VVEll met Neighbour, I would fain have some Discourse with you: for I have read in several of your Adversaries Books, that you hold dangerous Errors, asserting those things that are notoriously false, and denying those things that are re­ally true; and more particularly, the holy Scriptures, and our Lord and Sa­viour Jesus Christ. What sayest thou to this?

I have told thee, strainings, perversions, and false inferences, are the frequent practice of our Adversaries, the Qua. a Christian, p. 3.

I know this is your common an­swer, [Page 6] but whether it be true, I question. What sayest thou therefore to the Scrip­tures?

I do declare to the whole world, that we believe the Scriptures to con­tain a declaration of the mind and will of God, in and to those ages in which they were written, ibid. p. 9.

What is this to the purpose; I know thou canst use a thousand such E­quivocations: But tell me plainly, are the Scriptures the rule of Faith and Pra­ctice, or not?

Because we deny the Scriptures to be the rule of Faith and Practice, in honour to that divine light that gave them forth, ibid. p. 15.

Wilt thou confess my charges, and yet think to prove thy self a Chri­stian, and render my Impeachment as vain; certainly thou art infatuated, or worse, otherwise thou would'st never talk at such a vain rate, and render thy self such a ridiculous Scribler to all the world.

Thou hast left out what follows, viz. which was the Author of them in [Page 7] the holy Pen-men; that we should therefore deny all those holy precepts, commandments and rules relating to life and godliness that are therein con­tained,—If thou had'st cited this, thou had'st lost thy end; as not doing it, shews thy malice and folly together, ibid.

Thou hast absolutely denied them to be the rule of Faith and Pra­ctice; and yet in the same breath would'st have me believe that thou do'st own those holy precepts, com­mandments and rules relating to life and godliness therein contained: Is not this to say, they are not to be believed nor practiced; and yet to say they ought to be believed and practiced; and is not this heterodox: or are we to own that for precepts, commandments, and rules, which we are not to believe, which is absurd. But since you seem to own the Scriptures in some sense, do you own them to be the true sayings of God?

Yea, so far as they agree to the Light within?

'Tis evident what esteem you [Page 8] have of the Scriptures, since you own these holy precepts, commandments and rules therein contained, no farther than the Light within directs you.

I have told thee this is forgery, palpable forgery, Count. Christ. p. 11.

I know you are ready to accuse me of forgery: but pray tell me how far you do own and receive them.

By what rule shall we be con­vinced, that the Scripture is the only rule of Life, and hath this eminency above the Spirit: we own the Spirit to be the only rule and guide into all truth,—and is the only rule now to under­stand the Scriptures; G. W. Apol. p. 48.

Thou queriest here by what rule thou mayest be convinced that the Scrip­tures are the only rule: Hence 'tis evi­dent thou dost not own them so to be; and then sayest the Spirit is the only rule to guide into all truth, and to under­stand the Scriptures by: is not [...] to grant what is charg'd upon you viz. that you deny them to be the [...]ule of Faith and Practice, and that you own them no further man they agree with the Light within.

I would fain know of those of our present age,—upon what foot they receive them into this place and authority; is it by tradition, or revela­tion? I mean the internal testimony of the Spirit, or the external award and avouchment of men: if the former, they unavoidably come over to us; for then the Spirit will, and must be both rule and judge, W. Pen Christian Qua­ker, p. 141.

Then the reason why men ought to live up to those holy rules laid down in the Scriptures, is not from that di­vine authority that is imposed upon them: men are no further obliged either to Faith or Obedience, than the Light within moves them thereunto, &c. The Scriptures must be receiv'd upon the authority of the Light within, or upon the authority of men, or upon their own authority: both the latter are absurd in your eyes, therefore the former only is true. Not from men, nor tradition, for thou sayest that is Popery, and believing as the Church believes, ibid. p. 142. again thou queriest, p. 140, 141. How shall I [Page 10] be assured the Scriptures came from God? I am bound to try all things, then them among the rest. I would fain know what I must try them with? with the Scriptures? then the Scrip­tures must be the rule of my examina­tion, and Faith concerning themselves; which is improper. W. Pen, hast thou not here reprobated the Scriptures with a witness! certainly you are the most prodigious Hereticks and Imposters that ever any age did produce.

Whether the first Penman of the Scriptures was Moses, or Hermes? or whether both these are not one? or whether there are not many words con­tained in the Scriptures, which were not spoken by inspiration of the holy Spirit? whether some words were not spoken by the grand Imposter, some by wicked men, some by wise men, ill applied; some by good men, ill expressed; some by false Prophets, and yet true; some by true Prophets, and yet false? Qua­kers Refuge, p. 17.

Well if it be thus, then whether it is not dangerous, to receive the Scrip­tures [Page 11] any further then they agree with the Light within? and if Moses and Her­mes, be both one; then whether thy que­ry be not frivolous? if not, then whether the first, with all the rest of thy queries be not very mischievous? having this na­tural tendency to prejudice the weak Reader. And so these things being ta­ken collectively: Whether 1st. thou wouldst not throw aside a great part of the holy Scripture as doubtful; particularly the Books of Moses. 2. Whe­ther thou wouldst not have some part to be diabolical? 3. Some part false. 4. Some part foolish, both in expression and application. 5. And some part lit­tle to be regarded though true, beeause spoken by Lyars. 6. Some part spoken by inspiration, and yet of no Authority, because false: and so no part of it the true Record, or Declaration of God's Love for the Salvation of Mankind; for that, or nothing, is the implication of thy distinctions: but what further hast thou to say.

Though we do say, men ought to live up to those holy rules contained in [Page 12] the Scipture, yet the reason why, is that conviction they meet with from the Light in their own Consciences: there­fore the Light within is both our war­rant for saith in, and obedience to them, Reason against rail. pag. 48.

Certainly, thou (W. Pen) art a shameless man, thou dost not care what thou dost affirm, or deny, so it may serve for thy Interest: but if thou hast any shame in thee, I will make thee asham'd. Didst thou not affirm, in pag. 47. that the greatest reason of your belief concer­ning the Prophesies, and Promises recor­ded in the Scriptures, was not from any outward thing, but that inward testi­mony that you have received from the holy Light within you, to the truth and faithfulness of those sayings. And now W. P. after thou hadst writ all this, and much more, that might be minded; thou hast charg'd T. H. with forgery, because he charg'd the Quakers with the truth: certainly thou must be an Athiest, or a Person given up to a reprobate mind, or else thou couldst not remain Impeni­tent, as 'tis evident thou dost, by those [Page 13] Papers thou hast set forth of late: Oh! W. Pen, repent if thy day of grace be not over. But since thou hast so much favour for the Scriptures, as to receive them so far as they agree with the Light within, pray tell me whether you do not esteem your own words (as spoken im­mediately by the Spirit) to be of greater authority then any Chapter in the Bible.

That which was spoken from the Spirit of truth in any, is of as great au­thority as the Scriptures, or Chapters are; and greater. G. W. Apol. pag. 49.

But how can that which is spo­ken by a Quaker (supposing though not granting, to be from the Spirit of truth) be of greater authority then that which the holy Spirit hath spoken in the Scrip­tures? but since you exalt your words to be above the Scriptures, pray what do you think of your writings.

Fox and Hubberth [...]rne, in a Book of theirs, called, Truths Defence, pag. 2. in answer to Parson Comelford of Stavely Chappel; the Auth [...] [...]aving sent some queries to the P [...], who instead of [Page 14] swering them, burned them: thereupon he tells the Parson the said Book and page, that he might as well have con­demned the Scriptures to the fire to be burned, as his queries he sent him; or that he might as well have said, the say­ing of Christ and his Apostles were ab­sur'd as his queries, they (meaning his Queries) being given forth by the same Spirit, &c.

Certainly, these are great swel­ling words of Vanity; if you propound queries to any, they must be estemed e­qual with the Scriptures: but if any propound queries to you, they must be doom'd, as conjured up in the black Art, out of the bottomless pit: that they are the Language of a white devil, pro­pounded in the subtilty of unclean wis­dom, only to carp, cavil, and to insnare the innocent, Certainly were you such innocent Persons, as you pretend to be, you would never exalt your selves, and debase all others, nay you would not ex­alt your own words, and writings, above, nor equal with the Scriptures. But since you thus under-value the Scrip­tures, [Page 15] don't you believe them to be the true sayings of God.

I have told thee before, that some were spoken by false Prophets, and yet true, and some by true Prophets, and yet false. And Samuel Fisher in his rustick alarm, to the Rabies, tells thee, that they are false, and falsified: both Transcripts and Translations; yea, that none of them are right.

Certainly you are vile wretches, the very prodigy of the times we live in, for should any wise man read, and consider well what you have written, he must needs conclude, that you have con­spir'd together to under-value the Scrip­tures, and to expose them to the greatest scorn and contempt in the world. But what saith W. Pen to this.

If the Scriptures are the rule, they are so either in their Original or Copies; if in their Original that is not extant, then no rule in being, for the last of it that was extant. Was John's History at Ephesus not seen these thou­sand years: if the Copies must be the [Page 16] rule, it were to be wished, we knew which were the rightest to the Original, there being above thirty in number: this is undetermined, and for ought we see indeterminable: and that which makes good what I say, are the variety of readings among those Copies, amoun­ting to several thousands; and if the Copies cannot, how can the Translations be the rule so d [...]ffering from the true sence of the Copies, in many things, and from another: besides, I would fain know of [...]hose of our present age, who thus contend for the Scriptures being the rule, &c.—upon what foot they re­ceive them into this place and authority. W. P. Christian Quaker. pag. 141.

I perceive thou dost not only deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice, but dost also question by what authority we do receive them, and thy reasons for so doing is, 1st. Be­cause the Original is lost. 2. Because the Copies be above thirty in number. 3. Because there be several thousands of different readings in those Copies. 4. Because the Translations are so differing [Page 17] from the true sence of the Copies in ma­ny things. Thus, oh you Quakers have represented the Scriptures, in a worse sense than ever I read or heard any Je­suit, or Romanist ever did; for tho' they censure our Transl [...]tions in some things, yet I never heard but they did speak well of the Copies. Thus have you rendred the Scriptures altogether unprofitable: For if there be so many thousands of Errors in them, how shall I know what is right. And so this will make good what you formerly said, viz. That it was dangerous for ignorant Peo­ple to read them. Well, your opinions are so naucious, it makes my stomack be­gin to wamble, it is almost time to leave it; however before we part, let me ask you one question or two more. For since you pretend sometimes to own those holy Precepts, and Commandment therein contained; I would know to whom they are commanded.

That is no command from God to me, which he commands to another; neither did any of the Saints, we read of in Scripture, act by the command [Page 18] which was to another, &c. They obeyed every one their own command; and thou J. Turner, or any other who goes to Duty, as you call it, by Imitation from the Letter without, which were commands to others, in your own wills and time; your Sacrifice is not accep­ted, but is an abomination to the Lord. Edw. Borrough's Works. p. 47.

If it be an abomination to the Lord to do those commands which were given to others, as Borrough's says. And Ido­latry to call the Bible, a means of our knowing God, as G. W. says Dip. plung'd p. 13. Then whether we may not cast off all commands in Scripture, until commanded a-new by the Light within: And whether this be not the reason why you cast off all duty? neglecting Prayer in your Familles, not accounting your se [...]ves under that curse, Jer. 10.25. also craving no blessing upon your victuals, before you eat, nor returning any thanks after, but sit down, and rise up like hogs. Certainly these things are very offensive, to all that are Christians indeed. If this be Quakerism, the Lord deliver me from it. But can'st thou say no more.

By order and authority given me by the Spirit of the Living God, on the 31th day of the 10th month, 1655, about four a clock in the morning, the word of the Lord came to me, saying, write my controversie with all the In­habitants of the earth. Hence I do say, that to take up a command from the Letter, and say Christ commands it, that thus you are in the witchcraft, Edw. Burrough's works, p. 96. compared with. p. 105.

Is it witchcraft to stand in awe of Christ's Commands, to reverence their authority, to endeavour to our ut­most an observance thereof? if it be so, I have done with you; and I hope, if all sober Christians will consider these things, they may easily see what esteem you have of the holy Scriptures: but I will leave it, and proceed to another point.

Being well assured that you deny the Scriptures to be the rule of Faith and Practice, any farther than they agree with the Light within: I [Page 20] would fain know what your opinion is concerning Christ.

Some are not ashamed to tell the world in our name, that Christ was never visible as to his bodily appear­ance, and consequently, that we deny his coming in the flesh above sixteen hundred years ago, tho his coming is an article of our Christian Belief, W. Pen, Truth further cleared, p. 37.

I am almost certain, that never any one accused you for denying Christ's visible appearance: that we all accuse you of is, for denying that visible appearance to be Christ, or part of Christ, to which you will not an­swer directly, signifying hereby you are pinched.

We believe and confess 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 Governor, crucified, dead, and buried in the Sepulchre of Jo­seph of Arimathea; that he rose again the third day, and ascended into Hea­ven, [Page 21] and sits on the right hand of God, in the power and majesty of his Father, who will one day judge the world by him, even that blessed man Christ Jesus, according to their works, ibid. p. 17, 18.

This Creed seems very plausible, as tho it were orthodox: but to the end, neither I, nor any others may be deceiv'd by it; I would ask thee these few questions; and I prithee answer me directly: (1st.) Whether Christ was be­fore he took that body; or whether the taking that body did not constitute him Christ?

(2.) Whether Christ was ever vi­sible? or whether he was Christ only as God, and so never seen with mortal eyes?

(3) Whether God is Christ, and Christ be the Light? and whether the Light in it self be the Christ of God? and if so, whether the Light did suffer under Pontius Pilate, was dead and bu­ried, rose again the third day; and whe­ther the Light is ascended into Heaven, and whether it now sits on the right [Page 22] hand of God? Answer me briefly, and directly hereunto, that so I may be sa­tisfied: I will therefore repeat it again.

(1st.) Whether Christ was before he took that body? or whether the taking that body did not constitute him Christ?

Whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the Flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever, Amen. Since here Christ is distin­guished from the body he took, and made one with that God, who is over all, blessed for ever, Amen: As much as to say, of whose flesh Christ took, therefore Christ was before he took it; or his taking it did not constitute him Christ, W. P. Christ Qua. p. 97.

This is a direct answer, and it puts me out of all doubt, concerning your opinion in this matter: But since you deny that body to be part of Christ, was Christ ever visible.

Abraham saw my day, and re­ioyced; they still harping upon that vi­sible body, not thirty three years old; rep [...]ied, thou art not yet fifty, and hast thou seen Abraham? taking that to be [Page 23] the Messiah, the Christ of God, and Sa­viour of the World he meant, which they saw with their carnal eyes, ibid. p. 96.

'Tis believ'd among the Chri­stians that the Godhead, and Manhood conjoint, was the true Christ; but thou wilt have the Godhead only to be Christ. Certainly, I think herein hast thou de­nied the true Christ; but art thou in good earnest, was Christ never seen with carnal eyes.

Christ was never seen with car­nal eyes, nor heard with carnal ears; Humphry Wolrich Declaration to the Bap­tist, page 13.

Dost thou think any rational Man will conclude I have wronged you in calling you Imposters and Cheats; surely you are no Ministers of Christ, but false Prophets: because you testifie contrary to the Scriptures; see Joh. 1.29 to the 42. and there you may read Christ was visible, contrary to the bo d assertions of the Quakers: But it may be John's Testimony here agrees not with the Light within, and therefore they re­ceive [Page 24] it not; well it agrees with the Light in me, and I had rather believe John who saith, behold the Lamb of God (for I suppose he was a Christian) then all the Quakers in the World: But what sayest thou to this Lamb.

The Outward Lamb shews forth the Inward Lamb. Christ. Qua. p. 97.

I would fain know what thou meanest by outward and inward Lamb; if by the outward you mean the bodily appearance crucified at Jerusalem, then you make good that saying, Jesus Christ at Jesulalem, a type, a figure, a shadow: If you mean the Paschal Lamb under the Law, then the Christ Christians be­lieve in, who was crucified at Jerusalem, was not the antitype; and so the true Christ is denied by you. Well, but go on.

Nothing which was mortal was called Christ, J. W. Quakers Refuge, p 38. For thy word visible, he is not, nor never was visible to thee, nor thy generation; for those that did profess the Scriptures, as thou and thy generation doth, cruci­fied him, Edw. Burrough's works, p. 34.

J. Whitehead saith, nothing that was mortal was called Christ: and E. B. saith, the Queriest and his generation crucified him; how could they crucifie him that was immortal? except you mean metaphorically, as W. Pen saith: if so, then Christ was not crucified in a proper, but metaphorical sense! But since you deny him to be outward in any sense, tell me what he is.

Christ is God, Christian Quaker, p. 97. He is the Seed, ibid.

What is God?

The Light within, G. Fox the younger.

Since we are upon this Point, I shall make a little digression from the matter in hand: T. H. having brought the Quaker in; saying, the Light within was God; he asks, did the Light within create all things? makes you answer, yea: see this confirmed, G Fox, Gr. Myst. p. 185. the light which every man that cometh into the worid is enlightned withal, is Christ; by whom the world was made. Again, he asks, is the Light within the object of divine worship? [Page 26] He makes you answer, yea: that this is true, see a Pamphlet entituled, Dam­nable Heresie discovered: where the Au­thor says, 'tis damnable heresie to deny to worship the measure of light in eve­ry man: thus you see the Light within is God, is the Creator of all things, is the obj [...]ct of divine worship, &c. These are therefore no forgeries, but real truths. Well, but you say Christ is the seed, where is this seed?

It is inward and spi [...]itual, Chri­stia [...] Quaker. p 97.

I [...] it not all one to say Christ is God, is the Seed, is the Light within: if so, c [...]n the Light within be crucifie?

Ye have [...]ondemn'd and ki [...]'d the [...]ust, James 5 5 6. that is, Christ Je­sus in their heart, him they crucified, G. Keith Immediate [...]velation, p 77.

Was the Light within, or Christ in the hearts, cruc [...]fi [...]d under Pontius Pilate? certainly your c [...]nsessions to Christ's sufferings, are but meer Equivo­cations. But go on.

If there be any other Christ but he that was crucified within, he is the [Page 27] false Christ; and he that hath not this Christ that was risen, and cr [...]cified within, is a reprobate: though devils and reprobates may ta [...]k of him with­out, G▪ Fox, Gr. My [...]t p. 206.

But since you have denied [...]hrist to be visible, and conc [...]uded, tha [...] if there be any Christ but he that was c [...]u [...]fi [...]d within, he is the false Christ [...] what do you think of those Min [...]sters that Preach Christ without?

They that are false Preach Christ without, and bid people be ieve in him, as he is in Heaven above: but they that are true, Preach Christ within, Smith's Primmer, p. 8.

This is a great difference in their Doctrine; for one to Preach without, and another to Preach Christ within.

Yea, it doth m ke as great a difference, and hath no more fellowship together than the East hath with the West, ibid. p. 9.

And is this an infallible tryal of them?

Yea, it will not deceive thee, but will certainly give thee understanding, ibid.

Thus you are in the Quakers esteem; (you, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Independant, and Baptist,) false Preach­ers; and that which infallibly proves you so, is your Preaching Christ with­out, and bidding people look to him in Heaven above! But W. Pen, if this be false Doctrine, to Preach as thou sayest, what dost thou mean, when thou sayest Christ ascended into Heaven, and sits at God's right hand?

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

Is Christ no otherwise at God's right hand, than as he is in you?

'Tis a false and lying imagina­tion, to imagine either Christ or God, and his right hand, to be so remote, as not to dwell in any man, G.W. ibid. p. 69. I deny that Christ hath now a body of flesh and bones, circumscrib'd (or limi­ted) in that Heaven which is above, [Page 29] and out of every man on earth, J. Whitehead Quakers Refuge, p. 40.

Certainly you do but equivocate in all you say of Christ: hence 'tis plain that all you own concerning Christ, Heaven, and God's right hand, is no more then what is in you; but since you deny he hath a body of flesh and bones, now in heaven, and out of e­very man on earth, do you believe he hath any body now.

Yea, the Church is his body, Edw. Borough's Works. p. 150.

Hath Christ no other body but his Church?

To say Christ hath two bodies, one out of sight of the Saints; there is so much wickedness and ignorange in the broachers of such a particular, that it needs no answer, Burrough's, ibid. p. 151, 152. And now before he had accused any for saying Christ hath but one body, he should have produced plain Scripture, that saith he has two, or is the head of two bodies, a natural and a spiritu­al, G. W. Apol. p. 33.

You say the Church is Christ's body, I suppose you understand that to be his spi­ritual body; and then you deny he hath two bodies: hence 'tis plain you believe he hath no other body but his Church. But do you believe he shall so come, in like manner as he was seen go into heaven.

I deny he shall come visibly, and tho' it be said in like manner, yet every like is not the same, G. Whitehead, Christ ascended. p. 22.

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

They are like to be deceived, who are expecting Christ's second coming will be a Personal coming, which word person you add to the Scriptures; not minding the penalty, Revel. 22. G. W. ibid. p. 23.

'Tis almost time to conclude, but be­fore we part, let me tell thee that from what hath been said: I do gather, 1st. That you assert that Christ was before he took that body, and that the taking that body did con­stitute him Christ; nay, that it was no part of Christ. 2. That Christ was never visible, nor seen with carnal eyes. 3. That Christ is God, and God is the Light within; and that this Light in it self is the Christ of God; and that this Light was all the Christ that was crucified, which was crucified only with­in. 4. That Christ, Heaven, and God's right hand, is only within. 5. That Christ's second coming will neither be visible nor per­sonal; consequently, that he is come, as much as he will come. I think by this time I may safely conclude, that both the holy Scriptures, and the true Christ, is really denied by you, notwithstanding your equivocations, and therefore Quakerism is the Mistery of iniqui­ty; [Page 31] or in it self but a meer mystical Ro­mance.

Strainings, Perversions and false In­ferences, being the frequent practice of our Adversaries; at which rate the Scriptures may be made to prove there is no God: if these words, the fool hath said in his heart, be left out of the Text, The Quaker a Christi­an. p. 3

If thou thinkest fit I am willing to put it upon tryal; In the mean time I do affirm I have done ye no wrong, neither by curtail­ing, straining, or misapplying of your prin­ciples. I have taken many things immedi­ately from your own Books: Some things in­deed I have taken from Tho. Hick's Dialogues, I hope that's no offence to thee.

Tho. Hicks is guilty of vile forgeries, Counterfeit Christian Title page.

I know you accuse Tho. Hicks of many things, which I know he is not guilty of: but dost thou indeed believe his quotations, in his Dialogues are forgeries.

I never thought so, much less writ so, nor was that the question, taking quotations for places cited, as to book and page; and if generally accepted by him, Countefeit Chri­an, p. 17.

Herein then dost thou justify both him and me from forgeries in this matter; however I have seen the most part of what I [Page 32] have here written, in your own Books. I shall now take my leave of thee, (desiring thou mayest turn from Quakerism to Christianity) I shall address my self to the Reader, whom I would heartily desire he would seriously consider what is here written; I design it for thy good: and now Reader, consider, the true Christ is really denied by th [...] Quakers; and if so, they are no Christians and so I hope thou wilt carefully avoid them and then, (as I have said before) all other doctrines fall to the ground. I might min [...] many more of their gross errors which as yet I have no [...] done; I shall mind but one, and that is the Resurrectio [...] of the Dead, which tho' they pretend to own in som [...] sense, I say they own it in no true sense. I recommen [...] all to the blessing of God, and rest thy Friend,