinencies; Could the Devil himself have been more vile? and was it not prodigious arrogancy in this man to take upon him to determine a mans endless condi­tion? Is it not also a most odious lye, to say these queries are answer'd lovingly and plainly, in Scrip­ture language and terms? Is railing, cursing, and damning a person, loving and plain answers? Is sot and sottish Beast, &c. Scripture language and terms? The Lord in mercy deliver us from such Prophets, who are justly worthy of the abhorrence of all men.

Thus I have given you some account of the memorable works (of this eminent Quaker) printed 1672. with the Epistles of Ellis Hooks, Josiah Coale, [Page 39] George Whitehead, Francis Howgill, and George Fox, that the Ages to come may see what monsters this Age produced: O my Soul come not thou into their Secrets, unto their Assembly, Gen. 49.6. I presume by this time thou maist be satisfied, that I have not wrong'd you in the Dialogue, but did therein re­present you, and your manner of speaking, in more favourable terms then you see I could, or might have done, what farther have you to object?

We say they are lyes and slanders, and thou art a most irreligious miscreant.

Several of you (that were moved thus to ex­press your minds) being asked, whether you had read the Dialogue? answer'd No; How then do you know they are all lyes? Is it not a most disin­genious thing to pass sentence on you know not what? I see 'tis as easie to wash the Blackmoor white, as 'tis to reclaim you from this accustomed evil. Those of you who have read the Dialogue, may know (if you will) that I have not onely quoted your Books, but have done it truly and honestly; can this then be of any Service to you, when any person that examines the quotations, may see your error: As for that term miscreant, George White­head is pleas'd to impose upon me; I think it un­worthy of any farther notice then this, that for want of argument, he takes up dirt, which was no wayes becoming him, having told us in print, That he never found any man convinced by ill lan­guage, Divinity of Christ, p. 89. What more hast thou to say?

Thou sayst, We hold the Soul to be God, whereas we distinguish between the Power that saves, and that which is saved, G. W. Dip. Pl. p. 15.

Did I not cite your metropolitan G. Fox? direct you to his Book and Page, where you may read these words, That the Soul is part of Gods Be­ing, without beginning; and infinite; Darest thou say, I have not quoted him truly? But saith George Whitehead, We distinguish between the Soul and its Saviour; So doth G. Fox seem to di­stinguish, When he calls God the Bishop of the Soul, notwithstanding which, he saith, The Soul is a part of Gods Being; If then there be any thing in his distinction, 'tis onely this, That one part of God is Bishop over another. George White­head also pretends to distinguish between Christ, and his light or gift, Apolog. 35. And yet in his Dip. Pl. p. 13. saith, The life is the light of men, and this life and light is divine and increated; so that the meaning of his distinction must be, That Christ is not divine and increated, but his Light is: If both be increated, what signifies his distinction? James Naylor likewise distinguisheth between the light and the seed within; and yet tells us, The light is Christ, and the seed is Christ; so that your di­stinguishing is but a collusion to baffle and amuse simple and ignorant people: Hence, as one of your own Friends hath said of you, we find but too true; though your years have been but few, yet you have been exceeding expert in learning the subtilties (that is, the equivocations) of the Pa­pists. Who of you ever writ against this posi­tion of George Fox concerning the Soul? Or which of you dare give it under your hands, That herein your Superintendent was decei­ved?

Whereas thou hast said, we deny the Person of Christ, herein thou art a lyar; the person of Christ we own and witness.

But do you acknowledge him to be a di­stinct person without you?

Jesus Christ a Person without us, is not Scripture language, but the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians, Whitehead, Dip. Pl. p. 13.

If Jesus Christ be not a Person distinct from you, who or what is Jesus Christ?

'Tis God himself; if God be the Light, and that Light be Christ, then God is Christ, Penns Innocency with open face, p. 8. Again, 'tis the light in us, we own no other Redeemer but that Per­son, the Son of God, who died at Jerusalem, who is the light in us, Naylor and Hubborthorns answer to the Phanatique History, p. 13.

You say you own the Person of Christ, is the light in you a person? and is it the very Son of God? and did it indeed die at Jerusalem?

We say, He that was slain upon the Cross is the very Christ of God, and the very Christ of God is in us, Burroughs Works, p. 9. 149.

If God be Christ, as Penn saith; or if the Light within you be the Christ, as Naylor and Hub­berthorne affirm? Is it proper or safe to say, God was slain, or that the Light in you was crucified?

Ye have condemn'd and kill'd the Just, James 5. 5, 6. that is, Christ Jesus in their hearts, him they crucified, G. Keith. Immediat. Revelation, p. 77.

Is Christ really and indeed crucified in the hearts of men onely.

As Christ is and lives in himself, he cannot [Page 42] be crucified, but his appearance may, Keith. Ibid.

You distinguish between Christ, and his appearance; and say, He himself cannot, but his appearance may be crucified; Is not this as much as to say, His appearance is but a Creature? But how will this agree with the Dictates of others of your Ministry, who say, The Light within is di­vine and increated: I perceive if we examine you distinct, your tales will not agree. And when G. Keith. saith, Ye kill'd the Just, that is Christ Jesus: Must we believe that this Just is not in­deed Christ Jesus, but onely his appearance; con­sequently when the Scripture saith, Christ was crucified, we must not understand it was Christ himself, but onely an Image, appearance, or some re­presentation of him was crucified, and all this too within our Hearts. But is this one of those things which you say are necessary to be reveal'd to you, which are not to be found in the Scriptures, no not so much as by consequence, Ibid. p. 3, 4.

Now thy perverse and cavilling mind dis­covers it self.

Do you believe that Christ is now in Per­son at the right hand of God?

He is at the right hand of God, but I cannot believe he hath a personal being at the right hand of God without all men, G. Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 18. Christ in Person remote in a body of flesh, and not in men is not Scripture, but added, Ibid. p. 69.

What then do you intend by the right hand of God, and of Christs being there?

Christ, nor Gods right hand, is not to be li­mited to a remoteness from the Saints, Ibid. p. 18. What do you mean by Gods right hand, and Christs [Page 43] being at Gods right hand, that would seem to con­fine them out of all men, Ibid. p. 20, 21.

Is Christ no otherwise at Gods right hand, then as he is in you?

'Tis a false and lying Imagination to ima­gine either Christ or God, and his right hand, to be so remote as not to dwell in any man, Whitehead, Ibid. p. 69.

Is the heavens, that must retain him till the times of the restitution of all things, onely the hearts of men?

I have told thee plainly, that neither Christ, nor Gods right hand are so remote, as not to dwell in men, and that Christ hath not a personal being at Gods right hand.

Doth not the Scripture say, That the same Jesus that went away, shall in like manner come again? Acts 1.10, 11.

I deny he shall ccome visibly; and though it be said in like manner, yet every like is not the same, Whitehead, Ibid. p. 22.

Is not this a plain denial of the second personal coming of Christ?

They are like to be deceived, who are ex­pecting that Christs second coming will be a personal coming; which word person you add to the Scrip­tures, not minding the penalty, Revel. 22. G. White­head, Ibid. p. 23.

'Tis said, When he comes, that every eye shall see him, they that peirced him, &c.

To say, They that pierced that Body, shall see that Body, are not Scripture words, but added; you do herein shew your carnal expectations, mean thoughts, unscriptural conceptions of Christ; where [Page 44] doth the Scripture say, That Christ shall come in Per­son? G. Whitehead, Ibid. p. 21, 22.

In one breath you confess, That Christ rose with the same Body that was crucified, and that he ascended into Glory, Ibid. p. 17. And in another you speak thus, To say Christ ascended with the same body which rose from the dead, and is at Gods right hand with that body; and that he hath a personal be­ing at Gods right hand you cannot believe, Ibid. p. 17, 18. Who is able to reconcile these Contradictions? In which of your sayings shall we believe you, 'tis evident, you did but dissemble in the first, that you might entrap and deceive your unwary Reader.

But if Christ's second coming will not be personal, pray tell us what you mean by his second coming?

Be sober, and hope to the end, for the grace that shall be brought to you at the Revelation of Jesus Christ, when he shall appear in you glorified, who be­fore was crucified in weakness, but now is raised in Power, G. Keith. Im. Re. p. 77.

If this be the second appearance and coming of Christ, as in your Book 'tis called, pray what is the first coming?

Till that time the day dawn, and the day­star arise in our hearts; he directs them to a light that shineth in a dark place, which is the same Jesus Christ in his first appearance, as the seed sown, a seed of light, but not come forth to the perfect day; this is the most sure and firm word of Prophesie, whereunto we do well to take heed for the time, Keith. Ibid.

Then Christ's coming in the form of a Servant to suffer and die, was no coming at all; for his first appearance, you say, is the light that shineth in a dark place; and the second is, when he (that [Page 45] is in his appearance) shall in you be glorified, so that a personal coming in any respect is manifestly denied by you. And since you deny Christ in his personal Being and Existence, pray tell me, Hath he no Body?

Yea, the Church is his Body, Edw. Burroughs.

What do you mean by the Church, is it Persons, or onely a Seed, or Spirit in Men?

'Tis the Seed.

Where is such a Seed call'd the Body of Christ, do you believe Christ hath no other Body but this?

It is not our wonted course to say Christ hath no Body but his Church, but we say the Church is his Body, Burroughs Works, p. 150.

Why do you not speak directly, Hath Christ no other Body but his Church?

This is an ensnaring question, I shall not answer to satisfie thee, nor may I feed thy Serpents Wisdom, Burroughs, Ibid.

What snare can be in this question, if you do indeed believe that Christ hath another Body.

To say Christ hath two Bodies, one out of the sight of the Saints; there is so much wickedness and ignorance in the Broachers of such a particular, that it needs no answer, Burroughs, Ibid. 151, 152.

Then Burroughs and G. Whitehead both agree in denying Christ to have a Body distinct from his Church.

Them that accuse us for saying Christ hath but one Body, should produce Scripture that saith he hath two; and where doth the Scripture say, That Christs glorified Body in heaven is of a humane nature, G. Whiteheads Apolog. p. 33.

'Tis apparent then, you acknowledge no other Christ but the light in you; this, and this only is the very person of Christ in your judgment.

They who deny Christ to be the light in every man are Antichrists, Burroughs, Ibid. p. 127.

But is the very Person of Christ in every man?

The Gospel is preached in every Creature under heaven, Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 63.

I know by Gospel you mean Christ him­self, but is Christ himself preach'd in Devils, Beasts, Trees, and in every flagitious and wicked person; yea, is Christ himself in every Reprobate?

When we say Christ is in Reprobates, you must understand the light or gift of Christ; for we do not express the light in every man to be Christ, George Whiteheads Apol. p. 35. 'Tis not our Principle to say Christ is in every man; 'tis falshood to accuse us with affirming, that Christ is in every man, White­head, Christ ascended, p. 66.

What vile hypocrisie and deceit is this Whitehead guilty of, he himself saith, The Scrip­tures direct to the Rule, that is, the light within that gave them forth, Christ ascended, p. 42. Bur­roughs affirms, That they who deny Christ to be the light in every man are Antichrists. But I would ask Whitehead, whether this light or gift be created or increated: If the former, then 'tis but a meer crea­ture: If the latter, as he affirms in his Dip. Pl. p. 13. To say the light within every man is a meer creature, is (saith he) contrary to plain Scripture, which saith, In him was life, and the life was the light of men; this life and light is divine and increated. Is White­head then to be believed in saying, 'Tis not your [Page 47] Principle to say Christ is in every man, whilst he openly denies the light within to be a creature, and saith, 'Tis divine and increated: This kind of saying and denying is so common with him, that I profess 'tis a very hard and difficult point with me to know when he speaks as he thinks; from the whole, you see I had just reason to accuse you for denying the person of Christ: But since you own the name Christ, and do make use of it, pray what doth it signifie?

Christ signifies anointed.

If God himself be Christ, as Penn saith, I would quere whether God himself was anointed: If you will dare to affirm this, then tell me by whom, with what, and to what end he was anointed.

This we say, that Christ as the Son of God before the world, before he took Flesh, was the anointed of God, which anointing was spiritual, and spiritually received by the heavenly Birth, the anointed, the holy seed, Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 68.

This is still as much as to say, that God himself was anointed: If so, what was the unction, by whom powred upon him, and wherefore?

Now thou obtrudes questions.

Will you not speak intelligibly? Is it not ne­cessary to understand who is the Christ, and where­fore he was anointed; what signifies your saying, The anointing was spiritual, and spiritually recei­ved by the heavenly birth, the holy seed? Is God himself a heavenly Birth, did he receive the anointing? pray be plain, and do not lurk in ambiguous terms, neither let us be put off with your blasphemous absurdities, but speak home to the point.

Alas for thee, these are mysteries thy dark mind cannot conceive or understand.

Is it not your duty (who pretend to be under infallible teachings) to endeavour my information in such important and weighty matters.

Wilt thou deny that the Son of God, before the world, before he took flesh, was the anointed of God.

I do not deny, but really believe the eternal Deity of the Son of God; yet I do deny, that the meer Godhead of the Son was the anointed Savi­our: And thou must prove, that the Son of God, meerly as God, is the Christ; for what thou hast yet said is no proof.

Is not what I have said sufficient.

In no wise; however thou mayst take time to consider on it, mean while let me ask thee, whether Christ was not Gods gift?

Yea, he was so.

To what end, and in what respect is he the gift of God?

His Doctrine, Life, Miracles, Death and Suf­ferings to God, is the gift and expression of Gods eternal love for the salvation of men, Penns Sand. Foun. p. 19.

Thou hast affirmed, That God is Christ; if so, did God himself die, and suffer to God? and therein express his love for the salvation of men; or if the Son of God the heavenly Birth, which was be­fore the world, and before he took flesh, as Whitehead talks, be only the anointed Saviour; was this sim­ply of it self given to die, and suffer to God? or if the meer light within be the Christ, will you say, This was given to die and suffer to God, and therein to express Gods eternal love for the salvation of men? who can understand these things? Are not such dictates apparent indications of your distracted minds?

We say Christ is the gift of Gods eternal love for the salvation of men, and wilt thou deny this?

Though I do grant it, yet I see you will take a liberty to say that at one time, and in one place, which can never be reconciled with, your sayings in another, and that you run your selves into such a labyrinth of confusion and contradiction, that all the light you have cannot extricate you out of, and consequently that your pretences to infallibility is a meer lying delusion: For you neither consist with the truth, nor your selves; yet give me leave to ask you, whether one great end wherefore Christ was given, and came into the world, was not to seek and to save such that were lost.

Yea, he came to seek and to save the lost.

But who, or what is this that was lost.

That which was lost, is still in mans heart, and there it must be sought; for it remains still in the house (that is) mans heart: This is the thing to be sought for. This Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preach'd people to this; the lost in man, that it might be found; a lost God, a lost Christ, this was the sum and substance of their Doctrine, G. Keith. Im. Re. p. 75, 76.

Blush O Heavens, and be astonish'd O Earth, was ever such a thing as this heard of before? that Jesus Christ came to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christ; was ever God and Christ in a lost conditi­on? If you had said, That Jesus Christ came to seek and save Sinners who were in a lost condition, and to stir them up to seek after God, whom they had lost, you had spoken safely: But to say this, Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preach'd people to this, the lost in man, a lost God, a lost [Page 50] Christ; Is not capable of any construction less then blasphemy. To this agrees James Naylor, who said, Christ came to redeem the seed within, which he of­ten calls Christ. Is this another of those things you say are necessary to be reveal'd to you, which are not to be found in Scripture, not so much as by consequence; And are these your instances to prove you under immediate Inspirations? If they be, they will prove no more, nor no less then this, that you are imme­diately inspired and influenced by that grand Impostor the Devil. Pray what is your Opinion concerning Justification by that Righteousness of Christ, which he in his own Person fulfil'd for us, wholly with­out us.

Justification by the Righteousness which Christ fulfil'd for us in his own Person, wholly without us; we boldly affirm it to be a doctrine of Devils, and an arm of the Sea of corruption, which doth now de­luge the World, William Penn, Apol. p. 148.

Is there no other Righteousness by which the Saints are justified then what Christ works onely in them?

Thou Beast, to whom the Plagues of God are due, and upon whom the wrath of God must be ac­complish'd, who wouldst have another Righteousness then that which Christ works in the Saints, Edw. Burroughs Works, p. 32.

Is not this to disclaim the Doctrine of Justification by an imputed Righteousness.

Thou wrongst us, and our Principle, for imputative Righteousness, as truly consider'd in the Scriptures, we do not disclaim, G. Whitehead Apol. p. 37.

I have great reason to believe that G. W. dissembles in these words, for in the same page he disclaims them that deny the Righteousness of Christ within for Justification; and also saith, That justi­fication by the Righteousness of Christ without us is not Scripture language; who will believe his complaint of wrong, whilst he so apparently confesseth the truth of what is objected against you, as will abundantly appear from what follows, what righteousness is that upon the account of which we are justified?

Justification is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness, but from the actual per­forming and keeping of Gods righteous Statutes, Pen. Sand. Found. p. 25.

Is it not written, Rom. 5.19. By the Obe­dience of One, many were made righteous?

It is a great abomination to say, God should condemn and punish his innocent Son, that he having satisfied for our Sins, we might be justified by the imputation of his perfect Righteousness. O why should this horrible thing be contended for by Christians? Penn, Ibid. p. 25. 30.

How now Mr. Penn, is the Doctrine of Christ's Sufferings for Sinners to make satisfaction to Divine Justice an horrible thing, and an abo­mination to you; do you consider what you say?

This I do say, That the consequences of such a Doctrine is both irreligious and irrational, Pen. Ibid. p. 16.

What then doth the Scripture intend, in saying Christ died for the ungodly, Rom. 5. And he was made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5. And on him was [Page 52] laid the Iniquities of us all, Isa. 53.

I caution and warn men, by no means to entertain this principle (of Christ's dying to make satisfaction to Divine Justice) by whomsoever recom­mended, Pen. Ibid.

Be free and plain with me, How and in what respect is Christ said to fulfil the Law, and to die for Sinners?

He fulfil'd the Law onely as our pattern or example, Pen. Ibid. p. 26. Christ is so far from telling us of such a way of being justified, as that be informs us the reason why he abode in his Fathers love, was his Obedience; he is so far from telling as of being justified by vertue of his Obedience imputed, that un­less we keep the Commands, and obey for our selves; In all which Christ is but our example, Pen Ibid.

But are men indeed justified by their own works?

Was not Abraham justified by works; n [...] must not conceive, as the dark imputations of the Age, that Abrahams personal offering was not a justifying Righteousness, Pen. Ibid. p. 30.

Was not Abraham justified before he did personally offer up Isaac? ye [...], doth not the Scripture intimate, that Abraham was not justified by works, see Rom. 4.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And do not you (Mr. Penn) elsewhere tell us, That such are run into a narrow strait, who venture to reconcile Merit and Grace. See your caveat against Popery. p. 12. where you also say, That Grace is a free gift, requiring nothing; and now ask, Was not Abraham justified by works, and that good works may be said to procure, deserve, or obtain, [Page 53] Apolog. 198. Is this to write like an infalible Dictator? But do you really believe that Abra­ham's offering personally was his justifying Righte­ousness?

I do say Abraham had not the imputa­tion of anothers Righteousness to him, his personal Obedience was the ground of that just imputation, Pen. Sand. Found. p. 30.

If Abraham was justified by works, as you argue, why did the Apostle onely take notice of his offering up of Isaac, and not of the whole course of his Obedience? If a man be justified by works before God, surely it cannot be by one single action (such as Abrahams offering was) but by a continued holy and innocent life. But is our personal Obedience the very ground and reason of Gods reckoning and accounting us righte­ous.

I do maintain, that good works may be said to procure, doserve, or obtain; in which sense, without good works, there is no acceptance with God; and Abrahams personal offering was the ground of that just imputation, Penn.

God accepts not any where there is any failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice, Edw. Burroughs, supra.

Then the ground of our rejoycing, and ac­ceptance, is not in and from the Righteousness of another, viz. of Christ imputed to us by Faith, but onely in a righteousness inherent in us, and done by us.

The Doctrine of rejoycing and acceptance from the works of another is utterly excluded, Pen. Sandy Found. p. 27.

Doth not this render the undertakings of Jesus Christ, as a Mediatour and Surety, a meer fan­cy? If the ground of a mans rejoycing be in him­self, why doth the Apostle give it as the Character and property of a true Christian, to rejoyce in Christ Jesus, Phil. 3. And what signifie those words, Christ is made unto us Righteousness; wherefore let him that glorieth, glory in the Lord, 1 Cor. 1.30, 31. And what did the Prophet Isaiah intend, cap. 45, 24, 25. Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I Righteousness, in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. Are we no farther concern'd in the Obedience and Sufferings of our Lord Jesus with­out us, then onely as our example or pattern?

What more wouldst thou have? I have told thee, That Christ fulfil'd the Law but onely as our example.

Do you not then notoriously equivocate and dissemble, when you say, That Christs Birth, Blood, Offering, Death, Mediatourship, Covenant, his being Priest, Prophet, and King, is owned according to the Scriptures, and all the Prophesies of him, Inno­cency with open face, p. 38. Is the owning of Christ onely as our example all that the Scriptures and Prophesies of him signifie; Can you imitate him in his Mediatourship? can you lay down your lives, and take them up again? Have you the same fulness of the Godhead in you he had, that you can follow him in the same Obedience? Can you execute the Office of Priest, Prophet, and King, in the same manner and perfection, which Christ did and doth? We know very well, how ever you palliate, you believe no such thing that your words seem to import: For when you talk of Christs Birth, Blood, Death, &c. [Page 55] you intend no more but the light in you, in its va­riety of manifestations; therefore if possibly thou canst, answer directly what that Righteousness is, which is reckoned or accounted to us for our Justi­fication.

Art thou of them, that imagine a Justification without Sanctification, who because the Scriptures faith, God justifies the ungodly through Faith, they therefore conclude themselves justified in their ungod­liness, by a fancy which they call Faith, Naylors Love to the Lost, 50, 51. I farther tell thee, That Justi­fication by an imputed Righteousness is both irratio­nal, irreligious, ridiculous and dangerous, Pen. Sand. Fo. p. 30, 31.

I know of none that hold Justification of persons in their ungodliness; this therefore is a wick­ed slander, and not at all to the question: We plead not for a Righteousness imputed, to overthrow a Righteousness inherent, or the exercise of Christi­an vertues; 'tis you would separate and divide them, not we: The question intends this, whether the person justified was not at that instant before he was justified guilty in himself?

Justification goes not before, but is conse­quential to the mortifying of Lusts, and the sanctifi­cation of the Soul: Again, impute or imputing signi­fies no more in Scripture, but to express men really and personally to be what is imputed to them, Pen. Sand. Fo. p. 27, 29, 30.

Doth not this import, that a man must be formally just before he be justified, for nothing is imputed or reckoned to us (according to your reasoning) but what is inherent in us: I would ask you, whether remission of sins be not one part of Justification?

I suppose it may.

Can one be forgiven that is not guilty; it looks like a contradiction, to pardon one that is innocent, to forgive one that owes nothing; cer­tainly he that is pardoned must be a Sinner, Rom. 4.5. that is, such that were so till justified, not such that remain so being justified.

God justifies the living, and not the dead, whilst the Just being dead in trespasses and sins: There is no justification where the Just lives not, for by that which the Just lives, is that by which the creature is justified, Naylors Love to the lost, 52. Printed 1656.

To talk of the Just being dead in trespasses and sins, is no other then your absurd blasphemous and ridiculous canting. For by Just, we know you mean the seed of God in man, which sometimes you call Christ, or his appearance, gift or measure: But is Christ, or his Seed or Power in man, dead in sins and trespasses? what unworthy and vile Crea­tures are you to suggest such perillous conceits as these, and yet pretend to infallibility and perfe­ction; by what hath been said, I am (and presume others may be) fully satisfied what kind of Justifi­cation you hold: Pray let us understand your Opi­nion of Sanctification, what it is:

'Tis Christ himself; hence we conclude, To say Sanctification is imperfect in this life, is as much as to say, Christ is imperfect; but Christ is perfect, therefore Sanctification is perfect: See then the error and wickedness of this principle, that Sanctification is imperfect, Edw. Burrough's Works 488.

'Tis true, Jesus Christ by his Spirit is the Author and Worker of Sanctification; but will it therefore follow, that the work of Sanctification [Page 57] in us is Christ himself, or that this work is now perfect in all its degrees.

Jesus Christ is both the seeds man, the seed, and also the fruit, G. Keith. Im. R. p. 77. The Law in the mind is the Spirit of God: To say the Law in the mind is imperfect, is error in the highest degree; this is an abominable corrupt principle of error, the new man is perfect peace, and perfect sancti­fication, Burroughs, Ibid. 488.

How wilt thou prove that Christ is both the Author, and the work, the seeds-man, and the seed, and fruit? That the Law in the mind is the Spirit it self, and Christ himself; and that the new man is perfect sanctification, that there remains not the least sin either for kind or degree in the person san­ctified; we will not be imposed upon, therefore, if you can, demonstrate this thing unto us.

If the old man, the body of sin, remain in sanctified persons, then none are sanctified at all; and such as have the body of sin in them, have no part in the Kingdom of God, Edw. Burroughs, Ibid. 488.

Why then doth the Apostle exhort sancti­fied persons to put off the old man, Col. 3.5. Rom. 13.12, 13.

And how will you prove your selves to have any part in the Kingdom of God, since 'tis notorious, the body of sin yet remains in the best of you, of which your intollerable pride, error, envy, malice, railing cursing, hypocrisie, and wil­ful lying are sufficient evidences.

We deny the old man, we are in the meek­ness, truth, and simplicity; therefore thou suggests nothing but thy own imaginations.

You are (as we say) far from your Neigh­bours, [Page 58] who else will say so of you besides your selves, your own Testimony is not sufficient in this ease; especially since your Writings, Converse, and Practise gives the lye to this your pretence, and suf­ficient instances hath in this Discourse been sug­gested to prove you guilty; therefore your denial is an aggravation of your sin and wickedness. But to the question, doth Sanctification consist in our conformity to the will of God or not?

Now thou runs into the many words, thy fleshly and imaginary distinctions.

When wilt thou forbear these trifling Im­pertinencies, Speak to the point.

I have told thee, That the Law in the mind is the Spirit of God, and that Christ is Sanctification, can I speak more plain?

If the Law in the mind be the Spirit it self, and if Sanctification be Christ himself, what must we call obedience to Christ, his Law or Spirit? If our habitual and actual conformity to the divine Law or Rule be our holiness, how can the Spirit it self and Christ himself meerly be it?

We deny not, but declare, That all men ought to be obedient to the light, Christ in them.

But may this obedience be call'd our holiness? you seem to deny it, in saying Christ himself is San­ctification, and the Law in the mind is the Spirit of God: Dost Christ obey himself, doth he repent and be­lieve, and is his obeying himself in us our holiness? If so, then whilst you deny an imputed Righteous­ness in a Scripture sense, you maintain a righteousness imputed in an enthusiastical and ridiculous sense. But if you will say, That obedience to the divine Rule is our holiness, then you will contradict your selves. And to apply it to you, I would ask, How it [Page 59] is possible for you to prove your selves sanctified persons, that so wilfully and wickedly oppose the rule of duty: Did ever any holy man deliberately affirm, That is no command to me which is a command to another, neither did any of the Saints act by the com­mand which was given to another; they every one obey'd his own command, Burroughs, Ibid. p. 47. Then that Law which forbids Idolatry, Adultery, Murder, Theft, and hearing false witness, &c. is no Law to you, forasmuch as it was given to others, and you say, We are not to act by the command which was to another; no wonder you pay so little; respect to Parents, Magistrates, Masters, &c. for that you will say was a command to others, therefore no com­mand to you; so that neither the affirmative, nor the negative Precepts have any obligation upon you; for you have a peculiar dispensation, onely to obey your own command? Are you not, oh ye Quakers, ashamed of this Doctrine?

By order and authority given me by the Spirit of the living God, on the 31 day of the 10th moneth, 1655. about four a Clock in the morning, The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Write my con­troversie with all the Inhabitants of the Earth Hence I do say, That to take up a command from the Letter, and say Christ commands it, that thus you are in the witch­craft, Edw. Burroughs works, p. 96. comp. with p. 105.

Is it witchcraft to stand in awe of Christ's commands, to reverence their authority, to endea­vour to our utmost an observance thereof? Did ever such ungodly and irreverent Speeches drop from the mouth or pen of any truly Christian man? And is it not impiously horrid, to make God himself to patronize such blasphemies; why do you counte­nance [Page 60] such Novices? Are you not yet ashamed of those Testimonies you have given to this most profane Scribler? And whereas you say, That no­thing is a command to me which is a command to another; will you stand by it, that nothing is a duty to me but what I am immediately mov'd unto by the power within me:

'Tis an error to say, we are not to wait for an inward call, motion, impulse, or inspiration; to preach, pray, or to give thanks, so as to forbear till it be given, G. Keith. Im. Rev. Preface.

Am I not then sinless, if Lomit the doing of any thing that may be good in it self, and com­manded in the Scriptures, if I be not immediately moved thereunto?

Is it of good report, for unregenerate and uninspired men to pray, Pen. Apol. p. 111. Spiri­tual obedience is not that wherein men and women read the Scriptures, and from that set themselves on work, and so make an imitation of obedience, Naylors Love to the lost, p. 27.

People cry out of their best duties, as having sin in them, had they not better let them alone: All these holy duties, as they call them, must down; had they not better let them alone, and see the salvation of God, and come to the gift, &c.

These last words, One of our Ministry was moved to declare very lately in a publick meeting in London. But is not this to teach men to be irre­ligious and profane; no marvel Nicholas Lucas said, We may burn the Bible, and serve God as well without it: But the question returns upon you, whether this be not to lay all our neglects of doing that which is meet; yea, ought to be done, upon [Page 61] the power or spirit, for not immediately moving us thereunto? And what is your meaning, when you say these holy duties must down, and we had better let them alone, as having sin in them: Is it not this? That there is no duty incumbent upon imperfect crea­tures? and that none must be perform'd, except it be perfect in the matter, manner, principle, and end: If so, are not all men discharg'd by you, from ac­knowledging the Soveraignty of God in those Laws he hath given unto them.

You are not dead with Christ, who are yet subject unto Ordinances, Burroughs p. 105. Your Obedience is but the conformity in your own wills to that which was the will of God to another, Ibid.

The Spirit of God in the Scriptures assures us, that they who are subject to, and keep the Commandments of God, are the Children of God, and they who do not are lyars, see the first Epistle of Joh. 2, 3, 4. cap. 5.2, 3. Yet this wicked man saith, That they who are subject to Ordinances are not dead with Christ, if you flee for refuge to Col. 2.20. It will not relieve you, for it is no ways applicable to the persons to whom Edw. Burroughs did write; nor is his Speech limited to Jewish Ordinances (now abolished) but was more general, respecting the Ordinances of Christ still in force and being; and will you say these are not to be owned nor subjected unto, but onely so far as we are immediately moved and prompted by the power within.

To go without the movings of the Spirit in your own wills, God hates, and his wrath is upon, if the movings of the Spirit do not carry forth to act them, they are accursed of God. And all who go before the movings of it to carry forth, All their Prayers, Preach­ings, [Page 62] and Ordinances I deny, and declare against, by the eternal Spirit of God, that they are odious, and abo­mination unto God, whether they be done in private, or in the Church, Edw. Burroughs Works, p. 47, 48.

Then we are really acquitted from any fault in omitting to do that which is good, and all the blame why it is not done, must be laid upon the Spi­rit: But is not this horrid? will this plea be of any service to us (think you) in the day of acconut to say Lord, though I knew such a thing ought to have been done, and such an evil omitted; and that thou in the holy Scriptures did command the one, and forbid the other, yet that was nothing to me, I had no imme­diate motion or impulse to do that, or forbear this. But what if one be moved to do those things which are not commanded in the Scriptures, must that moti­tion be followed?

We affirm, That a great many particular things, both by way of precept, prohibition, permis­sion, approbation and counsel from the Lord, are both reveal'd, and necessary to be reveal'd to us, which are not essentials of the Christian Religion, nor prin­ciples of the Doctrine of Christ, but things relating to our conversation in the world, and walking with God, with faith and comfort, according to his will, with the knowledg of which we are to be fill'd with in all things.

For there is a necessity for those under the New Covenant dispensation of living in, and walking after the Spirit, to have things reveal'd to them from the Lord, which are not to be found in the Scriptures particularly, not so much as by consequence, G. K. Im. Rev. p. 3. 4.

If I may be so bold as to ask you, what are some of those things which by way of precept or counsel from the Lord, which, you say, are necessary [Page 63] to be reveal'd to you, which yet are not to be found in the Scriptures, not so much as by consequence: And how are you assured you have them from the Lord? and what evidence (more then your own pre­tences) can you give thereof to other men? Is your Friends, being moved to go naked, both men and women, openly in the Streets one of those things? And is the casting off the duties of Relations each to other, yea the relation itself, another? As I knew one of your Friends was moved to ramble about the Countrey, and neglect her Family at home; and once when she return'd, it was upon her heart to signifie to her Husband (an honest, sober, and re­ligious man, but no Quaker). That if he were free, he might take him another woman: I confess these things are not to be found in the Scriptures, not so much as by consequence: Do you call this a living in, and walking after the Spirit? Is it not rather a following the conduct of the Prince of the power of the air? Again, what if one of you be moved to door speak any thing which others of you are not satisfied in, must they obey that motion?

That single person must deny his motion, wherein it differs from the judgment of the Body (that is to say, the Court) which hath a true sense, feeling, and understanding of motions, visions, revelations and doctrines; therefore 'tis safest to make her the touchstone in all things relating unto God, Spir of the Hat, p. 21.

Is not this as much as to say, that the power or spirit in and with the body is the only infallible and unerring rule, and not the power or measure (as you sometimes call it) in any individual person? are you now after all your clamours about the suf­ficiency of the light or power in every man to be [Page 64] the rule, come to set up the light and spirit in the body above it?

Either there is such a thing as a Christian-society, sometimes call'd a visible body, or there is not: If there be, then this Church either hath power or not; if no power, then no Church: If a Body or Church, then there must be a power within it self to determine, Penns Spirit of Alexander, p. 9.

For Christians to plead this, who own the Scriptures for their rule, and not the meer light within, the argument may safely be allowed: But for you who tell us, That is no command to me which is a command to another, and every one must act from their own command, and the light in every man is his only unerring rule: I see not how you can urge this, and yet consist with your selves. But in case one should forbear what the Body would have done, or do what they forbid, what then?

We abhor, renounce, and rebuke with severity that rude imagination of the Hat on in publick Pray­er: In this case the Body may admonish, and if the Party remain tenacious, disown him as a Disputer about needless questions, and one that is gone out of the compleat union of the Body, and exercised by ano­ther Spirit, Penns Spirit of Alex. p. 4. 9.

Though others may, yet you cannot (if you will agree with your selves) stand by this: For will you say, What a man doth without an inward mo­tion is accursed, and yet will you disown that man for not doing what he is not moved unto; will you say, There continually attends you that spirit that im­mediately informs you of your words, thoughts, and deeds, and gives you true directions what to do, and what to leave undone, Penns Apol. p. 138. And now [Page 65] talk of a Body that hath power in it self to determine, do you not herein render your selves justly ridiculous and contemptible in opposing that in others which yet you contend for amongst your selves? And do you think this is the way to gain credit with any, whilst you play fast and loose, affirm and deny at pleasure? how can you impose that on another as his duty, which the light in him discovers not so to be? And how dare you deny such, and call them unruly Beasts, and Rant­ing spirits, who meerly for the want of an inward motion forbear such a practice? How you can do this, (your opinion that the light within is the only rule being considered) I cannot understand; If you will say that there is a known rule, and standard to walk by, and this is not the meer light in every man, but another thing, to which that light must yield, and also tell us what that rule is, whether the Scriptures, or, the Power in the body. If you say either of these, you deny your first principle: If you affirm the lat­ter onely, then you do but run from one extream to another, yea hopp out of the Frying-pan into the fire; If to take up a Command from the Scriptures, be (by you) accounted witchcraft? pray, what shall we call a taking up a command from the Body?

But since you seem to be so zealous for the Ministry, will you be pleased to acquaint us what is the true Ministery?

In the new Covenant, God is the teacher of his people himself Immediatly by his Immediate Spirit, pow­er, and unction within, G. Whit. Christ ascend. 64.

If so; wherefore were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours, Teachers given and set in the Church, for the work of the Ministry? And why do you set up a ministry amongst your selves? Is it be­cause [Page 66] you are not under the new Covenant? If God by his Immediat power and Spirit within, be the tea­cher, why do you appoint your Ministers before hand to speak in such a place, at such a time? And how know you, Such a one shall be Immediately moved then, and not another instead of him? And when you invite others to your silent meetings, telling us, they will be such, How are you assured that those you invite may not be moved to speak in that meeting? In a word, wherefore do you meet at all? will not the power move you, unlesse you be at such a meet­ing? None of these things will agree with your posi­tion, therefore one of your friends, was (in this) so far ingenuous as to acknowledg that your meetings were only, and principally to encourage (that is, to Decoy, Trappan, and Inveagle) others. But before leave this question, give me leave to ask you, Who, or What it is that is taught?

I am a witness of the most high God, a Mini­ster of the word of life, commanded by the eternal Spirit into this work, for the seeds sake, which is not of the world, And to the gathering of it into the fold of ever­lasting peace. Edw. Burroughs works p. 106.

Is nothing else taught, and to be taught, but on­ly this seed?

To the mind which is carnal, which rules in you, the commands of Christ are not given, nor can be receiv­ed, Burroughs ibid. 106. The great work of the Mini­stry is to point hearers to this (that is the seed) in them, G. Keith. Im. R. p. 77. 78.

What must we understand by this Seed?

That of God in thee, and in every man, the wit­ness of God in thy Conscience 'tis that we speak un­to.

Is not this seed witness, or measure, Christ the light in man?

It is so; The Apostles preached Christ crucifyed every where, and pointed them to him, Crucifyed in them, Keith ibid. 75, 76.

Is the command of God onely given to, and obeyed by this Seed?

The Spirit, both as a rule manifests the promise, exerciseth faith in, and fulfills the promises. G. White­head, Christ ascend. p. 10.

Is the Spirit of promise both the Rule, and the Subject?

I have told thee, To the mind which is carnal the commands of Christ are not given; And that the Spi­rit, not only as a Rule manifests the promises, but ex­erciseth faith.

Then your Ministry is onely God preaching to himself, giving rules to himself, and obeyed onely by himself. Will you prate of your Infallibility, and yet talk like mad-men? Had you not lost your common reason, and were absolutely infatuated, you would not dictate after this manner: is it not high time for you to renounce these follies that are so apparently mani­fest? or will you choose (rather than to take shame to your selves) to persist in your errors to your utter un­doing? Be advised, before it be too late: think not, that because you are under the bewitching influence of your own self-flattery, that therefore all is well: you must passe under another Judgment than your own: though you will wickedly take upon you to adjudg others to their eternal state, yet you will find, that nei­ther them, nor your selves, shall be determined by your judgments.

If any of you are offended with me, for opposing the Christian to the Quaker; let them know, I cannot, [Page 68] I dare not, write contrary to my own light and Judg­ment: I do not believe a true Quaker (such as these be­fore quoted) is a Christian; but on the contrary, do look upon them as the most implacable enemies to the Christian religion, that these days have brought forth. How can I think otherwise, since you deny the Person of Christ, And all your talk of redemption by him, issues only in this; He redeems himself. Your Idle non­sensical, and blasphemous prating, of God teaching the seed, that is to say, himself in man, renders you to me, to be men Inspired by Satan. That you do but mock and delude men, when you talk of the Covenant of grace, is evident; for you understand it not, But o­penly maintain a Covenant of works. For you affirm that God accepts not any who do not fulfill the law, and answer every demand of Justice. And render all that Jesus Christ did for us, without us, no more but a meer example; If we ask you concerning your opinions; Presently we are call'd Reprobates and judg'd to be in the sorcery and witchcraft; let us urge you to be plain, you put us off with your witnessings; if in one place you seem to own the truth, in another, you will in down-right terms deny it: let this be signified to you, Then Immediately you curse us, so that no man knows when, nor how to believe you, If we speak you, to a single person, you reprove us for not using the pure language. If we say thou to an Individua [...] Quaker; you will upbraid us with Jeering or hypocri­sie: you bid us follow the light within us; And if we do so, you will load us, with most bitter revilings, you will Appropriate to your selves the priviledge of In­fallibility, and at as if you were unaccountable either to God, or man, for what you say, or do. Though your sentiments, neither agree with the Scriptures, you [...] [Page 69] selves, nor the common reason of mankind; yet will you Impose upon us, and that under the severest censures, the belief of your unknown, and unintelligible doc­trines. You are as vile Impostors as ever were; for you will insinuate your lying doctrines, with lyes, per­swade many credulous, and ignorant (yet welmean­ing) people, that you indeed believe, what in truth you do not: And accuse your Adversaries of that, where­in they are innocent: your manner is not, to convince us of error, but to conclude us so, right or wrong. If any miscarriage be, that must be improved to make the truth it self odious: neither do you only undermine religion, but your principles Improved are destructive to all humane society: you tell us, 'tis witchcraft to take up a command from the Scriptures, And that is no command to me, which is a command to another. If then a father command his child, The child may reply Thou must wait for my obedience till I be moved. The like may every subject and servant plead. If a mer­chant fell you his goods, He must stay for his money, till you be moved to pay it, til which time, you are under no obligation in point of duty: you say 'tis necessary to have things reveal'd to you with respect to your conversation in the world, which are not to be found in the Scrip­tures, no not by consequence; How then may your creditors be assured, it will be reveal'd to you, to pay what you owe them. Scripture, and reason would, and do, teach you herein, but these you must be dead unto; who knows then what may, or may not be reveal'd to you? 'Tis not unknown, that a Revelation hath been pretended, to excuse the payment of a just debt. And why may not that which hath been (even a­mongst you) be again? But is it reasonable that men should be baffled out of their just rights, by such un­just [Page 70] and wicked pretences, go on, yet assuredly know that God will bring you to judgment. Then you shall know (though now you will not) by whom such do­ctrines as these (that are and have been the pest, and plague of the world, and the scandal and reproach of religion,) were Inspired. These things being consider­ed, whether you be not either distracted or worse, I shall leave with others to think on; in the mean while, I judg my self sufficiently warranted in opposing the Christian to the Quaker.