THE Bishop seems pleased with William Penn for Printing Gospel Truths, to­gether with his Testimony before his own Defence, and begins his Introduction thus, (P. 1) The Bp. of Cork being to vindicate the Truth and Himself, thanks Mr. P. for having Printed both his own Paper and the Bp's. Testimony against it at length before his Book; for the Bp. believes that all sober and Reasonable Christians who shall read those two over and consider them, will easily acquit the Bp. from the first of Mr. P's. Imputations in his Preface, that he is a man of a mind dif­ferent from those, who would have strife a­mong Christians abated, and for discouraging Controversies in Religion.

Answ. Evident then it is, W. P. was careful to set the whole matter fairly be­fore his Reader, that so he might be able to make the better Judgment, and we wish the Bp. had as well deserved thanks from W. P. for setting down the Defence (tho' not [Page 2] at length yet) in its due strength, without suppressing so considerable a part of it and perverting so much of the rest, as will be found he hath done. Next we are equally agreed to refer W. P's. Imputation to all sober and reasonable Christians, believing they will not so easily acquit the Bp. as he thinks, considering he was the only Person in Ireland, who broke out into a Publick Testimony against that Inoffensive Paper called Gospell Truths, and therein greatly a­bused us, as W. P. hath plainly shewn in many Instances from Page 22 to 26 of his Defence, but slipt over by the Bp. with saying, To Omit things less Material; as if so egregiously to abuse and villifie a People, as he is there charged by W. P. to have done, were a light matter with him. And farther to speak our Sentiments (after the Bp's. way) Let W. P's. Defence and the Bp's. Reply be read over and considered by all Sober and Impartial Christians, and we cannot but believe they will be of our mind, for the sakes of such only there was no need of this Rejoynder; that Defence being (as we think) a sufficient Answer of it self to the most material parts of the Bp's. Reply.

The Bp. proceeds thus. (ibid 1) the Bp. says a peaceable Testimony against the slight of men, touching whom it is questionable, whether they be Christians or not, and against [Page 3] their cunning craftiness who lye in wait to deceive, is no moving strife or raising quarrels among Christians.

Answ. As to the peaceableness of the Bp's. Testimony his management therein, doth evidently shew it, and which we leave to the Impartial Reader: But if Misrepresenting, Abusing, and Calling us no Christians; if ob­truding Principles upon us as ours which we utterly disown and abhor; if drawing Conse­quences from our Words & Writings, we ne­ver thought of, much less intended, and for­cing them upon us, tho we disclaim them; if curtailing our Writings, leaving out what explained our meaning, and wilfuly over­looking our plain Sense, with much more too tedious to mention, would make it questionable, whether we are Christians or not, the Bp. is in the right: Nay we will go farther with him; it would not only be questionable, but we had without all perad­venture been positively made no Christians; for it hath been the constant practice of our Adversaries (since we were a People) thus to deal by us, and amongst the rest, we cannot excuse the Bp. from having a share in some of these things, which shall be shewn in their places. But blessed be God, 'tis not the Tongues or Pens of all our Ad­versaries in the World, can make us no Christians; for we have not only believed [Page 4] in the outward coming and appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Flesh with his Sufferings, Death, Resurrection, Assention and Mediation, but in humility of Soul and to the praise of his Holy Name, we can say we have witnessed his second coming in Spi­rit, according to his promise, John 14. 17, 81. Chap. 15. 26. and 16. 13. to fit and prepare our Souls in order to obtain the benefit of his outward death and sufferings for us. And thus we are not only Christi­ans by Notion and Tradition but such in reallity, for which we have the evidence in our selves according to 1 John 5. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself. And Rom. 8. 16. The Spirit it self beareth witness with our Spirits, that we are the Children of God. Here then is the double and agreeing record of true Religion, the Illumination of the holy Ghost within, agreeing with the Testimony of the Scriptures of Truth without, which we shall have farther occasion to speak to. But here, that we may not be misunder­stood, we do not mean so largely of all such as some may call Quakers, but of such whose Lives and Conversations influenced by the Holy Spirit bespeak them to be true Quakers and therefore true Christians.

Next as to the Bp's. gross, (and to use his own Words) scurrilous and unchristian charge [Page 5] of slight, cuning, craftinness, lying in wait to deceive, which is brought as a confirming charge to his Testmony, in which he told us and tells again (P. 9) he did not judge us: We say as to this charge, we shall not at present say much, (reserving it to be con­sidered with more of the same kind) only tell the Bp. That as we know not how he will reconcile this to modesty, so we hope he will not say again, he don't judge us, while if what he says were true (whether it re­spect our Principles or our Morals) we think 'tis plain he equally judges us to be the worst and basest of Men; the Bp. Proceeds, (P. 1.) Mr. P. adds he gave his Paper to the Bp. in a private way, at a friendly visit upon his own desire. This is what the Bp. Called writing in such a way that is hard to know what is meant. If Mr. P. means that either he gave the Paper to the Bp. upon the Bp's. Desire, or made that Visit upon the Bp's. Desire, in both Senses the saying is utterly false, for both the Visit and the Paper were a Surprize, and altogether unexpected by the Bp. Thus the Bp. (P. 1 and 2) Answ. 1st. As to the Paper, take the words as they lye in W. P's. Preface (P. 1) which runs thus ‘(Given him by me in a Private way at a Friendly Visit upon his own desire.)’ Considering the Order of the words, we believe any Imparti­al Reader will conclude the Bp's. desire was [Page 6] relative to the Visit, not the Paper; but waving that, see but about ten lines farther and the matter will be past doubt, where W. P. Speaks thus, ‘I did Indeed, perceiving him conversant in our Writings, & his Character moderation, casually present him with one of these Papers.’ Again, at the end of the Preface W. P. speaking of the Paper says given him. Now Reader judg in the matter, Can any thing be plainer, then that the Paper was W. P's. Present, and not given at the Bp's. Desire. From whence we conclude, that either the Bp's. over eager desire for an advantage against the Quakers, made him fall into this mis­take, or he thought it might pass with his unwary Reader, as a Confirmation of his former Charge, about the Quakers way of Writing. But now since the Bp. is so Cri­tical about Words, may not we with more reason and justice return the Charge upon himself, where he says, This is what the Bp. called Writing in such a way that is hard to know what is meant. Whereas what the Bp. said in his Testimony before, runs thus, You have such a way of Writing and Speaking that it is very hard, in many matters of Re­ligion, to know what you mean; So that 'twas matters of Religion he then spoke of; but that which he now applies, this way of Writing and Speaking to, is not matter of [Page 7] Religion, but a meer circumstance of W. P's. visiting the Bp. upon the Bp's. Desire, or not; so to put the best construction upon this mistake, the Bp. forgot himself when he said, This is what the Bp. called Writing in such a way, &c. But (2dly) Supposing we should let it go, as the Bp. would have it, he will still be in no better a case, for the word [this,] the Bp. makes to intend W. P's. Words in his Defence relating to the Paper and Visit, and those words [what] and [called] respect the time past, and re­lated to what the Bp. has charged the Qua­kers withal in his Testimony about their way of Writing, &c. How then, say we could any Words in the Bp's. Testimony be relative to W. P's. Defence, which was writ afterwards, and was an Answer to that Yestimony. Thus, Reader, see how the Bp. falls into the same fault, he would have charged upon W. P. and the Qua­kers. We had not thus troubled thee, Read­er, about Words, but the Bp. gave the occasion, and we were willing to let thee see, how ready the Bp. is (amongst the rest of our Adversaries) to charge and condemn us without ground, while the fault is in themselves, and yet this is little to what will appear hereafter in the Bp. Next as to the Visit, the Bp. denies he desired it, and charges W. P. with an utter falshood; [Page 8] but he would have done well to have Exhi­bited this, with others of his Personal Charges and Reflections, before W. P. went for America, that so he might have Answered for himself; However, as it hap­pens, we can in this Case, say something in the defence of W. P. and must say, we believe the Bp. to be forgetful; for Amos Strettell of Dublin, being at Cork while W. P. was here, and hapning to be in company with him and Joseph Pike, at the House of the said Pike, at a time, when G. R. came to visit W. P. they the said Strettell and Pike, heard G. R. say to W. P. That the Bp. had a great desire to see him, and desired him to bring him to his House, to which W. P. agreed, when a convenient season offered. Thus much the said Strettell and Pike remembers, and are ready to give under their Hands, if desired; and 'tis believed G. R. himself cannot for­get it, whom we know, and is known to be a Person of that Character and Station, in the World, that would scorn to forge such a Story to W. P. However it accidentally hapned G. R. did not accompany him, as designed, in that Visit occasioned by W. P's. dining at a House, which lay not far from the Bp's. He thence took the oportunity of Visiting the Bp. in com­pany with two other Persons. We find [Page 9] the Bp. confesseth, He had a little Curio­sity, which might pass for a Desire, to see W. P. (whom he jeeringly calls King of Pen­silvania) as he would have been desirous to see the Pope, or the Great Turk, or any other great Man of Sin; This we find he remem­bers, and we may be so Charitable as to believe he forgot the other. To conclude this point about the Visit: If the Bp. hath conceived any dislike against W. P. for puting it in Print, either because it might be a Scandal to the Bp. in regard, W. P. is a Quaker, or that he thought W. P. might thereby raise his Credit with the World, (which the Bp. would have depressed) we say if either of these be the Case, we believe he may be very easie in the matter; for without lessening to the Bp. he may know many Persons of much greater note and station in the World then he (Ireland not excepted) have desired to see and converse with W. P. which as we don't believe he valued himself upon, less reason then had he to value himself upon the Bp's. desire, and no other reason can we suppose W. P. had for Printing it, then to demonstrate how unsuitable a return and course treatment the Bp. gave him for his friendly Visit. As to the Bp's. suspition of a design in W. P's. giving him the Paper, as he tells us (tho' he [Page 10] leaves us in the dark as to what the de­sign could be.) We Answer, 'Twas need­less thus to tell us now, since W. P. has told the design in his Preface (which was to improve the Bp's. Temper in Mo­deration) which the Bp. should have disproved, or told us what other design W. P. could have in presenting him with the Paper.

(Ibid. 2) As to the Bp's. Jeers upon W. P. Calling him King of Pensilvania, Re­proaching him with a Spirit of Discerning, and slily Insinuating him among the number of Great Men of Sin, we shall say the less here, in regard we shall take notice thereof in another place; And as to his Margin Note, given him upon Information, that W. P. should say he had a Kingdom of his own, which was understod of Pensilvania. What if the Bp's. Informer misunderstood W. P; nay, what if the whole Informa­tion was false, let the Reader judg whether it became the gravity of a Person, in the Bp's. station thus to jeer upon Information. (Ibid. 2) Says the Bp. And thus much as to Mr. P's. Preface.

Answ. But before we end we must take notice of the Bp's. shortness (not to say unfairness) in not taking notice or answer­ing what followed in the Preface, which lies thus; ‘Nor was it writ (namely Gospel [Page 11] Truths) for an exact and compleat account of our Belief; but occasionaly to prevent the pre­judices, that the attempts of a course and scur­rilous Pen at Dublin just before might provoke in some against us. As to the points touched upon in the Gospel Truths.’ Thus W. P. Now Reader, we do not blame the Bp. barely for taking no notice of this part, but we think it became him, either to have dis­proved what W. P. here said, or not continued his Reflections now in his Reply, for the brevity of that Paper, while he had not only the above notice, but had also Robert Barclay's Apology, and the Rise and Progress of the People called Quakers, which fully and clearly vindicates at large some of those Tenets, he (now again) censures as short exprest in that Paper, as we shall shew in their places. But the Bp. proceeds thus,

(Ibid. 2) The first charge in his Book a­gainst the Bp. is, that he did not prove such a Reader as he profest himself, Mr. P. would have had him such a Reader that had rather they should be in the right then in the wrong; the Bp. never profest himself such.

Answ. How will the Bp. be able to Reconcile this, to the Words, in his Testi­mony, where he says in the begining of it, Friends, I am such a Reader as in your Paper you desire. This in Answer to Gospel Truths, [Page 12] which desired a Sober Reader in these Words, If thou hadst rather we should be in the right then in the wrong, &c. Manifest Contradiction.

But the Bp. to bring himself off, goes on thus,

(Ibid. 2) Mr. P. desires a strange par­tial Reader, who should have more inclina­tion and affection to the Quakers (that is his Adversaries) Opinion then his own, or who would rather be in an Error himself then that his Adversaries should be in any.

Answ. Is there no difference betwen de­siring a People were in the Right then in the Wrong, and between chusing rather that Himself were in the Wrong then his Adver­saries should be so; certainly a great deal, and it looks as if the Bp. were hard put to it, when he thus argueth, Did W. P. intend or desire such a Reader as the Bp. stateth? No, but such an one that had ra­ther we were in the Right then in the Wrong, and explains it thus; ‘One that thought it but reasonable we should be Heard before Condemned, and that our Belief ought to be taken from our own Mouths and not at theirs, that hath prejudged our Cause.’ In short 'tis very plain, he only desired an Impartial Reader, such as the Bp. only pretended to be.

(Ibid. 2) The Bp. tells us, He nei­ther had nor has any personal quarrel with [Page 13] W. P. But, says the Bp. all he impleads him of (meaning W. P.) is his Doctrine, by spreading and defending such Principles which tend to the Subverting Christianity, at which no Bp. ought to connive.

Answ. As this is only a general as well as a false charge, so needs no other Answer here but a positive denial, until we come to particulars, where we shall see how well the Bp. will prove his Charge. As to his not conniving, to be sure he's at his liberty to implead, but if he should do so again, we must desire him to approve himself a fairer Adversary, then he hath yet appeared, either in his Testimony or now in his Reply.

(P. 2) Says the Bp. To omit things less material, (P. 24) He would insinuate the Bp. Guilty of Insincerity in saying it was the first time he ever heard the Quakers own the Necessity of Christ as a Propitiation in order to Remission of Sins, and justifying them as Sinners from the guilt, and tells the Bp. where possibly he might have read it. The Bp. makes Answer thus, Possibly the Bp. may have Read more then either he did or now does actually remember, he never had so much as many of the Quakers Books, much less has he them in his memory.

Answ. Here is first an Instance of the brevity of the Bp's. Reply, while he takes [Page 14] a large stride from (P. 20) to (24) where W. P. Enumerates and Charges the Bp. with unfair dealing by us, which the Bp. passeth over without notice, with saying, to omit things less Material; next as W. P. said, so say we, that 'tis next to impossible it should be the first time, he so heard of the Quakers, since he had read R. Barclays Apology, which largely treats of this head: But the Bp. Confesseth he pos­sibly may have Read more then he Remem­bers, which seems a tacit granting the mat­ter. But suppose he did not actually remem­ber this point, can it be possible he should forget that he had Read any of the Quakers Books since he told W. P. so very lately, he had Read Robert Barclay, and his Book called the Rise and Progress of the Quakers; the former largely, and the latter as fully as now in Gospel Truths, owning the Do­ctrine of Justification.—Whence it follows, if the Bp. had been an Impartial Reader, as he pretended, and one that was unwil­ling to represent us wrong, or render us de­fective in our Belief, he would certainly have first searched those two Books before he had made this point a new discovery; so to the Impartial Reader we refer the Bp's. sinceri­ty or kindness to the Quakers herein, and Proceed,

(Ibid. 3) The Bp. tells us, That he has a Book now before him, Intitled, The se­cond Part of the serious Apology for the Principles and Practices of the People called Quakers, by W. P. Printed 1671. In which (P. 148.) are these Words; This [namely Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Per­son for us in the Words before] We deny, and boldly affirm it to be the Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which does now deluge the whole World. (Then the Bp. adds) This the Bp. does not under­stand to be owning Justification by Christ, he therefore now was glad to find Mr. P. more Orthodox in 1698. Then he was in 1671.

Answ. We would have been also glad to have found the Bp. more fair and ingeni­ous, not to say worse (which it will bear), then to leave out the Explanatory Part of W. P's. Words, which is as far Remote from a fair Adversary as an Impartial Read­er: Whereas had he been so just as to leave them in, tho' they would not have suited the Bp's. purpose, yet (together with W. P's. plain Sense in several following Argu­ments) would have made W. P. as Or­thodox (to the Impartial Reader) in 1671. As the Bp. allows him to be 1698.—For next to the Words (i e) His own Person for us, follow these Words (wholy [Page 16] without us) which Words the Bp. hath wholly left out, and instead of them hath substituted these Words [in the Words be­fore] and the Bp. hath not only thus done, but hath as we believe wilfuly over­looked (since the place was before him) W. P' s. plain sense and meaning in his foregoing Words in the same Page, which are these, ‘For in him [namely in Christ] We have Life, and by Faith Atonement in his Blood.’ And the like he hath done in what followed in the Apology, which we shall presently shew; But. first we shall set down the intire Words as they lye in that Apology (which the Bp. pretends to cite, and by which the Reader will see the Bp's. great unfairness) which were at first the Words of an Adversary one Jenner, and cited by W. P. with other Articles, thus (Pag. 148.) 5th. ‘That we deny Justification by the Righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own Person for us (wholly without us) and therefore deny the Lord that Bought us:’ To which W. P. gives his Adversary an An­swer thus, ‘And indeed this we deny, and boldly affirm it in the Name of the Lord to be the Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Coruption, which does now de­luge the whole World.’ Upon this W. P. proceeds to vindicate his Negation; first saying, that his Friend and Partner G. W. [Page 17] in writing that Apology had already irrefut­ably considered the Doctrine of Justification, and therefore he will not insist so much upon this Point as he had upon others, and only adds some short Arguments by which he proves that Wicked and Ungodly Men (while so) are not in a state of Justificati­on and Acceptance with God, by the im­puted Righetousness of Christ, and confirms the same by several Scripture Arguments; and then on the other hand shews that such only are truly justified, who are obedient unto the Spirit of God, by which they become the Children of God, and bring forth fruits of Holiness; and in confirmation hereof gives us these Scripture Texts. Gal. 6. Ro. 8. Reve. 22. And after having shewn, who are not, and who are in a state of Justifica­tion and Acceptance with God, he is so far from denying Justification by Christ, that he owns, ascribes, and asserts the same alone to him, which for the Readers satis­faction we shall cite his Words as they lie in that Apology following the above Argu­ments, p. 149. thus; ‘We do believe in one holy God Almighty, who is an Eternal Spirit, the Creator of all things, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only Son and express Image, of his substance, who took upon him Flesh, and was in the World, and in Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Re­surection, [Page 18] Ascention, & Mediation, perfect­ly did and does continue to do the will of God, to whose holy Life, Power, Medi­ation and Blood, we only ascribe our Sanctification, Justification, Redemption, and perfect Salvation.’

Now, Impartial Reader, judg between the Bp. and W. P. whether W. P. did deny Justification by Christ, as the Bp. would insinuate; and whether the Bp. was led by a Christian Spirit while he dealt so very un­fairly, what if we say unjustly by W. P. in misrepresenting his Sense to make him so in­tend (as we have before noted.) Now as to the Doctrine of Justification we shall not be large thereon, in regard many of our Friends have treated upon that head, and particularly (besides W. P. in several Tracts of his) our deceased friend R. Bar­clay in his Apology hath writ excellently and fully thereof: As also that the Bp. hath allowed W. P. to be Orthodox in what is written in Gospel Truths upon that Point; for these Reasons we shall be brief: yet as W. P. said in 1671. so say we now, that we cannot believe it other then a Sin-pleasing Notion and a Doctrine of Divels (since all Men, as the Scriptures tell us, are to be re­warded according to their deeds) to assert, That Wicked and Ungodly Men (while they continue so) are in a state of Accep­tance [Page 19] and Justification with God by the righteousness which Christ hath fulfilled in his own person, wholly without them, which wholy excludes the Work of Sanctification wrought by the Spirit of Christ, which was the Notion W. P. did briefly, and Geo. Whitehead more largely, dispute against in that serious Apology, see (p. the 37 to 40) and (p. 148) and agreeable to the Quakers sense and belief in this point are these following Scriptures Mat. 7. 21, 22, 23. & so 1 John 3. 8, 10. Rom. 6. 16. 2 Cor. 5. 10. James 1. 15. Heb. 10. 35. In short, altho' we firmly believe, and which W. P. and G. W. hath asserted, that only Jesus Christ is our Justifier, yet we do not believe any are truly justified in the sight of God, but such who yield obedience to the Spirit of Christ in themselves, by which they come to do the will of God, and thereby come to obtain the benefit of what Christ fulfilled in his own person without us; in concurrance whereunto we have these Scriptures, 1 Cor. 6. 11. Titus 3. 5. Rom. 8. 1, 2, 11, 13, 14. Heb. 5. 9. and 12. 14. Gal. 6. 7. 8. Now to draw toward a conclusion upon this head; Having proved from that serious Apology in 1671. That W. P. did ascribe our Justification only to Christ, and our Reconciliation with God to faith in his blood; But grants the benefit of [Page 20] it only to such, who obey the Spirit of God in themselves: Let us now see whether he be not of the same mind and hath aserted the same Doctrine in 1698. which the Bp. commends as Orthodox; Thus, Gospel Truth. IV. ‘That as we are only justified from the guilt of Sin, by Christ the Propi­tiation, and not by works of Righteousness that we have done, so there is an absolute necessity, that we receive and obey, to unfeigned repentance and amendment of Life, the holy Light and Spirit of Jesus Christ, in order to obtain that Remission and Justification from Sin; since no Man can be justified by Christ, who walks not after the Spirit, but after the flesh, for whom he sanctifies, them he also justifies; and if we walk in the Light as he is Light, his precious Blood cleanseth us from all Sin, as well from the pollution, as guilt of Sin, Rom. 3. 22. to 26. Chap. 8. 1, 2, 3, 4. 1 John 1. 7.’ We will not spend farther time to comment upon the matter, to shew how agreeable W. P's. Belief was in 1671. to what it was in 1698. being so very plain that it would be but time lost so to do, and therefore we leave it with the Impartial Reader. Again, the Bp,

But says W. P. if the Bp. commends their believing in Christ as a propitiation for Sin, he ought not to have censured them as short in [Page 21] any fundamental Article of Christian Religion; for that all the rest follow from, or are com­prehended in this; (p. 25. 26.) truly, says the Bp. he ought.

Answ. Here again we must charge the Bp. with unfairness in laying down words directly as W. P's. in a Different Character, (the better to make them appear to be his) and foisting in several that are none of his; the Bp. Cites, p. 25. 26. First Impression, for these words, and therefore we will lay down W. P's. words in these two pages from whence the Bp. pretends to take them, and then let the Reader judg in the matter, Thus W. P. (p. 28.) the 2d. Impression, ‘Who ever believes in Christ as a Propitia­tion in order to remission of Sins and justi­fication of Sinners from the guilt of Sin, can hardly disbelieve any fundamental Article of the Christian Religion.’ Then goes on to prove that such a Believer must necessarily believe in God, because it is with him alone Man is to be justified in Christ, because that is the very Propositi­on; and in the holy Ghost, because he is the Author of his Conviction, Repentance, and Belief &c. See that page, again. p. 28. Adds thus, ‘So that acknowledging the ne­cessity of Christ as a Propitiation, in order to the remission of Sin, comprehends the main Doctrine of Christian Religion, and [Page 22] as so many lines drawn from the Circum­ference to the Center, they all meet and center in Christ, and indeed it is as the Navel of Christianity and Characteristick of that Religion. I would intreat him (meaning the Bp.) again to reflect well upon his own acknowledgment and com­mendation of our Belief concerning the end and benefit of Christ to mankind, and he cannot think us so deficient, much less under such strong and dangerous delusions as he has been pleased to represent us.’ Thus W. P. in these tvvo pages vvhich vve vvould have our Reader to compare vvith vvhat the Bp. has laid dovvn as his: And (1st.) see vvhat just ground the Bp. could have had to raise such contradiction had he taken W. P's. ovvn vvords. (2ly.) Whether the Bp. did vvell in Quoting these vvords di­rectly as W. P's. vvithout giving notice he drevv them consequentially, vvhich in justice he ought to have done; But to be sure very unfair in him to add several vvords never spoke by W. P. for besides packing the vvhole together (vvithout any break) as W. P's. vvhich are none of his as they lye, he has added these [for all the rest follovv from] But vve novv come to his Arguments deduced from the premises he has made for W. P. Says the Bp. (meaning himself) He does not find the Quakers to be [Page 23] so good at believing or drawing due conse­quences, or deducing and discovering all the particulars comprehended in generalls. To vvhich vve ansvver in short that vve do not vvonder he should tell us so, vvho so stre­nuously endeavours to misrepresent us, not only in what's past, but in much that fol­lows.

(2) (Says the Bp.) It is not true that all the fundamentals of Christian Religion fol­low from, or are comprehended in this Doctrine, Christ is our Propitiation, some of them (particularly mentioned by Mr. P.) do not thence follow, as that there is a holy Ghost, that he convinceth Men of Sin, &c. Nay not that (p. 34.) That Christ is ascended, for he might have been a Propitiation and Sacri­fice (as were those under the Law) and yet never have ascended no nor rose again. Mind Reader the words [all] and [follow from] nor the deduced words [does not thence fol­low] were not spoke by W. P. But leaving that with thee we will now attend to justi­fie W. P's. words: Then say we by the same rule, That no Man can say Jesus is the Lord but by the holy Ghost, as saith the Scriptures, 1 Cor. 12. 3. Nor no Man un­derstand or savingly believe or know the things of God but by the Spirit of God, accord­ing to 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11, 12. (tho' we confess they may and do pretend to both [Page 24] traditionally) so likewise no Man can truly and savingly believe Christ as a Propitiation in order to the remission of Sin, but by the same Spirit, and as such, a true Believer hath the holy Ghost for the authour of his saving conviction and belief; so consequent­ly he must believe there is a holy Ghost, as W. P. well observeth, and which convin­ceth for Sin, according to John 16 18. But that we may not be misunderstood, we do not here mean of such extraordinary Reve­lations, as of the knowledg of the outward History of Christ's death and sufferings, but as of the illumination of the holy Ghost in such agreeing with the holy Scriptures. But as to such, from whom God hath with-held the knowledge of the Scriptures, or out­ward History, we shall speak of that in its place; in the mean time we say he that be­lieves as aforesaid, to give W. P's. own words, ‘Can hardly disbelieve any funda­mental Article of Christian Religion, and comprehends the main Doctrine of Christi­an Religion, and as so many lines drawn from the Circumference to the Center, they all Center in Christ.’

Then as to the Bp's. saying, Christ might have been a Propitiation and Sacrifice (as were those under the Law) and yet never have ascended, no nor rose again. To say no­thing of the disproportion between the sacri­fices [Page 25] under the Law, and the one Sacrifice of Christ for the remission of Sins, we ask how came the Bp. so greatly to ofr­get himself, thus to assert both in contra­diction to the holy Scriptures, as well as his friend Geo Keith, (whom he quotes as a close evidence against us) for to the owning of and belief in Christ as a Propitia­tion for the remission of Sins (as W. P. hath done)? It was no less necessary to that end, that Christ should rise again, as that he should suffer: See Rom. 4. 25. (besides other Scriptures which for brevity we omit) Where speaking of Christ, who was delivered for our Offences and raised again for our Justification, here the Apostle makes Christs suffering and rising again necessary to his being a Propitiation, contrary to the Bp. Next, G. Keith in page. 26. of his first Narrative, says expressly thus, I say with them and all Christendom that if Christ had died and not risen again he could not have been an attonement for our Sins; this is so full and contrary to the Bp's. Assertion, that we think 'twill both puzzle the Bp. and his Advocate G. K. to reconcile the contradiction. But it may be hoped the Bp. will retract, rather then have G. K. and (if he can believe G. K. as readily against himself as he doth against us) all Christ­endom against him.

Now to his third head, (saith the Bp.) thus, To tell Mr. P. thus much as to his Paper once for all, Implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith.

Answ. We allow 'tis not so in all cases as we shall find it in the Bp. hereafter, parti­cularly in pages 19, 20. of his Reply, and such strange sort of Implications too as that we think no such consequence can possibly be deduced from his premises, as he makes; but in our case it is otherwise, and had he been an Impartial Reader, as he pretended, and had had but a grain of Charity in him towards us, it would have saved all this work, while that Paper called Gospel Truths vvas but a brief account (as it tells us) and the Bp. had R. Barcla's Apology vvhich states and vindicates most of our Principles largely, as also W. P's. Rise and Progress of the Quakers doth several of them briefly, vvhich, vve should think, vvould have satis­fied most or all of his Objections if he vvere not resolved rather to represent us vvrong than right, vvhich vve must needs say doth but too much appear in his management to­vvards us. But farther, as to Implication of Faith: since the Bp. can produce no Con­fession of Faith extant so compleat and full, that nothing is left to be made out by Impli­cation he might have shevved so much can­dour, as to have given an equal allovvance [Page 27] (at least) to this short Declaration (vvhich vvas not vvrit as W. P. told him in the Preface to his Defence for an exact and com­pleat account of our Belief) as he vvould to any of those Creeds or Symbols of Faith, which himself or the Church he is of em­braceth; which had he done, he could not have charged our Confession touching the Beeing of God with imperfection, because there is not in it a word of God's creating the present World, or supporting it by his Providence, or concerning Himself about the inanimate part thereof, with a multi­tude (he saith) of other particulars; for in which we pray of all the Creeds, which the Bp. holds Authentick, is this multitude of particulars exprest, in the first Article touching the Beeing of God without impli­cation? If we look into that which bears the name of the Apostles Creed the first Ar­ticle is delivered thus. I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth; what one word is here of supporting the pre­sent world by his providence, of concern­ing himself about the inanimate part of it, or of the Bp's. multitude of other particu­lars? Are not all those to be made out by implication, in this the most celebrated, and best Creed extent? Again, Is there one word in that Creed concerning the Inter­cession or Mediation of Christ for his [Page 28] People? It is said indeed, he ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and that from thence he shall come to judg the Quick and the Dead: But that, sitting at the Right Hand of his Father, he makes Intercession for his People (tho' it be certainly true Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 7. 25.) is not exprest in that Creed but left to be supplied by implication. Yet a­gain, the Attributes due to God, even those which the Bp. says Christianity teacheth of him, where are they in words exprest in that Creed? Is there a word there, of his Omniscience, his Omnipresence, his infi­nite Goodness and Love to Mankinde, his Justice, Mercy, &c. Will the Bp. allow these to be made out by implication, or would he have them left out and disbelieved altogether? By these Instances the Bp. we hope, will see how much his desire of a blow at W. P. and the Quakers made him mistake, when he said (p. 4, 5.) What an easie prevention of all this Imperfection and un­certainty had it been for W. P. and his party to have said, I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth; since that, without the help of Implication, falls very much short of delivering what he says Christianity teacheth of God; To which he adds, but this had been confessing an Article of Faith in a way beneath their Light, we say [Page 29] no more but that, this is a Scoff beneath the gravity which the Bp. pretends to, and was expected from him: But we must take leave to tell him, that by his rejecting that Paper called Gospel Truths, and unchristian­ing us for our shortness in not expressing in that Paper all that Christianity teacheth, and that is to be believed concerning God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, and other Articles of Christian Religion, he has given a deep wound to the common Creed (called the Apostles) and to all the Creeds in the Christian World, and struck a very bold stroke towards unchristianing all Christen­dom.

But in this we think the Bp. the more to be blamed, in as much as when he writ this, he declares he had before him a Book of W. P's. Entitled, The second part of the serious Apology for the principles and practices of the People called Quakers, Printed in the Year 1671. in which he might, (and could scarce but) see a more full Confession of Faith, concerning the Essentials of Religion, God, Christ, and Holy Spirit: We say he could hardly miss seeing this, for he took (and that most falsely, as we have shewed before,) a quotation out of that Book (in p. 148.) and this Confession which we now mention is in page, 149. and the pages lye open together, so that both are a­like [Page 30] exposed to the eye at the same time. This Confession is in these words, ‘We do believe in one only Holy God Almighty, who is an eternal Spirit, the Creator of all things;’ We would gladly know whether this be not as full, as express, as compre­hensive, as the first Article in that which is called the Apostles Creed, which says only, I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth. It follows in that Book of W. P's. ‘And in one Lord Jesus Christ his only Son and express Image of his sub­stance, who took upon him flesh, and was in the World, and in Life, Doctrine, Mi­racles, Death, Resurrection, Ascention and Mediation; perfectly did and does conti­nue to do the will of God; to whose Holy Life, Power, Mediation and Blood we only ascribe our Sanctification, Justificati­on, Redemption and perfect Salvation:’ Here is a full Confession both to the Divini­ty and Manhood of Christ, his Birth, Life, Doctrine, Miracles, Death, Resurrection, Ascention, and (which the common Creed mentions not) his Mediation. Then for the Holy Spirit; whereas the Creed has on­ly, I believe in the Holy Ghost, W. P's. Con­fession is more full in these words, ‘And we believe in one Holy Spirit, that proceeds and breaths from the Father and the Son as the life and virtue of both the Father [Page 31] and the Son, a measure of which is given to all to profit with, and he that has one has all, for these three are one, who is the Alpha, and Omega, the first, and last God over all, blessed for ever, Amen.’ This we suppose the Bp. will acknowledge to be a more full and plain Confession then that which is in the Common Creed. (called the Apostles) with respect to the proceed­ing of the Holy Spirit, from the Father and the Son, not touched in that, besides what is said in this, concerning the great mistery of the God-head, [one in three and three in one] commonly exprest by the word (Tri­nity) of which that Creed (called the Apostles) is wholly silent. Now since the Bp. acknowledges he had that Book of W. P's. then before him, out of which we have recited this Confession, which in many material parts is so much fuller and larger, then that the Bp. directs to, how unfair and how disingenious; how uncharitable is the Bp. towards W. P. and us, to censure and unchristian us for a pretended shortness in the wording of some of our Principles; and that too after W. P. had told him in the Preface to his Defence, that that Paper, which he gave the Bp. was not writ for an exact and compleat account of our Belief; and in the Defence. page. 25. to 28. had declared, that to believe in God is to be­lieve [Page 32] him, Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent; and that in believing in Christ as a propitiation in order to remission of Sins and justification of Sinners from the guilt of Sin, was included not only believing in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, but a belief of Heaven, Hell, Rewards and Punish­ments, and consequently the Resurrection of the Just and Unjust; this one would think had been enough to have satisfied the Bp. or any one else, that had not a mind to misrepresent or cavil, which it may be fear­ed the Bp. has.

As to what the Bp. saith (p. 4) A great Man has told us of the Gentile world and their belief in multiplicity of Gods, &c. It nothing concerns us, we are not accountable for their, but our own, belief, and had W. P. been to present some heathen Pontiff with our Confession of Faith concerning God and his Attributes, no doubt he would have been more explicit and large, then what is contained, not only in the Paper called Gospel Truths, but even in that Creed called the Apostles: But while he intended that Paper for professed Christians, he thought what was delivered therein concerning God, sufficient to satisfie any who had not a mind to cavil. But so earnest is the Bp. in pur­suit of W. P. and the Quakers, that in seeking occasion against them, he plainly [Page 33] mistakes the Scriptures, which we now come to shew. Thus the Bp. (p. 4.) Mr. P. saith that Heb. 11. 6. seems exprest for a declaration of faith in God. The Bp. takes the freedom to inform him, that it was not at all intended for a full confession of Christian Faith, as to that Article thereof, touching the Beeing, Nature, and Works of God, but only of such an initial or natural Faith which Men had or might have without Revelation; for of the Faith of such, viz. Abell and Enoch, and those who lived before the Flood without any Revelation that we read of, he there dis­courses. Thus the Bp.

Answ. We answer for W. P. that he nei­ther wants nor desires the Bp's. Informati­on, unless it were more agreeable to Scrip­ture, then we shall find this.—The Bp's. words here doth consist of two parts, the one, that the Faith of Abell, Enoch, and those who lived before the Flood was initial and natural, without any revelation that we read of: Next that Heb. 11. 6. was a dis­course of such a natural Faith; now if we prove the first was divine Faith and the last was no discourse of natural Faith, it natu­rally follows the Bp. hath misrepresented the Scriptures; to which purpose we will begin with the first verse in the Chapter. Heb. 11. 1. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And [Page 34] that this Faith was not natural but divine Faith according to Eph. 2. 8. appears very plainly from the context, by the effects it produced; Vers. 2. By it the Elders obtain­ed a good report. Vers. 3. Through Faith we understand the worlds were made by the word of God. Vers. 4. By Faith Abell offered unto God a more acceptable Sacrifice then Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righte­ous. Vers. 5. By Faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see Death, for before his translation he had this Testimony that he pleas­ed God. Now to the 6. Vers. Which the Bp. says was a discourse of natural and initial Faith. Vers. 6. But without Faith it is im­possible to please him; for he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a re­warder of them that diligently seek him, (mind, Reader, the last part of this Verse was a part of what was laid down in Gospel Truths for our belief in God) Vers. 7. By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen, as yet moved with fear, prepared an Ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the World, and became heir of righteousness by Faith. So the Apostle proceeds to the end of that Chapter (which is long) shew­ing the great and extraordinary effects of this divine Faith. The Bp. seems to restrain the Text, Heb. 11. 6. Only to the Faith of those, who lived before the Flood: But the Apostle [Page 35] passes on from Abel, Enoch, Noah, to Abra­ham and the rest of the Patriarchs who lived between the Flood and the Law; nor does the Apostle put any difference between the Faith of those before the Flood, between the Flood and the Law, or under the Law, which the Bp. may do well to consider: as also that Jude says expressly Enoch prophe­sied, see Vers. 14. Will he say he prophe­sied without Revelation? But to shorten upon the first head; Those Scriptures al­ready cited do so plainly prove our point, that we need not trouble the Reader with any more to shew that it was not natural but supernatural Faith (those holy Men were endued withall) by which (in par­ticular) Enoch prophesied and was translat­ed, and Noah was warned to build the Ark, which besides the rest are two such plain and extraordinary instances of supernatural Faith by Revelation from God, that we cannot but admire the Bp. should assert those who lived before the Flood had no Revelation that we read of, but what was natural and initial: We leave it with the Reader and proceed to the second part, in which the Bp. asserted that Heb. 11. 6. Was not at all intended for a full confession of Christian Faith, touch­ing the Beeing, Nature, and Works of God, but of natural and initial Faith.

To which we answer (as hath been al­ready shewn) they had divine Faith and Revelation before the Flood; so consequent­ly the Bp's. Arguments do fall in course: However the Text it self, with the context very plainly intends spiritual and divine Faith, not only with respect to those ex­traordinary effects produced by true Faith, as well before as after the Flood, but also seems expressed, (as W. P. hath asserted) for Faith in God, (And) we say (Christi­an Faith too, because the Apostle speaks in the present tense) notwithstanding his Attributes be not there enumerated, no more then they were by Moses in the word [I am] Instanced by W. P. but past over in silence by the Bp. Now to that Vers. 6. We take leave to ask the Bp. what Faith it was they were to come unto God by, and without which it was impossible to please him, whether was it Natural and initial, or Spiritual and supernatural Faith; if he answers (as he said before) Natural, we tell him that can­not be, since the Scripture tells us, all were by nature Children of wrath, and that Man naturally has nothing, nor can perform any thing acceptable to God; see these Texts John 15. 5. Eph. 2. 3. Pro. 20. 24. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Besides many other Scriptures; con­sequently then, that Faith mentioned Heb. 11. 6. intended no other then divine and [Page 37] supernatural Faith as doth most plainly ap­pear, not only from the Text, but also from the context, as we have shewn. Thus, Reader, see how the Bp. has mistaken plain Scripture, no wonder then if he mistake us, &c.—The Bp. proceeds,

P. 5. Again saith the Bp. The acknowledg­ing of future rewards and punishments, no more infers the resurrection from the Dead or eter­nity of Torments to the Damned, then any of the former points imply what W. P. would have comprehended in them.

Answ. If they imply but as much we shall easily clear our selves from the Bp's. sug­gestions of Heathenism or Sociniasm, for we think the other points are plainly com­prehended, as we have above shewn; so by this rule there needs no farther return to that, to an unbyassed Reader.—How­ever we will attend the Bp's. Arguments who proceeds to tell us of one Synesius a Chri­stian Phylosopher (to say no more) who profest he could not believe the resurrection of the Body; and of Origen, and the merciful Doctors, who believed future rewards and pu­nishments, yet believed not eternal torments, it had been necessary therefore saith the Bp. for him (i. e. W. P.) and his Brethren explicitly to have declared their belief of these main Articles, the Resurrection and eternal Torments even among the Truths, chiefly be­lieved [Page 38] by them, that we might have known the Quakers to be neither Heathens nor Socinians in these points, which herein it is plain they may be notwithstanding their belief that God is a rewarder of them who seek him.

Answ. Synesius was not only a Christian Phylosopher but a Bishop too which we sup­pose the Bp. was willing to hide with his Parenthesis, (to say no more,) the story we have in Evagrius Ecclesiastick History Lib. 1. C. 15. The old Edition, tells us he could not believe the resurrection of the flesh, how stated to him we have no account, but if in so gross a manner as some have done it in our days we cannot wonder he did not receive it; However tho' he did not receive the vulgar opinion, (for so we have it in Vallesius his notes in the new Edition) Yet we find the Christians in those times (viz. about the Year, 412.) perswaded him not only to be Baptized but to take upon him the Office of a Bishop, and he did so; whence we observe that the vulgar opinion, or the Doctrine of the resur­rection of the Flesh was not then held so Essential to the Christian Religion but that a Man might be both a Christian and a Bp. too, tho' he neither did nor would believe it. But to proceed, what ever opinion in reallity he held, or others did or do believe, is nothing to us, we are not accountable for [Page 39] their Faith but our own. (1st. then) then. As to the Resurrection from the Dead, we have always believed and owned it by word and writing according to holy Scripture, and which was again fully owned by W. P. in his Defence. p. 47. 48. Where he also shews, 'twas sufficiently implyed in Gospel Truths by future rewards and punishments: And so say we too, otherwise we must disbelieve the immortality of the Soul, and, believe that it dies with the body which we firmly deny. (2ly.) As to eternity of Torments to the Damned we have (likewise) also stedfastly believed it, and W. P. in his Defence. p. 43, 44. hath shewn it is fully implyed in Gospel Truths, which we will not farther enlarge upon here because we will cut short and tell the Bp. tho' we will not downright charge him with Insincerity (what ever it deserves) yet we think we may safely with great partiality (to charge us with shortness in this point) while he had in his possession (before his Testimony or Reply was writ) a Book called the Rise and progress of the Quakers, which in (page the. 38.) hath these words.—‘This leads us to the acknowledgment of Eternal Rewards and Punishments, for else of all People certainly they (i. e. the Quakers) must be most miserable, who for about forty years have been exceeding great suf­ferers [Page 40] for their profession, &c.’ Now for the Bp. after this to make this objection a­gainst us, looks indeed very strange, and to be sure like one that was willing, as W. P. says, to represent us wrong rather then we should be in the right.—But farther, as to Eternal Torments tho' what is said before is sufficient; yet we cannot but observe how unreasonable the Bp. is to Quarrel with us, for not expressing that as an Article of Faith, which is not expressed in his own Creed (if that called the Apostles be his); for what word in the Creed is there of Eternal Torments, 'tis indeed said therein, I believe the Life everlasting, but not a word of Punishments being everlast­ing: If the Bp. say, that the reward of Life to the Righteous, being everlasting, im­plies the punishment of the Damned shall be everlasting, may we not then with a great deal of reason return his own words, (p. 3.) and tell him, Thus much as to that point once for all, Implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith, at least ought not to be claimed by him, that will not allovv it to others. Again, How hath the Bp. caught himself in his own Trap; for while his own Creed is silent in so main a point as Eternal Punishments (as he tells us that is) which way will the Bp. Extricate himself and his brethren (to give him his [Page 41] own phrase) from being suspected to be either Heathens or Socinians in that point: If he say that this which he calls a main Article is explicitly declared in some other Creeds or Declarations of Faith, the Ans­wer is, So are they also in other Books and writings of ours; and if the Bp. would have given to others the same measure he takes himself, he might have forborn this unnecessary wrangle.

The end of (p. 5. and most of p. 6.) is about the Trinity, in which point, we find the Bp. still resolves to have us short, and imperfect, tho' it be by telling of us again much of it word for word, as he did in his Testimony, Thus 1 John 5. 7. Is not (saith he) the summ of what the holy Scrip­tures teacheth, nor a sufficient confession of Faith, of the holy Trinity. Then adds, He [meaning W. P.] insinnuates (which is ut­terly false) that the Bp. slights that, as a by passage or of little credit, upon which the Bp. appeals to his own Paper; then tells us of the Nicene Creed, and Thirty Nine Arti­cles; then to W. P's. demand from the Bp. of the occasion of the Apostles speaking as he did, 1 John 5. 7. the Bp. returns thus; The Bp. answers out of Vers. 1. 5. It was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and after some more to the same purpose the Bp. concludes that paragraph, saying p. 6. This [Page 42] was his purpose (i. e. John) viz. to settle the Believers Faith in Christ) and not fully there to declare the Doctrine of the Trinity, which is no where done in any one text of Scripture, but is to be gathered out of many.

Answ. Is it not strange, Reader, that the Bp. who so strangely condemned that Pa­per (of Gospel Truths) as short and defective for not being more explicit, and full in others as well as in this point, should now a second time, be so very defective himself, as not to tell us, where those many Texts are, by which the Trinity was to be proved? No, that he has not done, for a good reason too, because in all the Scriptures a more full proof could not be found, then 1 John 5. 7. But the Bp. to help himself, tells us of the Thirty Nine Articles and Nicene Creed. To which we answer, their foundation in that point ought to be the Holy Scripture; if so, why had not the Bp. cited or referred us to those Scriptures, but in stead of con­firming the Trinity, we think he has rather lessened the proof thereof, while he tells us the Apostles purpose was to prove that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: for altho' the A­postles could not prove the Trinity without proving Jesus Christ to be the Son of God; yet as the Bp. assignes that Text. (by the context) chiefly to prove Christ was the Son of God, we ask doth he not thereby [Page 43] lessen the proof of the Trinity? vvhile (as we said above) we can no where find so full and plain a Text in all the Holy Scrip­tures to prove the Trinity; we are sure we design not to strain, or misrepresent the Bp's. sense, but what we have said, we think, naturally follows from his own words, and far less then we could have said on the matter. As to his appeal to his Paper, we agree in that point, provided W. P's. Defence be compared with it, and there the Impartial Reader will see whether W. P. hath wronged the Bp's Sense or not, and whether the Bp. hath not now confirm­ed W. P's. asking, How came the Bp. to ren­der it a by passage, and the Text it self short, and otherwise intended by the Apostle, then an Article of Faith about the Trinity? see. p. 33. of W. P's. Defence (in two places): and thus we end as to what the Bp. has said about the Trinity.

P. 6, 7. The Bp. tells us we must give a more explicit confession of our Faith if we expect to be accounted Christians, for other reasons then he has given; especially (says he) this for one, that a great Person among them who professes, as concerning their Principles, he was deceived by them, thinking they had held sincerely the Principles, which by a more diligent search he finds, they hold not.

Answ. George Keith being the person he means (as appears in the Margin) we must take leave to say, the Bp. is greatly mistaken, for he is neither great among us, nor indeed of us at all, having been denied by us some Years past; and as to that Man, he must either have been a great Hypocrite formerly, or a foul Apostate now from us, The former, if for about thirty Years he walkt among us, and defended our Principles by word and writing, and yet at the same time was not convinced of the verity of them; an Apostate to be sure if being con­vinced of our Principles, and from that perswasion defended them, while now he retracts, and condemns some of the very same Principles he then defended.

The Bp. proceeds about G Keith (p. 7.) assures us (meaning G. K.) and has Printed Testimonies out of their Books to prove they deny.—

Answ. As to G. Keith's confident assurance, we question not that, he having given us sufficient proof thereof already, by plainly perverting and misrepresenting our friends words and writings as well as contradict­ing, what he has before writ, in defence of us and our principles: and did we only re­fer back to our friends reitterated (as well as G. K's. own former writings) they would sufficiently prove us Orthodox, as to the [Page 45] four following points brought by the Bp. from G. K's. Third Narrative; however because the Bp. shall not have occasion to say, we pass them over, we will briefly consider them: (1st.) That they (i. e. the Quakers) deny Faith in Christ as he outward­ly suffered at Jerusalem, as he rose again, a­scended, and now sits at the right hand of God to be necessary to Salvation.

Answ. If G. K. doth here mean that the Knowledge of the outward death and suffer­ing of Jesus Christ, is so necessary to salva­tion, as without the knowledg of which all Men are damned and eternally lost; we an­swer, we dare not be so uncharitable as to conclude, that the many millions of Men, who are and have been in the World, and who never had, or heard of the outward history of the sufferings and death of Christ &c. are so damned, provided they yield obedience to the Spirit of God in them selves, and thereby from unholy become Holy Men.

But if he mean with respect to the Quakers, and such who have had the know­ledg of the outward history, as recorded in Holy Scriptures, we hold it absolutely ne­cessary so to believe.

(2ly.) That we deny Justification by the Blood of Christ outwardly shed.

Answ. To this head we have spoken be­fore, and the Bp. himself hath allowed W. P. Orthodox in what is written in Gospel Truth, so we need say no more of this now.

(3ly.) That we deny the Resurrection of the Body that dieth.

If he mean the same Numerical Body of Flesh, Blood and Bones, which we have here on Earth; we know not where he will find Scripture for that; But on the contrary, he may find the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15. 36. cal­ling such curious Body Enquirers, Fools. Now as to us we fully own and truly be­lieve the Resurrection of the Body, accord­ing to the Holy Scripture, but are not so nice and inquisitive as to enquire what sort of Body God will give us, leaving that to his Divine Will, who will give us such a Body as pleaseth him; and this is Scripture language and agreeable to, 1 Cor. 15. 36, 37, 38. and cited by W. P. in his Defence, against the Bp's. Testimony; in which Book he hath briefly, but fully asserted our Belief in this point, which we do not find the Bp. makes any return to in his Reply, (by which, as we take it, he tacitly allows him Ortho­dox therein) notwithstanding he now brings up this of G. K. against us.

(4ly.) That we deny Christ's coming a­gain without us in his glorified Body to judg the Quick and the Dead.

Answ. This charge is false, because we own it in express words, and would G. K. with the rest of our Adversaries, let our plain words and Sense mean what they say, and import, there would be no room left for this malitious charge (as well as many others) for many of our Friends have very often, publickly in print asserted our Belief in this point, and W. P. in particular, whom I will cite on this occasion, (besides in other of his writings) hath fully owned the same in Primitive Christianity revived; which because we shall find his name pre­sently mentioned in opposition to the Arti­cles of the Creed, we will insert at large as it lies in that Book, P. 85. ‘Jesus Christ took our nature upon him, and was like unto us in all things, sin excepted; that he was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffer­ed under Pontius Pilate, the Roman Go­vernour, crucified, dead and buried, in the Sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, rose again the third day, and ascended into Heaven, and fits on the right hand of God, in the power and Majesty of his Father, who will one day judg the World by him, Even that blessed Man Christ Jesus, ac­cording to their works.’—We think we need not farther enlarge upon this point, then to say as we did before, the charge is wholy false.

Ibid. (7.) The Bp. proceeds farther a­bout G. K. thus; Nay the same person (i. e. G. K.) professes as the Bp. has seen under his hand, that he really thinks he can prove W. P. holds not one of the Articles of the Christian Creed soundly and entirely, and that none ever more plainly oppugned the Doctrine of the Scrip­tures, then W. P. and his party, upon so close an evidence as this is; let the World judg, if the Bp. be unreasonable in demanding a better confession of Faith, then by meer Innuendo's as necessary to their being allowed Christians. Thus the Bp.

Answ. That the Bp. has seen under G. K's. hand, we do believe, and it confirms what we heard, viz. That he had writ to the Bp. offering to supply the Bp. with some matters against W. P. and the Quakers, or at least against W. P. The use we make thereof is only to observe how restless and implacable that Man is, who will send over Sea and Land, where he does (tho' but vainly) hope to give a helping hand a­gainst the Quakers: But as to what G. K. really thinks he can prove against W. P. we must needs say, we think him very modest to what he used to be, in that he has not been more positive, in any charge against him or the Quakers, then really thinks, and it may be a certain indication to all imparti­all Men who have been acquainted with his [Page 49] unjust perverting and misrepresenting way of dealing by our Friends; that 'tis past his power by such his foul, way it self to prove W. P. denyed any one of the Truths, con­tained in that Creed called the Apostles, much less that he did not hold one of them soundly and intirely. And as to our op­pugning the Doctrine of the Scriptures, as he says, what shall we say of such a Man as G. K's. thoughts of others, who (as it ap­pears) knew not his own for so many Years; If he were to be measured by his now writing against those things he so many Years defended. In short a Malitious Adversary, and Apostate was never a good Evidence against the People he deserted, and such to be sure is G. K. against the Quakers. And should we ask the Bp. whether he will grant that a Deserter from, and an Enemy to, the Church of England is a good Evidence against that Church, we belive he would hardly allow it; with what reason then could the Bp. bring, G. K's. Evidence against the Quakers: And as to the Scrip­tures, we assert for the Quakers against either his really thinks, or other his more bold assertions, that no people in the World, doth more truly own the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures then they do: Now as to the Bp's. demanding a better Confession of Faith then by meer Innuendo's (by which [Page 50] we suppose he means Gospel Truths.) We answer him (as we did before) if he had been an impartial Reader as he pretended, and had esteemed that Paper too short ex­prest in some points, he would have search­ed R. B's. Apology, where he would have found most, if not all those Points, (besides others) largely and fully handled, before he would have so exposed us under a false disguise to the World, as he did in his Testimony.

Ibid. (7.) (The Bp. tells us) Mr. Penn tells the World he and his Brethren re­ceive all the Articles of the Creed (called the Apostles,) but this may be reckoned one of the good effects the Bp's. Paper has had to bring them to this acknowledgment.

Answ. All things considered we think the Bp. has no reason to be highly conceit­ed of his Paper; for what ever good opini­on he has of it himself, we believe few, if any, impartial Men has the like; more especialy such, who have read W. P's. De­fence. If he could have told us and there­with proved W. P. and his Brethren had ever disbelieved the Truths contained in that Creed (which W. P. says we do be­lieve) he might with more reason have told the World this, and we tell him, if he had read only some of the several Tracts of W. P's. in particular (not to mention many [Page 51] other of our Friends) he might have found him owning all the Truths contained in that Creed, called the Apostles, and in particu­lar he cannot be ignorant of his owning the most essential, to wit, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, (we think) as fully exprest in some parts, and more fully in others then in that Creed, even in that serious Apology. (p. 149.) before observed, which lay be­fore him, if he had never read any other of his Works.

Ibid. (7.) Now the Bp. begins to for­sake the road and instead of regularly an­swering page by page, he fetches a large step (in his next charge) from (p. 30. to 104.) then backwards, other times for­wards, then here, then there, and some­times no page at all; for which let us hear the Bp's. reason, or rather his pretence he gives us for so doing. (p. 7.) It would be (says he) as endless as needless, and be­sides would swell this Paper to too great a Bulk to follow Mr. P. page by page to the end, replying to all his little Cavills and poor Evasions: A more compendious way, (saith the Bp.) therefore must be taken, which shall be (first) by reducing Mr. P's. Answers and Arguments to some common Heads or Figures of Speech, which he uses, so contemptible in themselves, as that the instances of them are answered by being shewn. And (2ly) by sing­ling [Page 52] out the more material points, wherein Mr. P. enlarges, and setting them in their true light. Thus the Bp.

Answ. We confess the Bp. hath not only found out a more compendious, but also a new way to answer his Opponent; for in stead of answering W. P's. Answers and Arguments in order, as they lay in his De­fence, (like a fair Disputant,) he under­takes to reduce them to some common heads or figures of Speech, and single out (as he says) the more material points, &c. No doubt the Bp. understood what he did, for by so doing he could the better drop the weight and force of W. P's. Argu­ments and pass over those points, which pincht him most, and what he found too hard for him to answer, under the Title of little Cavills and poor Evasions, contemp­tible in themselves; 'tis more then probable the Bp. will come under this Censure, and that this unusual way of dealing with an Opponent, will be accounted (by fair Disputants) but a poor Evasion in him­self, especially if it be remembred, how the Bp. hath already given us an instance of the like kind, in passing over three or four pages of W. P's. Defence (in which W. P. enumerated several instances, and charged the Bp. with unfair and abusive dealing by us) with saying only, to omit things less [Page 53] material; See (. p. 9.) Thus, Reader, having given thee this item we desire thy serious perusal of W. P's. Defence, with the Bp's. Reply, and thy Judgment is free, whe­ther so great a part of that Book, which lyes unanswered by the Bp's. taking such a compendious way, is so poor, little, and contemptible as the Bp. would make it. We now come to consider the several heads or figures of Speech, the Bp. in his way has reduced W. P's. Arguments to.

Ibid. (7.) Manifest Impieties (saith the Bp.) are, 1st. His falsifying the Sence of Scripture, and then the words of it so plain­ly, that he cannot well seem insensible of it himself; thus, Whereas our Lord said, John 3. 20. Every one that doth evill hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light, lest his Deeds should be reproved: (which passage to make look favourable to his purpose) he cor­rupts the 21. Vers. And reads it thus, He that Loves the Light, brings his deeds to the Light, to see if they are wrought in God: Where­as the plain meaning of the Text is no more, then they that do evill, seek to be hid (1 Thes. 5. 7. They that are drunken, are drun­ken in the Night) they who do well fear not to bee seen; to which Sense every Nation hath Proverbs.—With us Truth seeks no corners, with many more like. Thus the Bp.

Answ. To falsifie the sence of Scripture knowingly and with design, is no doubt great Impiety; but for the Bp. to tax W. P. as he hath done in the present Case, is very Uncharitable, if not Worse.

Now the Impiety, Falsifying, and Cor­rupting, (which the Bp. would Unjustly sasten upon W. P.) consists only in saying Loves the Light, in stead of doth Truth: Pray, Reader, turn to W. P' s. Defence (p. 115.) and there thou wilt find W. P's. in­tent was to shew, that the Light of Christ was to be judg of the deeds of Men, which these two Texts do plainly prove from Christ's own Words. Now let us see what W. P. could gain by this alteration, which must be his end, if true as the Bp. says (to make look favourable to his purpose) W. P. says, Loves the Light, and the Scriptures, doth Truth; Now Vers. 20. says, every one that doth evil hateth the Light, neither cometh to the Light, lest his deeds should be reproved: Surely then he that brings his deeds to the Light (as the doer of Truth did) must certainly be a lover of the Light; So then he that doth truth loves the Light, and he that loves the Light doth Truth, where then is the falsifying the sense of Scripture; Nay rather, if there be any difference, (we think) W. P. had the disadvantage, for tho' they do not differ in sense, yet, we think, the [Page 55] words [Doth Truth] would rather have been more Emphetical in that place then the words [Loves the Light;] Certainly had the Bp. been such a Reader, as he pro­mised in his Testimony, he would not, for this difference, have made W. P. guilty of falsifying the sense of Scripture, and to aggravate the matter, adds impiety and corruption; but on the other hand rather have concluded, that either the Transcriber mist, or W. P's. mind ran with the sense, and consequence of the foregoing Verse, which we believe was the Bp's. own case, in his Reply, where in (p. 17.) he says Matt. 4. 11. which should be Matt. 3. 11. Again (p. 22.) he cites, 1 Cor. 11. and so proceeds upon several verses from that Chapter when we believe he intended 1 Cor. Chap. 2.

But did the Bp. consider while he thus vilifyed W. P. for the variation of some words, which no way altered the sense, that his high charge of Impiety would ex­tend farther and strike higher then he was aware of, or we believe would be willing it should; for not only Moses in writing the Decalogue in Deu. 5. varies from the ex­press terms, wherein 'twas delivered in Exod. the 20. but the Apostles often, yea and our Lord himself in reciting places of [Page 56] Scriptures out of the old Testament vary in our common Translations from the verbal expressions of the Scriptures they recite, and give the Sense in other words. Nume­rous Instances could be given, which for brevity we omit, and will mention but one, and refer to a few more: (thus), Have ye never read (saith Christ in Matt. 21. 16.) Out of the mouth of Babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise; which words are refer­red in the Margine to Psal. 8. 2. Out of the mouth of Babes and Sucklings hast thou ordain­ed strength. Then Matt. 11. compared with Mal. 3. 1. Again, Matt. 13. 14, 15. compared with Isa. 6. 9, 10. Again Rom. 10. vers. 11. compared with Isa. 28. 16. Not to spend more time we refer the Reader to the Scriptures, where he will find, a multitude of Texts which in our English Translation vary in express words, but agree in sense. If these Instances do not convince the Bp. they may a more e­qual Reader, that in taxing W. P. with manifest Impiety for giving some words of that Text John 3. 21. in other words then the Translation has it, while the Sense was no way altered; he hath therein manifested his great uncharitablness and disingenuity. But before we end we must tell the Bp. if W. P. was guilty of falsifying the sense of [Page 57] Scripture (which we do not allow) he is much more in putting such gross and carnal meanings upon the words of Jesus Christ, John 3. 20, 21. for whereas Christ doth there make the Light the judg and tryer of good and bad deeds, in manifesting the good and reproving the bad, which no other Light can do but the light of his own Spirit; and which appears plainly from the Context, see the foregoing 16, 17, 18, 19. Verses Which light lighteth every Man and shines in the heart, according to John 1. 4. 9. 2 Cor. 4. 6. Contrarily the Bp. will have the meaning of these two Texts like unto proverbial sayings and therewith compares, 1 Thes. 5. 7. But what if this Text were allowed a proverbial Speech, what would this do for the Bp. as it would not be a parallel to John 3. 20, 21. so neither do we think 'twill answer the Bp's. turn, while 'tis plain the 5. Vers. compared with Thes. Vers. 7. makes it a Spiritual Night, and the Bp. opposes, John 3. 20, 21. to a Spi­ritual Light, if we understand his meaning, by comparing those Texts to proverbial sayings. But the Bp. has made a great noise of W. P's. falsifying the sense of the Scripture about those two Texts (when we think 'tis plain, it lies at his own door) and yet at the same time passeth over seve­ral Scripture Texts advanced by W. P. in [Page 58] that same place, to prove that this divine Light or Illumination of the holy Spirit is a rule to believing Christians, and that it, with the holy Scriptures, is the double and agreeing Record of true Religion, and par­ticularly cites John 14. 15, 16. Chap. Gal. 6. 15. 16. 1 John 2. 20, 27. Rom. Chap. 8. all which Scriptures the Bp. passeth over in silence as he doth W. P. telling him those words, John 3. 20, 21. were spoken by Christ before the New Testament was in being, and therefore a rule and judg of the Life and Deeds of Men. And tho' W. P. by way of Interrogation doth thereupon ask, What says the Bp. to this? Yet no answer from the Bp. about their being so spoken, but at the same time taxes W. P. with falsifying the sense of Eph. 5. 11, 12, 13. a Text not there mentioned by W. P. nor doth the Bp. refer us to any other place where we shall find it. Thus, Reader, see the Bp's continued unfair dealing, and to this we may add another instance of like nature out of W. P's. Defence (p. 52.) where he tells us the Bp. (did to himself in Cork) read, John 1. 9. otherwise then it is rendered in our versions, and that all the Translators, Criticks and Comentators render that verse about the Light as we do, except the followers of Socinus: Yet the Bp. passeth it over in Silence.—But no more [Page 59] of this now; we proceed to the Bp's. second head of Impiety.

(P. 8.) Says the Bp. his (meaning W. P's.) reproaching the holy Spirit in the Apostles as to what they taught.—Thus when he had no other way to answer the Bp's. Arguments for the Divine Authority of Baptism by water, taken from Acts 10. 47, 48. he says plain­ly, in all which Peter seems more concerned to save his own Credit, then to recommend or establish Water Baptism.

Answ. Reader, (1st.) We refer thee to W. P's. Defence, and there see in 17. pages from 75. to 92. whether he hath no other way to answer the Bp. about the Divine Authority of Water Baptism; and whether on the other hand the Bp. hath not said very little to all the Arguments W. P. hath there advanced against it. And (2ly.) see where W. P. doth reproach the holy Spirit in the Apostles, for we deny it and say it is a false charge as well as a very unchari­table suggestion: for by the same rule the Bp. may as well say, the Apostle Paul re­proached the holy Spirit in Peter, because he blamed him thus, Gal. 2. 11. But when Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Nay in the 13. Vers. terms it dissimulation. Paul here only blames Peter and not the holy Spirit, in a case where 'twas plain he was [Page 60] willing to save his Credit, we mean his Christian Credit, and Reputation as an A­postle. And as to W. P. he is so far from reproaching the holy Spirit, or blaming of Peter, that he only saith, Peter seems more concerned to save his own Credit, &c. then to recommend or establish Water Bap­tism. W. P. by the words [own credit] intended Peter's Christian Reputation and Credit as an Apostle and Minister of Christ, which he behoved to save as much as in him lay, without offending the Jewish Zea­lots on the one hand, or the Converted Gentiles, on the other: And thus we find Paul himself did, Acts. 21. while he under­went legal (but abolished) Purifications by perswasion of others; and because the Jewish Zealot's might not take offence at him and his Doctrine, and so slight or re­ject his Ministry. Thus W. P. in. (p. 90.) discourses about Peter, shewing that the reason of Peter's saying, Acts 10. 47, 48. can any Man forbid water, was the narrow­ness of his Country mens Spirits, lest his latitude to the Gentiles might distast them; But the Bp. according to his usual way of leaving and taking what he pleased in his compendious way, has pict out what he hoped to make some advantage of against W. P. Therefore, kind Reader, be pleased to see that page at large, where it will very [Page 61] plainly appear, W. P. intended no other, then that Peter seemed more concerned to save his Credit as an Apostle and Minister of Jesus Christ, then to recommend or esta­blish Water Baptism (as people do in our days); while 'tis plain from Peter's own words afterwards, that he excludes it from having any part in Man's Salvation, by saying this, 1 Pet. 3. 21. The like figure whereunto even Baptism doth now also save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, [which Elementary Water only doth] But the answer of a good Conscience towards God, &c. Now, Reader, judg whether Peter, or the holy Spirit in him, doth hereby teach, recommend or establish, a divine Authority for Water Baptism, as the Bp. suggests. The Bp. ends this Paragraph thus; These for a taste, single instances under each head must suffice: And say we they are a taste, but 'tis of the Bp's. great unfairness to re­present W. P. wrong (rather then of W P's. impiety) of which we have had many tasts before, besides more that follows.

The Bp. goes on, P. 8. thus, Manifold arts of uncharitableness and disingenuity, the Bp. accounts these that follow; (1st.) Calum­nious and Spiteful Insinuations, that he, the Bp. believes not the Thirty nine Arlicles.

Answ. A high charge for an imaginary crime, and whether W. P. be guilty or not [Page 62] let the Reader judg by what follows: W. P. in his Defence (p. 33.) there asserts, That no Text in all the Scripture is so full and plain to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity as 1 John 4. 7. which the Bp. had faulted with shortness; in answer to which W. P. says conditionaly thus. [I think is a bold at­tempt if he believes the Thirty Nine Articles.] This, Reader, is the ground of that high Charge of Spight and Calumny.

Again the Bp's False Imputations; he down­right charges the Bp. with Levity and Scorn, as to the Language, Thee and Thou.

Answ. The Bp's. Testimony as to the point runs thus. Would it not make a mans stomach turn, &c. We ask what is this less then Levity and Scorn thus to treat a People (especially without distinction) that are conscientious in using the Scripture lan­guage of Thee and Thou to a single person, and for which many of them have been great sufferers; but as to the use of that Lan­guage W. P. hath defended it by Argu­ments, which are unanswered by the Bp. in his Reply, tho' he has again made re­flections, which in their place we shall take notice of.

P. 9. The Bp. spends mostly to vindi­cate himself, and charging W. P. with false Imputations, &c. For W. P's. saying the Bp. in his Testimony, judged and censured [Page 63] the Quakers, which tho' the Bp. still denies, yet that he so did, and that W. P's. charge was true. Observe Reader what follows: Thus in his Testimony, he tells us, We are short and defective in that Confession, viz. (Gospel Truths) to denominate us Christi­ans, makes us deluded, by judging of us under strong delusions; then with relation to our belief of the Light of Christ within (so of­ten repeated in holy Scripture) he saith thus, For any persons to yield themselves to such conduct, (besides or against holy Scripture) is plainly to abandon themselves to the delusi­ons of the Devil. Again saith the Bp. As you will answer all your secret arts and high pre­tentions, &c. Again, I will not (says the Bp. here interpose making gain your godliness. These with more, as to Spiritual matters in that Testimony; Now as to Temporals, which he would insinuate we make Religion a cloak for, (which we affirm as W. P. hath said to be the worst construction, the most ir­religious could make) Is it not (saith the Bp.) your main end and study by Pretended Mortifications, and Renouncing the World, while there are no sort of Men alive, that more eagerly pursue it, nor have more effectual wily and secret ways of getting wealth then your selves, &c. Minde, Reader, our Mortifica­tions pretended, and his positive assertion of us, There are no sort of Men, &c. These with [Page 64] much more from the Bp. in that Paper; and after all tells us, He does neither judg nor censure us, and charges W. P. at a great rate for telling him he does, nay prays for him upon it thus, God give Mr. Penn more charity and reason, &c.—He does not know, or will not attend, what judging as it means censoriousness is, &c. And at the same time as a confirmation of his Testimony adds a new: Now in his Reply. (p. 1.) Our slight, cunning craftiness, lying in wait to deceive, &c. And likewise (p. 9.) we are now upon, charges us again as above with wily and secret ways of getting wealth, &c. Again (p. 21.) thus. If minding worldly gain, and being so intent upon it day and night, as to pass most days in the week without prayer to God, either in publick Assemblies or private Families; if the slyest ways both to get money and to keep it, be worldlyness, he knows no sort of people more given to these vices then the Quakers.

Answ. Candid Reader, we now refer it to thee in what we have above cited, out of the Bp's. Testimony, whether the Bp. did judg and censure us or not; And while he tells W. P. he doth not know, what Judg­ing and Censoriousness means, we would sain know, what sort of Language it is, he would give the Quakers, that he will allow to be Censuring of us.—He has charged [Page 65] us in his Testimony at a great rate about our secret and wily ways of getting wealth, and has endeavoured to confirm the same now in his Reply, as above cited, which we brought together to the end we might not be troubled with answering in several places to one and the same Charge: Now to this (to use the Bp's. own Phrase) Scur­rilous, Unchristian, and general charge with­out proof. We answer, As it is far from mo­desty, (which he applys to the title of his Reply) so it is also a contradiction to him­self in his Testimony where he told us thus, I look upon many of you as an honest and well meaning people. Now to be sure such secret and wily ways of getting, &c. as he hath charged upon us in his Testimony, and now again in his Reply, with minding it to such a degree as to neglect prayer to God, &c. is inconsistant with harmlessness, well meaning, and honesty: To be short upon this point; we appeal from the Bp. our par­tial Judg, to our impartial Neighbours, who know and are better acquainted with out way of dealing then he; And now may we not with much more reason, return his charge of worldliness upon himself, and that not without proof, as he has done by us: what else made him leave his old Bishoprick and Friends of Cork for a new one, and strangers in the North of Ireland, was it not because [Page 66] the latter was worth some hundreds per an­num more then the former? and could he have assigned so plain a proof as this (of our making Gain Godliness, as he suggests of us in his Testimony) he might with more reason, and greater justice, have reiterated his charge of worldliness upon us as he has done. But to proceed,

Ibid. (P. 9.) Says the Bp. against W. P's. Sly Jeers, I would have my Reader reflect on this, tho' he were as big as a Bp.

Answ. Reader, look W. P's. Defence: p. 33. second Impression, from whence the Bp. took this; there see W. P. re­quests any Reader (tho in as great a Qua­lity as a Bp.) to reflect upon that great and Essential Truth of Regeneration; but with what Candour could the Bp. make this a fault in W. P, and at the same time be guilty of much greater himself, viz. plain and open Jeering, such as calling W. P. King of Pensilvania, insinuating him in the number of great men of Sin, reproaching and jeering him with a spirit of discerning in a case that related to matter of fact, and proveable as we have before observed: But the Bp. adds, No Bp. in these three Kindoms has the big and Scornful look and deportment of Mr. P. especi­ally when he is in the humour of it.

Answ. Is this to suspend Censure, here is a harsh charge, and as he has not, so he [Page 67] will never be able to prove it: As, 1st. we question whether the Bp. was ever in W. P's. company above two or three times, and if his prejudice to him made him think he had so big and scornful a look and deportment, (which those who have conversed frequent­ly with him never saw) Yet (2ly.) it is very improbable he ever saw all the Bp's. in these three Kingdoms: But supposing he did, we are sure 'tis as impossible as unlike­ly he could be sure none of them had so big a look, &c. as W. P. since he could not be always with them, and consequently not know, how big, &c. they looked at absent times, especially when they were in the Humour of it.—But to go on to more Jeers, (as the Bp. terms them of W. P.) says the Bp. of W. P. the Bp's hell.—He keeps the true hell to himself (God deliver Mr. P. from it?) So say we of the Bp. and to be sure W. P. too? But with what reason could the Bp. make this a Jeer look, Reader, in W. P's. Defence? p. 44. where W. P. enumerates after the Bp's. Testimony what Gospel Truths could mean of Hell, viz. whether the Grave, a place of Temporal Punishment after this life, or a state of total Destruction, &c.—whereup­on W. P. argues thus, ‘What if we mean none of these, may we not be in the right for all that? for what if none of these are [Page 68] the antient common and Scripture belief, what will the Bp. do then? one would think one of them is the Bp's Hell, and either one of these is an Article of his Belief, or else he keeps the true hell to himself, and was not so just as to include that in the question with the rest, &c.’

We have been the larger in this quotati­on to shew how ready the Bp. is to take an advantage against W. P. when he had really none. 'Tis plain W. P. meant (By the Bp's hell,) that Notion which he received and holds of it; and by the words (keeps the true Hell to himself,) he with-holds and keeps back his own Notion and Opinion of the True hell, and does not express it among the other Notions he gave of it, so keeps it to himself, not for himself.—But the Bp. goes on:

P: 10:) How could the Bp. more clearly have exprest Hell, then by the eternity of Tor­ments, the Term there used by the Bp. and de­clined by Mr: P. and his brethren.

Answ. Remember, Reader, the Bp. would not allow W. P's. implication of Faith for a profession of Faith, tho' he'll take it himself; 'tis true he mentions everlasting punishment of wicked men, but 'tis by way of Objection against Gospel Truths, and not laid down by the Bp. as an Article of Faith; But how has W. P. and his Brethren declined that [Page 69] term, while they acknowledg Everlasting Rewards to those who fear God, and that those who feared him not should be turned into Hell? which doth imply Eternity of Torments, according to the common ac­ceptation, and received opinion of most Christians, as well as our selves: But we must needs say, we could much easier pass by this Objection in another, then in the Bp. because W. P. has owned Eternal Rewards and Punishments in express words in the Rise and Progress of the Quakers. (P. 38.) as we have before observed (which Book the Bp. had so lately in his pocket:) But we think the reason is plain, for want of occasion he will rather make then want one against the Quakers.

Ibid. (P: 10) The Bp. charges W. P. with wilfuly false constructions of and overlook­ing the Bp's. Sense, Tergiversations, shifting, pittiful Evasions; for instance, the Bp. had said they do not in their Paper own the Son of God to be so much as Jesus (the great Saviour who delivereth from the wrath to come) or the Christ, &c. (But says the Bp.) Mr. P. an­swers, they several times call him Christ and admires at the Bp's. palpable mistake; (and goes on) does W. P. then know no difference between Christ, and the Christ, betwixt calling a Person by his Name, and acknowledging his Authority, Office and Benefits? Thus the Bp.

Answ. Suppose W. P. had only named him Christ, the Bp. may know, if he doth not already, that Christ is not strictly a proper name, but an apellative; it denotes the Anointed, the Messiah, and applicable to none besides Christ, a name not given him by his kindred or the Jews, read Mat. 2. 4. Chap. 16. 16. Mark 12. 35. Luke 4. 41. Chap. 24. 26. 46. Joh. 4. 25. Chap. 7. 26. 27, 31, 41, 42. Chap. 9. 22. Chap. 12. 34. In these with many other places of Scripture, 'twil plainly appear, that it would be incongruous to understand the name Christ otherwise then as an apellative, deciphering his Office and Qualification, viz. the promised Messiah; and not a proper name, which Jesus was, and common to him with others, but none was Christ but himself, so that the very naming the Word Christ implies the anointed Saviour and Re­deemer, the Messiah that was promised and came from God. But farther, What can be more unfair and trifling then this of the Bp. thus to charge W. P. For first Gospel Truths, besides calling him Christ no less then Nine times, doth own several of Christs Offices proper only to the Christ. (If there were any room, as there is not for the Bp. to suggest W. P. could possibly mean any other then the Christ of God) and particularly, besides others, that he is [Page 71] the Propitiation for the remission of Sins, and Justifyer from the guilt of Sin: and besides, that Paper hath several references to Scriptures concerning the Christ. And now as to W. P's. Defence, pray, Reader, see from (p. 34. to. 39.) where W. P. ful­ly again owns the Christ, and Jesus Christ, the Word made Flesh, the beloved Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, &c. And yet for all this the Bp. is so unfair, as to continue this Objection, and pick out words from W. P's. Defence to suit his turn, leaving out what explains them, but there­by his charge upon W. P. must fall upon himself, viz. pitiful shifting Evasions, with willfully overlooking his Sence; certain­ly if this be fair dealing, we are to learn what it means. But to the next,

(P. 10.) The Bp. goes on thus, Again the Bp. requires them to embrace & profess the entire Christian Faith in the points wherein he has shewn them defective, that is, as he proved in above two thirds of the Creed. W. P. (says the Bp.) Answers it would have become the Bp. to have told them what he would have them believe, could the Bp. have spoke plainer then he does when he names the Articles of the Creed, which Mr. P. says he holds, therefore knows. Thus the Bp.

Answ. The Bp. who cry'd out against shortness and imperfection ought not to [Page 72] have been guilty thereof himself, for we can find no such words in his Testimony, as Creed or Articles of the Creed; but perhaps he'll say they are implied (a thing he will not allow in W. P.) when he says thus in his Testimony, There is not One Article of our common Twelve you have owned entirely, and Eight if not more of them you have totally sup­pressed or waved.

If this be not what the Bp. means by the Creed, we cannot find another like it to his purpose in all his Paper. But W. P. says he holds the Creed, therefore knows it, does he so? and the Bp's. Conscience, (we think) must know W. P. and the Quakers owned Articles of Faith more largely worded then in that brief Paper, since he had R. B's. Apology, and the Rise and Progress of the Quakers: And therefore why should the Bp. censure, and raise objections to such Articles. But now suppose W. P. should guess at what the Bp. meant by the common Twelve; we suppose the Bp. will not say that Testimony was calculated only for W. P. but the Quakers in general, (as well as others); why then might not W. P. with a great deal of reason tell the Bp. it became him to be more explicit, since no doubt, many thousands of People besides the Quak­ers did not understand what the Bp. meant by the common Twelve, and therefore the Bp. [Page 73] who would almost unchristian the Quakers, for not being more expressive, upon the Ar­ticles of the Creed, ought not to have been so short himself, but according to his Cen­suring the Quakers, instead of saying com­mon Twelve, he should have made the Creed into distinct Articles, and laid them down for us. But leaving this we proceed to the next.

(Ibid. 10.) Inconsequent and trifling in­ferences, (says the Bp. of W. P.) such are p. 31. we call him the beloved Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, therefore conceived of the holy Ghost; Mr. P. knows Solomon was named Jedediah [the Lords beloved.] David said to be his begotten Son, Psal. 2. his first born. Psal. 89. 27. Yet neither conceived of the holy Ghost, nor born of a Virgin. Thus the Bp.

Answ. Certainly we believe hardly ever came more trifling [...] ⟨matters⟩ (to speak in his way) from a Man in the station of a Bp. Be pleased, Reader, to read W. Ps'. Defence (from, p. 35. to 39.) where he answers the Bp. fully upon this point of the mani­festation of Christ Jesus in the flesh, and shews plainly, that altho' the words [con­ceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin] be not expressed in that brief Paper Gospel Truths, yet they are very fully im­plied; and take but the above words, [Page 74] which the Bp. has pickt out of the Defence, and they imply no less; for who was the beloved Son of God and only begotten of the Father, according to John 1. 14. Chap. 3. 16. but Jesus Christ that was born of the Virgin: But says the Bp. Solomon was named Jedediah the Lords beloved, what then, so was Daniel a Man greatly beloved of the Lord, and many other servants of God too. But where was any of them called the Word made Flesh, the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth, his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased, who tasted death for every Man, his office of Justification, a Propitiation, named Jesus Christ, with all this and more of the same kind, in Gospel Truths, and again repeated by W. P. in his Defence. And now for the Bp. a second time to sug­gest such trifling [...] ⟨things⟩ we should tell him it looks like trifling for trifling's sake, did we not find some of it worse; and indeed it looks as if the Bp. would falsify the sense of Scripture, rather then want proof to make W. P. guilty of trifling and inconsequent In­ferences; thus he has cited Psal. 2. and Psal. 89. 27. to make the Scripture serve his turn against W. P. whereas 'tis undeny­able, what is said in the second Psal. is spoken of Christ himself, which is fully con­firmed in the New Testament in these words, Acts 13: 33. God hath raised up Jesus again, [Page 75] as it is written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee: Then as to Psal. 89. 27. is it not very plain David doth there personate Christ; it runs thus, Also I will make him my first born higher then the Kings of the Earth. We will not enlarge on the matter, only add, that if the Bp. could have proved such gross falsifying the plain sense of Scripture as this, we should (no doubt) have heard of it very loudly, while the Bp. made so much adoe about two words which altered not the sense, as we have before shewn. But no more of this now.

Ibid. 10. The Bp. quotes W. P. for ano­ther trifling instance.—He that confesseth him made flesh, confesseth him made flesh by God, and therefore made holy flesh; does not all the World know (say's the Bp.) that all flesh is made by God, and do we hence conclude all flesh is holy, or conceived by the holy Ghost, many more may be instanced.

Answ. Here's Instances enough already and more then are consistant with the Bp's. Credit, (as we have shewn) and truly (we think) as little to the purpose as most Men ever wrote, and indeed, we do be­grudg the time we spend in answering such trifling (if some of it be not unjust) matter, were it not for the sake of Truth, and for those who may think there is more [Page 76] in the Bp's. Arguments, then really there is; and had we at first only referred the Reader to W. P's. Defence for answer to all these trifling Instances, it would have fully answered them, and so fully too, that we must take W. P's. own words to answer the Bp. again, because the Bp. hath so unfair­ly pickt out such as he hoped to make some advantage of; and not only so, but in this instance hath put in a word of his own, and left out three of W. P's. without which he could not have made good his charge against W. P. And to shew that he hath so done, we here give W. P's. own words, as they lye in his Defence. p. 34. Thus. W. P. ‘He that confesses the word was made flesh, confesses him made flesh by God, and there­fore made holy flesh, which is found Doctrine, and agrees with John 1. 14. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us, &c.’ Now instead of these words [the Word was] the Bp. has only put in the Word [him] Again had not the Bp. so unfairly left out three of W. P's. words, the distinction between Christ's flesh and all other flesh, was plainly and fully imply'd by saying the Word was made flesh; for who was the word made flesh, but Christ the be­loved Son of God, and only begotten of the Father, and so W. P. calld him, but four lines before; surely one would think, here [Page 77] was distinction enough, between Christ's flesh, which was conceived by the holy Ghost, and all other sinful flesh, to satisfie any, who had not a mind to Cavil or trifle for triflings sake. Now, Reader, judg in the matter; Did the Bp. deal justly with W. P. in thus doing by him, to answer his unfair purposes? but 'tis no news for the Quakers to be thus abused and misrepresent­ed by their Adversaries, as we noted in the begining. And now to the Bp. What is become of his trifling, and inconsequent in­ferences? where is wilfuly false overlooking the plain Sense? where is manifold arts of uncharitabelness and disingenuity? where is the falsifying and perverting plain sense of Scripture, and consequently impiety, and corruption, we leave it with the candid Reader, who they are fallen upon, whether the Bp. or W. P. And so we proceed.

Ibid. 10. Saith the Bp. of W. P. Contemp­tious and scornful Language such is that re­flection a weak head—Which, Reader, observe W. P. alluded to himself, in relation to the Bp's. Arguments, in case his instances were no better to the purpose then the Bp's. upon that expression of the Bp's. stomach turning, we will not call the Bp. a weak head, but we are sure, we should think our Arguments weak, were they no more to the purpose, then the Bp's. are, in what's [Page 78] past; but in regard the Bp. did not answer W. P's. Arguments about the Language Thee and Thou to a single person, they remain yet in force agaist the Bp. And as to his Reflections on our conscientious using that Language, calling it a wicked kind of weakness, together with an abuse of Religion, not to be endured, expressions (highly sa­vouring of scorn and contempt) we pass by as the effect of too much warmth.

P. 11. The Bp. tells us, that W. P's. Censures of him savours of nothing but the height of Spiritual pride and uncharitableness, as that the Bp. feels no share in Christ the glorious light of Men, that he wants acquain­tance with the Spirit of God in his Worship.

Answ. This Reflection of Spiritual pride and uncharitableness upon W. P. we will pass by here, and refer the Reader to what follows; to judg whether it will not thence appear true what W. P. hath said of him. And (1st.) we begin with what the Bp. says of the Light within, being one of the main points (as he tells us) that threatens doing hurt in W. P's. whole Defence. And thus the Bp. begins.

Ibid. 11. The Bp. did say, and stands to it, he knows not what to make of the Quakers Light within.

Then say we, W. P's. opinion of the Bp's. feeling no share therein must be true; nor [Page 79] will his calling of it the Quakers Light serve his turn, since the Quakers never called it their Light, nor owned any Other Light then the Light of Christ for their guide, and which the Scriptures so abundantly testifie unto, and W. P. hath very plainly and fully shewn. But the Bp. goes on,

But as to the True Divine Light or the holy Ghost convincing people, by the holy Scripture applied to Conscience, of Sin, of Righteousness and of Judgment to come, the Bp. acknowledges it and blesseth God for his share thereof.

Answ. As we said before we never meant any other, then the true Divine Light or holy Ghost, which we say, doth inwardly convince of Sin, reproves for it and by the discovery of which we savingly come to know the things of God, and is the princi­pal agent and foundation of our conviction, and by which the holy Scriptures are made beneficial unto us: If the Bp. mean thus by the above words we agree, but if he mean (as his words seem to us to import) that the Scripture is the first Agent, and by which, as the cause we are convinced by the Light or Spirit, we must dissent from the Bp. herein, and that the Bp's. meaning is such, we are the more confirmed therein, by what he saith in. (p. 23.) viz. that people are now made holy by the use of outward means. That this Doctrine is repugnanr to [Page 80] Scripture we shall plainly shew in its place; we only brought it here to compare and explain what the Bp. means by the convicti­ons of the Light and Spirit. Now to the above Argument; the Quakers do say, and the Scriptures do abundantly prove, that it is by the holy Light and Spirit of Christ within, by which as the first principal Cause and Agent we come savingly to be­lieve, and know the things of God; to which purpose we could cite a multitude of Scriptures, but for brevity let these few suffice; Rom. 1. 19. That which may be known of God is manifest in them, God hath shewed it unto them. 2 Cor. 4. 6. God who commanded light to shine out of darkness hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the Glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. John 1. 4. In him (viz. Christ) was life and that life was the light of Men. Vers. 9. He (viz. Christ) was the true Light, which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World. Again, 1 Cor. 2. 10, 11, 12. But God hath revealed them, (viz. the things of God) unto us by his Spirit, for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God, even so the things of God knoweth no Man but the Spi­rit of God. Now we have received not the Spirit of the World, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given us of God. Again, 1 John 2. 27. [Page 81] But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things. Again even to the wicked Pharisees, the worst of Christ's Ene­mies, he said, Luke 17. 21. Behold the Kingdom of heaven is within you. Then Rom. 8. 2, 11, 14, 16. 1 Cor. 3. 16. Eph. 4. 6. 1 John 5. 10 These Texts (besides many more we could cite) do sufficiently prove our point that it is by the Light and Spirit of God inwardly manifested, by which as the first and principal means we come to have a sight of Sin and be convinced of it, and while the Bp. says 'tis by the use of out­ward means people are made holy as in (p. 23.) we are (we think) by the same rule to understand he means they are to be convinced of Sin, Righteousness and of Judgment; If he thus intends 'tis worthy his consideration how contrary his Assertion is to the Scriptures we have cited, and whether he has that share in the Divine Light and Spirit of Christ as he pretends to: But that we may not be misunderstood, as if we went about to undervalue the Holy Scriptures, far be it from us, for we do de­clare for our selves, and the People called Quakers in general, that we Love, Honour, and Esteem them above and beyond all the Books and Writings in the whole World, [Page 82] and are thankful to the Lord for their pre­servation, as having found great comfort and benefit by them, thro' the illumination of the holy Spirit, and believe them to be, whatsoever they say of themselves according to these or any other Scriptures, Rom. 15. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. We shall not be altogether so full as to the Scriptures here as we might, in regard we shall have farther occasion hereafter, where we shall be more full upon this head; Yet here may be a fit place, to answer the Bp's. demand (p. 13.) viz. What is become of Mr. P's. Double Record. We answer, here it is, the Light, Grace, and Spirit of God, by its illumina­tion giving us the experimental knowledg of the things of God within (as we have shewn) is one; agreeing with and opening to us the Misteries of the Holy Scriptures (without) which is the other: And thus the Apostles made the Scriptures of the Old Testament an agreeing Record with the openings and the illuminations of the holy Ghost in them, while they cited numerous Texts and portions of Scripture out of the Old Testament as an agreeing record, to what they imediatly delivered by the Reve­lation of the Spirit; this (we think) is suf­ficient to make good W. P's. assertion, that the Light and holy Spirit within, and the Scriptures without, are the Double and a­greeing Record of true Religion.

(Ibid. 11.) The Bp. goes on vilifying W. P. about the Light within, (to pass by his twitting of him about his Learning) saying thus, He (i. e. the Bp. himself) had made four the most rational constructions and conjectures he could devise of what they (the Quakers) should mean thereby (p. 12.) Mr. P. rejects all with scorn and vile insinuations.

Answ. Reader, be pleased to see W. P's. Defence from p. 52. to 65. and whether what the Bp. saith be true or not. And since the Bp. hath not answered W. P's. Ar­guments, but with reproachful words, break­ing through and overlooking most of the many Scripture proofs brought by W. P. to demonstrate what he and the Quakers meant by the Light and Spirit of Christ within. We say since the Bp. hath so done, both W. P's. Arguments and such Scripture proofs lye at his door, together with those we have added as a farther proof and de­monstration of what we mean by the Light and Spirit of Christ within, (not here to mention our own experience of the virtue and efficacy thereof with the Blessed Effects which to the Glory and Praise of God, we have found thereby) so that if after all that has been said, the Bp. shall still declare his ignorance of what the Quakers mean, by the Light within, 'tis but too evident a [Page 84] proof of the little share he has in or acquaint­ance with it.

(P. 12. 13.) The Bp. brings in R. Bar­clay for a share, reproaching him also with Banter and Cant about the Light within; in reading which we could not without noted observation remember how ignorant the Bp. made himself in his Testimony concerning the Quakers Principles, and how ready he was to charge, and almost unchristian them for the brevity of Gospel Truths, notwithstand­ing he had R. B's. Apology which fully handled some of those very points, he pre­tended to make a new discovery of, and condemned in that Paper, as being short ex­prest: Yet now from the same Book, he can nicely pick words here and there, some of them many pages distant and put them together, in expectation (by abusing R. B's. sense and making false constructions) to serve his turn against the Quakers.

He tells us p. 12. No rational Man alive can make sense of what he [R. B.] has writ thereon (i. e. Light within.)

Answ. The Bp. is here a great undertaker whilst (1st.) 'tis impossible for him to be sure, all the rational Men alive, who have (or may read) R. B's. Apology on that subject, are of the same mind with him. (2ly.) We tell him, another Mans affir­mative may be as good as his negative; and [Page 85] not to mention the most rational Men, there are as rational Men as the Bp. (not to lessen him) who can make sense of what R. B. has writ. But we the less wonder the Bp. should not understand what R. B. and others have said of the Light within, since he appears, so unexperienced about Spiritual matters, as to Revile R. B. with being unintelligible, and guilty of Banter, not only concerning the Light, but about Spiritual senses plainly proveable by Scrip­ture, as we shall anon evince; and in the mean time we shall consider the Bp's. next and greatest charge in this page against R. B. which is as he says for perverting Scripture and adding a new term (as he calls it) namely the word [Light [to the Text, John. 3. 16. that he may (says the Bp.) prove Christ as a Light given to all. And yet at the same time, he picks out this word, he takes no notice of the Multi­tude of Scriptures, which R. B. has cited to prove the sufficiency and universality of the Light; only he tells us he (R. B.) misapplies two or three Texts to prove this Light universal, but not a word how or wherein. But to the word [Light] 'tis so plain on R. B's. side, as having no such perverting intention, that we cannot believe but the Bp's. Conscience must know he wronged R. B. in this case as well as in [Page 86] what follows hereafter, which we shall shew; only in the first place let us take the Bp. in his own way about the Light; Then say we, if that Text might have proved Christ, a Light given to all, had the word Light been there, then certainly he's proved such, if we bring several Scriptures as full to the point; thus, John 1. 4. In him was life, and the Life was the Light of Men. Vers. 9. He was (viz. Christ) the true Light which lighteth every Man that cometh into the World. What can be more plain as to the universality of the Light of Christ. Again Chap. 8. 12. I am (saith Christ) the Light of the World, he that followeth me, shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the Light of Life; which Texts sufficiently prove that Christ is a Light to all. And certainly the Bp. sought for an occasion while he pickt out that Word, to Accuse R. B. tho' at the same time does not confute those Scriptures with several others brought both by R. B. and W. P. to prove the Light of Christ within, unless by falsifying the sense of those Texts noted before (p. 29.) Now to the perversion and addition charged by the Bp. upon R. B. with much noise, observe, Reader, the word [Light] is in the Thesis of R. B's. fifth Proposition in his Apology, where he has no less then five Scripture Texts, and there is not any one [Page 87] of all the five laid down in the exact and full words of Scripture, some of them very short, as well as differing in words; and in particular this very Text, John 3. 16. cited by the Bp. are neither the full, nor yet all of them the exact words of that Text; Besides the word Light, and indeed the five Texts, he there gave, were only a kind of References to Scriptures, which proved the Argument he was upon, namely the universality of the love of God through Christ Jesus, who was the Light of the World and Light of Men: Now we'l grant, if R. B. had laid down all these Texts as the entire words of Scripture, and that he could not plainly prove Christ the Light of Men, then had he been in the wrong and the Bp. in the right; but since the first are not so, and that he as well as we have shewn by plain Scripture Christ to be the Light of Men, we think 'tis but too plain the Bp. wanted an occasion, while he made this one, for in reading R. B's. Explanation and Defence of this Proposition, where in, p. 81. We find the full and entire words of that Text laid down thus, John 3. 16. God so loved the World that he gave his only begot­ten Son, that who so ever believed in him, should not perish but have everlasting Life. Now, candid Reader, judg in the matter, which is most obvious, the Bp's. partiality [Page 88] by indeavouring to misrepresent R. B. or R. B's. intention to pervert and add a new term to Scripture, when he had not the least need of it, and had several other plain Scriptures to prove the point.

The rest of p. 12. and part of 13. is mostly a recital of pickt words here and there taken out of R. B's. Apology, and as we said before, some far distant added to­gether, upon some of which, the Bp. puts his own false constructions, and yet in conclusion, we do not find he pretends to confute them by any other Arguments then by his own Assertion, as p. 12. he tells us by the way he does not think this Scripture Language; and p. 13. avers 'tis unintelli­gible, that is Banter; so that we need take no further notice then only refer the Reader to R. B's. Apology, where (if he be im­partial) he will find full satisfaction: How­ever in regard the Bp. doth greatly abuse R. Bp's. sense, we will take notice and an­swer, such his recitalls.

Thus (p. 12.) the Bp. cites some words out of R. B's. Discourse on the sixth Pro­position of his Apology, where R. B. was proving that the seed, Light, or Grace of God is no accident, but a real Spiritual sub­stance. Then says the Bp. of their feeling it, yea anon Tasting, Smelling, seeing it, and handling by virtue of it the things of God, [Page 89] which yet (says the Bp.) are certainly all Spiritual things. Again the Bp. goes on (p. 13.) that people should be able to smell, and feel, and handle things, which being in­tellectual and immaterial can no ways be inci­dent to these Senses, nor are so much as ever Metaphorically said to be smelt, or handled; the Bp. avers unintelligible, that is Banter: Then he tells us he expects our Reply, that he is a carnally minded Man, to whom all this seems strange, which he will answer anon.

Answ. First, the Bp. in this case, might as well have expected to be taxed with great unfairness in wilfully abusing R. B's. sense, as that he is a carnally minded Man, and that he is guilty of the first, and such a Man in the last, we think nothing can well be plainer; while in the first he makes R. B. to alsude to outward senses, whereas the Scope of his Arguments, as well as his plain Words do prove the contrary: thus, p. 95. R. B's. Apology, (and the same Section cited by the Bp. (which he makes, 16. but it should be Sect. 14.) ‘We come to have those Spiritual Senses raised, by which we are made capable of Tasting, Smel­ling Seeing and Handling the things of God.’ ‘And in plain opposition to outward Senses, which the Bp. would insinuate, he intend­ed, says in the next words, for a Man can­not reach unto those things, by his natural [Page 90] Spirit and Senses as is above declared:’ Pray, Reader, judg in the matter, can there be a plainer abuse put upon a Man, while the Bp. opposes intellectual and immaterial things, and Spiritual Senses, to what R. B. intended, when R. B's. plain words intends Spiritual, in opposition to Natural Senses.

Next as to the Seed, Light, and Grace of God, which the Bp. cites. p. 12. and which R. B. says is a real Spiritual Substance, which the Soul is able to feel and apprehend, from which that real inward Spiritual birth in Believers arises, called the New Creature, and New Man in the heart. Now for confirming R. B's. expressions to be sound and Spiritual. both in this Citation, as also in relation to Spiritual Senses, we ask the Bp. what New Creature the Apostle meant. 2 Cor. 5. 17. Gal. 6. 15. And what that hidden Man of the heart was the Apostle spoke of, 1 Pet. 3. 4. And what those Senses were, 1 John 1. 12. by which the Apostle saw, felt, and handled the word of Life; Then what taste that was Ps. 34. 8. O taste and see that the Lord is good; And what that sweet savour was, 2 Cor. 2. 15. Sweet Smell, Cant. 4. 9, 11. Chap. 7. 13. Now, Reader, judg in the matter, might not the Bp. with much rea­son, if he had considered rightly, have ex­pected to be termed a Carnaly minded Man [Page 91] by us, while he rendered R. B. guilty of unintelligible Banter. P. 12. the Bp. tells us R. B. will have this Light or Grace the purchase of Christs Death for every Man, lightning the hearts of all in a day, and sub­sists in the hearts of wicked Men, even whilst they are in their wickedness, which the Bp. tells us he thinks not Scripture Language.

Answ. That R. B. hath fully and undeni­ably owned and asserted the Attonement and Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in (p. 96.) of his Apology; as also in the seventh Pro­position about Justification, we suppose the Bp. will not deny, and in the first doth make an especial exception against being misunderstod in that point, while he was treating of the necessity of obeying the Light and Grace of Christ, in order to re­ceive the benefits of his death and sufferings for us: why then might not he say this Seed, Light Grace or Spirit of Christ, was the purchase of his death, since it came by him; see John 1. 17. The Law came by Mo­ses but Grace and Truth by Jesus Christ. Again John 1. 4, 9. Rom. 8. 9. John 16. 7. 13. And that it subsists in the Wicked, tho' in a far different manner then in the Righteous (as R. B. excellently shews), see Luke 17. 21. The Kingdom of Heaven within: The wicked Pharisees, Mat. 25. 25. The wicked servant had a Talent tho' he did [Page 92] not improve it: Now is it not strange the Bp. should overlook many more Scriptures then these, while he was so trifling with R. B.

Ibid. 12. The Bp. tells us that R. B. says That the knowledge of Christs death and suffer­ings, as declared in the Scripture, is not abso­lutely necessary for making people partakers of this Light. Again P. 13. The knowledge of the Scripture, tho' comfortable and profitable, is not needful.

Answ. We have already, in Answer to the four points laid down by the Bp. as, G. K's. (p. 45. 46.) spoken to this point and therefore need say the less here, nor do we find the Bp. pretends to confute it; Nay tells us, as to that part, which lyes in (p. 12.) that R. B. proves it after his way: And as to that part in (p. 13.) the Bp. has neither fairly cited it, nor told the oc­casion, for R. B. spoke in reference to such, from whom the knowledg of the Death and sufferings of Christ hath been with-held; to such says R. B. it is not absolutely needful, so as they may be saved, notwithstand­ing, they have not the outward History, provided they obey the Light and Spirit of God, (which he plainly proves, is given universally to all) And thereby, from un­holy become holy Men: We desire thee, Read­er, to peruse R. B's. fifth and sixth Propo­sitions [Page 93] for full satisfaction to all the Bp's. Objections.

P. 13. The Bp. proceeds thus; By what has been produced out of R. B. in his own words, it appears Mr. Penn's double and a­greeing Testimony of the Light within and the Scriptures of Truth without, is but a New bubble upon the World, a thin Leaf of Gold, to make the poisonous Pill of their Light within go down with the less reluctancy or even sus­pition.

Answ. As to the Bp's. picking out, and putting false constructions upon R. B's. and W. P's. words, we have observed to the Reader already; Next as to the agreeing Testimony, we have spoken to that before, to which we refer.

Lastly as to his Calling the Light within a Poysonous Pill, we hope he will not blame W. P. or any other for saying he has no share in it, while he thus reviles it, and how far the Expression may Affect the Bp. in the sight of the Lord we Love: But to be plain, had we (who believe in the Light of Christ) uttered such words, we should have concluded our selves guilty of little less then Blasphemy; Nor do we see how his salvo of calling it the Quakers Light will excuse him, since we have always declared it to be the Light of Jesus Christ, and uni­versaly given to all Men, often testified unto in the holy Scriptures.

The latter end of (p. 13. and 14.) The Bp. exclaims against W. P. for menti­oning many Reformers and Martyrs in con­currence with us as to the double and a­greeing testimony of the Spirit of God with­in, and the Scriptures of Truth without; but says the Bp. without producing one word out of them or referring to any Treatise or Page.

Answ. If the Bp. had first confuted the Scripture Testimonies, W. P. laid down di­rectly proving the sufficiency of the Light, Grace, and Spirit of God within, he would have had the better pretence to have har­rangued upon W. P. about these Authors; but that he did not, for a good reason in­deed, because he could not. And as to those Authors, if the Bp. had published his Answer while W. P. was in England, he might have receiv'd a fuller answer from himself then we can give, he being a Per­son (to be sure) better read then we are. However, we question not in the least, but W. P. had good ground for what he asserted, tho' at the same time we think 'tis plain, he laid no such great stress upon their Authority, seing he referred not to particular Treatise or Page; and what need for it, since he quoted Chapter and Verse, of an undeniable authority, viz. the Scrip­tures. But why is the Bp. so loud against W. P. for what he is so guilty of himself, [Page 95] he tells us, That Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, and Calvin, as well as other Re­formers, and Reformed, generally hold among other points Three, that are expresly contrary to what the Quakers teach of the Light within; And so goes on to tell us, what those Three points are, and after all not one word in what Book, Treatise, or Page, we should find any one of them: Now is it not strange the Bp. should so inconsiderately fall into the same Errour, he but just before charg­ed upon W. P. or must it be a Fault in W. P. and none in the Bp.

But the Bp. tells us he fairly avers it and takes upon him to prove it if Mr. P. or his Abetters shall deny it, &c.

Answ. If he does it no better, then some­things we have noted him, not only short but unfair in before, we have but too much cause to believe his proofs will be very lame: But to end this Dispute and come nearer home, let the Bp. but fairly refute the many Scripture Testimonies quoted by R. B. W. P. and some by us to prove the suffici­ency of the Light, Grace, and Spirit of God within Man, given as a sure Guide and Di­rector, &c. to him, and he will do the work fully without either troubling the Re­formers or Martyrs.

(P. 15.) The Bp. goes on thus; If they (i. e. the Quakers) shall say, the [Page 96] Bp. wrongs them in saying, they make their Light within the rule of their actions at any time, without or against holy Scripture, be­sides what may be produced out of their Books, by way of Doctrine, and particularly W. P. (p. 105.) let them answer among others to these two matters of fact.—One Knight on a certain Lords day, in the time of Divine worship, came into the Congregation.—And stood there stark naked.—Crying out, behold here the naked Truth.—Again one Work­man in the town of Ross.—Gave out for a miracle he would fast—Forty days; But tho' he gave off, before the Forty Days were near at an end, Yet it was discovered, that in a Rick of Beans near his Chamber, he had made a great hole, and devoured a suitable quantity of them.

Answ. (1st.) As to W. P's. Doctrine (p. 105.) If false Doctrine, why does not the Bp. confute it, he tells us in (p. 2.) he ought not to connive, but why then doth he do it here, and not only here but before, for this is the place we complained of before, wherein he made a great Out-cry against W. P. for falsifying the Sense of the Scripture. John 3. 21. about the Light, And at the same time was wholly silent to the many other Scriptures which followed, and which W. P. brought to prove the Light and Spirit of God within Men: Doth the [Page 97] Bp. think to come off thus by calling it false Doctrine, without proving it such, we think 'twill hardly pass, unless with very credulous Readers. Surely if the Bp. had well considered what he said or well observ­ed what the holy Scripture saith, he would scarce have quoted that page for false Do­ctrine above any other in that Book, great part of it being Texts of Scripture, so full to the point he had in hand that hardly any thing can be more plain: Reader see 105. first, and 115, 116, pages second Im­pression. (2ly.) As to the Story of Knight the Instance of which looks as if the Bp. would go far, rather than want matter to defame the Quakers withall (it being a­bout 26 Years Old) we hardly suppose the Bp. gives this story of Knight's nor yet Workman's from his own certain knowledge; if from report, (as we understand he doth) would it look well in a Quaker to take a story out of the Cobler of Gloster concerning a Priest or Bp. and spread it as the Bp. hath done, let him consider of it. As to the Story it is not true in all its parts (as laid down by the Bp.) according to our best In­formation, for we have made full enquiry into the matter, and do find, that altho' he did go, and stand naked before the Con­gregation, yet that he never said these words (behold here the naked Truth) for [Page 98] the Bp. may assure himself, had Knight spoke such words, the Quakers would have been as ready to disown him with abhor­rance of such Expressions, as the Bp. is to Asperse the Quakers with the Story; and how ready he is at that, we leave the Read­er to judg: But as to John Knight (for so was his name) the Man is dead, and can­not answer for himself, but his Widow gives the relation of the words he spoke, as he gave them to her, which are these: [As odi­ous as I seem in your eyes, so odious are your actions in the sight of the Lord.] And how odious the Actions of that Congregation was in the sight of the Lord, the Lord best knows; And as to Knight's call to that ser­vice, we shall leave it to the Lord; But this we can say, we never knew or heard otherwise, but that he was a very sober, honest, and Religious Man, and so continu­ed to his end, which Character we believe, all who knew him will give of him.

Thirdly, As to the story of John Work­man; according to our best information that story, is not true as related by the Bp. the Man being also dead, his Widow has given a Narrative of the whole under her hand, too long to be inserted here, but to give it in short; She says, He never gave out at all (much less as a Miracle) neither pre­tended to fast any certain time, for when [Page 99] he was asked the Question, by her self and others, he answered, he could not tell how long he was to fast, that was hid from him, the time was until he had freedom from the Lord to eat: She farther says, She is fully assured he did really fast Thirty days, in which time he eat nothing, only at some­times, washed his Mouth with small beer or water, and at times drank a little water.—Then as to the Bean Stack being near the Chamber where he lay, and that he made a great hole, and devoured a sutable quantity of them, she says it is utterly false, for there was no such thing near his Chamber, and that his Haggard of Corn lay at some di­stance from the House; But this she remem­bers, that such a Lie was forged by a Light Frollicksome Fellow at Ross, who kept an Ale-house, and to make his Tipling Guests merry, raised this lying Story, upon that honest Man, for so we call him, and so he was reputed by his neighbours, and one that abhorred deceit, and lying, and there­fore his reallity in this thing is the less to be questioned, and if the Bp. can disprove him to be such, by credible witnesses, or the Story otherwise, then as we have told, he may do it if he can. And so we proceed to the Bp's. demand.

Ibid. (15.) The Bp' [...] demands of Mr. P. [...], Whether every strong impulse of mind is to [Page 100] be followed, as being the Light within, if not, what have we to try the Light within by, if it be said Scripture, agreed; but can Mr. P. pro­duce, a double and agreeing record for these, and the like actions?

Answ. As to the Bp's. demand, Is every strong impulse of the mind to be followed as be­ing the Light within? We answer no, nor doth it therefore follow, because some hath falsly pretended to the Spirit of God, that therefore the true motions of the Spirit, are to be rejected; No more then because false Prophets and Teachers pretended to be sent of God, that therefore the Spirit in the true Prophets and Teachers ought not to be regarded; Nor more then because some, who have preferred the Scriptures to be their rule of faith and practice, mistaking and perverting the Sense of the Scripture, have held or practised wrong things, there­fore the holy Scripture should be wholly rejected, and nothing believed or done that is therein declared or recommended; And as to our Doctrines and Practices, we do not refuse in matters of controversy with our Adversaries to have both tryed by the holy Scriptures, and here may be a fit place, to answer a Charge or Reflection of the Bp's. in this Paragraph, viz. There is no project so wild, that their pretended Light within may not lead them into.

Answ. We utterly deny the consequence, and say the Light of Christ which we pro­fess to be led by, did never lead any either into wildness or immorality; but on the contrary, such as follow it, are led by it into godliness and sobriety, according to the agreeing record, Titus 2. 11, 12. Eph. 5. 9, 10. 1 John 2. 27. And if any coming among us, and pretending to be of us, are guilty of Immoral practices, we have Church Discipline, by which we deal with and dis­own such as the nature of the Case may re­quire. Then as to Doctrines and Practices upon a religious account, if any should un­der pretence of the Light within broach any evil Doctrine, or act any thing repugnant to or against the Testimony of the holy Scrip­tures, we disown such Doctrines or pra­ctices; knowing, that as every evil thing, contradicts the Scriptures, so it really doth the Spirit from whence the holy Scriptures came, and consequently in reallity, they cannot oppose one another. Now as to those two Instances brought by the Bp. which he demands a double record for, if he means going Naked, or Fasting, without his other untrue Circumstances,

We answer, tho' we neither say nor allow such extraordinary things, as appearing na­ked ought to be done by imitation, or be­cause some of the Lords servants did so of [Page 102] Old: Yet he may remember we have ex­amples in holy Scripture for both. Did not the Prophet Isaiah walk naked and bare footed, three Years as a signe? Isaiah 20. 2, 3. And how was he and the Prophet Ezekiel as Signes and Wonders to the wicked, in what the Lord required of them? many Instances of which we could produce, but for brevity sake we omit them. And as to Fasting, we have so many examples of that kind in both Old and New Testaments, that we think it needless to bring any proof for that practice. Thus having reply'd to the Bp's. demand we proceed,

Ibid. P. 15. The Bp. ends this Paragraph, with telling us he could have assigned more immoral instances, but has forborn: And to end this Paragraph, we must tell him our thoughts, which are, that if he could have gotten either more, or such as he thought would have rendered the Quakers more odious, we are doubtful whether his good inclinations to the Quakers, would have been so prevalent on him, as to have for­born on that account.

(P. 16.) Notice should be given (says the Bp. of W. P.) of his repeated cunning, as well as unfaithfulness in citing another particular Writer, against the Bp. his cun­ning (and Mr. P. ought to have remem­bred, who lately Printed that amongst his [Page 103] Maxims, that Cunning borders upon Knavery.) In that he never produces his Authors words, and his unfaithfulness in representing the sense widely different, if not contrary to what it is; Ouzelius in his notes on Minutius Felix tells us the pri­mitive Christians forbore the Heathenish customs, and particularly therefore, they rejected the Cus­tom of Crowning their Dead with Garlands, this Mr. P. refers to, (if he refer,) to any thing to be found in that Author. Thus the Bp.

Answ. 'Tis no news for the Bp. to make much of a little, as well as much ado to no very great purpose against W. P. pray Reader see W. P's. Defence, p. 71. and there thou wilt find, he doth mention some of his Authors words, contrary to what the Bp. hath asserted; Thus W. P. ‘I beseech him (i. e. the Bp.) to converse with Ouzelius upon Minutius Felix, and he will tell him, that the first Christians were taxed, and despised for ill bred in Manners, unpo­lished in Speech, unfashionable in Behavi­our; in fine, Rusticks and Clowns, as the Christians ironicaly returned their Scorners the stile of well bred and Eloquent; this and much more he cites out of Lactan­tius, Theodoret and Arnobius, &c.’

This is what W. P. has in that page, ex­actly as it lyes there; Now judg in the matter, Candid Reader, who is most guilty of cunning, and unfaithfulness, W. P. in [Page 104] citing his Authors words as above, or the Bp. in saying he did not, and taking no notice or giving any answer, to that large Quotation. And besides, if we mistake not, the Bp. hath given his own Church a great wound, by the above citation out of that Author, who, as the Bp. says, forbore heathenish customs, and particularly they re­jected, Crowning the Dead with Garlands; upon which the Bp. asks thus; Is there no difference betwixt Idolatrous Rites and the innocent Fashions of Christians ordinary ap­parel? So that we think he makes Crown­ing the Dead with Garlands an Idolatrous Rite, as well as a heathenish custom; upon which we ask, what sort of Rite or Custom that is in a certain Church which makes fine Gar­lands for the Dead, hanging them up in their Worship Houses, with long streaming Escutcheons? to say nothing of covering the Dead with them. Let the Bp. consider the matter. But notwithstanding, what we have said, we have not yet done with the Bp. upon this head of cunning and unfaith­fulness; we observe, the Bp. has made a great ado and spent good part of a page a­bout Ouzelius, &c. to fix this charge upon W. P. without reason. Now we ask the Bp. whether he had not something like cunning, in this to amuse his Reader, while at the same time he skipt over several other Au­thors, [Page 105] some of whose Treatises were cited by W. P. concerning the Care and Zeal, which some of the antients had to suppress Heathenish customs in Manners and Behavi­our from getting in upon Christians; see W. P. Defence, p. 71, 72. But that which is more observable is, that altho' W. P. brought several Scriptures, Chap. and Vers. against conforming to the World, in their Fashions, Dresses and Apparel, and particular­ly Rom. 12. 1, 2. 1 Peter 1. 13, 14. Chap. 3. 3. yet the Bp. takes no notice of all those Scriptures (tho' they were brought by W. P. in Answer to the Bp's. Testimony, in which he put W. P. upon the Proof to shew the primitive Christians differed from others of their Nation, and Quality in such things) Now what imaginable reason can be given, why the Bp. should make so much ado, (and without cause too) about Minutius Felix, &c. while he was silent to all the rest of W. P's. proofs: But to con­clude about that of Apparel and Dresses we shall only say, It is much to be lamented, that so great an Overseer as the Bp. should (by not more publickly appearing against) tacitly plead for and countenance such abo­minable pride (in Apparel and Dresses by calling them innocent fashions) as is found reigning amongst the generality of those cal­led Christians in our day: As to what the [Page 106] Bp. tells us of Octavius that the Christi­ans knew one another only by their Innocence and Humility and not by any bodily mark.

We Answer, the Bp. may know not only Innocence and Humility was a sign that Peter belonged to Jesus, but his Speech also, Matt. 26. 43. Again the boldness of unlearned and ignorant Men was another mark, Acts 4. 13. But to the next.

Ibid. 16. The Bp. goes on, and as to their language, after all artifices Mr. P. has not been able to produce (which was a pressing point of his business) one precedent or shaddow of a Testimony that the primitive Christians used not the ordinary Civilities in their com­mon Discourse, and Salutations, but affected a different Style or way by themselves; contrari­ly he might have remembered that the beloved Disciple, being to write to a Christian Sister of Quality salutes her by an inscription, To the Elect Lady.

Answ. We must needs say we cannot but greatly admire at the Bp. thus with an arti­ficial flourish to assert against his own know­ledge, while he wilfuly overlookt W. P's. Arguments relating to this particular case of Salutations; see his Defence. p. 73, 74. there thou wilt find he plainly proves, Matt. 23. 6, 7, 8. Luke 10. 4. from Christs own words, both his condemnation upon the Pharisees for loving honour, and salutary [Page 107] greetings, and particularly in affecting to be called Rabbi; as also his positive com­mand to his Disciples, against such practices of being called Masters. Again, W. P. Quotes Christs Question to the Jews, viz. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only, John 5. 44. And after all this, with more, to tell us W. P. has not been able to produce one precedent or shadow of a Testimony, that the primitive Christians used not the ordinary Civilities in their common dis­course and Salutations, is, we think as much as to tell us, that they obeyed not the com­mand of Christ, or if they did, that the Sun doth not shine when it appears in its greatest Lustre. Then as to Language.

If the Bp. means Thee and Thou to a single person, we find in holy Writ all sorts used it then, which if all did now, there would be no difference in that point between us and any other sort of people: We could say much upon the fullsome and flattering Titles and Complements of the times, which, to be sure, no precedent is to be found in the Scriptures for, and particularly those Titles given to the Bp's. far beyond, and above, what ever was given to Timothy, or any others that we read of in holy Scrip­ture, who yet were endued with the Spirit and power of God beyond what any of our [Page 108] Bishops will pretend to: But we study brevity and will therefore be short upon this Head, only before we end we must answer to the Title of the Elect Lady, who, the Bp. tells us, was a Christian Sister of Quality, but Dr. Hammond a person of great note in the Church of England in his Annotations on the New Testament tells us, that direction 2 John 1. to the Elect Lady, will be best rendered, to the Elect Church or Congregation, see Wilsons Christian Dictionary more largely: Verbum Lady: and if so as Hammond says, the Bp. is mistaken in that Inscription, to be sure at least, that he and the Bp. differ in their Opinions therein. But as to the word Lady, as it signifies a particular per­son, it is our practice sometimes to call a Lady, the Lady such an one: or a Lord, the Lord such an one; which is no more then to say such a Lord, or such a Lady, so called; not my Lord, nor my Lady, and so we end this Paragraph.

The Bp's. next head p. 16, 17. is about Water Baptism, in which he does, as in o­ther cases (as we take it, for want of better Arguments) endeavour to misrepresent W. P's. sense, as we shall plainly demon­strate in what follows; he begins thus,

The Bp. sincerely professes he mourns to see Men so hardened as it appears by Mr. P's. wresting Scripture to elude the Truth. Mr. P. [Page 109] first in a manner confesseth himself put to his shifts; I am sensible of the disadvantage I am under, &c. saith he; Yet proceeds he to shift on.

Answ. We have little cause to believe the Bp's. mourning is real, while he continues to abuse, as well as misrepresent us, as he doth; however let his mourning be of what sort it will, 'twas needless here, because 'tis without ground, for we deny W. P. doth either wrest Scripture or elude the Truth; But on the other hand 'tis very plain, the Bp. doth here wrest W. P's. words to sute his own turn, not only in not laying down his following words but wrongly applying those he has laid down. Now W. P's. words are these, viz. ‘I am sensible of the disadvantage I lye under, and that I touch a tender place, and what I say upon this Head, & also anon upon the Supper, will be against wind and tide with the generality.’

Now, Reader, judg, doth W. P. in a manner confess himself put to his shifts, or doth he not rather express himself thus, with respect to the people who are general­ly in the practice of Water Baptism, and the outward Supper, and consequently therefore did believe, the harder to be prevailed upon by his Arguments, and this we take to be no more, then if the Bp. were writing a­gainst the Papists in a received Tenet of the [Page 110] Church of Rome; Suppose Transubstantiation; might not the Bp. with a great deal of reason say (with respect to them) I am sensible of the disadvantage I lye under, &c. would this be in a manner confessing he was put to his shifts? but we have more of the same kind, nay worse in what follows: The Bp. proceeds to vindicate his allegation in his Testimony, viz.

P. 17. The Bp. had avouched those words of our Lord, Matt. 28. 19. was an Instituti­on and command of Baptism with Water, and gave two substantial reasons, which he holds to, Baptizing with the holy Ghost was not in the Apostles power, therefore it could not be the thing commanded them. (2ly.) Baptizing with Water was the Apostles and primitive practice and has been ever since the practice of the Church. To the first of these Mr. P. an­swereth; it is not true; and to make that good alledges, Acts 10. 44. while Peter yet spoke these words the holy Ghost fell on all those that heard the word. Hence he infers, that Peter Baptized Cornelius with the holy Ghost: Now was there ever any thing more impertinent and inconsequent? while Peter spoke, &c. the holy Ghost fell on them, &c. therefore (which was the point to be proved) was it Peter's act and in his power to Baptize with the holy Ghost? no the Spirit breatheth where it listeth, John 5. 8. But God (says Mr. P.) by the [Page 111] Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost, (to which the Bp. answers, as we take it tacitly granting the matter, Did he so?) Then 'twas God Baptized them with the holy Ghost, and not the Apostles; they were only instruments at pleasure, as long as the act was not principally theirs, it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power. Thus the Bp.

Answ. Reader, we must desire thy excuse for this long citation, we could not well avoid it for the following reasons; (1st.) Let a Man act ever so warily 'tis much if his words be not perverted, as the Bp. hath done by W. P. on this point. (2ly.) It will in part appear, from the Bp's. own words, (tho' to be sure not designedly) how unfair he has been unto W. P. in repre­senting him, as if W. P. had said, 'twas in the Apostles power of themselves to Baptize with the holy Ghost, tho' at the same time in a kind of contradiction to himself, as a Salvo, adds; But God, says Mr. P. by the Apostles, did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost; But then with a short turn, Query's (as if W. P. had been of another mind be­fore) Did he so? Then 'twas God Baptized, &c. Now, Sober Reader, we must desire thy farther patience, in citing W. P's. own words, as they lye in one entire Paragraph of his Defence (p. 76.) which will not [Page 112] only discover the Bp's. false representation of W. P. but fully clear up the matter, that W. P. never intended or meant, 'twas barely in the Apostles power to Baptize with the holy Ghost: Thus W. P. viz. ‘I say then the Bp's. first reason is not true, for God by the Apostles did Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost, it fell upon them by the powerful preaching of the word; thus act. 10. 44. while Peter yet spake these words, the holy Ghost fell on them that heard: By which it is evident, that Peter in that Sermon was the Minister of the Spiritual Baptism, to Cornelius and his company.’ Now, Impartial Reader, judg in the matter, was it possible for a Man to speak more plain, then W. P. doth here, that 'twas God by the Apostles, they as his Ministers, were made able by him to Bap­tize Believers with the holy Ghost, and which was W. P's. point to prove, and which he did by others, as well as this Argument, tho' the Bp. has overlookt them; and what can be said or who can be safe? tho' ever so plain, while it hath been the common practice of our Adversaries to misrepresent us, as the Bp. hath now done by W. P. as if he should intend 'twas in the Apostles power to Baptize with the holy Ghost, (see the Bp's. own words) But if we mistake him not, the Bp. himself seems to allow, [Page 113] that God did instrumentally Baptize Believ­ers, with the holy Ghost, (we are sure we intend not to wrong his Sense, but his words to us seems to import no less,) while he saith, Did he so? Then 'twas God Bap­tized with the holy Ghost and not the Apostles, they were only instruments at pleasure, as long as the act was not principally theirs it cannot be concluded hence to have been in their power. Nor did W. P. ever intend 'twas in the Apostles power, only as Instruments in God's hand, and by his power and at his pleasure, they Baptized Believers with the holy Ghost; but whether this was the Bp's. Intention or not we will not determine, and so leave it, and return to the Argument, That it is plain not only from this Instance cited by the Bp. but by other Arguments advanced by W. P. (which the Bp. past over in si­lence) that God did Baptize Believers in­strumentally through the Apostles, and there­fore the Bp's. first reason falls, and W. P's. takes place. Farther, whatsoever the A­postles did in the discharge of their Ministe­rial Office, whether as to Preaching, Heal­ing, or Baptizing, they were but Instruments, it was all done by God through them, God spake through them, yet they said to speak; he healed through them, yet they said to heal; so to Baptize through them, and they said to Baptize; And they were to do none [Page 114] of these things, till they were endued with power from on high, Luke 24. 49. Acts 1. 4.

Ibid. (17.) The Bp. proceeds as one put to his shifts indeed, (to give his own Term to W. P. when the Bp. told him, he proceeds to shift on) [Thus] Baptizing with the holy Ghost and with Fire, the words that Mr. P. al­ledges, p. 69. and runs upon was a special Prerogative of our Lord Jesus Christ's predicted only of him, Matt. 4. 11. (which should be 3. 11.) and fulfilled only by him, Acts 2. not by any Man ever Living. The Bp's. first reason then is true. (says he)

Answ. If saying were proving the Bp. has done it, nor will this Argument avail him any more then the former, notwithstanding it seems as if he would divide fire from the Baptism of the holy Ghost, and only allow it to be fulfilled, Acts 2. Indeed if he had said the Cloven Tongues of fire, it had been more tollerable, but that fire (i. e. the Spiritual fire) was to accompany the Bap­tism of the holy Ghost, when they were Bap­tized with the Spirit, is very plainly prove­able from Scripture, as well from that Text which the Bp. has brought (to prove 'twas only fulfilled, Acts. 2.) as from others. Thus, Matt. 3. 11. John Tolls many of the wicked Pharisees and Saducees which came to his Baptism and whom he called a gene­ration of Vipers, I indeed Baptize you with [Page 115] Water, &c. but He (Christ) shall Baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire: As if he had said, you, or who ever are Baptized with the Baptism of Christ shall be Baptized with the holy Ghost, and with fire. Now we sup­pose the Bp. will hardly plead that all those John then did speak unto, were of that number, Acts. 2. consequently then Fire accompanied with the holy Ghost, was to extend to others as well as it did to those Disciples, Acts. 2. which we shall farther prove: In the mean time with respect to the Bp's. opinion in the matter, as we can­not wonder at it, so neither do we think him a competent Judg, whether Fire accom­panies the Baptism of the Spirit or not; because we do not find he pretends to the holy Ghost, unless to be obtained by outward means; however let the Bp's. opinion be what it will, we cannot but admire he should affirm so contrary to plain Scripture (not only in the above but in what fol­lows) as that the Baptism predicted Matt. 3, 11. was only fulfilled Acts 2. whereas if we credit the Apostle we shall find it other­wise; thus Acts. 11. 15, 16. And as I be­gan to speak the holy Ghost fell on them as on us in the begining, then remembred I the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed Baptized with Water, but ye shall be Baptized with the holy Ghost: Here Peter refers to the [Page 116] pouring forth of the holy Gost, at the time of Pentecost, and the marginal note in the Bible, refers to Chap. 2. 4. which shews that Babtizing with the holy Ghost was not fulfilled by Christ at that time mentioned Acts. 2. 4. but that it continued in the Church, and was dispensed through the Apostles ministry afterwards; so not fulfill­ed only by Christ as the Bp. saith. How then came the Bp. to fall into this mistake, he will do well to consider whether it be not for want of inward acquaintance with the Spirit, by which he would experimen­tally have witnessed, that Spiritual fire doth accompany the holy Ghost. As to what he saith of the prerogative of Christ we ascribe to it, as much as he can do; but then we say, he that had and hath all power in Hea­ven and Earth, Matt. 28. 18. could and did enable the Apostles instrumentally to Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost, as has been shewn by W. P. Now as to the Bp's. Second Reason,

Ibid. 17. That Water was the thing com­manded, Matt. 28. 19. and that the A­postles practice in Baptizing with Water, was in obedience to that command; which assertion of his depending upon that com­mission, we now come to consider the same, by which if it appears that Water was not there commanded, it thence follows, what [Page 117] the Apostles did in that of Water was practice and not Institution; thus the Text Matt. 28. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Now that we are not to understand Water was intended by this commission appears (1st.) Because here is not a word of Water mentioned. (2ly.) Because the Baptism of Christ was the Baptism of the Spirit, spoken to in short by us and more largely proved by W. P. (3ly.) Because we find the A­postles as instruments did by the power of God (not of them selves) Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost, as proved also by W. P. Lastly because we no where read, when the Apostles used Water in outward Baptism, they followed the terms of that Commission (as they ought to have done had they un­derstood it Water) by doing it in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; But did it in the name of the Lord, or Lord Jesus, in which last form, practicers of Water Bap­tism in our day would (we suppose) not think it rightly performed. Now for these reasons (with others, which for brevity we omit) we have no ground at all to be­lieve that Water was commanded by that commission; but on the contrary that the Baptism of Christ by his Spirit, was intend­ed thereby; consequently then what the [Page 118] Apostles did in use of Water must be practice and not Institution, as were the many legal Rites, Circumcision, Purifications, Vows, Shavings, &c. which we find they also practized as well as Water Baptism, even after they had received the holy Ghost. Far­ther we do not find any of the Apostles men­tioning Water Baptism, to be any part of their mission, nor yet recommending the practice of it, in their Epistles to any of the gathered Churches in the first settlement, tho' they do far lesser things then (some in our day account of) Water Baptism, and since they are silent therein, we may well conclude, that their practice in that of Wa­ter was not from that command, Matt. 28. 19. but on the same foot they did those other Legal things before mentioned: Nay we find that great Apostle Paul was so far from believing Water Baptism to be any part of his commission, that he not only thanks God he Baptized no more of the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 1. 14. but adds in the. 17. Vers. He was not sent to Baptize. Again altho' he writ an Epistle to the Ephesians, and in Acts 20 tells them, he had not shuned to declare unto them all the counsell of God, Yet not a word of a Command for Water Bap­tism. But on the other hand speaks of, and recommends in several Epistles the one Bap­tism of the Spirit, see, Eph. 4. 5. 1 Cor. 12. [Page 119] 13. Gal. 3. 27. Thus then the Bp's. second reason, that Water was commanded by that commission falls with his first. Reader, be pleased to mind, that in what we have said upon this head about Baptism, and shall say next upon the Supper, is not at all in­tended for a full discussion of these two points, only as direct Answers to the Bp's. Objections, Not seing any need at present for such a Treatise, in regard great part of W. P's. Arguments upon those two heads (in thirty Pages of his Defence) lye unan­swered by the Bp. and in particular that of Infant Baptism, which was a main and pres­sing point for the Bp. to have cleared, tho' we do not find he has taken the least no­tice of it in his Reply: and after all the Bp's. great talk of a divine authority for Water Baptism, 'twill be hard for him, nay be­yond his power, either to find Command or Example from Scripture for what he calls Baptism. When Water was used in primi­tive times they Repented, Believed, and were Baptized (that is dipped or plunged.) Now Infants, neither capable of good or evil are sprinkled on the Face with a little Water, a meer humane Invention; and as we find no command or Example in Scripture for such a practice, so neither do we know how it can be called Baptism at all; and as this is the Bp's. Case, till he had proved, or at [Page 120] least vindicated his own practice by Scrip­ture, from whence he pretends to judg the Quakers, we think he ought to have been more sparing in his charges against them. Reader, if any Objections remain in thy mind, with respect to these heads of Bap­tism and the Supper, we refer thee to W. P's. Defence and R. B's. Apology who largely treat on these Subjects.—And to draw towards a conclusion upon the Bp's. two Reasons, since it hath appeared by W. P's. Defence (notwithstanding any thing the Bp. has urged to the contrary) that the Apostles did by the power of God, and as instruments in his hand, Baptize Believers with the holy Ghost, and since it doth not appear (nor can be proved) Water was intended by that commission, Matt. 28. 19. It therefore follows, that the Bp's. two substantial Reasons (as he calls them) falls to the ground. A little more we have from the Bp. about Baptism, and then for the present shall have done with this head.

(P. 18.) The Bp. tells us W. P. full well knows the Church of England Men no more allow Water Baptism to be sufficient to the Salvation of Adult Persons, without the New Creature, or Baptism of the Spirit, then he does.

Answ. (1st.) If not to Adult Persons, we Query whether the Bp. thinks Water [Page 121] Baptism is sufficient to the Salvation of In­fants. (2ly.) Since the Baptism of the Spi­rit is an inward work, and the means there, how doth this agree with what the Bp. says (p. 23.) That people are now made holy by the use of outward means, &c. Let the Bp. reconcile these if he can.

The Next is about the outward Supper in the use of Bread and Wine, and the Bp. begins with citing no Page, as well as stepping over five Pages at once of W. P's. Defence, tho' afterwards he looks back to carp at the words [Wine from Heaven] Reader see the Defence. p. 92. to 107. and compare with the Bp's. Reply, how little of fifteen Pages the Bp. has answered, as well as the former about Baptism; but perhaps the greatest part, which lies unanswered, are little Cavils and poor Evasions with him, tho' we don't believe, they will be so to the Impartial Reader, This is, we confess, a compendious way as the Bp. told us.

P. 18. It stands, (saith the Bp.) (viz. the Supper) upon the same immoveable foun­dation with the Baptism, &c.

Answ. 'Twill then follow if the Bp's. Foundation for Water Baptism be not sound, as hath been shewn above, it is not, this of the Supper must be the same. But the Bp. proceeds with a heavy charge and ex­clamation against W. P. as if he were not [Page 122] only guilty of a mistake, but in all appear­ance, (as he says) of wilful prevarication in misreporting his words, that he might have something to except against; for says the Bp. of W. P. the Bp. will have this Supper four times repeated in the New Testament.—Whereas the Bp. tells us his words respect­ed the command for the Supper, and not the Supper it self: and in conclusion of his Para­graph ends with a Question thus, Is there not a vast difference betwixt these two asserti­ons, This Supper was four times repeated, and the command for the Supper is four times re­peated, which last was most evidently the Bp's. sence? Thus the Bp.

Answ. 'Tis certainly a great lessening to the Bp. to make so great a noise, to so little purpose, from whence we conclude, that either the Bp. hoped to amuse his Reader by being so Critical about a word, or else he was very short sighted in his Argument in rendering W. P. guilty of wilful prevari­cation, while the Bp. overlookt his plain words, as well as sense, in what followed. 'Tis true W. P. mentions the Supper, as the Bp. saith, four times repeated, but nothing can be plainer then that he intended the command for the Supper, while immediately after he has the word command several times over, in relation to the Supper: pray Read­er, see his Defence (p. 97.) Now let us [Page 123] see, what something W. P. could get against the Bp. by his (supposed) wilful prevari­cation, (had he intended the Supper and not the command for the Supper) surely say we nothing; nay so far from getting, that had he insisted thereon, he would have lost his Argument thereby; for 'tho the Supper may be four times mentioned, the Command for the Supper is not four times mentioned; so then if W. P. had argued, that the Supper was not four times repeated, he had argued against himself. Now, Read­er, judg in the matter, what could the Bp's. end be in spending a large Paragraph on this occasion to fasten (as the Bp. says, in all appearance) wilful prevarication upon W. P.

Having cleared W. P. from the Bp's. Charge, which was without ground, let us now see, whether W. P's. charge of a mis­take, will not fall upon him doubled, with good ground. The Bp. hath asserted in his Testimony, the command for the Supper was four times repeated in the New Testament, which in that Paper runs thus, Can any com­mand be more express then This Do in remem­brance of me; four times repeated in the New Testament.

Answ. We must tell the Bp. (as W. P. did) it must be his mistake thus to assert, while we cannot find the command so re­peated, [Page 124] (as the Bp. saith) in all the New Testament, for, as W. P. said, we must say over again, that which looks most like a command is in Luke. 22. 19. (to the pre­sent Disciples) where he has those words, Do this in remembrance of me? the other Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, give only a relation of the Supper, without those words, and John says nothing of it at all. Then as to Paul he comes, 1 Cor. 11. and gives the Corinthians a rehearsal thereof, upon their great abuse of that practice, in such words as do not import a command, but as often as they used it, they shewed forth the Lords Death till he came; his words cannot be called a command: But supposing (not allowing) they could, yet the Bp. must still be at a loss, to find the command for the Supper four times repeated in these words, Do this in remembrance of me? Be­cause we do not find them but three times expressly mentioned in all the Scriptures; and but one of those times, can reasonably be called a command at all; if so it was not repeated at all: nor will the Bp's. Argument that the command was four times repeated hold good, unless he prove it five times mentioned, and so we leave it upon the Bp. and proceed.

Ibid. 18. Says the Bp. of W. P. he pro­ceeds to what is more dangerous (meaning [Page 125] then the prevarication) plainly to diffuse his Poison, this coming of Christ was Spiritual.

Answ. We must needs say 'tis a very un­charitable expression without cause, and if it were such Poisonous Doctrine, why did not the Bp. confute the substantial Scripture Arguments, by which W. P. proved his Assertion, which he ought to have done, before he used such an expression; But that the Bp. has not done, unless carping at words and reviling him be doing it, as will appear in what follows. And first he begins with reproaching W. P. for paraphrasing upon these Texts, Matt. 26. 29. Mark. 14. 25. Luke 22. 18. where Christ told his Disci­ples, He would drink no more of the fruit of the Vine, till he drank it new with them in the Kingdom of Heaven; upon which W. P. para­phrased and called Christ bread and Wine from Heaven. See his Defence (p. 98.) whereupon the Bp. reviles (according to his usual way) and tells him, that he and his Brethren uses to make, and wrest Scripture, &c. By Mr. P's. favour (says the Bp.) the Scripture no where stileth Christ Wine from Heaven.

Answ. If we had dealt thus with the Bp. for downright perversions and wresting Scripture (as we have before proved) as he hath done W. P. without reason or ground, we must tell the Bp. we should [Page 126] have treated him at another rate then we have done. But to the matter. Where did W. P. say the Scripture so said? he only drew a natural consequence from the words of Christ, and the Text it self is so plain, that it needs no comment to prove W. P's. paraphrase thereon: for what drink or Wine was that which was to be drank in the Kingdom of Heaven, but Wine from Hea­ven? and who was Wine from Heaven? but Christ? who as he promised to drink with them, so he promised, Revelations, 3. 20. to Sup with those that opened their hearts unto him: Now who but a Man that want­ed matter and was willing to take occasion to revile would Carp, &c. as the Bp. did, more especially, while Christ is called a Vine, Bread from Heaven, Water, &c. with a multitude of other Metaphorical Appellati­ons in Scripture, and had the Bp. been so well acquainted with the comfortable pre­sence of Christ, as a truly Spiritual Man (which he pretends to be) Really is, &c. he would never have reviled W. P. as he did on that account.

P. 19. The Bp. goes on telling us the Apostles continued the use of Bread and Wine after Christ was Spiritually come; there­fore says he, this shewing forth his Death till he came, was not by them understood of his in­ward and Spiritual appearance, but of his second [Page 127] coming to Judgment; for in that Case feeling so fully, his being come in their hearts, they would have desisted.

Answ. Altho' the Apostles did feel Christ Spiritually come into their hearts, and might also see no real Necessity for keeping up this practice; yet it doth not therefore follow, they would have presently desisted for these or the Like Reasons. 1st. Because they might think it needful to indulge the weak and carnal minded Christians among them, who wanted such a sign to keep up their minds in remembrance of Christs Blood, which was shed for them; and that such weak and car­nal believers were among them appears plainly by the sharp and reprehensive expres­sions in the Epistles writ by the Apostles to some of them; likewise it plainly appears by Scripture, that altho Christ was come in Spirit to some, he was not so come in Spi­rit to others, who yet waited for his com­ing, see James 5. 7, 8. 1 Cor. 1. 7. Second­ly, this practice might be continued among them, were it onely that we find it contri­buted to keep up a Brotherly Fellowship and Communion in the Infancy of the Church, which appears from, Acts 2. 46. and they continuing dayly with one accord in the Temple, and breaking Bread from House to House, did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of Heart. And here we may a little compare [Page 128] the present practice of those, who use this Ceremony, with those in the primitive times (because the Bp. has something of it) Their Breaking Bread was joyned with Eat­ing their Meat, quite contrary to the practice now adays, and not only in that, but other respects they disagree, as W. P. hath noted. Again how widely do they differ in their opinions of the thing it self, 'tis now called and believed by the Papists to be the very Body and Blood of Christ, and the Protestants in the use of outward Bread and Wine, say that the Body and Blood of Christ is in a Spiritual manner partaken of under that sign, whereas in the primitive times, the use and extent thereof, as Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 11. was in remembrance of and shewing forth Christs Death till he came, which we believe was Spiritual, in relation to that sign. (3ly.) Why might not the Apostles as well conti­nue in the practice of this sign (after Christ was Spiritually come in their Hearts) as in the practice of Circumcision, Puri­fications, Vows, Shavings and other legal rites; many Instances of which appear plain in Scripture, which we might Instance but shall be brief and tell the Reader, that what we have and shall write on this head is not intended for a Treatise thereof, only as in Answer to the Bp's. Objections, refer­ring the Reader as before to W. P's. Defence [Page 129] and R. B's. Apology, who largely treats of this Subject. The Bp. proceeds,

Ibid. 19. To invalidate W. P's. allegati­on that Baptism and the Supper were not made an Article of any of the Antient Creeds, and thereupon tells W. P. thus, he has forgot or was never Catechized as he ought to have been, or forgotten what he was taught to be the meaning of that Article, I believe the holy Catholick Church, the Communion of Saints; that is in short (says the Bp.) I believe all the faithful are made one body by communion in the same Faith, Covenant and Ordinances of Worship, especially Baptism and the Lords Supper.

Answ. Is it not very strange that the Bp. who in p. 3. tells Mr. P. (as he called him) as to his Paper once for all, implication of Faith is not a profession of Faith, and not only so, but would almost unchristian us, for not being more explicit in that Paper (Gospel Truths) should now tell us by be­lieving the holy Catholick Church, the Com­munion of Saints, that the points in Questi­on namely Baptism and the Supper, &c. are implyed: We must needs tell him, and all may see that either he assumes a Latitude to himself by a strange sort of implication, far beyond what he will allow W. P. and the Quakers, or it must be confest that Water Baptism and the outward Supper (and which [Page 130] we think is undeniable) are not made an Article in that Confession, and consequently his Proof falls to the ground with his Asser­tion. But as to the true Catholick Church, and the Communion of Saints, we can readily subscribe to the Article, and do truly own the Communion of Saints but deny it consists in eating outward Bread and drinking outward Wine, while we suppose, the Bp. himself will not deny, that very Wicked and Ungod­ly Men have partaken of the outward sign, whereas we say none can truly partake of the Communion of Saints, but those who are truly such, and which consists in Spiritual participation of the Body and Blood of Christ, according to John 6. 35. 1 Cor. 10. 16. 2 Cor. 13. 14.

P. 20. The Bp's. next Instance is no more to the purpose then the last he tells us in the Constantinopolitan Creed (compiled about the Year 379. or 380. when rebaptizing Hereticks had turmoiled the Church) 'tis exprest, I be­lieve one Catholick Church, I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of Sins, that is (says the Bp.) persons being once Baptized, and thereby ingrafted into the Church ought not to be Baptized again, which is the true sense of one Baptism, and not what Mr. P. suggests.

Answ. The Bp. who so much faulted W. P. p. 14. for not citing Treatise or Page, doth as before take the same liberty again [Page 131] in this Citation. But suppose we should allow what he hath here cited, which we do not, how will the acknowledging one Baptism, the occasion mentioned by the Bp. prove his point? he brought this for an Antient Creed, and as such we might expect his proof, that Water Baptism and the Supper were made an Article therein; whereas there is no word of the Supper ex­pressed, nor yet implied that we can per­ceive. In short then this Instance falls with the first. Then as to his saying Persons once Baptized, &c. is the true sence of the one Baptism and not what Mr. P. suggests. Please, Reader, to view W. P's. Defence, p. 85, 86. and see whether what W. P. says be his own Suggestions: On the contrary W. P. cites Ephes. 4. 5. One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; which one Baptism he plainly proves by several Scripture Arguments, to be the one saving Baptism of Christ by the holy Ghost: The Bp. is out if he thinks his bare Assertion against W. P. will pass for proof, while he is silent to all the Argu­ments advanced by W. P. The Bp. should have remembred he told us, p. 18. that Water Baptism without the New Creature or Baptism of the Spirit was not sufficient to the Salvation of adult Persons (or words to the same effect) which bespeak two Baptisms, when the Apostle tells us Eph. 4. 5. but [Page 132] of one Baptism, and if but one, that not in­ [...] as Water is, but the saving Bap­tism of the Spirit as was plainly prov [...] [...]y W. P. This considered, how could the Bp. now affirm that Persons once Baptized (i. e. with Water) is the true sence of one Bap­tism, since himself confesseth Water Baptism is not sufficient to Salvation, &c. We sup­pose he will hardly say, being once Baptized with Water produceth the Baptism of the Spirit, and so maketh the one Baptism, if not 'tis worth his Consideration how to re­concile his Assertions in these two places with the Apostles one Baptism, Ephes. 4. 5.

Now to the Bp's. third and last proof a­bout the Antient Creeds, in which the Bp. Cites not only Treatise and Page but part of the Articles too, but omits the main part of all, namely the Year; we must tell the Bp. this will make no more to his pur­pose then the former proofs; for tho' we should allow the Citations true, and that they are from the poor Waldenses (whom W. P. commends for the good Qualificati­ons he found in them,) Yet this Creed is too late to be accounted antient, as in the time of Vladislaus King of Hungary, the first King of that name, according to Heylen's Cosmogr: which was in the Year 1440. and the second in 1491. but whether we are right in the time or not, yet 'tis so late that 'tis [Page 133] rank Popery to assert, as the Bp. has laid it down. viz. No Man is saved who eats not the body of Christ, which body is not consecrated but in the Church and by a Priest. Again, that none are saved unless Baptized, and that In­fants are saved by Baptism.

The Bp. was much in the right to questi­on what authority W. P. would allow the Waldenses in this Creed, (supposing it theirs) To be sure say we none; Nor will he allow it to be antient any more then those made in the dark time of Popery, and therefore this proof also falls with the rest; and if we should ask the Bp. himself what authority he would allow the Waldenses in this Creed, will he undertake to vindicate it from point blank Popery? we suppose nay.—As to what the Bp. saith of Tradition, and con­sent of all Nations, that will come under con­sideration in what follows.

Ibid. (20.) The Bp. frames an Argu­ment upon those two heads, viz. Baptism and the Supper, to prove us outwardly no Christians, tho' in so doing he must bring himself under like circumstances in a pa­rallel case.

Ibid. (20.) The Bp. says to renounce or cast off the outward badges of the profession of Christianity, which our Lord Christ instituted, and his Apostles delivered, and which the A­postolical Churches received, and constantly [Page 134] practized, which all Christian Churches ever since has held to, is to renounce or to cast off the outward profession of Christianity, but Mr. P. and his party renounce or cast off those outward badges of the profession of Christianity, which Christ Jesus appointed and his Apostles delivered, which the Apostolical Churches re­ceived, and constantly practized, which all Christian Churches have ever since held to, therefore Mr. P. and his party have renounced or cast off the outward profession of Christianity, that is outwardly are no Christians; as to their hearts the Bp. leaves them to God and judges not.

Answ. The Bp. in this Argument takes that for granted which we do not own, namely that outward Baptism and the Supper, were to be continued down in the Churches, as Institutions of Christ, as also that they are the outward badges of the profession of Chri­stianity, which we do not allow, the con­trary having been proved by W. P. in his Defence, and others of our Friends who have writ on that subject: We observe al­tho' the Bp. continues to clal them outward Badges, yet he omits to call them Seals, as he did in his Testimony, which to us seems to be the effect of W. P's. Defence, and with more reason it may be attributed thereto, then the effect attributed by the Bp. to his own Paper upon W. P. as before noted.

But to this faulty and long Argument, may not we by a parallel Argument make the Bp. and his party outwardly no Christians, while they difuse other things no less (if not more) positively commanded in holy Scripture: Thus our Lord Jesus Christ the very same night he eat the Supper, John 13. 4. to 15. rose from Supper and with more Ceremony washed his Disciples feet saying, Vers. 14. If I then you Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye ought also to wash one a­nothers feet. Vers. 15. For I have given you an Example, that ye should do as I have done unto you. This seems to us as plain a com­mand for this practice, as that for Bread and Wine, and more plain then for Water Baptism, because Water is not mentioned in the Commission, (and this command we find was put in practice: See 1 Tim. 5. 10. and recommended as a virtue in a Wi­dow) nor was this only an Example of Humility and Love (true Badges of Christi­anity) but had a signification of an inward cleansing as appears from the words of Christ upon Peter's refusal, John 13. 8. If I wash thee not thou hast no part in me. Again, Acts 15. 29. The Churches were expresly com­manded, as the mind of the holy Ghost, to abstain from blood and things strangled. Again the Believers were enjoined, Jam. 5. 14. that the sick should be anointed with Oyle in [Page 136] the name of the Lord. Now from these in­stances, we form a parallel argument thus, To renounce, disuse, or cast off the positive Institutions and Commands which our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles delivered, and no doubt the primitive Christians in obedi­ence thereunto practized, is to renounce and cast off the outward profession of Christi­anity; But the late Bp. of Cork and his party have renounced, cast off or disused the washing of feet, the abstaining from blood and things strangled, and the anointing the Sick with Oyl in the name of the Lord, which things our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles instituted and commanded.—Therefore the late Bp. of Cork and his party are outwardly no Christians, &c.

We take this to be a plain parallel argu­ment and by which the Bp. and his party are as much unchristianed as he Renders the Quakers by his, while he can find no express repeal in Scripture for these things.—And yet at the same time we neither believe, he or they for the disuse of these things, nor we for the other, ought or can be unchristian'd, for we believe they are all ceased alike. If the Bp. say, those were temporary things (with as good ground) we say the like of the other; If they say the repeal of blood and things strangled are implied, where the Apostle tells us Coll. [Page 137] 2. 16. we are not to be judged in Meat or Drink, &c. And that the Kingdom of God consists not in Meat and Drink, Rom. 14. 17. We say the same of outward Bread and Wine, being Meat and Drink; In our argu­ment, we have not included the constant practice of all Churches as the Bp. doth in his, because we do not depend upon the verity of Tradition, (as the Bp. seems to do) altho' we understand that two of those instances we have given, are still practized after a manner by the Church of Rome, from whence we suppose, hee'l not deny he de­rives the continued practice of Bread and Wine, tho' he declines the other: But as to the practice of Christian Churches (instan­ced by the Bp.) how greatly do they differ in their use as well as in their belief of the thing it self, while there is none of all sorts (nay not the Bp. himself) that follows the primitive practice, in the use of the outward Supper, as we have hinted before, and W. P's. Defence hath more fully shewn; how then can we depend upon tradition? and thus we end about the Supper.

P. 21. The last point of moment (says the Bp.) in Mr. P's. Book yet remaining untoucht, is the great Difference or ground of dissent be­twixt the Quakers and Establisht Church, and this Mr. P. tells us, is the great carnality and emptiness both of Ministers and People. Upon [Page 138] which the Bp. in return upon the Quakers goes on thus.

Ibid. (21.)—The Bp. hereby enforced speak out, he says then that if eating the fat and drinking the choicest be carnallity.—There is nothing to be eaten that is better then ordinary, that comes in to our markets here, which the People observe not presently bought up by the Quakers, they are still the earliest and best chapmen every Market day, for such commodi­ties, and much good may they do them.—And so concludes this as under the Title of carnallity and in the number of Scandalous Instances.

Answ. If the Bp. in speaking out had spoke more to the purpose we think he had come off with more credit, for certainly it is mean stuff for a Bp. to help to stuff his Book with all, and in an Instance too, that if there be Scandal in it perhaps he may be concerned beyond any Quaker in Ireland, (or for what we know in England) while 'tis believed his Table is supplied with varieties beyond any of theirs (tho' per­haps his eager pursute after the Quakers made him forget that part, or else thinks he ought to have a dispensation beyond them) But does the Bp. go to Market himself, or doth he write upon reports? if upon re­port, doth it become him to write to the Defamation of any people upon bare report, [Page 139] which for ought he knows may be false, and we know is false as he states it? for the Quakers of Cork, whom as we take it he means, by the word here, deny they are still the earliest Chapmen; yet that some of them go with others at the common market time no doubt is true, and where is the Scandal or Carnality of it? if there be any the Bp. must be concerned in it, since (if it be true as we are informed) his Caterer has been observed to be generally one of the first there, tho' we will not say as the Bp. doth, still the earliest, because some extraordinary thing might occasion his coming later then usual, and by that means perhaps miss a piece of meat for his Lord, (as he stiled him) which perhaps a Quak­er (or some other) had bought before, which we will not say was the occasion of this reflection, but probable enough it was so—Well, but the Bp. says we are the best Chapmen, and comes off with much good may they do them. Then say we to the first, the Butchers have no reason to complain of us, and to the last, what ever good he would have the meat do us 'tis plain he did not intend the story in kindness, while he makes it a Scandalous Instance. Now as to our eating and drinking, we hope we do it in the fear of God, and in moderation, let the Bp. say what he will; and if the Bp's. [Page 140] aptness to vilifie the Quakers had not been uppermost and most prevalent with him he might with a great deal more ease, have found those nearer to him then the Quakers, who are guilty of great Excesses, as riotous Feasting, Drunkeness, Sporting, Games, Plays, Pride, Wantonness, with many such like things that appear (but too plain) to be gross carnality, and which behoved the Bp. to see his own Flock more clear of, before he had brought this Instance to prove the Quakers guilty of Carnality.

We would have the Reader observe that the Bp. in this page. 21. (which we are now upon) had made a mixture of Inter­woven charges, which we could not so regu­larly answer without bringing the parts of each charge together (which lay distant) as we did in the foregoing instance of car­nality, so we do now in that of his Charging us with worldliness. Thus,

If minding worldly gain (says the Bp.) and being so intent on it Day and Night; as to pass most days in the week without a Prayer to God, either in publick Assembly or private Family; if the sliest ways, both to get Money and to keep it be worldliness, he knows no sort of People according to the degree of each given to those vices more then the Quakers: (and a­gain at the end of that page goes on thus.)—And indeed how they should be a heavenly [Page 141] minded People who so much restrain Prayer, that is lay aside, forbear or neglect it as to common practice, (at least have done so) till of very late Years.

Answ. If charges were proofs in these and other Instances, the Bp. had no doubt made us some of the worst of People, but to be reviled and abused without cause has fallen to our lot, which we may not strange at since it was the lot of the Apostles and pri­mitive Christians from the Men of that age, and more especially from the chief Priests. Now as to that gross and unchari­table reflection upon our getting Money, we have already spoken to it before, so it needs no farther answer here; But that we appeal to the Searcher of Hearts, who best knows whether we have preferred, or re­garded worldly things above the things of God.

But as to Prayer, we say it is a false charge, that we ever did, either for worldly gain, or upon any other account Restrain, Ne­glect, or lay aside Prayer, either of late Years or from the beginning. Indeed if the Bp. means the many set forms of Prayer made ready to our hands by Men, he's in the right, in saying we neglect them, (tho' not to get worldly gain) and hope we shall do so to the end, and we tell him, if such formal Prayers would make Men better [Page 142] Christians, and more acceptable to God, there is a Church that perhaps far exceeds his for multitude of Prayers, namely that of Rome. But as to the Quakers, they firmly believe no Prayer is acceptable to God unless performed by and through the assist­ance of his holy Spirit, which doth not only consist in Vocal but Mental Prayer, according to Rom. 8. 26. We know not what we should Pray for, as we ought, but the Spirit it self maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered. Again 1 Cor. 14. 15. I will Pray with the Spirit, &c.—This sort of Prayer we dearly own, and to Gods praise without boasting we can say, we have had and still have it frequently among us, not only in our publick Meetings, but also in private Families, both Vocally and Internally, and not only so, but we are taught by the help of the Spirit to Pray in Spirit every where, according to 1 Tim. 2. 8. as well in our Business and Callings as in our publick Assemblies.

Ibid. (21.) The Bp. says he could men­tion more Scandalous Particulars or Instances, both of carnality and worldliness among them, but it is not agreable to his Temper. For a Man to say the worst he can, (which we suppose the Bp. has done, and more than is true, and then pretends he could say more, is, we think, a [...]ye way of slander and be­speaks no good temper.

Again, (the Bp. p. 22.) Let Mr. P. then know, whatsoever Mens attainments may be, its not good so much to boast of their being Spiritual.

Answ. God he knows we boast not, (nor have we any thing whereof to boast) as of our selves, but may we not without boasting as David did, Psal. 66. 17. Tell others what God hath done for our Souls. And having by good experience witnessed the good and blessed effects of the Light, Grace and Spirit of God upon our Souls; shall we not in the love of God call and invite others there­unto? surely we may, and if for these things we are accounted boasters, we must and shall be content to bear this reproach with the rest.

Ibid. (22.) To speak, says the Bp. to the true Notion of Spirituality, such Spiritual Persons as Mr. P. pretends to be, and as the A­postle speaks of, 1 Cor. 11. (but we supose he intended) 1 Cor. 2. the place so much insisted, on by Mr. P. and ever and anon alluded to by him and his followers: Neither Mr. P. is, nor any Person that we know now living; Namely they can none of them Preach in de­monstration of the Spirit and Power. Vers. 4. They have not (says the Bp.) those extraor­dinary Gifts of the Spirit to speak with tongues, and Prophesie, heal the Diseased; And so the Bp. goes on to other miraculous Gifts [Page 144] and Revelations of the Spirit, which the Apostles had.—And in p. 23. adds, this kind of Spiritual Men are ceased.

Answ. It would take up much time and Paper to be so large upon these Objections of the Bp's. as we could be, to shew how that through the coming in of the Apostacy Men became outside and nominal Christians, by forsaking and neglecting the inward guidance of the Grace and Spirit of God, and instead thereof set up outward Forms, and Prescriptions of Men: But we shall be brief, and only and this, that God in his infinite goodness is bringing his Church out of the Wilderness, and from the teachings of Man, to the teachings of his good Spirit. But to proceed.

First. As to such extraordinary and Mi­raculous Gifts of the Spirit, as of healing the Diseased, and speaking with tongues which the Apostles had, we shall at present only return the Bp. the same answer, which the first Protestants usually gave the Papists, who demanded a confirmation of their New Doctrine (as they termed it) by Miracles; to which the Protestants replied that they Preached no New Gospel, but the same which was confirmed before by Miracles, and therefore needed no new ones to confirm it; and also that John the Baptist with many of the Prophets, tho' immediately and ex­traordinarily [Page 145] called, yet did no Miracles that we read of; and the same answer may serve for us, while we have always been ready to confirm our Doctrine by holy Scripture: but altho' such extraordinary Gifts of Tongues, &c. are ceased, yet it doth not therefore follow, we ought to ne­glect the inward teachings and dictates of the holy Spirit of God, which is given to Christians, as a standing perpetual rule, and more immediate guide under the New Cove­nant to walk by, and without which they cannot rightly perform their duty to God, as we have shewn before. (p. 54.) As to that Text, 1 Cor. 13. 8. brought by the Bp. 'Tis plain those Gifts there mentioned were to cease, by giving way to what was more excellent, more perfect; see p. 10. 11, 12. following vers. and not by being succeeded by what is more carnal, and de­stitute of the Spirit; but leaving this at pre­sent we shall attend the Bp's. Objection, which relates to the Ministry, viz. that none can now Preach in the Demonstration of the Spirit and power.

To which we answer, If that were so, then none can preach as the Oracles of God, nor in preaching be beneficial to the People, since the holy Scripture tells us, that the Spirit is a necessary and essential qualifica­tion to constitute a Minister of Christ which [Page 146] we shall prove, (1st.) from Jesus Christ himself, when he gave the Apostles that commission Matt. 28. 19. to Preach, he tells them thus, Vers. 20. Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have command­ed you, and lo I am with you alway, even to the end of the World. We hope none will be so trifling as to say, this Command ex­tended only to the Apostles, if any so weak (to think so) then the foregoing Vers. 19. about Baptizing (which they suppose Wa­ter) must likewise extend no farther; but supposing none so weak, thus to object, yet some m [...]y Query how was Christ to be with his Ministers to the end of the world? Was it not by the holy Scripture, the out­ward means now left to Christians? To this we answer, 'twas by his Spirit, which we prove from Christs [...]wn words, John 14. 16. I will pray the Father and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Vers. 17. Even the Spirit of truth, he dwelleth with you and shall be in you. Ver. 26. The comforter, the holy Ghost he shall teach you all things (saith Christ) John 15. 5. Without me (saith Christ) ye can do nothing: from these with more Texts of Scripture, 'tis plain that Christ by his Spi­rit was to be with his truly constituted Ministers to the end of the World, by whom they were taught all things, and without [Page 147] whom they could do nothing, and pursuant to that commission and promise of Christ, the Apostles were called, commissionated, and did Preach by the Spirit, according to 2 Cor. 3. 6. Gall. 1. 11, 12. 1 Cor. 2. 4. and we do not find the Apostles did confine the Spirit to themselves only, but did re­commend the same Gift of the Spirit as the necessary qualification to the constituting a Minister of the Gospel. (thus) 1 Peter 4. 10, 11. As every Man hath received the Gift, even so minister the same one to another as good stewards of the manifold Grace of God. If any Man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God; If any Man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth, that God in all things may be Glorified. Which we take to be as much as if he had said none ought to speak or minister about the things of God, but by the Gift of his holy Spirit, and who ever doth not so speak or minister cannot in so doing do it to the Glory of God. We could cite more Scriptures to the same purpose, which for brevity sake we omit: these may suffice to shew that whoever pretends to be a Minister of Christ, cannot be truly such without the Qualification of and being Com­missionated by the holy Ghost: And as to the Bp's. saying, that W. P. nor none can now Preach in demonstration of the Spirit and Power, 'tis but his bare assertion, and more [Page 148] then he can prove.—But as to the Bp's. part, we may be sure he cannot so Preach since he denies it to all, and while he thus asserts, he will do well to consider, how he came by his Ministry, since Christ promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World, and that his Spirit was to continue with and in them for ever; from which Gift of his Spirit, they were to speak (ac­cording to the Apostle) as the Oracles of God, which to be sure cannot be but in de­monstration of the Spirit and Power.—Having thus Proved the Spirit to be a ne­cessary Qualification to the constituting a Minister of Christ, we now come to consi­der the Bp's. outward way to Holyness and Spirituallity, in which we shall find him as much out of the way as in the last. The Bp. Proceeds.

P. (23.) People are now made holy by the use of outward means and grow up in Grace by degrees, yet in both cases, as to Gifts as well as Holiness, there are those, who by Analogy and Proportion, may still be termed Spiritual, that is, there are persons, who by study and industry attain to speak with tongues, &c. Others who having from the holy Scriptures, which were indited by the Spirit of God, learnt the mind of the Spirit, and being in their hearts perswaded of the Truths and Duties they have thence learnt, and felt their Soul [Page 149] strongly moved by the Power of the Spirit un­der the Ministry of the Word, to the perfor­mance of such Duties, have yielded themselves and submitted to the Conduct of the holy Ghost leading them by Scripture into all truth, as well as Holiness. Thus, Reader, we have given thee this long Citation of the Bp's. that his own words may fully speak his mind.

Answ. The Bp. hath here asserted upon his own authority and without proof, that People are now made holy by the use of outward means, and that there are those, who by Study and industry attain to speak with tongues, may be termed Spiritual: But contrary hereunto the holy Scriptures do abundantly prove, viz. That People are made holy and Spiri­tual by inward means, as we shall plainly shew, only before we proceed we will here again give the holy Scriptures their due place, and allow them to be whatsoever they say of themselves, according to these or any other Texts, Rom. 15, 4. 2 Tim. 3. 15, 16, 17. believing them to be the best Writings extant in the World, and we love honour and esteem them beyond all others, and are so far from laying them aside as useless, that we say they are instrumental, a furtherance and help to Believers in the work of the Lord; but then we say 'tis through Faith which is the fruit of the [Page 150] Spirit, Gal. 5. 22. And thus they furnish­ed the Man of God, 2 Tim. 3. 17. for so he was to be, that received those benefits by them; and we are so far from excluding the holy Scriptures from being helpful and beneficial to us, that we exclude not other outward and instrumental means, as Preach­ing, &c. But still we say it is by the Gift of the holy Spirit, by the illumination of which (and as the foundation) all out­ward means become beneficial and service­able to us; and thus, Acts 16. 14.—Lydia—Whose heart the Lord opened that she at­tended unto the things which were spoken by Paul. Here 'twas the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, by which means as the efficient cause Paul's preaching became ef­fectual to her; thus much briefly as to the holy Scriptures. Now to the Bp's. words before Cited, wherein he has asserted, that People are now made holy by the use of out­ward means, and from the Scriptures learnt the mind of the Spirit. Whereas we say the principal agent and by which People are made holy, is the Grace and Spirit of God, which we now come to prove by Scripture. Thus, 1 John 2. 27. But the anointing ye have received, abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, but as the same a­nointing teacheth you of all things, Rom. 1. 19. But that which may be known of God is mani­fest [Page 151] in them, for God hath shewed it unto them. Again, 2 Cor. 4. 6, 7. 1 Cor. 2. 12. 1 Cor. 6. 19. Rom. 8. 9. And wicked Men also hath this Gift and means in themselves, tho' they will not make use of it nor regard it: Thus the Slothful Servant, Matt. 25. 18. had a Talent tho' he made no use of it, and the Pharisees, the worst of Christs ene­mies, Luk. 17. 21. had the Kingdom of Heaven within them. Thus having shewn (by a few of the many Texts we could produce) the means to be inward; we now come to prove People are made holy by this inward means, viz. the Gift of the holy Spi­rit.—Rom. 8. 13. If ye through the Spirit do mortifie the deeds of the Body, ye shall live; but if ye live after the Flesh ye shall die, 1 Cor. 6. 9, 10, 11. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.—Neither Fornicators, Idolators, Adul­terors,—Thieves, Covetous, Drunkards, Re­vilers, Extortioners,—and such were some of you, but ye are washed, Sanctified, Justified in the name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spi­rit of our God, Eph. 4. 7. Unto every one is given Grace, according to the measure of the Gift of Christ, Titus 2. 11. The Grace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared unto all Men, teaching us that denying ungod­liness and Worldly Lusts we should live soberly, righteously, and godlily in this present World. [Page 152] Eph. 5. 9, 10. The fruit of the Spirit is all Goodness, Righteousness, and Truth. Again John 16. 13. the Spirit was to guide into all truth; then the Children of God were to be led by his Spirit, and none were his, but such as was guided thereby, Rom. 8. 9, 14. In short 'tis needless to bring more of the numerous Scripture Testimonies which might be cited to prove this point, but these may suffice to shew that People are made holy by the Grace and Spirit of God within Men and not by outward means, as the Bp. hath asserted, and the same way they are made holy, they are likewise made Spiritual, it being impossible to be a holy Man without being Spiritual, see Rom. 8. 6. To be Spi­ritually minded is life and peace.—And the way whereby Men become Spiritual is by the Spirit of God according to 1 Cor. 2. 10. to 15. But contrary hereunto the Bp tells us, There are those who by Analogy and Proportion may be still termed Spiritual; that is there are persons who by study and in­dustry attain to speak with tongues, &c. We ask then, whether wicked Men who have attained to speak with tongues, are not of the number of the B'ps. Spiritual Men? and whether his definition of Spiritual Men is not such as natural Men may attain unto? As to the Bp's. telling us of the power of the Spirit, and again, the conduct of the holy [Page 153] Ghost leading them by Scripture into all Truth, as well as holiness, He must not be displeased if we tell him, that we know no such lan­guage in holy Scripture, as leading by Scripture into all Truth: On the contrary, the Scriptures themselves do ascribe Holi­ness and Truth to the Spirit directly, as we have shewn, to which purpose, we'l add one Text here, John 16. 13. when he, (the Spirit of Truth) is come he will guide you into all Truth; but upon what ground or with what reason can the Bp. speak of the Spirit and the holy Ghost? when he first told us, People are now made holy by the use of outward means, And from the Scriptures have learnt the mind of the Spirit, whereas the work of the Spirit is within, as we have already proved. If he shall retract, and tell us, as the holy Scripture doth, that People are led into all Truth and Holiness by the Spirit, we shall then agree in that point.

Ibid. (23.) The Bp. goes on, telling us the several effects producible in his way of Spirituality and Holiness, and p. 24. says thus, Let such Persons as these be allowed to be Spiritual; and if so, the Bp. says he doubts not but there will be found more such who are no Quakers, then who really are; and parti­cularly the Bp. claims to be such an one him­self, and challenges Mr. P. to prove the Con­trary.

Answ. We will not differ with him about the numbers of his sort of Spiritually made Men, and that they do exceed the Quakers, believing it true; But we have already proved the Bp's. outward way, and the Scrip­tures inward way to Holiness and Spiritual­lity do widely differ, and as they so do, the effects in reallity must do the same, and therefore we shall be very brief with the Bp. as to his challenge, and tell him, tho' we allow him also to be a Spiritual Man, according to his outward way of making them, yet W. P. nor we need not goe about to prove that he is no Spiritual Man, ac­cording to Scripture Definition, since he has so effectually done it himself. Thus much as to Spirituality and Holiness.

Ibid (24.) The Bp. proceeds, as to emptiness the Bp. craves pardon if he be at a loss what Mr. P. means thereby.

Answ. Why the Bp. at a loss, since W. P. spoke so very plain as to the emptiness of the Clergy, while in p. 107, 108. he tells him 'tis preaching without the Spirit in a life­less and humane ministry, and such as were made Ministers by humane Learning and Au­thority, whereas the Ministers of Christ be­came such by the Qualifications an Gifts of the Spirit, as he had proved, and which is further confirmed by us.

Ibid. (24.) If emptiness (says the Bp.) signifies the Ministers Sermons being barren, with little substance or solid matter in them, the Quakers are much more guilty, as far as ever the Bp's experience could reach; witness the first things they published, if compared to the Printed Sermons of the conformable Clergy, since Mr. P's. accession to them, it must be confest, he has much improved them, and brought them to write what looks like sense and Coherence.

Answ. We cannot wonder the Bp. should speak in the behalf of that Clergy being one of the number himself, and against the Quakers, whom he hath endeavoured to re­proach, and therefore, to be sure, no com­petent Judg of either our Preaching or Writ­ings, for which reason we shall appeal from him to more competent and impartial Judges, in relation to both; but this we will say, that altho' the Quakers were never against, but for true sense and coherence in Preaching and Writing, yet we lay no such stress or necessity upon the Learning, Arts, Parts, and Wisdom of Men in doing either, as perhaps the Bp. doth; and he may re­member the greatest Truths, namely the holy Scriptures, are delivered in a Style suted to the meanest capacities. Again that Learned Apostle Paul was so far from re­commending the Learning and wisdom of [Page 156] Men, and excellency of Speech in preach­ing, &c. that he both opposes as well as disesteems and undervalues them from be­ing either a means or furtherance to the work of the Lord. On the Contrary he exalts the weak, foolish and despised things of the World as more acceptable to God, see 1 Cor. 1. 17. to 29. and has this same up again, Chap. 2. 13. thus, Which things we also speak not in the words which Mans wisdom teacheth. But which the holy Ghost teacheth, comparing Spiritual things with Spiritual. Here the Apostle point blank opposes Spi­rituallity, and the teachings of the holy Ghost, to the wisdom and teachings of Men, contrary whereunto (as we have before observed) the Bp. hath asserted, that Men may still be termed Spiritual by outward Study and Learning.

But as to the Quakers, they are of the same mind with the Apostle, and are so far from valuing the most excellent Preaching proceeding from the Arts, Parts, Wisdom, and Learning of this World without the Spi­rits Teaching, that they prefer far above and beyond it, a few plain mean words either from Man or Woman, as proceeding from the Motion of the Divine Spirit, and altho such speech or words may seem very con­temptible in the eyes of the wise and learned Men of this World, in their natural State, [Page 157] yet such Preaching carries an evidence with it to the enlightned understanding, far excel­ling the other, not only to illiterate persons but to such also, who have had the Arts and Literature of this World, whose under­standings have been opened by the Divine Spirit.—And as to W. P. tho' we esteem and Love him yet 'tis not barely either for his Parts or Learning, but for his Christian sincerity towards God and his Truth.

Again the Bp. (p. 24.) But the Bp. would willingly know of Mr. P. what there was in B. Wheddons holding Forth.—after Mr. P. at Cork when he put his hat before his face and laughed, and whether she be the only person from whom in their Assemblies he has often heard such stuff.

Answ. In this story as well as other things, relating personally to W. P. the Bp. took care to let W. P. be gone out of Europe before he published his Book: we suppose the Bp. don't pretend to give this story from his own knowledg, how well then doth it be­com the Bp. to write such stories upon re­port, and is not that word holding Forth used in derision or scorn? but what stuff? why did not the Bp. tell us the stuff? if he knew, and if he did not, he might with more credit have been silent to the story, while in thus doing he only demonstrates his willing mind to bring any story (tho' [Page 158] it be a lame one) in hopes to vilifie the Quakers. But as to the story of W. P's. laughing 'tis as improbable as frivolous, and which we no more believe, then that the late Bp. of Cork is now in China. (1st.) because W. P. is a Man of a solid carriage and grave Deportment, and in his common conversation seldom if ever given to laugh­ter, and not very often to smile.—But that he should laugh at what was spoken in a meeting by a Woman of his own com­munion, and in a place too, where perhaps there were many scores if not hundreds of Auditors besides Quakers.

We say that he should laugh under all those circumstances is so ridiculously im­probable, that we should think none will believe it, but such as will not disbelieve any story what ever against the Quakers. (2ly.) We let the Bp. know whatever the Custom of laughing be in his congregation we have no such in ours; and whosoever the Bp's. Spie or Informer was, we suppose him one who used to laugh in his own Church or else (to be sure) he would not have imagined W. P. to laugh in our Meeting. But that W. P. might pull his hat before his eyes (while she was speaking) may be pro­bable, it being very usual for him so to do in our Meetings, which perhaps this Infor­mer observing, might imagin he laughed, [Page 159] while it was only the effects of a strong prepossession of mind, as knowing it was common to laugh in his own Church; this is the most charitable construction we can put upon that improbable story: But if this were not the case, we then conclude it to be a wilful forgery to make a story to the Bp. whom the Informer might know was ready enough to receive one against him and the Quakers.

Ibid. (25.) And part of 26. is about the maintainance for the Ministry; and in­deed we find W. P. touched a tender place, while he treated upon this head, which is apparent by the Bp's. being greatly displeas­ed, if we may conclude reviling and abusing W. P. be an indication thereof. viz. p. 25. saith the Bp. A Man will be strongly tempted to an unluckly guess where that person (mean­ing W. P.) has taken in his Principles (al­luding as we take it to Popery.) Again, the Bp. p. 26. If Mr. P. be not popishly af­fected, which hath been long feared of him, and that on very likely grounds, it may be sus­pected hence that he has a greater kindness for Atheism then is consistant with his profession.

Answ. The Bp's. fear and Suspition that W. P. is either popishly or Atheisticaly affect­ed proceeds from the same ground, and are alike true, as that he died a Papist about sixteen years ago in Pensilvania, and this [Page 160] was put in Print too by some of his Ene­mies: But we must tell the Bp. W. P's. Credit in those two points are above the reach of his Censorious pen, not only with the Quakers, but with many Men of note and Character in the World even of the Bp's. own Church. Well, but why must W. P. be affected to Popery or have a kind­ness for Atheism with the Bp? why? 'tis because he is for a free Gospel Ministry, and observes the Ministry is become too much a temporal preferment, and few to be found a­mong them, who court not stations of greatest profit and Honour; see W. P's. Defence 109. which indeed falls so very pat, and touches the Bp. so to the Quick (upon his late remove) (tho' no doubt was then un­known to W. P.) that 'tis not so much to be wondered at, why he should be so un­easie under it. But had the Bp. rightly considered, he could not have supposed that W. P's. dislike of Tythes or other forced Maintainance proceeded from his being popishly affected, because Tythes as a settled maintainance were introduced in time of Popery.

Ibid. (25.) The Bp. tells us, meaning W. P. would have so great a body as the Mi­nistry in these Kingdoms all become somewhat like mendicant Friers. No Rents or Dues must be allowed them, but Alms and Gifts, with [Page 161] what then (says the Bp.) are they likely to be more sincere in their Doctrine by being put to please Men that they may give them Alms.

Answ. No, W. P. nor the Quakers would not have the Ministry Beggers, nor yet some­what like Mendicant Friers, their begging way being nothing like the Apostles way of maintainance, and yet we would have such as have occasion, to be satisfied with Christ's free allowance, which was no other then free Gifts, and from the hands of such too, as did receive them and their ministry; see Matt. 10. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. And this maintainance we find the Apostles ex­cepted of, and were satisfied with, tho' it seems so far from pleasing the Bp. that he makes it a temptation to please Men: Surely we hope the Bp. will allow, that our Lord knew better then he, and that his command and way of a free maintainance, was not what would lead his Ministers into a temptation to be Men-pleasers, and we think it was not reverent, and what became a Bp. to draw such a consequence, whereby he implicitely reflected on the Christian Law­giver, tho' intended. directly against W. P. and the Quakers.

Again, Ibid. 25. Says the Bp. miraculous supports and ceased with Miracles themselves. What miraculous supports? we find none [Page 162] required, they (viz. the Apostles) were manifest to Mens Consciences, (is that ceased now?) and received what was set before them, and from those who would not receive them, nor their doctrine, they departed, and shook off the dust of their feet.

The Bp. tells us Ibid. 25. Mr. P. no where moves, that those laws which forbid Ministers to exercise Merchandizing, Mechan­icks or Secular Employments, may be abrogated or taken away.

We ask whether those Laws are Civil or Canon? and upon what occasion these Laws were made? and whether it was not because of the great covetousness of the Clergy, who not being content with the excessive gain of Tythes, were so greedy of gain, that they would be getting other ways too? (and perhaps by wily and sly ways as the Bp. slanders the Quakers.) We farther ask the Bp. if W. P. or the Quakers should move, as he speaks, will he promise for himself and engage or endeavour with the rest of the Clergy, they will be content without Tythes, provided those Laws be Repealed, when we know his mind he may hear farther; in the mean time, without he had let us know his mind in that case, we think his Objection was to little purpose. But says the Bp.

Ibid. (25.) If Lands and Tythes be denied them, and they are forbid other ways of getting a livelihood, there remains nothing but going a begging.

Answ. If they are Ministers of Christ and sent by him, there is no danger of that, for David under the Law, Psa. 37. 25. Saw not the righteous forsaken nor his Seed begging Bread: And Christ exhorts his Disciples to trust providence for Clothing, Meat, and Drink, &c. see Matt. 6. 21, 32, 33. and tells them Chap. 10. 29, 30. as an encou­ragement to depend upon God's providence, that the very hairs of their heads were num­bred, and not a Sparrow fell to the ground without God: And again promised to be with his Ministers to the end of the World, Matt. 28. 20. And shall the Ministers of Christ in our day distrust his providence for such necessaries as they stand in need of? surely no. They have faith in him that he will open the hearts of some to admini­ster to their necessities, and will not fear their going a begging, tho' they have no Tythes. But we confess it may be otherwise with those who are made Ministers by out­ward means, as by Man and Money, and in­deed it's no wonder if such want the true faith, which is inward and the fruit of the Spirit, Gall. 5. 22. The Bp's., chief and in­deed the only Scripture argument he has [Page 164] brought in spight (as he says) of all such, ill consequences, to prove their maintainance to be jure divino is 1 Cor. 9. 13, 14. where provision is made for those who wait at the Altar, &c.—And they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.

Answ. (1st.) This Scripture, tho' the chief the Bp. could bring, will make very little for his purpose to prove Tythes and other forced maintainance, due under the Gospel dispensation, which was the point the Bp. ought to prove if he could, and which to be sure he never can do by Scrip­ture.

(2ly.) The Quakers never denied or disallowed such a living as we are to un­derstand Paul doth here mean, to wit the Ministers of Christ who preached the Gospel should be supplied with such necessaries of Food and Raiment as they stood in need of; but as then so now, it's to come free and voluntary and from the hands of such too who had partaken of their ministry, or be­lieved them to be Ministers of Christ, and to this agrees Rom. 15. 27. If the Gentiles have been partakers of their Spiritual things their duty is also to minister unto them in car­nal things.

(3ly.) This sort of living and this way of maintainance for Ministers of Christ (who stand in need of and want necessaries) [Page 165] we are for, and with which agrees the very command of our Lord Jesus Christ when he sent forth his Disciples, Matt. 10. 8, 9. freely ye have received, freely give; But at the same time bids them neither provide Gold, Silver, or Brass in their purses, neither two coats, nor shoes, and gives the reason a­gainst such provision. Vers. 10. for the work­man is worthy of his meat; as much as to say, tho' you are to preach freely, as nei­ther to command or demand any thing for Preaching, yet you may receive such ne­cessaries as you want or stand in need of. Now who are they to receive this from, but from such who received them, for he bids them shake off the dust of their feet, as a testimony against such who would neither receive them, nor hear their words. Vers. 14.

(4ly.) Beyond the extent of Christ's al­lowance and the persons from whom to re­ceive, we are not to understand that Text, 1 Cor. 9. 14. nor indeed are we to under­stand it otherwise from the context it self, (1st.) Because 'twas to the Believers he then wrote, therefore from the Believers only the Ministers of Christ were to take what was given. (2ly.) That Paul was far from intending a great and lordly allowance or living; hear what he saith, Vers. 18. What is my reward then (says he) verily that when I preach the Gospel, I may make [Page 166] the Gospel of Christ without charge, that I a­buse not my power in the Gospel. From whence two things are observeable. (1st.) That he makes it rewardable to preach without charge, consequently then the more charge­able the less rewardable. (2ly.) That there was a danger of abusing the Gospel Power (which must be only understood in taking necessaries according to Christs allowance,) therefore being so nice a point, and having regard to his reward, and fearing he might abuse his power, he chose rather to work with his own hands, then take any thing at all, which he did to the supply of his own, and the necessities of them that were with him, in which he became a good pat­tern and Example to others.

Thus he tells the Church of Ephesus, Acts 20. 33, 34, 35. I have coveted no Mans Silver, Gold, or Apparell, these hands have administered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me: we think it can re­main no longer a doubt, what sort of living and maintainance Paul allowed the Mini­stry, by 1 Cor. 9. 14. viz. to receive at the hands of Believers for to answer their necessities.

(5ly.) Now, Impartial Reader, com­pare the Gospel allowance from Christ Jesus our Lord and what we are to understand from Paul, 1 Cor. 9. 13, 14. (the place [Page 167] cited by the Bp.) and see what proportion or equality it holds with Tythes and other forced maintainance in our day, and whether they, who pretend to be Ministers of Christ, and get so many hundreds, if not some of them some thousands by the Year for preaching, do not unreasonably exceed as well as abuse the Gospel power and main­tainance which Paul allowed the ministry.

Ibid. (25.) The Bp. proceeds thus, The Bp. doubts not to affirm, that take away the Established Ministry (which in moral speaking cannot subsist without a maintainance) and let our Parish Churches be left destitute of learned Preachers, and not only Popery in some places, but Irreligion and Barbarity more ge­nerally would soon ensue.

Answ. The first part of the Bp's. words are not hard to be understood, and are as plain, as we believe them true, which we take to be that if the Ministers settled Maintain­ance be taken away, the Ministry will fall and the Churches be left destitute of them.—Then say we if maintainance uphold and supports them we think it's plain that maintainance is their foundation, since they fall without it: We ask then whose Mini­sters they are? since Christ Jesus was the foundation of his truly constituted Ministers, with whom he promised to be to the end of the World, Matt. 28. 20. and upon whom [Page 168] a necessity was laid to preach the Gospel, and who were so far from forbearing to preach for want of a settled maintainance, that cruel Sufferings, as Whipping, Stoning, Imprisonment, nay death it self could not deter or hinder them therefrom, the hands of these we find administred to their necessi­ties, whereas the Bp's. ministry, morally speaking (as he tells us) cannot subsist, and that the Churches will be left destitute of them in case they are not upheld by set­tled maintainance: We could say much more upon this head, but forbear and refer, to the Impartial Reader upon a serious con­sideration, whether such be true Gospel Mi­nisters, as the Bp. has stated them, or Mi­nisters for Money and maintainance.

As to the Bp's. consequence that Popery and Barbarity would ensue, in case the Esta­blisht Ministry were taken away, (by forbear­ing of the maintainance.)

We answer the consequence is not true; for when the Clergy's maintainance was greater in these Nations, before Impropria­tions were taken from them, there was more Popery, Irreligion, and Barbarity then now, and perhaps would be less if Tythes were wholly down, and all preachers left to a free maintainance. Now as to Popery, there would be little danger of that, because if the Papists were sure before hand to miss of [Page 169] the sweet gain of Tythes, &c. they would no more trouble the Churches or People then the Bp's. Ministry, since they never fail, wherever they get footing to promote Tythes, and are as much for upholding them, as the Bp. or his Ministry can be; conse­quently then the Churches would be as destitute of them as of the Bp's. Ministry, and therefore no danger of Popery. Next as to Irreligion and Barbarity soon ensuing.

Answ. There would be as little danger thence, as of Popery, since instead of Men made Ministers, and such whose prop and foundation is Tythes and forced maintainance, we might not doubt the good providence of God in sending us Ministers of his own mak­ing, who would preach freely as they had received the same, and in so doing would come with less suspition of worldly and sini­ster ends, while gain and advantage was no motive to their undertaking of that Office and the effects of such ministers preaching as these, no doubt would be far from intro­ducing Popery, Barbarity, or Irreligion, that in all probability People would generally and sooner become better Christians under such a Ministry, then they now are under the Establisht ones.

P. 26. In Mr. P's. Judgment (says the Bp.) they must be all hirelings and Hypocrites, and the Bp. himself need not look far for such [Page 170] —he is too sensibly instructed in this af­fair (says Mr. P.) for a parting blow.—(And in a few lines after the Bp. adds thus) the Bp. mean-while for himself hereby Summon's W. P. to appear before God shortly at his Tribunal to answer for his Censuring him as a mercenary, an hireling, and an Hy­pocrite.

Answ. We might with much more reason return the like Summons to the Bp. for his great abuse of W. P. in particular, and the Quakers in general, as we have shewn, and by this Instance we find he resolves to hold out unfair to W. P. to the end, in laying down words in a different character as W. P's. tho' they are none of his directly, and not only so, but adding with a break between some words Eight pages distant to answer his purpose, without giving any no­tice thereof, therefore we shall Cite W. P's. Words in both places as they lye in his Defence. Thus (p. 122.) If he (i. e. the Bp.) ‘Hath any shot left against mercenary Religionist he may not miss the mark next time, but make it his main aim, end, and study to expose Hirelings and Hypo­crites in their proper colours; and some are of opinion, he need not go far to find too many of them. Again, p. 130. I can­not pretend to tell the Bp. what tribe of Men in Christendom it is, that have long [Page 171] made gain their godliness, and the pre­tence thereof their worldly inheritance, since he has been, so much more sensibly instructed in this affair then my self.’

Pray Reader compare these Citations with what the Bp. has laid down as W. P's. and see if they do not differ, but since the Bp. by falsifying W. P's. words, p. 122. and by so doing apply'd them directly to himself, which is plain W. P. did not un­less the Bp. be included in the number [too many] and since 'tis very plain as W. P. hath told him, p. 130. he is more sensi­bly instructed in getting worldly inheri­tance for a Spiritual consideration then W. P. is. We say since the case is thus it will lie upon the Bp. to rectifie and give satis­faction for his unfairness (in this as well as other Citations, &c.) as well as to clear himself of W. P's. last assertion (by way of comparison) in getting, &c. As to mak­ing Gain Godliness, they were in return to the Bp's. suggesting the Quakers such a People in his Testimony.

Ibid. (26.) The Bp. proceeds thus, he (i. e. the Bp.) is further bold to tell the World that both he and diverse of his brethren with him in a certain City laboured in the Ministry both day and night, when they had neither Lands nor Tythes, nor other Revenues to support them—And did feed their Flock. [Page 172] —That the very persons or others of their party, who now call that spoiling, which is but making some of their party pay a small pittance of Legal Dues, were at that time in power at Court or otherwise; and instead of Preaching, were Directors of publick Councils for no good or much mischief.

Answ. If the Bp. could have boldly told us, that he and his brethren fed their Flock freely, and at such a time when they could have compelled People to pay Tythes and other maintainance, but would not do it, because 'twas no Gospel maintainance, we say if he could have thus told us it would indeed have been not only bold but well told too; but to tell the world he fed his Flock without Tythes, &c. in a time of War, when 'twas not in his power to get them, we think by such his boldness, he will merit no great Commendations; and as to staying with his Flock in a time of danger, 'twas but his reasonable duty so to do, if it were only for his being largely pay'd (by them) before. We will not say he would have left them if he could, but he knows that unless he had gon off in the beginning of the troubles, 'twas almost next to impossible to get away afterwards; and certain it is many who did stay would gladly have gon afterwards if they could, whether he was one of that number he best [Page 173] knows. Next as to our not paying a small pittance of Legal Dues (as he calls them.) We answer 'tis for conscience sake we deny such payments, as not believing Tythes, &c. due to a Gospel Ministry, and as to the Legality of them, we dispute not the point, but say since he demands and takes them for a Spiritual consideration, he ought to prove his right to Tythes, &c. by a divine Sanction, as well as insist upon the Legality of them.

Now to the last part of his charge, where he insinuates that some Preachers amongst us were great at Court or otherwise, and instead of Preaching, were Directors of publick Coun­cils for no good or much mischief.

Answ. This charge (as a parting blow to speak in the Bp's. words) as it is un­true so it is equally unfair, not only in his being silent as to the person or persons that were such, no good or much mischief Directors, (if he knew them) but also in not telling the World what that no good or much mis­chief was, such did, that hereby the matter being known, the World might judg, whe­ther it was criminal or not, and if particu­lar Persons were guilty they might bear their own blame, and the Innocent be cleared, but neither of these the Bp. has done, for a good reason (no doubt) because he could not do it. But the Bp. perhaps [Page 174] thought this general and hidden way best to serve his end, which we cannot believe was any other then thereby to calumniate the Quakers in general; all the pretence that we can suppose for this charge is, that some few (perhaps not above a dozen at most in all the Nation, if so many) of our Friends were (very much against their minds) nominated Common Counsel-men, and some of them Aldermen in particular incorpo­rale Towns, as likewise at the same time were far greater numbers of other Protest­ants (which tho' a crime in us yet none in them with the Bp.) And as to preachers, we do not believe there was at most above two or three in the Nation of that number it self, nay we know but of one. But that either preachers or hearers were great at Court at all, or Directors of publick Councils, as the Bp. saith, we utterly deny, unless he will call: W. B. one, who yet was no Preacher, nor indeed was he in unity with us. On the contrary we are bold to tell the World (as the Bp. did,) we think with less rea­son) and which we should not have done but that it is extorted from us on this oc­casion, that the Quakers in most parts of the Nation did contribute large Summs to the relief of distressed Protestants and never failed to do them good on all occasions as it lay in their power.

But why's the Bp. so loud and hiddenly smiting the Quakers, we think he might have been silent in such a charge above many others, since no Quaker in Ireland was so high a Director (to give his own words) as a Parliament Man, which the Bp. was in those times, which we do not reflect upon him for, yet he that was such, he that writ the Specimen of Loyalty and so largely asserted the Right of that Goverment, to be un­doubted; and he that publickly reprehend­ed or silenced a Clergy Man in Cork for a Certain shortness in his Office, the better to express his great Loyalty, might have for­born this undue as well as untrue charge a­gainst the Quakers. We do not aggravate the matter, otherwise we could be more par­ticular, as to the two last, nor indeed had we mentioned any of them but that we were led to it by his hidden reflection.

Ibid. 26. He (i. e. the Bp.) never per­secuted Quakers, &c.—to which we answer, as we are plain where he injures us, so we will not be unjust where he deserves praise; we do confess we never heard he did, and tho' persecution be disagreable to the very nature of Christianity, yet the contrary is commendable in the Bp. since some, while in their power, have been greatly guilty of persecution, and altho' this controversie has [Page 176] happened with the Bp. yet we may justly say, 'twas neither desired nor sought for by us, and had the Bp. continued to be as easie with his Pen as he was in not perse­cuting the Quakers otherways, there had been no occasion for all this publick con­troversy: the Bp. tells us, p. 26. he hin­dered a certain person from publishing Memoirs of Mr. P's. Life, of his turning Quaker, and of his business at saint Omers, &c.

Answ. So far as the Bp. really did so in tenderness to the good name of W. P. it is to be commended in him (tho' such Me­moirs were ever so untrue) However we tell the Bp. whatever his mind was hereto­fore, yet the giving such a slant of being at St. Omers don't now look very kind: We farther tell the Bp. that W. P. is no stran­ger to malitious lies and forgeries, both upon himself in particular as well as upon the Quakers in general; and as to the true reason of W. P's. turning Quaker, whatever Malice may frame or suggest, yet we think no considerate and Impartial Man can pos­sibly believe, he had any other motive or consideration to his turning Quaker, but the good of his Soul, while the way to Quakerism (so called) is so very contrary to the greatness, Honour, and preferment with other such like worldly considerations (which are most commonly the motives to [Page 177] great Changes) and that at the same time W. P. turned Quaker, he turned his back upon all these things.

Next as to the business of St. Omers: This Instance shews what sort of Memoirs these were like to be. This Story is as old and thread bare as it is false, and if lying charges and stories were proofs W. P. was not only at St. Omers but had received Or­ders at Rome, and had dyed a Papist many years past: But why do not all his false Accusers prove his being there, by assigning a credible witness or witnesses, who saw him there, or some way or other demon­strate he was there? No that was never done, and indeed for a good reason, be­cause it could not in truth be done. Now this blind story, we confront by a publick Print, written by W. P. in answer to a friend of his, who importunately desired him for satisfaction to the credulous, and such who knew not W. P. that he would in a Publick maner answer that among other lying stories; the Letter is Dated—October, 1688. wherein W. P. makes return to those lying Aspersions, p. 11. and Solemnly declares that he was not only no Jesuit or Papist, but that he never was at St. Omers in all his Life, nor did he so much as know, or ever correspond with any one there. Here W. P. put it upon the test, his lying Ene­mies [Page 178] had then a fair opportunity (if they could) to prove him a Lyer, and in so doing would have had good ground to sus­pect him a Papist too.

Ibid. p. 26. and 27. The Bp. concludes his Book, first, telling of W. P's. vile Treatment, and calls his Defence an unhandsome piece; then proceeds with a Prayer that God will for­give all to Mr. P. and his brethren, and be­stow upon them a Spirit of true Faith, meek­ness and peace, of heavenly mindedness, Chari­ty, Mortification, and all the Graces they pre­tend to; and that their hearts may be one day found as void of Errour, Pride, Scorn, and peevish rancour, as Mr. P's. Book is full of the expressions of them all. Thus ends the Bp.

Answ. As to the vile Treatment and the Expressions of Errour, Pride, Scorn, peevish rancour, &c. the Bp. tells us is in W. P's. unhandsom piece; we say they are hard words, and sooner said then proved, and the Read­er may remember, the Bp. throughout his Reply has been readier at charges then proofs, most of which (we think) has in the end fallen upon himself instead of W. P. as we have shewn; and in this case we do deny what the Bp. hath asserted, and for Umpirage (i [...] the matter) refer our selves to the Impartial Reader, who have been most guilty of these and such like expressi­ons, W. P. in his Defence, or the Bp. in his Reply.

Next as to the Bp's. Prayer. If the Bp. had been more sparing to misrepresent, villifie, and abuse W. P. and the Quakers; then he hath been, it might have come with less suspition of its reality; but we think its next to impossible that any Man who endea­vours to abuse and misrepresent another, can at the same time Pray truly and heartily for him: And as to those Graces the Bp. men­tions, tho' on the one hand we will not boast of them, yet through the mercy and good­ness of God, some of us can in humility of Soul say, we have in measure witnessed the work of Mortification in our Souls, through the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And now to conclude; We can in sin­cerity say we have not, according to the best of our understandings, either misre­presented the Bp. or wilfully overlookt his sense, but so far as we understood the Im­port of his words, and where the force of his Arguments lay, we have as truly stated them, and thereupon answered with up­rightness; and whether we have thus done by the Bp. and he hath done so by W. P. or not, is left to the Impartial Reader, and so we conclude this Rejoynder.