IN your Preface to your Work, as all your good Notions (in themselves) are abused to set off a bad Cause, and put Deformity on those you intend to bait; so some parts of it (though fronted with Confidence) have that apparent untruth and miscarriage, as calls for Detection.

You say, The invincible Faith, and Patience, Page 3. and Hope of those holy Ancients, that so heartily espoused it (the Quakers Cause) stand before you as so many bright Examples and Encouragement [...].

I presume you mean by these holy Ancients, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, the Prophets, and Apo­stles, Primitive Christians, and the Martyrs for Christianity, and its Purity in Queen Maries days; or at least you would have us understand you so. But is it not strange that all these should be Quakers, and but your Precedents, and not one of all the Enquirers into Antiquity should be aware of it, till you had found it out? But how came you by this Invention, especially you Mr. Penn, if you practice your own Do­ctrine? For you say; But I will assure them, W. Penn's Spirit of Truth, &c. p. 23. they shall yet grope in the dark, till they come in­to the daily obedience of the Light; and there rest contented to know only as they experience; and not from a ravening comprehending brain, that would in its unregenerated state, grasp at the [Page 8] clear Mysteries, (or Clean Mysteries, as you told me it should have been) of the Kingdom, into which fleshly Comprehensions and Notions can ne­ver enter: But all must be as unlearned from their First-birth, Education, and Traditional read-Knowledg, as he is unmanned, that is again be­come a little child, before the secrets of God's Work come to be made known.

Is this the voice of William Penn? If what you say be true, as you would have us to think; I doubt you are as counterfeit a Quaker, as you are a Christian. Have you been unlearned from Education, and Traditional read-Knowledg? I think not; unless, as your Bedlam Quaker Book­seller told me, you write all against me by In­spiration (if you would be better informed where he dwells, than in my last, I now tell you, he dwells right against the Burial-place wall) but then 'tis what you can give us no evidence of. But I must needs conclude, That seeing you know only by experience, you cannot know that those holy Ancients were Quakers, or bright Examples of what is your Religion, they being dead before you were born. But if you know them to be such any other way, we have your own word for it, that you grope in the dark: And so let it pass.

Mr. Penn, these, and such-like things of you and your party, make you the wonder of Wise­men: And if they have so much Charity for you, as to believe you say as you mean, or mean as you say, (which must be a great deal) yet at least, they judg of you to be an infatuated People. And if W. P. be such an one, what are the puny Quakers?

I must not let pass your next words, with­out an Arrest for Defamation; (I mean your words, not your body, for I must be so careful, having to do with the Captious, and such an one as will create ex musca Elephantem:) So nei­ther P's Reb. &c. p. 3. have the many and great attempts of men of divers, yea opposite Interests, to render us unfit for the Earth. Where have they told you, that this was their design? Where did they say, they would have the World perswaded, that 'tis not fit the Quakers should be suffered to live? Sure I am, you must read me backward, if you intend to fix this Charge upon me; for I have told you, That it is far from my Principle, and Fald. Ep: to Quak. no Chri. in fine. natural temper also, to intend your Persecution; and that I know nothing that men who are your Adversaries can do more, to promote your Tenets and Party. Tell me, if you can, where I have retracted, or contradicted those words. It seems 'tis a Crime to interpret your words, who speak Barbarisms enough; but 'tis your right to interpret our hearts as you list. But thus you are an Ʋsurper of his Throne, who is the only Searcher of hearts: And that which is worse, you pretend his Authority for it. I shall prove what I say, from no less Author than your instar Papae, George Fox; who saith, And you that have not that which is infallible to Great mystery of the great Whore, p. 5. judg in you, know not the Spirit of Christ; nei­ther can you judg of persons or things, that have not the infallible judgment, nor have the spiritual man; neither have you the Word of God in your hearts, nor Christ which is Eternal and Infallible: All which the Quakers have to judg persons and [Page 10] things. No wonder if the Quakers believe all you say, how apparently soever untrue. I do not judg a Turk, a Heathen, or a Jew not fit to be suffered to live upon Earth; though I judg them not fit to be esteemed Christians, and know them to be Enemies to Christianity as well as you; but yet something more fairly, as they are openly such, and you Treacherously. But I proceed to your Self-magnifying news, which never reached our eyes or ears, till your Pamphlet reported it; viz. We have been long P's Reb. p. 4. threatned with a report of the joynt-endeavours of many Ministers—But we no sooner received and look'd into the Book, than we saw our selves under a very great Disappointment. For, instead of some new Essay, behold an old Discourse new-vamp'd; or a new Impression of a Book twice largely con­sidered, and as some think, effectually answered: I mean, John Faldo's Quakerism no Christi­anity.

It is more than possible, that this Report is but the Figment of your own brain. And if you dream, that the overthrow of your cause is so difficult a task, that it requires the joynt-en­deavours of such in a new Essay; you may gra­tifie your self with your ungrounded fancy, and thank your selves for your disappointment. I think I have the means to know their minds and motions concerning your affairs better than you, or any of you, or all of you: And I assure you, I have never heard that it entred into their thoughts; but on the contrary, they are so well satisfied that your cause is determined, by what hath been done already, that they have thought [Page 11] fit to give their Attestation in the Epistle you have attempted to bespatter.

Yet 'tis strange (but like your self) that you should pretend an expectation of a new Essay, a new Book, containing the joynt endeavours of many Ministers; and then tell us you look'd for it: But where? in my old one new-printed and vampt (as you phrase it:) But why should such Gnosticks as you look for a new Book in an old one; and one that carried in its forehead the old Inscription of Quakerism no Christianity, and by the single old Author John Faldo? Who can suppose you not guilty of wilful mistakes, and free from the affronts of such disappoint­ments, who go to work thus blind-fold-like? and lay your words so well together, that your next line calls you—for that which went im­mediately before it;

Having past your Preface, which deserves such a Censure; I now meet with your RE­BƲKE OF ONE AND TWENTY DIVINES, and must in the future passages of your Pamphlet, have still in my eye, that nau­seous impar & Congressus, W. Penn, One and twen­ty Divines; W. Penn against One and twenty Di­vines; and that at no more fair, and modest a Weapon than a REBƲKE. A Rebuke from W. Penn a Quaker, a Youngling, a Boy, comparatively, to One and twenty men, to One and twenty Ministers of the Gospel, Elders by Office; such, whose Office set aside, are many [Page 12] of them, for Learning and Parts, men of Name; scarcely any of them but of years enough to be your Father, and near one half of them old enough to be your Grand-father. And not an implicite, or a Rebuke in general terms, but a down-right Rebuke to them by name, a Rebuke to their teeth.

I am sure if the Scripture had been your Rule (if not their Office, yet) their Age, and the hoary-heads of some of them, would have commanded a more respective behaviour, though putting off the Hat be accounted by you an ir­religious and uncivil Ceremony. Methinks it had become you rather, to have fronted your Reply with a modest Enquiry into their Epistle; or a sober Expostulation. But nothing could suit your unbridled Passion, and scornful Spirit, but a REBƲKE. If the Light of Nature forbid a Saucy Deportment to our Elders, by far, this carriage is no Commendation of your Morality, which you presume we will allow you, while denying you to be a Christian.

Your Porch and Title being so Faulty, I suspect a foul house within. And your first Entertainment consists of Quibbles, and impi­ous Censures and Insinuations: But let us hear P's. Rebu. p. 5. (say you) what use, you the great Men of Ʋses make of this Introduction. I say no more to you for this, but wish for your own sake, and theirs whom you influence, that you were rather a great Man of Ʋses, than a man so guilty of many, and the greatest Abuses; as will not be only said, but proved.

In the same Page you are at your sport again: Render the Quakers better than they are! There is little fear you will. You may turn Pelagian in the case, and exclude all Divine assistance: For I hope none are so ignorant in this Age, as to think Men of your Stamp need special Grace to keep you from the sin of rendring the poor Quakers better than they are. Verily Mr. Penn, if those Wor­thy Persons you scoff at were turned Pelagians, it would advance them by many steps nearer to Quakers. For herein the Pelagians and you are agreed: They held, That the powers of Nature Voss. in hist. Pela. lib. 3. were sufficient to preserve them from all sin, yet cried up Grace to keep them from publick ha­tred; while they meant no more by Grace, than God's bestowing on all men such a Vertu­ous Nature: And you cry up Inspirations, and Divine Assistance; and yet mean no more by it, than the Light and Power within, which every man hath; and is indeed no more but the Natu­ral Faculties by you improved at a lower rate than the Heathens. This Principle of yours, you express out-right, in your ungodly Mockery at special Grace in these words; It is the Presby­terians special Grace that saveth; for Moralities P's. Rebu. p. 31. part, alas! she is a poor Heathen, an Alien, an Infidel, without the Pale of the Church, and Mer­cies of the Covenant; but then it is to be under­stood of the Scotch one. Whether you learn'd this Christian Drollery of your Admired Ben. Johnson, or our more Modern Railers, I know not: But the Scab is catching, especially by those nigh of Kin. I perceive corrupt Princi­ples, and prophane Wit are your Darlings; and [Page 14] your Nature is as greedy to suck in the Poyson of the one, as of the other.

Your Censure of their Prologue (and their design in it) to the Epistle, little commends your Modesty or Charity: scil. Or else to give a greater Ib. p. 5. credit to your Work, than your selves perhaps be­lieve it deserves. What is this but to insinuate, That they deserve to be suspected for a pack of gross and impious Hypocrites, who designedly abuse the holy and reverend Name of God; and pretend to a sense of it, but to cover their wilful lying? If this take with your Readers, and they believe their good words, excellent say­ings to be (as you phrase it a little after) but a trick to decoy people, your work is done. But I doubt not ere I have done with you, to set this Brand on him who more deserves it, and discharge you with the Character of Homo li­teratus.

Now I come to those things of yours, which look like Arguments; but not being animated with truth, they will be of small strength. The first is no less than a pair of Dilemma's; but all your storms cannot wreck the Objects of your Fury upon the Scylla or Charibdis of those dan­gerous straits: Either (say you) you have read, or Ib. p. 5. not read the Book ye recommend. Very right; and what of either? If you have not, certainly you have done ill to recommend it. Thus far you are pretty fair: But what if they have read it? Why then you say, They manifestly entitle them­selves to all the evil of it. But now Mr. Penn, I must stop your Career: For, if the Book an­swer the Recommendation, and have not in it, [Page 15] any thing that may be otherwise mischievous to the Reader, though there should be some lesser evils in it, they do not entitle themselves to them. And the most they say of the Book is, ‘That in it the Quakers and their Principles Min. Ep. to Quak. no Christ. in fine. are more thorowly investigated, than in any Book which they have seen—And that for Matter, Proof, and Stile, they judg it to be especially useful for those who need or desire Information about the Quakers and their Principles.’ Now I will confess to you (if it will do you any service) that I have shewed much infirmity in the Management of it, to which I should be loth to entitle those Worthy Persons, you would deform with any Scars you can find there; and who, if they had under­taken that Work, might have managed it much better than I, and to the greater exposing your evil Cause. But for all the faults you have really found in it, they may give you your say­ing, without reaping to themselves any cause of shame or repentance; which will be proved, as the matter comes to hand.

Now I shall consider your second Dilemma; Reb. p. 6. which amounts to thus much, That if they have not compared the Citations, which are the strength of the Book, with the Books themselves, their Re­commendation is by rote. If they have, you will prove, That they have offered great violence to their Ʋnderstandings, in giving their Approbations. Great words! which will shortly vanish into smoak and vapour. For the first of your Con­sequences (if I should grant that which I neither know, [nor you have proved) it is lame: For if [Page 16] they have not made that Compare, they may have read some, or many of your numerous Pam­phlets, containing the same things. And they might have been present at the numerous Meet­ing, August 28. 1674. (I am sure some of them were.) They might have heard there, or from sure Testimonies, that I there offered my Cita­tions to a personal Test, and a publick, when­ever the Quakers would call for it: Whereas you have hitherto accounted it your prudence, not to take me at my word. They may also have read your Answer, or Rejoynder, wherein you acknowledg all you are pleased to recite, except three or four. They may have read my Vindi­cation, wherein I provoked you to meet me with impartial Judges, and I would undertake to prove my Faithfulness, against the worst of your Calumnies: To which you are silent. More­over, the truth of the Citations depends on matter of Fact; wherein to deal untruly, so oft as must be to enervate any of my Charges, must be so wilful a Treachery, as no man ought to su­spect a Professor of Godliness guilty of, till he have merited it by some apparent miscarriage to discredit him. And I protest seriously, that if I did not certainly know, that ungodly Crime were your frequent Guilt, I should hardly be perswaded to disbelieve many falshoods in point of Fact, which your Books are cram'd with: But all this is said ex gratia. They have pru­dence enough to conduct their own affairs in this matter, and need not you or I to tell them what Evidence is a ground for them to go on; and you having proved nothing, [Page 17] I might have let this pass without further notice.

Your second Consequence you refer the proof Ibid. of till anon; and I shall attend till then for it. In the next place you charge me, That the most Ibid. of the Principles I charge upon you to be yours, are not so laid down by any one of you; nor say you, Sayable by any of you upon your real Principles. But should you not have proved this? You in­stance only in one Charge; which you say, I will defend but by Consequence; scil. That there is no other Judgment, Heaven or Hell, than what is within us in this life. And you add, That it is so far from being your Principle in your words, that it is as inconsistent with the truth of your Creed, as darkness is with light. But what a set are you at for an instance, out of the most of the Prin­ciples I charge you with, that you give one (and but one) which I no-where find charged upon you in those words, which you pretend to be mine. I have examined my Catalogue of your Errours, and there they are not; I have taken some pains in searching the Book for them, and there I find them not. And though you give us but a single instance, and in a different Let­ter, you tell me not where I may find it by quotation of Chapter, or Page. Is not this striking your own sword into your own bosom? Yet let me tell you, that though the matter of those words of yours (not mine) being in your Creed, render your Creed untrue with a wit­ness: I shall not baulk at proving it to be ne­cessarily your Creed, much more consistent with it.

If I prove, That neither the Bodies, nor the Souls of men shall be subjects capable of any reward after this life by your Principles; then I prove, That it is not only consistent with your Principles, but apparently necessary by your Prin­ciples, That men shall have no other Judgment, Heaven or Hell, but what they shall have in this life. And in the first place I shall prove, That you deny the Resurrection of the Body; and so, that that part of man shall be no more capable of a Heaven or Hell after its death, than that which is, and ever shall remain without life.

George Whitehead, in the presence of about an hundred persons, acknowledged, That he did not believe, that his Body should rise again after its death. This is plain English, and from a Qua­ker of no less esteem, but far longer standing among the Quakers than your self. These Part 2. p. 136. Answ. to Faldo, p. 200. words of his I cited in my Quakerism no Chri­stianity, and you repeat them in your Answer, without denying them to be his words; which you would have done no doubt, if he had de­nied them to you. But on the other hand you say, But what if he did say so, and I should second him? would it follow that we deny a Re­surrection? I acknowledg, that you profess the belief of an Allegorical Resurrection: But this is but a shuffle, and a silly evasion; the Que­stion being of the Resurrection of the Body, and his Unbelief being of the Resurrection of his Body. Before I proceed any farther, I shall open the Readers eyes to the A Resurrection (which you say is not denied by Whiteheads words) from the Learned Fisher the Quaker, [Page 19] who went to Rome for somewhat. Ye have (saith he) Moses and the Prophets within; viz. This written, spoken, manifested in you, Quod tibi ne vis fieri, alteri ne seceris. And (retro) Whatever Fisher. Velata quaedam revel. p. 4. ye would that men should do unto you, so do ye even to them. This (saith Christ) is the Law, or Moses, and the Prophets. But if ye will not be admo­nished nor perswaded by Moses and the Prophets, neither will ye be perswaded by such of us, who were once dead in sin with you, but are now risen to life, by the Power of God, which is his Light, and in the same sent to speak unto you from the DEAD. Here your Resurrection is set out to the life, wither some other fine knacks of the Quakers, that serve for a shelter in a time of need. But I shall plow no farther into your infidelity in this point, but with your own Heifer.

Having thus far revolted from Christianity to Heathenism, or Atheism; you lay hand on their Weapons, where-with to fight against the power and revealed Truth of God, and the Re­ligion you are apostatized from: Either (say you) the Resurrection of the Body must be without that (gross elementary) matter, or it must not: If it must, then it is not that same numerical Body, Penn's Answ. to Fal. p. 201. and so their proper and strict taking of the word Resurrection they must let go: If it must not be without that same gross matter it dyed with, then I affirm it cannot be incorruptible; because it will carry with it that which will render it cor­ruptible ad infinitum. It is not now my business to examine the Philosophy or Logick of your Argument; but to discover your Opinion. And take you which way we will, you here deny the [Page 20] Resurrection of the Body. But you say fur­ther, that you may not be thought of our Opi­nion, after all this: I say, we cannot see, how that which is of dust should be eternal, whilst that from whence it came is by nature but temporal. And I believe you, so long as you leave the Light without, and above you, and are guided only by the Light within you, which is natural, and receiveth not th [...]se things of God.

Being thus plunged in the Dungeon of Dark­ness, you have the wit to tell me that, which a Boy understanding his Accidence, would be ashamed of; viz. And that which is yet most of all irreconcileable with Scripture, and right Reason, is, That the less and change of Nature from cor­ruptible to incorruptible, natural to spiritual, should not make it another Body. In vain do such Ib. p [...] 202. dispute against the Popish Transubstantiation as an absurd and impossible thing, who themselves are guilty in a case of the like nature.

I wonder the less at your other absurdities, and your confidence wherewith you counte­nance them, seeing you talk so ignorantly of the Popish Transubstantiation. They say, That the Bell de [...]uch. l 3. c 18. C [...]ch. ad P [...]r [...]ch. ex [...]n. frui. p. 830. substance of the Bread is changed into the real Body of Christ, and into his Divinity; and that it ceaseth to be Bread, while the accidents of Bread remain: And we say, That in the Re­surrection of the Body, the substance of the Bo­dy is raised, or quickned again; but its quali­ties and accidents are altered, or changed. I know not any of us are so ignorant, as to af­firm. That by being made spiritual (i. e. rarified and made more subtile) that, it is changed into a Spirit.

Let it be observed also, That the Resurrecti­on of the body which I affirmed they deny, and which Opinion you oppose, I gave an account of in these words: ‘The raising again to life Quak. no Christ. part. 2. p. 122. last impres. p. 238. and from the dust and corruption, the bodies of men and women, however disposed of af­ter their natural death or dissolution.’ This you have denied; and shew me if you can in any Quakers Writings, that they believe the body, after dissolution, or any part of it, shall be quickned, and raised to life in any manner or form whatsoever. Thus I have made good my first task, That you deny the Resurrection of the Body. I shall now prove, That you deny their Souls, after the death of their Bodies, to be subjects capable of reward.

My first Argument I shall draw, from what you affirm the Spirits and Souls of men to be. And first, I shall give you the testimonies of Fi­sher, Fisher. Ve­lata quae­dam revel. p. 17. an early Quaker, and a man able to tell his tale as punctually as any of you: And whereas ye Query, (saith he) Whether the said Spirit of manis mortal, or immortal? I answer, It is im­mortal, and neither mortal nor corruptible; but that immortal and incorruptible Seed of God, even something of that living Word which is said to be made flesh. And this he saith is essentially con­stitutive of Adam in his pure state, and of every Regenerate man.

But yet plainer and more general: And is Fox great M [...]st. &c. p. 16. not (saith Fox, your great Oracle) that of God, which comes out from God? is not that of his Be­ing—and so Divine? (speaking of the Soul.) Again (saith the same Author) Is not the Soul [Page 22] without beginning come from God?—It is not horrid Blasphemy to say, The Soul is a part of God, for it came out of him; and that which came out of him, is of him. Magnus Bine saith, The Id in eod. p. 29. Soul is not infinite in it self: And Richard Bax­ter saith, It is a spiritual Substance. Now consider Id. in eod. p. [...] what a condition, these called Ministers, are in: They say that which is a spiritual Substance, is not infinite it its self, but a Creature. The same Oracle saith moreover, Is not the Soul without beginning, coming from God, returning INTO God again?—Hath this beginning or ending? And is not this Infinite in its self?

Now I will put it to the verdict of any rati­onal man, Whether you in affirming the Spirits or Souls of men to be something of that living Word, which is said to be made flesh; to be of the Being of God, and so Divine, without Be­ginning, a part of God, Infinite in it self, not a Creature, do not render it a subject uncapable of any rewards; especially, considering, that 'tis said by you to be returning INTO God again. I shall not take notice here of your Bla­sphemies in talking of a part of God, &c.

Many of these passages, among others, I cited in my Book; and some of them you took no­tice of in your Answer; and but some, which you thought you could best warp to a tolerable sense; though when you had done all, a half­witted man might pronounce you guilty from your own evidence.

I pray review the strong Contradiction of P's Answ. to Quak. no Christ. p. 192. your own, to what I charged you with: We do for ever (say you) renounce any such Principle, [Page 22] as that the Soul of man, simply as such, is the very Essence and Being of God. Do you deny here, the Soul of man to be the very Essence and Being of God? No; your Simply as such, is too sim­ple a shuffle to blind a Reader, not blind before.

I having given you the matter of my Argu­ment, I now give it in form thus; If (according to the Quakers Principles) the bodies of men af­ter death shall never be quickned, and raised to life again, much less to a life that shall never end; and the Souls of men are of God's own Being, a part of him, and shall return into him again: Then (according to the Quakers Principles) there is no part of men, which after death, shall remain sub­jects capable of a Reward, a Heaven, or Hell: But the former hath been proved; threefore the latter.

When I had from undeniable grounds con­cluded by Consequence, That the Quakers deny or disown a blessedness or misery in another World; yet finding them confidently asserting, That they owned eternal Rewards: For the curing of my mistake (if I were under such a thing) I made this fair Proposition to them; ‘Let them profess that they believe a happiness Quak. no Christian. part 2. p. 141. impr. ult. p. 248. to be enjoyed by men or women, after their bodies are rotted to dust, distinct from the Be­ing of God, or that which they had not a thousand years before they were born (i. e.) to be IN God, from whom (as of his Being) they say the Soul came; and it will be news to me, and all that are acquainted with them.’ And was not this enough to engage you to profess your Faith in this matter, if you had any beyond [Page 24] what I apprehended? But all your Evasions be­ing by this Proposal prevented, and the true state of your Faith about eternal Rewards, ex­posed, in your Answer you take no notice of my Proposal. In my VINDICATION I charged you with the neglect of it; and after I had repeated the former matter, I added, ‘This Vindic. of Quak. no Chr. p. 90. I proposed for the evading of all their delusive terms, and that I might draw out of them an acknowledgment of the genuine truth, if they had any such in the Treasury of their Di­vinity. But as I charged Penn before, so I do now again (and with him all thorow-Quakers) that his silence to this matter, concludes them guilty of not owning a future Reward in an­other World, or a Life to come.’ One would have thought all this more than enough, to pro­voke you to speak out, if you had any thing to say to the purpose. But you Rejoyn in a Book of 437 pages, and are as dumb to this Proposal as ever, though as streperous as ever in Rants and Reflections. This being a matter of such moment, that it alone determines the Controversie, I took the occasion you gave me, to be thus full in its discussion. And now let sober men, yea, let the Lord judg between you and me, who of us are guilty of injury in this matter.

I shall now farther defend the justice of my laying down your Principles not always in your own words, although the like dealing with others would be really unjust.

Most Professors of Religion, and all that are not ashamed, or afraid to have their Principles generally understood, are plain and open in [Page 25] their expressions of them, and industriously de­sign to be understood, and use such terms as others use, and understand by them what they mean: But you walk in the Clouds, and like Gypsies, have a Canting of your own, in which you speak to one anothers understandings; while strangers to your Opinions and ways, may as well understand Welsh, or Hebrew (though ne­ver bred or learned therein) as they can under­stand you. I know you have boasted of mira­culous Gifts and Tongues too; but this plotted way of clouding your meaning, is all the Tongues that ever I could find you attained by Quakerism; and by which, your Conferences with persons unacquainted with you, hath ren­dred you deservedly Barbarians to them, while you esteem them Barbarians in spiritual Know­ledg, for not understanding your uncouth phrases.

Some-newcoyn'd phrases you use, which are your proper and peculiar Mintage (except you had them from Jacob Behem) ex. gr. Miracles in Spirit, The Seed in captivity, A measure of God From the Spirit inwardly ravening, Ravening Comprehending Brain, fleshly comprehensions, Tra­ditional Penn's Spirit of Truth, p. 23. Page 14. read-Knowledg, Vulturous eye; with many more. The four last are your own, and three of them are jumbled together within the compass of five lines. To these I may add a multitude of words and phrases you use in com­mon with others, but your meanings by them, are not the same with the generally-received import of the words. For instance, By persons in Covenant with God, you mean such persons as [Page 26] are without sin; yea, that have no sin remain­ing in their natures, and no other.

This is verified by a great man among you (with most of your Leaders in their Writings:) Now (saith he) where sin is remaining in the Na­ture, Crisp's Alarm, p. 16. there the Covenant with Hell and Death is not broken, neither are such in Covenant with God. A hard, cruel, and untrue saying. By the being under the Devils power, you mean the same thing, as appears by the words next fol­lowing the fore-cited: But are yet under the power of the Prince of the air, what-ever they profess. So by being in sin, you mean such as have any remains of sin in their nature: And the death of Christ is of no value unto them, because they are yet in sin. These words are an­nexed to the former, and applied to the same persons. I shall give you one loud proof more of this falshood, and fallacy. Be it known unto you, in the Name of the God of Heaven, that where sin remains, there the Devil is Prince and Id. in eod. p. 13. Ruler. Who understand these terms so, but your selves?

Let me give you a Demonstration, that such abused terms force me to give your Principles not alway in your own words. I find one of your chief Ministers writes thus, For this end is Christ manifested, to destroy the works of the De­vil, and to redeem OƲT OF the fall. And this Parnel Shield of the Truth, p. 48. we witness, who through the Lamb our Saviour, do reign above the World, Death, Hell, and the Devil; but none can witness this, whose eye is out­ward, looking at a Redeemer afar off, and still live in sin. Now, Reader, suppose I were to [Page 27] give their Principle from these words, it will bear according to their true meaning, that they hold, That none can be redeemed from the Devil, from the fall, who look to a Redeemer afar off, which is no otherwise to be understood, but of the the Person of Christ ascended. But there being added these words, and yet live in sin: If we take it in our sense it clear them; for we hold, all that live in sin, to have no Gospel sincerity, no true faith; and so though they expect Sal­vation from the true Christ who is ascended, are not delivered and redeemed from the Devil and Law. But take living still in sin, in the sense of the Quakers, for a not-being freed from all remains of sin in our natures, and the cover is taken off, and the blind removed.

And that I may shew you how full of such strange meanings a short Sentence of theirs may be, take notice, that by We witness, they mean not a testimony to others; but their own expe­rience, or having it by Inspiration: None of them will deny this. But there is a worse Snake in the grass: For by the Lamb their Saviour, they mean not the same numerical man, Jesus the Son of Mary, who was crucified at Je­rusalem, for he is the Redeemer we look at afer off; but they mean, the Light within them. And because 'tis very strange, as well as very corrupt, I shall give a proof of it: Here was the Light shone out of darkness in John (John 1. 9.)—Then God sent him to bear witness unto Morning Watch, p. 5. the Light which in him (these two last words are put in a different Letter in my Author) was made manifest, that all in the Light might be­lieve, [Page 28] and he called to others to behold him, and said, he was the LAMB OF GOD, &c.

Who that gives their Principles always in their own words, can possibly render many of their Tenets (especially those they most indu­striously hide from such whom they would not have to understand them) intelligible to others? What I have said are their own words, are such; and what I charge them with beside, I give in their sense, though not in their words; which is as necessary, as it is to render that in English to a mere English Reader (that he may understand it) which is spoken or written in another Tongue. And I have so far consider­ed the Contexture of their sayings, as that I am very well armed to prove each particular to be their sense in the same place, whenever I am called thereunto.

By Election and Reprobation, they mean God's chusing of Christ, and rejecting the De­vil and sin; which is proved by the following Citation. Quest. And doth Election and Repro­bation [...]mith's Catech. p. 9. stand in the Natures, or Seeds of Light and Darkness? Answ. Yes it doth so; for the Seed of Light is Christ, whom God hath elected and chosen before the Foundation of the World; and the Seed of Darkness is the Devil, and En­mity, which is reprobated for ever. Is it not clear here as Sun-beams, what kind of things are the subjects of eternal Rewards or Punish­ments by their Principles? I should be too tedious, if I should here enumerate their ill­meant phrases, and give the proofs at large; as, that by Carnal Ʋnderstanding and Imaginations, [Page 29] they mean the use of Humane Reason; by the Will of the Flesh, our choice and derermina­tion, however rational, or according with the Scripture, if not by the Motion and Inspirati­on of the Light within; by Christ, the Light within; by being out of the Power of God, not adhering to the motions and impulses of what they call Christ, or the Light within; by the Man Christ, the spiritual Man, the Light within still; by Christ crucified, a Christ crucified with­in; by the Righteousness of Christ justifying them, the works done in their bodies by the strength (they say) they receive by the Light and Power within; by Christ's flesh and blood in their flesh, a body of spiritual flesh, blood and bones, which (they say) came down from Heaven, and tabernacled in the Son of Mary, while he was upon earth, and now dwells in the Quakers.

If they would please to give us a Dictionary of their Words, Phrases, and Interpretations, all their Murther would out: But in the mean time their Adversaries (I mean to their Opi­nions) must study them out of their Writings, and converse as they do, who give us the In­terpretations in English of Foreign Languages; and this I have done faithfully (so far as I have expressed) in my Key to the Quakers phrases.

Now Mr. Penn, I shall follow you at the P's Reb. p. 7. heels, with less pains, and more advantage. You quarrel with the Reverend Divines (never the less Reverend for all the dirt you can fix upon them) for not consulting your Answers to my Book. I assure you, if you wish they all [Page 30] had read and weighed them throughly, you and I are agreed in somewhat: For I know not any more sure way to my Vindication, and your Condemnation, than a due comparing our Wri­tings. But yet you only tell them what they should have done to render them blameless (at least with you) but you prove nothing with your Ifs and Ands, though you make bold Conclusions. But what should we expect more from a man, whose mettal is no where but in his words and flourishes?

They had been prudent indeed by the rule of Contraries, if they had followed your advice, and upon your strong Reasons; viz. But if you must needs be so liberal, methinks your Recom­mendation had better been bestowed upon his VIN­DICATION, since his writing that, proveth this wanted it; and if it wanted then, its wants Page 7. it still, and yet it seems the Book vindicated, must be the Defence of the Vindication, and all the re­turn I am like to have to my Rejoynder, bating the Epistle, &c. Can you be sober, and believe that men of Reason will account this your rea­soning sober? Must a Vindication be taken for a Condemnation of what it vindicates, without more ado? Are you not a cast and a condemned man, and the Quakers Cause with you, by your own Logick? For your writing in their Vindi­cation, proves they want it. And doth not your attempts to vindicate your Answer, shew by this Figure of yours, that it was a defective or faulty thing? But farther, must not a Book be reprinted, but for its own Vindication? By your Logick, the oftner Books are reprinted, [Page 31] the worse, and more faulty they are proved to be. This came into your head, and then it must be let drop on your Book for a piece of wit that the World had need of, to fright them from reprinting good Books, especially against the Qua­kers. Why do you complain of my not an­swering your Rejoynder? Is this the way to provoke me to it, seeing such a thing must be for a Vindication of my first Book, and you tell me such a course proves it wants it? Well then, seeing I do not believe my Book wants a Vindication, or your Rejoynder deserves an Answer, I may take my rest with more pru­dence than you scrible; especially considering, that your credit will be Vindication enough of any thing against your reproaches.

You might with more prudence have told such a Block-head as I, you generally fling Infallibility Page 7. at us—as if it were a Capital sin to be as­sured, than so many Learned men: For your making Infallibility and Assurance to be the same thing, is a broad Symptom of your Igno­rance. The next passage you transcribe (with your Reply to it) hath undone your Cause. ‘The Quakers preach another Gospel, and endeavour to seduce well-meaning Souls, to whom they speak in unintelligible words; and from whom they hide the poyson of their Antifundamental Doctrines.’ What say you to this? Why, Here is a great deal in a little: And so say I too. But you say, 'tis very sowrely said: And I say, 'tis very truly and soberly said. But shall we take you at your next words, Were it as true, as it is false, the day were yours.

If it were no more true than you would have it accounted false, it were false and black enough. But I shall not be beholding to your grant; we are rich enough in Truth and Evidence, to live without your Alms; and strong enough to turn the Quakers out of their Usurpations, against their wills.

You may say, They make not the least offer to prove it. But you anticipate their Answer, of John Faldo's having done it for them, and make your Exceptions against him; as first, an Irreverent abuser of God. God forbid! But what God? Alas 'tis of the Quakers Gods or Idols, the Light within them, their Souls and Spirits, which they call by that name. Pardon me Mr. Penn, if when you set up a stock, and call it a God, I do not presently fall down and worship it. But you say again, I am an abuser of the Christian Re­ligion. And who will expect you should say otherwise of any, who write against yours? But I suppose the greatest abuse you stomach is, my not reverencing the Quaker-Dutch woman's declaring in Dutch, to a Meeting of English Quakers, who confessed they understood not a word she spake, yet were confident she spake by the Spirit, for they all found refreshings. I pray pardon me this wrong, though I never repent it to my dying day.

But in the third place you say, And which is more to my contentment, whatever it be to his and yours; some, and no Quakers too, think I have prov'd him such. More to your Content­ment! why was it at all to your Contentment, that I should abuse God, and the Christian Re­ligion? [Page 33] But it seems, that some thinking you had proved me such, who were not Quakers, is ex­ceeding grateful and contenting to you. Verily a small Approbation of your attempts, contents you greatly; for I doubt not but there are other silly people in the World besides the Quakers, who may at least, be so good-natur'd, and be so credulous as to think so. But would you not think it very strong and pertinent for me to tell you, that some, and neither Presbyterians nor Independants did tell me; that you did not write to confute me, but merely to shew your wit; so remote were you either from the matter, or the truth; and so much in love with Witticisms, that no hedge of exact Expressions would hold you, but you would break out the stake of one Substantial word or another for a passage. Yea, should I tell you, that some such said, that your Friends were so confident of all you said to be true, and well, that if you put out my Book in your name, they would take it to be a very good Book, and all in it very true: And I assure you, 'tis no less than some have said, and would not be perswaded to the contrary.

Give me leave in the next place to answer your Question, and I shall not need to be beholding to Rebuke, &c. p. 8. any to take my word that I answer you truly: And let me ask you (say you) if it be another Gospel to own Remission of sin, and Eternal Salvation by the Son of God; and both as he appeared above 1600 years ago in the flesh, and as he reveals himself with­in in Power and Spirit? If your Opinions in these matters, were the same with what is received by the generality of understanding and serious Christians, you would have expressed them in some or other of their Forms of Confession; but you love the [Page 34] Clouds and By-paths, that your sense may not be discerned. And in truth, you not only may, but do hold another Gospel, than what we affirm is the Gospel of Christ, for all the truth that is expressed or meant by you in this form of words. It is a sad thing that your Principles and Manners are so bad, that they that know them, will take all your words with suspicion.

What your Eternal Salvation is, I have proved already. That by the Son of God, you understand the Divinity only, or Godhead, is so common in [...]ox's [...]reat my­ [...]ery, p. 71. your Prints, that none who are acquainted with them, are ignorant of it; yet for the Reader's sa­tisfaction, I shall cite some of your Authors. And first, George Fox thus: And Christ's Nature is not Humane, which is earthly, for that is the first Adam's. Next to him, take Pennington's verdict in these words: This we certainly know, and can never call the bodily Garment Christ; but that which appeared and dwelt in the body. Here, that which dwelt in the body, which was the Godhead, and that only, is al­lowed to be Christ. And in the former, Christ's Humane Nature is denied in so many words: Yea, you hold those to be false Ministers, that preach a [...]mith's Primmer, [...]. 8. 9. Christ without us; and those only true Ministers, who preach a Christ within. All this your great Author W. Smith saith in so many words, They that are false [Ministers] preach Christ without, and bid people believe in him as he is in Heaven above; but they that are true Ministers, they preach Christ within, and direct people to wait to feel him in them­selves, and so to believe in him, as he makes himself manifest in them. The Child is made to reply (for you are to take notice, 'tis a Primmer or Catechism:) This is a great difference in their Doctrine, for one [Page 35] to preach Christ without, and another preacheth him within. The Father answers, Yes, it doth make a great difference, and hath no more fellowship than the East and the West. What think you of your Gospel now? or what do you judg those against whom you write will censure it to be, wherein such a Salvation, and such a Saviour is preached? and to preach Christ without, and Christ within too, hath no more Fellowship than the East and the West? What can you say, to put a colour on this, consistent with owning Jesus the Son of Mary, who rose, and is ascended above the visible Heavens, to be Christ? You know I gave you this Citation in my first Book; but you thought good (with most of the greatest weight) to let it pass without any no­tice. Let the Reader judg, if this be not excellent Doctrine to teach to young Children. While you tell us we must hearken to the Light within, to teach us what is necessary to believe and practise, and that is sufficient, you have Primmer and Catechism without, to teach your Children to deny the Fun­damentals of the Gospel.

I shall now examine the other part of your Go­spel; scil. And both as he appeared above 1600 years ago in the flesh, and as he reveals himself WITHIN in Power and Spirit. Your great fallacy lies in the word AS, which is a word of Likeness, or Comparison.

But to evidence as clear as light, that you hold that the Son of God appeareth now. AS he did then; and that you, or some others of you are, according to your Opinions, as truly, I say as truly, Christ, as Jesus the Son of Mary, I shall give suffificient proof.

In my first Book I wrote these words, ‘They do Quaker. [...] Christian part 2. p 70. impr. not deny that there was such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary; and that God was in him, or rather [Page 36] Christ was in him:’ But this is no more than they profess of themselves, that Christ, as God, and the Eternal Word is in them. Would not any one judg, that you should deny this Charge with as great violence and exclamation, as any in the Book? and that many impertinent, frothy, and clamorous passages in your Answer, ought to have given place and room, for your clearing your selves of this charge, if it were not your due? You cannot say, you did not observe it; for in your Answer you re­peat my words thus, He says they do not deny, that [...]s Answ. Quak. [...] Christ. 155. there was such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary; and that God, or rather Christ, was in him: But this is no more than they profess of themselves, that Christ, as God, is in them.

When I read this Repetition of my Charge, I ex­pected to be overwhelmed with a floud of Revi­lings; but contrary-wise, I am not so stroaked by you for any passage in my Book: He hath done us (say you) right in two respects, which may a little answer for the ill language he giveth us in our Charge: First, That he acknowledgeth we own that there was Ib. such a man as Jesus the Son of Mary (in contradicti­on to abundance of our Adversaries) and that God was in him, which makes up our Christ. Here you are so far from denying this Charge, that you own it to do you right. And let it be observed, that God dwelling in Jesus, doth not make up (as you call it) your Christ numerically, as excluding any other than Jesus the Son of Mary; but specifically, which answers to my saying of your Opinion, which say­ing you commend. This were enough, but I pro­ceed to Burrough's testimony.

A Christian soberly, and seriously proposing this Question to him, Whether the Word was made flesh [Page 37] more or oftner than once? He replies to him in this rude Burrou [...] Works Folio, p 29, 30. manner; In this Query thou art manifest what thou art, and where thou art, and what spirit thou art of, a Reprobate, a Child of Darkness.—this Query comes from thy polluted mind. The Light condemns thee, and all thy Generation eternally. The Word made flesh we witness, which dwells amongst us, and we behold his glory, whereby we witness thee, and all thy Generation to be in the Sorcery and Witchcraft.—But thou Dragon, that would devour the man-Child; thou the Dragon, with thy Angels, art cast into the Earth. For thy other nineteen Queries, thou hast con­jured them up in the Black-Art, out of the bottomless pit. I shall not animadvert on every part of this Text, so pregnant with the Quakers mischievous Principles, and monstrous Manners. But was not this furious railing Reply, instead of answering the Question negatively, a strong evidence that you hold that the Word was made flesh more than once, as tru­ly as he was at any one time? Moreover, if the phrase, We witness, be rendred into the English you mean by it, one Clause of his Answer should be thus read; The Word made flesh we experience, which dwells among us, and we behold his glory. This evidence amounts to no less than yours before cited.

I shall add one evidence more, out of your own Writings, which scarce needs an Interpreter: And W. Penn' [...] Re [...]oynder to Faldo, p. 311. those who at this day do feed upon the history of the bo­dily appearance (yet honorable in its place and know not a breaking through the Vail, by witnessing a measure of the same Divine Wisdom, Power, Righteousness, Grace, and Truth, revealed and born forth in them­selves; they are but carnal, fleshly Christians, being unacquainted with the formation of the Christ of God IN THEMSELVES; which is the opening [Page 38] of the mystery of Christ, GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. The same Divine Wis­dom relates to these words a few lines foregoing, Of which he is the fulness, whose transcending glory was vailed by that body of flesh he wore; i. e. the Divine Nature which dwelt in the Body of Jesus. What can be a more full proof that God manifest in the flesh (or appearing in the flesh, which is the same sense) spoken peculiarly of Jesus Christ, 1 Tim. 3. 16. (and of him as his peculiar) is by you in your own words, made common to all, who are not (as you call them) Carnal, and Fleshly Christians. And you leave out the word WAS in the Text, to hide your Blasphemy.

I remember, that in some of your Answers to me (though I cannot readily find the place) you say, That you do not say that the fulness of the God­head dwells in you. To which I answer first, that your phrase of a Measure of God, respecting his Es­sence, is your (peculiar) Blasphemy; for where­ever God is essentially, there is whole God, the infinite God. But farther, I will prove, that you hold the Light in you to be as infinitely God, as can be expressed. Will. Smith tells his Child in his Prim­mer, of the Light within the Child, the Light in its Conscience, that All power in Heaven and [...]ith's [...]immer, 14. Earth is in it. So that here is the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in your bodies (by your Princi­ples). But that I may give you full measure, pres­sed down, and running over, I will give you one Citation more: We believe (saith Smith) that Christ [...]ith's [...]techis. 64. in us doth offer up himself a living Sacrifice to God for us, by which the wrath of God is appeased to us—and this is he in whom our Faith standeth, the one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

Now let all impartial men judg of your hypo­critical Equivocations, to hide your Anti-Gospel, and Antifundamental Doctrines. With what a forehead did you write such a Rebuke to such men, for writing so very a truth? I esteem this your un­speakable folly to be, what God hath permitted as a farther occasion to open your hidden things of dark­ness; for which I bless him, and I hope many others may do the like, for these Snares being more manifestly discovered: The wickèd is snared in the work of his own hands, Higgaion Selah, Psal. 9. 16.

The next work that comes to my hand is, to consider what you say hath a very bad Consequence. But I will transcribe your own words; viz. For the other part of your Accusation, That we should say P's Reb. p. 8. one thing, and mean another, it is by Consequence to call us the worst of Knaves: By how much a de­ception in matters of Eternal moment, is more impi­ous than any cozenage about things of this life.

They have said it, I shall now prove it, and you have given us the Consequence. I doubt not but the Reader is so well satisfied already of the truth of this, That you say one thing, and mean another, that he will think farther proof needless. But I will add a little ex abundanti: The Quaker saith, That P's Answ [...] to Faldo' [...] Quaker. [...] Christ. p. [...] Light is in the Scriptures, prove that; or tell me what one Scripture hath Light in it. Here is the greatest denial that may be of the Scriptures, or any one Scripture having Light in it. But W. Penn gives the meaning to be, There is not spiritual, living, es­sential Light in the Scriptures; but a descriptive, and declarative Light they carry with them of the true Light. Now would any man take the Quakers phrase to mean as you say? What need had he to [Page 40] tell them there was not liying and essential Light in them, every body knows that; and his saying was a universal Negative in the highest terms.

Quaker: So amongst the words, you find how the Saints in some things walked, and what they practised; [...]orning- [...]atch, [...]45. and then you strive to make that thing to your selves, and to observe it, and do it as near as you can: and here you are found Transgressors of the just Law of God, who saith; Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing: Now what difference is there in the ground betwixt you and the Pope, though in the appearance there seem to be so great space. This, one would think, were very plain English. But you tell us, that he means [...]s Answ. [...] Quak. [...] Chri. [...] 98 quite other things: For say you, Take Will. Smith in his own sense and belief, and all is well.—He in­tended, that all those real Experiments of other per­sons (of which the Scriptures are full) talk'd unex­perimentally over by ungenerated spirits, can be no ways beneficial. Nay, that what Idea's and Notions they may have to themselves of the holy Ancients enjoy­ments, while altogether unacquainted with them; are but a kind of Images, which their believing in, and bowing to as indispensible Gospel-truths, is to be reputed nothing below Idolatry it self.

Either he or you, must notably dissemble here. How doth what you say is Smith's sense, appear in his words? W. Smith speaks expresly of the Saints practices, and how they walked; and you give his meaning to be of their experiments and enjoyments. Smith calls their doing like them as near as they can Idolatry; and you give his meaning to be of unre­generate persons talking them over. If this were his sense, which is so far off from the true import of the words in the English Tongue, and we must [Page 41] have such Interpretations to understand the Quakers meanings, it is past all doubt, that you say one thing, and mean another.

But you say farther, And if you measure us by P's. Re [...] p. 9. our words, you must grant that either you understand us not, or we mean very good things; for you say else­where, that our obnoxious Tenets are usually maskt un­der expressions doubtful, unintelligible, or under Scrip­ture, and Orthodox phrases.

Either you are very ignorant of your own sayings, or your understanding doubly dark and vitious. When you say, The Soul is not a Creature, is a part of God in­finite in it self; That all power in Heaven and Earth is in the Light within; That they are false Mini­sters that preach Christ without us: Must we needs say you mean very good things, if we measure you by your words? yea certainly, if saying you abound with Blasphemies, be to say you mean very good things.

But in your Report, you let drop a material word, for you repeat it, That our obnoxious Tenets we usual­ly mask, &c. whereas they say, Their Tenets which are most obnoxious to censure. There are many of your Tenets obnoxious to Censure, which you speak plain enough, about Perfection, the Scrip­tures not being the Word of God, or a Rule; also against the Sacraments. This is not fair dealing, but repeating your crimes, while you stand upon your Defence. And your inferences of their not be­ing certain of your Principles, from their calling your Expressions doubtful and unintelligible, forget that which you repeat of their words; scil. that they are usually so; which leaves room enough for your Expressions to be sometimes plain and intelligible.

And they can tell you (for all your Illogical Tri­umphs) how they come to know your meanings to be contradictory to your sayings: And that the Conscience of a Quaker (granting you to be one) is not to be named with that of a Presbyterian, or In­dependant, or of any sort of People who pretend to Christianity.

But you are gotten into a vein of Self-applaud­ing Rhetorick, and seem to be so airy, as to believe your wortb to answer your words; it cannot possibly arise from any other cause (if you mean as you say) that you dare meet with them upon a publique Test, Ib. to prove your integrity to God and men. What a strange briskness and confidence have you attained to on a sudden, who to all the Solicitations, and Provocations you have received from me, to meet me in the Debate of Thirteen of the most horrid Principles I charge you with, have been as coward­ly as a Hare, and as cold as death? Canes timidi vehementius latrant quam mordent.

Is it your Ignorance, Pride, Arrogance, or the lax your pen hath catcht? or is it all of them toge­ther, that makes you talk at this rate? or is it the courage you take from the consideration, that it may be, that One and twenty more of them cannot shew [...]age 15. so much wit as Ben. Johnson? which is a Reflecti­on of yours, favouring more of Ben. Johnson's Co­mical humour, than of either Wit, Modesty, or Honesty. Do you think your self a Match for One and twenty Divines, many a one of whom would think himself very idle to attend your wandring mo­tions, and shuffling tricks? But I suppose you know that as well as I can tell you, and that makes you talk without fear.

Mr. Penn, I here tell you again, That I shall (if the Lord give me life and liberty) save them the trouble of contending with you, so far as proving what I have charged you with will amount unto. Or if you will, to make but one Question of it, and prove that you, and such as you, are no Christians. But I proceed.

You say, And though you would have the people P's. Rebu [...] &c. p. 10 [...] think very severe things of us, with respect to the Scriptures of truth; by telling them the Quakers hold, That the Scriptures are not the Word of God, nor a Rule of Faith and Practice; yea, that we readily assert it in so many words. I must tell you, you have acted with us herein far from men of common Ingenuity. A man might at this rate by Scripture prove, There is no God, if he would but leave out, The Fool hath said in his heart.

But if this Charge of theirs (with others you as confidently contradict, and as vehemently decry) be proved true, and that out of your own Writings in your Defence; will it not be sadly implied, that you are the Fool that have said in your heart, There is no God? Certainly your carriage bespeaks you Atheum judicio; or at least, one who believes God seeth not, or regardeth not what you say or do? It is a most burthensom and nauseous thing, to have to do with a man, that will say any thing to slander and abuse his Antagonists and deny his own professed Princi­ples, rather than fail of that end.

In your Answer to my Charge, That the Qua­kers deny the Scriptures of the Old and New-Te­stament to be the Word of God; you say, I will P's Answ. to Faldo, p. 24. allow to him, without going any farther, that the People called Quakers, do deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and therefore shall take for granted [Page 44] what he quotes out of J. N. i. e. James Naylor, &c. Dare you say I have left out any thing of your Sen­tence? I dare not promise you will not say, the most gross and wilful untruth; I am too well acquaint­ed with you, to have better thoughts of you.

If you flee to your owning in another place, That Christ is the Word of God, and in that sence you deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, it will by no means help you: For the Questi­on is about the Scriptures, and those you perempto­rily deny to be so in any sense. And for the Christ you own to be the Word of God, when all comes to all, it is but the Light within; as will appear by the next evidence I shall produce against you. What­ever your own Friends (as you call them) may think of the matter, all wise-men will see you bu­ried under the ruines of your lofty Fabrick, built without the Foundation of Truth.

I charged you in the Contents of my Fifth Chapter, with denying the Scriptures to be a Rule of Faith and Life: But you, after many words, Quaker. no [...] Chri. p. 65. nothing to the purpose, confirm my Charge thus stoutly, Wherefore, said the Prophet, Hear the Word of the Lord. What word? That nigh in the heart, which Moses and Paul preached. Still the outward [...]'s Answ. [...] Faldo, [...]. 56. Instrument is not the Rule, much less are the Wri­tings, being they are but all external Instruments. And this I will abide by against all the insults of our Enemies (by God's assistance) that both they are but such Instruments, and that such Instruments are not the Gospel Rule; but that Light, Life, Power, or Spirit which useth them. And who attributes that honour to the Instruments, which is due to the chief Mover in it, or by it, commits downright Ido­latry.

Have you not here loaded them with a witness who take the Scriptures to be their Rule, by charging them to be no less than Idolaters for so do­ing? What can you say or add to make the sence of your Expressions tolerable? You tell us indeed, that you believe and know they contain many godly P's Reb. &c. p. 10. Rules. But will this mend the matter? I well remember, that one of your Prophets, who lived not long since (if not now) at the Peal in St. John-street, when I asked him, If that Text, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, were obliging to me, having read it in the Bible? I could not perswade him to P. M. W. H. M. F. W. W. &c. acknowledg it, or that it was my duty to love God; he having before denied, that I was an inspired person. This was before divers witnesses, both Quakers and others, some of the first letters of whose names are in the Margin.

It would be little for your Credit, that I should tell the World the occasion of that Conference, and how it issued. But it being a lewd practice (though pretended from your Principles) I shall forbear till it be farther called for, and conclude the present point with James Naylor's testimony (whom you Naylor's Light of Christ, &c. p. 19. own and honour still as none of your small Pro­phets) God is at liberty (saith he) to speak to his people by them [the Scriptures] if he please, and where they are given by Inspiration, he doth so. And so he is at liberty to speak by any other created thing, as P's Answ. to Faldo's Quaker. no Chri. p. 53. to Balaam by his Ass. These words of Naylor you own and justifie. Now let the World judg, whose ingenuity is to be preferred, yours, or those Worthies whom you have slandered? or, Whether your guilt is no better proved, than the Scriptures affirming, There is no God, by a disingenuous leaving out, The Fool hath said in his heart?

I find you in the next page, over-head and ears in your sportive-humour, upon the occasion of the phrase, Honey, or sweetness of Spirit, in the Mini­sters Epistle; which to make a gingle with, you turn into money by Interpretation: They [the peo­ple] toil, and you talk; they are the Bees, and you, so many cunning Hivers; at the tinkling of whose bells the silly Bees assemble, and when you have safe­ly hived them, your next business is to take their honey from them. Here you smite the standers by, instead of the men of your Controversie. As the Madman, Prov. 26. 18. you cast fire-brands, not at the Non, but Conformists, who only have the Bells to ring-in the Bees (as you call them:) But you care not whose head you break, so you may but break your jest.

How they can say, that honest well-meaning souls may be judicially deserted of God, is not hard to re­concile; seeing they oppose them to you, and your crafty Leaders; they believing you, and the Prin­ciples they receive from you to be very good, while you (and many more of you) cannot but know that you delude. They follow you in the simplicity of their hearts, who (many of them) believe not that you hold what you do; and therefore hold not with you in many things. And the Ministers con­strue their word Honest, by well-meaning.

But this Apology is more than their Expressions need; for when they speak of honest well-meaning souls, they say, Divers of them (so far as we can un­derstand) P's Rebuk. p. 13. who are honest well-meaning souls. But in your Report, you leave out the whole Parenthe­sis, which abundantly alters the sence. And where you say, That Christians, while such, may be judi­cially deserted of God, and hived by the Devil: Me­thinks [Page 47] such a contradiction beconceth not men of your stile and pretences. You take your own false conse­quence of their words, and put it into a different letter as their words, that they may fall under the burthen which you treacherously create out of your own brain. Moreover, they say not absolutely, that they are deserted of God, but that they seem to be so. And so did Peter while he denied his Master.

All this put together, renders you a habitual Falsifier in your Reports of your Adversaries words and sence; for were it not become natural to you, you would not be guilty of it in the very instant of accusing others for that crime.

In the next place, I find you much offended, Ib. that they should so much as imply that there may be some Socianiz'd Persons, or Papists among you, un­der the disguise of Quakers: And that is all that their words import. You affirm, That ye are neither So­cinians nor Papists; and require at their hands, to produce one Socinian, or Papist that goes under the Page 13. name of a Quaker.

If there be either Papists or Socinianiz'd persons among you, the suspicion they imply proves a truth. Although common Fame say, That you have had Jesuites, or Romish Priests, helping under your disguise, to promote the Quakers work, I shall not build upon that Foundation: But certainly, your Principles for Doctrine, and your Resolves (as you call them) for Discipline, are so much of the Foun­dation and Superstructure of Rome, that he that suspects not the hand of the Jesuite in the Plot, is very ignorant in either the Romish, or the Qua­kers Principles.

I shall not repeat here what is done already in Quakerism no Christianity, Chap. 4. Sect. 6. and Chap. 12. Sect. 3. Thither I refer my Reader for farther satisfaction: These two Sections consisting of fourteen pages, being wholly taken up in the comparison of the Quakers and Papists, as such, in their Foundation and Doctrines. And for your Resolves for Discipline, I have printed it verbatim in my Appendix to the foresaid Book, with my parallel in your Order and Disciplines, as like al­most as two Eggs of the same Crow.

I suppose you cannot be ignorant of the meeting of some of the chief Quakers and Papists in Lon­don, designed for a Consult to save the Romish Priest lately convicted; which hath done your Cause so much service, as to confirm many in the belief, that you are rowing hard to Tybur. I can tell you the place of meeting, and names of the Consulters, and also what great and rich man among you, stormed sufficiently, that you made thereby the smoak of Su­spicion to flame out into a clear evidence, that your Leaders and the Papists are Confederates.

I know also, who among your Great ones, con­fessed the fact, but excused the guilt; by saying; that they were against the suffering of any upon the account of Religion, and did it upon that com­mon Principle. But let me tell you, that your chusing the Papists, rather than any other who are liable to sufferings by the Law, doth loudly prove, what I told you of in my former Book, of a Ro­manist's saying, being demanded, which of all the Quaker, no [...]hri. p. 54. [...]lt impr. Sects in England came nearest the Church of Rome? he replied, The Quakers.

For a Socianiz'd Person, I will seek no farther, when I find you; nor for other testimony than your [Page 49] Book, entituled, Sandy Foundation shaken; where you make it the scope of your Book to deny, The Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, Justification by imputed Righteousness, Original sin, and the Satis­faction of Christ for sinners. Though these Soci­nian Principles fill up the Volume of the Book, I will quote three of your Sentences: If God (as the Scriptures testifie) hath never been declared, or be­lieved, but as the Holy One, then it will follow that P's San. [...] Found & p. 12. God is not a Holy Three—Neither can this receive the least prejudice from that frequent, but impertinent distinction, That he is one in Substance, but three in Persons or Subsistences. The Second Person of the imagi­ned Page 16 [...]. Title. Trinity. So much for your denying the Trinity.

Imputed Righteousness, and Original sin you deny in one breath thus: Because sin came not by Imputation, but actual Transgression—therefore must the Righteous­ness Id. p. 29. be as Personal for Acceptance. In denying Christ's Satisfaction, you go beyond the Socinians; for you say, Nor let any fancy, that Christ hath so fulfilled it [the Law] for them, as to exclude their obedience from being requisite to their Acceptance, but only for their patern. Id in Eo [...] p. 26. Let this be added to your saying of Justification, and it will explain you. Is not here enough to render you not only Socianiz'd, but also a Socinian? If you say, the Socinians deny the Godhead of Christ, but so do not you: I answer, That if it were so, it would only render you not a compleat Socinian, but not clear you from being Socianiz'd. But let me tell you, that you deny the Godhead of Christ as well as they; for, they deny him to be God by Nature; and you affirm, the Light within (which is indeed but a natural Fa­culty, or Qualification) to be Christ, or God.

So that the difference lies thus wide: The Soci­nians will have Christ to be but a Creature; and you [Page 50] will have that which is but a Creature, to be Christ. Verily, they who call you Socinians, and stop there, do you a great deal of undeserved honour: For your Religion and Principles are made up of almost all Ancient Errours, with such a Superfetation, as if Quakerism were the sink into which they empty themselves, and the womb that brings them forth more monstrous than their Progenitors.

I shall not be so idle and frivolous, as to give in­stances of the Quakers ensnaring ignorant persons to their Principles, by the good opinion their mo­rosity in Garbs and Manners first obtained: For this were but to set up a Candle to mend Day-light. And that a Devotion to any pretended Religion, upon the consideration of mere outward appear­ances, is Monkish, Nunnish, and Irrational, needs as little proof.

If you think the little Bands, Cropt-locks, ex­ceeding [...]'s Reb. [...]c. p. 14. plain Apparel, severe Aspects of the Ancient Puritans, render them as obnoxious to Censure as the Quakers; you either know not them, or your selves. For that Garb was common in those days to men professing, or not professing the Puritanical Princi­ples; yea, generally used by the Clergy, even by those who were most Prelatical, and the keenest Cen­sors of the Puritans. Neither did they put so much of Religion into those Garbs, as to condemn such as were not so accoutred, for prophane and irreli­gious persons; which is your case: There being none esteemed Quakers with you, who wear any Lace, or Ribbands, or that will salute by putting off the hat; or that will put I and No, in the room of Yea and Nay; or that will say You to a Single per­son, and not Thou. And your account of all that are not Quakers, is no better than Infidels, Heathen [Page 51] (or Hypocrites, if professing the Christian Religion) out of the Life, and the Power. Phrases of yours, which by Interpretation import, ignorant of Christ, and Rebels to the Light, or no true Christians.

For your Aspects, the name of Severe is much too good; for they are generally Supercilious, Elate, Sullen, or Wanton. The three first are every mans experiment that hath to do with you. And if you take the Wantonness of your Aspects sometimes, to be a slander; I need no other evidence to clear me, than the frequency of your Females (whether Maid, Wife, or Widow) when they meet their Men-friends, in the room of the more Civil Salutations, which you decry, taking them by the hands, or wrists, continuing a considerable space, wringing them hard, and looking stedfastly in each others faces, without one word speaking: And as they meet, so they part, having taken their fill of this ugly and bad-natur'd Ceremony.

I doubt not but you will put a very good Con­struction upon this uncivil Posture, as you attempt to do upon the worst the Quakers say or do: But when you have said all you can to excuse, it will be esteemed a wanton temptatious thing, and an Or­dinance from an ill Author, to destroy Modesty, and train you up to that Confidence and Fore-head your cause hath need of.

I know you make a great noise about your suf­ferings, which you render so inseparable from a Quaker, that you give us the Construction of the Ibid. word to be, to expose themselves to the bitter Ana­thema's of such High-Priests as your selves (the One and twenty Divines) the severity of their dearest Re­lations, the penalties of Magistracy, and to the gene­ral reproach of the multitude. When you have said [Page 52] thus much, you think you have said a great deal, to perswade people 'tis an inward Principle, and not outward appearance that prevails with persons to become Quakers. But what are all these suf­ferings you mention, but in themselves outward appearances? And yet your often glorying of them, is mostly but hanging out a sign of the Goodness of your Principle, and thereby to draw in Pro­selytes. But they who will take up in their Reli­gion, where-ever they see the Sign of Sufferings at the door, may make a very ill choice.

I know you are not much afflicted with the Ana­thema's of the High-Priests (as you call them;) but if they should stir the old man, you can soon pay them in their own Coyn with interest, and avouch that kind of Retaliation to be from the Spirit, though from a very Revengeful one. For your other sufferings, paint them out in the bloodiest co­lours you can devise, and I will produce you a Papist, a Jesuite, a Turk, a Heathen, who hath equalled you, or outdone you in the behalf of their Delusions.

If we set aside an erroneous Conscience, which may produce violent and preternatural heats, to act and suffer in the behalf of its false Sentiments; ex­perience teaches us, that men will maintain their more apparent Vices at a very costly rate. How many sacrifice their Health, Time, Parts, Estates, Wives, Children, Credit, and their Souls; and all for the gratifying those bruitish lusts of Drunkenness, Uncleanness, and other voluptuous Appetites! Al­though they more certainly know, those Iniquities will produce such ruines, than any of you are assured, that Quakerism will cost you any consider­able losses?

How many run the like hazards to please an en­vious, malicious, or ambitious Humour? And I know not why Pride and Self-will (so predominant in most of you, and inseparable from your Princi­ples) may not engage you to adventure your share of sufferings, without any Religion concerned in the business, much-less the true Religion. What think you of your haughty Tenents, of having in you the Light which is infallible, the Power that hath all the Power of Heaven and Earth in it: That your Souls are not Creatures, but a part of God, infinite in themselves: That you are perfect, without any re­mains of sin, so much as in your Natures: That you have somewhat, by which you are enabled, and priviledged to judg both persons and things: That all are Infidels, Ignoramuses, and Hypocrites (re­specting Spiritual and Religious things) excepting your selves: That you must shew honour and respect to no man, by the usual tokens of Hat, and Leg, or Sir, or any other Titles or Names of respect, except what is Relational: By which every Clown, and very mean person, who is a Quaker, mounts all on a sudden upon even ground (in this case) with Elders, Betters, Magistrates, yea the Prince him­self; with whom he will go Cheek by Jole, with­out any apparency in his Deportment, that he is his inferiour?

Would it not amaze a Reader to find your haugh­ty opinion of your selves, and contempt of others, expressed in the following words? And here is the ground of all true Nobility, Gentility, MAJESTY, Parnel Shield o [...] Truth, p. 25. Honour, Breeding, Manners, Courtesie, and Civility; no more after the flesh, but after the Spirit. A few lines after, he gives us the practical Improvement ye make of this Elate Principle: Who are not sprung [Page 54] from the noble, gentle Seed; and to those honour is not due, neither can we bow unto them; for if we should, we should set the Devil in the room of God, and give un­to him that which is due unto God. What do you conceit, according to the sence of these words (which never any of you disowned that I could hear or read, but the Book is owned by you, without ex­ception, and its Author greatly praised:) Surely the sence of the words, without giving of Conse­quences, is, That you conceit your selves to be Gods, and others of all sorts and ranks, to be but Devils. What a blasphemous Bait is here to a proud man to become a Quaker!

It is become a Proverb, That not the Suffering, but the Cause makes the Martyr: Neither will the pretence of Conscience serve the turn, but a real good Conscience; which is a Conscience espousing Truth, and suffering for it in a righteous way. I have said the more upon this head, because I find that men espouse their Religion too often, upon the mere evidence of the sufferings of its Professors.

In the next Paragraph your pen runs glib, while your Reason halts, and stumbles at your common rate. The one and twenty Divines say, as you repeat it. ‘And yet some of them being rich, and Reb. p 16. growing into Estates in the World, can, and do live in as flesh-pleasing fulness, as others, whom they have condemned.’ Now I shall repeat your Consequence, and leave it to the Reader to conclude, whose credit is in danger, your's or the Ministers. You say (say you) we condemn all but our selves. What is the Consequence but [...]bid. this, if you speak true? That there is not a per­son in the World, that is not a professed Quaker, hath either more ability to live flesh-pleasing, or [Page 55] that actually doth indulge himself more to a sensual life, than some Quakers can, and do. By others, you will needs understand all others: By being rich, that there is not a person in the World of greater ability: By some of you, indulging to a sensual life as well as others, that no man lives more sensually than some of you. If you can wrest words at this rate, which are under your Readers eye; how much more, when the words you con­strue are out of their reach?

I wonder (but why should I wonder at any thing you say) that you should tempt us to bring the names of your Grand-men on the stage, by your first Reply to the Ministers true Expressions; scil. I would willingly know (say you) these persons, who Ibid. they are? and where they live? Did you love the Truth, and your own Credit, ye would scarce be so lavishing of your words. Is there no flesh pleasing, but in a Ribband; or Lace, or Hat, or Congy? Are not your houses as stately, your meats and drinks as plentiful, various, and pallatable, your apparel as costly (Ribbands and Lace excepted) as some others whom you have condemned? Is this a matter hid in a corner, that we need to bring parti­cular instances for a proof? But if I must needs be at namely, Let your self (who ride in your Coach, and have your men following, and stand­ing bare to you, who live plentifully, and can bring out store of bottles of Wine for Entertain­ments, bidding your Guests to use their freedom:) I say, let your self be one instance.

Let John Osgood, William Mead, Roberts, be other instances; whose houses are large, furnished richly with Plate, and Tables with Provisions. I blame neither them nor you for living suitably to [Page 56] your Estates: But certainly, set those Bawbles of Ribbands, &c. aside, you are not guilty of much self-denial in your bodily accommodations, which is a thing you so much pretend to above others.

I had like to have let slip a passage of your Creed, which you bolt out, not very like the Doctrine of the Gospel; viz. And this I affirm, That all these [...]ge 15. endeavours many vigorously employ to vilifie an in­ward Principle, and disswade persons from believing in it, waiting upon it, and being guided by it, center in the rankest Atheism. How now Mr. Penn! Is this a time for you to profess faith in an inward Principle? Is it the truest Creed that renders Faith to be an inward Principle, and the Object to be without, and above us? or that which makes some­what within to be its Object. Farewel then the Jesus that died at Jerusalem, and all your disguising pretences of owning him; for surely he is not so far metamorphosed, as to become a Principle within you. What should we expect of a Leper, but the breakings out of his Disease, yea, when he is most deeply engaged in defending his cleanness?

In the next place, you say your pleasure of those words, wherein they recommend my Book; viz. ‘Wherein the Quakers Principles are more thorow­ly [...]ebuke, [...]. 16. investigated, than in any Book which we have seen. And we judg it for matter, proof, and stile, to be especially useful for those who need, or desire Information concerning the Quakers, and their Principles.’

Upon these words you trumpet your Triumphs before the Battel, and would have it taken for granted upon your word, that the Divines have given you the h [...]lt, and themselves the point of the sword at their own breasts: Had we [Page 57] no other Weapon (say you) this were enough to wound your cause incurably. But let us see what your Cockle-shel Triumph comes to. Your first is, He hath laid down about twenty Principles in the Qua­kers name, eighteen of which are not only none of theirs, as so exprest, but not so much as by Conse­quence.

You have said it, and that is all. You said near as much once before, and attempted the proof by Page 6. only a single instance; wherein you so far failed, as not to give any Principle of yours, as it was laid down by me, but somewhat of your own in its stead; and as being conscious of your own guilt, you give neither Page nor Chapter where it might be found; which was as much as to say, if you would have me prove these to be his words, you may go look (for me) where to find them. But now, as if you suspected before the hard-hap your first attempt would meet with, you hide your head altogether, and suffer not one of the eighteen Principles (you say I have wronged you in charg­ing upon you) to come into sight.

I commend your prudence now, in leaving the proof to the mere Authority of your denial, and re­flections upon those who will not afford it credence. But let us hear you: That they are none of ours, it Page 17. is enough we say so, unless our Faith is not to be taken at our mouths, but at our Adversaries: He that tells me, I believe that which I do not believe, is either foolish or dishonest; and his Confutation is not of me, but of himself. That they are not our Principles by Consequence, I have abundantly proved, both in my Ibid Answer and Rejoynder.

But what if this fine Harangue be proved both foolish and false, yea, and dishonest too; Have you [Page 58] not forfeited your credit? That your case is no bet­ter, I shall demonstrate so plainly, that common Reason and Sense will be my Compurgators. That your Faith is not (alway) to be taken at your own mouths is apparent; not only from your denying at one time what you profess vehemently at another (which I have already evinced) but also from your industrious hiding your Principles from such, who you believe will have no very good thoughts of them. What means that rude dealing of E. Burrough with the sober Querist, who desired to be informed from his own mouth, what his Principles were in these, and such-like Questions?

‘Whether the Word was made Flesh more, or oftner than once?’

To this (instead of better Satisfaction) he re­turns [...]urrough. [...]orks in [...]l. p. 29, [...]0. railing, and calls him Reprobate, Child of Darkness, of a dark polluted Mind, a stranger to the Life, without God in the World, the Light condemns thee, and all thy Generation eternally, thou art Dark­ness it self, in the Sorcery and Witchcraft, thou Dra­gon, thou the Dragon, thou hast conjured up thy Que­ries in the Black-Art, out of the Bottomless Pit.

The second Query was ‘Whether did the man Christ slain (in respect of God's Decree and Effi­cacy) from the Foundation of the World, really and indeed suffer death, as upon the Cross at Je­rusalem, more or oftner than once?’

Take his Reply to this entire (for the first I gave it you before, and therefore spared to repeat the whole) as follows: In this Query thou Diviner art [...]d. in eod. [...]. 30. found adding to the Scriptures, the Divination of thine own brain, whereupon the plagues of God are to be added to thee, O thou Lyar! Where doth the Scriptures speak as thou speaks here? But in the Light thou art [Page 59] seen, and art for the Condemnation. The man Christ we own, and witness, and the Lambs Book of Life, which was slain from the Foundation of the World: We witness the Lamb of God, and thee to be the Beast that makes war with the Lamb; and thou Antichrist, which looks at Christ's death at Jerusalem alone: So let all thy Congregation see what they hold up that follows thee.

What think you of this? have we not great en­couragement to expect an honest, plain account of your Principles at your own mouths, upon our most serious enquiry? Think not to put us off, and ex­cuse this impertinent raving-way of Reply, by tel­ling us, That they are Trepanning Questions; for so you will call any that we are capable of framing for your discovery. I shall add no more of Bur­roughs here; his Replies to the other Eighteen Questions are of the same make. And Burroughs (after all his Rant and Railing) concludes, Thy Burroug [...] Works in fol. p. 34. Queries are answered lovingly and plainly, and in the Scripture-Language and Terms; and with the eternal Light of God, set thee in thine own place, which thou shalt eternally witness. I believe my Reader will have no very good thoughts of your loving, plain Answers about your Principles.

I shall now produce out of W. P's own Wri­tings, your great lothness to have your Tenets and way understood by us. You say upon the occasion Penn's Rejoynder to Faldo. p. 177. of my obtaining your Resolves for Discipline, If such inoffensive, nay Christian and necessary Resolves for the right disciplining the Church of Christ in the ways of Peace and Righteousness, cannot escape John Faldo's cruel hands, instead of rendering us Papists, I shall not wonder, if from a Non-conforming Priest, he turns a Spanish Inquisitor, or any thing else that [Page 60] can be worse. By this it appears, that for all the good Characters you give of your Resolves for Dis­cipline, you would have them by all means escape my hands; and it grieves and angers you at the heart, that they cannot escape my Inquisition.

George Whitehead (as I have said before) could not with much importunity be brought to declare the Quakers Principle about the Resurrection of the dead. But at length he professed, He did not believe that his body should rise again. Yet this [...]enn's [...]nsw to [...]ldo, p. [...]00. extorted Confession you would have lick'd up again, and imply in your Answer to me, that it slipt out of his mouth at unawares. But to conclude, your great James Naylor hath sealed up your mouths, from an honest liberty to vent your minds to us, and that under a Curse: But the Mystery (saith he) [...]ames [...]aylor's [...]ove to [...]e lost, p. [...]9. is sealed with the sons of God, nor can any ever know with what bodies they shall arise; but who comes to the flesh of Christ, and discerns his body, the sight whereof in the life slays the Serpent, and opens the Mystery. Till then, cursed is he that reveals that which God hath sealed up, and hidden from the Serpents wisdom.

Here I have abounded with evidence, that your Faith is not by us to be sought at your own mouths; and that it is neither foolish nor dishonest to tell you, that you do believe that which you say you do not believe, and that my Confutation is of you, not of my self. And if you ask me how I come to know your hearts, if not at your mouths? I let you know, that I have it especially from your Wri­tings; which were designed either for your own party, or for such Ignorants among others, who finding the great words, The Light, Life, Power, Manifestations, Measures of Christ, &c. think all [Page 61] the rest must needs be very good. And for all your Contradictions, I have in my Writings laid down your Principles in your own words; and aver no­thing, but what I give my ground for in the same words to a syllable, which I find in your owned Authors.

I am now come to the main push; where you P's Reb. &c. p. 17 [...] say, I will produce you ten Instances of notorious per­versions, any one of which were unworthy of such poor Heathen as ye think us to be. I am very unwilling to tell you in plain terms, that you make no more Conscience of telling untruths, than the veriest Rake-hell, whose time is divided betwixt Cursing, Swearing, Drunkenness, and such reproachful Vices; or that your untruths have no cover but Confi­dence, which renders your heart hardned from the fear of God. But if a virulent Accusation of your Adversary will condemn him, and clear you, the present day's your own, and we must languish till the Day of Judgment, under your unjust pre­valency. Yet, blessed be the Lord, my Integrity will find an evidence in your very Tests of my faul­tiness.

I expected, after such huge Criminations, that when you came to proof and instances, somewhat would have been offered at (at least) to prove me an Irreverent Abuser of God, and the Christian Re­ligion, Id. in eod. p. 8. which you stoutly charged upon me; or that I had forged matters, and given them as your words, which yet were but my own invention. If you had found such a Crime in my Writings, it were as easie to be proved, as reading English. But behold, a few pretended Perversions, or false Consequences; all which will prove to be Will. P's Perversions, and worse too. In the Vindication [Page 62] of the Divines and my self from your Accusations, I shall distinguish your part from mine, by the titles of W. P's Accusation, and J. F's. Vindication, and dispose of your Quotations and mine in the margin respectively.

I might fairly upon these accounts have declined farther notice of many of your Charges but Truth and Evidence takes pleasure in a Tryal. After Quaker. no Chr. impr. ult. p. 102. much search, I find somewhat of it in my ninth Chapter. Let us now compare notes, and behold your Justice.

What I inferr'd, was from these words; Making him wise and able there [in his head] to oppose Truth, and so bringing him into a state of Condemnation, Wrath, and Misery beyond the Heathen; and making him harder to be wrought upon by the Light and Power of Truth, than the very Heathen.

But will not your Reader think you out of your honesty, or me out of my wits, in reading what you say I infer from the Quakers words? viz. That read­ing the Scriptures, and getting knowledg thence, puts men into a condition worse than the Heathen, &c. No such matter: But I conclude, If it be so as the [Page 78] Quaker-Author saith, then I scarce know what is more dangerous than reading the Scripture; and this is every word of my Conclusion.

But suppose I should take your word, that the Quaker spake it of reading the Scriptures as the Pharisees us'd, and to those ends; What shelter from the storm will it afford you? This is but a common trick you have to hide your sence from the Reader, unacquainted with your sence of your words; for all that you intend by it, is but such a reading as depends not upon Apostolical Inspirati­on, or rather the Conduct of your Light within. And so we all read as the Pharisees us'd.

Yet that I may not make an empty sound with­out proof of its truth, I will demonstrate out of the most Learned Author that ever was yet a Qua­ker, how you understand the manner and ends of the Scribes, or Pharisees (which are all one in the case) reading the Scriptures.

And (saith he) to such wise Sayers and Knowers Fisher Re­ [...]ata quae­ [...]dam Rev. p. 6. as these (and such were the Scribes) who were ever scraping in the Scriptures to find God and his Life, yet never knew him at any time, nor saw his shape, because they heard not his voyce, nor heeded his Word in themselves, John 5. 37.] What think you, or rather what will my Reader think of this? For the manner and frequency of reading the Scriptures as the Scribes, is to be ever scraping in the Scriptures. A most scornful phrase! Their ends were to find God and his Life: Is this the end that makes read­ing them so mischievous? But the Reason he gives why they missed of their end is, because they heard not his voyce, nor heeded his Word in them­selves; that is, they heeded not your Christ, the Light within.

Now if you allow Fisher's Explanation of the Scribes or Pharisees reading the Scriptures (which you dare no more to contradict, in so many words, than the Bible) you your self affirm, that our read­ing the Scriptures makes us harder to be wrought o [...] to true Conversion than the Heathen. And it is o [...] mercy that they do so, if we take true Conversion in your sense; for they preserve us (by the Grace of God) from turning QƲAKERS.

And now let the sober Reader judg, if my infe­rence be not as clear as Sun-beams, and somewhat illustrated by what you say to mend your sence. Thus by the good-hand of the Lord upon me, I have wiped off all the dirt your utmost virulency and cunning could throw upon my Book, and thereby upon those Reverend Divines for their Recommenda­tion of it.

Let us now see what bold Reflections you make from such a heap of bold Ʋntruths and Forgeries. Behold (say you) at what a rate your Reverend Au­thor P's Rebuk [...]. p. 19. hath investigated our Principles! you have said truly, in saying he did it throughly; for he hath scarcely touch'd any thing, that he hath not throughly abused: Yet this is the man whose attempts, so obnoxi­ous as you see, you have adventured to commend. You say, you judg it (among other things) for the PROOF of it, to be especially useful for those who desire infor­mation concerning the Quakers, and their Principles. That ever men of your Age, Experience and Reputati­on, should precipitate themselves into any thing so foul and scandalous: Can you believe this is imita­ting of God, and being just to the Quakers? I hope your condition is not yet so dangerous.

Have you your Peer for Confidence, and no Conscience, who can reflect in this man­ner [Page 80] upon so many persons of Worth and Integrity, from the slanders and untruths of your own devi­sing? Certainly you have hereby deserved to be remark'd for the most abusive Impostor that hath pretended to Christianity. At this rate you manage your Controversie against me in all your Writings. I doubt not but all judicious men will take your behaviour to be a sufficient discharge to me, or any other, from considering or regarding what you say or write. You take a course not only to destroy Re­ligious true Principles, but all civil Converse: For if the highest Pretences and Protestations of Since­rity, shall be found but the cover of Falseness; and Truth and Honesty trampled under foot by those who clothe their Assertions with them, whom shall we believe? to what shall we trust? The Lord discover both you, and your Principles, whose hate­ful Properties, need such kind of falsities for their Refuge.

You are pleased to tell me (according to the P's Reb. [...]. 22. usual violence of your phrasifying) that I most horribly abuse you, in saying, you pretend all your Ministers to be infallible: And you explicate your self thus, We ascribe not an infallibility to men, but to the Grace of God; and to men, so far as they are led by it; for that it certainly teacheth what it doth teach.

But if this Charge against you be true, and your P's Answ. [...]. 36, 43. Defence but a shuffle; have you not horribly pre­varicated? How often have you scornfully thrown in my teeth, This is your fallible, errable John Faldo! This fallible, errable Priest! Did you intend this of my person, or not? Surely you intended it of the man John Faldo. But if you ascribe not Infallibity to any man, why do you make my Fal­libility my Reproach?

Let us hear your greatest Oracle in the case: Now he that is not infallible in his counsel, and judgment, Fox's Myst. p [...] and advice, is not be in errour? And are not the Ministers of Christ, the Ministers of the Spirit?—And are they Ministers of Christ that are fallible? Again, How can ye be Ministers of the Spirit, and Page 82 not of the Letter, if ye be not infallible? And how can they but delude people, who are not infallible?

What can be said more, unless you will allow that your Ministers are not men, or women, or not Ministers of the Spirit, and that they delude people? Which two last, though certainly true, you will hardly acknowledge. Doth Fox speak this to and of the Grace of God? No sure, 'tis to and of the men and women whom you call your Ministers. You shew ignorance enough, in ascribing Infallibi­lity to the Grace of God, it not being an intelligent Subject. But such faults may pass, without much notice, in the crowd of your far greater.

The remaining part of your Piece is mostly taken up in raking into old matters, and removing the Grave-stone under which the Kings Favour and Wis­dom had buried them in perpetual Oblivion: But as your design therein is no symptom of your meek and innocent temper; so I shall not serve your hu­mour with a wind, by taking farther notice of your Provocations therein.

The Worthy Divines are far from Culpable, in advising against undue Separation. That it is an evil in it self, and mischievous in its consequence, is a matter of no great doubt; who they are, or who they have been, that lye under the guilt of it, is sub Judice: But of all others, we shall not expect its Determination from a Quaker; whose estimate of all beside THE FRIENDS, is, that they [Page 82] are no Christians, and so in the greatest incapacity for Christian-Communion: The consideration of which might render it no very hard and strange measure, that we should esteem you unworthy of that name, having such grounds for so doing.

You often cry out against our uncharitable Cen­sures, as if there were no such things in the World as the evils you are charged with. The Grace, or the Vertue either of Charity is no such blind thing, as to shut its eyes against the clearest evidences of Guilt; or to call Poyson by lovely names, that per­sons might not abhor to be tampering with it; or discern the difference between the things that ac­company Salvation, and those which shut the Gate of Heaven, and the favour of God against the souls of men.

It would be a token of Insolency, as well as Ig­norance, for Malefactors convicted by the clearest Evidence, to cry out, O your Charity! Is this your Charity! when they are justly censured. If this were a good Plea against all Accusations; it were a merry World with the greatest Offenders, who would have an easie remedy against those sufferings, which alone (with them) can secure others from their injuries.

At special Grace you scoff, in a pretended favour of Morality. If you were qualified with either, [...] 's Reb. [...]. 12. you were by far a better man than you are. I can­not take Pride, Lying, Dissembling, Revenge, De­luding, Slandering, Immodesty, to be the Symptoms of the one or the other. You have little to shew for your Morality, except your preferring it before spe­cial Grace, by an undue Commendation. If to be possessed of such a good thing, were but to talk on its behalf, many would be enriched with it, who have scarce a rag of it to shew.

I suppose your design herein was, to carry fa­vour with some who have of late vented things of that nature, as bespeak themselves to be none of the Ornaments of the Church they pretend to. But while you seem to hug Morality, your Kindness for it is as deceitful, as for the Christian Principles you in words embrace.

Though Morality is a word, whose sence is hardly defined, yet 'tis generally understood to be, what is within the reach of the light and powers of Nature, without the Auxiliaries of Divine Revelation, and special assistance of the Spirit of Grace. But that Light which you say is in every man and by which, and whose powers only, they ought (as you say) to be informed and moved, you abhor to call a Natural Light, or that which is less than a Divine and increated thing. You hold it to be at such a distance from Humane Reason, that where-ever it rules, Reasonings have no place. So that here you and your Moralists, and your Morality too, must part to as great a distance, as Humane Reason is from the highest Enthusiasm.

The truth is, your fawnings on Persons or Prin­ciples (except your own) are as treacherous, as your Invectives are virulent. You flatter a Worthy Person, whose Learning and Discretion you mag­nifie, Page 28. because he was not of the number of the One and twenty Divines: Yet while you kiss him, you betray him, by fastening a Sentence on him as its Au­thor, not very grateful to the Church of England. Perhaps you intended to smite him under the fifth rib, for applying to the Quakers so roundly (in his late Sermons) the Contents of that dreadful Text, Heb. 6. 6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again to Repentance, seeing they crucifie to them­selves [Page 84] the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The close of your Pamphlet, is a magnifying the [...]eb. p. 31. Ʋniversal Principle in the Conscience, or Light with­in, and ascribing to it those things, which are only applicable to the Spirit, or Christ of God. This is your Alpha and Omega, the sum and substance of your Gospel; according to the saying of your be­loved W. Smith, And this is the end of our Doctrine, [...]atechis. [...] 95. to bring people to the everlasting Word of God in them­selves; or a Christ within, which is all one with you.

I must not let your Postscript pass without a Cen­sure, which is very fit to be the tail of your Book, it being as plain and evident a tale, as you could likely utter.

As for his Appendix (say you) it is an arrant cheat, obtruded on the Reader. These are hard words, and a very unfriendly parting. But 'tis a comfort when your self bring the Antidote so near the Poyson, in the Reason you give for your Rashness: The Title-page (you say) bespeaks it a new Piece, when it is no other in the matter, and for a great part of the words of it, than what hath been answered by me again and again; 1. Two Letters of our Friends, &c.

That the Title-page bespeaks it new, any far­ther than every Title-page bespeaks the matter of the Book it relates to new, is untrue; and that the matter of it is no other but what you have answer­ed, is as false.

You do not honour your Creed, by shewing so much displeasure at its Repetition (if it were such.) But for the words being a great part the same you have answered; you might as well say the Letters are the same of which the Words are composed, and [Page 85] you had confuted the Alphabet. Away with this vanity!

You say, you have justified the two Letters: The more is your shame. Tell me, if you can; what one passage in all the Books which I have cited Te­stimonies out of, which you have not justified? or at least, which you have condemned as guilty of Infirmity, though they are stuffed with Blasphemy, as well as Errour. I shall here repeat one of your justified Letters to G. Fox, because this may fall in­to the hands of some, who may not meet with it elsewhere.

Now let others, who are yet in their wits judg, how just those things are which you dare under­take to justifie; and what there is of injustice in the things you condemn? The righteous God hath said, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that con­demneth [Page 86] the just; even they both are abomination to the Lord.

I have done with your Ʋnjust REBƲKE, &c. and shall now take a little notice of your carriage in your Writings, and what manner of Censure they deserve. You have made a huge noise of 400 things you have faulted me with in the Conduct (as you call it) of my Books against you. You might as easily have said 4000; for I doubt not but you counted every word and letter therein, under an ill Conduct, while managed against Quakerism; but what your word is worth, I have already made manifest. And now being a clear man, I am the more competent Witness against you.

First, I charge you with three bulky, wilful Ʋn­truths, which I will not call Lies for civility sake. The first was a plot to spoil the credit of my Books, within three months of their first Impression: Or else (say you) what means his great pains to be made wast paper of already? QƲAKERISM NO CHRISTIANITY, has exchang'd the Book­sellers [...]n [...] 's [...]nsw. to [...]ld. p. 67. stalls, for the Tobacco shops: Poor man! Per­haps he will write another Book to complain of the deadness of Professors hearts, that they make so ill use of the Labours of painful Ministers. I am confident, nothing but his fear of losing by it, could divert him from such a Lamentation.

This passage carries its name in its fore-head. But the Book-sellers have given it a sufficient Con­futation, and a broad brand for an impudent Falshood, in their Certificate signed by Jonat. Robinson, and Rob. Boulter, and printed with my Vindication of Quakerism no Christianity.

The second is a bloody one, and looks like a [...]. P's [...]nsw. to [...]l. p. 199. blood-thirsty one: Not Garments rolled in the blood of [Page 87] Kings, Princes, Rulers, and People, no worldly Armies, Battels, Victories, Trophies, Spoils, Sequestrations, Decimations, and the like Blood-thirsty, and Tyranni­cal Projects; in which John Faldo, and his poor Non-conforming Ministers, have had their hands over head and ears, till they had well-nigh lost their ears, and their heads too.

Here is the Comment on the Quakers boasted In­nocency, Meekness, Patience, and Truth. And that you are not only mischievous herein, but false, I be­ing now but entring on my forty second year, will render the truth of what you say concerning me impossible.

The third wilful untruth I charge you with is, your saying, Let it be observed; 1. That I gave him P's Retu [...] to Faldo [...] Curb, p. 2 [...] timely notice of our Wheeler-street Meeting, with an Invitation to be there; and went more in expecta­tion of him, than T. Hicks, from a report that T. H. would not, but that John Faldo intended to be pre­sent.

That you gave me any notice of it at all, I need no other testimony but my own Conscience, that it is a falshood; much less did you give me timely notice, and an invitation to be there.

Having the occasion of once more encountring you in Print, and intending not to let pass this untruth of yours, I fairly sent a Letter to you; wherein I desired you (that I might do you no injustice) to let me know by what means you sent me the fore­said timely notice and invitation, and by whom it was reported, that I intended to be there. To which you replied first, by an untruth; viz. That I did not deny either that I was informed, or invited. But I Adv. be [...]fore Qu [...] no Christ had denied it, if my saying in Print, I take it to be a plotted untruth, be a denying it.

But although you took two days time to return me an Answer, the most certain intelligence you could afford me, and the best you had to say for your self was, My Message to thee by J. Robinson, if I mistake not, expressed the substance of the matter, that I invited thee to the next Meeting with the Baptists, and fairly promised thee time to say out thy say. Let Mr. Ro­binson's Certificate determine this.

4. Untruth. But what is become of that greedy appetite [...]s Retur. [...] Faldo's [...]rb, p. 9. in Learned and Ʋnlearned after his Books, not only cer­tified by the Book-sellers, but with a most nauseous self-glorying proclaimed by himself in his VINDI­DICATION. Not one word of this is true, nor is there any such thing in the Book-sellers Cer­tificate, nor any thing like it in my VINDICA­TION: 'Tis too true of you, Aut inveniam aut faciam.

5. But he hath told us very seasonably, his farther writing is not deemed convenient or satisfactory. A [...]d. p. 10. gross Forgery!

6. But this Age hath no kindness for Good-works, the more the pity; loose men sleight them in Life, and [...]eb. to 21 [...]ivines, [...]. 30. you in Doctrine. A man cannot plead for them, but at the hazard of being counted a Papist. Untruth and Treachery wrapt together! A Whip for all Pro­testants, and a Curry-favour with those you are too [Page 89] near of Kin to, the meritorious Romanists: Whom we never desire should practise their Good-works on us. And I fear you will prove Co-workers with them in works bad enough.

7. He affirms, That he quoted fourty places out of P's Rej [...] to Faldo [...] p. 425. our Friends Books, that would prove the Light (with­in, as within us) to be the only Lord and Saviour, and very God. This is a down-right Forgery, and as easily proved to be such, as looking into the place in my Book you pretend to transcribe. Who Fal. Vin [...] p. 6. finds the words Within, as within us there, must have a faculty with P. to read the words were never written.

8. Preaching, Praying, and that Scripturally too P's Ans [...] p. 130. 12 [...] Quak. [...] Christ. p [...] 155. imp [...] last. (by him called Christian-Ordinances) are by him made natural to all Nations. An Untruth, built upon both a corrupting my words, and foisting in some of your own: A practice to be abhorred, and by which you may say what you list, and make me prove it.

9. He confidently affirms, God to be more concern­ed P's Answ p. 130. Quak. n [...] Christ. p [...] 156. last impres. to vindicate the former; and take vengeance for the breach of his positive exterior Precepts; as the Ceremo­nial part of the Jews Worship, and the Bread, Wine, and Water Sacramentally us'd now-a-days (if yet, as such, they may be accounted Precepts) which the Devil himself can creep into the Profession of, and cannot cleanse as concerning the Conscience; then of his Fundamental, Natural, and Substantial Laws and Ordinances, without which God cannot be worshipped, nor one Soul saved. All this you say, I affirm, and give it as my own words, as well as my sense, in a different Letter, except what is in the Common Letter in this passage. M. P. you write at random, no ground will hold you, nor the Bounda­ries of Truth be any Law to you.

[Page 90] 10. Another of the like nature, or a worse, you have in the same page: From whence (say you) John Faldo infers against us, that the Body Christ took upon himself of our nature, is not the Christ. My inference was in these very words; ‘This is a plain denying the man Christ Jesus, whose body of flesh was of our nature.’ But the truth is, you were so put to it in answering my Chapter of your denying the Christ of God, that you wrote like a man beside your self: And as you past by ten Citations I produced to prove my Charge, and attempted to take off two only; so to those two you talked so idly, as signified you knew not what to say, nor well what you did say. And any body will conclude with me, who shall find your Chapter in answer to this Charge, almost wholly taken up in proving, that the mere body of Christ, is not the intire Christ; which was to confute John a Nokes, and not John Faldo.

But it is a small thing for you to slander and forge, to the abuse of such an insignificant thing as I; see­ing those great men, Dr. Hammond, and Dr. More cannot escape you.

You tell me, that Dr. More saith, ‘But the Atheist will still hang on, and object further, [...]r. Hen. [...]ore, [...]yst. God. [...] 222. that the very term Resurrectio implies, That the same body shall rise again: for that only that falls can be said properly to rise again.’ Here you make your Application to me in these words; Where let the Reader take notice, that Dr. More calls 's Rejoy. [...] Faldo, [...] 374. John Faldo ATHEIST; for it is his Objection against me, Reply, p. 89.

Here are two things you are to be indicted for; first, making my Opinion to be the Atheists about the Resurrection, which the Atheist mostly objects against, and is stumbled at. Doth Dr. More say, [Page 91] that the Atheist holds such a Resurrection, who denies any Resurrection at all? Ʋnhappy Writers would the most Learned be, if there were no more able, careful, and faithful Readers and Reporters of what they read than W. Penn!

But the second which I intended by this of Dr. More (which you abuse) is, that you say Dr. More calls me Atheist in this Section; whereas the Dr. saith expresly, by way of Caution, before this Section; ‘This I say to the Atheist, not to those who hold the substance [of the Resur­rection.]’

The Learned and much-respected Dr. Hammond, Penn's Rejoyn. Faldo, p [...] 378. you make a partaker of your Heresie; in telling me, that Dr. Hammond also denies a proper and strict Re­surrection of bodies, and consequently is guilty of that horrid Principle as John Faldo calls it: Which may be seen in his Comment, 1 Cor. 15. O horrible De­famation! Neither the Doctor nor I call it a Strict, &c. And he saith there as much as can be said for my Opinion, but not one word against it.

Mr. Penn, I have here given twelve of your For­geries, or Falshoods in fact: If you will adventure to clear your self of these, without your usual defend­ing of one untruth (in point of fact) by adding more of the like ill qualities; I will promise to furnish you with an account of fourty more of the like nature. I never read any man who replied to your Defences, who have not accused you of wilful untruths in point of fact, which is an ill symptom of your guilt.

I do not greatly wonder, that you write so ex­travagantly against those who oppose you, when 'tis so apparent, that besides the defect of Truth and Conscience, your Writings have not the Conduct of [Page 92] common Prudence; but you are as inconsistent with your self, as you are with Truth, and need no other Condemnation but what proceeds out of your own mouth. For the proof of which, compare your self with your self, in the following passages.

I will rather (say you) betake my self to single [...]n's [...]sw. to [...]ldo, p. [...]6. out the strength of his Objections, if any there be, and bestow my time in Vindication of the Truth, than to rail, revile, undervalue, and stigmatize with I know not how many disgraceful Epithetes; a way that never yet reached any man's Conscience—A Bannian is a Saint to a Congregation of such Christi­ans. Bravely said! and that's all.

Would not any man expect (who knows you not) to meet with most calm and candid lines from so fair a Talker? yet the very next words of yours, calls my Book a Discourse interterlined with Babling and Prattle. I hope no man will think you overva­lue your Adversaries Writings, who in your best mood, can give them such a Character, and be at the charge of giving your self the—in the same breath.

Let us hear you once more proclaim your sweet temper. I omit (say you) more than an hundred [...] 's Spirit [...] Truth, [...]. 8. things, that would engage to a personal reflection; for my Soul hath no pleasure in striving therein, as know­ing the inconsistency of that uncharitable virulent temper with a Christian spirit; which I am sure is quite another thing for what is Verbose, Abusive, Ca­villing, Airy, and merely Notional. Truly I have more Charity for you, than you have for your self: For although I take not very uncivil Language, and undue personal Reflections to be your goodness; yet had I no other Arguments against you but your bad Carriage in this kind, I might hope you were a [Page 93] Christian notwithstanding. But let us see at how cheap a rate you will forfeit your Christianity, and the good effects of your Writings on the Readers Conscience.

I shall rake into but one of your Books for all the following good Language, and leave large gleanings. All these lovely Titles and Epithetes you afford me, and my work, Behold your Priest! W. Penn. Answ. t [...] Fal. Pre. [...] p. 43. 65. 79. 64. 209 [...] 117. 190. 208. 216. 74. 107. 11 [...] 49. 46. 110 [...] 157. 204. 213. 214. 203. 215. Fallible, errable Priest. Scoffing, Independent Priest. Ʋngodly Priest. Busie Priest. Cavilling Priest. Over­doing Priests. Antichristian Priest. Mountebank Priest. This Taunting Priest. Stingie Priests. Mercenary John Faldo. A Quack. A Religious Bone-setter. The Priests Break-neck. The Priest and his Puppe [...]-play Doctrine. Vaunting, strutting John Faldo. Insolent Vilifier. Ignorance, or Malice it self. Our malignant Adversary J. Faldo. Ignorance, Malice, and Revenge, Black as Hell it self in malice. Impious Scoffs. Im­pudence. Strange Impudence. The impudence of his Wickedness. Sordid Pedantry. He Vomits. His Scrip­tures he brings, no more to purpose, than Tobie and his Dog. Oh Doctrine of Devils! A Lye. A Lye to be sure. A very Lye. Devilish Falsities. A down­right Lye. An arrant Lye. A wicked Lye. The last great Lye of his second part of Lyes. A wicked Lye minted out of Hell.

Is not here enough to advance you to be Master of the Ceremonies, or Gentleman of the Black rod, to the Confusion of all Railers? yet these are but your Retale-vent; for such mild, melting Language, you have also a Wholesale-Trade, by which you dis­charge whole Loads, or Vollies together, enough to make a man out of breath with repeating them.

Behold two examples: Such Covenant-breaking, [...] Answ. Faldo, [...]20. Self-seeking, Club-law (hitherto you are very preg­nant, and bring forth your kind Epithets by cou­ples) Proud, Covetous, Tyrannical, Persecuting Priests we could never own; but EVER did, and ever shall bear our faithful testimony against them, as the Locusts, Caterpillars, Serpents, and Dragons of the Earth; whose Cruelty, Self-seeking, and Falseness hath grieved good-men.

Again, But in the Earth there is not any thing so fantastical, conceited,, proud, railing, busie-body, and [...]. p. 165. sometimes ignorant, as a sort of Priests, to me not un­known (among whom our Adversary is not the least) who think their Coat will bear out their worst expressi­ons for Religion, and practice an haughty reviling for Christ, as one of the greatest Demonstrations of their zeal. An ill-bred and pedantick Creco, the bane of Reason, and pest of the World, the old Incondiaries to mischief, and the best to be spared of mankind.

Is this the man whose Soul hath no pleasure in Revilings, and personal Reflections? Dost thou teach others, and teachest not thy self? Is there a plainer evidence of a down-right Hypocrite? But methinks the innocency, candor, peaceableness, and good-will which you pretend to all men, has but a poor evi­dence in these lines. And your saying, that I espe­cially am one of those who are the pest of the World, and the best to be spared of Mankind, is no other in the true English of it, than that I ought to be preferred to the Gallows, or any other execution, rather than a Thief or Murtherer. The Lord be merciful to us, and deliver us out of your hands, whose tongues and pens being at liberty, are so sharp a sword, and sentence us to death, while your hands cannot exe­cute the thoughts of your hearts.

You commend your selves for an innocent people, and you close your Answer to me with this. Sub­scription, Id. p. 9 [...] Who am a lover of all men, for I seek the Salvation of mine Enemies, William Penn. But did you mean as you say, it will not hold always. But if you be once in the angry spirit, their Salvation must be interpreted their ruine and destruction. What else mean these lines, and what I shall further add out of the same Book, wherein you break through the Law of God and man, to be revenged on me, and many more who (for ought you know) never lift up a tongue against your culpable Tenets.

But why poor Nonconformists (say you) after all Id. p. 109 [...] their preach'd up Battels, Spoils, Plunders, Sacri­ledges, Decimations? Again, Not Garments roll'd in Id. p. 119 [...] the blood of Kings, Princes, Rulers, and People: no worldly Armies, Battels, Victories, Trophies, Spoils, Decimations, and the like blood-thirsty and tyran­nical projects, in which John Faldo and his poor Non-conforming Ministers have had their hands over head and ears, till they had well-nigh lost their ears, and their heads too.

What is the sense of this? its base and cruel coun­tenance speaks the spirit from whence it came, to be a mischievous one. The Lord forgive you, and give you the knowledg of your self, and your de­luded Votaries, a deliverance from your Conduct, and others from your Power.

This puts me in mind of your glorying, that you had killed an old Priest (as you call him) with your Answer to his Book written against your Princi­ples: And you tell me the story thus; There was an old peevish Priest in Ireland, T. Jenner, who writ an envious Book against us—who lived long enough to vex himself to death with our Answer (as [Page 96] we are credibly informed) not long surviving its ar­rival. Rejoynd. to Faldo, p. 172.

Is not this a piece of Vanity, which rather in­forms us what you would do, and how pleasant the conceit of killing your Adversaries is to you, than of the effects of your Writings? for the good-man was about seventy years old, and therefore very likely that he died no such untimely death.

4. You are no such Basilisk to kill at that di­stance, and I am like enough to be safe from your close encounters. Your Writings may be like what the Poets feign of Pandora's Box, which when opened, filled the World with many plagues: But the Grace of God, and a few grains of right Rea­son, is defensative enough against the danger. If you thought I would die too upon the conceit of your story of Mr. Jenner, you are much mistaken: I am not such a Milk-sop, but I hope I shall be a better Souldier of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, than to fall or faint under all your Rage, Reviling, and Reproaches.

I intended to have gratified my Reader, with the Counter-Scuffle you make with your own self, in all or most of the main points I charge you as erring in: But to keep within the bounds of a few sheets, I shall only present your contrary Aspects on the holy Scriptures, and that briefly, in your following Sayings.

But also as we acknowledg them to be the Words of Penn's Answ. to Faldo, p. [...]53. the holy, living, and powerful word of God, so that they express and declare unto us many holy Rules for godliness—And I declare, in the name of all the right Quakers in the World, that we utterly reject all such as deny the Scriptures to be profitable for Reprehension, Instruction, Exhortation, and Edification.

By this a common Reader would think you have a huge respect for the Scripture: But let us see the other side of your Countenance.

This choaks John Faldo (say you) and the rest of his Partners—who dread the Consequence of having their Id. p. 7 [...] litteral knowledg of the Scriptures laid aside.

No Command in the Scripture is any farther ob­ling upon any man, than as he finds a conviction upon Id. p. 7 [...] his Conscience: Otherwise men should be engaged with­out, if not against conviction, a thing unreasonable in man; therefore the Apostle when he wrote to the Churches, exhorted them not to do those things whereof they were ashamed, &c.

Then if they were not by a convicted Conscience ashamed, they could not sin: Right Ranter.

Dry cavilling Lettermongers. P's Spiri [...] of Truth, &c.

But to think to run us down, by exalting them; or to lessen what we are, by encreasing their praise, is an old Artifice of the Devil.

But let it suffice, that John Faldo steals as bad as Penn's Answ. to Fald. p. 38 [...] Jeremiah's neighbours did, and thus far more boldly and notoriously, in that they perhaps got the true Pro­phets words so soon, that some might not know who P's Re [...]oy. to Faldo, p. 156. had them first; whereas J. F. runs back two or three thousand years a pilferring for his hackney Sermons out of them, which are so well known to be other mens lines and labours. Methinks people should not suffer themselves to be so miserably gull'd, nor lie at the ex­pence of maintaining a Priest to tell his tales, &c.

Not boasting of things beyond our measure, that Id. p. 151. is of other mens labours, 2 Cor. 10. 15. Of this sort of boasters is John Faldo, who hath nothing for his Religion but the mere Bible, and but an usurpt title to that.

Faith in John Faldo's sense, rises no higher than so many Articles laid down (suppose truly) accord­ing to the bare letter of the Scripture, which the De­vil [...] p. 71. ean believe as well as he. A slander to boot.

They could not run their Canon higher than the [...]et. Soan. [...]fau. p. [...]2. Council of Laodicea; which, as we said before, was 364 years after Christ: At what time, says a great Author, Ambition prevailed with the Doctors of the Church, and they began to think of holy [...]. Penn's [...]ejoynder [...] Faldo, [...] 37. Cheats, and would have their Doctrines pass for Laws, not Counsel. This wretched saying you op­pose not, but embrace as your very dear Friend.

I cannot but observe after what a suspected rate the Scriptures have been first collected, and then convey­ed [...]d. p. 38. through the several succeeding Ages.

From hence we may observe the uncertainty of John [...]d. p. 39. Faldo's Word of God.

Yet the running Title of your ANSWER is, The Quakers own the Scriptures. I will not concal, that you say after your unworthy detractions, Far be it from me to write this in any undervalue of that holy Record. But 'tis as small amends, as to say to a man, after you have stab'd him to the heart, far be it from me to hurt you. And indeed the Scrip­ture must be valued at a very low rate, for you to say of them they are undervalued.

There remains now only one Question to be deter­mined; and that is, Whether Mr. Penn or I have dealt faithfully in matter of fact, and made true Reports of what depends only on so much Reason, as to know whether we read such and such words; and so much honesty, as not to report contrary to our knowledge? If what Mr. Penn hath charged on me in the most of his Ten Instances be true, I may pass for an Idiot, or worse; but if false, I am loth to call him by his proper name.

Those who have my QƲAKERISM NO CHRISTIANITY, and my VINDICA­TION by them, may as easily determine of most of them, as to read English. With those who com­pare them with his Charges, he will be known to be what he is; and that is worse than most mens cha­rity will give them leave to censure, till undeniable evidence hath left no room for better thoughts.

It is in vain to trouble the World with an answer to every thing a man writes, who doth not so much as intend honesty, nor makes any Conscience of wil­ful abusing his Adversary by perfect Forgeries. He that is thus guilty, frequently and designedly, de­serves to be hissed out of Christian, yea Humane Society, as one against whose Injuries there is no defence, but a detection of his hateful qualities.

I have for determining matters of fact, provoked him in print, to give me a meeting in these terms.

In the close of my VINDICATION I say, ‘To conclude, I shall desire Mr. Penn (if he dare Vindic: Quak. no Christian. p. 95. come to that test) to appoint some of his Friends, (that can but read English) to give me a meeting, and I do promise to make it appear to them, that he hath in abundance of places egregiously played the Forger, foisting into my Sentences words of his own, to serve his design; yea, and framing whole Sentences, and calling them mine, which were never in my Book, nor the sense of them.’ This offer was 18 months since, but never accepted.

Before this Answer passed the Press, I engaged di­vers persons, of no mean Consideration, to spend a little time in examining his ten things he charged upon me, to beget an opinion in the Reader of my ignorance and dishonesty. And being thereto ad­vised, I gave him a friendly Invitation by Letter, to [Page 110] be present at nhe Examinarion, that he might have opportunity to make the best of his Cause, and pre­vent my misrepresenting him to the World, by any mistake on my part, if such there should have been. What passed by such a way betwixt him and me, I here faithfully recite.

I have given you his Letter exactly. If there be both bad sense, and no very good Orthography, I cannot help that: Nor have I time to catch Flies. But you may observe how critically his great affairs fall out for an excuse; and how ceremoniously he is addicted (very strange in a Quaker) that his fol­lowing a dead Corps to the grave (if there were no other consideration) is preferred by him, before so great a Concern. No doubt but he had Reasons more Cogent stood in his way, but they were not to be proclaimed by him. [...]s Intellects were not very quick about the unseasonableness of examining a a Book after Recommendation, unless his and mine were to be compared before his had a being. But however, saith he, Be it as it will (a desperate case) he wishes us now to be quiet. He hath had the last word, and laid all the dirt at our doors (but of his own making) there let it lie, and 'tis as he would have it. If he had a mind indeed to the opportunity offered, he should have desired some other time; But no mention being made of that. I sent him the following Epistle.

P's Answer.

This hesitating, irresolute, and excusive Reply, being the most I could procure, I sent him notice that I should not attend his uncertainties; I having other matters to mind as well as he, and at a di­stance from London. And that he might hear fur­ther from methe next week; i. e. by this Book coming forth.

It is worth the notice, that in his first Letter he saith, he would gladly have embraced the offered opportunity, were it not for the lets mentioned; but when they were vanished, and I importune him again, he tells me, he knows not to what purpose it would be (thus true is the man to himself:) Yet that he might seem willing, he saith somewhat; but that he might not be obliged, he takes great care to say nothing to purpose. But I must not interpret it a shyness in him to meet me, least I should be guil­ty of drawing an unhappy Consequence; that is (as sometimes understood) hit the nail o'th head. Whe­ther there be any such persons as both know him, and believe him (in matters of this nature) I will not say; but sure I am he hath taught me, as sure as Sense it self, that they that believe him, do not know him. But if it be so, that important affairs still ob­struct, and his coming to the test must be encou­raged by some vacant hours, wherein he can find nothing else to do, or say; I do hereby assure him (the Lord sparing me life and liberty) that when­ever he is at leisure, and shall give me notice of his inclination to a meeting, with tolerable circum­stances, I shall gladly embrace it without a contra­diction; and shall prove, that in in his ten Instances of my failings, he hath committed almost, if not altogether, ten Falsities in point of fact, to the re­proach of his honesty.

You among the People called Quakers, who are so honest as to mean well (of which number I am perswaded there are many) 'tis time to look about you, and not trust your Faith, on which depends the honour of God, and his Truth, and your Souls eternal Concerns, upon the words of deceitful men. Be so industrious, as to try them; and so impartial, as to believe your own eyes. Think me not your Enemy, who would be glad to be at the cost of many a suffering to undeceive you. The holy Scriptures tells us of some who speak lies in Hypocrisie, and who deceive, and are deceived. It will not ease you of your misery in another World, to find your Perverters having the greater share, as they have been the greater sinners. Be not so charitable to others, as to be cruel to your selves. Quickly after the Apostles days, there were men of the same Com­plexion with your Leaders; of whom Irenaeus gave that account, the Latin of which I put into the Title-page, and with its English I conclude the Book.

While that Hereticks speak like the faithful, they not only mean otherwise than they say, hut clean con­trary. And by their Tenets full of Blasphemies, they destroy the Souls of those, who with their fair words, suck in the poyson of their foul opinions. Irenaeus in his 3 Book against Heresies.