The rector examined about his book scandalously stiled, An antidote against the venom of Quakerism, by John Meriton, who calls himself A.M. rector of Boughton in Norfolk : and his observations remarked, and the Christianity of the people commonly called Quakers, re-asserted and vindicated, from his perversions and aspersions / by George Whitehead.

The rector examined about his book scandalously stiled, An antidote against the venom of Quakerism, by John Meriton, who calls himself A.M. rector of Boughton in Norfolk : and his observations remarked, and the Christianity of the people commonly called Quakers, re-asserted and vindicated, from his perversions and aspersions / by George Whitehead.

Table of contents

Title page

THE RECTOR EXAMINED, About his Book, Scandalously stiled, An Antidote against the Venom of Quakerism.

FINIS.

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE RECTOR EXAMINED, About his Book Scandalously stiled, An Antidote against the Venom of Quakerism. BY John Meriton, who calls himself A. M. Rector of Boughton in Norfolk. AND His Observations Remarked, and the Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers, Re-asserted and Vindicated, from his Perversions and Aspersions.

By GEORGE WHITEHEAD.

—And they are Shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his Gain from his quarter, Isa. 56. 11.

LONDON, Printed and Sold by T. Sowle, in White-Hart-Court in Gracious-street, and at the Bible in Leaden-Hall-street, 1699.

THE RECTOR EXAMINED, About his Book, Scandalously stiled, An Antidote against the Venom of Quakerism.

[Page]

[Page]

WHAT John Meriton calls The Venom of Quakerism, is not what's contain'd in our Paper, entituled, The Christianity of the People commonly called Quakers; for he grants our Profession throughout the greatest part thereof, (as well as some others) would seem Orthodox, page 5. But what he quotes out of other Books, as he thinks in Opposition thereto, wherein he shews his own Enmity and Perversions, and not our Contradiction to what's Orthodox in our said Profession; and the greatest part, of what he hath quoted for that end, being Answered in the other Examination, entituled, Truth and Innocency vindicated; and but Repetitions, and no Refutations of his and his Abettors. I need not much repeat or insist upon them, but take notice of some other Abuses intermix'd in his Observations, and by the way to shew his Learning in Divinity, how he defines Christianity and Christian; first Negatively, then Affirmatively, viz.

1st. What is understood by the Term Christianity, or what is necessary (in a strict and proper Sense) to entitle a Man to be a Christian? For making up this good Composition (saith he) it is not enough for a Man, to know and acknowledge God, as the one only true God, Creator of all things, to depend upon and be subject to him, to love him, and our Neighbour as our selves; to walk soberly and honestly, and to practise all those other Duties, which by the Light and Law of Nature he may be convinced[Page]of; for then a Man may believe and be conformable thereunto, and yet be no Christian, page 3, 4.

Whereupon we may observe, and hence inferr, That a Man may be Godly, and so live to God, and yet no Christian; i. e. a Man may be born of God (as he that loveth is) and yet without Christ; as if a Man could come to God without Christ (Oh! Lamentable, Unchristian Doctrine) contrary to his own Doctrine! No Man cometh to the Father, but by me; and, If God were your Father, ye would love me. And if without Christ we can do nothing, How should any Man either know God, depend upon him, be subject to him, or love him without Christ? And 'tis by his Divine Light and Grace, that Men are taught these Duties, to live Godly, and to walk Soberly and Honestly, and not by a Light or Law of Humane Nature. So that a Man born of God, who loves and obeys him, and is subject to him, is truly and lovingly a Partaker of Christ, and of the Nature of Christianity. But if to know God, to depend upon him, to be subject to him, to love him, our Neighbour as our selves, to walk soberly and honestly, &c. will not entitle a Man to Christianity, to be a Christian; then 'tis not the Jew inward, nor the Christian inward, nor the New Creature, nor the New Birth, that will avail; but the outward Profession of Christianity; though many have that, who neither love God, nor are subject to him, nor love their Neighbours, consequently are no New Creatures, nor born of God. And if to know, love and obey God, and to live Soberly and Honestly, &c. be not such a Good Composition, as will make up a true Christian in Spirit and Life, What will this Composition make up? May we take, what our Opposer here adds, for Answer? viz. For who doubts, but that some of the Heathens thus far believed and practised, who were not only altogether Ignorant of Christ, but also vehemently opposed him and the Christian-Name, page 4.

This I cannot receive for sufficient Answer, or for Truth: And 'tis said, (but not proved) that any of those Gentiles or Heathens who knew and loved God (depended upon him, and were subject to him, and loved their Neighbours as themselves, and walked soberly and honestly) yet that these Gentiles thus qualified, vehemently opposed Christ and the Christian Name. We want proof for this Assertion, How could they love God, and be subject to him, and depend upon him, and hate or oppose his dear Son and Servants?

If God were your Father, ye would love me, saith Christ: for I proceeded forth, and came from God, John 8. 42. for those that hated him were of their Father the Devil, ver. 44. Where did ever any honest [Page] sober Gentiles or Heathen, who truly loved God, so vehemently oppose Christ, as this Man accuseth them? We find the contrary in Scripture, that many Gentiles believed and received the Gospel of Christ, who is the Light of the Gentiles; and even in the Case of Justification, the Apostle brings those Gentiles for a proof, who not having the Law, were a Law to themselves, when they performed those things contained in the Law, and shewed the Work of the Law that was written in their Hearts, Rom. 2. 13, 14, 15, 16. But the mistake of this our Opposer and his Adherents, is, they'll have the Light which enlightens every Man that cometh into the World, not to be Christ, but Man's Conscience, a Light and Law of Nature, and so but natural as of Man, and not Divine; deeming it Blasphemy to assert the Light that doth enlighten every Man that cometh into the World is not Conscience; and that it was before any thing was made, or Conscience named, as in their first and great Charge against us, in their Brief Discovery, page 3. whereby they have consequently charged John the Evangelist's Testimony of Christ (who is that true Light, John 1.) with Blasphemy: Thus have they brought the Blasphemy upon their own ignorant Opposition to this Evangelical Doctrine of the true Light, which Christ the Word is the Fountain of, which is a Divine, Supernatural Light, and therefore increated, consequently not Man's natural Conscience, but a superiour Reformer and Guide of Man's whole Soul, with all the Parts and Faculties thereof: He that made all things, was not made; but he that was the true Light made all things; by him all things were made, John 1. He that made Man, was before Man was, before his Soul or Spirit, or any Faculties or Intellectuals were made or formed within Man: Consequently this Light was not Conscience, but that which enlightens Man's Understanding and Conscience, and the Eyes of his Understanding. How Blasphemous then are these Men, who deem this Doctrine of the Light Blasphemy!

And 'tis not safe to conclude, That those Jews who were God's chosen People, and obedient to the Legal Dispensation, had no Faith in the Messiah, or no Title to Christianity, or were in no Christian State, as implied, page 4. seeing they had the Word of Faith in them, as well as the Law without them, Deut. 30. 12, 14. compared with Rom. 10. 8. And all Israel drank of the same Spiritual Rock which followed them (or went with them) and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10. 4. How could they drink thereof, if they had no Faith therein?

[Page] 2. Now how this Reason describes a Christian in the Affirmative; He tells us, To entitle a Man to be a Christian, viz.

He must necessarily believe Christ to be already come; nay, that particular and numerical Man Christ Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, and was of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh, to be the Christ of God, that was promised to come in due time; That this very Man was Crucified, died, and rose again from the Dead, and is ascended, &c. (citing 1 Tim. 3. 16.) This Christ God-man, as come and Crucified, was that main Foundation of the Gospel and Christianity; These were new Articles founded upon a new Dispensation, without the Belief of which (not to name some others, which may be thought by some also necessary, such as Baptism by Water, and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by Bread and Wine) a Man cannot be called a Christian, page 4, 5.

If this Belief of the Blessed Man Christ Jesus his Birth, Death, Resurrection and Ascension into Glory, as the Great Mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the Flesh, &c. 1 Tim. 3. 16. be necessary to entitle a Man to be a Christian, then we the People called Quakers, sincerely believe all this of Christ the true and promised Messiah; we really have all this Faith of and concerning him, consequently we must have a true Title and right Claim to Christianity by the same Proposition; we really believe both of Christ and in him, even in his Name and Power, wherein we hold the main Foundation of the Gospel and Christianity, and the Doctrine thereof. But this Rector has omitted a Living Faith in Christ, unto Repentance, Sanctification, Regeneration, the New Birth, Newness of Life, Purity and Holiness, without which no Man shall see God, or be a Christian in Nature. The more uncharitable and inconsistent then is this Rector; in charging us with Venom, giving our Doctrine the Character of The Venom of Quakerism; and the Quakers indefinitely, that of Deceitful Workers, Transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ, cannot be looked upon any otherwise at best, than good moral Heathens, and many of them short of that, page 5.

Hence observe how uncharitable and furious this Rector is, and how he had need to be corrected for his Rashness herein, though our Profession (taking the words thereof in their common Acceptation) must be granted (at least) to seem Orthodox; as he grants both of our Paper observed by him (i. e. The Christianity, &c. W. P's Key, John Crook's Principles, &c.) But still in his uncharitable and sower Humour, he will presume to be Judge over our Sincerity, from my seeing cause to construe my Friend's words and Intentions, as if we [Page] were hence to be mistrusted in our Orthodox Confessions; whereupon he presently passes Judgment against the Quakers, viz. That they have a nauseous Pill to give you, but that it may not be distastful, they gild it over, as the Writers of Popery in the late K. J's Reign the other day did; with more such bitter envious Stuff, and false Judgment, to which we shall never submit, nor give away our Sincerity or Holy Profession of Christ and Christianity, which he cannot deny to be Orthodox in it self: Nor extinguish our Sincerity therein, but only strive to cloud by Reproaches, groundless Jealousies, and Misconstructions and Perversions, which is not as he would be done by to be sure: But if a Belief of Christ already come, born of the Virgin Mary, being of the Seed of Abraham, and that he was Crucified, died, rose again, and ascended, (as the Scriptures declare) be sufficient to entitle a Man to be a Christian, How many do believe and confess thus much of Christ, and yet Unsanctified, Unregenerate, Impenitent, Ungodly and Unchristian, in Spirit and Conversation? So that they are not in the true living Faith in Christ Jesus, though they have an Historical and Traditional one, and perhaps may be Baptized or Sprinkled with Water too. But of that the Rector here writes somewhat faintly and dubiously, as thought by some also necessary (i. e. to make a Man a Christian) page 9. But afterward he is more positive in this Point, That 'tis necessary, as the Sacred Ordinance of Christ and Saving, p. 27. Necessary to enter Men into the Kingdom of God, from John 3. 5. p. 28. for Remission and doing away Sins, cleansing of our Souls; that the Spirit doth Sanctifie the Waters in Baptism, to the mystical Washing away of Sin, p. 29, 31, 32. But as for Infants partaking thereof, he evades proof, It is not his business here to prove, he saith, p. 27. So that he both evades defending their own Practice, and leaves People at an uncertainty of the Subjects of this ignorantly supposed Saving, Soul cleansing, and mystical washing Ordinance, (making use of the Anabaptists Arguments for Baptizing Believers with Water, which is no proof for Rantism (or Sprinkling) upon Infants.) Thus he attempts to shew People the way or means of Regeneration, and entering into the Kingdom of God, and he lays the stress thereof upon the outward Baptism by Water, and not upon the inward Baptism of the Spirit; he has found out an easie way to make Christians, and to get to Heaven at this rate. His business here being to prove, Whether outward Baptism by Water, is the Sacred Ordinance of Christ, as necessary to be believed and Saving; or Inward Baptism, i. e. the Washing or Cleansing of the Heart, or an Inward Conversion to God, p. 27. So that [Page] by this the Saving Baptism must be the one or the other; he places it upon the outward Waters of Baptism, as necessary to the cleansing of our Souls, mystical Washing away of Sin, p. 31, 32. therefore not upon the Inward Baptism of the Spirit, for that was not sufficient, he saith, p. 29. No: What was it good for then? He tells us, The inward Baptism was but a necessary Qualification for the Reception of the outward Baptism by Water, p. 29. So that the Water is exalted above the Spirit, or the Spirit's Baptism. But how many Infants (who are Sprinkled) can they prove, are thus first qualified by the Inward Baptism of the Spirit? What confused and bewildred work do we meet withal from some angry Opposers? Upon the whole, the Man's Definition of a Christian, is summed up in this, viz. That the Washing of Regeneration by the Word of Life, the Inward and Spiritual Baptism, is not Saving, or sufficient to make a true Christian, but Water-Baptism; and whether that must be of Infants or Believers, we are left at uncertainty by this Rector; 'tis enough with him to cry, It must be with Water, Water; But who, who, must come under it? Men or Babes? Here we are at a loss. What an easie way it is to make Christians, and to get to Heaven, if this be it, viz. Learn and believe your Creed, and that you are inwardly washed, regenerated and entered into God's Kingdom by your Water-Baptism; Whether as Infants, or grown up, is still the Question?

This Rector boldly tells us, Nay further it appears, That before our Saviour Baptized those in Judea, he represented the Solemnity of Baptism, as a thing necessary to enter Men into that Kingdom of God, to which he invited them; our Saviour not only telling Nicodemus, John 3. 5. That except a Man be born again, he could not see the Kingdom of God: But yet more plainly, That except he was born again of Water, p. 5. and of the Spirit, he could not enter into it, p. 28.

In this Interpretation of John 3. 5. to outward Water, the Rector exactly agrees with the Popish Notion and Interpretation thereof, ‘That no Man can enter into the Kingdom of God, nor into the Fellowship of Holy Church, without Water-Baptism; as held by the Rhemists, see their Annotations upon John 3. 5.’And therein opposed by the Protestants, as appears in Dr. Fulk's Answer, viz. ‘It is not necessary in this place By Water, to understand material Water, but rather the Purifying Grace of Christ. As in Chap. 4. ver. 11, 14. where 'tis called Living Water; whereof (he saith) Washing with Water in Baptism, is an outward Sign.’

[Page] So that the Reform'd Protestants did place Salvation, the New Birth, and entering into the Kingdom of God, upon the Inward Baptism by the Purifying Grace of Christ, and not upon the Outward Element of Water, they esteem'd that but an outward Sign of the Inward. For the outward Baptism by Water, the Rector urges our Saviour's Example and Practice from John 3. 22, 26. p. 28. as if practised or ministred by Christ himself. But that's a Mistake, for in John 4. 2. 'tis expresly said, Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his Disciples.

I have run the farther into this Point in this place, to shew what a Composition the Rector has run Christianity into. But to return to some of his invidious Abuses and Perversions; For the Credit of his Charge of Venom and Blasphemous Opinions relating to Christianity (as well as to the Government) against us, he saith, And to this end and purpose, in the Month of March last past, there were two Books presented to both Houses of Parliament, the one Entitled, A Brief Discovery of some of the Blasphemies and Seditious Principles, &c. The other Entitled, Some few of the Quakers many horrid Blasphemies, Heresies, &c. And also a Sheet Entitled, Some Reasons humbly offered, why the Quakers should be examined, p. 6, 7.

Here we may observe this Rector has owned these same Books, as well as presenting them to the Parliament: Now one of them that is a Libel, stiled, Some Few, has an Owner with the rest. Thou therefore (John Meriton, Rector, so called) art accountable for the manifold Abuses, Perversions, Calumnies and Traducings, which are in those Books, and detected in my Truth and Innocency vindicated, which I doubt not but will turn to your great Shame and Disgrace who promoted them; as will also your strenuous Endeavours to Insence the Government against us, but that they had more Discretion and Prudence than to be influenced by two or three Invidious Persons against a Peaceable and Serviceable People.

Now concerning our Christian Profession, on which the Rector makes his Observations, to evince the Venom of Quakerism, as he unjustly defames us.

He accuseth us with dubious and equivocal Terms, agreeable to those of the Oracles of the Heathen, p. 7. for our confessing, ‘That our Belief is, That in the Unity of the God-head, there is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, those Three Divine Witnesses, that beare Record in [Page] Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and that these Three are One, according to Holy Scripture Testimony.’These the Rector has judged as dubious equivocal Terms, though they are Scripture Terms, see Matt. 28. 19. 1 John 5. 7. John 14. 26. & Chap. 15. 26. But not being content with this our Confession, he begs this Question, i. e. But if not Three Persons, what Three are they? page 8. Let him prove these Terms by plain Scripture, as we have done ours, and then we shall be resolved, so as not to charge him with dubious Terms. He might have spared his bitter Insinuations against us, as virulent Poison, grossest Errors, equivocal Reserves, wherein they (meaning the Quakers) may be thought to exceed their Brethren the Jesuits, page 8. It had been more Prudence for him to have forborne or reserved these bitter Aspersions, than to impose them upon the Reader; which shews a great Enmity and bitterness of Spirit in the Man.

His repeated and partial Citations and Charge against G. F. W. P. and G. W. in page 8, 9, 10. are answered and detected in the second part of the other Examination (i. e. Truth and Innocency, &c.) under the first Head and Title Concerning the Holy Trinity. What is alledged against G. W. out of Ishmael, &c. page 10. about the Three Persons, (though wrongly cited by the Rector, p. 9, 10.) I have positively disowned that passage twice already (both as 'tis in it self, and as it is none of mine) and do now a third time disown the same, which none therefore but the Implacable will repeat against me.

About a Heaven within, and the Locality of Heaven, p. 10. I do not find either G. F. or W. P. truly quoted or cited upon Examination. The Matter as it concerns G. F. is answered in the other Examination aforesaid.

To the Rector's thus construing our Confession, i. e. When they speak of Three Divine Witnesses bearing Record in Heaven, that is to say (quoth he) the Heaven within them, p. 10.

Thus he imposes his meaning upon us, as if we confined the Divine Three bearing Witness in Heaven, only to a Heaven within us, and not as being in that Heaven without us also; which is a mistaken Construction, for the Heaven wherein the Divine Three bear Witness, is above, and distinct from the Earth, 1 John 5. 7, 8. and yet the same Holy Spirit (which is God) bears witness in Earth too, even in Mens Hearts and Consciences. His Spirit bears witness with our Spirits, &c. And he that believeth on the Son of God, hath the Witness in himself, 1 John 5. 10. And he that inhabiteth Eternity, and [Page] dwells in the highest Heavens, dwells also in the lowest Hearts, even with them that are poor and of contrite Spirits, and tremble at his word, how despised soever they are in the Eyes of the Proud and Envious whom God will debase. And it was no lessening of the Blessed Record of the Divine Three in Heaven, for the Spiritual Believers in Christ Jesus, to be promoted to the Honour and Priviledge of sitting together in Heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Eph. 2. 5, 6. and their continuing in the Son and in the Father, if the Word (which they had heard from the Beginning) remained in them, 1 John 2. 24. As there is a Plurality of Heavens without us, so there are degrees of heavenly States in Christ Jesus within us, if our Conversation be in Heaven.

I charge the Rector with a false Quotation and Abuse of me in particular, in his Observation on our Confession to the Divinity and Humanity (or Manhood) of Jesus Christ. Where he quotes Truth defending the Quakers, p. 22. and against me saith, Where he affirms Christ's coming in the Flesh to be but a Figure or Example, (answered in the other Examination, part 1. p. 24, 25. which are not my words, but in the Priest's 35th Question, wrongly accusing R. Hubberthorn therewith.

The Rector also wrongs R. H. and me, in what he adds, viz. Which is also the Saying of R. Hubberthorn, and justified by G. W. in his Judgment Fixed, p. 336. who tells you plainly, what Man Christ the Quakers own, i. e. their Light within only, p. 11.

He wrongs me again in both: For 1st, I never understood, that 'twas R. H's Saying, that Christ's coming in the Flesh, was But a Figure, nor saw it ever so affirmed under his hand, but by his Adversaries. 2. Neither have I justified that Saying in Judgment Fixed. 3. Neither do I there tell you plainly, that the Man Christ the Quakers own, is their Light within only. I do not confine the Christ to within only, though he be our Light within, as well as he is our Mediator, the Man Christ without. But the Rector, to fasten his Charge upon me, adds, viz. His words (i. e. G. W's) are these, Therefore the Man Christ Jesus was, before he came in the Body of Flesh, p. 11. Here the Rector cites a Consequence of a Proposition against me, but not the Proposition it self; wherein he is unfair: Yet the Consequence proves not, that I either affirm or justifie Christ's coming in the Flesh to be but a Figure: 'Tis fully answered in the Examination before; and my Proposition, from which the said Consequence is drawn, is, ‘John bore witness of that Man Christ, saying, He that cometh after me, is preferred before [Page]me, for he was before me, John 1. 15. Again ver. 30. After me cometh a Man, which is preferred before me, for he was before me. Therefore the Man Christ Jesus was, before he came in the Body or Flesh; he was that Spiritual Rock, which all Israel drank of; his Life was the Light of Men from the Beginning, and all the Generations of the Righteous did Spiritually partake of the Benefit of Christ, as Mediator; both before and after his coming in the Flesh, they virtually partook of the Sacrifice of the Lamb, &c. Judgment Fixed, p. 336.’Now could this be to deny either the Divinity or Manhood of Christ? No sure; but rather a Confession to both. Neither doth it prove our Confession thereunto, only a Paint or Varnish to deceive the Hearts of the Simple, as this Rector would insinuate, though very frowardly and unjustly: And, That Christ existeth outwardly, Bodily without us, at God's right hand; my Enquiry for Scripture-proof for these words, (Nature of Christianity, page 41. Anno 1671.) proves no Insincerity in our Belief of Jesus Christ, as he is truly God and Man, according as Holy Scripture testifies of him; and questioning those Terms, was not to deny Christ's real Exaltation in Glory, as he is at the right Hand of the Majesty in the Heavens.

What the Rector quotes against G. F. and W. P. about Christ, that was Crucified, and his outward Person, &c. p. 12, 13. is answered and explained in the Examination aforesaid.

What he quotes against W. Smith's Primmer, p. 8. printed 1668, i. e. They that are False (Ministers) preach Christ without. Here wants the word Only, viz. they preach Christ without Only (in opposition to his being within) for it was so corrected in the last Edition of his Works. What carping and picking work do these Men make against us, to make us Offenders for a word?

We also sincerely confess, ‘We believe and expect Salvation and Justification by Jesus Christ his Righteousness, Merits and Works, (here they leave out [and not by our own,] God is not indebted to us for our Deservings, but we to him for his Free Grace in Christ Jesus, whereby we are Saved through Faith in him (not of our selves) and by his Grace enabled truly and acceptably to serve and follow him, as he requires; He is our All in all, who worketh all in us that is well pleasing to God.’

To render us Insincere or Contradictory herein, the Rector begins with G. W's Light and Life, thus quoting him, p. 38. viz. The Quakers see no need of directing Men to Jesus Christ or his Blood, as it was outwardly shed at Jerusalem for Justification, &c.

[Page] Herein he has falsly quoted me, and misrepresented my words, which if he read them, 'twas the more wickedly done; If it was upon the Credit of another's Information, 'twas presumptuously foolish, so injuriously to cite them. My words in the place quoted are these; viz. ‘The Quakers see no need of directing Men to the Type for the Antitype, viz. neither to the outward Temple, nor yet to Jerusalem to Jesus Christ or his Blood;’It should be for Jesus Christ there, knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith, nor the Word of it, doth so direct, Rom. 10. which is not to disswade People from Jesus Christ where he is to be found, but from going to seek him in the Type before mentioned. The Matter is answer'd before, this Rector had need to be rectified himself.

Again, He quotes G. W. thus, p. 55. ibid. Where doth the Scripture say, That the shedding of Christ's Blood outwardly, was the meritorious cause of (Man's) Salvation? And p. 64. It is False Doctrine to lay the meritorious cause or stress of Justification, upon the shedding that Blood let out by the Spear.

He has here quoted me partially in both these passages, especially in the last.

1. My Question to the Baptist in the place was this: Where do the Scriptures use those Expressions, and so much vary about the Blood of Christ, as one while to say, that the shedding that Blood outwardly, was the meritorious cause of Salvation, &c. p. 55.

2. Whereas the Baptist accused us with denying the shedding of the Blood upon the Cross, that was let out by vertue of the Spear being thrust into his side, to be the meritorious cause of Man's Justification (as held in the Affirmative by the Baptist.) My answer was, ‘The shedding of that Blood let out by the Spear, was an Act of a wicked Man, and the Spear an Instrument of Cruelty, which to lay the meritorious cause or stress of Justification upon, is false Doctrine; for there is a great difference between Christ's offering up himself by the Eternal Spirit, a Lamb without Spot, to God, and the Acts of wicked Men inflicted upon him; as 'tis said, by wicked hands they put him to death.’ The Merit, Deserving, Dignity or Worth, is placed upon Christ's Obedience, in offering up himself, and humbling himself to the Death of the Cross for Man's Redemption, as intimated in the consequence, Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, Phil. 2. 9. Therefore the Merit, or Deserving, was not placed upon the Soldier's Act, of thrusting the Spear into his side, and letting out his Blood thereby, after he had given up the Ghost, John 19. 33, 34. But upon the [Page] Obedience of the Son of God, even unto the Death of the Cross, as that most acceptable Sacrifice for the Sins of the World. Christ's deserving such high Exaltation into Dominion and Glory through his Obedience in Suffering, was for the bringing many Sons to Glory, Heb. 2. 10. consequently That in following him we might be received into Glory; as they who Suffer with him shall be glorified together, Rom. 8. 17. and this no ways interferes with (nor varies from) Our Sincere Belief of Salvation and Justification by Jesus Christ, his Righteousness, Merits and Works, and not by our own; Christ as our Mediator and the one Offering, has obtained Justification, Remission and Pardon of Sins, and Eternal Redemption for us, which he makes us partakers of, by his Work of Righteousness and Sanctification in us, so that both Christ's Obedience, Deservings and Dignity, without us, and his works within us are concerned in our Salvation and Justification, which his Light and Spirit Leads us to the living Knowledge and Experience of, as We sincerely obey and follow the same; for the Apostle describes both the washing Sanctification and Justification of true Converts, to be in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God, 1 Cor. 6. 11. Therefore I hope it will be no reproach to W. P. or any else to be in conjunction with G. W. in this point as he is accused, p. 14. namely, That our Justification and Salvation is not Effected wholly without us, as if there were no need of the Spirit's work within us for our Regeneration and Sanctification, all which is Christ's work, being done by his Spirit and Power, which consequently does no ways lessen his Dignity, Glory and Honour, wherewith he was crowned through the Suffering of Death, that he might bring many Sons (after him) unto Glory, Heb. 2. 9.

Again, the Rector quotes G. Whitehead, in Counterfeit Convert, printed 1694. p. 17, 18.That it is the Light and Life within, in which, is the Immediate and Efficient cause of Man's Salvation; And as for the Sufferings and Death of Christ in the Flesh, they do but instrumentally contribute thereunto.

The Rector to abuse me, Partially cites me in this place, as if I ascribed Salvation to a Light and Life within, without Christ, or not to Christ; for what else could he design in bringing this Quotation to confront, or oppose, our Confession (before cited) to Salvation by Jesus Christ? And where do I say in which (i. e. in the Light and Life within) is the Immediate and Efficient cause of Man's Salvation, as if I should say something in the Light and Life [Page] of Christ were the Immediate cause of Man's Salvation, and not the Light and Life of Christ it self; this Rector would fain make me speak Non-sence as well as Blasphemy. But by our confessing to the Light and Life of Christ within, as the Immediate and Efficient cause of Man's Salvation from Sin and Condemnation; we do neither divide Christ nor make two Christs, nor yet by confessing his Suffering and Death in the Flesh as a means of God's appointment instrumentally to contribute thereunto; He being The Mediator of the New Covenant, that by means of Death for the Redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament (or Covenant) they which are called might receive the Promise of Eternal Inheritance, Heb. 9. 15. and as it was by means of Christ that true Christians believe in God, who raised him up from the Dead, and gave him Glory and Honour, that their Faith and Hope might be in God, 1 Pet. 1. 20, 21. So if Christ our Mediator be the Means, the Cause, and Great Instrument, of our Faith and Salvation, and his Death the Means of our Redemption and Remission of Sins in his Blood; It can be no dishonour to him to confess his Sufferings and Death in the Flesh, instrumentally to contribute to our Salvation, and that Christ himself by his Light and Life in us, is the Immediate and Efficient cause thereof, thereby fulfilling and confirming in us the blessed and holy Design and Ends of his Sufferings and Death for us.

I am not ashamed of my Testimony for Christ in this matter, and give it here more truly than my Adversary has done out of the place quoted, out of Counterfeit Convert, p. 18. viz.

‘That Christ, the Promised Seed, through Death was to bruise under, and destroy, him that had the Power of Death, viz. The Devil, yet he effectually doth it by his divine Power, Light and Life, as the Immediate and Efficient cause of Man's Salvation; wherein we still confess his Sufferings and Death in the Flesh instrumentally to contribute thereunto. Christ Jesus, as the Promised Seed, who came of a Woman, made under the Law, bruised the Serpent's Head both without us and within us; without us through his Sufferings and Death (by his divine Testimony, Word and Power) within us by his Divine Life, Light, Word (or Seed) Spirit and Power, which is all but one Christ himself, not two Christs nor to be divided: Else how could we be born again of Incorruptible Seed? Or how doth that Seed remain in him that's born again? And is not that Seed Christ? And is not the Word of Faith, Christ in Spirit? See 1 Pet. 1. 23. 1 John 3. 9. [Page] Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8.’ Now where's the Venom charged in all this Doctrine?

When true and full Recitations are given of our Words, how plain does the Truth thereof appear? But when our Adversaries give their perverted, minced and false Citations thereof, to traduce us as Venomous in Doctrine (as this angry Rector has frowardly and frequently done) How cloudy do they make them and us look? But Truth will work thorow and over all this dust and cloudy stuff they cast upon us.

To what he quotes against Tho. Lawson his Untaught Teacher, printed 1655. p. 4, 5. Against looking for Salvation from a means without, and seeking a way to Salvation without, p. 15.

I have not the Book quoted, but am apt to think T. L's unfairly, or not fully cited in this place, let the Rector produce a fair and full Recitation. However I really believe (upon our Principle) that T. L. meant no other than that, as Salvation from Sin is an Inward and Spiritual Work of Christ, Men must expect and wait for it to be wrought within them by the Spirit and Power of Christ, who is the great means and cause thereof; so that if any seek the way and means of Salvation only without them, and neglect Christ's Appearance and Light in them, they miss their way, though He who is the Great means, obtained Eternal Redemption and Salvation without them, and alone did tread the Wine-press, which we believe, and therefore the Rector's conclusions are false against us.

1. That They (i. e. the Quakers) undervalue the Righteousness and Merits of Jesus Christ, purchasing Salvation for us.

2. That they Extol and Magnifie their own Righteousness and Works, like to their Brethren in the Church of Rome, p. 15.

3. That they exceed all the meritorious Boasts of those their Kindred, in affirming that their Sufferings are Greater, and more unjust, than the Sufferings in the days of Christ, &c.

I positively deny and Testifie against these Accusations, as Notorious Calumnies to traduce and abuse the People called Quakers, contrary to our Principle and Profession of Jesus Christ, and that Glory, Dignity and Preheminence we sincerely ascribe to him, his Righteousness, Merits, Works and Sufferings. And that 'tis by his Grace through Faith we are saved, not of our selves; 'tis the Gift of God, not of Works, lest any Man should Boast, Ephes. 2.

[Page] ‘Our Confession of Remission of Sin, and Redemption thro' the Sufferings, Death and Blood of Christ, and Faith in him, &c.’Tho' this the Rector confesses seems to be very Orthodox, yet he'll needs have it still but Paint and Deceit, p. 16. Thus uncharitable and incredulous he is of our plain and sincere Profession, falsly inferring, For Remission or Redemption through the Sufferings or Righteousness of another, is not by them (i. e. Quakers) believed.

Which is false, 'twas none of the Question or Controversie between us and our former Opposers (the Imputarians) for what the Rector observes out of F. B's Works, p. 33. (already answered in the other Examination) and W. P's Sandy Foundation, p. 25, 30, 31. and Serious Apology, p. 148. though very brokenly and partially, as well as impertinently cited by the Rector, p. 16, 17. Yet 'tis no ways intended to disbelieve or deny Remission of Sins, or Redemption thro' the Sufferings or Righteousness of Christ Jesus; But to refuse a Justification of impure and unsanctified Persons, by an Imputative Righteousness, according to W. P's Title of that part of the Controversie, Sandy Foundation, p. 24. or a justifying the Wicked and condemning the Just, which they that do, are Abomination to the Lord, Prov. 17. 15. p. 24. Ibid. which is not to deny the real and true Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to them that are Sanctified, and by Faith have a true Interest in Christ, as partakers of his Righteousness and Holiness. His Imputations or Reckonings, being all True and Righteous; if he reckons or esteems a Man Just, he is really so.

I do not see that W. P. contradicts this Doctrine of Justification in his Primitive Christianity, &c. by his former opposing Justification of Impure, Unsanctified or Impenitent Persons, by an undue Imputation of anothers Righteousness which (in that State) they have no share in. Who is that Blessed Man to whom God imputeth Righteousness, &c? Rom. 4. 6, 7, 8. but the Man in whose Spirit is no Guile, Psal. 32. 6.

The Rector doubtless thinks he has put a learned and binding Question upon us, viz. Why indeed should they believe Remission of Sins, and Redemption through Christ's Sufferings, and Justification by his Righteousness, when as they believe themselves to be perfect as God, and free from Sin? p. 17.

Answer 1st, Where do we say all this of our selves, as that we believe our selves to be perfect as God? I would have the Rector produce plain Proof that we say this of our selves.

[Page] 2dly, That Perfection of Freedom from Sin, which we believe attainable in Christ; it is not of our selves, nor by our selves, attain'd. We do not pretend to make our selves Perfect or Free from Sin, but by the Power and Work of Christ, and his Righteousness, by a true Faith in him, who is manifest to take away and destroy Sin, the work of the Devil, and to save us from Sin.

3dly, Now suppose any true Believers in Christ Jesus, his Name and Power, should call to others, and say, Come and I'll tell you what the Lord hath done for my Soul; he hath redeemed my Soul, he has taken away my Sins, and blotted out my Transgressions, and received me Graciously. And thereupon such a learned Rector as this should Gainsay his Christian Experience by such a Question as this, Why indeed should you believe your Soul is redeemed, and your Sins are taken away and blotted out, through Christ his Righteousness, &c. when you thus believe your self to be free from Sin? To which he might easily Answer, I did not make my self so: I magnifie the Grace of God in Christ Jesus towards me, what I am, I am by the Grace of God. The rest against preaching for Sin, to continue term of Life, p. 18. is opened in the Examination before.

And the Rector is sadly out and wants Rectifying, in his affirming, This Doctrine of Sinless Perfection being the approved Doctrine of the Quakers, to be in Opposition to all Professors of the Christian Faith, p. 18.

The Man's Egregiously out and mistaken in this last part, The Doctrine of Sinless Perfection in Christ, is a true Christian Doctrine, and approved of by all true Believers who are in the Faith of Christ, and Professers of the same; such Perfection was both commanded and Promised of God, and Preached by Christ and his faithful Ministry, and effected by Christ in his true Believers and Followers, who abide in him; He that abideth in him Sinneth not.

I may here give a full recital of the Question and our Answer, upon which the Rector has made his said Observations, to prove the same still but Paint and Deceit, which is proved to be but his own false Judgment.

Quest. Do you believe Remission of Sin, and Redemption through the Sufferings, Death and Blood of Christ?

‘Answ. Yes, through Faith in Him as he suffered and dyed for all Men, gave himself a Ransom for all, and his Blood so Shed for the Remission of Sins, so all they who sincerely believe and [Page] obey him, receive the Benefits, blessed Effects and Fruits of his Suffering and Dying for them; They by Faith in his Name, receive and partake of that Eternal Redemption which he hath obtained for us, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from All Iniquity: He died for our Sins, and rose again for our Justification; And if we walk in the Light, as he (i. e. God) is in the Light, we have Fellowship one with another; And the Blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all Sin, 1 John 1. 7.’

Quest. Do you believe and own the Divine Offices of Jesus Christ in his Church?

Our Answer is, Yes verily we believe and own Christ, not only as he is the Light of the World, enlightning every Man coming into it, but also that he is given for a Leader and for a Commander; And that he is both King, Priest and Prophet, to and over his Church and People. He is the Minister of the Sanctuary which the Lord Pitched and not Man; and we are to hear him in all things.

On this the Rector observes, viz.

This Profession of theirs, if Sincere, would indeed comprehend a great part of the Christian Religion; but if the above Quotations be true, they will give you just cause to suspect them even in this, p. 19.

By this our Profession is granted as comprehensive of a great part of Christian Religion, and our Sincerity therein is known to God who judgeth Righteously, and we may not submit it to this Person's Prejudice or unjust Judgment, and Quotations wherein his Falseness and Partiality are in a great measure already detected: And what he now quotes against our said Profession, out of Tyranny and Hypocrisie detected, p. 19. of S. E's declaring G. F. Blessed be the Man that came out of the North, &c. And a Letter said to be writ by Josiah Coale from Barbadoes, to G. F. in 1658. which this Person saith, is Justified by W. Penn in his Judasand the Jews, p. 44, 45, 46.

We have heard often of this Letter of J. C's, and of W. P's Vindication thereof, but I find no Reply from this Rector, to Refute W. P. therein; nor yet any Proof therefrom, of our Insincerity in what we profess as aforesaid, for our believing the Divine Offices of Jesus Christ, in and over his Church; for though G. F. was truly esteemed among us, as a Faithful Minister of Christ, and a Father in him unto many in the Faith, and an Heir of Christ's Kingdom, yet this was never to Wrest the Scepter out of Christ's Hand, as is falsly insinuated by this Rector, and his Author Edward Pay a Teacher of the Anabaptists, whose Authority is quoted against us, p. 19, 20.

[Page] See what hard Shifts this Man is put to for Authority against us, for all his Learning, I may refer him in this Case, to my Answer to Edward Pay, Entituled, The Contemned Quaker and his Christian Religion defended, p. 81, 82. ‘Wherein I tell him, that his Charge is very high against two Persons deceased, who I believe ended their Days in Peace; and that I have cause to question, whether the said Letter be truly and intirely copied or cited from the Original; and what Persons, that are no Parties nor Adversaries to us, will attest thine to be a true and intire Copy, according to Josiah Coale's original Letter, &c.’I doubt not but I can clear that Honest Man Josiah Coale, from giving any Blasphemous Titles (as charged) and that from his own printed Testimonies; and G. F. also from receiving such, by his known publick Christian Profession and Confession unto Christ Jesus, both as God and Man, according to the Holy Scriptures. And concerning the other Pamphlet, Tyranny and Hypocrisie, also quoted by this Rector against us, it is a Malicious Libel without the Author's Name; yet so far given credit unto against us, to asperse and traduce us, though fully answered long ago by W. P. &c Thus hard put to it is this Rector, to find and rake up Matter against our Christian Profession of Christ, his Divine Offices, &c.

And therefore 1st, His calling G. F. the King of the Quakers, p. 20, 21. is a Scornful Falshood, that's none of our Profession, but that Jesus Christ is our King, Priest and Prophet, who is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.

2. As also his accusing G. F. with depriving Christ of his Kingly Office, and assuming it to himself, p. 21. is another notorious Falshood and Calumny, for he was a Minister or Servant of Jesus Christ, and so he owned himself to be, consequently unjustly charg'd with depriving Christ of his Kingly Office, and assuming it to himself: Neither did I ever say, or intend any such thing of G. F. though I am here quoted in Innocency against Envy, p. 18. as plainly intimating, It is not G. F. but the Light or Christ within him, that assumes this Kingly Power, p. 21. I do not know that I used these words, or plainly intimated this in behalf of G. F. nor needed I so excuse him from that which he was never justly chargeable with, as depriving Christ of his Kingly Office, or assuming the same to himself. Neither was it proper or pertinent for me to say, That the Light; or Christ within, assumes this Kingly Power, p. 21. 'Tis Christ's Right to Rule and Reign, both as King and Lawgiver; and his being in us by his Light and Spirit, does not lessen his Power, Dignity or Glory, he hath in himself. And it follows not, [Page] that because Christ, who is King, is in us, That every Quaker is a King, because every Quaker has the Light within, as this Priest argues, p. 21. I wish he would speak more Reverently of the Light within, and of Christ within, which if he obeys not, will be his Condemnation; it's they that obey Christ, the Light, and suffer with him, that shall Reign with him, and not every one in whom Christ or his Light appears, for too many Rebel against the Light, and will not that Christ should Reign over them.

What he quotes against G. F. Jun. p. 50. speaking in the Name of the Light, is answered in the other Examination, and no disowning, but a real owning of Christ's Kingly Office, as he is the Light and Judge of the World.

The Rector insinuating against us, A Denial of the Priestly Office of Christ, and also his Humanity, p. 22. is as false as the rest of his Calumnies: Where did ever we deny Christ as the one Mediator betwixt God and Man, even the Man Christ Jesus? 1 Tim. 2. 5. How often have we confess'd him as such?

His saying the Quakers tells you that Christ was never seen with Carnal Eyes, &c. quoting H. Woolrich's Declaration to the Baptists, p. 13. I have not that Declaration, but it has been answered, that he meant the True Christ is not seen Savingly with Carnal Eyes; nor though the Jews saw his Body or Person outwardly, they did not see him Spiritually and Savingly, as his Disciples did, who saw his Glory as of the only Begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth: Christ saith, He that seeth me, seeth my Father also; in which sence of seeing, he was never so seen with Carnal Eyes, no more than the Father was.

Again 'tis objected against us, That we teach that Christ has no Body but his Church, quoting Jos. Coale's Works, p. 332. This is falsly charged both against us, and falsly cited against Josiah Coale, for first, We do not so Teach. 2. Though J. C. confesseth the Church to be the Body of Christ in the place quoted, he also confesseth Christ's glorious Body, like unto which his Body the Church shall be fashioned, saying, ‘That Affliction did still attend these Members of Christ's Body, and that this Body (i. e.) the Church, though not free as yet from suffering Afflictions, yet shall be fashioned like to his glorious Body, J. C's p. 332.’So that he owned Christ to have a glorious Body above that of his Members: Therefore it appears neither from hence, nor yet from this Rector's unjust Charge or false Quotation, that the Quakers deny the Mediator, the Man Christ Jesus, as he falsly saith; much less that they do Scornfully Contemn the [Page]Blood of Christ, p. 23. as they are grosly Calumniated and Slandered.

What he cites against E. B. and W. P. p. 23, 24. is answered in the foregoing Examination.

And as to Christ's Prophetick Office, we are satisfied that we own it more than these our Adversaries, in that we believe we ought to hear him in all things, by his Light, Word and Spirit, in our Hearts; for which they so much slight and contemn us; opposing his Immediate Revelation, Teaching and Ministry in these days, and confining his present Ministry to the Scriptures, in opposition to his Light and Immediate Teaching in Man; for though Christ did frequently preach from Scriptures, yet his Preaching was with Power and Efficacy, he had power both to open the Scriptures, and the Understandings of them that heard him in opening them; and also so to touch their Hearts, that they said, Did not our Hearts burn within us, while he spoke unto us? Which Mens meer literal Preaching cannot do, nor work those Effects: We are to hear Christ in all things, him that speaketh from Heaven; but saith the Rector, they (i. e. the Quakers) neither do nor will hear him, no their Christ within, which they are obliged to, tells them other things than our outward Christ or Prophet does, p. 24.

What an Ignorant and Scornful Reflection and Abuse is this, as if either we owned another Christ within than the true Christ and Prophet whom we are to hear (which is a false Insinuation) or else that Christ as within, and Christ as without, is not one and the same Christ, which is false also; neither is Christ divided, though he be both without and within.

And where proves this Rector, that the Scripture is the Touch-stone to try Spirits withal; wherein he takes part with Mat. Caffin (the Anabaptist Preacher, his affirming the same) against the Quakers, p. 25. Christ said, Have Salt in your selves, and discerning of Spirits was the Gift of the Spirit, without which none can truly understand or make use of the Scripture. If Tho. Lawson said, The Scripture is not the Tryer of Spirits, as 'tis alledged against us, p. 25. I find no Scripture produced to prove this Erroneous; Christ is the Great Judge and Tryer of Spirits, who searches and tryes the Heart and the Reines; and it is by his Light and Spirit that Spirits must be tryed and judged, not by the Carnal, but by the Spiritual Man. And what the Rector again cites, out of p. 7. against studying to raise a living thing out of a dead, and the Spirit out of the Letter, &c. was never intended to oppose the Teaching of Christ's Prophetick Office, for his Office never allowed any such Study: Neither do the Quakers deny Christ's Gospel Ordinances [Page] which are really such, and by him perpetuated. Here the Rector imposes upon us, and his Allegations fall short of proof. And our not continuing under a Literal and Shadowy Dispensation of Types and Figures, carnal Ordinances, and outward Element, but under a Spiritual Ministry, is rather an Indication of our owning Christ's Offices, his Gospel, his Ministry or Dispensation, than any refusing to hear him, who speaketh from Heaven by his Holy Spirit, Light and Grace in Mens Hearts.

What seems most materially objected hitherto in the Rector's Antidote, being answered, I may take notice of some Passages hereafter, farther to shew what he falsly deems Venom of Quakerism, according to his Title and Observations against our Profession.

Quest. Do you believe or own Baptism, as Essential to Christianity, or necessary to Salvation; and for the ingrafting us into Christ and his Church?

(Our answer is,) We believe and are fully perswaded, That Baptism, which is Essential to Christianity, and the Saving Baptism, or the Cause, without which none can be true Christians, or Saved, is the Inward or Spiritual Washing of Regeneration by the Word of Life. This is the Saving Baptism into Christ and his Church, which produceth the Answer of a good Conscience towards God, of which the outward was a Figure, 1 Pet. 3. 21. This is that One Baptism of Christ, by One Spirit into that One Body, whereof Christ is the Head.

As to Dipping or Sprinkling Infants or young Children, we find no Precept or President in Holy Scripture for the Practice thereof; and therefore we cannot think, our not-believing it, Essential (or necessary) to Salvation; or making Christians, a sufficient Argument to prove us no Christians; unless it can be proved, that none are Saved without it, and that all are Saved, that have it. Considering also, what's positively affirmed in the 39 Articles; as in the sixth Article, That whatsoever is not read in the Holy Scriptures, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any Man, that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation. And in the 20th Article, That the Church ought not to decree or enforce any thing against or besides Holy Writ, to be believed for necessity of Salvation. And in Article 21, That things ordained by General Councils, as necessary to Salvation, have neither Strength nor Authority, unless that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

[Page] On the first part of this Profession, the Rector makes this Observation against us, viz. By this their Answer, they (i. e. the Quakers) do not Insinuate to, but plainly tell the World, what Baptism it is that is essentially necessary to Salvation, or making Christians that is the Inward or Spiritual Washing of Regeneration by the Word of Life, the Washing or Cleansing of the Heart, or an Inward Conversion to God, p. 26, 27.

And herein we plainly tell the World the plain Truth, according to Holy Scripture, And what Venom is in this pray? Had not this Rector need to be severely corrected for opposing this Doctrine, as Venomous, and making the outward Baptism by Water the Saving Baptism, and not the Inward and Spiritual; As if all the World of Mankind were in a State of Damnation, who are not so outwardly Baptized with Water; or could be no Christians, nor Saved, if they be not so Baptized or Rantized, as he would have them; this is like Dip or Damn: Oh! uncharitable and unchristian Doctrine. Has Salvation by Grace been preached so long among us, and must it now be placed on Works; or on such a superficial Work, as that of outward Baptism, Sprinkling, Dipping or Plunging Persons in Water? But that the Inward Spiritual Baptism, washing of Regeneration by the Word of Life, the Spirit of Life, the Power of Christ, is the Saving Baptism, the truly Regenerating Baptism, the Baptism essentially necessary to Salvation, and making Christians, and not the outward, nor the Sign, Type or Shadow thereof, is no venomous Doctrine, but agreeable to Holy Scripture Testimony, is evident, from Isa. 1. Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine Eyes, saith the Lord, &c. this was an Inward and Spiritual Washing. Jer. 4. 14. O Jerusalem, wash thine Heart from thy wickedness, that thou mayest be saved: This was a Heart-washing, an Inward and Spiritual Washing, whereby they might be Saved. Zech. 13. 1. The Fountain opened to the House of David, and to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem, for Sin, and for Uncleanness; was a Spiritual Fountain: The Lord God was the Fountain of Living Water, which when they had forsaken, they committed a great Evil therein, as well as in hewing to themselves broken Cisterns which could hold no Water, Jer. 2. 13. And the clean Water the Lord promised to Sprinkle upon his People, to make them clean from all their Filthiness, and to cleanse them from all their Idols, Ezek. 36. 25. was a Spiritual Sprinkling with Spiritual Water, and the Lord's doing. John 3. 5. Except a Man be born again of Water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. This was Spiritual Living Water, Inward and Sanctifying Grace, as the True [Page] Primitive Christians experienced, and best of Reformed Protestants believed; and not the outward Element of Water, as Papists and this Rector believe and hold. As in his page 28 (before more fully observed) yea he holds, This poor Element (as he calls it) of Water, as necessary to do away Sins, and to work upon our Souls, as the Waters of Jordan were to the Cleansing of Naaman, 2 Kings 5. 13. so necessary (quoth he) are the Waters of Baptism to the Cleansing our Souls, p. 31. Such Vertue he ascribes to this Element, thus idolizing it, even as highly as the Rhemists against the Protestants, but contrary to Christ's own Testimony also, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me, saith our Lord Jesus, John 13. 8. who also required first to make clean the inside, that the out-side might be clean also. Therefore 'twas the Inward Spiritual Washing of Regeneration, the Washing or Cleansing of the Heart, by the Word of Life, the Holy Spirit and Power of Christ, which was the Soul's Saving Baptism, and not that of the outward Element, Titus 3. 4, 5. After that the Kindness of God our Saviour toward Man appeared, not by Works of Righteousness which we have done, but according to his Mercy he Saved us by the Washing of Regeneration, and Renewing of the Holy Ghost.

And if the Baptism which doth now save us, be not the Putting away of the filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Conscience towards God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to that of 1 Pet. 3. 23. What can be more clear than that the Saving Baptism is that of the Spirit, (which is the One Baptism, Ephes. 4. 5.) whereby the Saints were all Baptized into One Body, 1 Cor. 12. 13. and not that of the outward Element, which can neither cleanse the Soul, nor wash away the Sin or Guilt thereof. The Inward and Spiritual Grace Saveth the Soul from Sin and Condemnation, and ought to be preferred to all outward and visible Signs, which can neither Save, nor Sustain or Relieve the Soul, 'tis Life and Substance, which is divine can do that. The One Spiritual Baptism, and that One Bread, that Spiritual Meat and Drink which cometh down from Heaven, is that which both saves and nourisheth the Soul unto Eternal Life, John 6. 1 Cor. 10.

That Disciples and Apostles of Christ did Baptize with Water, is not denied, Acts 8. 36, 38. & ch. 10. 48. & ch. 19. 3, 4, 5. but that they did Practice, or enjoin it as an act of necessity, pursuant to Christ's Commission in Matth. 28. 19. is to impose upon us, or beg the Question; but that it was rather permissively practised in con discention, than by that Commission. For 1st, Water is not expressed [Page] in that Text. 2dly, When they Baptized with Water, they did not use the terms of the Commission in it. We do not read in all the Acts of the Apostles, that any of them Baptized with Water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, or that they used those expressions or terms, in their Baptizing with Water, but in the name of the Lord, or in the name of the Lord Jesus. If Water had been intended in that Commission of Christ, Matth. 28. 19. the Apostle Paul must be concerned in it, it must be as much binding to him as any other Minister, but he declares the contrary, that Christ sent him not to Baptize but to Preach the Gospel, 1 Cor. 1. 17. he does not say Christ sent me not only to Baptize, but positively, for Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to preach the Gospel, which was part of the Reason he gave why he thanked God that he had baptized no more than those he mentions, 1 Cor. 1. 14, 15, 16. as well as, Lest they should have said, he had baptized in his own name; for 'tis not to be supposed he would thank God for not performing part of his Commission, if it had been to Baptize with Water, as well as to Preach the Gospel; but that positive and general Reason, for Christ sent me not to Baptize, but to preach the Gospel, leaves no room for him to say Christ sent me to Minister Water-Baptism (in his Commission in Matth. 28. 19.) for Water-Baptism was properly John's Baptism and Ministry, to make way for Christ's higher Dispensation and Spiritual Ministry, Matth. 3. 11. Mark 11. 8. Luke 3. 16. John 1. 16. Acts 1. 5. & 10. 16. compare with Acts 19. 2, 3, 4. But I need not enlarge on this subject, to answer the Anabaptists Argument for Plunging, or dipping Believers in Water, unless this Rector were in the Practice thereof, and renounced his Rantism, as they do as a Scriptureless Thing, as they term Sprinkling Infants. But referr him to a Treatise of one that was of his Coat, i. e. William Dell his [...] Or, The Doctrine of Baptisms.

To the Rector's Referring the Reader to that Excellent Piece of Water-Baptism (as he terms it) writ by that worthy and Ingenious Author (as he applauds him) of The Snake in the Grass, &c. printed 1697. p. 29.

Thus highly has he commended the Author of that Great Defaming and Reproaching Libel, i. e. The Snake in the Grass; but it would be too difficult a Task for him to defend the manifold Gross and Abominable Lies and Calumnies contain'd therein, against the manifest detection and discovery made of them, not only in my Antidote against the Venom of the said Snake, &c. but more fully, in a [Page] farther Scrutiny made in a Book now Extant, Entituled, Anguis Flagellatus: Or, a Switch for the Snake. By Joseph Wyeth.

When this Rector can demonstrate a Probatum est, of such vertue in that Poor Element (as he calls it) of Water-Baptism, as to cleanse and cure polluted and distempered Souls from Sin, Spiritual Leprosie and Diseases, as Naaman the Assyrian was cured of his Leprosie by washing seven times in the River of Jordan, 2 Kings 5. 13. or as the Blind Man found in washing in the Pool of Siloam that he receiv'd Sight and came seeing, John 9.—11. unto both which the Rector alludes in's comparison for Water-Baptism; Then I say if he can evince a Probatum of such vertue therein, according to his own comparison, It will be a most pregnant Argument to induce People to believe 'tis required of them, to be dipt or baptized in the Element of Water, and to hasten into it, especially if they can believe it can effect such a Miracle, as an Inward and Spiritual Cure upon their Souls, as to Cleanse and Cure them from Sin and the Leprosie thereof, as well as from Spiritual Blindness, which answers the Allusions before; and the more necessity thereof, if they may not be so cured without it, as this Rector saith of Naaman, If he had neglected it, he had not otherwise been cured, How much more then (quoth he) when God has appointed the means of Baptism by his Son, if we neglect it, shall we be saved without it? p. 31.

This is like Dipp or Damn still, and yet all this while he may mean Rantism, which is not properly Baptism; but I deny either (i. e. with the Element of Water) to be the means of Salvation, or that as such, God has so appointed them, and that Men shall not be Saved without them; (i. e. without Sprinkling or Dipping in Water) the Rector still imposes and begs the Question in all these, without Scripture proof. I would not be understood to own or allow any despite to Water-Baptism, or inventing contemptible Names for it (as the Rector insinuates) as it was once a Dispensation from Heaven to John Baptist; nor do I either condemn, despise or contemn any who are tenderly Conscientious in the Belief and Practise thereof, but desire they may see and come further, so as to receive that Inward Spiritual Baptism, the Washing of Regeneration, by which Christ effectually Saveth the True Believers in him; I desire none may Idolize the outward Element of Water which cannot Save, to hinder them of the Inward which can Save.

And it being generally granted, that the outward Baptism is an outward and visible Sign of an Inward and Spiritual Grace, and Type or Figure of the Inward Baptism.

[Page] I wish Men would be so considerate, as to examine what Necessity there can be of the continuance of the Sign or Type, when they do not hear Christ the Great Prophet directing thereto; nor does it effect the end proposed, i. e. the Washing away of Sin, seeing the Substance and Mystery thereof is made manifest, and a Spiritual Dispensation or Ministry from Heaven given immediately, directing to the Life, Substance, the end of all Shadows, which really end in Christ the Substance, whose Evangelical Ministry is a Dispensation of the Grace of God, of Substance and not of Shadow.

Quest.Do you believe or own the Lord's Supper, either as a Sign of the Love that Christians ought to have among themselves, or as a Seal of the Saints Communion, and Commemoration of Christ's Death for us, or as Figurative of Christ's Body and Blood, Spiritually received by Faith?

Answ. The Supper of the Lord we own, and tenderly consider in a Two-fold Sense, 1. In the Figure; 2. In the Substance.

1. That our Lord Jesus Christ, at his Supper with his Disciples, did eat the Passover (which was for the fulfilling and Consummation of the Feasts under the Law, see Luke 22.) and at this Supper he did take and minister Bread and the Cup to his Disciples (for there was no Transubstantiation) saying, This do in remembrance of me. And (saith the Apostle) As often as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye shew the Lord's Death, till he come, 1 Cor. 11. After this they did more clearly know his Coming, and Christ after the Spirit; Jesus Christ in them, 2 Cor. 13, 5. & 5. 16.

2. And Christ said to his Disciples, I will not drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine, until that day I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom, Matt. 26. 29. And likewise of the Passover, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God, Luke 22. 16. And he further said, I appoint unto you a Kingdom, as my Father hath appointed to me, that ye may eat and drink at my Table in my Kingdom, &c. Luke 22. 29, 30. In these things we believe he spoke Mysteriously, and that every Member of his Spiritual Church, doth daily Spiritually partake of his Body and Blood by Faith; as, The Cup of Blessing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? And the Bread, which we break, Is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body, for we are all Partakers of that one Bread, 1 Cor. 10. 15, 16, 17. The Son of God saith, Behold I stand at the door and knock, if any Man hear my voice, and open the Door, I will come in to him, and will Sup with him, and he with me, Rev. 3. 20. And Wisdom calleth to the [Page] Simple, Come eat of my Bread, and drink of my Wine, Prov. 9. 4, 5. And, saith Christ, The Bread of God is he, that cometh down from Heaven, and giveth Life unto the World. I am that Bread of Life; my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed; He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, John 6. We believe, that all who thus do truly partake of Christ by Faith, are in true Communion and Love among themselves; which they do want, who are only in the outward Observation of Signs and Shadows.

Upon which the Rector makes this Observation, viz. The Reader may here discern, how by their deceivable Words, and manifold Corruptions of the Scriptures, these horrid Impostors set themselves at work, to evade and make null the Holy Ordinance of the Lord's Supper, as instituted and administred in Bread and Wine, &c. p. 34.

Reply. He passes severe Judgment before either Proof or Trial, as one more expert in Railing and Reviling, than in Demonstration. For our considering the Supper of the Lord in a Two-fold Sence: 1. In the Type or Figure. 2. In the Substance; Is neither Deceivable, nor Corruption of Scripture, consequently; 'tis a horrid Calumny to brand us as Horrid Impostors for such Consideration. We know none but Papists, that will deny the outward Bread and Wine to be Typical, though Consecrated; We are sure, no real Protestants do deny them to be Typical, or Figurative, but have affirm'd them so to be. And whether the Supper of the Lord, or Christ's Last Supper (in the Type) Luke 22. was made up only of the Bread broken, and the Cup, is a Question to be considered by them who assert it; or whether the Passover was not principally concern'd in the Supper, seeing, that also after Supper Christ took the Cup, and gave them: I deny, that the Bread and the Wine only, as now ministred by Priests, is either properly a Supper, or a Dinner; How then come they to call it The Supper of the Lord? Or deny it to be a Type or Figure, by deeming us Horrid Impostors, for asserting, the outward Supper to be Typical? 'Tis true, it's said, As oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye do shew the Lord's Death, till he come, 1 Cor. 11. 26. I hope our Adversary will not make As oft, to import a Command, and that perpetual too, unless till he (Christ) come, can import a perpetual Delay of his Coming. And though Christ's Last Supper, wherein he eat the Passover with his Disciples, was then (pro tempore) commanded by him; yet this does not prove it his Institution: For it was a Legal Institution, fulfilled by him, as other Legal Rites and Types were, before he was offer'd up.

[Page] That Christ, as the Bread of Life from Heaven, and his Divine Virtue, Grace and Spirit, as the Fruit of him, the heavenly Vine (which gives Life, Nourishment and Comfort unto the Soul) was really the Substance and Mystery typified by the outward Bread and Cup, I hope, no Spiritual Believer or Christian will deny. And to suppose, they shall not partake thereof, until Christ's Coming at the Resurrection, is to suppose, their Souls must starve and famish in the mean time; which can be no glad Tidings to them.

The Rector falsly charges us with saying, The Resurrection is past already (as Hymeneus and Philetus, 2 Tim. 2. 18.) p. 34. 'Tis none of our saying; we deny that the Resurrection (there spoken of) is past (or made) already; or that we overthrow the Faith of any believing therein, as it is to come by Christ Jesus, who is the Resurrection and the Life, and by whom comes the Resurrection of the Dead, 1. Cor. 15.

And I would ask this Rector, where we say or use these Expressions, That the Institution of the Lord's Supper was only to continue, till that, Inward Coming, or forming of Christ in our Hearts, and for that Reason throw off the outward Supper? p. 34, 35. Where have we so said, or argued? For our not using the Type, is rather, because we do not believe it of Force or Necessity under an higher Dispensation, namely, that of the New Covenant, established by the Death of Christ the Testator, who blotted out and nailed the hand-writing of Ordinances to his Cross; the Dispensation of the Gospel and New Covenant, being a Dispensation of Substance, and not of Shadows; although they were in some things condescended unto in a State of Infancy, when not impos'd as things Essential to Christianity or Salvation. It's true, that they who gladly received the Word, continued stedfastly in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship, and in breaking of Bread, and in Prayers, Acts 2. 42. And Verse 46. And they continuing daily with one Accord in the Temple, and breaking Bread from House to House, did eat their Meat with Gladness and singleness of Heart. No doubt they were very Innocent in this Practice, Praising God, &c. v. 47. And this we have often done, and believe, it is the Duty of all true Christians, to eat their Meat with Singleness of Heart; and whether they eat or drink, to do all to the Glory of God, 1 Cor. 10. 31. Col. 3. 17. And what greater Sanction can this Man suppose or place, upon what he calls the Lord's Supper? Ought we not to praise God for all his Benefits, and use them to his Glory daily; and not only in a daily Remembrance of Christ and his Love to us, but also in a true sense thereof, and of his Sanctifying Word. In Acts the second quoted, it's also said [Page] (Verse 44, 45.) And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their Possessions and Goods, and parted them to all Men, as every Man had need. Now, if our Opposers will make all Examples and Practices binding, then why do they not follow this, of having all things common, and selling their Possessions? &c. I do not think the Priests now a-days will imitate them, or deem themselves bound thereby. And where do they so much as imitate those Primitive Believers, in breaking Bread from House to House? And how will they prove this Breaking of Bread only to be the Lord's Supper? I deny that to be made up only of Bread; and I cannot suppose this Man will esteem it a sufficient Supper. Nor do I find, that the Apostles call Believers, only breaking Bread from House to House, (Acts 2.) or the Disciples coming together to break Bread (Acts 20. 7.) the Lord's Supper; where they neither mention Wine, nor the Passover: Nor would it be of good report, to say they drank Wine from House to House: And if it should be asserted, That the Lord's Supper was made up only of breaking Bread, would not this gratifie the Popish Priests, in giving their Sacrament but in one kind? However, the outward Bread, as broken, and the outward Cup, as ministred by our Lord Jesus Christ, were not only Figurative of his Body and Blood, as offer'd upon the Cross; but also did Typifie the Saints Eating and Drinking the Body and Blood of Christ Spiritually, who saith, My Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed; And he that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, John 6. And I'll raise him up at the last day, saith Christ. Therefore it's no Corruption of Scripture, nor Imposture, to consider the Supper of the Lord in the Figure, and in the Substance.

And as to these other Texts, 1 Cor. 10. 15, 16, 17. Rev. 3. 20. Prov. 9. 4, 5. John 6. Matt. 26. 29. Luke 22. 16, 29, 30. They (i. e. the Quakers) offer to the view of the World, I cannot discern or imagine (quoth the Rector) to what End and Purpose this is done, unless it be to amuse the Reader, abuse the Scriptures, or confute themselves, Page 36, 37.

Reply. It was to none of those Ends these Texts are offer'd, but to shew our Consideration of the Lord's Supper, in the Substance and Mystery thereof, as Typified by the outward, that there is a Spiritual Bread and Wine, Spiritual Meat and Drink in Christ's Kingdom, for the enlivened Soul to eat and drink of, and live by, which the Visible and Elementary did Typifie and Figure, Prov. 9. 5. Wisdom saith, Come eat of my Bread, and drink of the Wine which I have mingled: That this was Spiritual Bread and Wine which Christ the Wisdom of [Page] God hath in his House for his Family; I hope will not be denied.

Matth. 26. 29. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this Fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom.

Luke 22. 16. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof (i. e. of the Passover) until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And vers. 18. I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine, until the Kingdom of God shall come. And vers. 29. I appoint unto you a Kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me. Vers. 30. That ye may Eat and Drink at my Table in my Kingdom.

Now I would ask our Opposers if they think This was meant Litterally of Eating and Drinking outward Bread and Wine in the Kingdom of God, and of Christ, and at an outward Table therein? If not Litterally meant, then it must be Spiritually, as Christ's Kingdom is a Spiritual Kingdom. God's Kingdom stands in Power, in Righteousness, Joy and Peace in the Holy Ghost, and not in outward Forms and Shadows; and in this Kingdom is the Substance and End of all the Outward Shadows and Types thereof, which being expressed under the same names the Types are, is the more evidently to shew the End and Anti-type thereof, in Christ the Life and Substance.

John 6. 51. I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven, if any Man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever (saith Christ.) And vers. 54. Whoso eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day. See also vers. 53, 55, 56, 57, 58.

Did Christ mean Litterally herein? No sure, This Bread which came down from Heaven, was not the outward Sign, Type or Figure, but the Spiritual Living Bread, which giveth Life to the Soul, and is Meat indeed unto it, as his Blood is Drink indeed, to all Spiritual Believers in him, who are come to Eat and Drink of the same Spiritual Meat and Drink, which Israel did Eat and Drink of, as testified, 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4. That they Did all Eat the same Spiritual Meat; and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drink: For they drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them (or went them) and that Rock was Christ. And of these things the Apostle would not have his Brethren at Corinth Ignorant, vers. 1.—and vers. 15. I speak as to wise Men, Judge ye what I say. Vers. 16. The Cup of Blessing, which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? Vers. 17. [Page] For we being many, are one Bread, and one Body: For we are all partakers of that one Bread. And vers. 18. Behold Israel after the Flesh: Are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar?

From all which it is Evident, the Apostles chief Aim and End was, to bring those Believers to Life and Substance, beyond and above the Shadows and Types, that they might not be Inferiour to Israel after the Flesh, in their eating and drinking of the same Spiritual Meat and Drink, even of that Spiritual Rock, which was Christ, and be true partakers of him, as the one Offering and Passover, who was sacrificed for us; see also 1 Cor. 5. 7, 8.

Rev. 3. 20. Behold, I stand at the Door and knock, if any Man hear my Voice, and open the Door, I will come in to him, and will Sup with him, and he with me. This Christ the Faithful and true Witness declareth, for the encouragement of all to open the Door of their Hearts to him, that they may come into spiritual Communion with him, and therein partake with him of his spiritual Supper; unto which this Rector partly ascents, in saying, I make no doubt, but all good Christians own Christ to be the Bread of Life, and of Spiritual Communion with him in his holy Ordinances, p. 37.

And I say, there's no doubt, but true Christians have Spiritual Communion with Christ, in truly hearing, and sincerely obeying him in those things, which may be truly called his holy Ordinances and Institutions perpetuated by himself, and attended by his divine Authority for the Sanction thereof; but then Men should have a Care they do not impose humane Institutions and Traditions for Christ's, and say, they are His, tho' without any express Warrant from him either Mediate or Immediate. We know none among us, that either slights, vilifies or contemns any holy Institutions or Ordinances of Christ, or any thing which God or Christ ever commanded, whether now in force or not; neither do I condemn any one, who believe 'tis their Duty to observe Baptism, or that which is termed the Supper, whilst they do it with a sincere Intention, as Conscientious towards God therein; they seeing no further, nor yet designing to oppose the Discovery of an higher Dispensation and Ministry. Altho' I heartily with (as I hope) that all such may see more clearly, and beyond the Shadows to the Substance and Mystery of Christ revealed; that the one saving Baptism, and the one living Bread from Heaven, they may all experience, and truly partake of.

One thing (by the way) I would note, what Construction our Adversary makes of 1 Cor. 11. 26. As often as ye Eat this Bread, and [Page]Drink this Cup, ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come. This [till he come] is construed, Till Christ's Outward, Personal Coming, visible in his Body of Flesh and Bones at the Resurrection, to make our vile Bodies like his own Glorious Body, p. 34, 36. According to which Interpretation, if we should read, 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup, ye shew the Lord's Death till he come Personally and Visibly at the Resurrection: It would import as if the Corinthians were to stay, and live upon Earth in the Observation of the Outward Bread and Cup, Eating and Drinking thereof until then, i. e. until Christ's Last Coming at the Resurrection; But how could that be?

But seeing Christ's Eating and Drinking at his Supper with his Disciples, was Spiritually to be fulfilled in his Father's Kingdom, and at his Table in his Kingdom (as he promised) according to Luke 22. 16, 18, 29, 30. Matth. 26. 29. some may inquire when this should be fulfilled, and when this Kingdom should come to Saints and true Believers in Christ? Whither in this Life, or in the last Day, when Christ shall come in the Glory of his Father, with his Angels, to reward every Man according to his Works? Matth. 16. 27.

To which I Answer, Christ saith in the very next verse, Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not tast of Death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom, Matth. 16. 28. And the like in Mark 9. 1. Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here, which shall not tast of Death, till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with Power. The like in Luke 9. 27. All which shew the Kingdom Then near to come, even in their days; consequently, the Saints partaking of the Blessing thereof, was, and is in their Life time, wherein they partook even of the Spiritual Supper of the Lord, the Spiritual Meat and Drink at Christ's Table in his Kingdom, wherein the Substance and Fulness of all Types and Shadows consists, and whereof every true Spiritual Christian is partaker.

By all which 'tis Evident, that there is just Cause to consider the Lord's Supper in the Substance and Mystery of Christ, and that his Kingdom, wherein the same is Spiritually received, ought not to be put afar off, nor true Believers excluded out of it, until Christ's Last Coming at the End of the World, and the Resurrection in the Great and Last Day. Neither ought poor Souls to be left starving and famishing under Shadows, and a barren Ministry, until then; for that [Page] can be no Glad Tidings, or true Gospel to them, therefore all had need to be careful, and take heed, that they don't famish their poor Souls, by neglecting the Substance, and feeding upon Shadows.

And that the Bread and the Cup, which Christ gave at his Supper, were a Figure or Typical, was confessed by divers Eminent Martyrs, as John Frith in his Reasons upon the Sacrament, treating of Christ the Promised Seed, saith,

Likewise the same Promise was made unto Moses, the most meek and gentle Captain of the Israelites, which did not only himself believe upon Christ, which was so often promised; but also did prefigurate him by divers Means, both by the Manna which came down from Heaven, and also by the Water wich issued out of the Rock, for the refreshing the Bodies of his People.

Neither is it to be doubted, but that both Manna, and this Water, had a Prophetical Mystery in them, declareing the very selfsame thing, which the Bread and the Wine do now declare unto us in the Sacrament: For, thus saith St. Augustine, Wbosoever did understand Christ in the Manna, did eat the same Spiritual Food, that we do; but they which by that Manna sought only to fill their Bellies, did eat thereof and are Dead. On the Margent it is, Manna, the Water of the Rock, a Figure of Christ's Body: Bread and Wine a Figure likewise of Christ's Body, 1 Cor 10. See 2 Vol. Martyrs, p. 305. printed 1641.

And Dr. Cranmer, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, confesseth, Christ's Speech, i. e. [This is my Body] to be Figurative; and quoting Ambrose in 1 Cor. 11. he calleth the Bread and the Cup Signs, a Type, Figure or Sign of the Blood of Christ, and of his Benefit (in his Disputations in Oxford, Vol. 3. Mar. p. 59.) And (p. 54. Ibid.) he saith, The Flesh liveth by Bread, but the Soul is inwardly Fed by Christ.

And Dr. Ridley (Bishop of London) in his Disputation at Oxford, saith, And as one of the Fathers saith; a Figure is in vain, where the thing signified is present, Ibid. p. 74.

And p. 75, 76. In Opposition to the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, he saith, The sayings of the Fathers declare it to be a Figurative Speech; as appeareth in Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom (in Opere Imperfecto) Augustine, Ambrose, Basil, Gregory ▪ Nazienzen, Hilary, and most plainly in Bertram.

[Page] The rest of the Rector's Observation, relating to Baptism, Bread and Wine (pag. 37, 38.) is answered in the Just Examination of the Two Books of the Three Norfolk-Priests.

Quest. Do you believe and own the Holy Scriptures, contained in the Books of the Old and New Testament, to be given by Divine Inspiration, and to contain all Matters of Doctrine and Testimony, necessary to be believed and practis'd, in order to Salvation, and Peace with God?

Answ. Our Answer is, Yes, we do; and by the assistance of the Grace and good Spirit of God, which gives the true Understanding of the Mind of God, and Meaning of Holy Scripture, we always desire to live in the Faith, Knowledge and Practice of them in all things, appertaining to Life and Godliness; Holy Scripture being given by Divine Inspiration, is profitable for Doctrine, Correction and Instruction, that the Man of God may be perfect, thorowly furnished unto every good Work, able to make the Man of God Wise unto Salvation, through Faith which is in Christ Jesus.

In the Observation made upon this our Profession, the Rector is pleas'd to question the Sincerity thereof, which he leaves to the World, and the Reader to judge, p. 39, 42. But our Sincerity is known to the Lord, to whom we commit our Cause. And being prejudg'd by this pretended Rector, we shall not leave it to him to be Judge over our Sincerity, or Conscience towards God. For being all along Prejudicate in his Observations, he had need to be corrected for his Vncharitableness and Censoriousness.

The first Instance he gives to disprove our Sincerity, is a Quotation of some Quakers out of the Quakers Refuge, p. 17. against John Whitehead and Robert Ruckhill, Whether the first Penman of the Scriptures was Moses or Hermes? &c. With other Questions, which are answered over and over in divers of our Books, and particularly in my late Examination, entituled, Truth and Innocency (p. 57.) wherein 'tis made evident, that those Questions did not arise from any Doubts or Scruples in the said John Whitehead or R. R. but in some others; and therefore waved, as not the Subject of R. R's Argument, who recited them in the said Quakers Refuge. Consequently very unjustly quoted against the Quakers, to render them Insincere, in the same Confession, to the Truth of the Holy Scripture, as given by Divine Inspiration.

What the Rector quotes against E. Burrough, G. F. W. P. G. W. &c. in p. 40, 41, 42. concerning the Scriptures, and the Word of God, &c. is also answered in the said Examination, p. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and p. 58.

[Page] I cannot but take notice how Credulous (as well as Envious) this Rector appears, in repeating Fra. Bugg's Old Lie, to defame us, bidding the Reader, See Lawson's Threefold Estate of Anti-christ, p. 9. The Scripture is Dust and Death, Beastly Wares, &c. p. 41.

I would ask this Rector, whether he has seen these very Words in the place quoted? Or if he has ever read the said Lawson's Threefold State of Anti-christ? If he says, he has, I'm sure, he is guilty of a notorious Lie in this Quotation, for there is not a word of calling the Scripture Beastly Ware, &c. But Babylon's Merchants selling Beastly Ware for a large Price, &c. p. 9. And if he received this Quotation upon Credit from F. Bugg, he is very Vnjust and Immoral therein, in receiving and promoting such a Reproach against his Neighbours to defame them; which Offence is justly Condemn'd by the righteous Law of God.

Another apparent Abuse I find against Samuel Fisher his Appendix, p. 752. Printed 1679. by a partial and unjust Citation, in curtailing and perverting his Words, to make them look, as if writ in Contempt of Holy Scripture, where the Rector saith, Samuel Fisher has these Words (speaking of the Text of Scripture) Which Transcriptions and Translations, were they neve so certain, and entirely answering to the first Original Copies, yet are not capable to be (to all Men) any other than a Lesbyan Rule, or Nose of Wax—This worthy Author, in his Works, has the Testimony of Luke Howard, H. Fisher, and W. Penn, p. 40.

Thus this Adversary has injuriously dealt by Samuel Fisher, rendering him to speak these words of the Text of Scripture, which are spoken in reference to the various Transcriptions, Translations, Interpretations, Expositions, Senses and Meanings, Thoughts and Conceits of Men, who Comment upon them, and not to the Text of Scripture, purely consider'd: The Rector having left out both the foregoing and subsequent Reasons of Sam. Fisher's words, which clear his intention, both from his Calumny of the Venom of Quakerism, and from his insinuating Insincerity against our said Profession. I may therefore recite part of them in S. F's behalf, he not being here to vindicate himself, and the Truth profess'd by him; which in his Life-time he largely vindicated, to the great Confusion of his Opposers, where he saith, ‘Moreover, how intirely soever the Transcriptions are, the Translations, which is all the Rule the People have (unless the Priest's prattle must be their Rule) are confessed to be the most various, and abominably and wofully corrupted; Witness J. O. who is scarce more busie to evince the entireness of his Hebrew and Greek Text, than in evidencing the Erroneousness of all Translations, some of which that are most ancient, and of most account among most [Page] Priests (as the Septuagint) are gone off (quoth J. O.) from the Original in a Thousand Places twice told.—Thus they run the bounds, trace to and fro, and dance up and down in their dark Minds, about the Transcriptions and Translations of their Text, which they take to be their Rule; which Transcriptions and Translations, were they never so certain and entire by answering the first Original Copies, yet are not capable to be (to all Men) any other than a Lesbyan Rule, or Nose of Wax; for as much as even where Men have them (as half the World has not) they are liable to be wrested, and actually twisted twenty ways by Interpreters, whose Expositions, Senses and Meanings, which are as many and various, as the Thoughts, and Conceits, and Inventions of the Men are, who Comment upon them, must be the Rule to such as can read them neither in Hebrew, nor in Greek, nor in their own Mother-Tongues neither. Appendix, p. 751, 752.’

Now to clear S. Fisher, from esteeming the Text of Holy Scripture, in it self, either a Lesbyan (or Leaden) Rule, or a Nose of Wax, but only the Corrupters and Perverters thereof, making them such, that it may appear, how well he esteemed of the Holy Scriptures, he in the same Book with the said Appendix, quoted against him (i. e. Rusticus ad Academicus, Printed in Quarto, 1660. in his Second Apologetical and Expostulatory Exercitation, Chap. I. p. 6. he calls the Scripture a ‘Declaration of those things that were believed, and of the Word of Faith, that was preached, a writing Holy Scriptures, Scriptures of Truth, Books of Writing, that consists, treat of, and declare in forms of plain, true, suitable and sound Words, various true things, &c. So that as written in the Spirit, the Holy Scriptures may be said to be Homogeneous Writings, all of one kind: But in respect of the several Businesses written of therein, they are Heterogeneous (i. e.) a Body or Bulk of as various Writings, as any extant in the World besides them. And in p. 48, 49. he condemns Mens Mis-renderings, corrupt Copyings, and Commentings, and making the Scripture to stand, which way any Critick pleases. And farther saith, As 'tis my continual Exercise in Works to do it (i. e. to condemn such their Corruptions and Perversions) so do I here, in plain Words, exalt the Scripture, which they so debase; and state it over all their Trash and Trumpery, even on the very top of all their long Train of Traditions, and over the Archest Title of the Tripple-Crown, the proudest Pinnacle of Peter's (now Un-Peter-like) painted Temple, the highest Point of that Pompous, Pious, Pitteous Pillar and Ground of Truth, the choicest Chapter of that Holy Church, and infallibly Erring infallible Chair. And in p. 49. he farther declares himself, a just, [Page] plain and impartial Pleader for the Scripture, and a doer of Right to those Holy Writings, which are egregiously wronged by both Papists and Protestants, &c. And p. Ibid. he argues for many (i. e. who are falsly suppos'd to be slighters and disowners of Scripture) who, to give it its due and no more, (as indeed it is) do own, honour, and exalt the Holy Scripture, much more, and more truly than any of your exalted selves, &c. And p. 112. The Scripture testifies of the Word which will endure.’

Thus S. Fisher has cleared the Point, of his great Value and Esteem of the Holy Scripture, considered in its highest, primitive, best and purest Aspect, as at first given forth; quite contrary to his being supposed a Contemner thereof.

Quest. Do you believe the Doctrine of the Resurrection from the Dead, and of Eternal Judgment, and the Immortality of the Soul?

Answ. We sincerely believe and confess the Doctrine of the Resurrection from the Dead, and of Eternal Judgment, according to Holy Scripture Heb. 6. 2.

That God will raise the Dead, and judge the World in Righteousness, by his Son Jesus Christ, in the Day appointed, even in the Great Day of Judgment, and that Harvest, which is the End of the World.

That the Soul of Man, though created, is Immortal, and never dies. Even as these Doctrines are more fully testified in Holy Scriptures, by Jesus Christ and his holy Apostles.

1. For the Doctrine of the Resurrection, see Mat. 13. 43. and Chap. 22. 30, 31. Mark 12. 25. Luke 20. 36. John 5. 29. 1 Cor. 15. 19, 35, 36, 37, to the 53d verse. Phil. 3. 29. Col. 3. 4. 1 John 3. 2. 1 Thess. 4. 16. Rev. 20. 12, 13, 14, 15.

2. Of Eternal Judgment, see Mat. 13. 39, 40, 41, 42. Chap. 10. 15. & 11. 24. & 25. 30, 31, 41. Mark 8. 38. Luke 9. 26. Acts 17. 31. John 5. 22, 27. Acts 10. 42. 2 Thess. 1. 7, 8, 9. 2 Tim. 4. 1. 1 Pet. 4. 5. 2 Pet. 2. 9. Jude 6.

3. For the Immortality of the Soul, see Gen. 1. 27. &; 2. 7. 1 Kings 17. 21. Mat. 16. 26. Mark 8. 36, 37. Eccles. 3. 21. & 12. 7. Luke 16. 22, 23. 2 Cor. 5. 1, 2.

In the Observation upon this Profession ‘(On our sincerely believing and confessing the Doctrine of the Resurrection from the Dead, according to Holy Scripture.)’ The Rector thus reflects, That is according to their Sence and Interpretation of Holy Scripture, which is no ways agreeable to the Sence and Interpretations of any Orthodox Christians, p. 43. [Page] Which is as undue a Reflection, as 'tis uncharitably Censorious. And what he quotes against our Sence, out of W. Penn's Arguments, against such a Carnal Resurrection of Man's Carnal (or Natural) Body (as some imagine) out of his Reason against Railing, p. 134. is no proof at all, That our Sence of Holy Scripture (in this case) is no ways agreeable to the Sence and Interpretation of any Orthodox Christians; unless he can either prove the same Natural, Carnal and Numerical Body that now is, to be the Resurrection Body, or the Apostle Paul Heterodox in asserting it a Spiritual Body; for a Natural Body is sown, a Spiritual Body is raised, and that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is Natural, and afterward that which is Spiritual, 1 Cor. 15. 46. & ver. 37. and our Sence clearly agrees with this.

His other Instance to disprove our Sence herein (if rightly cited) is out of Thomas Ellwood's Answer to G. Keith's First Narrative, p. 149. printed 1696. In 1 Cor. 15. 37. he makes the Apostle thus speak (saith he) The Body that shall arise, is not the same Carnal Body that dies. No, the Body that is sown is a Natural Body, but the Body that is raised is a Spiritual Body; it is sown a Natural Body, it is raised a Spiritual Body, ver. 44. And that none might think this Spiritual Body was the same with the Natural Body, he adds (quoth the Priest) there is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body. He does not say (quoth he) the Natural Body is made a Spiritual Body, or the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body is but one and the same Body, but he sets them in opposition as two distinct Bodies; and (again) that none might think this Spiritual Body was the same, he adds, There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body, p. 27. Thus far the Rector.

This Addition, as he counts it, and repeats twice over against Tho. Ellwood, to make him an Offender, is the express words of the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 15. 44. There is a Natural Body, and there is a Spiritual Body. Thus the Apostle uses the same distinction between the Natural Body and the Spiritual Body, Where does he say, They are both one and the same Body? And farther to evince the distinction, Paul adds, And so it is written, The first Man Adam was made a living Soul, the last Adam was made a quickning Spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is Spiritual, but that which is Natural, and afterward that which is Spiritual, ver. 45, 46. Now I ask these Men, 1st, If the first Adam, and the last Adam, were one and the same Adam? 2. If the Spiritual Body, and the Natural Body, be one and the same Numerical Body? And 3. If the Celestial Bodies, and the Bodies Terrestrial, be one and the same Bodies? see ver. 40. and ver. 37. And thou sowest not that Body that shall be: [Page] Whom shall we believe in this case, the Apostle or this Priest? for they differ herein; the one says, Thou sowest not that Body that shall be; and the other, 'Tis the same Body that shall be: The one says, Flesh and Blood cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15. 50. The other I presume (upon his Principle) says, The same Carnal Body (i. e. of Flesh and Blood) can and shall Inherit the Kingdom of God. But then how agrees his Notion herein with his Beloved Friend (their Assistant) Geo. Keith, his affirming, The Husk or drossy part, that is no more the true Body, than dross in a lump of Rich Ore of Gold is Gold; as in his Gross Error and Hypocrisie detected, p. 13. And what he means by the Husk or drossy part, may be gathered from his affirming (concerning the Body of Christ that was Crucified) that It is so wonderfully changed, as to the Mode and Manner of its being, that it is no more a Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, but a pure, Ethereal, or heavenly Body, like unto which the Bodies of the Saints are to be at the Resurrection. See G. Keith's Way Cast up, p. 131, 132. 1676. So that the Flesh, Blood and Bones, the Saints now have, must be the Husk or drossy part, which they shall not have in the Resurrection, but pure Ethereal or heavenly Bodies, like Christ's glorious Body: And if so, 1st, How shall they remain one and the same in Substance or Essence they now are? 2. How shall they be the same in Substance, without Flesh, Blood and Bones? 3. What shall be their Substance or Essence, when they shall be no more Bodies of Flesh, Blood and Bones? 4. How will this Priest and G. K. reconcile themselves in this Point, of the Sameness of Bodies? If one affirm the Resurrection Bodies shall be the same Flesh, Blood and Bones, (or at least the same Flesh and Bones) they now are, and the other, they shall be the same in Substance, but no more Bodies of Flesh, Blood and Bones? Let them reconcile and demonstrate the same, we are satisfied with the Appointment and good Pleasure of God in this weighty Matter, and to wait upon him in the hope of the Resurrection of the Just unto Eternal Life and Glory, sincerely believing that God will give a Body as it pleaseth him, and to every Seed his own proper Body, 1 Cor 15. 38. And do not think it necessary to Faith and Salvation, to be too curious or inquisitive, as to the very Mode or Manner of the Resurrection Bodies, and How God will manifest his Pleasure therein, Let's live well here, and it shall be well with us hereafter; say to the Righteous, it shall be well with them; but Woe to the Wicked, it shall be ill with them, Isa. 30. 10, 11.

I refer the Ingenuous Reader to several further Answers in this Great Point of the Resurrection, (i. e. My Antidote against the Venom [Page]of the Snake in the Grass, p. 102 to 111. And to the Christian Quaker, printed 1674. Part II. p. 316 to 167. & p. 168 to 173. where also Dr. H. Moor is largely cited on the same subject, in his Modest Enquiry into the Mystery of Iniquity, and Search into the Nature of a Glorified Body. And as to what's objected against R. Hubberthorn (who was both a very Innocent, Gifted and Knowing Man, if rightly quoted) his owning the Glorified Saints in Heaven to be in a State of Perfection, and as having received the Redemption of the Body (i. e. from the Bondage of Corruption and Sin, even before they came thither.) This no ways contradicts our sincere Belief and Confession Of the Doctrine of the Resurrection from the Dead, according to Holy Scripture, Heb. 6.

As to what is objected against G. W's Questions; Is it (i. e. the Glory of God) visible to the Carnal Eye? And of Christ's coming therein, &c. p. 46. I would ask this Rector, Doest thou expect to see this Glorious coming of Christ from Heaven, with thy carnal Eyes thou now hast? 2. If thou neglectest his Inward and Spiritual Appearance and Work, mayest thou not neglect thy own Salvation thereby? 3. Seeing our Lord Jesus Christ, The King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, only hath Immortality, dwelling in the Light which no Man can approach unto, whom no Man hath seen, nor can see, &c. 1 Tim. 6. 15, 16. How canst thou expect to see him with thy Carnal or Fleshly Eye? Hast thou better, clearer, and more lasting Eyes of Flesh than all other Men? When I have thus questioned any, it was in Opposition to their neglect of Christ's Inward and Spiritual Appearance and Work, effectually to save them from Sin and Condemnation. This Point is more fully answered in our Books, and particularly in my Examination, Entituled, Truth and Innocency vindicated, p. 61, 62. And my thus questioning the Carnal Expectations, &c. of some Persons, I affirm, as 'twas never intended to oppose or contradict our sincere Belief or Profession, ‘That God will Judge the World in Righteousness (by his Son Jesus Christ in the Day appointed, even in the Great Day of Judgment, and that Harvest which is the End of the World.)’ So neither does what's quoted against the same Profession, contradict it, unless it can be proved, that Men may see the Power and great Glory of God, with their Carnal Eyes they now have; or that with the very same they shall see Christ at his last coming to Judgment in the Glory of the Father, and all his Angels with him, Matt. 16. 27.

What the Rector objects against that Man of God William Dewsbery, to prove us Insincere in our said Profession (that God will Judge the World in Righteousness by Jesus Christ, &c.) and him (the said W. D.) [Page] guilty of gross Perversion. Herein our Accuser has shewn himself as Ignorant as Envious, and as void of Christianity. He quotes the said W. Dewsbery's Discovery of Man's Return, printed 1654. upon a Passage where Rev. 20. 12, 13. & 2 Cor. 5. 10. are only quoted, with other Scriptures in the Margent of the said Discovery, which the Rector recites at large, and then makes his Observation against W. D. viz. Observe here his Gross Perversion, he applying all this to the Light within, and the Judgment within; so that the outward Judgment at the Last Day, which is here so plainly described, is not by him professed as a thing to be expected, p. 46.

Ans. I cannot but observe the Ignorance and Enmity of this Person, what he objects against the said W. D. is no proof at all that he did not profess or own Eternal Judgment, or the final Judgment and Rewards at the Great and Last Day. His words cited are these, viz.

Every one arise out of your Earthly Wisdom, and mind the Light in thy Conscience, and wait on the Power of the Lord in it, and it will bring thee to Judgment before the Throne of the Lamb (viz. within thee added) where the Righteous Law will be opened in thy Heart, that will cry through thy Earthly Heart for Righteousness and Judgment, and the Book will be opened in thee, where thou shalt see all written, that thou hast done in the Body, and shalt give an Account for every idle Word, (i. e. to the Light within added also) and receive thy Reward for what thou hast done; and thy Reward is Wrath and Condemnation, which will pass upon thee from the presence of the Lamb (within thee, again added) for thy Disobedience and breaking of the Righteous Law.

Where is the Insincerity or gross Perversion in all these words recited by the Rector? Or any Opposition to our Profession before mentioned? Surely, to mind the Light of Christ in the Conscience, to know his Power in it to bring Man to Judgment, according to the Righteous Law in the Heart, and thereby to see the Record that is made in Man, of all the Evils done and committed by him: This cannot be to oppose or contradict our Profession, that God will Judge the World in Righteousness by his Son Jesus Christ in the day appointed, but in order to bring Man to Repentance, that he may escape the Judgment and Wrath to come, upon the Impenitent World of the Ungodly. And therefore our Adversaries bringing this Citation out of W. Dewsbery's said Discovery of Man's Return, either to evince the Venom of Quakerism (falsly charged) or our Insincerity or Opposition to the Doctrine of Eternal Judgment, &c. This shews our Adversaries [Page] Insincerity and great Ignorance of the Work of Repentance: The Rector has need to be corrected in this as in many other weighty Points, his Enmity appearing chiefly against the Light within, which both manifests and Judges those things that are reproved in God's sight; For can any be truly humbled unto Repentance, before they are convicted, and know what Sins and Evils they are guilty of, and chargeable for, in the sight of God, and of the Lamb Christ Jesus, who is Judge both of the Living and of the Dead? Surely no: He who is the Heart-searcher and Tryer of the Reines, and the very Inward Affections; who sheweth unto Man what his Thoughts are, will bring every Work to Judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be Good or Evil; and if his Judgments do not take effect upon Men in this Life, to humble them unto Repentance, his Eternal Judgment will be heavy upon them in that which is to come. 'Tis by the Spirit of Judgment and Burning that the Lord Purgeth his People; and it is through Judgment that Sion is redeemed, and her Converts, with Righteousness. And how plain is it, that W. Dewsbery's Testimony in this case, even as 'tis recited, respects the present Law, Light, Judgment and Righteousness of Christ in Man; and also cautions Men of (and points at) the future Judgment, Wrath and Condemnation, as that which will pass (in the future) upon the Rebellious, for Disobedience, and breaking the Righteous Law: And both the Judgment that comes upon Man here, and that which will come hereafter upon Man, for Disobedience and Rebellion against the Light and Law of Christ in Man, it all proceeds from the presence of the Lamb Christ Jesus, to whom all Judgment is committed, and Power given to execute it.

Awake, awake to Judgment, therefore, all you that are a-sleep in Sin, that Mercy and Judgment may meet, and Righteousness and Peace embrace each other; that being Judged as Men in the Flesh, you may live according to God in the Spirit, 1 Pet. 4. 6. And all who sincerely desire after God, and to remember him in his ways, must wait for him in the way of his Judgments, as his Servants of old did, Isa. 26. 8.

And though this Adversary has added in the Citation [within thee] after, the Throne of the Lamb; and after, the presence of the Lamb, he adds [within thee]: And after, shalt give an Account for every idle Word, he adds [i. e. to the Light within.] And, the Book will be opened in thee, he puts, [IN THEE] in Capital Characters, as if it were a [Page] Crime or Error to own the Lamb of God to have a Throne or Dominion in Man, or the Light within to be Judge of every idle Word. Which still bespeaks a secret Enmity against the Light, and as if the Light were neither to Judge nor to Record Mens Actions in the Book of Mens own Consciences; whereas the contrary is evident, if they will search and examine their own Consciences, and be willing to bring their Deeds to the Light in them that they may be manifest, proved and Judged. For every one that doeth Truth, cometh to the Light, and bringeth his Deeds to the Light, that They may be manifest, that they are wrought in God, John 3. And 'tis certain, that there is a Record made of Mens Iniquities, even in their Hearts and Consciences by the true Light; as the Sin of Judah was graven upon the Table of their Heart, Jer. 17. 1. And without true Repentance it will not be blotted out of that Record, but will remain unto the Great Day of Judgment, and final Recompence of Rewards, when the Books shall all be opened, and the Dead Judged out of those things written in the Books, every Man according to their Works, Rev. 20. So that the Judgment given, and the Record made in Mens Consciences, by the true Light even in this Life, will not wear out, nor be made void, but remain unto the Last Judgment of the Great Day to come, to the great Joy of the Righteous, and Shame, Contempt and Misery of the Wicked, and finally Impenitent, who live and die in their Sins. As it is testified in Job 21. 30. That the Wicked is reserved to the Day of Destruction; they shall be brought forth to the Day of Wrath. And Christ spoke of such as would not receive his Ministers, nor hear their Words, Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment, than for that City, Matt. 10. 15. compare with Chap. 11. 22, 24. and Mark 6. 11. and Luke 10. 12, 14. All which signifie a Day of Judgment to come, And as it is appointed unto Men once to die, but after this the Judgment, Heb. 9. 27. As also the Apostle Peter speaks of the Day of Judgment and Perdition of Ungodly Men, 2 Pet. 3. 7. And also 2 Pet. 2. 9. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the Godly out of Temptations, and to reserve the Unjust to the Day of Judgment to be punished. And Jude v. 6. And the Angels, which kept not their first Estate (or Principality) but left their own Habitation, he hath reserved in Everlasting Chains under Darkness, unto the Judgment of the Great Day: In which Great Day it will fully appear, that the Judgment given, and the [Page] Record made in Mens Consciences by the Light, is true, and will stand for ever against the Wicked, the willful Unbelievers and finally Impenitent. And that there is no Opposition nor Contradiction between the present Judgment of Christ in Mens Hearts and Consciences, and that which is to come.

That the Soul of Man, though created, is Immortal, and never dies: This we still believe and confess, and what the Rector quotes (as he supposes) against it, out of G. F. his Great Mystery, and W. Penn's Brief Answer, p. 47. (if rightly considered and compared) will not make void our Belief and Profession, which I have answered and explained over and over; and so has W. P. by his Distinction between the Breath or Spirit of Life, which God breathed into Man, and Man himself, who thereby became a Living Soul: Consequently the Soul of Man is created, as well as Man; being included in the Being of Man, as the more Noble and Spiritual part, inspired by the Divine Breath or Spirit of Life, whereby Man became a Living Soul. And this Distinction is clearly implied in G. F's Great Mystery, though unfairly quoted; What's more Explanatory, being left out by this Adversary, and more fully answered in my aforesaid Examination, Entituled, Truth and Innocency vindicated, &c. against the three Norfolk Priests, and Bugg, p. 7, 8, 9, 60.

That we are Sincere in our Profession of Christianity, in what is contained in our said little Pamphlet (as he calls it) entituled, The Christianity of the People called Quakers Asserted, we are not Conscious to our selves of the contrary, nor Convicted of any Insincerity therein, by this Rector's, or any others Invidious Essays or Attempts, nor from any Instances which either he or his Brethren, or F. Bugg, have produced against us. Nor are we Conscious to our selves of holding Tenets or Doctrines, which are either directly opposite, or contradictory to these he calls New Creeds, if impartially cited, and truly explained, which they have not done in their Invidious Endeavours against us, consequently we find no cause to Retract, Censure or Condemn, the Tenets or Doctrines which we hold; and therefore his Charge of Horrid Blasphemies we reject, as an odious Calumny, proceeding from a Proud, Envious, Persecuting Spirit, which the Lord will Rebuke! Neither has he shewn from those Instances against us, any such Horrid Blasphemies, [Page] as he tells of; but rather his own Perversions, Ignorance and Envy: The Lord deliver poor Souls from such Blind Guides, that they may not fall into the Ditch with them! For some of their Leaders, the Priests, especially those of them, that are of an Envious, Persecuting Spirit, are the most Blind and Ignorant of the Mystery of Christ, and of those things which pertain to his Kingdom.

Information about this book

Title statement

The rector examined about his book scandalously stiled, An antidote against the venom of Quakerism, by John Meriton, who calls himself A.M. rector of Boughton in Norfolk : and his observations remarked, and the Christianity of the people commonly called Quakers, re-asserted and vindicated, from his perversions and aspersions / by George Whitehead.

Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723.

Edition statement

1699

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A65885

ID [STC]

Wing W1953

ID [STC]

ESTC R20277

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12291944

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12291944

ID [VID]

58915

Availability

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

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A65885)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 58915)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 930:22)

Source

— The rector examined about his book scandalously stiled, An antidote against the venom of Quakerism, by John Meriton, who calls himself A.M. rector of Boughton in Norfolk : and his observations remarked, and the Christianity of the people commonly called Quakers, re-asserted and vindicated, from his perversions and aspersions / by George Whitehead., Whitehead, George, 1636?-1723..

Extent

47 p.

Printed and sold by T. Sowle ...,. London :: 1699.. (Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.