1. Pagan Principle.

THe first Opinion Charged upon the Quakers is, That the Light in every man, or the Light with which every Man is enlightned, is God.

[Page 9] W. L. His Answer is, How small a Word would stop this Breach? put in but (OF) and all's well.

Rep. By the same Rule, where the Apostle John saith, He that doth good is of God; John 3. Epistle v. 11. Take out but (OF) and then it is thus; He that doth good is God; which as it refers to men, as by the scope of the place is evident; it is not only an Ʋntruth, but Blasphemy: Neither will that relieve him to bring in W. P. saying, That every such Illu­mination is not very God, for if it were, then W. P. must believe there were as many Gods as there are Men in the World; because he faith that every man hath that Illumination: For W. P. in his Reason against Rayling, Page 56. saith, Geo. Whitehead owns it in its own being to be no other than God himself; where he approves of that saying, and adds this to it himself; We assert the true Light with which every man is enlightned, to be in it self the Christ of God, and the Saviour of the World. Now if W. P. will contradict himself, who can help that? it's not T. H. his fault, but his own. Reader, here he confesses the charge, so that Mr. Hicks is no Forger.

2. Pagan Principle.

HIS Second Charge is, That the Soul is a Part of God, and of God's Being, without beginning and Infinite.

W. L. His Answer is, What hurt is there in this? if they do say so: I never heard the Heathen were of this Opinion▪ I see no cause to be offended, much less to ac­count them Heathen, if the Quakers do count it a part of God.

Rep. Surely this Man is little Read in Heathen Authors, that he can say he never heard the Heathen [Page 10] were of this Opinion that the Soul is a Part of God &c. Let him but read Seneca (I presume he hath learning enough to do it because he is a Schoolmaster) and he will find him to be of this very Opinion; These are his Words, Quid aliud voces animum, quam Deum in Corpore humano hospitantem: What can we call the Soul (saith he) but God abiding in an humane Body? And of the Reason wherewith the Soul of Man is en­dowed he affirms, that it is Part of the Divine Spirit in Man's Body: For these are his Words, Ratio nihil aliud est, quam in corpus humanum pars Divini Spiri­tus, &c. Seneca Epist. 67. So that if I would trou­ble my self and you, I could shew you that herein there is a great union between a Quaker and a Pagan in their Opinion about the Soul of Man; the which may be most elegantly detected in the Words of a Learned Author of our times, [...]: It is a little Deity guesting in a body of Flesh.

Thus Reader thou mayest see that T. H. is no For­ger, and also that W. L. (though ignorantly) hath rightly called this A Pagan Principle.

But W. L. saith, The great Heat of disputes of that nature, has caused a scoffing Poet to Rhyme thus of OUR Disputes;

Who would but think these Verses had been made upon the late Disputes between us and the Quakers as W. L. words it? and yet I find that Hudibras is the [Page 11] Poet, and the Title of the Book tells me: it was writ­ten in the time of the late War, and Licensed November 11. 1662. Hudibras Part 1. page 267. Canto 3.

But I perceive he can allow himself a liberty to say any thing, yea rather than T. H. shall go free, he will jeer his Friend W. P. also; for if the Author of the Quakers Quibbles be not much mistaken, the great fault (which made that Dispute so fruitless) lay in W. P. and his Friends; for in page 10. he asks W. P. this question: ‘When thou camest to the Reasoning and Disputative part, how many shuffles and put-offs? How many pittiful Evasions and poor shifts didst thou make? how many delays? how much loss of time? I was not only ashamed to see it, but admired thy self and Friends did not blush at it, to see you make yourselves and party so ridi­culous in the Eyes of others: What Rayling instead of Reasoning! What Clamour! What Noise! What Tautologies! What Disorder! What Dis­cord and Confusion! No Argument to me more fully proved you to be no Christians, than your Unchristian carriage in that Meeting.’ And he that speaks this is an Indifferent Person, neither Quaker nor Baptist.

As for the abuse he hath done to the Poet in repeat­ing the two first lines otherwise than they are in Hu­dibras, I question not but Hudibras knows how to right himself better than I can direct him; in the mean time I would advise W. L. to take that good advice nosec tripsum, to study the knowledg of him­self more, and then he will not be at so much leisure to pry into the lives, and espouse the Quarrel of o­ther Men: had he been so imployed when he wrote this Book, he had saved me this pains; for I can as­sure [Page 12] him that I don't use to imploy my Time after this sort; nor would I have done it now, only I hope God may have some Honour by detecting his folly, and it may be I may be made Instrumental to bring him to a sight of it.

I had thought to have passed over this Head, but the man makes such a stir about an impertinent Que­stion, that I am minded to say something to it, lest my silence should prove his prejudice.

Quest. But, Why (saith W. L.) may not we aswel say, God hath given us a Part of himself; as a Part or Measure of his spirit which hath no beginning nor end­ing.

Ans. I answer, as it is in the Question, and relates to the Soul of Man; I will tell you why we may not so speak, because there is a great Disparity betwixt the Soul of Man, and the Spirit of God: As,

1. The Soul of Man is a Creature made by God. Isaiah 57. 16. For I will not contend for ever, neither will I be always wroth, for the Spirit should fail before me, and the Souls which I have made.

2. But the Holy Spirit is increated and of the same Essence with the Father, as the Quaker himself con­fesseth, and from thence takes occasion to confound the Personal Existence of all the Three.

Now, though I may say God hath given us a mea­sure of his Spirit, because we are made to partake of the Gifts and Graces thereof; yet I may not affirm that therefore the Soul in which they do reside, is a part of God and of God's Being, without Beginning and Infinite.

But says W. L. That Man hath an Immortal Soul we all grant; and yet before he is got ten lines for­ward he saith, if the Soul be a Created part of Man coming by Generation, then (as I have heard it argued) [Page 13] it must be Mortal: and a little after. This is a great Mistery, and we must wait till another Seal of the Book of Life be opened, before we shall know what the Breath of Life was which God Breathed into Adam, Gen. 2. He saith, Philosophers and Divines have made a great Bustle about the Soul, but to define what it is, will be as hard a Task, as it was to one Simoni­des, to tell what God was; but still we are as wise as before.

Ans. Truly I don't expect to be made wiser by this discourse of thine about the Soul; but give me leave to ask thee a few questions about it, notwithstanding thy considence in saying It's strange we should differ about we know not what.

1. Dost thou believe the Soul of Man was Cre­ated?

2. Dost thou not believe God to be Increated, to subsist of, and from himself, and from no other?

3. Dost thou believe it possible for the Blessed Cre­ator of all things to become a Creature; or for a Crea­ture to be made God Blessed for evermore, and to be without beginning and infinite? He that can believe this, may easily believe Transubstantiation.

I would have W. P. and W. L. consult together once more, and see if they can invent some Answer that may Reconcile these 2 Propositions:

1. That the Soul of Man was Created.

2. That the Soul is God himself, without beginning and infinite.

The first is asserted by God himself, Esay 57. 16. The Souls which I have made.

The latter is asserted by themselves, for they say the Soul is a part of God's Being, &c. and in this case that known Maxim will stand good, Quidquid est in [Page 14] Deo, est Deus: Whatsoever is in God, is God. Now if they cannot Reconcile them, if I come to be put to my choyce whether I will Believe God's Word or Their's, I shall not only believe what God hath spoken, but also that his Word will certainly stand against them for Evil. Jer. 44. ult. For they have rejected the Word of the Lord, and what Wisdom is in them? Now I hope W. L. may see, notwithstanding all that he hath said, That though the Soul of Man be made Immor­tal and can never Die, yet it had not always a Being, it is not without beginning; there being a time when it was not, and that it is not infinite and God him­self.

But I wonder W. L. should say that it is so hard to know what the Soul is; he forgets sure that the Quakers have a light in them that (they say) can teach them all things: if they cannot know what it is, now the Scripture hath so plainly told them that Man hath a Soul, surely they would have been hard put to it to have told us that, and all other things Recorded in Scripture concerning God, the Man Christ Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Souls of Men; if they had not been written there. Notwithstanding they have often told us, That they could have known all those things contained in the Bible if they had never been written: But I am glad we are not forced to be be­holding to them for the knowledg thereof; for if we were, I have ground to conclude we must go with­out it; for I have often asked, What some of those things were that our Saviour did when he was upon the Earth that are not written? But they could ne­ver tell me one of them.

Pagan Principle the 3d.

THe Third Opinion charged on the Quakers is, That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person without us.

W. L. His Answer is, These Expressions being not in Scripture are not owned by them, and why we should impose them I know not.

Reader, here is a plain confession that the Quakers do not own Jesus Christ to be a Distinct Person with­out us, therefore T. H. is no Forger.

But I will examine his Reason why they do not own it; It is (saith he) Because it is not expressed in the Scripture: Now in case that supposition were true, that cannot be the Reason why the Quakers do deny it.

1. For first, They deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians, and therefore though they may sometimes make use of them against those that own them Argumentum ad hominem, as I may make use of the saying of a Heathen Poet a­gainst a Heathen; yet it's shameful for a Quaker hav­ing exploded them in print from being a Rule of Faith, to bring this as a Reason why they do not own it, because (as they say) it is not written in Scripture; and as W. P. doth, in calling this Doctrine of T. H. Ʋnscriptural: seeing all the real ground a Quaker can have to own any Doctrine is, Because he is Taught it by the Light within: and the pretence of any o­ther proof to himself is but vain; for that's the Que­stion, Whether the Quakers themselves do believe Christ to be a Distinct Person without them.

[Page 18] 2. But Secondly, These Expressions of T. H. are no more in effect than if I should say in other words, That Christ is a Man without us: and is he not called in Scripture the MAN Christ Jesus, 1 Tim. 2. 5. For surely to say he is a MAN, is to suppose him both to be distinct, and a Person without us.

Obj. But Christ is said to be in his People, and to dwell in them

Ans. I grant it, but the Scripture saith it is by the Spirit, 1 John 4. 13. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us; because he hath given us of his Spirit. Chap. 3. 24. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us; neither is this to be understood of the Essence, but of the Gifts and Graces of the Spirit, therefore it's said so, Ephes. 3. 16, 17. where the Apostle prayes, that they might be strengthened with Might, by his Spirit in the inner Man; That Christ may dwell in your Hearts by FAITH.

3. But thirdly, I will prove that Christ is called a PERSON in Scripture. Matt. 27. 24. Pilate saith, I am innocent of the Blood of this JUST PERSON: If they say he was a wicked man that said so, then it seems a wicked Man did own more concerning Christ than a Quaker is willing to do: But I can prove that the Apostle Paul useth that very Expression, 2 Cor. 2. 10. For your sakes forgave I it in the PERSON of CHRIST: and this doth not only prove Christ to be a PERSON, but also that he is a DISTINCT PER­SON without us; Because Paul doth here tell the Church, that in that Act he did Represent the PER­SON of Christ, he being (in respect of his HU­MANE NATURE) absent, and in Heaven; and that he acted in his stead. But surely the Oppositi­on [Page 19] the Quakers make against the PERSON of Christ is wholly Ʋnscriptural; Never any true Minister or Christian mentioned in Scripture did ever oppose this Doctrine of Christ's being a Distinct PERSON with­out us, if they did, let them shew it us in their Next.

4. But Fourthly, Seeing Syllogizing (which they formerly condemned) is now grown into Fashion a­mong them; I will give them one Argument to prove Christ Jesus to be a REAL and True MAN.

If all the Properties of a Humane Person were found in Christ, then he was a Real and True Man.

But all the Properties of a Humane Person were found in Christ; Ergo, he was a Real and True Man.

To deny the consequence of the Major, is to take away the very Rule of Distinction between the Spe­cies of different Creatures; so that if that be denyed, then they may call a Man a Horse, and no body can contradict them.

The Minor I prove thus: The Scripture tells us that Christ was made Flesh, and made of the Seed of DAVID according to the Flesh; made of a Woman, did partake of the same Flesh and Blood that Children do, that he was Born of the Virgin Mary, he did hun­ger and thirst, eat and drink, speak and sleep, was ly­able to all our Temptations; yea, was Tempted in all points as we are, did Travel from one place to ano­ther, was exposed to so many Sufferings, that he was called A MAN of Sorrows; and lastly, as the greatest Demonstration thereof, He who had a Rea­sonable Soul, and a True Body did lay down his Life as a Ransom for us, being himself Subject to Death, even the Death of the Cross; from all which I draw this Conclusion, Christ was a Real and true Man.

[Page 20] But saith W. L. God manifest in the Flesh is yet so great a Mystery, that I know no Catechisms free from some seeming incongruities, attending the questions a­bout it.

[...]. Sure he should have excepted Smith's Cate­chism, and the Catechism of the Quakers great Pro­phet George Fox; for they say they speak and write by an Infalliable Spirit, unless he doth not believe they have Immediate Revelation for the Rule of their Faith and Practice, notwithstanding they so confidently As­sert it. But perhaps we are to understand him thus, That though there be some seeming Incongruities in them, yet they are not Really Incongruous; if so, then the dispute about that point may soon be ended? But to take him, as I conceive he would be understood, and as indeed his words do signifie, then it's to make this Doctrine so doubtful, that (in his sence) it is lost labour to enquire about the Truth of the Pro­position, viz. Whether Christ be Really a distinct Per­son without us, or no? and a thing not to be Re­solved.

To that I would give this Answer; It doth not follow that because there may be some Questions ask­ed about the Manner, how that great Work was Accomplished, of God's being Manifest in the Flesh, (which is the wonder of Men and Angels) that can­not be resolved by any Man; That therefore we should disown it (as the Quakers do,) and conclude that no man can know de facto that such a thing was: For though I do not know what moved W. L. to write, nor what reward he expects for writing; yet I know he did write: W. L. cannot tell me how the Bones do grow in the Womb of her that is with Child: and yet he knows they did grow there, or else they [Page 21] had not been. He cannot tell me how the Corn that is cast into the Earth doth grow to be what it is at Harvest; and yet he knows it is so: A Stalk, an Ear, &c.

By the same Argument that W. L. makes it doubt­ful whether Christ be a distinct Person without us, and the Quakers deny him so to be; a man may make it doubtful, yea deny that ever the Heavens and Earth were made, and so not only be no Christian, but an A­theist: for it's evident, when the most learned Men come to examine every point concerning the Creation of the Heavens and Earth, and the things therein; as, how, and what, and where, and in what man­ner, and when things were done? it doth astonish them all, to consider the difficulties which they find, and the depth of such infinite and inscrutable My­steries. We may as well by William Luddington's way of reasoning conclude that these things had no beginning; nay, that they are not, notwithstand­ing the Scripture saith so plainly, Gen. 1. 1. In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, and we see them with our Eyes. And by the same parity of Reason, because our Saviour saith John 3. 8. That the Wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hear­est the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; A Man may conclude that the Wind hath not its Origination and Termination: but how absurd such a conclusion would be, I leave to the Judicious to determine.

I hope W. L. will acknowledg, That it is the In­dispensable duty of all Men, to know God, and to be­lieve that he is; and yet there may be some Questions asked about it, that no man living can resolve. I be­lieve the Quakers themselves, though they say their Soul is a part of God, and the light they have in them is God him­self, [Page 22] yet they would be as much puzzled, and find as hard a Task on't, as W. L. saith one Simonides did, when he took upon him to define what God was. But must we therefore turn Fools and Atheists like him that Holy David speaks of, Psalm 14. 1. And say in our Hearts there is no God. Reader, I am greatly of­fended when I find men trifle (as this Man doth) about the most Sacred and Divine Truths of the Go­spel, and strain their Wits, to root up Religion out of the minds of Men, for I know (through grace) that nothing can make a man so happy as to be truely Religious; that inriches the Soul with Divine Truths and Heavenly Graces: but these Men take away him, whom the Father hath anointed and filled with Grace and Truth, and appointed to reveal unto us the most glorious Truths of the Gospel, and to give us Grace to inable us to obey his Will, from whom the Apo­stles and first Christians did receive BOTH. John. 1. 16, 17. And of his fulness have all we received, and Grace for Grace: For the Law was given by Moses, but GRACE and TRUTH came by Jesus Christ. It's not sufficient for them to say, they do own there is a Christ, when they intend not the MAN Christ Je­sus, but a Christ of their own setting up, and ado­ring as such, to wit, the Light within them; For our Saviour saith, If ye believe not that I am HE, ye shall dye in your Sins, John 8. 24. The JEWS could have said asmuch for themselves as that, and more too; for they did not deny a Messiah, but, believed he should come: yea, and be a MAN also, when he did come; yet they and the Quakers are both agreed, that the Man Christ Jesus that is come in the Flesh is not HE: and that the True Christ can never dye and be made a Sacrifice for Sin. That the Jews were of [Page 23] this Opinion, see John 12. 32, 33, 34. And I, if I be lifted up from the Earth, will draw all men unto me. (This he said, signifying what death he should dye) The People answered him, We have heard out of the Law, That CHRIST abideth for EVER: And how sayest thou the SON of MAN must be lift up? Who is this SON of MAN? That made them to say when he was upon the Cross; If thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross; Matt. 27. 40. and in vers. 42. The Chief Priests, Elders, and Scribes mock­ed him, saying, HE saved others Himself he cannot save: If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the Cross, and we will believe him. That the Quakers do also deny Christ's Death, and say, That he never did Dye; I and many others have been Ear-Witnesses, to the great grief and trouble of our Souls. But though these Men can so easily part with their Saviour; I hope when they or others tempt me so to do, I shall say, (and so I hope will many thou­sands that fear God) as the Apostle Peter did, LORD, to whom shall we go? thou hast the Words of Eternal Life: And we believe, and are sure, that thou art THAT Christ the Son of the Living God, John 6. 68, 69.

Reader, I would not have detained thee so long upon this subject, but to let thee see, That the de­sign of such insinuations is to make void plain and most necessary Truths, that they may the better in­troduce their own corrupt Principles: For it is not only in this, but about many other the most Important Truths of Christianity, which they endeavour to e­vade by raising Difficulties about the MODE of things, when we enquire not into the Manner how it shall be, but TRUTH of the Matter whether it is or [Page 24] shall ever be? and I will give thee one instance, in the room of many more; which I could give upon my own knowledg if there were occasion.

I have asked many of the Quakers, Whether they did believe, that the same Body which doth now consist of Flesh, Blood and Bones, and is buried, shall be raised again out of the Grave, and made Spiritual and Glorious?

The Answer they used to give me was, Thou art one of them Fools that Paul speaks of, that art inquiring about the manner how, what Body it shall have? &c. thinking thereby to have evaded and dropt the Que­stion: But at length, when I have prest them for a plain and full Answer, and desired them to tell me not how it should be raised, or with what a Body in re­spect of Form; But whether the same Body that dies shall Rise again, respecting the Matter of which it doth Consist? And they have often told me, That that Body which Dies shall not Rise again. But to return from whence I have digressed.

W. L. saith; Nevertheless we and they agree, That he is unworthy to be called a Christian that denies the Divinity of Christ, and brings divers Scriptures to prove it: But, (saith he) When from other Texts more dark, we are taught to understand our Lord Jesus to be that very Jehovah, Creator or Father; of whom and to whom he himself speaks when he saith, My Father is greater than I. And Father I will, that whom thou hast given me, &c. with many more of that kind: then I say, Are not our Apprehensions so darkned and bewildered, that we are apt to read Psalm 110. 1. thus, The Lord said unto him­self, sit thou at my Right Hand. And John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent himself: and many others would come under the like Absurdities.

[Page 25] Rep. This is such a confused heap of Words, that I know not well where to begin. First, If by Divi­nity of Christ he mean as I do; i. e. That though he were a Man, yet he was also Truly God by Nature, then I am of his Mind: But then he doth not truly represent the Quakers Notion, for they say he is only God, and not Man at all.

2. If he means as they do, That he is only God; then I wonder at his confidence, to throw that absur­dity upon others, which lies only at the door of the Quakers, Ranters, Muggletonians, &c. and how he, and they, conjoyned, can remove it, I do not un­derstand; but am of Opinion, That if W. L. and W. P. had one of them the Strength of Sampson, and the other the Wisdom of Solomon, they might im­ploy themselves all their life-time, and yet find it a difficulty too hard for them to resolve. But however, I know they are Men of confidence, and will venture upon hard things; I will therefore try their strength and skill in this Matter.

1. W. L. tells us, We being taught that Christ is the very Jehovah, Creator or Father, &c. it doth so bewilder our Apprehensions, that we are apt to read Psalm 110. 1. The Lord said unto himself, &c. and John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he sent him­self; which he saith is an Absurdity; And I think a great one too: But that it lies not at our doors, but at the Quakers; I think it no hard thing to prove: and in order thereunto, I would ask these few Que­stions.

1. Whether W. L. ever heard any Man of T. H's Opinion about Christ, i. e. That he is both God and Man, and a Distinct Person without us, affirm, That in respect of his Person he was only Jehovah, Crea­tor [Page 26] or Father (as he is pleased to word it) and whe­ther it be sayable from their own Principles? when at the same time they also affirm, That he is truly Man.

2. Whether the Quakers do not deny that the same Body which Christ had when he was upon the Earth, and is now ascended with into Heaven, is a Part of that Christ, and affirm it to be only a Body in which he was, and acted in for a time here upon Earth?

3. Whether the Quakers do not believe That it is only the Light or Spirit which was in that Man which is the Christ, which Spirit (they say) is now in them and all Men?

4. Whether it will not thence follow that the Quakers believe Christ to be only God? if they deny it, I am able to prove it against them.

5. Whether the Quakers do not deny all Personal Distinction between the Father and the Son, and say, that the Son is the Father, and the Father is a Son to himself?

If the Quakers should deny this and say, There is a Distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence; Will. Penn may remember what himself hath written in opposi­tion to such a Distinction in his Book, Entituled, The Sandy Foundation shaken; where among many o­ther sayings of that import, he lays down this Argu­ment to prove that Doctrine Absurd and Ridicu­lous.

If each Person be God, and God subsists in three Per­sons, then in each Person there are three Persons or Gods, and so from three they would encrease to nine, and so in infinitum: from whence it is plain the Quakers deny all Distinction of Persons in the Divine Essence.

[Page 27] 6. Having gained thus far upon them, I therefore query, Whether according to their own Opinion this absurdity will not necessarily fall upon them, to read those Scriptures as W. L. hath done; That the Lord said to himself, sit thou on my Right Hand; and that he so loved the World, that he sent himself: and all other Scriptures of the like import, as that where he saith; If I bear witness of my self, my witness is not true. There is another which beareth witness of me. The Father himself which hath sent me, hath born witness of me, John 5. 31, 32, 37. which they must read, If I bedr witness of my self, my witness is not true, But I bear witness of my self: and then how bravely will they make the Lip of Truth to contradict himself: and indeed make void the Fathers Testimony concerning his Son, and make it doubtful whether he be the True Messiah?

If they assert it, it's horrid Blasphemy, and the very Opinion of Muggleton and his Company, who they say are Impostors; for they agree with the Quakers in this, That there is no distinction of Persons in the Di­vine Essence: and therefore they say, That the Son was the Father, and the Father the Son; and that when Christ died, God himself died. But the Quakers, though they agree with them in the former, yet they differ in the latter; For the Quakers say. That Christ in respect of himself never died, neither could he, because he was only God,

I do therefore begg of these two Gentlemen W. L. and W. P. to shew us how it is possible for them to extricate themselves out of this difficulty, and that they would either remove this absurdity from the Quakers door, or else acknowledg they have been mistaken in charging their own Guilt upon other Men.

[Page 28] In the next place, W. L. tells us, And so I pass to the Humanity, and makes a full stop, only in the Margin, or rather a Break that is made for that pur­pose; he puts in these words, I know no better Text to teach us the Divinity and Humanity of Christ, than 1 Cor. 15. 27, 28.

Reader, If this be a passing to the Humanity, no Man ever past from it (as I think) with that brevity before; if this be an account of the Humanity, I must confess I don't understand it: but let us consi­der those two Verses he hath quoted for our informa­tion, ver. 27. For he hath put all things under his Feet: but when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted that did put all things under him. ver. 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be sub­ject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Which words I have seriously con­sidered, and I find nothing in them to the purpose pre­tended, i. e. to prove the Divinity and Humanity of Christ with that Cleerness W. L. speaks of: But I think I have found out his intent; namely, to lead us from the Matter we are upon. But I will exa­mine his next words, which are these:

W. L. Only with this Caution that because we op­pose not our Teachers in these Mysteries which are above our Reason, we suffer not Mystical Babylon to impose others upon us contrary to Reason; for then we shall soon be able to give as little Reason of the hope that is in us, as the poor Irish-Men.

Rep. An excellent definition of the Humanity of Christ: sure this Man hath lost his Wits, or honesty, or both; but to proceed.

[Page 29] W. L. Now (saith he) As to the Quakers denying the Distinct Person without them, if it were so (is it still but an If? W. L. confessed at the beginning of this Head, that they did not own it, sure he hath a bad Memory) then certainly there is no probabi­lity they should be of the Popish Pedigree, or ea­sily ☞ reduced to that Religion, as many conceit: And he gives us a jeer for his Reason; i. e. For that is busied most of all about the Person of Christ and his Mother too: and adds, If the Jesuites were their Fa­thers, (as a late printed sheet would perswade us) truly they went as wisely about their business, as General Venables to take Hispaniola: (and why not Admiral Penn too, for I think he was there) by landing his Army so far from it, that before they could get through the Woods, they met so many difficulties as forced them to retreat, and assault Jamaica.

Ans. To which I answer, That the Quakers might be set on work by the Jesuites, notwithstanding they deny Christ to be a Distinct Person without them, and the Jesuites do not: For there is nothing more suiting Jesuitical Policy, than to pretend one thing, and intend another; Their Art and Order is almost as well filled with Subtilties and Equivocations, as the Order of Quakers; and had but this Man studied Machiavil, as well as W. P. is supposed to have done, he might get over this Objection with ease: For it is possible the Jesuites may design the introducing of Popery in England, by promoting Quakerism: And in my Opinion it's the likelyest way to do it, and that for these Reasons.

1. Because the Quakers deny the Holy Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice to Christians; and it all England were of this mind, what Argument [Page 30] could be urged against the Church of Rome, but what a Jesuite could easily enervate. I have met with divers Popish Priests in my time, and I always found Scripture-Argumens the best Weapons against Popery. I would not have the Quakers take away from us the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, till they have found a better Sword to put into our hands.

2. Because the Quakers agree with the Church of Rome, That there is some other infallible Rule of Faith and Practice: The Quakers use to tell us, It was the Light in every individual man that cometh into the World: But since some difference hath hapned among themselves, which they could not reconcile, now it is the Spirit in the Body (as they call it) that is the Judg in Religious Controversies. And can it be thought when the Contest shall lie here between them and you, that a Jesuite cannot shew better Antiquity and Au­thority for his Church, than you can for yours? I should be very sorry if Englands remaining Pro­testants, or returning to Popery, depended upon that single issue. But to proceed:

3. But suppose the Jesuites should miss of their end, which is to suppose all that W. L. supposes; this is no Argument to prove, that they may not therefore attempt the doing it; for many men have undertaken things which they could not effect, by reason of some unhappy and unseen Accident intervening, and yet their design no whit the more impolitickly laid. And why should not W. L. think this possible, seeing at the same time he opposes it, he brings in the instance of General Venables to prove de facto that such a thing was done: We must conclude by this man's Argument, That the Devil will never attempt the [Page 31] doing of an Impossibility, in respect of the event; and yet if he read but Chap. 4. of Matthew's Gospel, he will find he did so in the Assault he made upon our Saviour. And I believe, a Quaker that says he hath attained such perfection, that he doth not commit one sin, cannot say but the Devil tempts him to many. Now if the Devil be such a fool to attempt that which is never effected, why may not the Jesuites do the same? For I always thought the Devil was too cunning for a Jesuite, and I doubt they will find it so too at the last.

4. But why doth W. L. make such a stir about this Book, called, The Quakers Pedigree? I am of opi­nion there is some wit, if not much truth contained therein: But why doth he insinuate, as if the Bap­tists made it, and as if they promoted it? This must needs be to render them ridiculous, which is a very un­worthy design. But to prevent him from persevering therein for the future, I will tell him what the man is not which made that Book, HE is not one of the People called Baptists: I could let him know who did write it, but I will not humour him so far at this time, because he hath so pleased himself to throw dirt upon us in Print about it; for which he deserves a sharper Reproof, than I will permit my pen to give him at this time: Will. Pen, who seems to have dipt his quill in Gall and Wormwood, may do that piece of Justice for me, if he please.

But said W. L. Why should we think they deny the Person of Christ? it is not long since they were railed on as the Spawn of SOCINUS, for denying the Divinity, and now they are faced about to oppose his Hu­manity? either they are very unsettled, or T. H. mis­understands them.

[Page 32] Answ. Will. Luddington is no sooner got out of General Venables Wood, but he is got into one him­self: But I'le do that kindness for him as the Law required (when a man saw his neighbours Ox, or Ass going astray) to bring him home if I can.

There is a man hath written a Book very lately, entituled, The Christian, a Quaker; The Quaker a Christian: Which they seem to glory in very much, and do him the kindness to sell his Books. And one Reason he gives to prove, that the name of a Christian doth most properly belong to a Quaker is this, Be­cause a Quaker is an Ass: His words are these,

He being before speaking of Antioch, saith, The Disciples were there first called [...], that is to say, Christ's Asses: And in a break made for that pur­pose, he inserts these words, [...], Asses; [...], Christ's Asses, page 23, 24. And continuing his Dis­course upon this subject, in the latter end of p. 25. and beginning of p. 26. he hath these words:

But these [...], whom this Author calls Qua­kers (meaning T. H.) walk by a better Rule; for if they receive a Blow on the one Cheek, they turn to them that give it the other also (so they profess) patiently un­dergoing all manner of Affronts, Persecutions, Re­proaches, and Revilings, returning not evil for evil, ac­cording to the Commandment of the Everlasting God: So that they may truly enough be termed [...], Christ's Asses. To which I answer:

Answ. 1. This Author doth abuse his unlearned Reader; for that word in the 11th of Acts vers. 26. is not [...], but [...]: Which the Learn­ed Leigh in his Critica Sacra, p. 288. renders thus, Qui Christi discipulum se profitetur, & à Christo se denominat; Who professes themselves Disciples of [Page 33] Christ, and derive their name from Christ. And it is so used also in Acts 26. 28. and in 1 Pet. 4. 16. both quoted by the said Learned Author.

But suppose we should interpret the word as the Quakers Advocate doth, then we must read Acts 26. 28. thus, Almost thou perswadest me to be one of Christ's Asses; and 1 Pet. 4. 16. But if any man suffer as one of Christ's Asses, let him not be ashamed. But how ridiculous this would be, I leave to all that hold the name of Christian as Venerable to determine: If this will not make a Quaker to blush, what will?

2. But secondly, Besides those he mentions, I am perswaded he consulted as his Oracle in this point, that famous Conjurer Cornelius Agrippa, who at the end of his Book, called, The vanity of Sciences, gives the like ridiculous account of a Christian, by comparing him to an Ass. But what have the Quakers gained by this man's Book? He hath proved them to be Asses, and he that took them to be otherwise, was mistaken in them: And I am much afraid I shall find one property of an Ass in W. L. which is given by a very Learned Author now living; his words are these, [...] An Ass; some way or other (saith he) it seems to be a troublesome Beast by its name; for the root is [...] he was troublesome, and so any Ass (tan­quam Davus aliquis, perturbat omnia) troubleth all where he cometh. But let the trouble be as great as it will, I will go on to prosecute my purpose, and perform my promise, to bring him out of this La­byrinth, if I can.

1. W. L. saith, They railed on them as the Spawn of SOCINUS, for denying the Divinity.

[Page 34] 2. But now (he saith) they are faced about to op­pose his Humanity: From whence he draws this Con­clusion, Either they are very unsettled, or T. H. mis­understands them. And till this Dilemma be removed, it seems W. L. can't go forward: If this be the dif­ficulty, I'le do him that kindness to remove it.

1. I do affirm, That in this point T. H. doth not misunderstand them; for the Quakers do say, That Christ is not a distinct Person without us. Geo. White­head in Dip. pl. p. 13. saith, Jesus Christ a Person with­out us is not Scripture Language; but the Anthropo­morphites, and Muggletonians. The Socinians tell us of a personal Christ, and that the Man Christ Jesus our Lord, hath in Heaven a place remote from Earth, a Humane body. But doth he believe him to be the Eter­nal God, whilst he imagines him to be a personal Christ? a Humane body so limited and confined to a remote­ness. Geo. Whitehead, Append. to Reas. against Rail­ing, p. 21. Therefore you see the difficulty lies not here.

2. If any persons did rail on them as the Spawn of Socinus, for denying the Divinity, I suppose they were mistaken. But suppose they should have said, they held that part of Socinus Doctrine, that saith, Christ gave no plenary Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the sins of men, herein they had not wronged them: For while the Quakers believe Christ to be only God, he is not capable to suffer death; it being ab­surd to imagine, that the Deity can become Mortal: And because they deny the Body to be a part of the Christ, they are forced to say, Christ never died, and so con­sequently, he did not satisfie Justice thereby. So that W. L. may see, that the Quakers are not faced about to oppose the Humanity, for they always opposed [Page 35] it; neither is T. H. mistaken about their mean­ing.

Well, I perceive W. L. is got half-way out of this Labyrinth; for in his next words he saith, Let's be charitable in these Mysterious points however, and expound these Extreams as we do that betwixt Paul and James, Gal. 2. and Rom. 4. with James 2. for as Faith and Works, so Divinity and Humanity must go together. And what God hath joyned, let no man put asunder.

Answ. I wish the Quakers would but do so, and then this Controversie would soon be ended. As to what he tells me of W. P. his words at the Barbican-Meeting, as an instance, I say this to it, When W. P. hath given us some infallible Demonstration, that he did not speak equivocally in those Expressions, then, and not till then, do they deserve my cogni­zance, any further, than to answer him in the words of the Roman Orator, Quid attinet gloriose loqui, nisi constanter loquare; Cic. l. 2. de Fin. p. 61. For what availeth it for a man to speak gloriously, if he be not constant, and sticks not firmly unto that which he speaketh. And I fear I may say of him, as it's said of some others by Augustine, Hoc in labiis, non in corde dicere. Aug. Epist. 20. Tom. 2. p. 588. They speak it but with their lips, they believe it not with their hearts. But let us proceed to the next par­ticular.

4. Pagan Principle.

THe fourth Charge is (saith he,) That Christ Redeemed himself.

W. L. His Answer is, This our Friend T. H. con­fesseth to be but his own Consequence from their words, which he leaves to the judgment of others, (as indeed all Consequences ought to be:) And I'le tell you what my weak apprehension is of it, The sayings from whence he hath drawn this Charge, I confess are above my capacity: I do not understand, how Christ is both the Election, and the Elect Seed: Nor how Abra­ham's old decayed Body, was a Type of the Seed of Abraham. Now I begin to like my Author, and I should have done so before, if he had spoke as ho­nestly: I wish he may keep in this mind. A little after he saith, W. P. asserts the Redemption of the Seed, &c.

But then he endeavours to extenuate the fault, saying, It's true, it looks with a strange countenance to us, but yet there is some of even the very same in Scripture; as that in Isa. 59. 16. He wondred there was no Intercessor; therefore his own Arm brought Salvation to him: And in Chap. 63. 5. Mine own Arm brought Salvation unto me, and my fury it upheld me. Whence faith W. P. in Reas. against Railing, p. 63. It is no ways absurd that we affirm, That the end of Gods manifesting himself in the flesh, was for the Redemption or Deliverance of his holy life that was in man, as a small seed, even the smallest of seeds that had been long vex'd, grieved and pressed down by sin and iniquity: And in page 64. This Seed was, and is pure for ever. Here, saith W. L. He [Page 37] tells what he means by Redemption of the Seed. In this he hath fully cleared T. H. from the guilt of Forgery: And I will also quit this point, when I have considered the meaning of those two Texts urged to prove it, or rather to excuse W. P.

1. I take notice, That though W. P. and the Quakers deny the Scriptures to be a Rule, yet they can make use of them in favour of themselves, when they think they will serve for their purpose: But to pass that.

2. It is obvious to all that will take the pains to consider them, that these Texts do not prove what they are brought for; i. e. That the end of Christ's coming was to redeem himself: For as there is no such words spoken by the Prophet, so it is contrary to the general scope and design of the Gospel, and to the express words of the Apostle Paul, 1 Tim. 1. 15. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, That Christ Jesus came into the World to save sinners, of whom I am chief: And that he came to seek and to save that which was lost; not a lost God, and a lost Christ, as Geo. Keith saith, but lost and undone sinners.

3. If you will have my understanding of these two Scriptures, it is this; That by Salvation is meant by a figure the person saved, and that it signifies no more, but that he purchased them to himself, the Abstract being there put for the Concrete, as is usual in Scrip­ture; as in Phil. 3. 3. Circumcision is put for the per­sons circumcised; and in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Helps, Go­vernments, is put for Helpers and Governors, with many more of the like kind that might be mentioned: And therefore it's said in Isa. 49. 6. I also will give thee for a Light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my Sal­vation to the ends of the earth; that is, My Salvati­on [Page 38] that I have appointed for them. For God, who is always perfectly happy, and Blessedness it self, cannot stand in need of any Salvation; yea, it is as great an absurdity as any the Quakers can be guilty of, to affirm it. But from hence we may see, that the Light which is in them, doth teach them to have strange blasphemous thoughts of God; and some­times out of the abundance of their hearts their mouths do utter it.

5. Pagan Principle.

THe fifth Charge is, That the Quakers do deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Pra­ctice unto Christians. And T. H. brings in W. P. his words for proof: Which are these,

We deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice; In honour to that Divine-Light that was the Author of them. W. P. in Reas. against Rail. page 48.

W. L. The Quakers sayings brought to prove this, I confess at a distance, or to a hasty, or a prejudiced Reader seem to do it; but look seriously and charita­bly on them, and there is as much truth in them as I de­sire. Ben. Furly says, There is nothing in the Scrip­ture that is a duty upon him, or which he is obliged to obey, because there recorded; and so say I. He fur­ther acknowledgeth, that Geo. Whitehead saith, That it is Idolatry to call the Bible the means of our knowing God, Dip. pl. p. 17.

Reply. Reader, W. L. hath gone very far already towards the clearing T. H. But hear what he saith further, page 17. he there confesses, They seem to him and others to speak slightly of the Scriptures, which [Page 39] (saith he) I would not have them do. But it seems they will not be ruled by him; for you have heard W. P. his positive denial already. And for Ben. Furly, he saith, It is the greatest errour in the World, that ever was invented, and the ground of all error, to affirm, That the Scripture ought to be a Rule to Chri­stians: Whatsoever is a command to me, I must not re­ceive from any man or thing without me; nay, not the Scripture it self. And Edw. Burroughs in his Works, p. 62. saith, He that perswades people to let the Scriptures be the Rule of Faith and Practice, would keep people in darkness. Now I hope T. H. is no Forger.

But whereas my Author doth endeavour to cover their nakedness by some pitiful Evasions that co­vering of his is too narrow, the Light in every man doth see their folly, and is above them; justly con­demning them by the Light of the Holy Scriptures, which they do wickedly reject: And their great pretences to Light and Knowledg, are seen to be the manifest effects of Darkness and Ignorance. To the Law, and to the Testimony, because they speak against this Word, there can be no Light in them.

Quest. W. L. askes this Question, What Scriptures do they disown for a Rule, but such as relate to some external parts of Worship? and do not we our selves do the same?

Answ. I answer, They deny the Scriptures, yea, as Geo. Whitehead phrases it (as quoted by W. L. him­self) the BIBLE, which contains all the Books of holy Scripture both in the Old and New-Testament, to be a Rule; and therefore tis idle for him to talk as if it were some part of it only, that related to external Worship.

[Page 40] Quest. But saith W. L. Do not we our selves do the same?

Answ. There is one thing I would be satisfied in, what W. L. means by saying, WE, ƲS, and OƲR in this Discourse? I suppose he doth it on purpose to insinuate, as if himself were a Baptist, because he hath been so some years ago: If that be his mean­ing, then I must tell him, it's unbecoming a man professing Religion so to carry it; for I do declare, That he hath not had Communion with any Bap­tized Church in England, nor been owned by them, as worthy their Communion, for several years, un­less he hath gone to any place where he is unknown, and got it surreptitiously; which I think the me­thod used in such cases, among our Churches, will hardly admit him to do: And to my knowledg, they have refused long ago to admit him to preach among them, because of his corrupt and dangerous Principles. And yet the chief of the Quakers in a scurrilous Book of theirs, in the Title-page, call him a Sober Baptist Preacher; signifying to the World, that he is owned so now, which is a most abominable untruth. But they seem to have no re­gard to Truth and Honesty, neither with their Tongues nor Penns: For as Mr. Ives sheweth in his Questions for the Quakers, That two of these Pub­lishers, i. e. William Mead, and John Osgood, have both of them (with others) took their Oaths in Chan­cery, one before Sir William Beversham, and the other before Sir William Child; and yet it's known to all, that this is the Quakers avowed Principle, That it is sinful to swear at all, or in any case: For as Geo. Fox saith in his Catechism, quoted by Mr. Ives, p. 107. All that swear are out of the Power of Jesus [Page 41] Christ and his Truth, and the Doctrine of the Apostles, &c. AND ARE FALSE CHRISTIANS, &c. Now though they can rail against others at pleasure, yet if we do but tell them of their faults, though it be with the greatest mildness that may be, they presently fall a raging and raving, as if they were possest with, and under the power of some un­clean Spirit. I will therefore leave them, and return to W. L. whom I know to be a man that hath ad­hered to, and contended for the Quakers Principles for divers years: And I would say thus much to W. L. by way of advice, That he would either be what he pretends to be, or profess to be what he is. Why dost thou halt between two Opinions? Be in earnest, and don't trifle thus about Religion. God is a jea­lous God, and he is very angry with Lukewarm Pro­fessors, but more with Apostates. Take heed to thy self, and to the Holy Scriptures; for thereby thou mayest be made wise to Salvation, through faith in Christ: And if thou shalt reject the same, know of a truth, that Gods Word will certainly stand against thee for evil; for I perceive thou hast drunk down too large a draught of their poysonous Doctrines, as is mani­fest in this very instance under consideration (besides many other;) for thou sayest, There is as much truth in this Position, That the Scriptures are no Rule of Faith and Practice unto Christians, as thou desirest. Where is then the difference between W. L. and a Quaker? But we shall find much more of this in his Book.

There is some other rambling nonsensical Dis­course under this head, which I shall pass with this Observation upon it:

[Page 42] 1. That W. L. confesses T. H's. Charges, are matters of Opinions.

2. W. L. saith, We read of no punishment denounced against men, nor rewards given for their Opinions at the last day.

3. That if W. L. hath no reward from the Qua­kers, for this service he hath done for them, in con­tending about Opinions, he is like to have none in the last day.

4. That a man may hold and maintain the most wicked and abominable Opinions that are in the World, though never so Atheistical and Antichristian, and not be condemned for it at the last day.

But sure W. L. forgets, The corrupt Principles, lead to corrupt Practices; as he will certainly find this corrupt Principle will do (if prosecuted) in de­nying the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice.

Do but debauch a mans Conscience with wicked Principles, and you will quickly see him a man of a debauched Conversation. Why doth God appoint the Gospel to be preached? Surely, besides its Of­fice in the revelation of himself and Son; it is, that by it we might come to have an evil opinion of the ways of sin, and so forsake them: And by present­ing God therein as an Holy God, and the Beauty, Glory, and Excellency of Holiness, we might come to have our minds influenced thereby, fall into a love and liking of it, which begets holy Principles in us, and so leads us to a holy Life. And herein lies much of that difference, betwixt the obedience of a man that is meerly Moral, and one that is Evangelical: The one being taught by the Law of Nature, doth that which is good for the matter of it; the other, [Page 43] as he is farther enlightned, doth not only obey in doing more, but in all the parts of his obedience he acts from higher Principles, and to a more noble end. But whilest others are slighting good Prin­ciples, I desire to prize and improve them for the honour of God, and my own Salvation; to be­lieve and obey as God hath commanded in the Holy Scriptures.

6. Pagan Principle.

THe sixth charge is, That the speaking of the Spirit in any, is of greater Authority than the Scriptures. W. L. His Answer is, There is no reason in my opi­nion for this Charge; for the saying brought to prove it is thus, That which was spoken from the Spirit of Truth in any, is of as great Authority as the Scriptures, (and Chapters are) and greater. Geo. Whitehead's Serious Apol. p. 49.

Reply. A man may see how dark the eyes of this mans understanding are become, that he should ac­knowledg, that G. W. speaks the very words that T. H. charges upon them, and yet can see no reason for this Charge: But I hope he can see that this proves T. H to be no Forger.

W. L. Having confessed the Charge, he goes to excuse it by saying, That the addition of these words, [and greater] will easily make any moderate man to be­lieve, G. W. means in some cases it may be greater.

Answ. The Question that was put will inform us of his meaning; i. e. Do you esteem of your speakings to be of as great Authority as any Chapter in the BIBLE? Now both these words are in the Quakers Answer, Of as great Authority as the Scriptures (and [Page 44] Chapters) are, and greater; though W. L. hath the civility to leave out (and chapters are) I know not for what cause, unless it were to introduce that in­stance he gives, on purpose to evade the force of T. H. his evidence: But I will not let it slip.

W. L. saith, And that we cannot deny! for if one of T. H. or I. G's. Sermons, should at any time make a greater impression upon you or I, than ever any Scrip­ture did; may we not lawfully say, That the Spirit of Truth speaking in either of these men, was of greater Authority to us, that is, wrought more powerfully upon us by them, than by the Scriptures.

Answ. To this I would make this answer:

1. That W. L. mistakes the Question exceeding­ly; for it's not about the influence, but the Authority, which the Scripture hath over us as a Rule.

2. That W. L. supposes by these expressions, that T. H. and I. G. do not expound the Holy Scriptures in their Sermons: Which is a false Supposition.

3. And from thence he concludes, That the in­fluences their Sermons have upon the Consciences of their Auditors, is not from the Power and Au­thority of God's Word, but of their own sayings.

4. Whereas he supposes, the Spirit of Truth speaks by these men: I readily grant it, but not exclusive of, but in conjunction with the Doctrine they preach, agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.

5. Therefore I conclude, That whatever good effect their Doctrine hath upon the Souls of men, for their Conversion and Salvation, it is wrought by those words they deliver unto us; not as they are the words of men taken abstractedly (for as such, they can have no such Efficacie) but as they are in­deed the Word of God, which effectually worketh in [Page 45] them that believe. Thus all men may see this instance serves not to the purpose for which he intended it.

Quest. But saith W. L. What need we fear any dangerous Consequences attending this saying? so long as they agree with us in this, That every Spirit speaking contrary to plain Scripture is false.

Answ. This man is very apt in drawing fale sSup­positions: Do the Quakers that deny the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Practice, make it the Standard to try Spirits by? and conclude all to be false that speak contrary thereunto? No, if they had done that, or would yet do it, they would see themselves to be false Teachers, no Christians, but Impostors: Their Principles and Practices being contrary to Holy Scripture, and the Rule of Christianity therein con­tained.

7. Pagan Principle.

THe Seventh Charge is, That is no Command from God to me, which God hath given by way of Com­mand to another: Neither did any of the Saints act by the Command which was to another. Every one obeyed their own Command.

W. L. He saith, There is no great difficulty nor dan­ger in this; for it's very true in one sense, and as false in another, and Charity will always take the best.

Reply. There is so great danger in it, that it leaves all men without a Rule for their Faith and Practice: For if I am to obey none of those Commands given by God to others, and recorded in Scripture for our Instruction; and there be no new Revelation for the Rule of my Faith and Practice, then are all men whol­ly destitute of a Rule; and yet this is the very case. [Page 46] And whereas he would salve it, by distinguishing be­tween one Command and another, and allowing the Quakers a liberty to pick and chuse, obey what they list, and leave the rest undone: This may not be al­lowed by the Quakers themselves; for they confess, that the Scriptures were all given forth by the same Spirit, and therefore must needs be of equal Autho­rity in those Commands they enjoyn upon us as our duty.

Object. I know no Objection lies against this, but the Quakers affirming, They have immediate Reve­lation for the Rule of their Faith and Practice.

Answ. I answer, It's easie to affirm any thing: But that they cannot prove it is evident, not only from the want of sufficient Testimony at all times, when they have been desired to prove it; but par­ticularly, for that at the late Dispute in their own Meeting-house in Wheelers-street, they were not able to give any other Demonstration of it, but what a Turk or Impostor might give, or pretend too, equal with them. But if they think they can do it; when they have further consulted one another about it, I will give them a longer time, that they may fetch in what other Auxiliaries they have: for I perceive the Light within them cannot supply them with sufficient De­monstration; for if it could, they had that to have been Geo Keith's Dictator in Wheelers-street. In the mean time I would ask W. L. a few Questions upon his Distinction.

1. Why he should say, That the Quakers, except against some particular Commands, as not belonging to them; as that Command to the Jews, To anoint their heads when they fasted; that to the young man, To sell all, and give to the poor; and that to Paul, To go to [Page 47] Rome. Whereas it's manifest, the Quakers say, That not any one of the Commands in Scripture concern them: That the Scripture is no Rule to them.

2. Why he should say, That no Quaker will say these Commands, Swear not at all, Love your Ene­mies, Quench not the Spirit, &c. concerns not them, because they were spoken to others. Whereas he knows, they do so confidently affirm, That those are no Com­mands to them, that were given by God to others, and recorded in the Scriptures.

3. If the Scripture be no Rule, how comes the Quaker to know, that it is a sin to Swear, and a ver­tue not to Swear at all? He must not say, Because 'tis written in Matth. 5. Swear not at all; for that Com­mand was given to those that lived 1600 years ago; and therefore that can be no Command to them: For Edw. Burroughs saith in his works, page 47. That is no Command from God to me, which he commands to another: Neither did any of the Saints we read of in Scripture, act by the Command which was to another, &c. They obeyed every one their own Command.

4. If it be a sin as the Quaker saith, To take any Oath, how comes it then to pass, that the Quakers do frequently go to Law with their Neighbours, and employ men, yea, give them money to come in and swear for them: And also, when others can­not be accepted in their stead, Why do some of the chief Quakers in London take Oaths themselves? Surely if your Principle be true, both these Practices are Abomination to the Lord. Now with what face of Truth or Honesty can these men censure others, and do the same things themselves?

5. How can the Quakers tell what Spirit it is they must receive, must not quench the motions of, [Page 48] must be taught and instructed by, and that those things it teaches them are true? What Rule is there to distinguish it from all false Spirits? that so all men may know what Spirit they are to follow, and what to reject: If these things be not discovered by the Light of the Holy Scriptures, how can they be known? If they must be examined by the Light thereof? then the Scriptures must be acknowledged to be our Rule, and the Commands therein binding to us, notwith­standing all that the Quakers say to the contrary.

8. Pagan Principle.

THe Eighth Charge is, That Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, is a Doctrine of Devils.

W. P's. Answer is thus, And indeed this we deny, (viz. Justification by the Righteousness which Christ fulfilled in his own Person for us, wholly without us:) And boldly affirm it in the name of the Lord, to be a Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which doth now Deluge the World. Will. Penn. Serious Apol. p. 148.

Will. Lud. saith, This makes a great noise; surely somewhat more than ordinary moved W. P. to write at this rate: Herein he confesses the Charge, so that T. H. is no Forger.

But first (saith W. L.) let us calmly consider the terms, whereupon he doth express himself in favour of W. P.

W. L. This one word [...], serves for Justifi­cation and Righteousness all along the New-Testament; so that when we are said to be justified, it is all one in my understanding as to be made just or righteous.

[Page 49] Reply. I will speak something to this, before I proceed any further: And first, whereas he saith, [...] serves for Justification and Righteousness all along the New-Testament; I hope he doth not intend, that there is no other words used to express it by; for I think that word is but seldom used in the New-Testament upon that occasion, but most frequently other words to express the Spirits mean­ing by, as in Rom. 5. 1. [...], Therefore being justified by faith, vers. 16. it is [...], But the free gift is of many offences unto Justifi­cation. v. 18. [...], unto Justification of life. And Mr. Leigh in his Critica Sacra p. 69. saith thus upon that very word [...], Justitia, i. e. Justice; in which sense he saith, the word is often used, and brings in Cornelius à Lapide speak­ing thus, Justitia ea quae est in nobis; and a little af­ter, Est ipsa animi integritas, sanctitas, & innocen­tia, per quam sancti vivimus & placemus Deo vel bonis viris. So that it must be understood, to respect that Integrity, Holiness and Innocency of the souls of good men, by which they live a holy life, and please God. But this cannot be done, without their persons be first acquitted of their former sins, by the Justifica­tion they receive from Christ through believing.

1. But here I do distinguish between a Legal Righteousness, so as to obey perfectly all that God re­quires at all times, both in thought, word and deed.

2. An Evangelical Righteousness, which is a sincere endeavour of the Soul to do all that God requires; although by reason of the pravity of his nature, he cannot attain it; which is accepted with God for Christs sake, as if he had perfectly done it.

[Page 50] 3. And that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us in his own Person, wholly without us; which was his keeping the Law perfectly in our stead, and his suffering death for our sins, 1 Cor. 15. 3. Christ died for OƲR sins according to the Scriptures.

Now this is imputed to us, if we believe, Rom. 4. 5, 6, 7, 8. & 22, 23, 24, 25. And Christ is made unto us Righteousness, 1 Cor. 1. 30. And in this sense he is called, The Lord OƲR Righteousness, Jer. 23. 6. And therefore it's said, Christ was made sin for ƲS, who knew no sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5. ult. He bare OƲR sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Pet. 2. 24. The truth is, if Legal Righteousness, and Justification THROƲGH Christ, according to the Gospel, be the same thing, then the Quaker is right in denying Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, both Active­ly and Passively, in his own Person, wholly without us: But then the Apostle Paul was mistaken, who saith, A man is not justified by the works of the Law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ: Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law▪ for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified—for if Righ­teousness come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain, Gal. 2. 16, 21. But by this I perceive, That the Qua­kers rather than they will own Justification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, they will avoid that absurdity laid upon that Opi­nion by the Apostle, i. e. That then Christ died in vain; by affirming, That Christ, in respect of himself, never died. But why I may not from hence conclude, The Quakers professing Christianity to be vain, I know not: If W. P. can demonstrate the contrary, [Page 51] I desire he would. But let us hear what W. L. hath to say further touching this thing.

W. L. Now that no man can make himself so, or that he can be so without Christs Righteousness; and also, that this act of justifying us, or making us just, is of the free Grace of God, through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ, I believe it is granted by us and them.

Answ. If by Ʋs, W. L. mean, according to his former false Insinuation, the Baptists and himself, (though indeed he is not one of that number, neither can he be so accounted:) Then I answer, That those words expressed by him, if as honestly intended as plainly exprest, is that the Baptists and other Pro­testants own. But as I know the Quakers do not own it, I have reason to suspect W. L. also: For in a certain Discourse he had with R. S. a good Friend of mine about two years ago, he pleaded for a sinless Perfection here in this life (as it's opposite to that Im­puted Righteousness of Christ, made Ours by belie­ving) as the way by which he expected to be justifi­fied. Whereupon R. S. asked him, Whether he had yet attained it? W. L. told him, he had not. Whereupon R. S. replied, You do not know, but you may die before you have attained it; how then can you think to stand justified before God? It cannot be by your own personal Righteousness; for that you confess you have it not. I should be ama­zed to hear him utter such expressions, so con­trary thereunto as these are in his Book, but that I consider he may have learned the Art of Equi­vocation from W. P. by his often converse with him.

But now I am upon this Head, I would make so [Page 52] bold as to ask W. P. and the Quakers one Que­stion.

Quest. Suppose they do attain to a state of sinless Perfection here in this life; yet seeing many of them have lived in a course of sinning twenty, thirty, or forty years before they attain it; What must make Com­pensation for the sins they have committed in the time past of their lives?

If they shall say, Their own Obedience which they perform to the Light within them, after they are thus perfect: That is to suppose, the good deeds they per­form in the latter part of their lives, should make Compensation for their former evil deeds: Which will proclaim to all intelligent men, not only that they hold Justification by their own personal Righte­ousness, exclusive of Christ's Righteousness, which is to be justified by Works in the strictest Notion (being the next Principle we are to enquire into;) but also, that they do hold that other Popish Principle, To believe that they can do Works of Supererogation. And yet this Author is much displeased, that any should suppose the Quakers do derive their Pedigree from Rome.

W. L. Goes on to excuse his beloved Friend W. P. by telling us, That forasmuch as many Teachers so word this Doctrine of Justification, as the weak are thereby misled into a vain hope, that God will justifie them, or look upon them as just and righteous THROUGH Christ at the last day, though they live and die in sin: Hence (saith he) so great a zeal might arise in W. P. against such Expositions of Scripture-Justifications and chiefly against this phrase, THROƲGH CHRIST.

Answ. To which I answer, If W. P. hath so great a zeal risen up in him, CHIEFLY against this [Page 53] phrase, THROƲGH CHRIST: Then it follows, That if we should word the Doctrine of Justification, so as to please Will. Penn, we must say, That men are justified WITHOƲT CHRIST: But I hope I shall never make that one of the Articles of my Creed.

But farther (W. L. saith) These words, Wholly without us, may very well satisfie us, That they level not at Scripture-Justification, but at our conceits of it.

Reply. Then it seems W. L. concludes, That Ju­stification by that Righteousness Christ fulfilled for us, wholly without us, is not a Doctrine agreeable to Scrip­ture, but a conceit. I perceive now T. H. is no Forger; for W. L. doth not only own the words to be spo­ken by W. P. but owns the Doctrine of the Qua­kers about it: And yet forsooth, we must be very tender of calling this man a Quaker: Howbeit, I conclude, he avoids the name for no other Reason, but that he might be the more serviceable in propa­gating their cause. An excellent Stratagem!

As for what he saith, about the Doctrine of Justifi­cation, springing from the Doctrine of Predestination, misunderstood, and as held by Calvin, Beza, Piscator, Synod of Dort, &c. As I do not believe it in the sense that I have defined it, and as Protestants generally hold it: So for those mens Opinions about the De­cree of Absolute and Irrespective Reprobation, I shall leave it to them whose concern it is to clear themselves of it; for it's none of mine at this time.

9. Pagan Principle.

W. P. SAith, His ninth Charge against the Quakers is, That Justification is by Works. Here W. L. hath followed his own advice; viz. To leave out words most material in this Charge: For the words laid down by T. H. are;

That the Quakers hold Justification by Works in the strictest Notion: And brings these proofs out of the Quakers own Books.

God accepts not any, where there is any failing; or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every Demand of Justice, Edw. Burrough's Works, p. 33. And in Answer to Quest. 14. Was not Abraham justified by Works? We must not conceive that his personal Offering, was not a justifying Righteousness; but that God was pleased to count it so. Nor was there any Imputation of anothers Righteousness to Abraham: But on the con­trary, his personal Obedience was the ground of that Imputation. Therefore that any should be justified by anothers Righteousness imputed, and not inherent in him, is both ridiculous and dangerous. W. P. Reas. against Rail. p. 80. Now I hope T. H. is no Forger. But let us hear what W. L. hath to say.

W. L. This is almost of the same nature as the for­mer; and it's a greatdeal of pity to Heathenize men for preaching up Good-works, especially in a day when they are so scarce.

Reply. Rarely well guest. Is T. H. finding fault with mens preaching up good Works? Surely that's none of the Question: Neither doth he Heathenize any for so doing, that's no part of the Charge; nay, he doth not so much as mention the words Heathen, [Page 55] Pagan, or Pagan Principle, in all his twelve Charges. I wonder how W. L. did, to give them so right a name: The honour of that belongs to himself, and not to me nor T. H. But seeing so great a Friend of theirs as W. L. is, hath so often called them so, I hope they will not find fault with me, for writing after his Copy.

As for what he is pleased to say, of his own re­nouncing meriting by Works; and that he thinks no rational Papist can be so weak to imagine, that forty or fifty years spent all in Good-works, nay forty or fifty thousand years, can deserve Eternal Recompence of Re­ward; is no Argument to the contrary, but that an infatuated Quaker may be of that mind: And why we should not think so of them, till they have clear­ed themselves of it, by renouncing Edw. Burroughs, Will. Penn, and their Books, with all others, who have asserted such Doctrines as these, I see no Reason.

10. Pagan Principle.

THe tenth Charge is, That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Patern.

The proof cited by T. H. is W. P.'s own words, For not the hearers of the Law are just before God: But the doers of the Law shall be justified, Rom. 2. 13. From whence (saith W. P.) how unanswerably may I observe, Ʋnless we become doers of that Law, which Christ came not to destroy, but as our example to fulfil, we can never be justified before God. Nor let any fancy, that Christ hath so fulfilled it for them, as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their acceptance, but ONLY as their Patern. W. P. Sandy Found. p. 26.

[Page 56] W. L.'s Reply is, How T. H. puts an ill face up­on an honest Sentence, and repeats W. P.'s words as cited by T. H. and endeavours, according to his ac­customed manner, to excuse his great Friend W. P. but so faintly, that it expires with the breath that names it: And being soon spent, he concludes in these words, But take it at the worst, as in the Charge, though I will not justifie it so worded, and understood as T. H. doth, yet methinks its too harsh to reckon it Heathen Doctrine; I would rather have compared him to Apollos, and wishing him a little more fully in­structed in the ends of Christs Life and Death, have passed it by. But before I pass it with you, give me leave to ask a few Questions.

1. Why you say, This is an honest Sentence of W. P. and yet afterwards say, you will not justifie it: Sure you are very inconsistent with your self.

2. Why you say, T. H. puts an ill face upon it, when he repeats W. P.'s words as you your self do, and as they are in his Book.

3. Why you say, its too harsh to reckon it Heathen Doctrine, when the word Heathen is not so much as mentioned by T. H. Sure W. L. hath the word Hea­then by Inspiration, or else he would never hit of it so often as he doth.

4. Why should you compare Will. Penn to Apollos? Do you think him so great a man for Water-Bap­tism, when he denies the Baptism both of John the Baptist, Christ and his Apostles, who were all for Baptism in water.

5. Why do you suppose that W. P. wants to be more fully instructed in the ends of Christs Life and Death? Is it possible, that you should imagine the chief Freacher of, and Disputer for the Quakers, to be [Page 57] ignorant of the ends of Christs Life and Death? If so, what Opinion must you needs have of the ignorance of many hundreds among them, that are men of an Orb much inferior to W. P. Surely they must be ig­norant indeed.

6. But pray tell me, how it's possible for any Qua­ker (admitting their Notions to be true) to be igno­rant of any thing that is knowable, and necessary to be known? seeing they say, They have immediate Revelation for the Rule of their Faith and Practice; and could have known all that is in the Scripture, if it had never been written there, ONLY by the Teach­ings of the Light within them. But I wonder they should be so ignorant, as not to know the Author of the Quakers Quibbles: Sure they need not have come so often to the Bookseller to have known, if the Light within them could have taught them all things.

If they shall object and say, It is matter of Fact.

I answer, So are many things written in Scrip­ture; as, the names of persons, the places of their dwellings, things done by them, &c. and some of them five thousand years ago: And shall I think they can know things done at so great a distance, seeing they are so ignorant as not to know things that are done at present?

11. Pagan Principle.

THe eleventh Charge against the Quakers is, That the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction, is Ir­religious and Irrational.

T. H.'s Proof is out of W. P.'s Sandy Found. p. 22. where W. P. speaks thus, Consequences (that is, from [Page 58] this Doctrine) Irreligious and Irrational; and con­cludes one of his Consequences thus, O the In­famous Pourtaiture this Doctrine draws of the Infinite Goodness! Is this your Retribution? O Injurious Sa­tisfactionists! Thus saith W. P. But what saith W. L.

W. L. Substract but the word Irreligious, and there have been others, neither Quakers, nor Heathens, nor Illiterate men, that have thought the common under­standing of Christ's Satisfaction, as between Creditor and Debtor, to be Irrational; and therefore have Que­ried, how Free-Forgiveness, and Full-Satisfaction can stand together? I perceive T. H. is no Forger in this neither. But to Reply to W. L.

1. As to what he saith, Substract but the word IRRELIGIOUS, &c.

Answ. I answer, Take away but the word IR­RATIONAL too, and then the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is: But who knows what? But W. L. may remember it's put in by W. P. and therefore the word irreligious is not to be substracted: for he speaks by immediate Inspiration, as G. Keith hath late­ly attempted to prove in a Publick Dispute: And though he could not make it out, yet they would have People believe it without proof; for they say they witness it, and that may go very far with such ig­norant men, as W. L. represents the Quakers to be.

2. But if W. L. had come to me for advice, when he had been writing on this subject, I could have taught him a nearer way to the Wood than he hath gone: For if he had but taken away [Ir] from both the words, then it had been thus, That the Doctrine of Christ's Satisfaction is Religious and Rational: And if he could but have perswaded his intimate Friend [Page 59] W. P. and the rest of the Quakers to have believed it, then I would have perswaded T. H. to have sub­stracted the whole Charge, and so the Dispute be­tween him and them, as to this particular, should have been ended. But I have cause to fear W. L. will not undertake that, because he is so indifferent about it himself, saying, That for the sake of more necessary Truths, he never contends about this. So that (it seems) his speaking to it, is to gratifie W. P.

12. Pagan Principle.

THe twelfth and last Principle (saith W. L.) T. H. charges on the Quakers is, That this body which dies, shall not rise again.

The proofs T. H. brings to justifie himself in the truth of this Charge. are as followeth:

Geo. Whitehead asserted, in the hearing of many witnesses, That this body shall not rise again.

Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with Scripture, Reason, and the Belief of all men right in ther wits. W. Pen. Reas. ag. Rail. p. 133.

For shame let us never make so much stir against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; for the absurdity of that is rather outdone than equalled, by this Carnal Re­surrection. W. P. ib. p. 134.

The change which shall be is not of Accidents, but of Bodies. W. P. ib. p. 136. and in p. 138. He calls it a Barbarous Conceit.

From our denying the Resurrection of the Natural and Corruptible Body, &c. W. P. Counterfeit Chri­stian, p. 32.

Now I hope every one will be satisfied, That Mr. Hicks is no Forger, Lyer, Slanderer, &c. as the [Page 60] Lawless Quakers have allowed themselves a liberty (untruly, and without just cause given) so to call him: And I am much perswaded, the reason why they rail and rage thus furiously against him, is, Because no one of them singly, nor the whole Body con­joyned, know how to clear themselves of those things he hath charged upon them, without rejecting the chief of their Ministry; whose Tongues and Pens have so often asserted these pernicious Doctrines: But that I perceive they are not yet willing to do. But let us hear how well W. L. can bring up the Reer, in ex­cusing their denial of that great Fundamental Prin­ciple of the Christian Religion, The Resurrection of the Body.

W. L. saith, Of all the Articles against the Qua­kers, none hath made many honest, serious People more afraid of them, nor the vulgar more rail at them, than this.

1. As for the vulgars railing, it concerns not me, they should have forbore divulging such dangerous Notions.

2. But whereas he saith, This Principle of theirs (in denying the Resurrection of this Body that dies) hath made many honest, serious People more afraid of them, than any other Article they hold: I think it hath not been without just cause, from the perniciousness thereof. And I have good Authority to justifie me therein; for the Apostle Paul saith, If there be no Resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our Preaching vain, and your Faith is also vain, and ye are yet in your sins: Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ, are pe­rished. And if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. These are some of [Page 61] those evil and dangerous Consequences, charged by the Apostle Paul upon this very Doctrine (as maintain­ed by the Quakers) in denying the Resurrection of this Body from the dead; as you may see at large in 1 Cor. 15. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, &c. But let us hear W. L. speak his thoughts about it.

W. L. saith, But to tell you freely my thoughts about it, there is less cause for it upon this account, than any of the former.

Reply. I hope those that read this will be fully sa­tisfied, that there is no more difference between the Quakers and W. L. in this Article, than there is be­tween Four-pence and a Groat, which (with us in England) is the same piece of Money. But hath W. L. no way left to excuse his Friends at the last gasp, now their Cause is expiring? Yes, yes, don't think you shall find him without a shift.

1. W. L. Flies to what he supposes the Charge suggests; viz. That there is no Resurrection; insomuch (saith he) that I have heard lewd men swear, and curse them for denying the Resurrection.

Reply. But here W. L. evades the Question, which is so plain, that it needs none of his Suggestions to darken it. Why don't he answer to that? For the Quaker saith, This Body that dies, shall not rise again. Speak out, and be not afraid to answer, now it comes to the point.

2. But saith W. L. Doth not their exposing them­selves to all the miseries of this life, confute the charge?

Answ. I answer, No: For the Sadducees were men that professed Religion, in opposition to the common received Opinion among the Jews, and so consequently were exposed to sufferings; and yet [Page 62] they denied the Resurrection of this Body, and the Be­ing of Angels, which are Spirits, &c. Acts 23. 8. For it's evident, a man may give all his goods to the poor, and his body to be burned, and have no love to God, nor be truly Religious; 1 Cor. 13. 3. And what think you of the Esseans, a Sect among the Jews, of whom Josephus reports, That nothwith­standing they denied the Resurrection of the body, say­ing, that it is corruptible, and that the matter thereof is not perpetual: Yet could they not be forced to revile their Law-maker, or to eat any forbidden meats, by breaking off the members of their bodies, fiery Torments, and all kind of Tortures which were laid upon them: Nay, in the very midst of their griefs and pains, they scoffed at their Tormentors; and laughing, joyfully yielded up their Souls, as though they hoped to receive them again. Joseph. Of the Wars of the Jews, Lib. 2. p. 616.

3. Whereas it may be objected. That they would be more Immoral in their lives, if they expected no Re­surrection of the body.

Answ. I answer, That the Sadducees were men of such strict lives, that it's reported, they had their name Sadducees from [...] Tzidek, which signifies, Just or Righteous; and yet they deni'd the Resurrecti­on from the dead, Matth. 22. 23. And for those Esseans before-mentioned, if he will read Josephus, he may find, that they were exceeding zealous for the Law, and stricter in their lives, than the Quakers are by many degrees: It's too long to be here inserted. But if W. L. will take the pains to read that Book of Josephus I have mentioned, Chap. 7. he will find what I say to be true. Besides, it's well known, that there were men among the Heathen, full of Moral [Page 63] Vertues, and men of great strictness in their lives, and yet agreed with the Quakers in this, That this body shall not rise again.

Quest. If that be not the Resurrection intended, what then is it that shall rise from the dead?

W. L. answers, The Apostle has given us as good an account of this Doctrine as we may desire, and to that they refer us. But suppose (saith he) they should tell us, This very Body should not rise, what care I, &c.

Reply. 1. I am well satisfied with the account the Apostle Paul gives of the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15. but not at all informed of the Quakers meaning about it, by their referring us thither; because I know they can Allegorize some of the plainest Texts in the Bible, and why may they not be supposed to do so by this?

2. I cannot possibly understand, that the Quakers intend the same Resurrection the Apostle doth in 1 Cor. 15. for he tells us, That the same body that is buried (which he calls sown) in corruption, shall be raised in incorruption. Which agrees with the saying of our Saviour, The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth: They that have done good, to the Resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, to the Resurrection of damnation, John 5. 28, 29. As also with the Pro­phet Daniel, And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt, Dan. 12. 2. with many more that might be alledged; all which do plainly prove the Resurrection we contend for. But the Quaker saith, Such a Resurrection is inconsistent with Scripture, Reason, and the Belief of all men right in their wits. Will. Penn. Reas. ag. Rail. p. 133.

[Page 64] 3. But what doth W. L. mean when he saith, He is willing to part with this Body for a better? and that he will never be angry with him who promiseth and assures him a pound of Gold, for a pound of Clay?

1. If the same body shall not be raised, as the Quakers say, then he cannot mean the glorious form of this body, which shall be made incorruptible, glo­rious, and full of majesty, like to the glorious Body of Christ, with which they shall shine forth as the Brightness of the Sun, in the Kingdom of their Father, Phil. 3. 21. Matth. 13. 43.

2. If he means, That this body which goes into the grave shall rot there, and not be raised and re­united to the same soul: But that instead thereof, some other matter shall be formed into a body, and pos­sest with the soul: This is not to be allowed; for it's highly rational, That if any body be raised and re-united to the soul, it should be the same body (be­cause the Scripture declares, That the end of the Re­surrection of Man is, that he might receive a reward according to the deeds done in the body, 2 Cor. 5. 10. and, that the Righteous shall go into life Eternal, Matth. 25. ult.) Seeing it was the same body in which these good deeds were done, why should not the same body receive the Reward together with the same soul? why must there be a new, another body to enjoy it, made of they know not what?

3. If this be so, Then whether it be not most ab­surd to imagine (seeing some men shall be damned) that one body should commit the sin, and another body, that never sinned, should suffer Eternal punish­ment in Hell, for those sins another committed? This is to condemn the innocent, and acquit the guilty: Both [Page 65] which are an Abomination to the Lord: And the Qua­kers can no ways avoid this Absurdity, unless they will say, That no man shall be damned: Which I take to be the necessary Consequence of their affirming, The Soul to be a part of God's Being; and their deny­ing, The Resurrection of the Body.

4. If so, then all that W. L. hath done, is but Quibling; for all the Resurrection he and they must be understood to intend, is only within men while they are in this World. And in truth, their Opi­nion about the Resurrection (as worded by some of their noted Teachers) is this:

1. The Resurrection of the unjust, is sins rising in man, and getting above the Light.

2. The Eternal Judgment, is the Lights condemning and reproving for sin.

3. And as any one comes to hearken to the Teaching thereof, the Light comes to rise up in him: Which (say they) is the Resurrection of the just.

Now from hence they infer, That they are in the Resurrection, and past the Eternal Judgment, even in this life; and that it is not they themselves, that shall rise, but the Light within them: Which Light (say they) is sufficient to lead them into all Truth, cleanse them from all sin, and will Eternally save them.

Thus you see that W. L. hath discharged T. H. of Forgery in all these Twelve Pagan Principles of the Quakers. But how the Quakers can clear them­selves of Lies and Forgery, would do well to be con­sidered; seeing they tell T. H. that he hath belyed them, when he hath not charged them with any thing in all these particulars, but what is truly charge­able upon them: As appears by this brief Account, and W. L.'s Confession under each Head.

[Page 66] But saith Geo. Whitehead, I hope you have consider­ed that moderate Account which your Friend and Bro­ther W. L. hath given in his Book, entituled, The Twelve Pagan Principles or Opinions, &c. and what a serious Check it containeth to Thomas Hicks, for his immoderation, and unfair dealing. G. W. in The Qua­kers Plainness detecting Fallacy, p. 88. Now that there is no reason to account him a Baptist, as G. W. doth in these words, because they are the persons to whom he writes, I will here insert a Testimony given under the hands of two of the eminentest Baptists in those parts, where he hath had his abode for above seven years past; that in all that space of time, he hath not been a Member with them, nor any of the Churches to whom they belong, much less a Sober Baptist-Preacher, as the Quakers had the confidence to call him in the Title-page of their Book, touching the Barbican-Meeting, Octob. 9. 1674.

[Page 67] I have two things to tell the World, and I have done.

1. An Account of some Slanders, and Abuses of the Quakers cast upon me, for my opposing their Do­ctrine.

2. Open and manifest Confessions of some Eminent in the Quakers Ministry, concerning the Man Christ Jesus; and, His dying for our sins.

1. As touching the first of these: I being at the Bull and Mouth, May 8. 1674. and demanding of them to prove that Great Principle of theirs, which Geo. Whitehead was so baffled about in his Dispute with Mr. Ives in the Market-place at Croyden in the County of Surrey, April 24. 1674. before hundreds of people. The Question was this:

Quest. Whether every man that comes into the World, is enlightned with the Light of Christ?

They did then affirm it: But when they saw they could not prove it, I was so pulled, struck, and abused, that I was not able to keep my standing, and attend the Discourse: They also made such a Bawling on purpose to prevent my being heard, that it was im­possible to hear what was said: And at last to pre­vent any further Discourse, one of them concludes the Meeting in prayer.

A Gentleman that was a stranger being present, and observing the violence they offered to my per­son, came up into the Gallery where I was, and said, Sir, I perceive, that if a man comes to dispute with these men, he had need to take a Guard with him to secure his person. And as we went out, one crys out, Children of Babylon, Brats of Babylon; an­other, Thou art a Blasphemer, &c.

[Page 68] I being there again, May 15. 1674. to hear whe­ther they had any thing further to say to that Que­stion before-mentioned: And when their Friend in the Ministry had done, and I began to speak to the Question, one that is called a Friend in their Mi­nistry, whose name is Samuel Thornton, thrust in be­tween me and the post where I stood, and another Quaker crushed me up on the other side; the Rail of the Gallery was before me, and a crowd of Qua­kers at my back thronging upon me, and my leg be­tween the Banisters, which were turned with knobs; he pitched his knee against mine, and his elbow against my breast, leaning upon me with his weight; and I having no liberty to give way, my breath was in danger of being forced out of my body, and my shirt wet with sweat, as if it had been dipt in wa­ter: And not being able to endure it, upon giving notice to the people, there came up some very lusty men, that were not Quakers, and relieved me.

After this, when Sam. Thornton saw he was dis­appointed of his purpose he railed upon me, say­ing, Thou art a Thief, a Lyer, a Murderer, a Devil, Thy name is Cain; and then cried out with a loud voice, Cain, Cain, Cain, Cain, Cain, just like a man bereft of his Reason. One said, I was a Drun­kard; another Thou art drunk every day in the week. I not knowing what opinion some might have of me, that did not know my Conversation, asked what they meant by saying, I was a Drunkard? One of them answered, Thou art drunk with words, besot­ted with ignorance, &c. Now if these men can al­low themselves a liberty thus to rail against one, at so desperate a rate, against whom they can prove none of those things whereof they accuse him, and [Page 69] when they have done, excuse it by saying, We meant Allegorically: Who then can have his Reputation secured from these mens virulent and reproachful Tongues?

I being at the same Meeting place some time af­ter, and hearing such expressions about Christ, which had a tendency to beguile the ignorant: When he that was speaking had done, I offered to discourse soberly with them about it; which they refused. Whereupon I told the People, that the Quakers held these Opinions; viz.

1. That Jesus Christ is not a distinct Person with­out us.

2. That Christ, in respect of himself, never died.

3. That the Blood of Christ, shed upon the Cross, without the gates of Jerusalem, is of no more value in point of Justification, than the blood of another man.

4. That the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, which he fulfilled for us in his own Person, wholly without us, is a Doctrine of Devils.

The Quakers refusing to answer, notwithstanding I offered to make good each of these particulars them; I told the People, that I hoped they would believe what I had charged upon them; i. e. That they were afraid to bring their Doctrines to be tried by the Light of the Holy Scriptures; like those spoken of by Tertullian, whom he calls by the name of Lucifugae Scripturarum, Men that fly from the Light of the Scripture, as the Bats do into their holes, when the Sun appears.

Whereupon Francis Campfield stood up and said, Thou art my Neighbour, and I know thee: And then made a speech to the people, telling them, He de­sired they would take no notice of what I said, for I [Page 70] was somewhat distempered in my head. Giving a strong Indication to the people, That I was a distracted man, and so not fit to ue discoursed with.

I told him, I hoped the people would not believe what he had said; but in case they should, if the Quakers would be pleased to appoint time and place, I would procure a man that should make good all that I had charged upon them, whom they should acknowledg to be in his right wits: But they refused to accept of that offer also.

I being at the Barbican-Meeting, Octob. 9. 1674. fell into some Discourse with a Quaker: Another that stood by, seeing his Friend at a loss, pulled him by the arm, saying, That I was a distracted man, or to that effect. The Quaker I was talking with, cried out, Alas for him, is this he! I told him he was mistaken, for (I thank the Lord) I am not in that condition. He presently replied, I was so, for Francis Campfield had declared me so to be in the Meeting at the Bull and Mouth. By this the Rea­der may see, what subtil Artifices these men make use of to evade the force of an Argument. What did all this signifie to the matter in debate? was it not a meer shift?

2. Open and manifest Confessions of some Emi­nent in the Quakers Ministry, concerning the Man Christ Jesus, and, His dying for our sins.

1. I and many others, being present at Mr. Me­kins, a Dyer in Oldstreet, we heard Josiah Cole af­firm, That that Man which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered at Jerusalem without the gate, &c. is not the Christ, the Saviour of the World. And he would needs undertake the proof it: And having agreed beforehand, that the Scripture should be the [Page 71] Rule to try that present Controversie by (though he would not own it as the Rule of Faith) he attempt­ed to prove it as followeth:

J. C. It is written Isa. 45. 21, 22. I am God, and there is none else, a just God and a Saviour, there is none besides me: From whence he drew this inference; If God be the Saviour, and there is none besides him, then that Man is not the Saviour.

It was replied, That Christ was God as well as man; and therefore his Argument was insufficient.

Quest. It was asked J. C. Whether the Light or Spirit in that Man, was not the Christ? And he an­swered, Yea, it is so.

Rep. His Respondent replied, A Spirit hath no flesh to be broken, nor blood to be shed; therefore if his Notion were true, Christ never died.

Josaih Cole did affirm, (with a great deal of seem­ing seriousness) That the true Christ, in respect of him­self, never died.

A Friend of mine being present, one Mr. J. D. brake forth into Admiration, saying, He saith Christ never suffered. There being about eight of the chief Quakers in London present, one of them said, Thou liest, he did not say Christ never suffered (for he suf­fers in thee and others) but he said, Christ never dyed.

I met with Josiah Cole twice afterwards, and both times discoursed with him about that point; and he was very positive and peremptory in it, asserting with the greatest confidence imaginable, That Christ never died.

At another time, being at Edw. Mans the Hosier, I and divers others then present, heard Patrick Li­vingstone (another owned in the Ministry) affirm, [Page 72] That Christ, in respect of himself, never died, neither could he, because he was only God: There was indeed a holy Body, which he (i. e. The Light in him) took up, acted in for a time, and laid down again: But that Body was no part of the Christ, but only a holy Body in which he was. I then brought that Scripture, Luke 24. 39. to prove he had a Body, as well after, as before his Resurrection; Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my self, handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me have. But it seems this very saying of our Saviour was so distasteful to them, that about ten of the Quakers cried out together, Blasphemy, Blasphemy, his Christ is a Christ of flesh and bones; Blasphemy: And that without any Provocation thereunto; for I made no Comment upon the words. And at the same time Charles Harris, another Eminent in the Ministry, being asked, Whether that holy Ordinance of the Lord's Supper was now to be practised? said, It's written, If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in and sup with him, &c. Rev. 3. 20. This is the Supper of the Lord, we witness it: And about the Resurrection and Judgment to come he said, I speak this from the Eternal God, That the Resurrection is come, the Judgment is come, and I witness it. And this very well agrees with Isaac Pennington's words, in his Book of Questions about Christ, p. 14. Now Friends, if you would know or be­lieve aright, you must believe in him who was with the Father before the World was, who was the Sa­viour, the Jesus, the Christ, from Everlasting. This we firmly believe, &c. Yea, it is he to whom the name Jesus and Christ did of right belong, before he took up the Body: For that which he took upon him, was [Page 73] our garment, even the flesh and blood of our Nature, which is of an earthly and perishing Nature: But he is of an Eternal Nature, and his flesh, blood, and bones are of his Nature, viz. Eternal: For that which re­deems, that which is Jesus the Saviour, came down from Heaven, page 20. que. 7. que. 8.

Reader, Not knowing how short my time may be, I thought good to leave this to Posterity, lest I should not have such another opportunity: And will conclude with that saying of the Apostle, Ye therefore beloved, seeing ye know these things before, be­ware lest ye also being led away with the errour of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness: But grow in grace, and the knowledg of our Lord and Saviour Je­sus Christ; to him be glory, both now and for ever, Amen, 2 Pet. 3. 17, 18.