[Page] Some of the Many FALLACIES OF WILLIAM PENN DETECTED: In a Paper, called, GOSPEL TRUTHS. Signed by him, and Three more, at Dublin the 4th of the 3d Month, 1698. And in his late Book, called, A Defence of Gospel Truths, Against the Exceptions of the B. of Cork's Testimony concerning that Paper. With some Remarks on W. P. his unfair and unjust Treatment of him.

To which is added, A Synopsis, or short View of W. Penn's Deism, Collected out of his Book called, A Discourse of the General Rule of Faith, &c. By GEORGE KEITH.

LONDON, Printed for Benj. Tooke at the Middle-Temple-Gate in Fleet-street, 1699.


Christian Reader,

THE following Treatise is not in­tended to be any direct or compleat Answer to the Book, called, A Defence of a Paper, entituled, Gospel-Truths, against the Exceptions of the Bishop of Cork's Testimony. By William Penn. Printed 1698, that Work belonging not to me, but to the Bishop of Cork, who, as I am cer­tainly informed, doth intend to give him a meet Answer to his Book: In the mean while I hoped it would be acceptable both to the Bishop, and to many good Christi­ans, thus far to interpose in the Defence of the Common Cause of the Christian Faith; especially in the detecting of some of the greatest Fallacies W. P. hath used in his Book, under a seeming Disguise and Vizard of Christianity, really to under­mine and destroy it; I being of late Years better acquainted with W. P's Fallacious way of Writing than probably the Bishop of Cork is. If this small Treatise comes to [Page] the Bishop's Hand, before he publish his Answer to W. P. he will find that he hath been more charitable to him, than indeed he deserved; and that he had in his large Charity, judged him more Orthodox than he really is, although W. P. has made but an ill use of his Charity, and has badly requited him, with many uncivil as well as unjust Reflections, some of which I thought it was but Justice that I should vindicate the Bi­shop from; and the rather because I suppose, the Bishop's Innocency and Station may lead him in great part to neglect them, as not being so proper for him to notice, as for another that stands by, and beholds their mutual Treatment of each other, which according to my best understanding and observation, as fair as it hath been on the Bishop's part, hath been as unfair on the part of W. P. who as he treats him not with the least due respect to his Station, so nor indeed as a Christian.

Some of the many Fallacies of William Penn, detected, in a Paper called Gospel Truths, &c.

Section 1.

W. P's Fallacy, in calling the Illumination of the Holy Ghost, which to him is nothing but the com­mon Illumination given to all Mankind, toge­ther with the Scriptures a double and agreeing Record of true Religion. His false Notion of Heaven and Hell, denying the Locality of them. His abusive Reflection on the Bishop of Cork, his keeping the true Hell to himself. His Fallacy in pretending to the Bishop, that he owned the Holy Trinity; where as in his Sandy Founda­tion he hath expresly denied it, and argued against it. His denying that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem, to be properly the Son of God. His denying that the Body of Christ, was any part of Christ; and his agree­ment with G. W. and other Quakers, in deny­ing the Humanity of Christ, to be any part of the true Christ.

Page 1. HE saith, The Testimony of the Scriptures of Truth, and the Illu­mination of the Holy Ghost, are the double and agreeing Record of true Religion.

[Page 2] In this he is very Fallacious in the very entrance, this Illumination of the Holy Ghost, he will have to be that which is given to be a general Rule to all Mankind, (see his Discourse concerning the General Rule of Faith and Life, Printed by T. Sowle 1699.) But how is that, together with the Scriptures, a double and agreeing Record? whereas that general Rule that he contendeth is given to all Mankind [to wit, that general Illumina­tion, as given to Infidel Jews, Mahometans, and the Heathen World] is no Record to any one Article of the Apostles Creed, or any one peculiar Doctrine of Christianity, but only to some few Precepts of Morality, and general Piety towards God. Yea, W. P. hath confessed (see his Page 32 of that Discourse) That neither he nor his Brethren have any new superadded Revelation concerning A­dam's Fall, and Christ's Birth, Death and Sufferings, &c. and saith, It is not necessary. Therefore the Illumination that he sets up for the General Rule to Quakers and Hea­thens, is not any Record agreeing with the Scriptures in any one particular Article of the Christian Faith, or positive Precept of the Gospel, peculiar to the Christian Reli­gion, as distinct from Deism and Heathenism.

Page 2. In his first Section the makes the eternal Reward of Happiness to be given to all them that fear God; without the least men­tioning [Page 3] of any Faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ, considered as both God and Man, to­wards the obtaining the eternal Happiness; nor is there the least hint of any such Faith being necessary in all his Sections. And where­as he saith, They that fear him not, shall be turned into Hell, as the Bishop of Cork did well observe: What W. P. means by Hell, by that Paper no one knows; but elsewhere what he means either by Heaven or Hell, he hath sufficiently told us in his Rejoinder to J. Faldo, p. 179. viz. To assert the Locality of Heaven and Hell is too Carnal, indeed Ma­hometan. Seeing them W. P. doth not own any place without us, to be either Heaven or Hell, it is easie to understand what Hea­ven or Hell W. P. is for, to wit, the Light within that's his only Heaven, and Darkness within his only Hell, which is the old Ran­ters Notion, that is destructive to the great Fundamentals of Christianity, such as, that Christ is bodily ascended into a real Local Heaven without us, which Heavens all the Saints shall after the Resurrection, in their glorified Bodies he taken up into; and the Bodies of the Wicked together with their Souls, shall be cast into Hell, that is, a place of Torment, as really as the other is a place of Joy and Felicity. It is prodigiously Shame­ful and Astonishing in W. P. that though he knew in his Conscience he did not mean Hell [Page 4] in the common sense of Christians, which without doubt is the Bishop's sense, to wit, a real place of Torment without us, yet that he should so treat, the Bishop, and so rudely and unchristianly reflect upon him by a consequence as false as it is foul and dirty, saying in his Page 40, either one of these is an Article of his belief, or else he keeps the true Hell to himself.

Page 2. In his second Section, though he pro­fesseth to express his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture Words, that there are Three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are really one; yet in his former Books, particularly in his Sandy Foundation, never yet retracted by him, he hath sufficiently discovered his gross and vile error, in that fundamental Doctrine of the Christian Faith, thus arguing not on­ly against their being Three Persons, but their being Three, (otherwise than Nomi­nally, which was the Sabellian Heresie) since the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spi­rit is God, (which their opinion necessitates them to confess) then unless the Father, Son and Spirit are three distinct nothings, they must be three distinct Substances, and consequently three distinct God's. And he bringeth Five Arguments a­gainst their being a Holy Three, P. 12, 13, 14.

In his Third Section, he seemeth to pro­fess his and his Brethrens Faith in Scripture [Page 5] terms. But this his professed Faith is quite in­consistent with what he hath delivered in his other Books, here he saith, That the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among Men, and was and is the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth his beloved Son, &c. who tast­ed Death for every Man, and dyed for Sin, that we might dye to Sin. But as it hath been above shewed, out of his Sandy Foundation, he hath ar­gued against any such distinction as of the Father and the Son in the God-head, as in­ferring a plurality of God's, and though here he professeth to believe that this only begotten Son, dyed for Sin, yet in his Se­rious Apology Page 146 he saith, That the outward Person that suffered was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny. And in his guide mi­staken P. 25. Christ Co-essential and Co-eternal with his Father &c. of being made Man, of his Dying, Rising and Ascending into Heaven, &c. [he saith of all this, that it is] confused Bab­ble, and by Rote Canting, by paths of vain Tra­dition, and Invention, results of Factious and corrupted Counsels. And in his Rejoinder to John Faldo Page 299. he plainly denyes, that the Body of Christ was any constitutive part of Christ, and for seven leaves together con­tends against John Faldo, That Christ did not Dye, nor hang on the Cross, but only the Body, which he will not have to be any part of him. To this Doctrine of W. P. doth that of [Page 6] G. Whitehead agree (a Man as great, or rather much greater, among the Quakers as W. P.) who saith in his Dipper Plunged P. 13. Jesus Christ God-man is not Scripture Language. And in his Christian Quaker P. 140. 141. though he grants that Christ had a humane Body of Flesh and Bones, yet he denys, that he con­sisted of it, and saith, he distinguisheth be­twixt Christ's having a Body, and consisting of it. And in a Book given forth by the Quakers, from their second days Meeting, (whereof G. W. is supposed the Author) called, A Testimony for the true Christ; and his Light in confutation of R. Cobbet printed 1668. They deny the Humanity of Christ, as Humanity signi­fieth the Earthly Nature of Man's Body, as com­ing from Humus the Ground; but as Humani­ty signifies Meekness, Gentleness, Mercifulness; as opposite to Cruelty, in this last sence, they own Christ's Humanity, but deny it in the former, which yet is the true sense of Scripture, and of all true Christians.

Section 2.

His Fallacy in pretending to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation, in Contradiction to what he hath delivered in his Serious Apology, and Sandy Foundation, and his fallacious way of stating the Doctrine of Justification, where­in he misrepresents his Opponents.

IN his fourth Section, as seemingly Ortho­dox as he professeth himself to be, as fallacious and insincere he is, seeing he know­eth in his own Conscience, that what he hath here delivered, is utterly inconsistent with what is extant in his other Books, never as yet retracted by him; nor doth either he, or his Brethren, own any change of perswasion from what they had, ever since they came under the profession of Quakers; but as one of them hath lately said in Print, As God is the same, and Truth is the same, so his People are the same, viz. the Quakers. I shall first set down his present profession of what he be­lieves concerning Justification, as followeth, ‘That as we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation, and not by works of Righteousness that we have done, so there is an absolute necessity that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repen­tance, and amendment of Life, the Holy [Page 8] Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ, in order to obtain that Remissionand Justification from Sin, &c. But in contradiction to this, see what his Doctrine is in his Serious Apology, P. 148. And indeed, says W. P. this we deny, viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us, (wholly without us) and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be, the Doctrine of Devils and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which does now deluge the whole World. Note Reader, If according to W. P's former words, we Only are Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation, and not by works of Righte­ousness that we have done; then it is plainly evident, by the same Doctrine, that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us, whol­ly without us, for these two manners of Speech, are perfectly equivalent, viz. That we are only Justified from the guilt of Sin by Christ the propitiation, and that we are Justified by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person wholly without us. The word Only plainly importing the Righteousness of Christ Wholly without us, unless there be some great fallacy in W. P's words, as the sequel will make appear a little after. But if we take these two quotations in their genuine Sense, the one, that we are Justified by the Righteousness of Christ Only, i. e. Wholly without us, from the [Page 9] guilt of Sin; and the other that this we de­ny, i. e. that we are Justified by the Righte­ousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us, wholly without us; and bold­ly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils, &c. it is a perfect in­consistency and contradiction. And yet now W. P. doth teach the same Doctrine, which formerly he called the Doctrine of Devils, without any change of his perswasion; as he plainly tells in the conclusion of his Paper, This (saith he) hath all along been the gene­ral stream and tendency both of our Ministry. and Writings, as our books will make appear. But what a Forehead of Bras must W. P. have, with so great confidence to assert so known an untruth! Again, the same W. P. in his forecited Serious Apology thus argu­eth (P 148.) against Christ's imputative Righte­ousness. Death came by actual Sin, not imputa­tive, therefore Justification unto Life, came by actual Righteousness not imput ative. Note Rea­der, If we are not Justified by Christ's impu­ted (which he calls imputative) Righteous­ness, as here he asserts, how can this con­sist with his now saying, that we are Justi­fied from the guilt of Sin, by Christ the Propitiation.

Again in his Sandy Foundation, from P. 24, to P. 32. he pretends to bring arguments from both Scripture and Reason, to refute [Page 10] the Justification of impure Persons by an imputative Righteousness: I shall quote a few passages out of many, to shew the inconsisten­cy of his late and former Doctrine about Justification from the guilt of Sin. P. 25. from. Ezek. 18. 20, 26, 27, 28. He draws this Argument, That the Condemnation or Justi­fication of Persons, is not from the imputation of anothers Righteousness, but the actual performance, and keeping of God's Righteous Statutes or Com­mandments, otherwise God should forget to be equal.

Again in P. 26. he saith, Christ is so far from telling them of their being Justified, abiding in his Love, by virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them, that unless they obey his Command­ments, and obey for themselves, they shall be so remote from an acceptance, as wholly to be cast out, in all which Christ is but our example. Where note Reader, the words BUT our example.

Again in the same Page, Nor let any fancy (saith he) that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their Obedience, from being requisite to their acceptance, BUT only as their pattern. Where note again Reader, these words but only as their pattern. This is plain Socinianism.

Again in P. 27. he thus argueth, If re­joycing and acceptance with God, or the contrary, are to be reaped from the Works, that a Man sow­eth [Page 11] either to the Flesh, or to the Spirit, then is the Doctrine of acceptance and ground of rejoyc­ing from the works of another utterly excluded, every Man reaping according to what he hath sown, and bearing his own Burden.

Thus Reader, thou seest how earnestly he hath contended against all Justification from the Righteousness of Christ, wrought in his own Person without us, though in this late Paper of Gospel Truths he seems fully to assert it. I shall not need to insist at large, to shew his fallacious way of stating the questi­on, about Justification by Christ's Righte­ousness without us, and of his reasoning a­gainst it. As if these against whom he ar­gueth did plead for a Justification, or Righte­ousness of Christ actually imputed to Men, wholly unsanctified, and remaining altoge­ther in a state of disobedience, wherein he­most unfairly represents them. But whereas he pleads at such a high rate, that none are Justified, while having the least Sin or im­purity, so as that none are Justified, but who perfectly, in all points, without the least sinful defect or imperfection, obey the Law of God, and come up in their Obedience to the outmost demand of the Law, as the whole strain of his Arguments run: by this rate of arguing, either W. P. and all his Brethren, are under a state of Condemna­tion, and the Curse of the Law, If they have [Page 12] the least impurity, or sinful defect, and have not attained a sinless perfection, which yet can be proved sufficiently they have not at­tained; and some of them, have so much in­genuity in them, as to confess they have not yet arrived unto. And W. P. would do but equally in the case, to tell us, whether he is such a Sinless Person, that answers every demand of Justice, and who in his obedience, comes up to the highest perfection of Holi­ness, that the most Holy Law of God doth now at this present require of him. If he thinks he is, he is miserably mistaken, while his sinful Imperfections in his asserting such gross Untruths for Truths, and some of them against the Conviction of his Consci­ence, are so manifest, that he who runs may read them; besides a great vein of Pride, Levity and Vanity of Mind, and Scornful Disdain, that appears running through his pretended Answer to the Bishop of Cork his modest Observations; and his most uncivil Language and Epithets he hath used in his former Books, never to this day repented of, so far as we can understand, given by him to his Opponents in his several Books of Controversie, whereof the Author of The Snake in the Grass, hath given a large Cata­logue.

Section 3.

His Fallacy, in seeming to own Justification by Christ the Propitiation; whereas by Christ the Propitiation, he doth not mean the Man Christ without, but the Light within. His bold at­tempt in his Sandy Foundation, to throw down three great Fundamentals of Christianity, viz. The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, The Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and the Doctrine of Justification by Christ's im­puted Righteousness. His excluding Faith in Christ Crucified, from being necessary to Ju­stification, and placing it wholly on Repentance and Obedience; his agreement with G. W. therein.

BUT under this seemingly fair acknow­ledgment of W. P. that we are only ju­stified from the Guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation, let us search, whither there be not even in this acknowledgment, The Snake in the Grass: If W. P. remain in his for­mer Perswasion, as he affirmeth he doth, by his former Books I shall clearly prove, that by Christ the Propitiation, he doth not mean the Man Christ Jesus, as he outwardly suf­fered Death, and the shedding of his Blood outwardly for the Remission of our Sins, be­ing the great and only Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Men; and thereby by his [Page 14] most perfect Satisfaction, paying to Divine Justice the Debt of our Sins. In his Christian Quaker, p. 97. he contendeth, That the Sa­crifices and Lamb in the Passover (under the Law) were not proper Figures of Christ without, but of Christ the promised Seed within: One outward thing (saith he) cannot be the proper Figure of another; nor is it the way of Holy Scripture so to teach, the outward Lamb shews forth the inward. And in Page 145, he saith, As the outward Jew had an outward Priest, at whose mouth he ought to seek the Law, so the Jew inward and Circumcision in Spirit has an in­ward and Spiritual High Priest, the King, Ruler, Judge, Law-giver, High Priest, Law, Rule, Temple, are all Spiritual, i. e. Inward. And in his Rejoynder to J. Faldo, p. 284. he affirm­eth, That Christ offers himself in his Children, in the nature of a mediating Sacrifice to appease the Wrath of God. Again in his Sandy Founda­tion, from p. 16 to p. 24. he disputes against the Satisfaction of Christ, giving this Title to his Disputation, The vulgar Doctrine of Sa­tisfaction, being dependent on the second Person of the imagined Trinity refuted from Scripture, to p. 20, and from p. 20 refuted from right reason to p. 24, where p. 17. arguing from Jer. 31. 31, 33, 34. he saith, Here is God's meer Grace asserted against the pretended neces­sity of a Satisfaction to procure his Remission. And p. 18. he argueth thus, And forgive us [Page 15] our Debts, as we forgive our Debtors. Where nothing can be more obvious (saith he) than that which is forgiven is not paid. And if it is our Duty to forgive without a Satisfaction received, and that God is to forgive us, as we forgive them, then is a Satisfaction Totally excluded. And from Acts 10. 9. he concludes, so that Re­mission came by believing his Testimony, and obey­ing his Precepts, and not by a Pretended Satis­faction. Thus Reader do but observe, how Proteus like he changes his shapes, one while to argue against any Satisfaction of Christ to God, for the Debt of our Sins, by which the nature of Christ's propitiatory Sacrifice is wholly destroy'd. Another while after he has thrown down Christ's being our Pro­pitiatory Sacrifice without us, he sets up an Imaginary Sacrifice of Christ, the Lamb slain within, the high Priest within: Whereas were his Arguments of any force (as they are not) they would be as much against Christ's being a Propitiation (by his Satisfaction to Divine Justice for our Sins) within Men as without them.

In one thing his Cunning is observable, though mix'd with horrid Ignorance and Folly, and bold Presumption, that he makes the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that di­stinguisheth betwixt the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, and the Doctrine of Justifica­tion [Page 16] by Christ's imputed Righteousness, so closely joyned together, that they fall toge­ther if the first of them falls; and so he makes his bold attempt against the first, that by throwing down the first, he may throw down the second, and by that means the third; and having, as he thinks, effectually done the business, he entitles his Book, The Sandy Foundation shaken; which is in effect to say, The Foundation of the Christian Faith and Religion shaken, in order to introduce Deism and Heathenism into Christendom. But he shall one day know (if he know it not before he dye, which God grant that he may) that the Foundation, he calls The Sandy Foun­dation, is not Sandy, but stands on that Rock on which the Church of Christ is built, that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against; and if he repent not of this Blasphemy, which I pray God he may, this Rock will grind him to powder.

There is yet one main thing further, that is needful to be noticed, in this fourth Se­ction, before I leave it, and that is, That whereas he asserts, there is an absolute ne­cessity, that we receive and obey to unfeigned Repentance and amendment of Life, the Holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ, in order to obtain that Remission and Justification from Sin, for which he cites Rom. 3. 22 to 26. 8. 1, 2, 3, 4. 1 John 5 7. he mentions not one [Page 17] word of the absolute necessity of Faith in Jesus Christ, as he outwardly suffered Death for our Sins, and thereby became the Propi­tiation for Sin, though he expresly asserts the absolute necessity of Repentance, Obedi­ence, and amendment of Life; and though one of the Scriptures quoted by him in Chap­ter and Verse, viz Rom. 3. 22 to 26. expresly mentions Faith in his Blood for Remission of Sin; yet he knowing himself in his own Con­science, that he was not for any such neces­sity of Faith in Christ, or in his Blood, as above express'd, he did purposely omit it. And if he, or any for him, shall say, he im­plied it, though he did not express it: I say, as he did not express it, so he did not imply it, which I prove from the following Rea­sons. 1. Seeing he not only express'd Re­pentance, but asserted it to be absolutely ne­cessary to Remission of Sin; had he thought Faith in Christ, as he outwardly died, abso­lutely necessary to our obtaining Remission of Sins, no doubt he would have expressed that too, either there, or some where at least, in some of his Books; but upon all the search I have made, I have not found it any where in his books, and indeed very rarely in any of the books of his Brethren. 2. But on the contrary, I have found, that both he and G. W. especially, (and diverse others, as I have proved by Quotations out of their [Page 18] books in my third Narrative) have expresly opposed this Faith, to wit, in Christ as out­wardly Crucified, and in his blood as out­wardly shed, by way of Propitiation, and sa­tisfaction to Divine Justice for our Sins. W. P. in his Quakerism a new Nick-name for old Christianity, p. 6. saith, Faith in the Hi­story of Christ's outward Manifestation, is a deadly Poyson these latter Ages has been infected with. And in his Rejoynder to John Faldo, p. 333. he saith, Christ in the Gentiles is a greater Mystery, than Christ as he was made ma­nifest in the Flesh. It's strange (saith he in opposition to J. F. who asserted like a true Christian, That Christ, as he was made mani­fest in the Flesh, was a greater Mystery than Christ in the Gentiles) that should be counted most mysterious, which was the Introduction to the Mystery; and these Transactions counted most difficult, that were by the Divine Wisdom of God, ordained as so many facile Representations of what was to be accomplished in Man. And page 335. In short (saith he) it is to exclude the true My­stery of Godliness, which is Christ manifested in his Children. Thus we see he makes Christ's Death and Sufferings without us (which he calls Transactions) as so many facile Repre­sentations of what was to be accomplished in Man, i. e. of his being Crucified within, and his blood inwardly shed; and his offer­ing himself inwardly in his Children, in the [Page 19] nature of a mediating Sacrifice, to appease the Wrath of God. Thus also we see how he hath destroyed the great Object of the Christian Faith, which is Christ as he was outwardly Crucified, being the great Propi­tiation for our Sins. And G. Whitehead, his elder Brother in Ignorance and Error, hath given him a Copy to write after, in his Truth defending the Quakers, p. 65. he saith, Faith in Christ without Men, is contrary to the Apostles Doctrine. And p. 66. he saith, The Blood of Christ's Humanity, the Apostle doth not tell us of, Christ's Blood is Spiritual. And in his Light and Life, p. 56. he saith, The Blood of the Covenant is inward and Spiritual. P. 59, 60. Christ's Blood that was outwardly shed, not the Antitype or Substance signified by the Blood of Beasts shed under the Law. And p. 8. he saith, To look to Christ Crucified at Jerusalem, and in Heaven, and to be revealed in us by his Spirit, is a Contradiction. 3. According to that Fun­damental Principle laid down by W. P. in his Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Life, he must needs exclude Faith in Christ, as he was outwardly born, died, and rose again, not only from being absolutely ne­cessary to our Salvation, but from being given to us at all, (otherwise than barely historically,) for seeing according to him the Light in every Man, only as giving the ordinary Discoveries, that all Mankind have, [Page 20] is the Rule of Faith to every Man, no Man either doth or can believe (otherwise than barely historically) what the Light within hath not revealed; but the Light within, as it hath not revealed the Birth, Death and Sufferings of Christ to every Man, so by W. P's Confession, it hath not revealed these things to him, or his Brethren, for he grants, they belong to extraordinary Revelation, and fall not within the ordinary Discoveries given to Mankind, and are none of the absolute Necessaries of Religion, and that such Revelation is not necessary; and yet without such internal extraordinary Reve­lation of these things, they cannot have the certain Faith of them, as he confesseth.

Section 4.

His Fallacy, in pretending to own the Doctrine of Justification by Christ the Propitiation, the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Dead, to be Funda­mentals of Christianity, whereas he doth not in truth own any one of them. His ill use of the Bishop's Charity, by his own Argument retorted on himself, it is proved, he hath de­nied all the Fundamental Articles of Christi­anity. The chief reason why W. P. and his Brethren believe not the Fundamentals of Chri­stianity is, That they deny the Holy Scripure to be the Rule of their Faith, and set up the Light within to be the Rule, which yet they con­fess, doth not reveal to them any of those Fun­damentals.

BY all which it plainly appeareth, how disingenuous and fallacious W. P. hath been, not only in the Paper called Gospel Truths, published by him and his three Bre­thren, but in his Answer to the Bishop of Cork on that Head; [yea, and on all the other Heads, it were easie to shew his Shuffling and Equivocation, as well as his unfair and un­civil Treatment of him.] To detect which a little further, let us consider W. P's words in answer to the Bishop of Cork, p. 25 and 26. I am of opinion, (saith W. P.) If he (viz. [Page 22] the Bishop) had well considered the Force and Comprehensiveness of our Belief concerning Christ, That pleaseth him so well, he might have saved himself the trouble of what he has published to the World upon the rest of them; for whoever believes in Christ, as a Propitiation in order to Remission of Sins, and Justification of Sinners, can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion. Since every such Per­son must necessarily believe in God, because it is with him alone Man is to be justified. To be sure he must believe in Christ, for that is the very Proposition; he must also believe in the Holy Ghost, because he is the Author of his Convicti­on, Repentance and Belief, he must believe Hea­ven and Hell, Rewards and Punishments, and consequently the Resurrection of the Just and Un­just. For why should he be concerned about the being freed from the Guilt of his Sin, if he were unaccountable in another World. So that acknowledging the necessity of Christ, as a Pro­pitiation, in order to the Remission of Sin, com­prehends the main Doctrine of the Christian Re­ligion. And as so many Lines drawn from the Circumference to the Center, they all meet and center in Christ: And indeed it is as the Navel of Christianity, and Characteristick of that Religion.

Were this confession of W. P. as sincere as it is seemingly fair, it would prove that his Doctrine were indeed Christian, and no [Page 23] doubt might, and ought to give to the Bish­op or any other that were doubtful in the case, good Satisfaction, of the Christianity of his Doctrine. But that all this is meer paint and equivocation, what I have above quoted out of his Books, fairly and fully, doth suffi­ciently prove, That the profession W. P. made of his belief, in his Gospel Truths, pleased the Bishop so well, [whereof W. P. takes such particular and great notice, and thereby takes occasion to blame his disingenu­ity, as well as his troubling himself, with publishing what he hath done to the World. Yea, W. P. makes it next to impossible, that it was the first time the Bishop hath heard of that Doctrine among them, viz. the ac­knowledging the necessity of Christ, as a propitiation, in order to the remission of Sins, and Justifying them as Sinners from Guilt.] I say, that this his profession pleased the Bishop so well, did proceed from the Bishops great Charity, and Moderation, Charitably believing that W. P's Heart and Pen did go along together; but as W. P. hath made an ill use of the Bishop's Charity and Judgment, thus impertinently to reflect on him, so it is fit, the Bishop should be better acquainted with W. P's equivocations, and double dealings with him, which he may easily find out by an indifferent search into his former Books. W. P. in his above menti­oned [Page 24] confession, professeth his belief in Christ as a propitiation; and this he would seem to make the Navel of Christianity and Cha­racteristick of that Religion. But what doth W. P. mean by Christ the Propitiation, and Faith in him as such? doth he mean the same that the Bishop meaneth, and all sincere Christians? Nay, nothing less, Christ with­in as he is the Light and Life, as he offers up himself within his Children, in the Nature of a Mediating Sacrifice, the Lamb within but not the Lamb without, the High-Priest within, is the Propitiation, and his blood as shed within which is the Life, and the Life is the Light within, (as he hath both printed and preached,) is that Propitiation,

And certainly, did he mean that Faith in the Man Christ without us, as he outwardly was crucified, was necessary to Christianity, and the Characteristick of that Religion, and that the acknowledgment of Christ as such, was necessary to constitute a Christian, he would not plead, that a meer Just Man, who has no Faith in Christ, as the Word Incarnate, is a Christian; and that he who believes in God be­lieves in Christ, because Christ is God, as he has argued in his address to Protestants. And did he really think, that to believe and acknow­ledge Christ, to wit, as outwardly cruci­fied, and raised again, to be the Propitiati­on, was the Navel of Christianity, and the [Page 25] Characteristick of that Religion, he would not have excluded that Faith from the abso­lute necessaries of Religion, as he hath plain­ly done in his discourse concerning the gene­ral Rule of Faith and Life. Nor would he have set up the Light within every Man, with respect to its ordinary discoveries of Moral Piety and Justice without any Revelation of Christ, as he came outwardly in the Flesh, to be the general Rule of Faith to all Chri­stians, as well as to all Heathens; which is making Deism and Christianity but one and the same thing; tho' now he seems to distin­guish them, by calling Christianity that Re­ligion whereof the Faith and acknowledg­ment of Christ the Propitiation is the Navel and Characteristick. But seeing W. P. doth so Grosly prevaricate and equivocate, about Christ the Propitiation and Faith in him as such; and that it hath been proved, he hath not the true Faith of Christ the Propitiation, nor so much as a true notion of it; 'tis fit to apply W. P's words against himself, and to Argue from his words by the Rule of contraries. As whoever believes in Christ as a Propitiation, in order to remission of Sins, can hardly disbelieve any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion; so by good consequence contrariwise, whoever be­lieves not in Christ, as a Propitiation, (in the true sense of Scripture generally received [Page 26] by all true Christians,) to wit, as outwardly Crucified, Dead and Raised again, &c. can hardly believe any Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion; but W. P. believes not in Christ as a Propitiation, in order to remission of Sin, &c. in the true sense of Scripture, generally received by all true Christians; therefore W. P. hardly believ­eth any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion, to wit, as peculiar to the same. The first proposition is proved, by the Rule of contraries from W. P's assertion, as I think he will readily confess, the second proposition, which is the Assumption, is fully proved from what is above at large quoted by me out of his former Books, never to this day retract­ed by him. And though he reckoneth up, the Doctrine of the Trinity, viz. of the Father, of Christ the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the Doctrine of Heaven and Hell, the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust, to be Fundamental Doctrines, yea, and the main of Christian Doctrine; yet from what is above proved out of his Books, he hath plainly opposed the true Christian Doctrine both of the Holy Trinity, and of Heaven and Hell; and as plainly he hath op­posed the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust, in their respective Bodies, as I have fully proved in my third Narrative; and so have his Brethren, G. Whitehead, [Page 27] Richard Hubberthorne and others, only at present I shall quote these following passages out of some of his former Books, in his Rea­son against Railing, in answer to Tho. Hicks, P. 138. he thus plainly argueth against the deceased Saints looking for any future Resur­rection of the Body, which Tho. Hicks argued for. Is the Joy of the Ancients (saith W. P.) now in Glory imperfect, or are they in Heaven but by halves? But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body? Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Window, to be without its beloved Body, a better sort of Purgatory Again P. 134. If a thing can be the same, and notwith­standing changed, for shame, let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, for the absurdity of it is rather out-done than equalled by this carnal Resurrection. Again in his answer to J. Faldo, called the Inva­lidity of J. Faldo's Vindication, P. 369. It's sown a Natural Body, It's raised a Spiritual Body, and I do utterly deny (saith he) that this Text is concerned in the Resurrection of Man's carnal Body at all, but the States of Men under the First and Second Adam: Men are sown into the World Natural, but they are raised Spiritual, through him who is the Resurrection and the Life, and so they are Sons of the Second Adam.

Nor need any to wonder why W. P. and his Brethren should disbelieve all these fun­damental Doctrines of Christianity, (which [Page 28] now he professeth to own, and that as Fun­damental, but still quite in a most differing Sense from all true Christians) for with what certainty can he or they believe them, they acknowledge not the Holy Scriptures to be the Rule of their Faith in any of these things, or indeed of any others, they have no cer­tainty of the Truth of any of these he now calls Fundamentals, from the Rule of Faith set up by them, which is the Light within them, with respect to its ordinary Disco­veries given to Mankind; but none of these Fundamental Doctrines above mentioned, fall within these ordinary Discoveries, as W. P. hath confessed for they belong to ex­traordinary Revelation: And if he should affirm, they did belong to the ordinary Dis­coveries given to Mankind, he cannot prove it: What obscure Knowledge any of them, called Heathen Philosophers, had of any of these great Mysteries: W. P. cannot prove they had it from the Light within, but Tra­ditionally either from the Jews, and ancient Patriarchs and Prophets, or from some among themselves prophetically inspired, as it is re­ported of the Sybils, the which report, were it true, doth not prove, that the Knowledge and Faith of these great Fundamentals did fall within the ordinary discoveries of the Light within given to Mankind in general.

Section 5.

His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop, as if he did render the Text 1 John 5. 7. defective, where­as the Bishop only charg'd the Defect on W. P's Confession, which though given in Scripture words, yet not in the true Sense of Scripture. His Fallacious Argument against the Holy Trinity answered. His Fallacy and Equivo­cation, about his calling him who was born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ, and the Son of God; whereas he hath denied him to be pro­perly so: And his abusive Treatment of the Bishop on that Head.

IN his Page 30, he proceeds in his unchri­stian and uncivil Treatment of the Bi­shop, unjustly charging him, as if the Text 1 John 5. 7. were defective with the Bishop, and as if he did render the Text it self short; which (saith W. P.) with submission, I think is a bold Attempt in one of his Station, If he believes the 39 Articles. But all this is nothing but a Scandalous Reflection on the Bishop, and a Shuffling and Cover, wherewithall to hide his own Error and Incredulity.

The Bishop might well enough, without charging any defect on the Text (as he doth not in the least) charge a defect on this Con­fession of W. P. and his Brethren, because though given in one Scripture Text, yet he [Page 30] had just cause to question not to be given in the true sense of that Scripture; for most that are unsound, as touching the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, even Socinians as well as others will profess, yea, and have pro­fessed to give their Faith in the Text, yea, and all other Texts of the like nature, who yet are professed Unbelievers of the true Doctrine of the Holy Trinity: And though W. P. and his Brethren will frankly confess, they believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, are one God, one in Substance and Essence; and thus think to clear them­selves of Sociniansm, yet he and they at the same time are grosly guilty of Sabellianism, acknowledging no distinction betwixt Fa­ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, other than No­minal, or at most in Manifestation and Ope­ration, ad extra, and with relation to the Creatures. So that W. P's Notion and Faith of the Holy. Trinity, which he calls the Scripture Trinity, but it is not the Scrip­ture Trinity, but the Sabellian Trinity, is no other than this, that as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are one God, one Essence, and Being; so the Father is the Son, and the Son is the Father; and the Holy Ghost is the Son, and the Son is the Holy Ghost; for as I have quoted him above in his Sandy Foundation, he disputeth not only against their being Three Persons, but [Page 31] against their being Three, or Three He's; ar­guing, That if the Father be God, the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, then unless they are Three distinct Nothings, they are Three di­stinct Substances, and consequently Three distinct God's: Which is as weakly and Sophistically argued by W. P. as if he had argued, If the three Dimensions of a Body be three distinct Dimensions, then unless they are three di­stinct Nothings, they are three distinct Sub­stances, and consequently three distinct Bo­dies; which I only bring to shew the silly Sophistry of his Argument; but not that I think this glorious Mystery of the Trinity can be duly represented by this Similitude, or any other natural Similitude whatsoever; though it is a certain truth, that the distin­ction of the three divine relative Properties in the divine Essence, prove them no more to be Three Gods, than the distinction of the three Dimensions in a Body, prove that they are three Bodies. And had W. P. given the Profession of his Faith in all the other Texts of Scripture, that are commonly understood by true Christians, to prove the true di­stinction of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in their relative and personal Properties: Yet seeing, as hath been fully proved, W. P. hath quite another sense of all those Texts, than the true Scripture sense received by all true Christians, the Bishop might well enough [Page 32] charge W. P's Faith with being defective, for his imposing a wrong sense on the sound Scripture words, as he hath done, and which it is like the Bishop had just occasion of su­spicion he had done in some of his books. Doth W. P. think, that if a suspected Papist, to clear himself of being free of that Popish Error of Transubstantiation, should profess his Faith in that one Text of Scripture, Take, eat, this is my Body; would this justly clear him of that Suspicion, seeing he may be guilty of that Error, for all his Scripture Confession; it being the common Policy of the greatest Hereticks, to profess their Faith in Scripture words, while by their other words they have made it appear, that they have a Heretical Sense, as in the present case is fully evident.

In Page 31. To excuse his Equivocation, about his owning Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, he tells the Bishop, we call him the beloved Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. And in Page 32 and 33, he tells, they have called him Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and Conceived by the Holy Ghost, again and again, yea, that they have not confessed his Name less than nine times in that Paper. And from this takes occasion to blame the Bishop with uncharita­bleness, and being beside the business. And if we have said so (saith W. P.) must not the [Page 33] Bishop be extreamly beside the business? His un­charitàbleness is as obvious, I will not say his Untruth. What shall I say to his Story of some of our Friends, whom he makes to affirm, that Christ is not ascended into Heaven, he is in us. Can it touch us, or should he have said it, and not have proved it? Is that fair and candid; Is it charitable, supposing it were true, which does not appear? Or is it just to insinuate upon the Peo­ple as dubious? But let it be never so true (saith he) it cannot conclude the People, if not the Act of the People. The Church of England has Do­ctors of very different Sentiments, would the Bi­shop think it fair, the common Belief of the Church should thereby be concluded. And in Page 35, he saith, So that though we did not dwell upon Points, but were concise in our Expressions, yet whatever is implied, or is implicable from any Assertion, Justice as well as Charity always grants; and so would the Bishop have done, had they been uppermost in his Mind when his Pen run so fast against us.

It is prodigious Fallacy and Presumption in W. P. thus to treat the Bishop, or any Christian Man, when he did know in his Conscience, how far both he and his Bre­thren, for all his seeming fair Confessions, were and still are guilty, in both these things, in which the Bishop very modestly doth but blame them, for not expressing those Matters more fully and clearly, to take away Suspi­cion [Page 34] out of the Minds of some who might be jealous of their Sincerity, as they have but too great ground so to be. For as to the first, viz. Whither he that was born of the Virgin Mary, and dyed, &c. was the Christ and the Son of God truly and pro­perly? To this W. P. hath expresly opposed, in his Serious Apology, p. 146. That the out­ward Person that suffered, was properly the Son of God, we utterly deny. It's true, W. P. hath called him that was so born, Christ, and the Son of God; yet that will not prove that he believed him so to be truly and pro­perly: The Socinians call Christ the Son of God, and yet deny his eternal Generation. And so W. P. and G. W. and others of them, call the Man that was born of Mary, Christ and the Son of God, by some Figure, be­cause the Son of God, the true Christ, was in that Man; as the thing containing gets the Name of the thing contained, by a Me­tonimy: But still they deny that that Man was properly the Son of God, or that he was God: And accordingly G. W. hath found fault again and again, with that Ex­pression of Christ his being God-man, calling it unscripture Language, and alledging it is no where to be found but in the Pope's Ca­nons: Hence it is that they deny that Christ hath our Nature in Heaven, or that he con­sisteth of a Humane Nature or Body; though [Page 35] they grant he had a Body, but deny that he consists of it as any part of him; as a Man may have a Coat or Garment, but doth not consist of it: The Foundation of which Error is, that they do not believe the Hypostatical or Personal Union of the two Natures, so as to constitute one Christ, they will have Christ to be nothing properly but the God­head, and that is the Father, and the Holy Ghost, as well as the Son; as I have plainly proved in my third Narrative especially. And as concerning their denying Christ's Ascension into Heaven; first, seeing W. P. denieth the Locality of Heaven, as well as of Hell, he must needs grant that Christ's Body is either no where ascended, or is every where, which last he seems to be for, p. 35. quoting Eph. 4. 10. that he ascended far above all Heavens, that he might fill all things. Then (saith he) he is in Man cer­tainly. But as he was the Divine Word, he did fill all things, and was in Man before he ascended; but this Text doth not prove that his Body filleth all things, for the Que­stion is not, Whither the Godhead is present in all things (which yet is well known some of the Quakers have denied, and some of them in Pensilvania charged me in a publick Meeting with Blasphemy for asserting it) but whither the Body of Christ, now since his Ascension, is in all things, and every [Page 36] where; If not every where, then but some where; and that some-where is a Local Hea­ven, which W. P. hath said is Mahometan; E. Burrough charg'd John Bunnion with Wickedness, for saying, Christ was in Heaven in our Nature: And for the same did G. White­head blame John Horn, as I have shewn in my Narratives. And saith G. W. in his Nature of Christianity, p. 41. That Christ existeth out­wardly bodily without us at God's right hand. What Scripture hath he (viz. his Opponent R. G.) for these words? W. Bailey will have it, That Christ ascended into Heaven in no body but what came down from Heaven. All which, and much more is proved out of my three Narratives, the third especially. And whereas he saith, Let it be never so true, it cannot affect the People, if not the act of the Peo­ple, the Church of England has Doctors of very differing Sentiments, &c. I answer, what any one of your Teachers have asserted, in Print especially, it affects your Second days Meet­ing, that licenseth all your Teachers Books, and yet profess to be all one and the same in all that ye believe, as God and Truth is the same: And if the Church of England hath Teachers of different Sentiments in lesser Matters, yet not in Fundamentals, so far as she knows; and if they had, and she should know it, and not censure them, it would affect her: From all which it appears, [Page 37] that W. P. and his Brethrens Conciseness in their Gospel Truths, was on purpose in general Terms, to cover their gross Errors: And where Men are sound in the Faith, and of known Sincerity, what is implied in their words, may in Charity and Justice be granted; but not if they be Insincere and given to equi­vocate, as is the present Case.

Section 6.

His Fallacy in asserting, that his owning future Re­wards and Punishments, in his Sense, doth imply his owning the Resurrection of the Dead, which it is proved he hath disowned. His unjust Offence: at the Bishop's Censure of his unsound Notion of the Light within, and his uncivil Treatment of the Bishop on that account, as if he were a meer Na­tural Man, a Persecuter, a Nicodemus in the Knowledge of Regeneration. The Bishop's Do­ctrine of the Light within, more sound and intel­ligible than that of W. P. By W. P's Definition of Light within, and Sight within, a Natural Man is capable to understand it, though in con­tradiction to himself. W. P's Ignorance in mak­ing the natural rational Faculty to be all the Spi­ritual Sight, even in Regenerated Persons. The Bishop's Doctrine of the Light within, and Spi­ritual Sight of regenerated Persons, as more sound, so more sublime than that of W. P.

IN Page 43 he proceeds in the like Fallacy and Equivocation, alledging, That their [Page 38] acknowledging the future state of the Just and Unjust, implys the resurrection of the Dead, which as it is true in a Scripture sense, it is as false in his sense, and in the sense of all others of his Heathen Brethren, many of whom professed to believe the immortality of Men's Souls, both Greek and Latin; yet that profession did not imply they believed the resurrection of the Body ei­ther of the Just or Unjust, for they generally disbelieved it, and opposed the Christians for asserting it. And that W. P. himself hath op­posed the Resurrection of the Body, is above sufficiently proved.

In his Page 51. and 52. W. P. seems not a little moved with the Bishops saying, their discourse about the Light within, as far as he can see, is perfectly such as we usually call Banter, that is, when Men have a faculty to speak things seem­ingly profound, but in the end neither themselves, nor others can make any distinct Sense of what they have said. This Modest Censure of the Bi­shop, upon his discourse of the Light within, in his 5th 6th and 7th Sections, W. P. calls one of the severest Persecutions, This to me (saith he) is one of the severest Persecutions, be­cause Spiritual things are only to be Spiritually, discern'd and understood. I would fain know (saith he) how a regenerate Man can possibly make a Carnal Man understand the new Birth, yea, he chargeth it to look Antichristian, as well as unreasonable, and he quotes diverse places [Page 39] of Scripture, which he at least implicitly le­vels at the Bishop, as if the Bishop were the Unregenerate and Natural Man; that because he is so, he cannot understand W. P's pro­found Doctrine of the Light within. And the Bishop is he that is born after the Flesh, who persecutes W. P. (that's born after the Spirit,) and his Brethren, with Tongue and Pen, when he and others, such as he can no longer commit violence upon their Persons and Estates; and as if the Bishop were a very Nicodemus in the Doctrine of the new Birth. All which (it plainly appears) and much more, W. P. in­directly and implicitly levels at the Bishop, otherwise why quotes he such places of Scrip­tures, with such large discourses on them, if not to point to him; and that his want of the new Birth, and being but a Natural Man, tho' not wanting Academical Learning, made him uncapable of understanding W. P's Spiri­tual Doctrine about the Light within; and after his instance of the blindness of the Scribes and Pharisees, and the High-Priest of the Jews, in not discerning the Messiah when he came, he infers, let the Bishop also have a care: and he further tells the Bishop, he should be glad to see the Bishop's evidence, for the knowledge of God, by the Revelation of the Son of God in his own Soul.

To give my sense freely, so far as I am able to understand, the Bishop hath given a better [Page 40] account and evidence of his knowledge in the Mystery of God, and of Christ, by his Chri­stian Scriptural and sound expressions, than W. P. and I suppose, in his manner of Life, is nothing inferior to him. And what evidence of his true knowledge by Internall Illuminati­on or Revelation can W. P. give, or has gi­ven, that the Bishop cannot give, yea hath not given in this very case; Is it enough for W. P. to say, he has it, and the Bishop has it not? Or wherein do W. P's fruits of a holy Life, give more evidence of his knowledge and experience of the new Birth, than these of the Bishop? I shall first take notice of the Bishop's sound words, in giving his sense, how the Conscience of Man is enlightned to know and believe aright, the Doctrines and Articles of Faith, necessary to Salvation. Conscience (saith the Bishop) opened by the ho­ly Spirit, under the Ministry of the word (Acts 16. 14.) does and must take in its Light from ho­ly Scripture, quoting Psal. 19. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal. 119. 105. Isaiah 8. 20. Now these things (saith he) are intelligible, this Rule is fixt and certain, nothing of which can be said of your Light within. This short discourse of the Bishop, gives a more true and intelligible account of the Light within, as it is in every true Chri­stian, which the Bishop has contained within three lines, than W. P's ramble in his Ten pages of his Book, and in the many hundred [Page 41] pages of his other Books, that he hath scrib­bled about it, to render it intelligible, even to natural and unconverted Men, for to such he did write as well as unto others; and yet now he affirms it is not intelligible to natural Men, (such as he thinks the Bishop is) for want of experience of the new Birth. And positively asserts P. 49. that our Natural Ra­tional Faculty is our sight but not our Light, that by which we discern, and Judge what the Divine Light shews us. And in P. 50. he saith, The Bishop's Natural Conscience, must only mean a Capacity that Man has by Na­ture, that is in his Creation, of making a Judg­ment of himself, his Duty and Actions, according to the Judgment of God manifested to him by the Light of Christ within. Now since W. P. must needs grant, that the Bishop (suppose but a natural Man, as W. P. most uncharitably will needs have him to be) has a Natural Con­science, and the Natural Rational faculty of the Soul, which is the Sight, or Eye by which he can discern and Judge what the Divine Light shews him; and also that W. P. strongly asserts, that all Men have the Divine Light in them; and consequently the Bishop must have it also, what hinders but that the Bishop should understand W. P's Doctrine about the Light within, were it really intelligible, seeing by W. P's confession the Bishop has not only the Light within him the same that [Page 42] W. P. hath, but the same Sight within him also; that is, as W. P. defines it, the same Natural Rational Faculty, and the same Natural Consci­ence, which is the Capacity, whereby to see or discern what the divine Light shews. Besides it were all to no purpose for W. P. and all the Teachers among the Quakers, to preach so frequently to Natural and Wicked Men, exhorting them to mind the Light with­in, obey it and give up to its Leadings, if they were not capable to understand it, as W. P. here saith they are not, though in contra­diction to his and his Brethrens daily Practise. But according to the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture, the Spiritual or inward Eye of the Mind of regenerate Persons, whereby they discern Spiritual and Divine Objects, is not the Natural Rational Faculty, or Natu­ral Conscience, which all Men (though vi­cious) generally have, but some more excel­lent Spiritual Faculty in the Soul, superior to the Natural Rational Faculty, as the Natural Rational Faculty is superior to the imagina­tive Faculty, the which superior Spiritual Fa­culty of the Soul, above the Natural Ratio­nal faculty is shut up, or as it were extinct, in meer Natural Men, until it be opened and awakened in them by the Spiritual Regenera­tion and new Birth, according to Eph. 1. 18. (above quoted by the Bishop) and Acts 26. 18. and Eph. 5. 8. And how much more agreeable [Page 43] is it to the Holy Scripture, to say, that true Divine Faith is the Sight of regenerated Per­sons, whereby they look to Christ the great object and Author of it, Heb. 12. 2. than that the Natural Rational Faculty is it, as W. P. saith it is. But by W. P's discourse both here and elsewhere, he seems to be as ignorant of the Spiritual Sight of the regenerated Soul, as of the Spiritual and Divine Light whereby it is enlightned; and the Bishop has given a far more true account of both in three lines, than W. P. has done either in this or all his other Books, in which succinct and com­comprehensive definition of the Bishop, these two things are worthily to be observed, the first is, that that which makes the Conscience of Man capable to know and believe aright, the Doctrines and Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation, is, that the Conscience be opened by the Holy Spirit, for which he citeth Acts 16. 14. How the Lord opened the Heart of Lydia, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And as by opening of the Heart, in Acts 16. 14. is understood a special Illumination of the Holy Ghost, by the Lord Jesus Christ, given to Lydia, whose Heart the Lord thus opened (which she had not before, notwith­standing of the common Illumination, which she had before) so no doubt the Bishop hath the same sence of it in agreement with the Doctrine of the 39 Articles of the Church [Page 44] of England, that asserteth the necessity of a special Illumination of the Holy Ghost (above and beyond the common Illumination given to Mankind in general) to give the saving Knowledge and Faith of Christian Doctrine to any who have it. But this special Illu­mination given to Believers only in. Christ Crucified, W. P. doth not acknowledge, he thinks the common Illumination given to Infidel Jews, Mahometans and Heathens, is suf­ficient without any thing else, or without any superadded Illumination in special; for to grant any such superadded special Illumi­nation being necessary to the Faithful, would quite overturn W. P's Fabrick of the General Rule of Faith and Life to all Mankind: And by this it appears, that the Bishop's Doctrine about the Internal Illumination, or Mani­festation of Christ by the Holy Ghost, as it is much more true than that of W. P's, so it is much more excellent and sublime, plain­ly distinguishing Christianity from Deism; whereas W. P's Doctrine about the inward Illumination doth confound them, and make them one and the same thing. The second thing that is worthy to be noticed in this succinct and comprehensive Definition given by the Bishop, is, that the Conscience is thus opened, i. e. illuminated and inspired by the Holy Spirit under the Ministry of the Word, and so does and must take in its Light from [Page 45] Holy Scripture, to wit, the Light of the Christian Doctrine, which the Conscience re­ceives from the Scriptures instrumentally, the Holy Scripture being the Instrument of the Spirit, and of his preparing, whereby he doth enlighten the Hearts of true Chri­stians, both to believe the Truth, and un­derstand the depth of the Christian Doctrine.

Section 7.

A further account of W. P's unsound Notion of the Light within, and of the Bishop's sound Notion of it in all the Faithful, the Spirits Light within, and the Scripture Light with­out, both necessary and well consistent (in God's ordinary way of working) to beget true saving Knowledge and Faith in Men. W. P. his various and equivocous Sence of the Light with­in. Christ considered as the word God, is in and to himself Life and Light essentially, but to Men, even the best of Men, he is Light effectively by his Operations, and is so called by a Metonimy. We have no immediate Know­ledge of the Essence of any Creature, nor of the Creator, but by his various Operations and Illuminations.

BUT this manner of receiving Light by means of the written word preached or read, which is the Rule of Faith, appointed [Page 46] and given us of God for that end and pur­pose, W. P. doth not acknowledge, but will needs have it, that we receive all our Light from the inward Principle, which sometimes he calls Christ, at other times the Light of Christ, otherwhile, as in page 49. a Manife­station in the Soul of Man of Christ, the word God, the Light of the World, &c. without all Instrumentality of either the Holy Scrip­tures, or Ministry of Men: For to grant any such Instrumentality, would quite marr his Notion of the Light within being not only the Guide and Ruler, but the Rule it self of Faith and Life to all Mankind; and he ear­nestly opposeth that Faith which is wrought by the outward Ministry of the Word, in Preaching or Reading, concerning Christ's Death and Sufferings, Resurrection and As­cension, &c. as being but the Historical Faith, that must pass See his Dis­course of The General Rule of Faith, ad finem away as the old Heavens. For if he did grant the necessity of Scripture-Doctrine-Light, re­ceived from without, as well as the necessity of the Spirits internal Light or Illumination (in God's ordinary way of working) going along with the Doctrine-light of the Scrip­ture, there would be no Controversie betwixt the Bishop and him, provided he did also grant, that there is necessary a special Illu­mination of Christ by the Holy Spirit, to [Page 47] be infused or inspired into the Souls of the Faithful, to enable them to take in, and un­derstand the Light of the Doctrine of Salva­tion delivered in the Holy Scriptures. Should W. P. own these two great things asserted here by the Bishop, the Controversie should be none at all betwixt them; but seeing he denies them both, and the Bishop affirmeth both, the Controversie remaineth great be­twixt them, and the Bishop hath far the ad­vantage of W. P. that he hath proved his Doctrine from Scripture; and thus he fairly distinguisheth Christianity from Deism, nei­ther of which W. P. hath done, nor ever can do: It hath been ordinary in the People called Quakers, even their chief Teachers, as to deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, so to deny them, [that is, the Doctrine delivered in them] to be Light in any Scrip­ture Sense; turning all these places of Scrip­ture, that mention Light, as with respect to Mens Knowledge and Faith, to Light with­in only, exclusive of all doctrinal Light of Scripture without, as being the Rule of Faith, or any necessary means of our Instruction, in God's ordinary way of working; though it has been God's ordinary way in all Ages, by outward means of Doctrine delivered by Men, as well as by the Spirits inward Illu­mination, to beget in Men the saving Know­ledge and Faith of the things necessary to [Page 48] Salvation, the extraordinary Revelation of these Truths, without all outward means of Instruction, being given only to some singu­lar Persons, as the Prophets and Apostles, but was never given in any Age to all Man­kind, nay, nor to all the Faithful in any Age, for even in the days of the Apostles, when Prophetical Inspiration, and extraordinary Revelation did most abound in the Church, it was not given to all the Faithful, but only to some, as the Apostle Paul said, Do all Pro­phesie? Intimating they did not, though a Manifestation of the Spirit was given to every one to profit withall, yet that was not the extraordinary Revelation given to the Apostles and Prophets, but the ordinary given to the Faithful, to enable them to be­lieve and understand what was outwardly taught them, by the Apostles and Prophets Words and Writings.

Having thus taken a view of the Bishop's Christian sound Scriptural Doctrine, both of Christ's Light within by the Illumination of the Holy Spirit, and of the Scripture Light without, as joyntly necessary (in God's ordinary way of working) to the Faithful, the which Scripture Light, as in respect of the Doctrine, Laws, Commands, Precepts and Promises of God delivered therein, the Bishop hath well proved from Psal. 19. 8. Psal. 119. 105. Isa. 8. 20. and which Scripture-light [Page 49] may in a true sense be called (though more remotely) the Spirits Light. In the next place, let us take a view of W. P.'s un­christian and unscriptural Doctrine of the Light within, which he saith in his page 48, is with him and his Brethren a Fundamental, which one while he calls Christ, the Word God; another while the Light of Christ, a Manifestation in the Soul of Man, of Christ, the Word God. This Light within, his great Fundamental, as given to all Mankind, even to them who have not the Scripture, nor any external Revelation of Christ, as he outwardly came in the Flesh; he will not have it to be the Law of God in the Heart of Man, nor the Impressions and Principles which are born, and come with us into the World, page 50. As the Work is not the Work-man, so they are not properly the Light of Christ, but the blessed Fruit and Effect of the Light of Christ, the word God in Man, which shines in the Heart, and gives him the Knowledge of God, and of his Duty to him; so that the innate Notions, or inward Knowledge we have of God, is from this true Light that lighteth every Man coming into the World, but is not that Light if self. But why then doth he so confound the Work with the Work-man, as one while he tells us, the Light within is Christ; another while a Manifestation in the Soul of Man of Christ, the Word God. Is not the Manifestation of [Page 50] Christ in the Soul of Man, a Work of Christ? How then is it Christ himself the Word God? W. P. may remember how his Bro­ther G. W. in his Light and Life recommended by him, hath argued against the Body of Christ being Christ, for if it were, it would have this Sense, the Christ of Christ, or the Jesus of Jesus, which to him is Nonsence: Is it not great Nonsence to say, The Mani­festation of Christ, to wit, the Act or Effect of his Illumination in the Soul, is Christ himself? The Body of Christ, together with his Soul, are constitutive parts of his Man­hood Nature, personally united to his God­head; and may and do receive the Name of Christ and Jesus, as the parts do receive the Name of the whole; but the Manifestation of Christ in the Soul of Man, is no part of Christ's Manhood, nor of his Godhead which hath no parts, but is only a Work of Christ in the Soul of Man, by which it is enlightned And as the Work supposeth the Work-man, or Worker, to be present in the Soul, to wit, Christ considered as the Word God, which the Bishop to be sure, in the true Sence, will acknowledge, so the Work-man supposeth the Work as necessary to be wrought in the Soul; for Christ, as he is the Word God, considered simply, whither as in himself, or as in Men, is no Light to Men; but as he hath his Work and Operation in them to enlighten [Page 51] them, though in and to himself, he is Light and Life essentially, but to Men he is so, by his Operations in them, and so is called Light to Men, by a Metonimy, of the Name of the Effect given to the Cause. Such is Mens weakness, at least in this Mortal State, that we have no immediate Knowledge of the Essence of any Creature, we know their Essence but by their Operations; nay, we have no immediate Knowledge either of the Essence of our Bodies, or of our Souls, but only by their Operations: Hence it is that the greatest Philosophers are at a loss to de­fine the Essence of any thing, because our Knowledge doth not immediately reach their Essence, but only by their Operation; when we see the Body of a Man, Beast or Tree, we see not the Essence of these Bodies, but the outward Forms, and Shapes, and Col­ours of them, all which are but their acci­dents, and not their Essence or Substance; and if we have no immediate Knowledge of any Creatures Essence or Substance, great or small, how can or dare we presume to say or think, we see even with our inward Eyes or Sight (what W. P. calls the natural rati­onal Faculty, for that's all the inward Sight even of the Light within, that he acknow­ledgeth in the best of Men) the Essence of the Divine Word, the Word God, by whom all things were created, by immediate Sight or [Page 52] Perception; for as John said, John 1. 18. 1 John 4 12. No Man hath seen God at any time, [to wit, as in himself, in his own in­finite Essence and essential Glory.] And as Paul said, He dwelleth in the Light, which none can approach unto, whom no Man hath seen, or can see, 1 Tim. 6. 16. If then we see not, or know not this Divine Work-man, (who is in us, and in all things, because he is omni­present) by any immediate Perception, Sight or Knowledge of him, it is only by some in­ward Manifestation and Operation of him in us, which is only and alone what he pleaseth to give us as a most free Agent.

Section 8.

W. P's equivocating way, of giving his Sense of the Light within. His Contradiction to G. F. who affirm'd that whole Christ God and Man, was in Men both Flesh and Spirit. His and G. F's and G. W's Ignorance and Error, as if God had parts, and did suffer in his God­head by Mens Sins He denieth the special Illuminations of the Holy Spirit given to all the Faithful concerning Christ. His and his Brethrens Fallacy, in stating the Question about the Sufficiency of the Light within to Sal­vation, the Question truly stead and resolved. His Fallacy in affirming the Doctrines of God, of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, Remission of Sin, Justification from the Guilt of Sin by Christ the Propitiation, the Resurrection of the Dead, to be Fundamentals of the Christian Religion, see­ing in his Discourse of the General Rule, be hath excluded them from the absolute Necessa­ries of Religion, in order to eternal Salvation.

IN the next place let us consider, whither the common Illumination, that Christ giveth to all Men, as he is the Word God in all Men, be a sufficient Medium, or means to furnish us with all necessary saving Know­ledge and Faith, and other Evangelical Vir­tues, without all special and peculiar Illumi­nations of Christ by the Holy Ghost, in the [Page 54] use of the ordinary outward means, as the Holy Scriptures especially, preached or read to us or by us, which is the proper and true state of the Question, which W. P. seeks to jumble, by shifting the terms of the Question, and his equivocating way of his giving the Sence of the Light within, as one time to be Christ the word God, the Work-man, ano­ther time the Manifestation of Christ, which is not the Work-man, but his Work and Operation in the Souls of Men universally. And W. P. to hide his Fallacy, will rather have to be understood by the Light within every Man, Christ himself the word God, than his Illumination in every Man, though contrary to what both himself and G. W. hath professed elsewhere, who have affirmed, that they are wronged by their Adversaries charging them, with holding that Christ is in every Man; Which (say they) we never affirmed that Christ was in every Man, but a Light from Christ was in every Man; and since that they vary it thus, that they do not affirm, that whole Christ is in every Man, or in any Man, though contrary to the Do­ctrine of their great A postle G. F. who hath affirmed, (Great Myst. p. 249.) that they (i. e. the Quakers) have whole Christ in them, Christ-God, and Christ-Man, Flesh and Spirit, which W. P. hath desended, arguing, that seeing they eat his Flesh, it must be in them; [Page 55] falsly reasoning from a Metaphorical eating to a literal: Now if the by the Flesh of Christ; which W. P. saith they have in them, they mean not Christ's Body of Flesh, which was Nailed to the Cross, and yet have whole Christ in them, both God and Man, Flesh and Spirit, it evidently followeth, that that outward Flesh was not part of him; for they have whole Christ in them, God and Man, Flesh and Spirit, and yet they have none of that Flesh in them which was Nailed to the Cross; besides how improper, or rather ab­surd it is for W. P. to talk of whole Christ, considered as the word God, and measures or parts of Christ, seeing the Godhead of the Word, which is one and the same God­head of the Father, hath no parts nor passi­ons, as both the Doctrine of the Church of England, and of all true Christian Churches doth hold; though G. F. hath made the God­head to have parts, and that the Soul of Man is a part of God; and G. W. hath affirmed, that Christ suffereth by Mens Sins, as he is God, or in his Godhead. See his Divinity of Christ, Page 56.

And let W. P. shift and shuffle and wind and turn ever so much, he can never make it intelligible to any Man, that the Light with­in, simply as the word God and abstractly considered, without all special Illumination, and without the Doctrine of the Gospel as [Page 56] outwardly delivered us in the Holy Scriptures doth teach us and all Men, all things necessa­ry to Salvation; seeing by his plain confession in his discourse concerning The general Rule of Faith and Life, he acknowledgeth that the Light within by its common discoveries, giv­eth not to Men the knowledge of Christ's Incarnation, Birth, Death and Sufferings, but that they belong to extraordinary Reve­lation. And therefore that knowledge and Faith, to wit, of Christ's Incarnation, Birth, Death and Sufferings, by W. P's Doctrine, is not necessary to his Salvation, though he has a Historical Knowledge and Faith of it, yet that is not necessary, for it is not certain to him whither true of false, he has no extraor­dinary Revelation of it, and that in com­mon to all Mankind teacheth nothing of it. And W. P. and his Brethren are guilty of a great Fallacy and piece of Sophistry, to cry out against all their Opponents, as guilty of Blasphemy, for denying the sufficiency of the Light within to Salvation, without any thing else. Seeing that Light within is Christ, for it is as much as to say, Christ is not sufficient to Salvation. And thus some of them have charged me in particular, to whom I have answered, that seeing Christ is truly Christ without us as well as within us, and much more gloriously manifested in the Flesh with­out us, If it is no blasphemy to say, Christ [Page 57] without us cannot save us, without his being in us, as they will readily grant, so nor is it Blasphemy to say, Christ within us cannot save us, without Christ without us. And with respect to Christ's inward Teaching and Illumination, they grosly and fallaci­ously prevaricate in stating the question, as whither the Light within, to wit, the Word God is a Light sufficient to Teach or Guide every Man the way to Eternal Salvation: Thus they think to have their Opponents every way at a disadvantage, and to catch them in their Dilemma, if they say, Yea, the Qua­kers have gained the point, as they imagine: If they say Nay, they are guilty of Blasphe­my against Christ the word God within them, as not being sufficient. But this Sophistical Di­lemma is easily discovered and answered, for by the sufficiency of the Light within every Man to guide to Salvation, is not meant what Christ the Word God can reveal, to and in every Man; for who questions that, that he can do it abundantly; but the true state of the question is, What he doth reveal to and in every Man, that is or may be a sufficient discovery to him, for his eternal Salvation, W. P. and his Brethren hold the affirmative, the Bishop, and all true Christians, Yea all but meer Deists, hold the Negative, viz. That Christ considered as the word God, doth not reveal to and in every Man: As for example, [Page 58] not to any of the Quakers, or any others here here in England, all that is sufficient to their Salvation, by the common Illumination, without special superadded Illuminations of Christ by the Holy Spirit, that is more excel­lent than the common, in the use of the out­ward means, to wit, the Doctrines of the Ho­ly Scriptures, outwardly Preached, or at leastwise read to us or by us. If they say it doth, then let them not only tell us, but prove to us, intelligibly, to convince our Natural Rational Faculty, (which W. P. calleth the Eye or Sight, whereby the Soul of every Man is capable to discern, what the Light within sheweth,) that the Light in them, by its common Illumination, without all outward means of Instruction, from or by the Holy Scriptures hath taught them, one or more of the Twelve Articles of the Apo­stles Creed, according to the true sense of Scripture, and generally received by all true Christians; If they confess it hath not taugh: them any one of them, it evidently follows, that they think not any one of them is ne­cessary to their Faith or Christianity, i. e. their Deism for Salvation. And yet it is strange, that W. P. should be so fallacious as as to affirm, that the Doctrines of God, of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, of remission of Sin, and Justification from the guilt of Sin, by Christ the Propitiation, the Resurrection [Page 59] of the Dead are Fundamentals of the Christi­an Religion, none of which the Light within them, without Scripture, hath taught him to believe as I think he hath plainly confessed; and yet it hath taught him all that is necessa­ry to his Salvation without Scripture, he having denyed that the Scripture is the Rule of his, or their Faith, as touching any of these matters, and consequently not so much as the Instrument, whereby the Holy Spirit has wrought that Faith in him; therefore what Faith he or they have of these things, is but Historical and Uncertain; and as the old Heavens that must pass away, and which hath already passed away from them, seeing they pretend they are come to the new Hea­vens already. And yet he is so fallacious to say P. 97. It is generally thought that we do not hold the common Doctrines of Christianity, but have introduced new and erroneous ones in lieu thereof. This I have sufficiently proved to be true, here and elsewhere, and so have o­thers done the same. But what followeth, Whereas (saith he) we plainly and entirely be­lieve the Truths contained in that called the Apostles Creed. Yes say I, just so, as he may say, they plainly and entirely believe the Truths in the Turks Alcoran, which may be supposed to have some Truths, though many more falsities. This saying of his seems to have a mental Reservation, as if there were some [Page 60] things in that Creed that were not Truths. W. P. would do well to tell us plainly what they are.

Section 9.

Several places of Scripture rescued from his Per­versions None are saved by the common dis­coveries of the Light within, without special Revelation and Illumination, which yet renders not Salvation impossible to virtuous Gentiles. His Ignorance and Error, about the Nature of the Light within, considered as the Word God. In his shewing what the Light within teach­eth every Man, he leaves out the chief matter that was necessary to his Argument, to prove it sufficient without any thing else.

AND as for the places of Scripture which W. P. hath brought, to prove the sufficiency of the Light within, with re­spect to the common Illumination for every Man's Salvation, without any super-added special Illumination, and all external Light of the Holy Scripture, which are these fol­lowing, John 8. 12. John 1. 9, 14. Titus 2. 11, 12. Eph. 5. 13. John 16. 7. Prov. 1. 20, to 24. John 8. 24. they are all (one or two at most excepted, that may be understood of the common Illumination, as John 1. 9.) to be understood of the Special Illumination gi­ven [Page 61] to Men under a Gospel-Ministry, as is evident by the due consideration of them, as for John 1. 9. allowing it to be meant of the common Illumination, and diverse other places of Scripture, that might be brought to prove that there is such a common Illumi­nation, from the word God in all Men, as a preparatory Ministration, this doth not prove that that common Illumination is suf­ficient, without the special that is given to the Faithful. And whereas he saith in his 6th Article or Section of his Gospel Truths, They that turn not at the reproofs thereof, (to wit, the Light within, with respect to its common Illumination) and will not repent, and live and walk according to it, shall dye in their Sins; and where Christ is gone, they shall never come. Tho' there be a Truth in the words he has here set down, yet he quite misapplies that place of Scripture, John 8. 24. and fallaciously leaves out the foregoing words which are these, For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall dye in your Sins and as it is in v 21. And whither I go ye cannot come; by which words it is plainly evident, that for their Sin of not believing in Christ God-man without them, especially, they were to dye in their Sins. And as fallacious he is in interpreting John 16. 7. that the Comforter which Christ promi­sed to send, was the Light within, or the Word God, with respect only to his com­mon [Page 62] Illumination, reproving for common Sins; whereas it's plain from v. 9. that the Sin of which especially the Comforter, viz. The Holy Spirit should convince Men, should be the Sin of unbelief, viz. For not believing that that very Man that spoke unto them, was the Christ of God the promised Messiah, the Redeemer and Saviour of the World. Now unless W. P. can show that the Light within, allowing it to be the Word God, with respect to the common Illumination, and by the said common Illumination univer­sally given to Mankind, without any super­added special inward Illumination of the Di­vine Word, and without all external Reve­lation of Scripture-Light and Doctrine, doth convince all Men of the Sin of not believing in the Man Christ Jesus, that was born of a Virgin, who spoke those words, John 8. 21. 24. and John 16. 7, 8, 9. he but beats the Air, and argueth to no purpose, that the Light within every Man giveth a sufficient discove­ry of the way to Eternal Life and Salvation, by the common Illumination, without all special Illumination, and external Revelation as aforesaid. Why God hath not given the External Revelation of the Gospel Doctrine, concerning Christ the Propitiation as he outwardly dyed for the Sins of Men, nor the special Illumination, nor conviction of the Spirit, that ordinarily accompanieth the [Page 63] outward Preaching of the Gospel to many parts of Mankind, belongeth to the depth of his most righteous Judgments, against which we have no cause to dispute, but to cry out with the Apostle Paul, Rom. 11. 33. O the depth of the Riches both of the Wisdom and Knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his Judgments, and his ways, past finding out; and also with Holy Admiration and Thankfulness to bless God, that he has given us the Light of his Gospel, both by the Doctrine of it outwardly, and by the special Illuminations of his Spirit and Divine word inwardly, which he has not given to many others, though we were not more worthy of it than they: So that what the Psalmist said con­cerning the Jewish Church of old, may be well and fitly applied to the Christian Church, and Nations in Christendom, where the Gospel is preached, Psal. 47. 19, 20. He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his Statutes and his Judgments unto Israel; he hath not dealt so with any Nation; and as for his Judgments, they have not known them.

Nor doth all that I have said on this Head, render Salvation impossible to these parts of Mankind, to whom the Light of the Gospel hath not shined outwardly, by any external Revelation of it; seeing God can supply that defect, by ways and methods unknown to us, who worketh by his Spirit, when, [Page 64] where, and how he pleaseth; it is sufficient to us, to know, that the ordinary way and means, that God hath provided for Mens eternal Salvation, is by outward means of In­struction, to wit, the Doctrine of the Gospel, as outwardly delivered us in the Holy Scrip­tures, which is always accompanied with the special Illumination of Christ, by the Holy Spirit, to all that shall obtain eternal Salvation; and that there is no other way or name under Heaven, whereby Men must be-saved, but the Name of Jesus; nor no Promise of Salvation to any, but through Faith in that Name, even of Christ as out­wardly he came, and was and is a Propiti­ation for our Sins: And though God can Save, and hath saved some, without the out­ward means of the Word as outwardly preached; yet this will not prove, that ever any was or shall be saved by the meer com­mon Illumination given to all Men, which yet is W. P's and his Brethrens great Funda­mental, and Evangelium eternum, their ever­lasting Gospel, from which they exclude the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ Crucified, and by Faith in him, from being any part of it, because not falling within the ordinary discoveries given to Mankind; that Doctrine is none of the absolute necessaries of Deism, is very true, but that any were saved by meer Deism, without all knowledge of Christ, [Page 65] and Faith in him, the great and only Propiti­ation for Sin, which is W. P's great Funda­mental he hath not proved, and the Greek Calends will sooner come, than ever he, or any for him can prove it.

In his Page 21 he tells us, The Nature of this excellent Principle, the Light within every Man, is to discover Sin, reprove for it, and lead out of it, all such as love and obey the Convictions thereof. That the Principle of the Light within, even with respect to its common Illu­mination to and in every Man, is excellent, is granted; and I do not think will be de­nied by the Bishop, or any true Christian; but he derogates greatly from the Excellency of it, to tell us, the Nature of it, is to do so and so, as if it were a natural and ne­cessary Agent; as it is the nature of the Fire to burn, of the Sun to give light, I ask W. P. Is it the nature of the word God to Create, as a necessary Agent? If it is the nature of the Divine word to Create, he could not but Create, otherwise he should change his na­ture; as because it is the nature of the Fire to burn, if it did not burn, it should change its nature. And if it be the Nature of the word God, to discover Sin, and reprove for it, and lead out of it, then that Divine word can do no otherwise; and consequently is he not a necessary, and not a free Agent? It had been better, and more Sound and Chri­stian [Page 66] for W. P. to have said, It is the good will and pleasure of the Divine word, to re­prove for Sin, and also of the Spirit, who bloweth where he pleaseth, according to the old Latin Translation, and which the Greek well beareth, and was generally so under­stood by the Ancients, both Greek and La­tin, Spiritus spirat ubi vult, The Spirit breatheth where he willeth and pleaseth, in all to discover and reprove for Sin, and yet not in all abso­lutely to bring them out of Sin; or to work that Obedience in all, so as to be brought out of Sin. It had wont to be a Doctrine among the Quakers, that God giveth a Day of Visitation, which may expire and pass over some before they dye; and yet even such, after their day of Visitation is expired, have that Light in them which reproveth for Sin: And as the Visitation of some may be expired, so the Visitation of others may be yet to come; the outward Sun, though a natural and necessary Agent, yet shineth not to all at once; when it is setting to some, it is rising to others; and when it is midnight to some, it is mid-day to others, that is, an Emblem of the shining of this Divine Sun in Mens Hearts; and which, if I well remember, W. P. hath some where used in some of his Books, but is not too far to be stretched; for though the outward Sun shine to all at one time or another, yet some [Page 67] parts of the Earth have not that Influence of the Sun, that sufficeth to ripen the Fruits of the Earth to sustain Humane Life, or preserve from unsupportable Cold, as under the North and South Poles, and near adja­cent parts, where scarce ever any of Mankind yet was, or could come; and no doubt the word God doth in some sort enlighten the Devils, and all the Fallen Angels, and re­proveth them severely for their Sins, so that they believe and tremble; but is it the Na­ture of the Divine Word in them, to lead out of Sin, all such of the Devils and Fallen Angels, as love and obey the Convictions thereof? Were not this to supponere non sup­pmendum, to suppose what is not to be sup­posed, that any of the Devils or Fallen An­gels can love and obey the Convictions thereof? And is it not thus also with many Men, though they have some real Convicti­ons from the common Illumination of the Di­vine Word, yet barely and meerly by the common Illumination given unto them by the same, until God visit with special Illumination, and his special Grace and Favour, they are held as in Iron Chains and Bonds, so that they cannot come out, their Prison door is shut, they are inclosed in great Darkness, even thick Darkness like that of Egypt; so that they cannot come out, though they have so much Light that shineth in their Darkness, as to [Page 68] discover Sin, and reprove for it, in many par­ticulars, yet power is not given them, to leave their Sins and come out of them, except God visit with some more powerful Visitation of his special Illumination and Grace, above what is common to all Mankind. The way for W. P. to have proved, that this Light in every Man, teacheth him sufficiently all that is needful to Salvation, had been to have given a more full description of the Light within than he hath given, and then made Application, as thus, The Light within, whom ever it enlightneth with a saving Illumination, that fully sufficeth to guide to Salvation, without any superadded Illumination differing in specie (only allowing the necessity of greater Degrees in the same specie) it not only dis­covereth Sin to them, convinceth and re­proveth for it, and woundeth the Heart and Conscience with the Sense of God's Judg­ment and Wrath, and Curse due for Sin, but sheweth them the Remedy the Lord Jesus Christ, as he died for our Sins, and by his Death on the Cross, became the Propitiation for our Sins, and is now the Propitiation for us, as he is in Heaven, at God's right Hand, in the true Nature of Man, ever living to make Intercession for us. But all this the Light within doth by the common Illumination in every Man, therefore, &c. But W. P. knowing that he could not affirm [Page 69] this of the Light within, as only enlight­ning by the common Illumination, fallaci­ously after his ordinary manner, leaves out the chief Matter, which was, that the Light within every Man, not only discovers to every Man his Sin, but discovers the great Remedy, to wit, Christ the Propitiation for Sin, by whom the Guilt and Curse due for Sin, is taken away from all such as sincerely believe in him, which sincere Faith is always accompanied with sincere Repentance, and new Obedience.

Section 10.

His Fallacy, in making as if it were an Article of his Faith, that we are justified from the Guilt of Sin, by Christ the Propitiation, that Faith being neither grounded upon the common Illumination given to all Mankind, which discovers not that Faith, nor upon inward extraordinary Revela­tion, which he confesseth is not given to him or his Brethren, nor upon any external Revelation in the Scripture, which he denieth to be the Rule of Faith. The Historical Faith grounded upon the external Revelation in the Scripture, con­cerning Christ the Propitiation, his Birth, Death and Sufferings of no value with him. His and his Brethrens Pretence, of being assisted by the Holy Spirit to Pray, Praise and Preach, generally understood, in Matter of Fact proved False. His and their unsound and un­scriptural way of Preaching the way to the Kingdom. They do not Preach the Necessity of Faith in Christ Crucified for Remission of Sin, for Regeneration and eternal Salvation. For the manner of Preaching the Necessity of this Faith, W. Penn accused G. K. at Ratcliff Meeting, to be an Apostate; and at the Yearly Meeting at London some time before in the Year 1694, he accused him to Friends of the Ministry, for bringing in a new Method of Preaching Christ without among Friends in order to Regeneration. His Arguments against [Page 71] Baptism and the Supper answered, in the Book called, The Arguments of the Quakers, against Baptism and the Supper, examined and refuted.

AND though he makes it as it were an Article of his Faith, and one of his Gospel Truths, Sect. 4. that we are only justi­fied from the Guilt of Sin, by Christ the Pro­pitiation, yet it is a notorious Fallacy and Juggle: How is it an Article of their Faith? As it is an Historical Faith, neither grounded upon the common Illumination, which disco­vers no necessity of any such Faith, nor upon extraordinary Revelation, and special Illu­mination which is not necessary, nor is gi­ven to him by his plain Concession, but upon the outward History or Letter of the Scrip­ture; but alas this Historical Faith is so far from being of any valuable account with W. P. that he hath told us, it is as the old Heavens that must pass away, and be­like is passed away from his long since, though to deceive the World, he would seem still to hold it; for he hath said con­cerning it, in his Quakerism a new Nick­name far Old Christianity, Page 6. Faith in the History of Christ's outward Manifestation, is a deadly Poison, these latter Ages has been infected with.

[Page 72] In his 7th and 8th Sections, he proceedeth with the like fallacy, telling us, how he and his Brethren, are prepared and assisted by this principle, in Praying, Praising, and Preaching to others the way of God's King­dom, as they wait in their Assemblies, to feel God's Spirit, to open and move upon their Hearts, that they may Preach in Pow­er, as well as in words, and that they thus wait, before they dare offer Sacrifice to the Lord.

How far this is false in matter of Fact, is well enough known to their own Consci­ences; and the unsound words they most fre­quently use both in Preaching and Praying, is a plain Demonstration of it, that they are not generally acted, or moved by the Spirit of God, in their Prayings or Preachings: If the manner of their Praying and Preaching is as the manner of their Writing, which they will say, is the same; for they as com­monly pretend to write by the Motion of the Spirit of God, as to Preach and Pray by it. But can it be supposed that Men are acted or moved by the Spirit of God, to bring forth so many false Doctrines, vile Heresies and Errors, and gross Untruths and Fallacies, and uncharitable Judgments and Perversi­ons of their Opponents words, as they com­monly do in their writings generally. But what way to the Kingdom do they Preach? [Page 73] Possibly they will say, Christ, who said he was the way: But how do they Preach him to be the way? Just as W. P. hath here and else­where Preached him in Print, to wit, as the Word God and the Light within, whose Na­ture is to discover Sin, and lead out of it, all such who Love and obey the Convictions of it, and that only and alone by the common Illumination, which by W. P's confession dis­covers nothing of Christ as he became a Pro­pitiation for our Sins, by his Death on the Cross. The great subject of the Apostles Preach­ing, was Christ Crucified, and remission of Sin, by Faith in him; and how all Spiritual Blessings, yea, the gift of the Holy Spirit himself, comes to us by the Crucified Jesus, and Faith in him: but little or nothing of this sort of Preaching is to be found either in your Meetings, or Books, but much against it; though to cover your Vile Errors, you will now and then seem to own it, but forgetting your selves, quickly disown it all again. Yea W. P. knoweth in his Conscience, how both publickly and privately he hath blamed me, and charged me with my being an Apostate, for my asserting the necessity of Friends Preaching this Faith, to wit, in Christ as he dyed for our Sins, &c. as being absolutely necessary to Regeneration, for us to have this Faith, and to know and experience Christ formed in us, and to live, dwell and [Page 74] Rule in us. For this my Christian Testimony, he charged me at Ratcliff Meeting, that I did what in me lay to pluck up the Testimony of Truth by the Roots. And at the Yearly Meeting at Grace-Church-street in the Year 1694, he stood up, and accused me before some hundred Friends of them called the Ministry and o­thers, that I was seeking to bring in a New method of Preaching among Friends, which was to Preach Christ without, and the necessi­ty of Faith in him, in order to bring People to the knowledge and experience of the new Birth, and Christ in them, as he dwells in the Saints: And also he knows in his Consci­ence, when and where, and to whom he hath accused me for Preaching Christ without in op­position to Christ within; which God know­eth I never did: And therefore in his so doing he hath falsly accused me, though his and his Brethrens false Notions of Christ within, as above explained, I have opposed, and by God's help shall oppose, and witness against while I live. But the true Scripture sense of Christ within, as the Word God and of Christ the Word made Flesh without us, who is still but one Christ, and of his sufficiency to our Salvation, both as without us and within us; without us, as he came to procure and purchase it for us by his Blood and Merits, and within us by his Spiritual appearance and special Illuminati­on of the Holy Spirit, in the use of the out­ward [Page 75] means, to apply it to us, and to work the blessed and glorious effect of it in us, I have owned, and still hope to own it, to the end of my days.

As for W. P's Arguments against Baptism and the Supper, as outwardly administred, I know not one of them but I have fully an­swered, that may seem to require an answer, and many more, in my late Book called, The Arguments of the Quakers, against Baptism and the Supper Examined and Refuted; which he ought more particularty to have answer­ed, being so particularly concerned, than to have brought them up again, as if they had been new Dishes, which are nothing, but the Old, after some Fashion new dressed. If the Bishop thinks fit to notice them he may, for me to meddle with them were but Actum agere, to do what I have already done.

Section 11.

His uncivil Treatment of the Bishop of Cork, as if he were Ignorant of Regeneration, and the way how it is wrought. The Bishop has soundly and Christianly explained the Doctrine of Regeneration, and the way how it is wrought. W. P's great Fallacy in his defini­tion of Regeneration, and the way how it is wrought. His Fallacy in seeming to agree to the Bishop's Assertion from that Text Rom. 10. 9. His Fallaeious Argument, that because the Spi­rit Leads and Rules, therefore the Spirit is the Rule detected; the Ruler and the Rule distinct. The great Blessing and Advantage of the Scrip­tures, being a means to preserve us, by the Grace of God, and assistance of his Holy Spirit, from Satan's Delusions and Impostures.

IN his 26th Page he saith, I think nothing makes a Man a true Christian but Regenera­tion, the Power of the Son of God revealed in the Soul, converting it to God. And in his P. 29 he saith, I would have my Reader reflect well upon this great and Essential Truth, Tho he were as Big as a Bishop. Reader, what thinkst thou of this Uncivil, Proud and Disdainful Treat­ment! But so far as I understand, W. P. sheweth himself, as if he were much more big than a Bishop, he treats the Modest and humble Bishop as if he were one of his meanest subjects. But for all W. P's pretence, [Page 77] to be so Skilful in that great and essential Truth of the necessity of Regeneration, and the manner and way of its being wrought above and beyond the Bishop, the Bishop has beyond all doubt, in his short Testimony, in three or four lines on that Head, made it evident, that he understands the Mystery of Regeneration, and the manner how it is wrought, better than W. P. for all his Big and Lordly thoughts he has of himself, and for all his Big talk of the new Creature and Self-denial, there is great a deal more of it in his Books than in his Life. But mark, how W. P. describes the manner how Regenerati­on is wrought; That it is by the power of the Son of God revealed in the Soul, convert­ing it to God, which are such general words and terms, and true when taken in a true Scripture sense, that not only every Bishop, but every Curate of the Church of England, and every ordinary Christian can say the same. But under these general Words W. P. hideth a great Fallacy; what doth W. P. mean by the power of the Son of God, re­vealed in the Soul converting it to God? No other thing, but the power of the com­mon Illumination of the Light within, given to Infidel Jews, Mahometans, and all moral Heathens, who if they are but meer Just Men, according to W. P's Gospel and System of Di­vinity, they are Regenerated Persons, though [Page 78] they have no special Illumination of the Holy Spirit, giving them any inward and spiritual knowledge and Faith of the Son of God, as the word Incarnate, or word made Flesh, and as he was Miraculously conceived by the Ho­ly Ghost, and born of the Blessed Virgin, dyed for our Sins and rose again. None of all this doth the common and ordinary dis­coveries of the Light within teach W. P. and his Brethren, and yet this is all he sets up, in order to bring People to the work of Re­generation, and to become the Sons of God. Not only the Bishop, but the meanest Cu­rate in his Diocess, I charitably think can give a better account, according to Scripture, of the manner how Regeneration is wrought in Men, to wit, by receiving Christ, through a lively Faith wrought in them, by the Spi­rit and Power of the Son of God inwardly revealed in them, and by the Doctrine of Christ outwardly Preached in God's ordinary way, and believing in his Name, according to all his Offices, viz. his prophetical, priest­ly and Kingly Office. The Faith and perswasion of the great Love of God, in giving his Son to dye for us, and of the great Love of Christ who gave himself for us, inwardly revealed in us, not by the common Illumination given to Heathens, but by special Illumination of Christ in our Hearts, perswading us of the truth and certainty of the Scriptures Do­ctrine [Page 79] and Testimony concerning this Love works that change in us, that the Scripture calls Regeneration, or the New Creature; for thus the Scripture witnesseth, John 1. 12. To as many as received him he gave them Power to become the Sons of God, even to as many as be­lieved in his Name. And this believing in his Name, was not only a believing his in­ward appearance, or Light in them, but by special Illumination and operation of his mighty power in them, believing in him, as he outwardly came in the Flesh, dyed for our Sins and rose again, as our King, Priest and Prophet without us, as well as the Light within or Word God within us, as Paul testi­fied, ye are all the Children of God by Faith in Christ Jesus, Gal. 3. 26. to wit, as out­wardly Crucified and raised again. And as John testified, 1. John 5. 1. Whosoever be­lieveth (to wit, with a sincere Faith) that Jesus, (even that very Jesus that was born of Mary) is the Christ is born of God. But none of all this Faith doth W. P. think ne­cessary to Regeneration or Eternal Salvati­on, for otherwise it would exclude all his Deist Brethren, and moral Just Men among Jews and Mahometans, and Heathens from being Regenerate Persons and his sort of Christians; whereas the Bishop hath plainly owned the necessity of this Faith to Regene­ration, and eternal Salvation, in his sound [Page 80] but short Christian Testimony; and W. P. taken notice of it, and seems (but most falla­ciously) to agree to it in his Page 44. In the first part of his note (saith W. P.) I agree with him, that all who rightly believe the Text, Rom. 10. 9. Will be Saved; for that must be by the Illumination, and working of the saving Power of Christ in the Heart, that he can so believe. Here W. P. and the Bishop would seem to agree, for no doubt the Bishop doth so believe. But O the stupendious falla­cy of W. P. in this very thing! All that Right­ly believe the Text Rom. 10. 9. Will be Saved. But what if they do not believe it at all, or but only Historically, and in the mean time Love and obey the convictions and common discoveries of the Light within, given gene­rally to Heathens, according to W. P. they are Regenerated, and shall be saved. Can there be a greater fallacy, and greater Jesuitical E­quivocation under Heaven? The Illuminati­on and Working of the saving Power of Christ in the Heart, he will have it to be none o­ther either in him, or any of his Brethren, or any else, but the common Illumination that every Heathen hath, or may have, which yet he confesseth discovereth nothing of Christ, as he outwardly dyed and rose again; that discovery belonging to extraordinary Revelation, as he acknowledgeth, and yet pretends not to have any such thing.

[Page 81] In his 150th Page he thus Argueth, That which Leads, Rules, and that which Rules is a Rule to them that follow it. But the Spirit Leads, Rom. 8. ergo, &c. It is just such a So­phism as this: That which ploweth is the Plow, but the Plow-Man Ploweth, there­fore the Plow-Man is the Plow. This is a piece of dull Sophistry, and shews W. P. to be no very good Logician. But further to shew his Sophistry, by an Argumentum ad Hominem, that which Rules, is a Rule to them that follow it. But W. P's Justices of Peace in Pensilvania, Rule the People there, and so doth his Deputy Governour; Ergo, he and they are the Rule to that People But then what need of any Laws? It seems when Gover­nour Penn goes over to Pensilvania, because he is to Rule them, he must be their Rule also, Stat pro ratione voluntas, his Will, and not the Laws established by the general Assemblies of that Province, must be the Rule, according to which he proposeth to Rule them. Can any King on Earth be more Arbitrary? It hath pleased God Almighty, whose Will is most Holy and Just for ever, to give us an External Revelation of his Will concern­ing our whole Duty, and that as well to us under the New Testament, as to them under the Old; and that that External Reve­lation, contained in the Holy Scriptures, (setting aside some Ceremonial precepts, and [Page 82] some other peculiar to the Jewish Nation) should be our general Rule to instruct us, both what to believe and what to do, and this part­ly to give example to all Kings, and Govern­ments, to do the like as all good and pious Kings and Governours have done, viz. To give forth Laws, and publickly to have them recorded, that the People may have the due notice of them, and regard to them; and partly to prevent the Delusions and Impo­stures of Deceivers, and Spirits of Delu­sions, who would wonderfully prevail to deceive the Professors of Christianity; were there no outward Rule of Faith and Life established by God himself, one would pre­tend his Revelation, and another his, and Thousands of contradictory Revelations would daily appear and deceive many, were it not for the established Rule of God's Will and Word, outwardly revealed and recorded in the Holy Scriptures. It's true, there are too many Deceptions still, and Deceivers, and all pretending that their Doctrine is conformable to the Holy Scriptures. But notwithstanding, so long as the publick Standard of God's Holy Word and Will remains with us in the Holy Scriptures, they are a sufficient Armory to us by the Grace of God, and assistance of his Holy Spirit, out of which to bring suffi­cient Armour both to withstand and over­come [Page 83] all Heresies and pernicious Doctrines. Nor would W. P's Fundamental Principle, of bringing all to the General Rule of the com­mon and ordinary Discoveries of the Light within, given to all Mankind, be any Re­medy in the case; for besides, that the Dis­coveries that he sets up for, are not the same to all Nations and Persons, as can easily be proved: Ten thousands would break through the Hedge of his General Rule, of binding them to the common Discoveries given to all Mankind, (as most of the Peo­ple called Quakers do) and would highly pretend to new and special Discoveries given to them by the Light within, and to none others; and the reason they will alledge, that it is not given to others, is their Un­faithfulness; and especially that like Corah, they Rebel against their Spiritual Guides and Leaders. Thus we may see the great need of an outward Rule, and the great Goodness of God, that he hath given us one, full and perfectly sufficient to be a Rule of our Faith and Life in all necessary Cases.

And besides, If W. P's Argument have any Truth in it, it would infer, that Christ, or the Spirit, abstractly considered from all Revelation, both Internal and External, should be the Rule, because he is the Ruler; If the Ruler and the Rule must still be one [Page 84] and the same thing, then suppose all Reve­lation Internal as well as External should cease, Christ or the Spirit should be the Rule, because the Ruler: Who sees not the Fallacy and Sophistry of W. P's Argument here? Hath not every common Artificer his Rule of Wood or Brass, that is not the Man himself, but the Instrument that he hath made and prepared for his use. The Pro­phets Rule, by which their Faith was ruled in what they Prophecied, was not the Spi­rit, but the internal Revelation of the Spirit, the Spirit was their Guide and Ruler, but not, to speak properly, their Rule, but the Revelation they had, or things revealed, that was their Rule; and so now, the ex­ternal Revelation of the same Truths, is the Rule of our Faith, whereby to believe them; as the Spirit inwardly by his secret Illumination, perswades us of their Truth and certainty, not by any new verbal Re­cord, but by Sealing to the Record out­wardly given.

Section 12.

His falsly alledging, that he has the first Re­formers, Fathers and Martyrs on his side, viz. That the Scripture is not the Rule of Faith, but the Light in every Conscience. His Fallacy in this detected, in the late Book called, The Deism of W. P. and his Bre­thren, &c. The Spirits being superior to the Scripture, proves not that the Spirit is the Rule of Faith. His pretended ground of his pitying the Bishop for his supposed Ignorance, Causeless and Fallacious. His false Accusa­tion and Charge, against the Bishop and Church of England, and all Protestant Opponents to the Quakers, that they confine the Operations of the Spirit, to the first or Apostolical Times. That the Ministers among the Quakers are less acted by the Spirit of God, in their Pray­ing and Preaching, than the Ministers among their Protestant Opponents, evidently proved.

AND this leads me to detect another Fallacy of his, which shall be the last I intend to notice, though I could detect many more, but these I think will suffice, to shew how Fallacious he is. Let us there­fore hear him once more: In his Page 106 and 107, after he has most grosly alledged, that he has the concurring Testimony and [Page 86] Assent of the best and first Reformers, as well as Martyrs and Fathers, to confirm his Fundamental, viz. That not the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures without, but the Light with­in, is the Rule of Faith and Life; and that the Light or Spirit within, is something at least co-ordinate, if not superior and antecedent to the Scripture: Which is more (saith he) than we said before, and consequently is the Rule of Faith and Life, superior to the Scripture.

Having in my late Treatise of W. P's Deism, rescued the Fathers and first Re­formers from his Perversions, I shall only now take notice of his fallacious Inference by this his Argument. The Light or Spirit within is something superior and antecedent in way of Excellency to the Scripture; therefore it is the superior and antecedent Rule above the Scripture, the Proposition is granted, and I know none that ever denied it; to wit, That the Spirit, which is God, is greater and more excellent than the Scrip­ture. But then it followeth not, that it is the greater or more excellent Rule; be­cause, properly speaking, it is no Rule at all. Right Logicians will tell him, if he will go and learn of them, (which it is to be suspected, for all that he was a Student at Oxford, he has great need to do) that things in a different kind are not to be compared. If it were asked of W. P. whither a Knife [Page 87] of Gold, or a Knife of Steel, were the best Knife; he would answer surely, though Gold is superior to Steel, and more excellent, yet it is not fit to be a Knife, and Men make not the blades of Knives of Gold. So though the Spirit be superior to the Revelation of it, whither Internal or External, yet not the Spirit but his Revelation is the Rule; and Internal Revelation was the Rule to the Prophets, whereby they believed their Pro­phecies; and what internal Revelation was to them, external Revelation is to us; though we have not that internal Revelation that they had, which was Prophetical and Ex­traordinary, but the Spirit internally by way of Seal, Sealing to us the Truth and Certainty of the external Revelation, gives us as sure ground for the certainty of our Faith, as they had of theirs. But this in­ward Seal of the Spirit is no Rule, either co-ordinate with the Scripture, or sub­ordinate to it, because it doth not propose to us by it self, all the things necessary to be believed by us, in verbal Propositions, as the Seal of a Bond, though it is a Proof and Evidence to the Truth of the Bond, yet it tells us not the Contents of it. And now because the Bishop found fault with his calling the Scripture without, and the Illu­mination of the Spirit within, the double and agreeing Record of true Religion; as [Page 88] indeed well he might so do in W. P's sense (though in a qualified and sober sense it may be acknowledged) as perceiving the falla­cious sense that W. P. had of those words well observed by the Bishop, That they will not believe what Scripture saith, except the Light within them dictate the same: And yet none of them can justly say, that the Light within doth dictate to them by it self, one Article of that called the Apostles Creed; yea, W. P. doth not so much as pretend that it doth to him; yet most uncivilly he falls upon the Bishop p. 107, telling him, It must be his turn now to pity the Bishop: And truly (saith he) I do it with all my Heart: And this it seems in retaliation of the Bi­shop's tender Expression of his Pitty and Compassion towards some well-meaning Per­sons among them, who are mislead by their Teachers. But for what must he needs Pity the Bishop? Why, for his supposed Ignorance, that he will not allow the Spirit to be superior to the Scripture: But this is W. P's Fallacy and Ignorance, and not the Bishop's; the Bishop owneth with all true Christians, the Spirit to be superior to the Scriptures, as the Author and Lord of them, and who useth them as his Instru­ment, as the Work man useth a Rule or Tool that he worketh withal; but the Bishop, and all sound Christians think, that [Page 89] it is no dishonour to the Spirit, to acknow­ledge the Office proper to him, which is to Rule, and the Office proper to the Scripture to be the Rule and Instrument, in the Hand and Management of the Spirit. And thus the Office of the Scripture is a far inferior Office to the Office of the Spirit, as the Servant and his Office, is inferior to the Master and his Office; but to put the Spirit in the Office of the Scrip­ture, is to degrade the Master, and put him in the Servant's place.

The last thing I shall notice in this Book of W. P. is not so properly a Fallacy, as a down-right open-faced Falshood, and false Charge and Accusation against all Prote­stants whatsoever, except themselves, who though they affect the Name of Protestants, yet for the vast disagreement of Doctrine betwixt them, even in Fundamentals, de­serve neither the Name of Protestants, nor Christians so much as at large. The Accusation is this Page 97, That the Church of England, and Dissenters, and generally all Protestants, Confine the Operations of the Spirit to the first or Apostolical Times, as if these did not want them as much; or that Christ would be less Propitious, where his Gifts were not less needful. This I say, is a down-right false Accusation, the contrary of which [Page 90] cvidently appears from all the several Con­fessions of Faith, of all the Protestant Churches truly owned to be such, and which also appears from the afore-cited words of the Bishop in his Testimony, where he owns, That Conscience must be opened by the Holy Spirit, under the Mi­nistry of the Word, citing Acts 16. 14. to take in its Light (to wit, the Doctrine In­strumentally) from the Holy Scriptures. Can this be done, without an Operation of the Holy Spirit? If W. P. say Nay, it cannot; then his own words are an Evidence against the Falsity of his Accusa­tion.

Again, That he chargeth it on them, that Ministers are made such, and preach without the Spirit; and the People wor­shipping without the Spirit, which is too rash and uncharitable Judgment in him so to affirm, without any Caution or Restri­ction: How doth it appear, that the Qua­kers Preach and Pray with the Spirit, and all others do not? Will the Quakers say­ing it prove it? Or doth the great Noise of their Preaching and Praying by the Spirit, from an elevated high-flown Con­ceit, through their Spiritual Pride, prove it to be so; oft-times where there is greatest noise and shew, there is least Reality and [Page 91] Substance. Surely if Preaching and Print­ing more unsound Doctrine than all others do, and uncharitable Judgments of them, that do really excel them both in Know­ledge and Piety, be proofs that they are not acted by the Spirit of God, com­monly in either their Preaching or Pray­ing; and who are scarce ever heard to ac­knowledge their sinful Imperfections, or ask Forgiveness of them: If these be Marks of Men sensual, and not having the Spirit, notwithstanding of their Boastings, [Laodicea and Pharisee like] they are abun­dantly to be found among them. It is indeed matter of Regrate and Humilia­tion, that there is so little Preaching and Praying with the Spirit, among many of all sorts, as the little Success it pro­duceth doth manifest in many places; yet blessed be God for what is among many of all the several Churches; and were there but more Love and Charity, Hu­mility and Self-denial, it might certainly be hoped, that God would give more of his Spirit: And for such a Time, I joyn with all sincere Christians, both to Hope and Pray,

G. K.

A Synopsis, or short View of W. P's Deism and Scepticism, collected out of his Book, called, A Discourse of the General Rule of Faith and Life, and Judge of Controversie, first Printed in the Year 1673, as an Appendix to his Chri­stian Quaker, and Reprinted in this present Year 1699. Compared with some Passages in his other Books. With some plain and necessary Consequences, naturally flowing from the Posi­tive Doctrine therein delivered by him.

1. ALL Mankind hath one General Rule of Faith and Life, Page 1, 2, 3, 4, &c.

2. This General Rule of Faith and Life cannot be the Scripture, because all Men have not the Scripture, and because of their uncer­tainty (unless upon the ground of inward ex­traordinary Revelation) and for their Imper­fection, and many other Reasons given by him (in the following Pages) to the number of about fourteen.

3. The General Rule of Faith and Life, must be the Light in every Man's Conscience, P. 6, 7.

4. The Light in every Man's Conscience is the Rule of Faith and Life, not abstractly and seperately considered from the inward Disco­veries it giveth, but with respect thereunto. For without some inward Discovery, it teach­eth Men nothing, and therefore it can be no Rule to any Man, but with respect to its in­ward Discoveries.

[Page 94] 5. The inward discoveries of the Light within, are of two sorts, P. 32. the one ex­traordinary such as were given to the Pro­phets and Apostles, concerning Adam's fall and the extraordinary manifestation of God, in the Flesh of that Man called Jesus Christ, whom some call the Son of God: But that he was properly the Son of God we utterly deny, faith W. P. in his Serious Apology, P. 146. The other ordinary, such as fall within the ordi­nary discoveries given to all Mankind.

6. The Light within is the general Rule of Faith and Life, not with respect to these extraordinary discoveries above mentioned, P. 32. but with respect to the ordinary dis­coveries given to Mankind in general univer­sally.

7. We have no need that the Light within should give us any of these extraordinary dis­coveries, P. 32. concerning Adam's fall, and that extraordinary manifestation of God in the Flesh of that Man, improperly called the Son of God, and Jesus Christ, because the Historical account of these things is extant in Scripture, and it not being needful to be given us, by any new inward Revelation, we may conclude it is not given to any of us; it sufficeth we have the Historical account of them given us in Scripture, which is suffici­ent to beget in us a Historical Faith of these things, without any new inward Revelation of them, such as was given to the Prophets and Apostles

[Page 95] 8. The Historical account of these things, though it may be called a Historical Rule of the Historical Faith of them, yet it cannot be called, the Rule of Faith and Life that is necessary to Salvation. For as all have not this Historical Faith, because the History hath not reached them; so to them who have the History, the Historical Faith doth not pro­fit them to Salvation, but doth far rather hurt them, It is at best but the Old Heavens, that are to be wrapped up as a Scrowl, as he saith expresly in his conclusion near the end of his Book, called A Discourse concerning the general Rule, &c. And in his Book called, Quakerism a new Nick-name for Old Christi­anity, P. 6. he saith, Faith in the History of Christ's outward manifestation, is a deadly Poyson these latter Ages has been insected with.

9. Seeing the Scriptures are uncertain, with respect to all those extraordinary dis­coveries, upon the foundation of all others, who are not Quakers, as W. P. argueth ex­presly, and can only be certain to such as have inward extraordinary Revelation of those things, which W. P. confesseth are not needful, P. 32. and are not given to the peo­ple called Quakers more than to others, it necessarily follows, according to W. P's Doctrine, that the Faith of all those Doctrines concerning Adam's fall, and Christ's Birth, Death and Sufferings is uncertain, as well to the Quakers as other, because, as he affirmeth, [Page 96] the Scriptures that give the account of those things are uncertain, unless upon the ground of inward extraordinary Revelation, which neither the Quakers, nor any others now have.

10. Seeing therefore no Men in our days have these extraordinary discoveries given them by inward Divine Revelation, such as the Prophets had, concerning Adam's fall, and Christ's Birth, Death and Sufferings, and many other things in controversie betwixt the Socinians and Trinitarians, the Arians and Homousians, Jews and Christians, Papists and Protestants, which cannot be certain to us, and whereof we can have no certain Faith, without inward divine Revelation, which is given to none in our days, as touching these things, it is best to leave all asserting of them, or disputing about them, because we have no certainty of the truth of them by the common discoveries of the Light within, that is the general Rule of Faith and Life.

11. Whatever we read, or hear read, or Preached to us, with Scripture proofs, do not further oblige us to believe or practise them, but as the common, and ordinary dis­coveries given to all Mankind, as well as to us, Teach the same things.

Although we may Historically believe these extraordinary things, concerning Adam and Christ above mentioned, as we believe other Historical things, yet we are under no obli­gation to believe them by any command of [Page 97] God, nor is the not believing them our Sin, because they fall not within the ordinary dis­coveries of the Light within given universal­ly to Mankind, which are the Rule of our Faith and Life, and of all Mankind, and we have no certainty of them, and therefore we are under no Obligation to believe them.

13. The common and ordinary discove­ries given to all Mankind by the Light with­in, are these which Paul calls the Work of the Law writ in the Heart, and which some of the Ancients Philosophers called the Noble pre­cepts writ in the Heart of Man; and which W. P. calleth, the Eternal precepts of the Spirit in the Conscience, and the Testimony of the Spirit, which (he saith) is the true Rule, viz. of Faith and Life, (universally given to us and all Man­kind,) P. 14. and 25.

14. These common and ordinary discove­ries of the Light within given to all Mankind, are but few, such as, that God is, that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him; That the way of God is a way of Purity, Patience, Meekness, &c. without which no Man shall see the Lord: These and none other but these, and such like common and ordinary discove­ries given to all Mankind by the Light with­in, concerning general Piety towards God as a Creator, and Moral Justice and Temperance towards Men, are the absolute Necessaries of Re­ligion, necessary to be believed and practised by us for Salvation.

[Page 98] 15. One great use of this Doctrine of W. P. and his Brethren (if he and they can be be­lieved) is, that it would bring all Men to be of one Religion, by their Belief and Practise of these few things of Moral Piety and Justice, according to the common and ordinary Dis­coveries given to all Mankind.

16. This one Religion is Deisin, which how much soever undervalued by false Christians, (whose Faith is Historical in a Christ without them) is all one with true Christianity, they are but two Names to one and the same thing, as every true Christian is a true Deist, so every true Deist is a true Christian, for he who believes in God, believes in Christ, because Christ is God. And what is Christ, but Justice, Meekness, Pati­ence (saith W. P. Address to Protest. p. 119. 2d Edit.) therefore every Just, Meek and Patient Man, is the true Christian, [be he a professed In­fidel concerning Jesus of Nazareth, Jew, Ma­hometan or Pagan.] The meer Just Man ought not to be excluded the Communion of Christians, saith he.

17. Another great use of this Doctrine of W. P. is (as he thinks) that it would, if duly improved, put an end to all the Controversies and Heats among all Perswasions, not only of those called Christians of all sorts, as Papists and Protestants, Arians and Homousians, Socini­ans and Trinitarians (which four he expresly mentions, P. 45.) but even betwixt Jews and Christians (notwithstanding of their professed [Page 99] Unbelief, as concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and betwixt Mahometans and Christians by the same reason, so that they may own another to be their Christian Brethren.

18. And seeing the Name Christian is offen­sive to Jews and Mahometans, it may be laid aside, as also the Names Jesus and Christ, for it is not the outward Name of any thing that saveth, nor doth the Light within Men, by its common discovery teach them that Name. And because many are dissatisfied to call the Light within Christ and Jesus, as Socinians, Jews and Mahometans, and many others of those called Christians, let it suffice to call it by the name Light, which is owned by all, and is of­fensive to none, and all may be called Deists, or Professors of the Light within.

19. And ieeing many also are dissatisfied, to say, or think, that the Light within every Man is God, or any Supernatural and Divine Principle, but think it is nothing other but Conscience, or the natural Light of Man's Rea­son, let that Dispute also come to an end, for Men may agree about the common Dictates and Discoveries of it, though they agree not about the Nature and Essence of it, so as to know what it is, they shall have the Benefit of it, to be happy, by obeying it, though they know not what it is; as the Plow-man has the same Benefit that the best Philosopher has of the Sun in the Firmament, though he knows not what the Sun is, either for Substance, Quantity or Quality.

[Page 100] 20. One great Pinch and Difficulty in the case, is, certainly to know the just Extent and Number of the common Discoveries of the Light within, given to all Mankind; as whither the same number of those eter­nal Precepts and Laws writ in every Man's Heart, be given to all Men; and whither some of those which W. P. will say are the Dictates of the Light within Men universally, will not be denied by others even of his Brethren, to be the Dictates of the Light within; as particularly, whither attesting the Name of God in worldly matters, when controverted, is condemned by the Light within: Whither Self-defence by carnal Weapons be against the Dictates of the Light within, for many of his Brethren think both are not: Whither all G. F's Orders about outward things, opposed by many Quakers, are the Dictates of the Light within, with respect to its ordinary Discoveries; and whither the Quakers, especially G. F. have not set up for some new Revelations and Commands, beside the common Dis­coveries of the Light within, though they have re­jected the external Revelations and Commands of Christ in the Scripture, that are not taught them by the common Discoveries of the Light within.

Christian Reader, I have set before thee this short View of W. P's and his Brethrens Dejsm and Scepticism, not to approve of it, but that thou, with all good Christians, should with the greatest Abhorrency loath and detest it.

That this is a true Account of W. P's and his Brethrens Principles, and necessary Consequences therefrom, I offer to prove, to his or their Faces, before any Im­partial Auditory,

George Keith.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.