CHAP. I.

IF it shall be wondered at by any, that we are so quick with our Return to T.H. upon his Second Dialogue, who seem'd no more concern'd for his First: 'tis fit that such know the Reasons we have to give in our Defence.

First, We esteemed it a Fiction, calculated to the vain and scoffing Humour of the Vulgar, with­out all Savour of Mercy, Justice, Seriousness or Ci­vility; worthy of no Man's Patronage, that would be in earnest about Religion; To employ our Time about a large, compleat and distinct Book, had been to loose it.

2 ly, George Whitehead, the Person most engaged, had given such an Account of it in brief to the World, that with many it seem'd sufficient; since the Contradictions by him observ'd, are no wayes reconciled, nor so much as attempted by T.H. in his last Dialogue.

3 ly, Because whatever might seem to carry any Force with it throughout that confident Piece of [Page 2] Forgery, we resolved to consider among many o­ther Adversaries in one large Volumn, which is ac­cordingly done. And had it not been for other intervening Discourses, with the great Difficulty we [...]ave to print our Just Defences, when we have made them (a Strait our Enemies are not put to) it had long ere this come to publick View.

4 ly; Several other Adversaries were then before us, who, whether they said any thing more injurious, to be sure, pretended better Proof and Evidence for what they affirmed.

5 ly, So just Complaint having met him, as well from several unconcerned in our Way, as our Friends, to wit, That he had charged the Quaker with saying, what he did not, at least to him, and in that case, if ever he coul [...] prove it to have been either his Saying, or his Belief at any time, or in any case. He now to vin­ [...]icate himself from such Injustice, hath given us a Second Part, wherein he hopes to make good what he charged upon us in his First by Quotations out of our ow [...] Books, which, if faithfully done, I shall freely acknowledge, that a Quaker is quite an­other thing than a Christian. And as this may suffice all, but such as are resolved never to be satisfied with any thing that comes from us, of the Reason of deferring our further Answer; so having now that Ground to proceed upon, which we never had before. I shall with God's Assistance make the best of it I can, in Defence of the Truth, and the Innocency of them that profess it; only give me leave to hint at a few Things, which may not be im­proper to the Matter in hand, because they do not a little discriminate and give to relish the Spirit of our Adversary.

CHAP. II.

FIrst then, he has taken a very unequal Way to represent our Faith, Doctrine and Pra­ctice to the World, in that he hath rather deliver­ed his own Fury, then a true Quaker, and shews to the World, rather what he would have us to be, then what we are.

Can it be fairly done, to propose the most knotty Questions for himself, and give the weakest Answers for us? Had he but had the Generosity of a Roman, he would have given us fair Dealing for our Reputati­ons: To make a Fool and an Heretick both, and then call him a Quaker, is no less then a Rape, because a vi­olent Robbery committed upon those that go under that Name.

The best of Men can never escape, let their Ad­versaries have but the Characterizing of them. It had become T. Hicks, if he would have shown him­self a Christian and a Champion too, first to have set down our Principles and Arguments, as deli­vered and urged by us, and then have enervated both by his pretended greater Strength of Scripture and Reason, before he had made so many Trophies of Conquest; But because, had we been in the wrong, this had been the Practice of a true Christian, and that this has not been his Practice, we are taught to infer, that T. Hicks is thus far Antichristian.

[Page 4] Secondly, He has not only made us Weak and Ri­diculous by Answers no wayes to the Purpose, Dial. p. 66. but to belye our very Consciences and Principles. For when he asks us, Do you believe the Scrip­tures to be true Sayings of God? he makes us to answer, So far as they agree to the Light in me: An Answer never so delivered by us. And when he queries, Will you be so liberal of your Revilings, whether your Adversary gives Occasion or not? He answereth for us, It concerns us to render them as Ri­diculous as we can, and to make our Friends believe, they do nothing but contradict themselves, which is enough to us.

Certainly these things shew such premeditated and wilful Obstinacy to be wicked, that were we, what he represents us to be in this very Matter, the severest Plagues and Judgments of the Eternal God we might justly expect to be our Portion for­ever. I fear T. Hicks measures us by himself; and that the Answer he feigns to the Second part of his Dialogue, will be his Lot as truly, as he has there feign­edly said it. It would take up too much time to en­large, only thus much let me say, That Man is hard put to it, and Unjust with a Witness, who not only invents Answers to dis-repute a Man or People, but such as are very Lyes too against their Faith and Practice.

Thirdly, Nor is this all, but he hath managed the whole of his Dialogues in a Spirit of Prophanation, by a tanting and inapplicable Use of many serious Words, that have at one time or other been seaso­nably uttered by Sober, Simple and Religious Peo­ple [Page 5] to the insnaring Questions of such Trapan­ners as himself. As for instance, ‘Thou manifests thy Darkness, that thou art still in thy Imagina­tion; What dost thou witness in thy self? I see thou art a poor dark Creature, as by thy Talking is manifest; yea, it is manifest in the Light; yea, verily: Alas for thee! Pag. 13, 15, 25, 44, 45, 49, 54, 60, 76. I bear witness against thee: We are dead to Distinctions: Thou ma­nifestest a Perverse Spirit.’ These, Reader, with the like Expressions doth this Ungod­ly Scoffer give to the World in the Name of a true Quaker, as some of his best Answers; and that to such Questions, whose Matter hath been effectually considered and answered in many of our Books: however, his Spirit shows, to whomsoever those An­swers are improper, in one sense they are not so to him. But above all, that a Man pretending to Religi­on himself, and such a one too as next to us stands fairest for Reproach, should give our serious Lan­guage in a Jeer, as if we were fitter to be Derided than Informed, is horridly wicked. Can his Con­science be so seared, as to handle holy Things with­out Fear? Is Singularity grown so odious to an Ana­baptist Preacher, that he should make it a Subject for his Scorn and Drollery? However this may resem­ble T. Hicks, he does not herein answer the First Love of the People who go under that Name, while he shews so much implacable Hatred to his Consci­entious Neighbour, thereby not discountenancing the prophane Rabble in their frequent Scoffs at us, but furnishing them with such a Work of Darkness, as excites them further to it, making us to inherit those cruel Mockings, which were once the Portion [Page 6] of his own Profession. We know, what answers not God's Witness, shall never be able to abide the Tryal, and therefore we are the less concerned in his Comical Abuses of us, more becoming a More­field or a Smithfield Stage-Play, than a Christian Treatise. Thus much and no more of the Spirit of the Man in general, because more largely handled else-where.

CHAP. III.

WE shall now descend to the main Question, and that which is the Ground of his Second Dialogue, and without which there can be no De­fence of his First, viz.

Whether those Doctrines and Expressions, charg­ed upon the People called Quakers by Tho. Hicks in both his Dialogues, be really the Doctrines and Sayings of that People, or not? And afterwards, Whether what we do own, and is by him charged with Error, is sufficiently opposed or proved such?

He affirms, they are; and undertakes to prove his As­sertions out of their own Works, which naturally leads me to consider, what are those Doctrines and Expressions he hath charged upon us to be ours; and what are those Proofs, by which he endeavours to make good that Charge. I shall first of all treat up­on [Page 7] the more weighty Parts of Doctrine, and reserve the more trivial Matters to the latter end.

The first considerable thing he endeavours to sug­gest against us, is, Our making the Light in every Man to be God, Dial. p. 3, 4, 5. which he un­dertakes to prove from G. Whitehead's Discourse upon John 1.4. In him was Life, and the Life was the Light of Men; That if the Life was the Divine Essence, the Light must be so al­so; for such as the Cause is, such the Effect must be. Upon which sayes T. Hicks, ‘From this kind of reasoning we may conclude, not only the Light within, but every Creature both Beasts and Trees are God; these being Effects of infinite Wisdom and Power.’ Dost thou not Tremble at this Con­sequence?

Answ. This very thing shews great Dis-ingenu­ity in T. Hicks, That from G. Whiteheads asserting and proving the divine Nature of the Light within, he should insinuate, that every Measure of Light in Man is whole God, and which is yet more gross, to con­clude from G. Whiteheads saying, Such as the Cause is, such the Effect must be; that Beasts and Trees are God, because the Effects of his Power; whereas G. White­head did not intend it of a meer Potential, but Na­tural Effect, that is, something resulting from the Nature, and not the meer Power of the Divine Life. Men are the Natural Off-spring & Product of Men, but so are not all those other things in the Creation, which are notwithstanding the Effects of their Art and Power, so that there needs no Trembling at G.W's Blasphemy, as he afterwards calls it, but better Information to T. Hicks's Ignorance, or Rebuke to [Page 8] his wilful Blindness. Of this I refer the Reader to G.W's Part of that larger Volum.

Again G.W. affirm'd it must be God, because to de­ny it so to be, was to deny the Omnipresence of God, ‘Then it seems, says T.H. that the Light within, and the Omnipresence of God is one and the same thing with him. Is this your Champion? May we not con­clude the Body of Man as well as the Light within to be God by this Reason?’

Answ. By no means, and 'tis a Shame to hear that a Man pretending to Controversy should ask so ridi­culous a Question. Is there no Difference betwixt a Man, whose Reines are on his Neck, following the Lust of the flesh, the Lust of the Eye, and the Pride of Life, and the Light within, that T.H. himself ac­knowledgeth to convince of Sin, reprove for it, and unto which Man ought to give Attendance? Is there as clear a Proof of the Omnipresence of God in the one as in the other; I would know who is he that searcheth the Hearts, and trieth the Reins, and telleth Man his Thoughts? do not the Scriptures attribute this to God, and that as the most convincing Proof of his Omnipresence? And if he doth so search the Hearts and try the Reins, let us understand, if it be not as the Great Light, that enlightneth every Man that cometh into the World, since the Scriptures testify that God is Light; that every Man is enlight­ened; that God searcheth all Hearts, and that what ever doth make manifest is Light: Now unless a Man may have his Heart searched, his Reins tryed, his Deeds manifested & judg'd without an inward Light, it must necessarily follow, that the Light within, pre­sent with us every where, is to us the great Proof of Gods Omnipresence, and therefore of God. And though e­very [Page 9] measure of Light distinctly is not that Intire Eternal Being, yet we are bold to assert, that it is no other then God the Fulness of all Light, who search­eth the Heart and tryeth the Reins, and telleth Man his thoughts, that doth shine into the Inward parts of Man, and doth there convince of Sin, reprove for it, and lead out of it, John 1.16. Col. 1.19. as believed and obeyed: And 'tis by this Inward Discovery chiefly Men come to know that God is, and that he is a Rewarder of them that fear him; whence, when Men are Innocent, it is fre­quent with them to say, being unjustly accused, my Heart misgives me not, my Conscience doth not condemn me, I have good Courage to look my Accuser in the Face; A State transcending the utmost Stretch of all T.H's imagined Christianity.

In short T. Hicks's confident Conclusions against us arise from these Mistakes. First, He infers from Mans being Ignorant of all he ought to know, the Ina­bility of the Light to inform him, never considering Man's Obedience or Rebellion. 2 ly, From Christs being the Light that enlightens every Man, every Man's having the whole Christ in him; And thirdly from our asserting God and Christ to be one, our Denial of Christs Outward Person and Bodily Appear­ance at Jerusalem, see pag. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 14. of the Dialog. and 41, contin. of the Dial. with much more of that sort: Than which, what can be more grosly Injurious to any People. Either let him leave of Writing, or understand better what he writes against us. In short, we are willing to let the Controversie ly here; that the Quakers own, promote and assert, that the Life of God which is the Light of Men, with which every Man is enlightened, is sufficient [Page 10] to everlasting Salvation; And Thomas Hicks asserts and promotes, that this Life of God, which is the Light of Men with which all Men are enlightened, is not sufficient to Salvation. I am not willing to break my Design of following his Charge and Proofs by much controverting the Doctrine in it self, since 'tis enough for me to shew, that the Doctrines and sayings he fastens upon us, and the Proofs he brings to maintain them such, are not ours: yet I am willing to mention one Passage among several others, that if I understand any thing, is a grand Contradiction to his Opinion of the Light's Insufficiency.

He quotes Stephen Crisp thus, If the Light ought to be obeyed, then it must be sufficient. To which T.H. re­turns this Answer. ‘But I appeal to the Light in thee, whether this be not an Insufficient Proof. I grant it ought to be obeyed, so ought the lawful Commands of Magistrates, Parents and Masters; yet who will thence infer, that therefore they are a sufficient Rule to Salvation?’

Answ. This cuts the Throat of his whole Design, For by the same Reason, that such who obey the lawful commands of Masters, Parents and Magistrates are to be reputed good Servants, Children and Sub­jects, those who obey the Light are good Subjects, Children and Servants to God: And if those who so keep the Commandments of Parents, Masters and Magistrates, escape Punishment, and obtain their Good Will, Favour and Recompence, which is an outward Salvation; then those who obey the Light, by his Allusion, do obtain his Favour, Love and Re­compence of the Reward of Righteousness, which Righteousness, that it might be fulfilled in us, so obeying, and walking after his Spirit, was the End [Page 11] of God's giving his Son a Light, condemning Sin, and that they that walk thereafter, Rom. 8.9, 10, 11. might not have Condemnation, minding the things of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from the Dead, the Spirit of Christ, Christ in them, not minding the Things of the Flesh, which [...], or Minding, vers. 7. as it may be render'd, cannot be subject to the Law of God, but they that are subject and are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Children of God, and Heirs according to the Promise. Most Ungodly then must T. Hicks's Consequences be, that because we say, Christ enlightens every Man, pag. 8, 9. Saul persecuted the Church, and the Hea­thens multiplied their False Gods by the Light within. Like unto which is his Arguing, p. 14. where he thus pretends to answer his feigned Quaker: If indeed thou knowest not what I aim at in this Question, then thy Light cannot be God, as thou sayst it is; for God knows the Hearts and Intentions of all Men: thereby confoun­ding the Light and Creature together, and con­cluding Imbecillity, Insufficiency and Ignorance in the Light, which are the Imperfections of the Crea­ture. Was there ever any thing more Scoffing, Pro­phane and Dark then this? might not the Gentiles have treated the Christians after this manner, that if they knew not all things (whether it concerned them to know them, or not) the Christ and Spirit they pre­tended to be led by, were not God? This is so far from proving the Light not to be God, that admit­ting of it, it were to prove every Man a God. Is every Master as ignorant as his Schollar, because his Schollar knows not as much as his Master? T. Hicks knows not all truth, nay T. Hicks may be led into [Page 12] many Mistakes; Is his Bible, which he calls his Rule, there­fore the Cause? Certainly by his way of Arguing a­gainst the Light, if he be not Perfect & Infallible, the Scriptures must needs be Insufficient and Errable: But if it be an Evil, to make the Scripture accessory to T.H's Mistakes; of equal Reason is it Impious in him to charge Men's Infirmities upon the Light, and repute that Insufficient, because they are Rebellious. E­ducation, Prejudice, Interest, Self-Righteousness, Evil Living, bring Vails over the Understanding, that, though the Light shine in Darkness, they com­prehend it not.

When Saul's Formality, and Pharisaical Righte­ousness became shaken by the Law of Light in the Conscience, then, and not till then he cries out, Oh wretched Man that I am. Whilst Saul gave more heed to his Outward Religion, then the Light in his Conscience, he did Persecute, and thought it a Du­ty; 'twas when the Light struck him, that he became aw [...]kened: But if he persecuted the Church by the Light within, why not by the Spirit too, since God gave the Jews his good Spirit? If T. Hicks will say, But he resisted that; so say I, as to the Light; For­mality, Tradition, and many Superstitions (atten­ded with an Ignorant and Harsh Zeal) darkened him, that he could not behold it. But it is a gross Contradiction in T.H. to say, The Light ought to be obeyed; and yet say, That it led Saul to persecute the Christians.

And he abuses many of the Heathen-Philosophers, as well as the Light, in saying, That the Light within reproved them not for multiplying their Deities. For all Learned Men must needs know, as I have else-where at large proved, that by the Light within they have [Page 13] decryed the Heathen-Gods, maintained the Doctrine of the One only Wise God, and for their Faith and Perse­verance they have been Taken, Imprisoned, Arraigned, Condemned and Executed, though it went for justice upon the Enemies of the Gods. Who knows not this, is a Stranger to Story.

But hear T. Hicks, ‘I demand an Instance among the many Thousands of Mankind, pag. 9. Dial. that hath been convinced, or reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ by the meer Light within, before any Revelation was brought unto them; though I grant that the Light in them may reprove for those Sins, the Common Light in all Mankind will not, because thou hast borrowed much Light from the Scriptures, which all have not.’

Answ. I may well suppose, that as many have been reproved for not believing Jesus to be the Christ, by the Light within, as by the Scriptures; and my Reasons are; First, Because those who crucified him, were Admirers of the Scripture, and pretended to prove out of their own Law, that it was both law­ful and necessary, he should be put to Death; where­as had they brought that Deed to the Light, the Light would have shown it not to have been wrought in God; which the Scriptures without that Light could not so effectually do. 2 ly, Those who by Scripture came to any Convincement, originally received it from the Revelation of the Light within, which both opened the Scriptures and their Understan­dings. 3 ly, Peter, Andrew, Matthew, Nathanael, the Centurion, Ruler, Diseased Woman, &c. confess'd him from the Illumination and Operation of the [Page 14] Light within, since whatever makes Manifest or works Conviction, is Light; They were not Dis­obeyers and Rebellers against it, who most readily received and followed Christ; They who waited for Israel's Consolation, lived in the Just Man's Path, a shining Light, which shined brighter and brighter to the leading such as walked in it, to the great Light of Israel, when he appeared.

Further, To say that the Light we have, being much of it borrowed from Scripture, Reproves for those Sins, the Common Light in all Men will not, is great Wickedness; for it is to say, that the Light wherewith Christ hath enlightned all Men, will not Reprove for all Sin; thereby placing the Defect manifestly upon the Light, as before, and not upon the thick and gross Darkness (through Disobedience of the People) as well as that he attributes to the Scripture that Con­viction, which is chiefly due to the Light. For by what Way can Mankind arrive at true Sight, Discer­ning and Knowledge in the Understanding part, but by the Light, and that as it shines into the Under­standing; is it not the Light to whom every Deed should be brought, to see if it be wrought in God, or no? What can any Man solidly and beneficially learn by the Scriptures, but through the Discoveries of that Inward Light? Are they not dark Sayings, or rather Man dark to those Sayings, if the holy Light arise not to shine forth, and give to under­stand their Scope and Tendency? All Scripture but Prophecy, which was given forth by Inspiration, as Reproof, Exhortation, Doctrine, &c. were first expe­rienced or witnessed, at whom) Tho. Hicks may e­qually cavil and scoff, (What's your Witnessing to [Page 15] me) & that through walking in the Light of the Lord, the Just Man's Path; and were written for the sake of others, that they might be asisted and helpt to the same Experience, but not another Way, then through the same Steps they had trodden: so that the Ground of the holy Ancients Experiences now written, and of the true Knowledge of the Scriptures, and Com­fort from them, as an outward Mean; and whatever is to be obtained and enjoyed within, is originally and chiefly ascribable to the Discoveries, Convictions and Leadings of the blessed Light of Christ within, through eve­ry Generation, however variously the Principle may have been denominated; as, the Word of God nigh, Wisdom, Light, Spirit, &c. under the Old Testament; and Light, Grace, Truth, Christ, Spirit, Anointing, Gift of God, &c. under the New Testament.

Two short Scripture Arguments spring in my Mind for the Divinity and Sufficiency of the Light; and from thence I shall conside this Objections:

I. If God be Divine and sufficient to Salvation, and the Word be God, and the Life of the Word, Joh. 1.5. One with the Word and the Life of the Word, the Light of Men, then is the Light of Men Divine and Sufficient to Salvation.

But God is Divine, and Sufficient to Salvation, and the Word is God, and the Life of the Word, One with the Word, and the Life of the Word, the Light of Men.

Therefore I conclude, that the Light of Men, which is the Life of the Word, which Word is God, is Divine and Sufficient to Eternal Salvation.

[Page 16]II. That which was in all Ages the just Man's Path, and there where the Blood of Cleansing is known to cleanse, Prov. 4.18. 1 Joh. 1.1.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Joh. 8.12. Joh. 11.9, 10. and by which Fellowship is en­joyed, and the Light of Eter­nal Life obtained, is, ever was, and ever will be a Divine, Sufficient and Saving Way; But such a Way is the Light as the several Scriptures in the Margent will testifie. Consequent­ly, the Light is Divine and Sufficient to Salvation.

The only Cavil at these Arguments will be this; I deny this Light to be the Common Light in all Men. To which I say, that there cannot be Two Spiritu­al Lights of the Life of the Word, and not the same, if Two could be; For whatever is of the same Na­ture, though not of the same Degree, is still the same in Kind. If there be another Light that is Sa­ving, tell us from whence it comes; but first prove this not Saving. And as these things are too Diffi­cult, I hope, for him to compass, so is it as Ridi­culous and Blasphemous to think, that God should give Man an Insufficient Light. But why any, if not Sufficient?

I have heard and read often, That all God's Gifts are Perfe [...]t. 'Tis strange, that his Light to Men should be so Lame, Defective and Imperfect, as T.H. represents it. But suppose this Light to be so; Why an Insufficient Light, and a Saving Light both? The latt [...]r would have done our Business. It is Injurious to Man to let him have a Fallible Guide; For when he may think himself certain, he may be in the greatest Danger by mistaking one for the [Page 17] other; or thinking not of them as they are. But Thanks be to the God of Light, we know (for WE WITNESS) better things, how ill a Reason, and how offensive soever Witnessing is to Thomas Hicks an Anabaptist-Teacher; to whose Brethren, Experi­ences once were the great Foundation of both their Knowledge and Comfort, though now mockt at by him with great Derision in a Quaker.

But to his Objections faithfully contracted:

1. If this Light ever was and is Sufficient, how comes it, that Men have been and are so degenerated in Faith, Discipline and Worship? They have all this Light by your Principle.

2ly, If this Light had been Sufficient, wherefore should God have superadded so many other Wayes and Means; they would be then needless?

3ly, Christ being the Only Saviour, who was born of a Virgin at Bethlehem, wrought Miracles, was cut off, bore our Sins, &c. I query, how all this can be affirmed of the Light?

4ly, Are not all the Generations of Christians since Christ's time till within these very few Years certainly Lost and Damned, forasmuch as they acknowledge not this Light within, as the True Christ?

To the first I answer, There is nothing there­in, which may be thought to reflect upon the Light, but what falls as heavily upon all other Wayes, Helps, Ordinances, Appointments, yea the Scriptures, and which is more, upon God, and Christ, and the Ho­ly Spirit too; For if the Degeneracy of Man, that is the sad Effect of his own Rebellion, shall be a valid Proof of the Insufficiency of the Light [Page 18] within, then must we conclude from the Degeneracy, that hath been among Jews and Christians, and which remains to this Day, that all those Assistances, Wayes and Helps which have been given, in reality were not Potent nor Sufficient for the End they were given; The Con­sequences of which Opinion of our Adversaries are these Two, and sad enough. 1. That God in his Wayes must have been and is Insufficient; and 2. That Man never was, neither is any wayes faulty. In short, that may be suffici­ent to Salvation, which if neglected, will never work Salvation; as in the Parable of the Talents may be seen.

To the Second I briefly say, That Man's Mind be­ing so much abroad through unstable, and vain Wandrings from God's Light, the Lord in Wisdom and Condescension to the Weakness of Man, and Darkness of that Carnal State did accommodate both his Discoveries to Man, and that Worship he re­quired from Man, according to his Capacity to re­ceive the one, and perform the other. If God went into Outward Things to meet with Man's Mind that was abroad, to the End that gradually it might return home, shall we infer Weakness in the Light? Man in that State was incapable; he must have been new-molded, and as another Creation to have then received that Testimoy in all its Plainness, which God hath brought forth in after Ages.

If any will undertake to charge Weakness upon Man, let him; But I warn all, how they conclude it against the Light, since the same falls on God and his good Spirit, who made Use of such Wayes and Means in order to gain upon Man's Mind, and be­get a right Understanding and Sence of what was his Will concerning him: Besides, not only did the Di­vine [Page 19] Light and Life appear unto Man in, and through those things as Vailes; But that which gave Man true Discerning, Repentance, and to do the Thing that ever was acceptable with God in any measure, and which was as the Soul, Life and Spirit of all the true and well-pleasing Sacrifices, was a measure of that Divine Light of Life in their Hearts at that time; though as Samuel in a like Case, they knew it not. Let none then charge the Weakness of the Admini­stration upon the Light, but the Generation, to whom he that is the Light of and in Men, appeared, as Mankind has been able to receive the Knowledge of him: It was not Insufficiency in God, nor in his Light or Spirit, if Man's Eyes were not strong enough to behold the Brightness, of what after Ages have beheld; But it was his Mercy and Goodness, that he proportioned both his Discoveries and Re­quirings according to Man's Ability.

To conclude, The Light is still the same in it self through all Ages, and not a whit the less Sufficient, because through its Invisibility and Spirituallity, and the Wandrings abroad and great Carnallity of Man's Mind, some External Means were used, suita­ble to Man's Weakness, through which to reach into Man, and raise up some further Knowledge of the Spirtuallity of God's Worship: Nor because of the Light's Sufficiency as to it self, ought any to infer, that those Wayes or Means were vain or needless; For as the Weakness of Men should not call the A­bility of the Light in Question, nor their Carnalli­ty take off from the Light's Sufficiency, Spiritualli­ty or Divinity, so neither doth the Sufficiency of the Light render all Means accommodated to Man's Weakness vain or needless; especially when [Page 20] the Vertue that is in them, comes from the Light of Life.

To his Third Objection, which with most Opposers carrieth the greatest Weight, I have this in Plainness and Brevity to answer.

We own not, neither do we confess to another Christ then him, who after the Flesh was born of the Virgin Mary at the City of Bethlehem in Judea, who preacht an Everlasting Gospel, worked Miracles, bore our Iniquities, and was cut off, or dyed for the People. But since Thomas Hicks would have us believe, that he is not yet Socinian enough to deny the Divinity or Godhead of Christ, and therefore that Christ was not only a Man, much less that what was born of Mary, was crucified, and laid in the Sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathia, was the Whole Christ; I must distinguish.

The Word that was with God in the beginning, and was God, who in time took Flesh, was and is the Light of the World; in the fulness of time he manifested himself in a more Familiar and Intimate Manner to Mankind, in order to which he prepared an Holy Body, in which he preached his Everlasting Gospel, worked many Miracles, drew many after him: He sustained grieveous Weights, the Burden of the Iniquity of the whole World lay upon him, he travelled under it, and trod the Wine-Press alone, and was pressed as a Cart with Sheaves; And so well did he love the World, that, to testifie the same, he gave up his Life not only to recommend his Love, but to confirm his unchangeable Gospel of Remissi­on of Sins, and Eternal Salvation to as many as be­lieved, and followed him the Light of the World; that so Remission might not only be preacht in his [Page 21] Name, but Blood also (for it was a time of Blotting-out; for God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself) In which Manifestation he not only drew many to him, & gave Testimony of his Salvati­on to some particulars; but he combated the Serpent, bruised his Head, and gave him an absolute Defeat in the General, scattering his Oracles, chasing his Infer­nal Spirits, causing his own Light more universally to clear up, and break forth into the World, in­somuch that Thousands followed him: He qualified and deputed Ambassadors; Commissioned and Im­powred them from on high; whose Message was Powerful, and whose Ministry was Effectual; yet when all this is said, and believed most surely, as well as exprest most plainly, That which gave the Life, Power, Virtue, Strength and Efficacy to all this, and to whom therefore eminently the Work, Salvation, Power and Glory are most deservedly ascriba­ble, is the Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, whose Life was, and is the Light of Men, who took Flesh, and was manifested therein. Therefore He who is our Light, ought not to be denyed, being the true Christ, and true Saviour; For no other Light and Life then appeared in that Body, that was then an Offering for Sin once for all, is the Life and Light that we assert and defend. And for that Holy Body, it was our Lord's, as the Scripture speaks, Joseph of Arimathia begged the Body of Jesus, Mat. 27.58. Mark 15.43. Luke 23.52. They found not the Body of the Lord Jesus, Luke 24.3. He prepared it, he took it, he was manifested in it and by it; how can we deny that Body which was our Lord's? By no means. To conclude, though our Divine Word of Life and Light dyed not (for Christ [Page 22] as God over all blessed forever, could not dye) yet his Body did, and fo his Fulness therein and there by manifested, have we received, and Grace for Grace. So that all those who are talking of the Body of Christ, and seeking to represent us to the World as Deniers and Despisers of his Appearance, they are but in the Steps of the Persecuting Jews, who as they eryed up the Prophets, but being Strangers to their Divine Life, relisht not, savour'd not, and therefore yielded not to Christ (the Rock who fol­lowed the Fathers in the Wilderness, the Fountain of all the Life and Refreshment of the Holy Ancients) but with their Proud, and Conceited, and indeed Mistaken knowledge, not from, but of the Letter, and in a bitter Zeal for their dying Forms and Tra­ditions, did they war against the Breaking forth of that Day of Salvation, and that as Heresie, Blasphemy, and the like; so now, these Men seem busie and great Sticklers for the Body of Christ (which they know not) and for Bread, Wine, Water, &c. and all in Opposition to a more plain and Inward Manifesta­tion of the Divine Light, Life and Substance shed abroad, as the Accomplishment of the Promise of the Father in this our Day and Generation. But as it fared with those of old, so shall it with these Opposers, their Visitation shall pass swiftly over their Head, and their Temple shall be cast down, and not one Stone of their fair Edifice shall be left stan­ding upon another.

To his Last Objection I must tell him, that we have not that Uncharitableness in our Principles, which our Adversaries are guilty of. He, like the Jews of old, is ready to think every Man damn'd, nay, by his [Page 23] Principle, it is not avoidable, who hath not heard of the Name Christ, or is not enter'd into some kind of Church-Fellowship upon common Christian-Con­fessions, as they are called and distinguisht from meer Morality or Good Life: But for my part, as God had a People among the Gentiles of old, who became a Law unto themselves, doing the Things contained in the Law, whom I believe to be at Rest and Peace (notwithstanding the severe and positive Censures I have heard from several Professors against them, and Millions more) so, though much Darkness hath pre­vailed in most parts of the World, and still continu­eth, yet then, and where the Day of Ignorance re­mains, and where there hath been and is a Walking with Sincerity towards God, according to their Knowledge I do believe the Lord did and doth wink, and had and hath Mercy, though great Stran­gers to that Christian-Profession so much boasted of among too many in our Nation: And I doubt not, but that there may be found some Thousands both of Turks and Indians, who would not only have detested in point of Credit, but in Fear to God, dreaded do­ing a Tittle of what Tho. Hicks hath falsly and im­pudently said and done against our Persons, Practices and Principles.

In short, though God in every Age hath had a Regard to the Sincerity of Peoples Hearts, and their Upright Living, though subjected under gross Forms, and in the Darkest seasons of the World; yet, God having now caused his Day spring from on high to visit, whereby more certain knowledge & sound Judgment is given of the Darkness that hath covered the Earth, the Supersti­tion, Idolatries, humane Inventions, Will-Worships, Ʋio­lence, Cruelty, Wantonness, Intemperance, Avarice, and [Page 24] all manner of Ʋngodliness; all are required to harken to the Lord's Voice, to obey his Call, to let him in, and bring their Deeds unto the Light, that Christ, who is that true Light, may discover the Enemy, may bind him, spoil his Goods, and cast him out; that he may reign over Thoughts, Words and Deeds; so shall such be able to say as David did, O, all that is within me, praise his holy Name! For Christ will be known, as he is the Saviour of the Soul from Death, the Restorer of Paths, to dwell in, who destroyes the Works of the Devil, and brings in Everlasting Righteousness to the Soul. And though few observe it, That which is truly commend able in any People, proceeds from the secret Power and Efficacy of that Inward Principle we so much testifie of: 'Tis that convinces, discovers, reproves, restraines, tenders, humbles, and affects the Soul, and not their several Outward Forms, which, with Robbery to the Light or Grace within, they are apt to attribute it to, and whereby the Devil beguiles them into a Continu­ance of them. Wherefore let all our Opposers be de­horted from their vehement out-crys; for who with­stand, revile and set at naught this Blessed Appear­ance, God, the Lord of Heaven and Earth, will break them to pieces, if they come not to timely Repen­tance for it.

CHAP. IV.

ANd this forever raises the Foundation of T.H's Building: as indeed how can any thing so infirm long continue, built upon Forgery, and the hight of all Par­tiality: [Page 25] who makes us Hereticks, that he may be found; and abusive, that he may either shew his own Patience, or colour his frequent base Revisings of us: I say, this overthrows his whole Discourse about the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith and Pra­ctice under the New Covenant. For, what ever is more Ancient, more Ʋniversal, and Able to Inform, Rule and Guide, that must eminently be the Rule; but that has been, and is the Light within: consequently that has been and ought to be the Rule of Faith and Practice. That it has been and ought still to be the Rule exprest, is proveable thus.

That which led those holy Men into those things, of which the Scripture is a Declaration, must needs have been the Rule; But that was the Principle of God within, by what Name soever denominated. That this is true, let it suffice to say, That who walked in the Light in any Age, so far walkt in the Counsel of God. And that all Mankind had an Ability from God so to do, is our Belief, what Abbridgement soever T. Hick's detestable Opinion of Reprobation may make of the Love of God.

That it ought still to continue to be the Rule of Faith and Life, I prove thus, That which is every where, which makes manifest that which is displeasing, and that which is acceptable to God, without which the Scriptures are unintelligible, and by living up to which Men only may come to witness the Truth of those things declar'd of in the Scriptures, must be, and ought to be the Rule of Faith, &c. But all this is true of the Light; which is further proved thus.

The Light Thomas Hicks acknowledges all Men have. The Light Thomas Hicks acknow­ledges all Men ought to attend unto: Pag. 7. Now [Page 26] unless some Man, who hath lived unblameably up to the Light can give us a Demonstration of its Insuf­ficiency to shew, and teach him that further thing, that God requires him to believe and do, there can be no valid Argument against the Light's Sufficiency. If T.H. dare be the Man, we shall joyn Issue with him in the Tryall of the Matter: But if the Light be before hand with Man-kind, furnishing him still with Work enough to do, as it certainly ever hath done, and still doth, let it be known to T.H. that such as would know more of Christ's Doctrines, must first do his Will ac­cording to what they do know: And as it is the common Method of the Dealing of God towards the Sons of Men; So is it great Impiety in any Man to infer or conclude Insufficiency to be in the Light to discover and teach Man what he ought to know and do, from Man's Ignorance of all, that he ought to know and do; since the Ground of that Ignorance is, his not doing, what the Light of God requires from him, as his present Duty to perform.

That the Scriptures are Ʋnintelligible without it, is easi­ly prov'd from the Variety of Judgments that are in the World about most of the Fundamental Do­ctrines contained therein; as about God's Essence and Similitude, Christ and the Spirit, their Divinity, Pre­destination, Original Sin, Free-Will, Redemption, Sa­tisfaction, Justification, Faith and Works. In short, the whole End of Christs Coming, Living and Dying they are strongly controverted: Now were the Scrip­tures so clear capable to determine in these Mat­ters, the Differences would quickly end; But since the utmost Ability they of themselves can give, is not enough to render those Things obvious, that are now doubtfull, and disputable; There is a Necessity [Page 27] of Man's Recourse to some other thing, which is able to discover the Mind and Intendment of the holy Pen-Men. Now I would be glad to know of any sober Man, if any thing besides the Light shi­ning into the Understanding is able to give true Sight, Discerning and Judgment about the Points controverted? would it not be reputed Madness to bid Men read, that have no Eyes, or if they have Eyes, at least no Light to read with them? The whole Scrip­ture, as it relates to Man's Duty, is a Declaration of the woful State of Darkness, and the blessed State of Light and Life, with the Way of Transla­tion out of the one into the other. And was this Knowledge without Experience, or by and through Ex­perience? I hope no Man will say, the holy Pen-Men were not Witnesses of the things they wrote: and if they were, I would fain know, by what o­ther Way they came to understand and comprehend the Darkness that was within, then by the Light within; And to know the Temptations and Subtil­ties of the Spirit of Darkness, the Discoveries, Reproofs and Leadings of the Light, the Tryals, Travels, Exercises, and finally the perfect Translati­on so frequently expressed in these holy Writings, but through the Manifestation of the Light of Christ in the Conscience, their Obedience to it, and 'its Operati­on to their Redemption and Sanctification. So that the State of Judgment, Repentance, Remission, Regenerati­on, called the New Birth, and perfect Justification, were their Experiences (or Witnessings, for all T. Hicks) from the Inward Work of God's Light upon their Hearts and their Souls, which though the Scriptures declare of them, they can never bring Man into, nor can any Man groundedly aver the [Page 28] Truth of those things, till he comes through Obedi­ence to the Light in his own Conscience to experience the same Judgment, Repentance, Remission, Regeneration, called the new Birth, and perfect Justification before God; Since then the Scriptures can do none of these things of themselves, however Instrumental they may be of Good, but the holy Light in the Conscience, and that these things are not know­able, though they may be read, talked and writ of, without being lead by the same Spirit, and trea­ding the same Steps of deep Experience the holy An­cients trod in, and have left us for an Example, it must be granted, whether T. Hicks will or no, That the Author of those Discoveries, Convictions, Judg­ments, &c. must be the Standing Immutable Rule to the Soul, what, how far, and which way we are to de­ny or own, reject or embrace, relinquish or follow, with Respect to those things that please God, or that please him not.

His Objections I shall contract into these Four, urged by him for the Scriptures, and against the Light's being the Rule of Faith and Practice; and in­deed they are the greatest Strength of his Book, if any it has.

First, The Light within cannot give a clear and distinct Account how Sin came to be; if we consult the Wisest Philosophers, Dial. p. 21, 22, 33. we shall find a deep Silence touching this Point: They saw Sin did overflow, but could not by all the Improvements of the Light in them, find out how Sin came to be.

I am perswaded T. Hicks never consulted so much [Page 29] as the meanest of them, at least effectually; had he, his Dialogue would have savoured of more true Sci­ence and Morality; for I will make it appear that he has contradicted himself, abused the Philosophers, and blasphemed the Light in this one Passage.

Where there is no Law there is no Transgression; then where there is Transgression, there is a Law. Now T. Hicks granting that the Heathen knew there was Sin, they must know it by Virtue of some Law that made it so. This Law was not written, but them­selves declared, God had imprinted it upon their Hearts, Pythag. Socrat. Cleanth. &c. as an Immutable and Infallible Guide to them in their Actions. If so, how could they be Ignorant of Sin's coming into the World? Who knew it to be a Deviation from God's living Commandment in their own Conscience, and a Committing quite Con­trary Things? If T. Hicks means by clear and distinct Account the History of Moses; that is, that Adam and Eve were beguiled by the Serpent, who tempted them with an Apple, &c. 'tis no wayes to his Pur­pose; For that which is Sufficient to that Faith which concerns Salvation is, to know that God is, that he is Pure and Holy, that he has given Man the Knowledge of himself, and his Will concerning Him by some Inward Law, Command, Light, Grace, or Spirit; and that who acts not correspondently to this Guide is a Transgressor, and incurs the Penalty; and that the Heathen had this, their Books at large tell us: Nor does Tho. Hicks deny it, so that he manifest­ly contradicts Himself, and abuseth the Philosophers in saying, They could not find out, how Sin came, since they expresly say, That God made all Good, and [Page 30] that Man's Erring from the Divine Law in him brought Evil into the World. And I boldly affirm, and in the next Head will prove, that the meer History is not absolutely necessary to Salvation.

Now that herein he has Blasphemed against the Light, is evident; since it is to say, That God gave Men a Law and Light not sufficient to let them see, how Sin entered the World; which is to say in plainer En­glish, what is Sin; it will and must end there. Be­sides, suppose the Philosophers had been Ignorant, must it needs follow▪ that the Fault and Want was in the Light, and not in them? Will T. Hicks become their Warrant in the Matter, that they arrived as high, as the Light could teach them, and that the De­ficiency lay on the side of their Teacher, and not on theirs? Confident, yea Impudent Man! Why should either the Darkness of any Age be charged upon the Light, or render it Insufficient; or the more clear Break­ing forth of Light in a following Generation be reputed another Light, because another Degree then what obscurely shined forth in the former; since it was not the obscurer in it self, but through the gross Blackness that might have over-cast that People be­cause of Disobedience, it seemed so to them? But let us hear him further.

2. Nor can this Light give any Account of that Reme­dy which God in his infinite Wisdom provided, Jesus Christ, Pag. 33. Dial. that he should be born of a Vir­gin, dye for others, and rise the third day: This is the Pinch.

But I answer: First, That the Prophets saw it by this Light, unless that they saw it without Light, [Page 31] or that the Light they saw it by, was not the Light of Christ, as the Word that was with God, and was God; which, I hope, T. Hicks upon serious Thinking will not say; for of no other do we speak. 2 ly, Those that believed him, when he came, could never have received him, had they not seen him by an Inward Eye, enlightned by that Light in measure in themselves, which then so unmeasura­bly appeared in him; For the Jews had the Scrip­tures, and according to their Understanding of them, they reputed him a Blasphemer; and both plotted, promoted, and obtained his Crucifixion. The Question will be, Why did they not better under­stand them? The Answer is, because they Rebelled against that Spirit which could only so inform them: Had they brought their Deeds to the Light, they had re­ceived sound Judgment, and a true Measure would have been given them, which they rejecting, that was both the Ground of their Ignorance, and the Just Reason of their Condemnation. Hence we see, that Light, and not the Scriptures was the higher Rule and Judge of Thoughts, Words and Deeds, yea, and which way the Scriptures themselves were to be understood; And truly it is strange, that the Light in Men should not lead naturally to its own Being and Fountain. 'Tis Proverbial among Men The Way to the Fountain Head is to trace the Stream. I [...] the Light in Man leads not to Christ, who gives th [...] Light, let us leave off all Talk of Religion; for t [...] what, or whom else was it given to lead us?

But Thomas Hicks, tell me, Who, or what w [...] Christ in that Manifestation it self, but that D [...] ­vine Word, Life or Light manifested in Flesh? Wil [...] not then a Measure of the same in Man, lead him [...] [Page 32] course to acknowledge the Fulness, or in following its Leadings bring to Eternal Salvation; Or can that Light resist that Manifestation, as thou dost else­where seem to affirm?

If Christ his enlightned Men with the Light of his own Life, Dial. p. 38.42. and if they are required to bring their Deeds to be tryed by it, and if they are invited to follow it, and in following it, are promised, no more to abide in Darkness, but have the Light of Life, because of the Blood of Cleansing, that is therein met with, whereby such are cleansed from all Ʋnrighteousness, and yet the Light ne [...]ther a Rule nor Saving, then what else can be either a Rule or Saving?

But this Light (says he) could not tell any that Jesus should be born of a Virgin, dye for Sinners and rise again. But this is so great a Mistake, that had he conversed with the Sibylls or other Heathen Writers, he might in good part have informed himself to the contrary. But here I distinguish of Faith, There is an Histo­rical and Saving Faith, and there is an Historical and Saving Rule; as the Faiths, so the Rules differ, If T. Hicks sayes that 'tis the Scriptures that give the Knowledge of those Transactions, I m [...]st then understand him to mean Historically, if I assent, which is not Saving; for then all who believe those things to have been, must therefore be saved; the contrary to which is daily seen with our Eyes: since who believes not that Report among those, who are yet in great Wickedness? But if we are to penetrate deeper, and that T Hicks should hold as he seems plainly to do, that what Faith we can have of the most weighty Truths declared of in the Scrip­tures, is from it, and not from the Light or Spirit [Page 33] within, I must firmly deny it; For Faith is God's Gift, not the Scriptures Gift: No, so far is the Scrip­ture from giving Faith, that it is God's Spirit alone, that gives both to understand and believe them. The Scripture tells me of such Prophecies, Histories and Epistles, and of such Men as Moses, Job, David, Isaiah, Matthew, Paul and John; But what is it that gives me to believe the Things they writ of to be true? Is it not the Testimony and most certain Amen in the Conscience? and what is that there, which seals to those excellent Truths? Which way then can the Scripture be a Rule to me in believing the Scripture, when that Faith is begotten of God by his Light and Spirit concerning the Scripture? If the meer Scripture could give me Faith, then it might be allowed to rule my Faith; but when God by his Spirit alone begets Faith, and without which I can neither understand nor believe the Scriptures, tell me, If God's Spirit be not the Rule of my Faith; what, how far, and which way I am to believe them, or the things believed? Certainly they can never be my Rule, How far, and which way I am to believe them­selves, who of themselves cannot give me that Faith; but it must be wrought by another thing; so that what gives to believe, rules the Belief, and not the Thing be­lieved: Therefore the Scriptures cannot be the Rule of Faith.

Now as to this of Christ's Outward Manifestation, I say, so far as it is Historical, the Scripture is that which furnisheth me with a Belief; But I ut­terly deny, that they give to believe it in that deep Sense, which may be truly called a Saving Faith.

The Pharisees had the Scriptures, and they pre­tended to admire Moses and the Prophets; yet they [Page 34] crucified Christ, and sought to countenance their Murder by Scripture. Now had they believed and esteemed the Writings of Moses and the Pro­phets from an Inward Sence of Gods Spirit (which the meer Scriptures could not furnish them with) they had rightly understood them, and not made so ill an Use of their Historical Knowledge, as to cru­cifie the Lord of Life and Glory. This shews that Men may have an Historical Faith, and yet not the True Faith nor Knowledge of the Scriptures, what then gives to believe aright now? why truely that which did then: the Light and Spirit of Truth; no Man could call Jesus Lord without it, that is truly so, or upon good ground. No Man could confess that Christ was come in the Flesh, but whose Spirit was of God, yet now nothing is more common, & yet nothing is more True then that Thousands of them are not of God, but lie in Wickedness alienated from the Life of God, &c. what is the matter then? why this, Those who then confest that Jesus was come in the Flesh, did it by Virtue of an Invisible Sight, and through a Divine Illumination in their Souls: For im­possible had it otherwise been for them in any mea­sure to have seen through the Vail of his Flesh, in­to that Divine Life, Power and Wisdom that Ʋnmea­surably filled it, but having some inward Sence and Taste of that most excellent Being, that was mani­fested in and by that bodily Appearance, therefore did they confess to it, and their Spirits truely re­puted by John to be of God.

And as in that day it was Impossible for any truly and acceptably to confess to Christ, without a Discerning given, and Faith wrought by the Light and Spirit of God in the Heart, which was the sa­ving [Page 35] Faith; so is it now equally Impossible for any to believe that Christ appeared, and that he spake and did all these great things, so as to be benefitted thereby, and any wayes accepted of God therein, but as the Light and Spirit of Truth open those Things to the Understanding, and from a measure of that Divine Life which then immeasurably ap­peared (for we have all received of his Fulness and Grace for Grace) true Faith comes to be begotten in that Manifestation, and a right Confession unto it. In short, He that calleth Christ Lord, must now, as then, do it by the Holy Ghost, that is from an Experience or Witnessing of his Dominion, and Rule, which, through the Operation of the holy Spirit, the Soul is to be subjected to, so that who believes more then Historically that Christ came in the Flesh, must do it by Virtue of the Divine Light and Spirit, who alone gives to relish and savour the Truth, Nature and End of that Appearance.

And though it may be allowed, that the Scrip­ture is a Rule, respecting the History, as it was to those of old, in reference to the particular Pro­phecies fulfilled in Christ's coming; yet as there was then a more Inward and Heavenly Sence of Christ, which drew many after him, and begot deep Faith in him, so must there now be a more Inward Spiritual and deep grounded Faith of those things recorded in Scripture, of Christs Appearance, &c. then the meer Letter is able to give. And therefore that Light and Spirit which gives that discerning, and works that deep Sence and Faith must needs be as well the Rule as Author of it, and not the Scrip­tures; For if the Scriptures be the Rule, then ei­ther of Themselves or by Interpretation. If [Page 36] of Themselves, then either in their Translations, or Originals. Not in the Translations, unless the Trans­lators had been so inspired, that they mist not a tittle, which I am sure is not so; and consequent­ly none but Schollars have a Rule, for the Unlearned are secluded; & therefore the English Bible is not a Rule.

If in the Originals of Hebrew and Greek; Query, In what Copies? There are various Lections in He­brew: And for the New Testament, so called, there are no less then Thirty Copies, and all differing; in fine, there are many Thousands of various Readings.

Now let's Dialogue a little upon Supposition only.

If by Interpretation, who shall interpret? Meer Man?

No.

The Light within?

No.

The Spirit?

No.

The Church.

What Church?

Shall Right Reason interpret?

Yes, sayes T.H.

I Query, Which of them is the Rule? And when that's found out and determined, then let T. Hicks prove that it is unquestionably true, and has re­mained Uncorrupted through every Generation: And by that time he has done all this, he shall have done a great deal towards our Satisfaction. But what is this Right Reason?

'Tis a Faculty in Man rectified.

Very well; But who has this rectified Faculty?

Thomas Hicks, say.

[Page 37]

Has none it but he?

Yes.

Have none Right Reason but such?

It was an old Saying▪ Dip or Damn; but Inte­rest has taught us more Discretion.

Well then; Others may have Right Reason that are not dipped?

We say so, whatever we think among our selves.

What's the peculiar benefit of Dipping?

Much every way.

But which way?

We are brought into Church-Fellowship.

Are you brought into Fellowship with God by it?

No; I cannot say so.

No! what's your Fellowship worth then? the Saints Fellowship was in the Light, and the true Church-Fellowship was in Spirit: What do you re­ceive when you are dipt?

Nothing.

Are you no better?

No.

Why, I once thought you received the Holy Ghost out of hand?

I thought so too, but was Mistaken.

Why wert thou dipt then?

To fulfil the Scripture.

But what led thee to it?

My own desire.

Is not that Will-Worship?

What, to do as the Scripture exhorts?

How knowest thou it exhorted to it▪

I thought so.

[Page 38]

Is that enough? Where's your being lead by God's Spirit? But to our Business.

How shall I know Tho. Hicks has this Rea­son before mention'd?

He loftily sayes so.

But is that sufficient? Well, but where is this Right Reason?

In Men.

Is it so? Then it seems that which gives the true Knowledge of the Scripture is in Man. But tell me honestly, Do ye believe this Right Reason may Err?

No; For then it were not Right Reason, if it could be Wrong.

Well argued. But if a Man Errs, is it not the Fault of Right Reason?

By no means.

Thou speakest honestly. But why then does T. Hicks charge the Light, the Quakers profess, with eve­ry short-sighted imperfect Saying or Action of this or any other Generation.

Does he?

Yes; it is the great Drift of his Books.

Truly that's not fair.

Honestly said. But if this Right Reason cannot Err, then Man cannot Err?

No, that does not follow; for Man may not submit to it.

Why, may Man have something in him that cannot Err, and he not be Unerrable?

Yes.

Rightly said. But why then does T. Hicks con­clude so of [...]?

It is unfairly done.

[Page 39]

Very well. But you say, that this Right Reason is part of Man's Soul, or I am mistaken, see Dial. pag. 32. If so, then Man's Soul must be In­fallible?

Oh, Infallible; that word affrights us. What, Infallible? Pray what's Infallible?

Poor Man! I see it scares thee indeed. Why, Unerrable and Infallible are all one. Yea, Right Rea­son is Infallible by the same Reason, that it cannot be Wrong.

But the Popes talk of being Infallible; are not you like them?

Never the more like them for that; Talking, and Being so, are Two Things. Men should not deny the true Christ because of an Imposture; nor any fear Infallibility because the Pope makes Mar­ket with such Pretences. If thou art not certain of what thou believest, thou hast not that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints; for that was Certain, and therefore Infallible.

Why, Is Certain and Infallible all one?

Yes, Certainty and Infallibility is the same. But what think'st thou of the Light in this Case under Debate? for either it is the Rule, or it is given to un­derstand & use the Rule, or else its given for nothing?

'Tis not the Rule we are taught to say; and yet we cannot conclude it to be given for nothing.

Very well; then it must be given in order to understand and use the Rule. Now supposing the Scriptures be the Rule, that which informs me of my Rule, and teaches me how to use it, must be greater then my Rule, in that it teaches me to know and do that my Rule cannot do of it self: I query then, If this Light be not my Rule, how and which Way I come to [Page 40] understand and use this Rule. So that it is eminently the Rule because of its Present, Immediate and Cer­tain Direction and Knowledge, and the Scripture at most but a kind of Declaratory and Secondary Rule, and therefore subject to the Holy Spirit in the Apo­stles and primitive Christians, who took not Measures by it, when it distinguisht the Ceremonial from the Moral Precepts so intermixed in the 19th of Leviticus, and other places; but their Minds being exercised and guided by that Holy Living Rule, they left off, or continued for a time several Jewish Ob­servations, as there might be a Service therein sig­nified to them from that Living Rule. The Light and Spirit of God then, is both THE Rule of Faith and Guide of Life, superior to the Scriptures, and That by which only they can be rightly known, believed and fulfilled. A Doctrine Evangelical, and not disowned by those first Protestants, who testified that no Man could understand the Scriptures given forth by Inspiration, but by a measure of the same Spi­rit. To conclude, Historical Faith, Scripture is a Rule of, but Doctrinal and Saving Faith the Light and Spirit of God can only be the Rule of; for that which gi­veth Faith is only that which rules Faith.

3 But (says he) how could you have known, that Swea­ring in any Case were Ʋnlawful, if it had not been written, Dial. P. 22. Swear not at all; Is not then that Scripture your Rule in this Case?

But this shews both the Ignorance of T. Hicks in the Writings of the best Gentiles, and his Acknow­ledgment of the Light's Sufficiency, in case we are able to prove Swearing disallowed and dispract­ [...]ised before Christ's Coming in the Flesh.

[Page 41]The Seven Wise Men famous among the Greeks, and Contemporaries above five hundred years before Christ came in the Flesh, esteemed Swearing but a Remedy against Corruption, in E­vidence: Stob. 28. To be sure, they both believ'd and exhorted People to that State which needed it not.

Socrates plainly sayes, that there is a Life more firm, and unquestionable then an Oath. Con­sequently Swearing not the best State. Id. 114.

And Xenocrates was had in that Veneration in Athens for his exceeding Virtue, Val. Max. 2.10. Cic. pro Bal. Laert. that the Magistrates thought it a questioning of his Honesty to offer him any Oath, and therefore refused, implying, that Oaths were not made for the best of Men, and that there is a State attainable, which is more excellent, then that, in which Oaths are used.

And thus was that Evangelical Precept, Swear not at all, arrived at, preferred, and honour'd by pro­fest Gentiles about five hundred years before it was uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ, therefore the Light from T.H's Objection answered is proved Sufficient.

4 But here is an utter Insufficiency (if we will be­lieve him) in this meer Light within to direct us the right Way of Worshipping God; This, Dial P. 35.36. sayes he, is manifest from the great Loss the Wisest among the Heathen have been, and are at, about this very thing, the Multiplying their Deityes▪ Worshipping Devils, &c.

He is an incompetent Witness against the Light's [Page 42] Sufficiency, that has never tryed the Extent of its Ability by a Life conform'd to what it leads to: If T. Hicks walkt without all Reproof, it were something; But for a Man to talk of its Insuffici­ency, whilst it shews that which he is not come up to, as well as that it condemns for daily Failings is Arrogancy with a Witness.

But why is it Insufficient to direct him the Right Way of Worship. Because T. Hicks has not found it; Is it a good Argument against the Scripture, that be­cause those who pretend to Square their Faith by it, manifestly Err, therefore it is Insufficient to di­rect them Right? Tho. Hicks will never allow this against the Scriptures; and yet he calls us Names for not tacitly suffering his base Abuses against the Lord's Light. Rom. 1.19, 20. What if any of the Heathen became vain in their Imginations, who when they knew God, worshipped him not as God, will it follow, that God's Manifestation of him­self (as the Apostle plainly speaks) in Man, was an Insufficient Manifestation? The Jews turned Idolaters, they worshipp'd a Calf, and offer'd their Children to Moloch (Devotion made up of Murder and Idolatry) was God's Light, Law or Good Spirit, and that whole Series of Love and Mercy shown unto them, Insufficient, because of their Rebellion? I affirm that Thomas Hicks by this Argument is the horridst Blasphemer that ever lived among Men; For if the false Deities of the Heathen, and their worshipping of Devils, with the horrid Idola­tries of the Jews, were not the Effects of their own Erring from a Sufficient Light or Manifestation, to have better informed & directed them, but through the Insuffi­ciency of the Light to discover the True God, & how to wor­ship him, T.H. has evidently laid that horrid Charge at [Page 43] God's Door; for he could not reap where he had not sown. And thus far doth he render the Almighty accessory to those Impieties, that he gave not Man a Sufficiency of Light to inform him better, that he might have escaped so gross Abomination; which ends in that detestable Doctrine of Eternal Ʋnconditional Re­probation; an Off-spring of Satan, a Murderer from the beginning.

In short, Christ is the Light of Men: The Way of the Just is a shining Light: He that is the Way, Truth and Life, is the Light; Therefore those who Worship God according to the Light, Worship him in the Spirit and in the Truth, and walk in the Just Man's Path: For that Men should walk up to the Light of Christ, and yet be Ignorant of the Right Way of Worship, is gross Ignorance and Darkness. For Tho. Hicks then to say, that God doth make more known then is, or can be known by the Light, is false and contradicto­ry; For unless there be two Distinct Divine Lights by Nature (which is an absurd Thing, so much as to conceive) or that God can manifest any thing without Light, it will follow, that both the Light is One, and that by that One Light it is, whereby God hath revealed himself through all Ages: And here I would be well understood; for I know one Age hath been at­tended with larger Discoveries, yet this argues no Deficiency to have been in the former Manifestati­on, though it implies Weakness in the People that they could not receive the same Light in a greater. The Light is therefore One in it self, however vari­ously it may break forth in any Age and Generation; I know it hath arisen higher and higher; the Dif­ference is in Degrees, not in Nature; and so T.H. in great contradiction to himself acknowledges, [Page 44] Dial. pag. 36. What hath been the Duty of every Age, it hath shewen, and the best Reason and Rule for the Obedience to any thing superadded hath been the Convictions and Leadings of the Light, according to that Manifestation, it gave before: Those that went from the Light, and sat down, grew Rich in Literal Know­ledge, were the Opposers of the more glorious Breaking forth of Light, and not those who kept close to what was revealed. So 'tis at this Day; Such as have kept to the Tendering Grace and Spirit among Professors, such are most moderate to us, and inclin'd af­ter us; The Hard, Dry and Cavilling amongst them, as they are strongest in their Combattings, like the Pharisees of old, so are they most darkened from the Light, and most of all despise the Testimony of it, and set at nought and oppose, as to the Death, all those who are be­come Witnesses of the fresh Resurrection of Light and Life (If I may so speak) in the Hearts of People. I know not what better to call them, then Thieves and Robbers, spoken of by Christ, who have gone aside from the tender Spirit of Jesus Christ, that in Dayes past strove with them, and with whose secret Voice they were in some measure affected, and have set up themselves in a Form, without Power, Praying, Preaching, Dipping and all other Acts of Worship, Ordi­nance, &c. without the Leadings of God's Spirit: Wherfore, said Christ, of the like People; All that came before me are Thieves and Robbers, they climbe over the Wall, Jo. 10. they come not in at the Door; which Door is that State of Witnessing, at which that Light and Frothy Prophanist, T.H. bestowes so many foul Reflections; forgetting how much of the ancient Puritan, Brownist and Baptist Religion [...] made up of Experiences, which with Men that [Page 45] understand Words, hath the same Signification, as well as that Witnessing is more Scriptural. And indeed, I wonder not at all at it; for where Men that have had some Inward Sense of Life Eternal, give not way to the more full Breaking forth of the same, but run into Forms, and take up their Rest by the way, and so come to withstand it, they [...]ose what they had, and center, where those be who at first oppos'd them, emptying from one to the other till they arrive at Rome again, that so the Battel may be of Michael and the Devil, the True Church against the False, Power and Form of Godliness against Form without Power, and the Traditions, Super­stions and Inventions of Men; by which they have en­deavoured to make void God's Law: For whoever have lost their Inward Sense of God, and withstand the Propagation of that Inward Religion, however their Form may be more scriptural, the same Spirit enters them that reigned in their old Persecutors, and they at last run back, and end in that, from whence they at first reformed. So dangerous is it to rest sa­tisfied with a finer Form, which in Truth is but a better Covering for the old Enemy of God's Spirit and Power to act more disguisely and securely in.

But lest any should think that all this is said to justle the Scriptures out of all Use and Service, read these few lines following with Patience and Im­partiality. Though we eminently account the Light or Spirit of Christ to be the Gospel, Living and Immediate Rule (as the great Promise of the Father (and that without being ruled and lead or guided by, there is no being a Child of God) yet we do not thereby intend an Exclusion of the Scriptures from being Obligatory, or as not Declaratory of [Page 46] those heavenly blessed Truths, that are fit to be read, believed and practised; God forbid. No, we know better and practise otherwise, and have good Satisfaction therein. Nor do we say that those essen­tial Things relating to Faith and Godliness men­tioned therein are by us to be sleighted or contradict­ed; or that the Light and Spirit we are led by, doth or can lead to any such thing; for by its Holy Discoveries and Convictions are we made acquainted with them; and our Faith concerning them is firm, and they are thereby made our Duty, and such is their Correspondence and A­greement, that from an INWARD ASSENT AND LIVING AMEN, FROM GOD's LIGHT IN OUR CONSCIENCES do we testifie of their Truth, Ʋse and Dignity. And very vain is T. Hick's Objection, If your Light be Sufficient, why do you read them? since we may re­turn to him the same; If the Scriptures be Sufficient why dost thou use other Means? Though God's Grace be Sufficient of it self, therefore is the Creature al­ways in that Condition, wherein he needs not Means? And notwithstanding it be the Dispensation of Light and Life, more Immediately then has been known to former Ages, yet we deny not the Use of such Means, as may be used of God's Light and Spirit, as will be spoken more largly to elsewhere. Man's Mind being Carnal and abroad, Means in God's Power are us'd not as settl'd Teachers, but as Instru­ments in God's Hand to testifie of and direct to that one Great Prophet and Living Teacher in the Hearts of Men, that all may come thither, and be taught of him.

CHAP. V.

BUt T.H. that he may be true to his Ungodly Way of perverting our Principles, would in­sinuate, First, ‘ That we esteem the Scriptures no farther, P. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30. then as they were the Experiences of Ancient Saints, thereby rendering the many Prophecies and Promises therein recorded, not yet fulfilled, Ʋnprofitable.’ But to take off all Credit to this evil Suggestion, let our sober Readers know, that by the Light of Christ in our own Hearts and Consciences as to confirm what of the Scriptures we have experienced, and press after the Compleatment of those Enjoyments therein expressed; so are we taught reverently to believe those ho­ly Prophecies and Promises yet unaccomplished to have been given forth by the Inspiration of the Almighty; and that they shall be as certainly fulfilled, as they are written. Yet we dare boldly affirm, and that in the Name of the Lord (before whom we shall give an Account for every Deed done in the Body) that the greatest Reason of our Belief concerning them, is not from any Out­ward thing, but that Inward Testimony, Record and Heavenly Amen, that we have frequently received from the holy Light within us, to the Truth and Faithfulness of those Sayings. And if any Quakers there be that are not thus minded, they are to me unknown, and I publickly renounce, and protest a­gainst that Principle that would in the least derogate [Page 48] from those Holy Writings; which leads me to his Second Insinuation, viz. As if because we do deny the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith and Practice, in Ho­nour to that Divine Light, which was the Author of them in the Holy Pen-men, ‘ that we should therefore deny all those holy Precepts, Commandments and Rules relating to Life and Godliness that are therein contained:’ A Consequence so foul, that God forbid any of us should ever give any Just Occasion for it; For we both believe Men ought to liv [...] up to them, and that they are highly Reprov [...]able if they transgress against them But the Reason why, is that Convi­ction they meet with from the Light in their own Consciences; wherefore the Scriptures are so far from being the great Rule of Faith and Practice, that the Light of Christ within is both our Warrant and Rule for Faith in, and Obedience to them. And let T.H. say if he can, that the Waldenses, Albigenses, Lo [...]lards, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists and other Protestants made not the Testimony of God in their Conscience the chief Ground of their Belief of the Scriptures; to say nothing of the primitive Chri­stians and most uncorrupted Fathers, who are many and positive on our behalf.

3 ly, He insinuates, that we equal, nay prefer our Books before the Scriptures, because of the Titles we give our own Books. viz. The Voice of Wisdom, A Te­stimony for God, &c. and what we give the Scripture, namely. Letter, &c. This I have largely spoken to in my Answer to J. Faldo, but not knowing whether ever that may be where this probably may come, I shal say thus much, If at any time we call the Scripture the Letter, it is not that we mean thereby, our Books are the Spirit, or that we would irreverently set them be­low [Page 49] our Writings, but upon a Comparison only be­twixt the Scriptures and the Spirit that gave them forth, and that, I hope, may be done without the least Dis­respect, though such whose Religion stands in Let­ter and Time, and not in Spirit and Power, be an­gry at it. But that we should be thought to sleight the Scriptures, because we bestow such Names upon our Books, is a strange kind of Consequence. Are not our Books mostly written in a plain, familiar and Scripture-stile? Do we not earnestly endeavour to confirm what we write by Scripture, which not on­ly renders it a Pa [...]t of our Book, but the most Noble Part too? And shall we notwithstanding be reputed Sleighters of the Scriptures? Certainly if our Books are called, The Voice of Wisdom, and A Te­stimony for God, because from the Voice of Wisdom, and God's Witness in the Conscience; by good Rea­son must the Scriptures be interested therein, who are both a part of them, and such a one too as unto whom our Quotation implies a Manifest Preference.

His next Insinuation is, that it is Dangerous for Ig­norant People to read the Scriptures, pag. 42. Contin. pag. 3. flinging those hateful Names of Jesuit and Roma­nist upon us. This Doctrine he layes to the Charge of G. Fox and Rich. Hubber­thorn, in a Book called, Truth's Defence, pag, 101. But the truth of the matter I will relate out of that Book it self, which has been most partially and base­ly represented by him.

The Priest's Query lies thus, ‘Whether the Scrip­ture being Carnal, and the Letter Killing, as you say, we may read them without Danger?’

[Page 50] ‘ Answ. The Letter which killeth, 2 Cor. 3.6. is Dangerous; for thou takest it here to war with­al against the Saints, with thy Carnal Mind, giving out thy Carnal Expositions upon it: And the Mini­sters of the L [...]tter are Ministers of Death, which is to Condemnation, and you take it to make a Trade with it, and with what the Prophets, Christ and the Apostles said; so that some have Sixty, some an Hundred pound a Year: But Christ cryed, Wo unto such Whited Walls. And here you read with Danger, who speak of them, and speak a Lye, be­cause you speak of your selves, and you wrest the Scriptures to your own Destruction, and to you it is Dangerous to read or speak of it, who know not the Li [...]e of it as the Pharisees, who were learned in the Letter, but knew not Ch [...]ist. But I say, Blessed is he that doth read, and doth understand.’

This is the true Account in brief [...]f their An­swer to the Pri [...]st's Qu [...]ry: And I appeal to God's Witness in the Reader's Conscience, if any thing of wh [...]t that Vile Man would suggest, is to be found in these M [...]ns Words; who by Letter evidently mean the Legal State of Condemnation; by Dangerous, not what Edification was to be got with respect to read­ing, but that Aggravation of Punishment, which would be the Recompence of those who make a Trade of them, and oppose them, Pharisee like, to the Life and Spirit of Christ Jesus, wresting them to their own De­struction. Reading to such End and Purpose, will prove Dangerous with a Witness. And that it was at such a sort of Reading they struck, consider this Passage, But I say, Blessed is he that doth read and doth understand.

[Page 51]Let this Forgery so obvious, ring through the Streets and Towns, where-ever his Book or Name is known; however this is little to what's behind. For my part I speak my Conscience in Sincerity; I had rather perish off the Earth, then live so great a Burden of foul Dishonesty, as I doubt not but a little time will manifest him to be.

That the Baseness of his Intentions in this kind of Arguing may yet further appear, let this gross Inference directly charged by him upon our Principle, of the Light's being our Rule, be dili­gently considered.

From our Asserting the Light Within to be our Rule, he tells the World, That we mean the holy Qualification, that is in us: Pag. 20. Which were it true, he would hit the Mark, when he sayes, that Holiness, being a Conformity to the Rule, it cannot be the Rule But never yet certainly did any but Thomas Hicks so mis-represent the poor Quaker: Nay, he Confounds and Contradicts himself. How can we be said to make our Holiness the Rule, when we affirm it only to be a walking up to the Light within, which is Holy? He sayes that we assert the Light to be the Rule, how then is our Obedience to it the Rule; for that is true Holiness? Is there no difference between a Rule, and Obedience to it? Holy Life, and that which gives it, or makes it so? What a Meeting here is of Ignorance, Malice and Lying? Any thing to spoil the Quakers; but God will break the Bow and Spear of their Enemies.

Again, From his Quaker's telling him, ‘Thou [Page 52] takest up the Saints Words; but if thou hast not the same Spirit, See p. 21. what are the Words to thee;’ he dares to suggest, that our Opi­nion of the Light's Sufficiency in every Man cannot be true; And all the Reason he gives us for his strange Collusion, is this; That those Words imply, that the Spirit or Light of God is not in all Men.

Now what is more evident, then first, That it is not our Answer? 2. That it concerns not the Suf­ficiency, so much as the Universallity of it? 3. By not having the Spirit, or Light, is not meant, that we believe that God has not given a Measure of his Good Spirit unto all to profit with, or that there be some, whom he never enlightened, but that they so have not the Spirit, as to walk by it, be be­nefitted by it, or come to enjoy it as their Tea­cher and Comforter; and that some may be said, not to be Enlightened, who are not through Faith in, and Obedience to the Light, come to be advan­taged and made Children of Light by it. Let this suffice at present to shew the Man's Ignorance of our Principles, or his great Unrighteousness to pervert them.

I shall now attend the next Point by him han­dled, and that is Christ's Person, and our Faith in him, which, he sayes, we deny, and indeed he does but say it.

CHAP. VI.

HIs next Cavil is at our Belief in Christ, and which is worse, he would be thought a Christian in doing so. The great Stress lies here, Tho. Hicks would have the World think, we Equivocate about our Faith in That Christ which after the Flesh ap­peared and dyed at Jerusalem. Dial. p. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. Contin. pag. 40, 41, 43, 44. The Reason of all this Clamour and Injustice on the part of our angry and restless Adversary is this; if I wrong him let him shew me: The Quakers say, that Christ is in them; Christ is God, is God Man in them? Again, The Quakers say, that Christ is in them; But since there is but One Christ, who was born of a Virgin, and that he suffered at Jerusalem, be­ing there crucified, can that Christ be in Man? The false Doctrine or Absurdity he would run us upon, is one of these two, Either that we deny Christ's Man­hood, or that He is actually in our Bodies with that Bo­dy he appeared in at Jerusalem, which is Impossible, witness this one Passage, If God be Christ, as Penn saith; or, If the Light within you be the Christ, as Naylor and Hubberthorn affirm, is it proper or safe to say, God was Slain, or the Light in you was Cruci­fied?

To which I answer, That as in other things, so in this, our Adversary has shewn his great Ignorance or Malice. For is it reasonable to infer from our Affir­ming [Page 54] in Scripture Language, Christ is in the Saints, that we deny him as to his Visible and Bodily Appearance in the World; and that because he is God, there­fore he was never Man; or that the Word took not Flesh; Is this to understand us right, or give the World a true measure of our Belief, who is it confesseth Christ to be every where, and if so, then in his People, see Cont. p. 34. Ah, God the Righteous Judge shall plead with thee in a Day that thou shalt not be able to escape his Terrible Recompence, if thou repen­test not. Let it suffice to the sober Reader (for of him I have little Hopes) that we do believe that Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever, did come of Abraham's Seed according to the Flesh, that the Bo­dy prepared of that Line was his Body, that what Sufferings befel it, were the Sufferings of Christ, just as the Body is called the Body of Christ: Yet this we do say, and that not in any Undervalue to the Body, or Bodily Sufferings of Christ, that the Divine Word, in whom was Life, and whose Life was the Light of Men (who took that Flesh) is eminently to be lookt upon, and that to believe and obey the Light of his Life, wherewith he has enlightened us, is both the best way to know the Sufferings of his Body, and to receive the Benefit of them.

In short, unless Christ be not God, and unless the Light be not Christ, I know no hurt I have done, to assert him to be God, nor any Reason our Adversary hath to infer, therefore I, or any of us, deny him to have taken Flesh, or that he suffered without the Gates of Je­rusalem; or that he is not as well Christ without us as within us.

Again I do affirm that by the same Reason the bodily Sufferings of the Word, whose Life was the [Page 55] Light of Men, are frequently attributed to the Word it self, as if the Word had immediately sustained them, and not the Body, the Light which shineth in the Consciences of Mankind, which is the very Life of the Word, or Word it self, is not unconcern'd in the bodily Sufferings, but both gives to believe them aright, and to receive Benefit by them, and that as the Sufferings of his own Body, by and through which his Glory, Grace and Truth, did shine forth, in the World: which are now re­vealed afresh in the Hearts of all who believe in him. Let our Adversaries deal so fairly with us, as to distinguish between Christ, and the Body of Christ, as before Abraham the Rock in the Wilderness, and the Appearance of Christ in the Flesh, and not infer from our denying that the whole Christ could die; that Christ, that is, the Body of Christ suffered or died not; And when we say, he who took Flesh has appeared to, and in our Hearts, that we exclude and deny his then Visible and Bodily Appearance, or that he is not now as well without us, as within us; and we shall never doubt of a good Issue. But truly after the rate we have been used by him, the most Scriptural Assertions can never escape a being accounted False and Unwarrantable. For because we are with godly Fear Jealous, least the whole Christ should be thought to have been then cruci­fied, when his Body was, which strikes at the Life of the Immortal and Divine Being, we are repre­sented by this Perverter of our right Meaning, as Denyers of that Body, whilest he himself acknowledgeth that the meer Manhood was not the Christ, but the Word made Flesh, Emmanuel. Pag. 44. Dialogue.

[Page 56]2. Because we assert that true Light, with which every Man is enlightened, to be in it self the Christ of God, and Saviour of the World; he infers that we deny the Outward Sufferings of Christ in his Bodi­ly Appearance, and in short▪ that we deny the True Christ, because he dyed and rose again, &c. which the Light ne­ver did, never considering that if he makes what dyed & rose again the entire Christ & Saviour, he excludes the Divinity or Godhead, which he confesseth to be Christ in conjunction with the Manhood, and which the Scrip­tures call strictly the Saviour, besides whom there is none; and which J. Faldo himself pag. 85. part 2. acknow­ledges to be such. But if T. Hicks does allow, as indeed he doth, that Christ is God, as well as Man, there is nothing befalls us from his Inference, but what strikes himself equally; for if the Light, with which Men are enlightened, be not Christ, because it cannot dye, then Christ cannot be Christ as God, be­cause God cannot dye. Well! But T. Hicks tells us, that Christ as God is also Christ, and that it was Christ's Body only that dyed; Therefore I conclude, that to own Christ to be that true Light, which enlighteneth all men, or that true Light to be Christ, is no Derogation from Christ or Ʋndervalue to his Bodily Sufferings.

3. And because that one of us spoak of a Two-fold Appearance of Christ in the Soul, first as a Seed of Light in Man, and next, as perfect Day, or in a full grown State of Glory, Therefore sayes he, a Personal Coming in any respect is denyed by you, Contin. pag. 45. which Conclusion is so horribly Unjust, that no Im­partial Man needs an Answer to it. And let the Partial know, that we have not only confessed to his Personal Appearance, But T.H. has so much Faith [Page 57] for us. Dial. pag. 45. The Baseness and self-Con­tradiction of the Man is notorious enough as to this Point.

I shall proceed to the next Particular, and that is, If Christ signifie Anointed, and Christ be God, as Penn saith, I would query (saith our Adversary) whether God himself was anointed? Contin. pag. 47.

But though this might have seemd something from a Socinian hand, yet from T. Hicks, it gives us no Difficulty at all; for since he acknowledgeth Christ to be as well God as Man, and that Christ was not anointed by halfes, but intirely, as the Word [...] Christ, from [...] to Anoint, doth imply, I would fain be informed (Argumentum ad hominem) Who anointed the Godhead, without which T. Hicks affirms again and again, Christ was not Christ, because (says he) Christ is God manifest in the Flesh. Dialog. pag. 44. And since he is for Querying, let me ask him, who is understood in that Passage, God even thy God hath anointed thee with the Oyle of Gladness, &c? Was that said of Christ or no? If not, say so; If it was, as most, or all believe, then, whether the Divine Nature of Christ was unconcern'd in that Anointing? And who it was that anointed him is evident from the place? If T. Hicks will limit God to the manner of his Mani­festations and Operations respecting us, that is, that he is no otherwise to, & in himself, then what he appeares to us to be; what will he make of that place, To us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; Isa. 6.9. he shall be called Wonderful Counseller, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace? &c. Shall God's Condescensions to Man's weak and depraved state by personating, and representing things to his capacity, be an Argument that he is no [Page 58] otherwise in himself? Are we confused because we use his Words? or shall Man rise up against God's way of uttering forth himself suitable to the short­ness of his Understanding! This kind of Cavil might better become a Carnal Pharisee, or Scoffing Heathen then a Man pretending to Christianity. Base Man that he is, who rewards the Almighty so ill for his Merciful Condescensions! But to the Blind all things are dark.

But he thinks that he has caught me irrecovera­bly: hear his Dialogue. Cont. p. 48. Chr. Was not Christ God's Gift? Quak. Yea he was so. Chr. To what end? Quak. His Doctrine, Life, Miracles, Death and Sufferings to God is the Gift and Expression of God's Eternal Love for the Sal­vation of Men. Penn's Sandy Found. Pag. 19. Chr. Thou hast affirmed that God is Christ: If so, Did God die and suffer to God?

To which I answer, that T. Hicks, as in other pla­ces, so here is basely Unjust, and if he accounts me his Adversary or an Opposer of his Principles, though I never had to do with him in particular, nor any of that People in general; It behov'd him to be honest, and give me my due; Instead of which he leaves out some Words, and horribly perverts the rest. For first I did in that Book acknowledge and confess to Christ's Bodily Appearance, and that he was born of the Virgin Mary after the Flesh, and that largely and plainly p. 36. which he wholy o­mitts to mention. Secondly, I do not remember that I so exprest my self, that God was Christ, but whether I did or no, to insinuate a Denyal of his Manifestation in Flesh is most perversly wicked and ungodly, as well as that it plainly shews, notwith­standing [Page 59] his feigned Confession to Christ's Divi­nity, that in truth he owns him not to be God, or he has very ill exprest himself when he sayes thou affirmest God is Christ (or Christ is God) for it im­plies he does not; else what means his following words, did God himself dye and suffer to God? he thus queries to shew the Absurdity of believing God to be Christ (or Christ to be God) and tells us that he believes what dyed was the Intire Christ. Certainly, he is either rank Socinian in the Point (which I mention not in Disgrace, unless it be to that Party that so impious a Person is of it) or he has not well given us his Mind. But this proves what elsewhere I ob­serve of him, that from our Asserting Christ to be God, or God Christ, Tho. Hicks is ignorant or ma­litious enough to infer, that we deny that ever he took Flesh; whence he would fasten such like Absur­dities upon us, you say Christ dyed, Christ you say is God, did then God dye? &c.

But if he has represented us to deny the Bodily Appearance, why did he not also make us to deny his Death and Sufferings too, and then there had been no room for that preposterous Conclusion; But to insinuate a Belief of our Denyal of Christs's coming in the Flesh, and not of his Death, that he might bring us upon this Pinch of Contradiction, to wit, that God dyed, and not the Body in which he was manifested, is such an invented piece of Dishonesty as deserves nothing else then the Abhorrence of all Impartial Persons; In short, we say, that God ma­nifested in Flesh was the true Christ that then appeared, that the Flesh, and not God dyed, and that the whole of the Appearance, whether in Life or Death, was for Man's [Page 60] Salvation. And if Tho. Hicks is not herewith con­tented, we cannot help it, but hope others are not so Unreasonable.

But he proceeds thus; Give me leave to ask you, directing himself to his foresaid Quaker, Contin. P. 49. Whether one great End wherefore Christ was given and came into the World was not to seek and to Save such that were lost. Quak. Yea, he came to seek and save the lost.

Christ. But who, or what is this that was lost.

He wickedly and with an Aggravation, like the Enmity of his Spirit, thus makes G. Keith to answer, ‘That which is lost is still in Man, That, Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preach­ed People to this, the lost in Man, a lost God, a lost Christ, &c.’ To which sayes T.H. Blush O Hea­vens, and be Astonished O Earth! Was ever such a thing as this heard of before, that Jesus Christ came to seek and save a lost God, a lost Christ? &c. Was ever God and Christ in a Lost Condition? But the Heavens may Blush, and the Earth be Astonished indeed at such sordid and base Dealing. G. Keith means, that Christ came to seek and to save, by turning People to enquire af­ter a lost God and a lost Christ, the Groat within, the Pearl in the Field. &c. that is, to God's Light in them, by which God and Christ are revealed to the Soul; Rom. 1. For whatever may be known of God is manifest within, which they Rebelling a­gainst, had lost the Knowledge of the only true God, and Jesus Christ: And this unrighteous Per­son turns it that G. Keith meant, that Christ came to seek and to save a lost God, and lost Christ; What Sence can there be in so horrible a Perversion, as [Page 61] well as that there is no colour for it, who endea­vours to insinuate that Christ came to save God and Christ, not the Soul by turning it to seek after God and Christ; and to represent God and Christ's Con­dition Lost and Perilous, instead of theirs, who had or have lost God and Christ? In short, Lost as taken by T.H. is meant of Man's lost Condition, and as there used by G. Keith, is understood of God and Christ, whom Man had and hath lost the Knowledge of, and Fel­lowship with. But such sinister Practices savour of the height of Dishonesty; The Inventer of BAXTER BAPTIZED IN BLOOD BY ANA­BAPTISTS is nothing to this horrible kind of Perversion; And I doubt not, but T. Hick's Recom­pence will be more terrible from the hand of a Just God, irritated by such Irreligious Proceedings. How­ever, I will return upon T. Hicks what more con­cerns him then he is aware of: If Christ came to seek and to Save that which was Lost, then because the whole World was lost, he came to seek and to save the whole World; And if so, then, Reprobates because Lost, or else there can be no such thing, as Eternal Reprobation, or Men from Eternity unalterably decreed to Eter­nal Destruction; How much more this confounds his own partial Opinion of Predestination then any thing he has said can the Quakers Principles, let the Sober minded judge.

CHAP. VII.

HIs next Stumble, and gross Perversion of our Words, is concerning the Seed, from a pas­sage or two taken out of the Books of J.N. and G.F. That the Seed is Christ, that the Seed wants Redemption, as being laden by Sinners as a Cart with Sheaves, &c. He thus argues; If then Redemption be of the Seed, and this Seed be Christ, either there must be more Christs then one, Dialog. pag. 47.48. or else Christ came to redeem himself. Again, Christ-without you esteem to be but a Creature; but the Seed-within you say is God. Tell me seriously whether a Creature can re­deem the Creator. Can you pretend to be guided by an In­fallible Spirit, and yet be guilty of such gibberish and folly as this?

To which, before I make my Answer, I think fit to insert that which he gives in the Name of the Quakers.

Here thou shewest thy dark Mind, and that thou art still in thy Imagination, understanding neither the Re­demption nor the Seed; which however feign'd by him­self against himself, is so great a Truth, that there is scarcely one Passage in his Dialogue more allowable.

But to his Argument and Question. We do assert the Redemption of the Seed for the Light and Life which has been as sown in the Heart of Mankind, [Page 63] has been loaded with Sin, pressed down with Iniquity, grieved and almost quenched through Disobedience, which words are not properly, but metaphorically to be taken, as used by the holy Pen-Men, whereby to make things the more plain and easie to common capacities. It is said in Scripture, Out of Egypt have I called my Son, a Place of Bondage and grievous Weights, Burdens and Oppressions, from all which the Seed was to be redeem­ed; and Christ came, or God was manifested in the Flesh, that the Seed of Light, Truth and Righteousness might break through and arise over all Corruption, by which it had been grieved and pressed down. And it is no Con­tradiction to say, That God did rid himfelf of the Enemies that opprest his own Righteous Life, or that he brought Salvation to himself; for the Scriptures fre­quently speak on that wise, especially in those two notable Passages of Isaiah, Isa. 59.16. And he saw that there was no Man, and wondered that there was no Intercessor, therefore his Arm brought Sal­vation to him, and this Righteousness it sustained him. Again, The Year of my Redeemed is come; Isa. 63.4, 4. and I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondred that there was none to uphold; there­fore Mine own Arm brought Salvation unto Me, and My Fury it upheld me. Whence it is no wayes absurd that we affirm, that the End of God's Manifesting himself in the Flesh was for the Redemption or De­liverance of his Holy Life that was in Man but as a small Seed, even the smallest of Seeds, that had been long vexed, grieved, bruised and pressed down by Sin and Iniquity; For the End of that Appea­rance was, that Sin might be destroyed, and that Christ, who had been as a Lamb slain from the Founda­tion [Page 64] of the World, might be exalted in the Hearts of Men and Women, and his, and their Foes, made his and their Footstool: For the Work is Inward, we do aver in the Name of the Lord; for where the Devil hath Reigned and had Dominion to wit, in Man, there be must be defeated, and subdued; and Christ alone, by whom that is brought to pass, ought and must have the Power and the Kingdom forever. And if this be the Folly and Gibberish the Quakers must be charged with from this Anabaptist Preacher, we are content to use it, as well as patient to bear his insolent Scoff; only let all take notice, that we understand not by the Seed's Redemption, its being redeemed from the Pollution, but the Weight of Sin and Iniquity; for it was and is pure forever.

Now as to our Calling Christ-without a Creature, I must tell him, 'tis not our Language; but if he means by it the Body born of the Virgin, I suppose T. Hicks is far from believing that to be the Creator, though his manner of speaking shews a dislike of us, that we don't, because he sayes that we esteem the Christ without, or the Outward and Visible Part of Christ but a Creature, as if he believed it to be the Creator. However manifest it is he believes, that the Redemp­tion wrought, is not by that God, who in those fore­going Passages speaks so expresly to that purpose, and who in time manifested himself in the Flesh, but the Flesh only, by and through which he was so ma­nifested.

CHAP. VIII.

HIs next Abuse of us that I shall take notice of, is this, ‘That G. Fox and others hold the Soul to be a part of God, of God's Be­ing, Dialog. p. 1. and that it is without Beginning;’ All which (sayes he) is as much as to say, the Soul is God. SO THAT GOD SETS UP A LIGHT IN HIMSELF, WHICH HE HIMSELF IS TO OBEY, AND IN SO DOING GOD SHALL BE SA­VED.

Behold your Anabaptist Preacher! A Man of Truth, Tender Conscience, of the first Form of Chri­stians, a Contender for the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and what else he falsly pretends, and in vain would have us think him to be. What so Base? What so Irreligious as this Perversion? Men nor Devils could never study more our Wrong, then this pretended Christian has done. If this be his Christia­nity, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob preserve my Soul from ever coming within the Borders of such Religion; but Christianity is absurd by such Tradu­cers, and God's Spirit is grieved by such Injustice. I would not use the worst of Men, no not Devils themselves, at that unequal Rate he deals with us, who both mis-cites his Words, and abuses the true Meaning of what is truly cited. G. Fox sayes thus, [Page 66] God breathed into Man the Breath of Life, and he became a Living Soul, and is not this of God, of his Being? &c. and is not this that comes out from God, part of God, & from God? Where nothing can well be clearer than that G.F intends that Divine Life, Power and Virtue by which Adam in Soul & Body came to live to God. Can T.H. say after all this, that he cited G F. right, and ask the Quaker in his Dialogue, Darest thou say I have not quoted him truly? Hardened Man!

Breathed that is Inspired: Breathed being the English Word, Inspired borrowed from the Latine Inspirare; the Greek has it [...], as Joh. 20.22 hath breathed into, enlivened, inspired, quickened; the Hebrew [...] and he breathed or blowed: on which R. Nachmanni and the Author Hiskuni in P. Fagins's Comment on the Place, speak thus, That God inspired Man with some­thing of his own Substance; that he contributed some­thing to him▪ and bestowed something of his own Divinity upon him, and that God did inspire Man with the Holy Ghost; and that [...] is a proper Word for it. Which is as much as can be collected or justly concluded from what G. Fox hath said concerning Man. But this Ungodly Person would infer from our Asserting that the Breath God breathed into Adam's Soul, whereby it lived to God, was of God's own Divine Life, that the Soul of Man, as a meer Creature, created Capacity, is of God's own Being and Substance; and when he his done, with a Taunt becoming none but a Prophane Person, tells us, that then God sets up a Light in himself, which being obeyed by him, he comes to be saved; as [...] the Soul needed either a Light or Saviour, in case it were God; or, that God could obey any thing, or needed Salvation. O monstrous Blasphemy [Page 67] against God, and horrid Injustice to us! For as God can obey none, nor need Salvation, neither in sense can we be thought so to believe of the Soul, as by him represented; Read G. Fox 's Gr. Myst. p. 91. since our pleading for a Sa­ving Light, the necessity of Obedience to it, the Eternal Reward of Life or Death, Happiness or Misery, as it is conformed to, or rebelled against, prove our Faith in that Matter to be quite another thing. If this be your Champion, I dare warrant his own Baseness shall be his own Overthrow; we need no more against him, then his own Ignorance, Malice, Lyes, Forgeries and Slanders to his utter Confuta­tion in the Minds of all Impartial Persons.

CHAP. IX.

THe Doctrine of Justification is the next Parti­cular that I am to take notice of. He begins with the Quaker thus, Pray what is your Opinion of Justification by that Righteousness of Christ which He in his own Person fulfilled for us WHOLELY WITHOƲT ƲS. Quak. Contin. P. 50. ‘Justifica­tion by the Righteousness which Christ fulfills for us in his own Person WHOLELY WITHOUT US, we boldly affirm it to be a Doctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which doth now deluge the World, Will. Penn Apol. p. 148.’

[Page 68]This Apology cited was written against a Malici­ous Priest in Ireland, who in a Book by him published not long afore, laid it down as Unscriptural, and a very heinous Thing in us to deny Justification (with­out any Distinction exprest) by the Righteousness which Christ wrought in his own Per­son WHOLELY WITH­OUT If wholely with­out us, then none of it within us. US. To whom I made the Answer given by T. Hicks; And if therein I have crost the express Testimony of the Scrip­tures, It was such a Justification, as re­spected being made just by the Destru­ction of Sin inhe­rent by the Spirit & Power of Christ Jesus, and not be­ing accounted Just from the Guilt, and former Sins free­ly Remitted in his Blood, as an Offe­ring for Sin once for all to every one that truly repents. let any shew me; But if I have only thwarted a most Sin-pleasing (and therefore Dange­rous) Notion; let such as hold it look to that: He has not offe­red me one plain Scripture, nor the Shadow of a Reason, why this Passage ought to be reputed unsound or condemnable. If any Living will produce me but one Passage out of Scripture, that tells of a Justification by such a Righteousness as is WHOLE­LY WITHOUT US, I shall fall under its Authority; but if we only deny Men's corrupt Con­ceits and Sin-pleasing Glosses ▪ and they offer us nothing to our Confutation, or better Information, we shall not think bare Quotations of our Books to be sufficient Answers. But to the end all may under­stand the Reason of my so Answering that Priest, take those short Reasons then rendered, with any one [Page 69] of which I am to suppose T. Hicks desired not to meddle.

All which was not only not answered, but not ci­ted by him.

He brings me in again thus; Justification is not from the Imputation of another's Righteousness; P. 51. Contin. but from the actual Performing and Keeping God's Righteous Statutes, Sand. Found. p. 25. To which, after this base and disingenuous Citation, he returns me this only Answer; Is it not written, Rom. 5.19. By the Obedience of one many are made Righteous? But before I explain the Truth of that Scripture, be pleased to hear my Argument, as it is laid down in my Book, and then give thy Judg­ment, Reader, upon the Man.

‘ The Son shall not bear the Iniquity of his Father; The Righteousness of the Righteous shall be upon him, and the Wickedness of the Wicked shall be upon him. When a Righteous Man turneth away from his Righteousness, Ezek. 18.20, 26, 27, 28. for his Iniquity that he has done shall he dye; Again; When the Wick­ed Man turneth away from his Wicked­ness, and doth that which is Lawful and Right, he shall save his Soul alive; yet saith the House of Israel, The Wayes of the Lord are not Equal. Are not my Wayes Equal? If this was once Equal, its [Page 71] so still; for God is Unchangeable; And there­fore I shall draw this Argument, That the Condemnation or Justification of Persons is not from the Imputation of ano­ther's As wholely without us. Righteousness; but the a­ctual Performance, or not keeping of Gods righteous Statutes or Com­mandments; otherwise God should forget to be Equal: It is to be un­derstood of a Righteousness Wrought by Christ's Pow­er within, when I speak of be­ing justified; that is, made just by it. Therefore how wickedly Unequal are those, who not from Scripture Evidences, but their dark Conjectures, & In­terpretations of obscure Passages, would frame a Doctrine, so manifestly inconsistent with God's most pure and equal Nature; making him to con­demn the Righteous to Death; and justifie the Wicked to Life, from the Imputation of another's Righteousness.—A most Unequal Way indeed.’

Where observe that the Answer he makes me give in his Dialogue, is delivered by me with an If it be so, fetcht expresly from the Text it self: so that the Scripture, and not W. Penn is most struck at by him. However it be, he has offered us no Opposition yet, but that Passage out of the Romans, which will not be found inconsistent with Ezeki­el's Testimony, on which my Argument was groun­ded.

The whole Verse was thus, For as by one Man's Disobedience many were made Sinners, Rom. 5.19. so by the Obedience of one shall many be made Righ­teous; which if the whole Chapter be well [Page 72] considered▪ is no more then this; that as Adam, representative of Mankind (from whence he had that Name) was he by whom Sin entred into the whole World; So Christ was He, by whose comeing, and Obedience Righteousness had an entrance to the Justification of many. In short, the Work Christ had to do was two-fold. 1 To remit, forgive, or justify from the Imputation of Sin past, all such as true­ly repented, believed and obeyed him. And 2ly, by his Power and Spirit operating in the Hearts of such to de­stroy and remove the very Ground and Nature of Sin, whereby to make an End of Sin, and finish Transgression present and to come; that is, the first removes the Guilt, the second the very Cause of It. Now I grant that his Obedience unto Death was in order to make Men Righteous, because it was in the Nature of a Sa­crifice by which God testified unto the World his Desire of Reconciliation through the Remission of the Sins that are past, which was held forth, and came, and was confirmed by that Obedience, e­ven to the Death of the Cross; In which Sence the Just sufferd for the Ʋnjust: Rom. 2▪ 3, 4, 5. Chap. and whilst we were Sinners Christ dyed; He was made Sin, that is, to take away Sin for us (an Hebraism) and he justifieth the Ʋngodly, that is, re­mitteth the Ʋngodly upon Repentance, and bore our Iniquities, 2. Cor. 5.19. or bore away our Ini­quities, that is, by this Offering for Sin, was Remission for Sins past declared and confirmed unto all, as an Ʋniversal Propitiation; For God was in all these Sufferings shewing forth his Love and reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their Trespasses un­to them. But still Repentance was that which brought [Page 73] home the general Pardon promulgated, in and by that holy Offering up of his Body once for all un­to every particular Soul. Thus by the Obedience of that one Man, even to the Death of the Cross, many come to be made Righteous, that is, justified from many Offences, see Rom. 5.6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. But if this first part of Justification, which is Remission of Sin, be not obtainable by any, however general it be in Christ, without Repentance from dead Works, which implyes Faith, Contrition and Amendment of Life; How miserably is T. Hicks out, who brings this very Scripture we are upon, to prove that we are compleatly justified (which takes in both Forgiveness of Sin past, and a being Inwardly made Just through the casting out of Sin by the just and ho­ly Power and Spirit of God operating in the Heart and Conscience) by Christ's Righteousness WHOLELY WITHOUT US.

I grant it that Forgiveness of Sin is God's free Love, meer Grace and rich Mercy, declared in and by Christ Jesus to the World, and that this Grace abounded unto all; for He was a Propitiation, not only for the Sins of those that believe, but of the Whole World; yet the whole Benefit thereof should never redound unto any, whilst alienated from God by wicked Works.

Peter preached another Doctrine: For though Christ dyed for the Ʋngodly, yet they were not thereby Justified, that is, pardon'd for Sin past, while Un­repentant. Peter sayes, Repent, and then they should receive Remission of Sins. Act 3.38. Now I would fain know how this Repentance is wrought, by which, as a Condition, any come to [Page 74] have an Interest in that great Pardon held out to the whole World; Is the Spirit of Christ unconcern'd in it? Can we think one Good Thought of our selve [...]? Are we not altogether degenerated Plants of a Strange Vine? by Na­ture Children of Wrath? &c. Is not this frequently con­fest by the Professors of Religion in our times, and the most affected piece of their Righteousness too? Well then! If we cannot repent of our selves, and that Repent­ance is a Condition, & that it is in the Soul, and that it cannot be there without the Spirit of Christ work it, tell me plainly if something is not to be done within, and therefore of the Nature of Inward Righteousness, before any Benefit be procured, deriv'd or receiv'd from Christ's Death and Sufferings to any particular Person. This is close to our Point; for therefore is it that we affirm, that such as go on to transgress against the Law of the Spirit of Life, and so disobey the Light, and grieve the Holy Spirit by wicked Works, are not in that State Justified; I mean now, that they are not so much as forgiven, and least of all, that they should be look'd upon as compleatly justified, that is, by Qualification and Participation of the Divine Na­ture, truly and inwardly made Just; since it would be to say, that by the Obedience of one, many shall be made Righteous, who notwithstanding remain Disobedi­ent and Rebellious to God's Grace which has appeared unto them. We do say again, that such a Doctrine, so speaking Peace to a State of Sin and Death, and shutting out an Inward Work many wayes necessary to the Forgive­ness of Sin past, or dayly Acceptante with God, IS NO LESS THEN THE DOCTRINE OF DEVILS, and the worst they have to pro­pagate, to the Dishonour of God, and the Eternal [Page 75] State of People Souls. In short, here lyes the gross Mistake of our Adversaries: They make the Suffer­ings of Christ which peculiarly relate to the first part of Justification, Remission of Sins past, to be that which has answered, not only for Sins past, but present and to come, so as to acquit them from all Inward Work as necessary to Justification compleat­ly taken, contrary to express Scripture. Rom. 5.25. and the great End of Christ's Spiritual Manifestation in his People. There might be much more said in this matter, but because he thinks, I have not made a little for him in my Book truly entituled The Sandy Foundation Shaken, and that I am to be short, I shall proceed to dispatch what remaines, as God shall en­able me.

To that Answer he gave out of the Romans by the Obedience of one, &c.) already with other Scriptures explained and vindicated from his Abuse of them, he makes me thus to answer him.

Quak. ‘ It is a great Abomination to say, God shall condemn and punish his Innocent Son, that he having satisfied for our sins, we might be justified by the Imputation of his perfect Righteousness. O why should this horrible thing be contented for by Christians? Penn. ibid. p. 25.30.’

To which he returns. Chr. How now Mr. Penn, Is this the Doctrine of Christ's Sufferings for Sinners, to make Satisfaction to Divine Justice an horrible thing, and an Abomination to you? Do you consider what you say? And thus brings me in answering him. ‘ Qu. This I do say, that the Consequences of such a Doctrine are both Irreligious & Irrational. Penn. ibid. P. 16.’ Now that he has dealt Blasphem ously with God, and Injuri­ously [Page 76] with me, as well as that he has given me no account of his thoughts upon the Errour he makes me guilty of, in case I held it, besides that imper­tinent Question, plainly appears.

First he has dealt Blasphemously with God in cal­ling Christ's Suffering, God's condemning and puni­shing his Innocent Son, &c. which his Censure of my so Phrasing their Opinion, manifestly implyes. Now I appeal to all Impartial People, which of us two is most to be blamed, I that confess to Christ's Suffer­ings as the Effect of Gods's Love; thereby not to satisfie himself, as a Revenger, or as he could not forgive (for none of that is in the Verse at all) which yet is in their Sordid Opinion; but as a God full of Mercy, Forgiveness and Pardon to all true Peni­tents, to declare to the World his free Remission of Sins, and that he would not impute their Iniquities unto them, if they would repent, believe & obey; or T. Hicks, who holds that God condemn'd and punish'd his Innocent Son for o­ther Folkes Sins, that he might be satisfied: for pardon he nei­ther could, nor would: And which is most absurd; Christ being this same God, he at once makes him the Party satisfying, & the Party satisfied, which is absurd and impossible; besides 'tis such a Satisfaction as hath paid all Debts, past present & to come, whereby all Inward Righteousness, though of Christ's Working, is not necessary to Justification in any Kind.

Secondly, He has dealt Injuriously with me, and that in two Respects, 1. In not stating the Do­ctrine truly, which I opposed, and my Words at length, that they might speak for themselves (But in that case, perhaps he thought he should have been oblieged to answer them, a thing he every where [Page 77] seems afraid of, his Trade [...]s Cavi [...]g,) And 2l [...], In that he brings this Passage which oppos [...]d suc [...] a Satisfaction, as is said to have paid for Sins p [...]st, present, and to come, to answer a Scripture which concerns Justification, and that part of it too, which relates to Remission of Sins; Insinuating, that I make Men's own Works sufficient to Justification in the first sense, I mean, Remission, & in the second sense, I mean daily Acceptance upon being made Just; and lastly, that I overturn all the Righteousness, Death and Sufferings of Christ; whilst in Truth and Sincerity of Soul, 1. by Justification, not by another's Righteousness WHOLELY WITHOUT, I only meant, That it was Christ's Righteousness wrought in us, and not our own, which made Inwardly Just, and which gave daily Acceptance, and brought into the heavenly Fel­lowship with the Father and with the Son; the Ju­stification then intended by me. 2 ly, Since God has made his Truth known to me, I have ever understood Christ's being offered up to signifie, the carrying a­way of Sin, the bearing away of Iniquity, that by which God declared Remission and Forgiveness of Sins past to all that repented. And this Justification, called Rom. 4. ver. 5, 6, 7, 8, God's not Imputing Sin, I have ever own­ed to be the Free Unmerited Love of God to the World; And was not that Justification by me spo­ken of in the Passage cited? 3 ly, That which I opposed was so rigid a Satisfaction, as made it abso­lutely unavoidable or necessary in God to require a Satis­faction, thereby robbing him of the Power of his free Mercy and Loving-kindness to remit and pass by, and that Christ did not answer or pay, by the Act of his Suffering, for Sins past, present and to [Page 87] come; but as he declared Remission by his Blood for the Sins past of the whole World, the beginning of his Work; so that he doth by his Power and Spi­rit, subdue, destroy and cast out Sin out of the Hearts of all who believe in him, whereby their Consciences come to be made pure, they sanctified throughout in Body, Soul and Spirit, which necessitates to Good Life, and speaks no Peace to the Wicked in their Wickedness, nor yet to the sloathful, formal and carnal Professor of Religion. Therefore such rage, and imagine a vain thing against us.

That the Consequences of the common Notion of both Satisfaction and Justification are Irreligious and Irrational, though what has been said might suffice with Sober and Impartial Readers; yet I may anon have further Occasion to prove it. In the mean time, Contin. P. 52. He tells the World, that William Penn, in Answer to this Question, How did Christ fulfil the Law for Sinners? says, That Christ fulfilled the Law ONLY as our Pattern or Example, S.F. p. 26. In which he has done exactly like him­self; For if he can find the Word ONLY there, or such an Answer to such a Question, or the Mat­ter strictly contained in that Question, he has not wronged me; but sure I am there is no such Questi­on, and as sure, that the Fulfilling of the Law, was not the Subject treated on, and very certain, that the Word Only was not there; therefore a Forger. That which I said, with the Scripture on which it was grounded, Sand. Found. Shaken. p. 26. follows: If ye keep my Commandments ye shall abide in my Love, even as I have kept my Father's Commandments and abide in his Love.

[Page 79] ‘[From whence this Argument doth naturally a­rise; If none are truly Justified that abide not in Christ's Love, and that none abide in his Love that keep not his Commandments; then conse­quently none are justified but such as keep his Com­mandments. Besides here is the most palpable Op­position to an Imputative Righteousness that may be; For Christ is so far from telling them of such a Way of being Justified, as that he info [...]m [...]th them, the Reason why he abode in his Father's Love, was his Obedience; and is so far from telling them of their being Justified, whilst not abiding in his Love, by Virtue of his Obedience imputed unto them, that unless they keep his Commands, and obey for themselves, they shall be so remote from an Ac­ceptance, as wholely to be cast out; in all which Christ is but our Example]’ Now that this con­cerned not the Whole Law Christ came to ful­fil; The whole He was Our Example in Holiness, though not in his Ending Types & Sha­dows. Law he fulfilled, the place of Scripture quoted, the Na­ture and Matter of the Argument clear­ly proves. Next, If Christ had been other then our Example in that case, then he should have fulfilled his own Commandments in our stead, who from Obeying his Father's, taught us, our Duty was to obey His. And supposing that he could have kept his own Com­mandments, and obey'd himself for us, or in our stead, it would have followed, (1.) That we need­ed not to have kept them, unless they were to be observed twice over. And that (2ly,) in not kee­ping [Page 80] of them, we had been notwithstanding justifi­ed from his alone Fulfilling of them; unless his An­swering them had been Insufficient. The first of which, if I understand any thing, opens a Door to all Licentiousness (however Upright some may be in their Intentions to the contrary) And the last strikes dead their own Opinion of the Sufficiency of Christ's Personal Obedience, to perfo [...]m all needful on our Account; Contin. p. 52. From hence he undertakes to charge me with the Merit of Works. My words at length are these, which he thought good to conceal.

‘Was not Abraham justified by Works when he offered Isaac? Sand. Found. Shaken, p 30. and by Works was Faith made perfect; and the Scrip­ture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for Righteousness. By which we must not con­c [...]ive, as do the dark Imputarians of this Age, that Abraham' s Offering Personally was not a Justifying Righteousness, but that God was pleased to ac­count it so; since God never accounts a thing that which it is not; nor was there any Imputa­tion of another's Righteousness to Abraham; but on the contrary, his Personal Obedience was the God's Love is not excluded, nor his Power that so worked in Abra­ham's Heart. Ground of that just Imputation; & there­fore that any should be justified from the Imputation of ano­ther's Righteousness, not inhe­rent, or actually possessed by them, is both Ridiculous and Dangerous. — Ridi­culous, [Page 81] since it is to say, A Man is Rich to the value of a Thousand Pounds, whilst he is not really or perso­nally worth a Groat, from the Imputation of ano­ther, who has it all in his Poss [...]ssion: Dangerous, because it begets a confident Pe [...]swasion in many People of their being Justified, [...] whilst in Captivity to those Lusts, whose Reward is Condemnation; whence came that usual Saying amongst many Professors of Religi­on, That God looks not on them as they are in That is, within them as to Qualifica­tion. Themselves, but as they are in Christ; not considering, that none can be in Christ, who are not New Creatures, which those cannot be reputed, who have not disro­bed themselves of their old Garments, but are still immantled with the Corruptions of the Old Man.’

In all which I see nothing Unsober or Unsound. But he thinks he has caught me fast in my Caveat against Popery, Ibid. p. 52.53. where in distingui­shing betwixt Grace and Merit, I say, Grace is a Free Gift requiring nothing; and now ask, sayes he, was not Abraham Justified by Works? and that Good Works may be said to procure, deserve or obtain, Apol. 198. Is this writ like an Infallible Dictator? Thus far T.H.

There is an old Proverb, That some love the Treason, but hate the Traitor. No Man that writes, rants it more imperiously then Tho. Hicks. It is hard to say, whether his Dishonesty or his Impudence be the greater. I think, I never used Tho. Hicks so ill, or any of his Way, as to deserve so many Scoffing Taunts, Base Detractions, and Down-right Scurrilities from his [Page 82] hand; But let that pass. To the Point. Hear what I have said in the Caveat. p. 12.

‘ Grace and Merit, as stated by Calvinists and Pa­pists, are taken for Faith without Works; and Works without Faith; like the two Poles. Doctrines the most opposite; Now Rewardableness is neither, but something in the middle, and indeed the most true; for Grace is a Free Gift, requiring no­thing: Merit is a Work proportionable to the Wages: Rewardableness, is a Work without which God will not bestow his Favour, and yet not the Meritorious Cause; for that there is no Proporti­on betwixt the Work that is finite, and temporary, and the Reward which is infinite and eternal; in which sense both the Creature obeyes the Com­mands of God, and does not Merit, but Obtain only; and God rewards the Creature, and yet so, as that he freely gives too.’

Now what Contradiction is there in all this? I plainly distinguish the Word Merit in the strictest Acceptation of it, from that which is truly Scrip­tural, respecting us at least. That I did not menti­on Merit in my Sandy Foundation Shaken, the Book proves. Is there no Difference between obtaining the Justifying Presence of God by the Fruits of the Spirit in our Heart and Lives, and strictly meriting his Acceptance of us by Works, and those of our own making too, Dialog. p. 38. Contin. p. 53. as what T.H. doth wickedl [...] suggest? I say, ‘ Abraham was justified in offering up his Son, because he had been condemned if he had disobeyed.’ But sayes T. Hicks, He was Justified before. And why was not his whole Life mention'd to his Justifica­tion? [Page 83] But I must tell T.H. that as among Men the Will is taken for the Deed, so the Lord finding A­braham right in his Heart, that he believed, and would obey; he was as much justified therein, as if he had actually done it. We have cause to believe T. Hicks never knew what the Consequence of that working Faith, and offering up an Isaac to God is. Nor was it needful to recite the whole of his Life: Measures are frequently taken by some e­minent Tryal. If he was accepted in that, Obedi­ence being the Condition, where that was before, he was before accepted no doubt. But sayes he, see the Caveat, p. 12. and Apol. p. 198. How do they agree? Truly very well: For Grace is Free, requi­ring nothing. How? Nothing at all? By no means. How then is it free? Grace is free, because it was the good Pleasure of God both to give Remission of Sins, and Eternal Life to as many as should Repent, Believe and O­bey to the End, and thereby come to be conformed to the Image of his Son. But may T. Hicks say; Is Repenting nothing? Believing nothing? Obeying nothing? No, T.H. not one jot of Merit in all that; It is the great Grace of God, to give us Eternal Life upon so small Conditions. They obtain it; but that is God's good Pleasure, and no Purchase, therefore Grace still; All that is our Duty; the Reward is Free; God gi­veth it, but chuses a Way by which to do it. If T.H. will understand Grace, as my Caveat condemns it, I cannot help that; sure I am, I never writ such Doctrine as my Faith, and therefore no Contradi­ction to my self, whatever it may be to him. But sayes he, Your Apology speaks that good Works may be said to procure, deserve, or obtain, &c.

[Page 84]My Apology as my self, and other Books, are not Apology enough for me and my Friends against such Envious Perverters as T.H. though I doubt not but they may be effectually such with more moderate Persons; thus it speaks,

‘The Word Merit, so much snarled at, allows a two-fold Signification; the First, a Proporti­on or Equali [...]y betwixt the Work and Wages, which is the strictest sense, and that which he (S. Fisher) least of all intended; The Second, something that may be said to procure, AND IN SOME SENSE to deserve or obtain, and so good Works do; since without them there is no Acceptance with God, nor Title to Eternal Life.’

Where it is observable, how basely he has left out, both my absolute Denyal of the strict Sense of the Word MERIT, and those qualifying and distinguishing Words, which come after Procure and before De­serve, namely, AND IN SOME SENSE, to deserve or obtain, with the last Clause. Certain it is, that whatever sense I had T. Hicks took me in the worst he could invent, yea in that very sense, which all along I have most particularly refused and condemned; A Baseness, and piece of Forgery, unworthy of any Man pretending to Good Conscience!

But he proceeds still, & much after the same manner; he would have People believe, That we assert the Ground of our Rejoycing and Acceptance to be not in, Contin. p. 53. and from the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us by Faith (where observe, that WHOLELY WITHOUT US, is omitted, to render us Denyers of Christ's Righteousness in any sense) but only in a Righteousness inherent in us, and [Page 85] done by us; Which great Untruth he gives the Lye to, in his own Book. But because he pretends to fetch this out of my S.F. Shaken. p 27. let's hear what I have said. But let every Man prove his own Work, and then shall he have Rejo [...]cing in himself alone, and not in another Be not deceived, for whatso­ever a Man soweth that shall he reap.

‘If Rejoycing, and Acceptance with God, or the contrary, are to be reaped from the Work that a Man soweth, either to the Flesh, or to the Spirit, then is the Doctrine of Acceptance, and Ground of Re­jo [...]cing from the Works of another utterly excluded; every Man reaping according to what HE hath sown, and bearing HIS OWN Burden.’

The Question will now be, Whether I meant this of the Creature alone, or by the Assistance of God's Holy Spirit, by which his Children are led?

Concerning which I need say no more, then what that Book speaks in my Defence, yea, that very Page, from whence he fetches this pretended Dangerous Assertion. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the Sons of God.

‘How clearly will it appear to any but a Cavil­ling and Tenacious Spirit; that Man can be no further Justifi­cation not as Remission, but as made Just. Justified, then as he be­comes obedient to the Spirit's Lea­dings; For if none can be a Son of God, but HE that's led by the Spi­rit of God, then none can be justifi­ed without being led by the Spirit of God; because none can be Justified but he that is a Son of God: so that the Way to Justification [Page 86] and Son-ship, is through Obedience to the Spi­rit's Leadings.’

By all which it appears, that I am not speaking of Remission of Sins, as if by our Conformity to the Spirit it self, we could so justifie our selves. No; but that by being Led by the Spirit of God, and Fulfilling of his Royal Law, Men come to be accepted, as Children of God; and the Ground of their Joy is from their own Experience of the Work of God in them. What was it made the Faithful Servants that improved their Ta­lents be accepted; and gave an Entrance to the Wise Virgins into the Bride-groom's Chamber? Were it not the Improvements of the one, and the Oyl in the Lamps of the other? And if T. Hicks come not to know that holy State, he shall never know Eternal Rejoycings, that is the Word of Truth to him; For such as he sows, such shall he reap in God's Day of Ac­count. Contin. p. 54. Wherefore that Scripture by him brought out of Isaiah makes greatly for us; Surely shall one say, in (or from) the Lord have I Righteousness; that is, not in or from my self; Isa. 45.24, 25. In the Lord shall all the Seed of Is­rael be justified, and shall glory. Is there no being in the Life, Power, Nature and Virtue of that Seed? then no Salvation. Also that of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthi­ans, 1 Cor. 1.30, 31. Christ is made unto us Righteousness; wherefore let him that glorieth glory in the Lord. For this I affirm, and that with Boldness and Truth, that Isaiah and Paul speak of a Real and In­ward Righteousness, not the less in the Creature, because not of the Creature, but of Christ. Was [Page 87] not Paul's Righteousness the Son of God revealed [...]n him? that everlasting Righteousness, that Christ binding and casting out of the strong Man, making an End of Sin, and finishing of Transgression, he brought and brings into the Soul? For that their Righteousness should be in or from him, or that he should be made their Righteousness, & they never know a being cloathed and made Righteous by it, were Absurd and Impossible. In short, As we know no Righteousness out of Christ our Lord, so knowing his Appearance in us, and that Grace for Grace, received of his Fulness, in whom are hid the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, and being obedient thereunto, we know and witness a Participation of his Everlasting Righteousness, Holy Wisdom and Saving Know­ledge, which qualifie and adorn the Soul for the blessed Marriage of the Lamb, who takes away the Sins of the World; not only the Guilt of Sins past by Remission upon Repentance, but as a Redeemer from under the Power and Nature of Sin present and to come, through the Virtue of his Holy Life in the Soul, which is the Compleatment of Justificati­on, and the Thing now insisted on.

Lastly, he gives under the Quakers name, as a dangerous Doctrine, this Passage; Justification goes not before, but is consequential to the mortifying of Lusts, and the Sanctification of the Soul. Cont. Pag. 59. Penn, Sand. Found Sh. p. 27. To which he answers. Doth not this import that a Man must be formally just before he be justified? I would ask whe­ther Remission of Sins be not one part of Justification? Qua. I suppose it may. Chr. Can one be forgiven that is not Guilty? It looks like a Contradiction, to [Page 88] pardon one that is Innocent. Certainly he that is pardoned must be a Sinner. To all which I return this much were he True and Honest in his Reasoning, I had been to blame for my Ignoronce, and T. Hicks to be commendable for his Answer; but he dodges basely. He would avoid my Argument about the second part of Justification, by suggesting that I meant it of the first, to wit, Remission of Sins, as much as if he had said; What, must all Sin be mortified be­fore a Man be pardoned his old Score? and can a Man's own Good Works so remit, Cancel or justifie? But his Sleight will not do. I have oft [...]n declared that upon Repentance God doth not impute past Ini­quity to any, therefore that part of his Answer which seems most smart upon me, that is, Can one be forgiven that is not Guilty? &c. vanisheth of Course; for the Question is not, Whether Man in his na­tural Estate is Guilty before God, and such can be no otherwise so justified, that is, Remitted, then by the free Love of God▪ which is the first part of Justification, as David speaks, Blessed is the Man unto whom the Lord will not impute Sin. But whe­ther Men are daily accepted as Children of God, redeemed, and saved of the Lord, and justified as such, in his Pre­sence, further than as they come to be led by his holy Spi­rit, and know Victory over Sin? which is the second part of Justification. So that he did dishonestly with me, to suggest my Denyal of Remission of Sins past, upon any other Score then the Mortification of Sin in the Party so pardoned: For though Sin may not be mortified, yet if there be a Foundation of true Repentance laid, the Guilt of former Iniquities, I have often said, is not imputed. It was therefore very [Page 89] unfairly done of him, from my Asserting daily Accep­tance, and Fellowship with God, to be the Consequent of a Self-denying and mortified Life through the powerful Working of the Spirit of Christ in Man, to infer, that before this Work was done, there could be no Re­mission of Sins past; as if it were the procuring Cause of Pardon, and not the free Love of God upon Repentance. In short, it is to say, that because I deny Men may be justified in the second Sense, with­out being made truly and really Just; that there­fore Men are to be made Just and Innocent before they are forgiven; which is Justification in the first Sense. And thus has he dodg'd disingenuously with me throughout this Point: Where I meant by Justi­fication, Remission of Sins, he has run It the other way; And when I have understood it of a State of Fellowship and daily Acceptance with God, then he has taken it for Remission, with manifest Design, to render me as confus'd, contradictory and unscrip­tural as he could; but that all lights upon himself, and I doubt not but in the end it will appear, that I have contended for the Justification of Life, whilst his aimes will have been at nothing more in all his Bussle, then to promote a Justification in a State of Death, where the indwelling Life, Power and Virtue of Christ, which gives to live to God in the nearness of Life, cannot be enjoyed nor known: else, what means his reputing that Assertion in my Sandy Foundation shaken, so Er­roneous, namely, without Good Works there is no Ac­ceptance with God, which, without any Wrong to him, causes me to believe, that it is his Faith, that Men may be accepted with God without Good Works; and consequently that they are not necessary to Salvation. I [Page 90] wish for his sake, more then mine own, he had been no more Injurious to me, and the Truth I have defended, then I have been to him, in expressing but the natural Result and Tendency of his Doctrine.

I shall now be as good as my Word, and that is, to produce an Argument or two against the Com­mon Doctrines of rigid Satisfaction and Justification, as they have been opposed by me in this short Dis­course, and that out of my Book called, The Sandy Foundation Shaken, because it has been most in this Adversary's Eye; That if he thinks fit to reply, he may have something else to employ his Mind about then to write Dialogues filled with Lyes, Shifts, Forge­ries, Scoffs, Impudence and Scurrility.

CHAP. X.

OF the Doctrine of Sanctification he has several Ʋnsanctified Passages, though he bestows not much time upon that Important Subject; some of which I shall take a little notice of.

Christ. Let us understand your Opinion of Sanctificati­on, Cont. p. 56. what it is? Out of Ed. Burroughs he an­swereth himself thus, Quak. ‘'Tis Christ. Hence we conclude, to say Sanctification is Imperfect in this Life, is as much as to say, Christ is Imperfect.’ To which he replies. Christ. 'Tis true, 'tis Jesus Christ by his Spirit is the Author and Worker of Sanctification; but will it therefore follow, that the Work of Sanctification in us is Christ, or that this Work is perfect in all its Degrees?

Now let any tell me wherein T. Hicks could have more grosly mistaken E. Burroughs, who frequently insults over the Grave and Labours of that Faith­ful Servant of the Lord, then he has done, on pur­pose I doubt not, to insinuate his Belief of the contrary to what he opposed. But hear Edw. Burrough's Words at large in Answer to Priest Eaton.

‘Thou sayest, Sanctification is not Perfect in this Life; And the New Man, the Spirit or Law of the Mind is that Grace or Imperfect Sanctification: Then [Page 99] Christ is not Perfect in this Life; for He is made of God unto us Sanctification, 1 Cor. 1.30.’

In this it is evident First, That the Priest did not so much strike at the Work done in the Creature, as at the Perfection of the Principle, by which the Work should be perfected in the Creature.

2dly, E. Burroughs did not in that place meerly in­tend the Work of Sanctification, but the Author and Worker of it, who is oftentimes called by the Name of the Work it self, the Cause by the Effect, as is plain from the Scripture quoted, in which he used but Paul's Words.

How basely done was it then, in Tho. Hicks, not only to leave out what the Priest asserted, but to mis­construe E.B's Answer, and (that such Perversion might go the more Unquestionable) omit the Inser­tion of that Scripture, in which Christ is by the A [...] ­stle said to be made Sanctification to the Saints; the mention of which would have given a clear Under­standing of E. Burroughs's Answer, and broke the Neck of his Ungodly Purpose to misrepresent him. We say, and it was the Faith and Tendency of the Writings of that Just Man, 1. To assert a Perfect Principle of Righteousness and Sanctification, which is Sanctification and Perfection in the abstract. 2. The Possibility of being Perfectly Sanctified by it. 3. That such Sanctification, when taken for the Author of it (who is the Fountain of all Holiness and Purity) is Compleat and Perfect. 4. When taken for the Work of the Spirit in the Creature, it is first Perfect in De­gree only; but as the Creature comes into perfect [Page 100] Subjection unto the Spirit and Power of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead, which hath wrought that Perfection in Degree, 1 Thes. 5.23. he comes to ex­perience that Sanctification throughout, in Bo­dy, Soul and Spirit, which the Apostle (o­therwise minded then T. Hicks) prayed the Churches might witness, which is that blessed State, wherein he that's born of God SINS NOT; Old things are done away, 1 John 5.18. & 2.1, 3. ALL IS BECOME NEW; No more I, but Christ that liveth in me. I write unto you, Matth. 15.48. Young Men, because ye have OVERCOME the Wicked One: Ephes. 4.13. Be ye Perfect as your Heavenly Fa­ther is Perfect. 2 Tim. 23.17. — unto a PERFECT MAN. Hebr. 13.12. That the Man of God may be PERFECT. 1 Pet. 5.10. The God of Peace make you PERFECT IN E­VERY GOOD WORK. 2 Cor. 7.1. The God of all Peace make you PER­FECT. Let us cleanse our selves from ALL FIL­THINESS OF FLESH AND SPIRIT; Perfecting Holiness in the Fear of the Lord. With ma­ny more Places of like Importance.

But he objects, Why doth the Apostle exhort Sanctifi­ed Persons to put off the Old Man (from Coloss. 3.5.) If where the Old Man, the Body of Sin remains none are Sanctified, as saith E.B.

This indeed is the Drift of the Man, he would be Sanctified whilst Unsanctified; as Dangerous, as it is Absurd: For what thing can be and not be the same thing, at one and the same time? But I deny they were [Page 101] then Sanctified who stood in need of that Reproof and Exhortation, to wit, that they should mortifie such Lusts, as Fornication. Ʋncleanness, Inordinate Af­fection, and Covetousness, which is Idolatry. Sanctify­ing such are, who are Mortifying: but when Sin is not Mortifying, none are Sanctifying; and where Sin is not Mortified, no Man is Sanctified. We may easily see, what a Church-Fellowship T.H. can allow of, and what a Gospel-Sanctification it is he pleads for. Can Men be Sanctified, and yet so Corrupt? If they can, tell me in what sense, and from what they are cleansed? Is this the End of pleading for Perfecti­on in Degree, to allow these Abominable Enormities, as Church-Infirmities? Away for Shame! But that a perfect Sanctification is no Heresie, suppose they had been Sanctify'd Persons to whom the Apostle wrote (which could not be, Sanctifying was the most) yet since he exhorted them, to put off the Old Man, which Old Man is the Body of Sin, and that when he is off, he is not on, and that the Apostle exhorted them Not to an Impossible thing, I conclude from his Question, that a State of Perfect Sanctification is attainable. He pretended to correct E.B's Extravagancy; but whatever Face he puts upon it, this is the Mark he aims at. To conclude, and sum up his Ungodly Method; E.B. speaks of a Perfect Sanctification in Christ. T.H. infers, that same perfect Sancti­fication immediately to the Creature; not only confounding the Worker and Work, the Cause and the Effect, about which one piece of Baseness he bestows not a little Pains; but suggesting thereby, that we deny all Sanctification or Perfection in Degree, and that we are as compleatly Perfect as Christ himself. [Page 102] Next, He leaves out those words, that would best explain his Mind. And Lastly, All his Opposition is, because the Quakers are for having Men Sancti­fy'd before they are Accounted so, and New Crea­tures before they ought to be reputed Good Chri­stians; which so directly Ʋn-churches and Ʋn-christi­ans T. Hicks, that we may well believe it a main Reason for his Implacableness against them.

CHAP. XI.

HE has not less abused and belyed us in these three Particulars, then any thing he has writ­ten against us, which I shall briefly shew.

To this Passage in E. Burroughs's Works, ‘ That is no Command to me which is a Com­mand to another, E.B's Works, p. 47. neither did any of the Saints act by a Command that was given to another,’ he thus answers, Then that Law which forbids Idolatry, Adultery, Murder, Theft and Bearing false Witness is no Law to you. And after ha­ving made this indirect Consequence, he breaketh forth, Impiously Horrid, Ʋngodly, Irreverent Patroni­zers of Blasphemy, Countenancers of such Novices, Pro­phane Scribler, and abundance more.

[Page 103]Now though I have said something to this before, and have largely vindicated that Passage against J. Faldo, yet I cannot well omit touching here up­on it, the Matter being so aggravated by this dis­ingenuous Person.

These Commands must either relate to Ordinary or Extraordinary Duty, I mean, they must either be such Commands, as that of Moses 's going to Pharaoh, Isai­ah's going Naked, Jeremiah 's making Yoaks, Amos 's going to the Kings's Chappel; with many more: And here I do affirm with that Faithful Young Man of God, that the Command which came to them, not coming to another, that other Person is not only not war­ranted, but condemnable in an Imitation of any of them. If then such Extraordinary Commands, as these be­fore mentioned, must not be intended, then those that are Ordinary and Common to Mankind, as Fearing God, and working Righteousness towards God, towards their Relations both Natural and Civil. Now I would ask T.H. if he believes that Idolatry, Mur­der, Adultery, Theft and Bearing false Witness be not reproved by the Common Light in all Men? if not, T.H. gives the Lye to all Mankind, Dialog. p. 8. Cont. p. 68. and his own Books too; Nay, what is it good for? But if they be; query, If any can confess to one God, love his Neighbour, be Chaste, be Just, and speak Truth in his own and Neigh­bour's Cause, without being thereto oblieged by that Light they have? Did the Gentiles of old the things contain­ed in the Law, without a Word, Commandment, Law or Light within, inducing them thereto? I perceive T. Hicks owns no Command in himself against Idolatry, [Page 104] Adultery, Murder, Theft and Bearing false Witness; which is to say, if the Scripture did not restrain him, he should be guilty of all. Farewell Grace, Spirit, Light and all Inward Rule or Judge, by which to see, taste, relish and determine of things. But in this Condition, how knows he that the Scriptures were writ by In­spiration? If he sayes he was told so; I ask how they knew it? If they say they were told so too, and so upwards; I ask what Assurance can any Man's Say-so or Hear-say be in a Matter of such Importance? Nay, Suppose I should grant them a True Tradi­tion from the Apostles times, I ask, how knew they to whom they were writ, that they were the Fruits of Divine Inspiration? In short, take away all Inward Testimo­ny, or the Certainty and Sufficiency of it, and Farewell to all Right Belief of the Scriptures them­selves. Behold the Strait he is run into! But if at last T.H. shall desire a little more room, and ac­knowledge the Spirit must give the Discerning, and Relish, and most Convincing Testimony; will it not fol­low that he believeth the Scriptures, and performeth what may be his Duty therein, upon that Conviction, and not meerly because written or recommended by any Man whatever?

But he proceeds to prove E.B. as he thinks, an Enemy to God's Commandments, and a very Lyar. Contin. p. 61. The thing he Wickedly, but in vain aims at.

He quotes him thus, ‘ Quak. You are not dead with Christ who are yet subject to Ordinances, E.B. p. 105.’ To which hear him. Christ. The Spirit of God in the Scriptures assures us, that they who [Page 105] are subject to, and keep the Commandments of God, are the Children of God, and they who do not are Lyars. See the first Epistle of John 2.3, 4. and Chap. 5.2, 3. Yet this Wicked Man saith, That they who are subject to Ordinances are not Dead with Christ.

Edw. Burroughs's Words are those of the Scrip­tures of Truth, therefore true Words in them­selves. But how does E.B. abolish what God per­petuates? I am sure I can plainly perceive that Tho. Hicks does call a Conscientious, Departed Sufferer, and Prisoner unto Death for the Testimony of Jesus, Wicked Man, because he dared not be guilty of Will-Worship, by going into any Practice of Worship, without the Leading of God's Spirit. Six Particulars comprehend my An­swer in brief.

First, That Edw. Burroughs only pleaded against such Performances, under the Name of Ordinances, as were but Shadowy, Observe how T. Hicks can quote Scripture to keep Ordinances, never mention­ed nor intended in it. A­gain, that he puts more Value upon such Commands as are Temporary then those that are Immutable; and brings Scrip­ture that concerns the Latter to confirm his Belief of the Former. Elementary and Pe­rishable Things; and which they were not led to by God's Spirit, but took up unwarran­tably, and by meer Imi­tation, and therefore Will-Worship.

2. That Thomas Hicks implies by calling him Wicked Man, that it is a Wickedness, not to take up any Outward or Visible Part of Worship in a Man's own Will' and Time; But to stay God's Time, and wait [Page 106] for the Leadings of God's Spirit: From whence I infer, [...]e is no Child of God; for every such one, is led by the Spirit of God; therefore no better then an Ape, or I­mitator of the Out-sides of Religion; In short, a Will-worshipper, and not a Worshipper of God in the Spirit and in the Truth.

3. Let it be observed, that there is not so much as the least mention made in all the Epistles of that Be­loved Disciple of any of those Ordinances, which stood in Visible and Corruptible Elements; but the Scope and Tendency of them, is the most Inward and Spiritu­al of any of the Apostolical Writings: So that to bring in things of a Temporary, Shadowy Nature, among the Spiritual and Durable Commands of Christ un­der the New Covenant State, without keeping of which Men incur Eternal Wrath, is an Abuse both of the Apostle's Words, and E.B's, which he intended by them to confute.

4. T. Hicks does as good as tell us, That the Com­mandments of God may be kept without the Spirit of God; since he opposes the Necessity of our Do­ing God's Commandments, to our doing them in the Time and Will, and by the Assistance of God's Spirit. O Irreligious Man, and Enemy to God's Spirit!

5. It plainly tells us, that Tho. Hicks has no Com­mand in himself for doing what he does; that the bare Authority of the Scripture is all he has to induce him, which raizes to the Ground that old Protestant Doctrine of Believing the Scriptures from an Inward Te­stimony, and Worshipping God in Spirit and Truth.

6. Lastly, If all are Lyars that keep not God's Com­mandments, and therefore none of his Children, as saith the Place, & as asserts T. Hicks, then either T.H. [Page 107] keeps God's Commandments, and so is perfect, or he must be a Lyar, and so no Child of God.

That he keeps not God's Commands I prove.

If such, as say that Man cannot fulfil, obey or keep the Law, nor the Gospel; pray, preach, dip, eat Bread and drink Wine, nor live without Sin, keeps not God's Commandments; but so doth T.H. expresly or impli­citely; therefore he keeps not God's Commandments, and consequently is a Lyar, and no Child of God; For the Lyar is for the Lake.

To say, we deny Obedience to God's Commands, because we deny the present Necessity or Use of their Water, Bread and Wine, will never hurt us; For, First, we know, and they confess, that they were in the beginning used as Figures and Shadows of a more Hidden and Spiritual Substance.

2. That they were to endure no longer then till the Substance was come: Now the time of the Bap­tism of the Holy Ghost, Christ's only Baptism, therefore called the One Baptism, has been long since come; Consequently the other, which was John's, Mat. 3. Acts 1. was fulfilled, and as becomes a Fore-run­ner, ought to cease. The like may be said of the Bread and Wine; for as there is but One Baptism, so is there but One Bread. The Least in the Kingdom was Greater then John 's Water-Baptism; He was to Decrease, Christ to Increase. Jesus Baptized not with Water: 'Tis true, he bid his Apostles Go, Teach, Baptizing, &c. but no Water is mentio­ned: But Luke in the 1st of the Acts, sayes that before Christ gave that Commission mention'd by Matthew, said, John Baptized with Water, but ye [Page 108] shall be Baptized with the Holy Ghost not many dayes hence; and then comes the Commission in Force, Go, Teach, Baptizing, &c. How? With the Holy Ghost; turning People from Darkness to Light, and from the Power of Satan unto God.

3. They were but the more Noble among the Meats and Drinks, and divers Washings, that the Apostle said were but Shadows of the Good Things to come; For I would not that any should be so Sottish as to think, that Christ came to abolish those Shadows of the Jews, and institute other in their room; by no means: He came to remove, change and abolish the very Nature of such Ordinances, and no [...] the particular Ordinances only, to wit, an Outward, Shadowy or Fi­gurative Worship and Religion. For it was not because they were Jewish Meats and Drinks, and divers Wash­ings, but because they were Meats & Drinks, and divers outward Washings at all, which never could, nor can, cleanse the Conscience from dead Works, nor give Eternal Life to the Soul: else wherein would the Change be? I affirm by that one Scripture, Circum­cision is as much in force as Water-Baptism; and the Paschal Lamb, as Bread and Wine: They were both Shadows, and both Elementary and Perishable. And though the Letter were more immediatly fore-run­ning and introductory of the Substance it self, yet not to be perpetuated; For a Continuance of them had been a Judaizing of the Spiritual Evangelical Worship; The Gospel would have been a State of Figures, Types and Shadows, which to assert or practise, is as much as in such lies, to pluck it up by the Roots; The Appellation, Ordinances of Christ, I therefore renounce, as Unscriptural and Inevangelical: Be­sides, [Page 109] a Spirit of Whoredom from God, gross Apostacy in­to Superstition and Idolatry, yea, a Spirit of Hypocrisie, Persecution and Murder, and all manner of Wickedness has got them, and covered It self with them, Jeze­bel-like, the old Enemy of God's Faithful Prophets and People. And we can testifie from the same Spi­rit by which Paul renounced Circumcision, that they are to be rejected, as not now required; neither have they, since the False Church espoused and ex­alted them, ever been taken up afresh by God's Command or, in the Leading of his Eternal Spirit: And the Lord will appear to gather People out of them; but ne­ver to establish, or keep People in them, no; they served their time; and now the False Church has got them; yea, the Whore has made Merchandize with them, and under such Historical, Shadowy and Figu­rative Christianity has she managed her Mystery of Ini­quity, unto the beguiling Thousands, whose Sim­plicity the Lord has, and will have tender Regard to.

But they Baptized after the Holy Ghost was pou­red out. True; And they also would not eat the Flesh of things Strangled, nor Blood; They Circumcised and Purified themselves in the Temple, and had Vows after the Pouring forth of the Holy Ghost. By which we may learn, that Condescension & Practice are quite differing things from Institution; else Paul would never have said. He was not sent to Baptize (i. e.) with Water; whose Commission doubtless went as far as any of the rest.

But they brake Bread, and Paul received it from God. True; But Paul never enjoyned it; He said, As often as ye do it, &c. which is very wide of any [Page 110] Institution. Again, Read the Chapter fore-going 11. or 10. where he tells the Wise Men of another Bread then that he spoke to the Weak of, who eat and drank to Excess, not discerning the Lord's Body.

Further, Let it be considered, that no other Apostle recommends these things, nor Paul himself to either the Romans, the Corinthians (in his first Epistle) the Ga­latians, Ephesians, Philippians, Collossians, Thessalonians, Hebrews (if his) nor to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, when he set down the Order of the Churches. What an Over-sight (might one then say, according to T.H.) was it in him, not only not to press and charge, but not to mention the Sacraments of the Church, necessary to Salvation, as they are cal­led and esteemed? Would it not have been accoun­ted a great Neglect and Defect in Calvin, if he had been silent to any Church instituted in his Time and Form; or to say, He thanked God he baptized none but such and such? Yet how full are his and their Epistles of Divine Exhortation, Information, Reproof, Instruction, and the like? Is it not very Wicked then in T. Hicks to tell the World of our Denying to keep God's Commandments in general, because we Refuse to practise these Shadowy, Temporary, Perishing Things, especially at this time a day, after such an Abuse of them, and that the Gentile-Spirit has troden them un­der [...]oot so long, being part of that Outward Courts of Religion, given to them, which were left out at the measuring of the Evangelical Temple of God. Rev. 21? Besides, what Authority have these Men for Using them? To do as Men would be done to, concerns all in all Ages; but to practise Figures and Shadows in Religion, we know does not. A Church can­not [Page 111] be without one, yet without the other. Would it not be Ridiculous in any Man to adorn himself either as some eminent Commander, or other Offi­cer, because it is required by Office or Place of every such one that really is so? The Apostles bap­tized, therefore must T.H? The Apostles anointed with Oyl, therefore should T.H? Nay, Christ washed his Disciples Feet, telling them, they ought, or it was their Duty so to do one to the other, there­fore should T.H? The Believers sold their Posses­sions, and had all things Common; but will T.H. either imitate, or enjoyn this upon his Hearers? But since T.H. and his Adherents, do not several such things, once done and enjoyned to, as Blood, Things Strangled, Anointing with Oyl, Washing of Feet, &c. why are they not to be as much blamed, as we are for omitting that of Bread and Wine? Or why should not they rather desist Practising of those with the rest, and that upon the same terms? I will warrant T.H. for going to Synagogues, Decr [...]ing Hirelings, Preaching Freely, Exposing himself to all Hardship for the Gospel's sake, which the Apostles did.

To conclude, God never condescended to use such Things (to lead to, and hold forth the hidden Sub­stance) that People should rest there, and much less in a Way of Opposition to the Substance it self: such an Use of them has caused God to loath them, and enjoyn us to testifie against them. Remember the Instituted Brazen-Serpent of old, &c. what be­came of them in the like case? We would be glad to see more Honesty, Meekness and Godly-mindedness in our Opposers, though there were less of this Imitation: [Page 112] They are for such Commands, as they call them, which Hypocrites, Apostates, the False Church, yea, the De­vil himself can come into; but as for those that concern the Daily Cross and Victory over Sin, they can Wicked­ly pl [...]d a kind of Liberty from, at least to their Unconquerable Infirmities, as they are willing to believe them. But we testifie against the False Church, whose Faith & Worship stands not in the Life, Pow­er and Spirit of God, however deckt with the an­cient Attire of the True; for her finest Forms out of the Life and Power of God we renounce, and as becomes the true Evangelical Church, we assert, That he is not a Jew or Christian, who is one Outwardly, neither is that now the Circumcision, Baptism and Supper, which is Outward; but he is the Jew or Christian, that is one Inwardly; and that is the Circumcision that is of the HEART, that the Baptism, which is of the HO­LY GHOST and FIRE, and that the Supper, which is of the BREAD THAT COMETH DOWN FROM ABOVE, which gives Eternal Life to as many as eat thereof, and that is of the WINE WHICH IS TO BE DRUNK NEW WITH CHRIST IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITHIN, Luke 17.20.

Much might be said in this matter, but I refer the Reader to the Book entituled Quakerism a new Nick-Name for old Christianity. However let it be noted, that our Adversary is for Will-Worship, and not the Quakers; For we affirm that no Sacri­fice nor Performance can be acceptable with God, to, and in which his Holy Spirit leads not; by the which only, Self is abas'd, kept under, and in perfect O­bedience to, and watchfull Observance of God's [Page 113] Holy Will. But Tho. Hicks makes this a Strange and Dangerous Doctrine, insinuating that we perform nothing but upon a kind of Spiritual Compulsion, as if that God required Man to do all his Comman­dements without his holy Spirit, alwayes ready to incline and help them, either to begin or per­form any such Duty: or that there were no Diffe­rence between waiting for the natural Springs of Divine Power to assist, and being compell'd to worship. But this shews his great Ignorance of God's Spi­rit, its dayly Movings upon the Heart of Men, ei­ther as a Reprover or Comforter for Good; for were he better acquainted with its Dealings, it would not be so uncouth to him, to hear of our Waiting to feel the holy Stirrings of it, in order to every Religious Performance: wherefore let not his Ignorance be any Argument against our holy Gos­pel Practice. The Saints of old had a Warrant in them­selves for what they did: They were not wont to run into the Imitation of former Generations as to any External Appointments because then com­manded, and practised as proper, but consulted the Anointing they had receiv'd about the Continuation or Dis-use of such Figures or outward Services; and as they receiv'd Wisdom and Counsel therefrom, either to use or decline the Practice of them, they acted, and no otherwise; making good the Apostles Saying, that as many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the Sons of God: Are we led by It in ALL things, then in, and about God's things. Had it not been for this, how could the Apostles have preach'd down the whole Ceremonial Worship of the Jews? The meer Let­ter of Scriptures could never have been their Rule in [Page 114] the Case. If any say they were extraordinarily Inspired, I answer, how did such as then believ'd know that, if not from an Inward Testimony? Nay, what Rule had the many Thousands then to worship God by? The Hebrew Bible was little, or not at all known to the Gentiles. The Scripture tells us that whole Churches were setled in the Faith before the Epistles were writ; And it is hard to think, when they were writ, that they could be suddenly collected; and when collected, that every Individual could get a Coppy, that to be sure, ought to have a Rule; for Prin­ting was not so early in the World, and Trans­scribing must needs have been to Irksome for every Person to obtain a Coppy for his or her peculiar Benefit: But because we are taught to believe that they wanted not True Rule of Faith and Practice, and that the Scriptures especially of the new Testament, could not be all that to them, our present Adversaries conclude to make the great Rule, let them not be displeas'd if I infer from hence, that a Measure of that Holy Spirit, which was given to every one to profit with, was their Rule, and therefore ought to be, our great Rule and Guide, in all things relating to Faith and Worship. And let it be remembred, that Christ promised to send the Spirit of Truth to lead into all Truth; as much as to say, none are led into the Truth, nor in the Truth, but by the holy Spirit of Truth; or that their Practice is a Ly, or they are led into a Ly, who are not led by the Spirit of Truth, that alone leads into all the Wayes of Truth: where by Truth, is not to be understood the meer Letter of the Scripture, which notwithstand­ing is True, but the Living, Powerful Truth; Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life, of which the Scrip­ture [Page 115] is but a Record, or Declaration: Many may run into a Practice of several Outward Things mentioned in the Scriptures to have been the Pra­ctices of the Saints of former Ages, and yet, not be led into the Truth; for all that is but Will-Worship, Imitation and Unwarrantable. To be led into the Truth, is to be led into God's Living Pow­er, Wisdom and Righteousness, whose Fruits are Peace and Assurance for ever; This is the Truth, the Spirit leads and is all-sufficient to.

Certainly, Christ, intended This for the Great Evangelical Leader, Rule, Judge, Law-giver and Guide through the whole course of Regeneration, the only Way into the Everlasting Kingdom. And all those who are not by this Holy Spirit prepared, moved and assisted to perform Divine Worship un­to God, but run into that weighty Duty, or any other (supposed) Ordinance, without its pure Lea­dings, which makes it a Spiritual and Living Worship, they are but those anciently fore-told of, LORD, LORD-CRYERS, whose Portion shall be that dis­mal Depart from me, I know you not; who has requir'd these things at your hands? Let this therefore be a War­ning unto all Professors in the Name of the Lord, that they run no longer Ʋnsent, nor think to be accepted for their many Words; God regards the Heart that he has broken, and is made contrite be­fore him, and which trembles at his Word; 'Tis not meer Worship, but that which is Spiritual, which he expects and accepts; and to perform that, Man must Cease from his own Spirit, Strength, Strivings and Imitations, and become Dumb before the Lord, and as a Man dead to Self-Performance, and then will [Page 116] he breath into him the Spirit of Supplication, and raise him up in the Newness of his own Divine Life; whereby (though but in Sighs and Groans) a Spi­ritual and most Acceptable Worship shall be offered unto God, in which his Soul will be well pleased, and every such one come to be refresht and establisht in Righteousness. For all Offerers and Ʋpholders of strange Fire, of what sort of People soever they may be, in the Great and Notable Day of the Lord God, will he cause to lie down in Sorrow.

And because he thinks his Advantage is not small, that he hath against us by basely inferring and aggravating such Consequences as this, What of Duty we neglect, we are to charge upon the Spirit's not moving us to it; or because we must not obey without a Motion, we are acquitted from all Fault till then, &c. Let me tell him, that he striketh himself, and not the Quakers; For they hold, that God's Spirit ought to be daily waited for; And that it is alwayes ready to inform and instruct Man's Soul, and to move it to those Thoughts, Words and Deeds, with respect to God and Man, as are Well-pleasing to the Al­mighty: For we do not only teach, that the Spirit of God is alwayes present to convince of Sin, but to lead out of it, and in that Way of holy Living, which is well-pleasing unto God. In short, God's Worship stands in the Spirit; and I testifie from the Eternal God, all other Worship then what springs from a Mind touch'd, sanctify'd and mov'd of his holy quick­ning Spirit, is abominable to him; His Righteous Soul loathes it: And what else were their Sacrifices, as theirs were, who in my hearing said, Pray Bro­ther [Page 117] will you Pray? No, Brother, I am not so well able as you are; Let Brother such a one Pray, he is better gifted for the Work, &c. Complementing, Shifting, and at last Praying, &c. in their own Wills, and not in God's Motion— This God hates.

Next, Since the Pouring forth of the Spirit is the great Gospel Gift, and that the Children of God are to be led by it; In what should we more dili­gently wait for its Heavenly Assistance, then in that part of our Duty, which we owe to God? Is his Worship Spiritual, and can we perform it out of the Motion of his own Spirit? For what then was his Spirit given? Again, If Men should pray in a known Tongue, much more with the Spirit, as the Apostle speaks. No Wonder the Professors ask Pardon for their Prayers. Indeed God's Spirit gives them to see the Emptiness of their Righteousness, and con­demns them for it, wherfore they are at times dissatis­fy'd in them; yet they will not learn of him, to be gui­ded by him, who would cover them with Everlasting Righteousness. Blessed would they be, if their Minds were stayed in his Counsel: But instead thereof T.H. does as good as say, that if he should stay till the Spirit mo­ved him, he might stay long enough; rendring the Spirit Wanting in that for which he was shed abroad in the Heart: Because through his Enmity and Darkness, & hasty Running in his own Spirit, he feels it not to lead him: else he would never infer, from our Asser­ting the Necessity of the Spirit's Moving to Right & Acceptable Worship, that we are acquitted from any Fault in omitting to do that which is Good, and the Blame must be laid upon the Spirit. But let me ask him, Can [Page 118] any Man do Good of himself? Surely he will say, No. How then shall Man do that Good he ought to do, but by the Holy Ghost? Canst thou call Jesus Lord by any other Power or Spirit? Read the Scrip­tures. What greater Contradiction can there be, then to believe, Man of himself can do no Good; and yet to say, he can do it without God's Spirit to in­cline and assist him thereunto? But if the Spirit do not, what does? Tell me, what can tender the Heart, pre­pare the Soul, raise the Affections, give true Feeling of Wants, and help to perform all in that Fear, Reverence and deep Sense (which becomes all New Covenant, Spiri­tual Worshippers) if this cannot, or do not? Nay, what an Affront is it to God; since it is to suppose, that Man wants him not, that his Spirit neither moves to Duty that ought to be performed, nor yet condemns for Du­ty omitted? Behold the Impudence of the Man! He talks of Gospel, Christ, the Mysteries of his Glori­ous Kingdom, &c. What grosser Opposer of the New Covenant can there be, who denies the very Life, Virtue and Soul of all true Gospel-Worship and Discipline; and without which the otherwise best Christian-Church that ever was, would be worse then Legal? For they that worship not from the Motions of God's Spirit, James 4.3. offer strange Fire, set up their own Worship, and are Image Makers; such ask, but they receive not, because they ask not aright. For if no Man can call Jesus Lord, but by the Holy Ghost; no Man can pray to the Lord, or in his Name, without the Holy Ghost; yet a Sigh or Groan from its holy Operation, that Sacrifice, though with­out Words, is manifold more engaging and effectu­al [Page 119] with the Lord, then the most excellent Perfor­mance of Man's own Spirit. 'Tis the Fear and Hea­venly Sense of God in the Soul that recommends the Performance, and that the holy Spirit begets: And as the Minds of Men and Women are exercised in the Law of this pure and quickening Spirit, as it appears in them, they shall know the true Worship, which stands in Life and Power, whose End is Everlasting Peace; when the LORD, LORD-CRYERS, that have Prayed and Preached in their own Wills and Wisdom, as well as to their own Ends and Ad­vantages, Mat. 7.21. shall be cast out forever, with a DE­PART FROM ME YE WORK­ERS OF INIQUITY. But there is one Ob­jection taken from my Book called, The Spirit of A­lexander the Copper-Smith, &c. which he thinks, splits us irrecoverably. It runs thus;

‘Either there is such a thing as a Christian-Church, or there is not; if there be, Spir. of Alex. p. 9. then this Church either hath Power, or hath not; If no Power, then no Church; If a Bo­dy or a Church, then there must be a Power within it self to determine.’

To which sayes Tho. Hicks; For Christians to plead this, who own the Scriptures for their Rule, and not the meer Light within, Contin. p. 64. the Ar­gument may safely be allowed; But you can­not stand by this: For will you say, what a Man doth with­out an Inward Motion is accurst, and yet disown him for not doing what he is not moved unto?

But though this be plausible, it is no more; For the Difficulty remains, in Case the Scripture be admitted for the Rule; for Instance: The Church unto which [Page 120] Tho. Hicks belongs own the Scripture to be the Rule: But suppose Tho. Hicks in some one Point believes the Scripture not to intend the same thing, the rest of the Church understand it to mean, as in Case of Free-Will; I query how this Matter shall be recon­ciled? They affirm the Scripture to be the Rule, and say, This is the true Sense of the Scripture; Thomas Hicks also affirms the Scripture to be the Rule, but that his Sense is the Mind of the Scripture: This occurs almost daily among those who believe the Scrip­ture to be the Rule of Faith. Now observe the Parallel.

I would ask any Man of Common Sence, if the Scripture is not as well set in Opposition to it self by these two Pretenders, as the Light within? and if the Church of Anabaptists would not therefore doubt the Truth of their Interpretation, but pro­ceed [Page 121] to censure Thomas Hicks as a Disturber of their Church in its Doctrine or Discipline by the In­troduction of New and Unprofitable Opinions? Neither are the Body of the Quakers to question their Judgment given by the Light within as their Rule, to be a true and unquestionable Determination against such Alexanders and Enemies to the Peace of their Jerusalem.

But I would further tell Thomas Hicks, that though we renounce all Worship not led to by God's Spi­rit (his Reflection upon which, shewing it to be none of his Faith or Practice, and so no Spiritual Wor­shipper) Yet the Men testified against in that Book were such as had been in Unity with us before, and in going from that into differing and opposite Pra­ctices, we imposed nothing upon them, but they innovated Ʋnseemly Customs upon us, so that which Tho­mas Hicks's Conscience had no Mind to observe, least he should loose the Force of his Cavil, removes it out of the Way.

Let Thomas Hicks tell me by what other Rule then God's Spirit, Men's Spirits, and the Inside of their Religion can be tryed, relisht, or favoured and he doth something. The Devil can transform into all Outward Forms, and subscribe the best Metho­diz'd true Articles that ever were written; Who, or what shall unmask him? God gave us the true Taste, Savour and Discerning of that Spirit that leads out several from the Heavenly Unity, and from thence we gave our Judgment. If Men become darkn'd, and led by a Delusive Spirit and call that the Light, though it give the Lye to the Light, and strikes at the Life, they whilst faithful, felt among us, they [Page 122] must look to that. You say, Every Man ought to make the Scripture his Rule, some that say they do, you say do not; do you think your Judgment the less valid? By no means; Neither do We. Will you not desist from censuring those that answer not the Scripture, though they fancy that they do? Why may not we also by the Light of Christ judge those to be deluded, who notwithstanding pretend to be ruled by it? Ye turn People to the Scripture, and they mistake it; We direct People to the Light, but they mistake it: So that here is the Difference be­tween our Saying, that Men should do nothing but what the Spirit requires; and your Teaching, that Men ought to do nothing but what the Scripture requires. For if we disown them for not doing what we know the Spirit requires, you daily disown such as do not somethings you suppose the Scriptures do require: And as you think the Scripture to mean the same you ever did, notwithstanding your Opposers Sug­gestion, we are by you justified in mantaining our judgment against those Pretenders to the Guidance of the Light.

To conclude, I see no Difference between Tho. Hick's saying to me, William Penn, thou bidst me obey the Light within me, and because I do thou disownest me; and my saying to him, Thomas Hicks, thou bidst me obey the Scriptures, and because I do thou censu­rest me. This d [...]ives unavoidably to an Infallible Spirit, whereby to savour all Spirits, Words and Works; for the Anointing is Judge, and meer Pretenders weaken not its Judgment: And till Men come thither their best Duties are Unholy Things, indeed.

[Page 123]Let none fancy an Impossibility of Trying Spirits by that without which it is utterly impossible to try them. God's Spirit gives his Children to savour and discern Spiritual Bad, as well as Spiritual Good Things; It is not unknown to such as are led by God's Spirit, of what Nature and to what Tendency such Words or Actions may be. It was on this a­lone, and upon no other Foundation, the Spiritual Gospel, Sound and Heavenly Fellowship stood of old; for by One Spirit were the true Christians bap­tized into One Body.

O You that are Professors of Religion, who in dayes past, and years that are gone over your Head, Prayed loud and fervently for the Spirit, rise not up against it because it stains your Beauty, subjects your Wills, brings you out of Self, and overturns your dead Forms, where the Spirit of this World has had its Seat for Ages, and in a Mystery insnared and beguiled you; But wait upon God in deep Silence to all Fleshly Conceivings, and Will-Worships, so shall you come to feel God's Pure & Quickening Spirit, to Inliven, Tender and Affect your Hearts; in which State one Sigh or Groan is more Valuable, then Years of unprepared and unsanctified Will-Sacrifice.

The next thing aimed at in this Cavil, attended with so much Bitterness and rude Language, is this, that Thomas Hicks being desirous to represent the Quakers to greatest Disadvantage, takes not a little Pains to incense Parents, Magistrates and Masters against them, as Neglecters of all Lawful [Page 124] Commands, without an Immediate and Extraordi­nary Impulse to perform them.

Were we such Wretches, as he would render us, we should not deserve to live in Civil Societies. What I shall say in our Defence is briefly this.

1. The Quakers Principles and Practice have pro­ved themselves consistent with Government, because they have encouraged to Good Life, Peace and Honest Industry. I shall not here seek an Eye for an Eye, nor tell any of those Black and Horrible Tra­gedies, that go up and down the World, under great Au­thors Atestations of the People called Anabaptists. No, I have more regard to the Sincere and Moderate a­mong them; though 'tis a great Shame to the Pro­fession that T.H. should be suffered among them, at least as a Teacher, after such Forged, Prophane and Abusive Trash, which lies more dangerously exposed to the Lash of Story then we do: But for this time I spare him; yet if he proceeds on this wise against us, perhaps [...]e may hear further of me▪ and that People to whom he belongs, if they take not some other Course with him.

2. As to the Commands of Parents I have this to say, and that by good Experience of more then one, That those who have had Children of our Way, though with great Disquiet, and not a little Dis­pleasure and Severity against them at the first, they have left the World with this Testimony of their Children, they never disobeyed them, but for Con­science sake, and from Threatning them with the Loss of all, have become so Affectionate towards them, and Confident in them, as to entrust them with the Whole [Page 125] of their Worldly Substance. 'Tis true, here and there a Crooked, Perverse Professor, whose Husbands, Wives, Children or Servants convinced, have the worst of Lives, through their extream Opposition, and Wat­ching for Evil, may perhaps have spy'd an Indiscretion, which, though against his own Blood or Family, his Enmity has aggravated to an Heinous Offence, and then it must be given for a Demonstration of the Errone­ousness of the Quakers Way. But how Just, Natu­ral or Conscientious such Proceeding is against such Dissenting Relations, or the People they associate with, let all Impartial Persons judge. This is not doing as they would be dealt by; Liberty of Con­science! Tyranny, and Egyptian Oppressions. I ask, Would the Anabaptists be thus served concer­ning their own Proselytes? Did they never any of them suffer from their Parents? And have not their Parents complained of them? And has that been taken by their Church alwayes for sufficient Proof?

And for the Story of the Woman that went rambling from her Family and Husband, Contin. p. 63, 69. bidding him take another Woman, &c. with some preten­ding Revelations to refuse just Debts, I shall say no more but thus, We know of no such things, and believe them to be downright Lyes, as others that are gone before them; However, should they be as true, as we hope they are false, we can but judge them, and that we do, by the Light of Christ Jesus to the Pit forever. But if we should take this Course, of proving the Anabaptists those vile Impostors, he doth call and pretend to prove the Poor Despised Qua­kers to be, p. 69. How many Miscarriages might [Page 126] we collect and publish against the People that are called by that Name: but we do not desire that Pro­phanists should have any such Theames from us, to sport their Unclean Minds upon, notwithstanding Thomas Hicks's Liberality to them: Is it not then wickedly done in him, to tell us in the same page, That if a Miscarriage be, it is improved by us to make the Truth Odious, who without such Arguments and his own Forgery, would in Truth have nothing against us? But truly it is very hard, that we should suf­fer, as we have done, for the Miscarriages of other Parties, and yet receive these gross Abuses at their hands: But our Eye is to the Lord, and our Inno­cent Suffering Cause will he plead in his own time, whose Will be done by us, and that will be our E­verlasting Rejoycing.

3. For Masters, I must speak my own Experience; many have desired to retain us, and great Trusts have been reposed in us. To whom were we False? Of whose Service were we Negligent? When did any of us say, I am not moved to do this or that, when so required thereto? Shall a Lying Dialogue be Demonstration enough to prove us what so invective an Adversary would have People believe us to be? We do declare to all, that the Light whereby we are enlightned, al­wayes commands and strictly enjoyns us Duty, Obedience, Love, Peace, Gentleness, Faithfulness, In­dustry, Holy Living; And whatever is supposed to the Contrary, we disclaim it in the Fear and Name of the Righteous God of Heaven and Earth to be no Product of our Holy Principle.

I shall now attend his Cavils about the Ministry, [Page 127] and give a short Taste of the Rancour of his Spirit therein. He asks, What is the True Mi­nistry? Comin. pag. 65, 66, 67. To which he maketh G.W. an­swer. ‘ Quak. In the New Cove­nant God is the Teacher of his People himself immediately, by his Immediate Spirit, Power and Unction, Christ Ascended, p. 64.’ Christ. If so, wherefore were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pa­stors Teachers, &c. giver, and set in the Church for the Work of the Ministry? And why do you set up one among your selves, and appoint Ministers before-hand to speak in such a place, and at such a time. From whence I plainly collect thus much.

1. That T.H. in so many words denyes God's Immediate Teaching by his Spirit, Power and Ʋnction under the Gospel; And in that one Expression strikes out, what in him lies, the whole Pourings out of the Holy Ghost, the great Promise of the Father; being led by the Spirit; no more I, but Christ that liveth in me; the Tabernacle of God is with Men, and he will dwell with them; the Anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, or you need not Man's Teaching, &c. In short, the very Dispensation of the Gospel, which is a State of Power and Life immediately received of God, is denyed by him.

2. That in acknowledging such Officers to con­tinue in the Church, he must confess to their Qua­lifications, or he does nothing. Now, that which qualified them was the Receiving of the Holy Ghost, and those Heavenly Gifts by it, which were necessary for the Discharge of those respective Services in the Church. By this it appears, that either Thomas Hicks must now [Page 128] yield to Preaching and Praying by the Motion of the Holy Spirit, or in opposing of it, acknowledge to his own Contradiction, that there are no such Apostles, Prophets, &c. (who ministred to the Church, as any thing was revealed to them, the great Evangelical Qua­lification to the Ministry) in our dayes.

3. But why should Tho. Hicks therefore degrade the Dispensation because the People are not yet fit­ted to It; or oppose the Means used to b [...]ing them to It, to the End for which the Means are employ'd; Besides, is it Man's Teaching, or Christ by and through Man? God was in Christ; and Christ in his Ministers reconciling the World unto himself, that he might be the Immediate Priest, Prophet and King to the Souls of People. Might not the same Objection be more colourably made against the Apostle John, who at that time wherein the Churches were so weak, 1 John. 2.27. and the Means so many, and late­ly establish't, said unto them, But the A­nointing which ye have receiv'd of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any Man teach you, but as the same Anointing teacheth you of all things, and is Truth, and is no Lye; And even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him: Where he is so far from meer Man's Teaching (T. Hicks's only Teaching) that by his words one would think, the Churches to whome he wrote, had as well been gathered without Means, as that he admonished them to abide in that holy Unction, as Sufficient to their Instruction and Comfort: There­fore let him go ask the Apostle John, why Men were to attend upon the holy Anointing as Sufficient; not withstanding thos [...] Means then provided? And the Answer to that Question will be ours. But [Page 129] here is the Darkness of the Man from our denying of empty Ʋnauthoriz'd Imitations he infers our Denyal of such Means as God's Power uses; and from out Using such Means to our Contradicting our selves, and Immediate Teaching: and because we use Means in God's Power, to bring People to God, the Judge of all, that he may be their Judge and Law-giver, and that from his Immediate Hand they may receive Wisdom, Knowledge and Comfort, he ignorantly concludes that Men, where they are, ought not to have Means us'd to bring them to this Blessed State; but that God should Immediately teach them there.

4. I charge him with another Lye, in saying that we appoint Ministers before hand to speak in such a a place, at such a time, Ibid. and much less that the End of our Meeting is to decoy, trapan and inveagle others, as he scoffingly and falsly insinuates. We deny the Sug­gestion, and renounce and judge such Practices by that pure Spirit that hath otherwise taught us; God preserve us from that dry, Hireling Custom, and Pra­ctice of Tho. Hicks, who will avenge our Cause upon the Head of this Ungodly Slanderer. But he thinks he has uterly foyled us in his Representation (in­deed Perversion) of our Belief about the Seed, which though spoken to some distance before, yet I am willing to say something to it, least it be taken for granted, and his scurvy Names accounted due Titles to such miserable Wretch­es as he endeavours to render us. The Objection en­tirely is this.

[Page 130] You say, that the Work of the Ministry is to point People to this Seed; That to the Carnal Mind, which rules in any, the Commands of Christ are not given; And that the Spirit not only manifesteth the Promises, but ex­erciseth Faith in, and fulfils them; out of E.B. G.K. G.W. p. 106. [...]m. Rev. p 77, 78. Chr. Asc. p. 10. Query Is [...]othi [...]g else taught but this Seed, then your Min [...]stry is only God Preaching to Himself? &c. Will you [...] of Infallibility, and Talk like Mad-Men? YOU ARE IMPLACABLE ENEMIES TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; MEN INSPIRED BY SATAN, AND AS VILE IMPOSTORS AS EVER WERE. Here stop a while.

Certainly, Reader, No Man was ever given up to a Spirit of greater Injustice, Dishonesty and bitter Rage against any People then T. Hicks seems to be against us: He does not so much prove us Bad, as he would make us so, that he may cover his Wicked­ness against us. What false Doctrine is it, to preach People to the Seed God has sown, in which is Vir­tue, Life and Power, to bring forth blessed Fruits to God? To suggest from thence, that there is nothing to be taught but the Seed, is great Darkness and Prejudice; For the Ministry is not to teach the Seed, but to bring down, and humble the Mind of Man to it, that the Mind may be taught, and the Seed delivered from under the Pressure of Sin and Ignorance. Strange Contradiction, that the Seed should be sown in Man for its own Salvation, and not for Man's! [Page 131] What but Wickedness it self could thus write of us?

And that the Carnal Mind receives not the Things of God, because it perceives them not, is ac­cording to Scripture, if not according to Tho. Hicks. But it is not the first time by many, that Scripture in a Quaker's Book has been given under that Name, for gross Error and Delusion. That the Spirit mani­fests the Promises, exerciseth Faith in, and fulfils them, cannot be False Doctrine, if it be allowed to give a true Understanding of them, and if it gives to exercise Faith in them, and finally, to accomplish or fulfil them. But his Insinuation lies here, that the Spirit of God is that which believes in God, and exercises Faith for it self in God, which was ne­ver G.W's Intent. But as I have said, the Spirit is that only which gives us Faith, and exerciseth that Faith it gives in the Promises of God, which are Yea and Amen in that Seed, the Quakers preach People to be­lieve and grow in; for which T. Hicks is pleased to call us Praters, Canters, Enthusiasts, Mad Men, Idle, Non-sensical, Blasphemous, Inspired of Satan, and as Vile Impostors as ever were, &c. For which God Almighty rebuke his Envious, Enraged and Unclean Spirit.

CHAP. XII.

THe last great Doctrine he insinuates our De­nial of, is that of the Resurrection from the Dead. Dialog. p. 57. That which he brings under the Quaker's Name, as a sufficient Proof for that Suggestion I shall relate, that every Impar­tial Reader may be satisfied of the Man's Inconsi­stency with sound Doctrine, as well as the Common Justice of Doing as he would be done by.

In Answer to his Questions about the Resurrecti­on of the same Carnal Body that Dyes, he brings in G. Whitehead thus:

‘ Q. Is it not written, Thou Fool, that which thou sowest is not the Body which shall be, but God gives a Body as pleaseth him?’

Thus (saith Tho. Hicks) Whitehead replied; and G. Fox the Younger speaks to the same purpose. ‘Two Fools that say, This Body of Natural Flesh and Bones shall rise. I say, The Body which is sown, is not the Body which shall be.’ I query, (saith he) Whether both these Persons do not tacitly deny the Resurre­ction of the Body?

Now that T.H. hath shown himself at once Dis­honest and Erroneous too; Let it be observed, 1. That from our Denyal of the Resurrection of the [Page 133] same Natural, Fleshly Body, he absolutely infers and concludes our Denyal of the Resurrection of the Body in any Sense; which is great Injustice to any Adversary. 2. Let it be well observed, that he makes the Scrip­ture it self to deny the Resurrection, and so Heterodox, by Accounting G. Whitehead and G. Fox their Answers in Scripture-Language, to be a Denyal of the Resur­rection: For if Thomas Hicks does not intend by his Arguing, That the same Body that dyed, without any Mutation shall rise again, what makes him to quarrel the Apostle Paul's saying. Thou Fool, that which thou sowest is not the Body which shall be; and re­pute us Hereticks for believing him?

Certainly his gross Belief of the Resurrection is inconsistent with Scripture, Reason, and the Belief of all Men right in their Wits in the Point. Who can have the Confidence to call the Scripture his Rule, and yet Contradict it so egregiously, as when the Apostle tells us, It is not the same Body that is sown that shall be, to assert, that it is the same Body, and that who sayes the Contrary, denies the Resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Recompence? In short, We do acknowledge a Resurrection in order to E­ternal Recompence, and that every Seed shall have its own Body, and rest contented with what Body it shall please God to give us; But as we are not such Fools as curiously to enquire What? so must we for­ever deny the gross Conceits of T.H. and his Adhe­rents concerning the Resurrection.

But Tho. Hicks would have us believe, that the Apostle said Thou Fool, to him that denyed, and not him that owned the Resurrection; But he must excuse us if we refuse to Credit him; for it was not, Whe­ther [Page 134] every Seed should rise with its own Body, or that Bodies should rise; but, as taking that for granted, the Question was, What Bodies they should be? So that T [...]ou Fool is most due to T. Hicks and his Associates, who are not with us, satisfied to leave all with the Lord, but intrude and query, What Bodies shall rise? Wherefore no Answer can be more proper to him then, Thou Fool (Thomas Hicks) That which thou sowest is n [...]t the Body that shall be.

But he thinks he is not without Reason; For, sayes he, Dialog. p. 58. If the It in the Text be not the same Body, how can that be called a Resurre­ction; for that supposeth the same?

I Answer, If a thing can yet be the same, and notwithstanding changed, for Shame let us never make so much Stir against the Doctrine of Trans­substantiation; for the Absurdity of that is ra­ther out-done, then equalled by this Carnal Re­surrection.

The Papists say, That the Bread and Wine after Con­secration are very Christ, though the Accidents remain. Tho. Hicks, and abundance of that sort of Men hold, That Man's Body in the Resurrection is the same with that Carnal Body buried, and yet that it is changed to a Spiritual Body: How it is possible that It should be the same, and not the same? How that Body, and yet, as the Apostle sayes, Thou sowest not that Body that shall be, is very hard to reconcile.

And truly, that which yet is very strange, Those Three Scriptures peculiarly cited in Defence of his gross Conceit of the R [...]surrection, are either relative of another Matter, or directly opposite to, and in­consistent with his Assertion.

[Page 135]1. And this Mortal shall put on Immorta­lity, Dialog. Ibid. this Corruptible shall put on Incorruption, 1 Cor, 15.53.

I grant that this implies a Change; but I deny, that it so much as intimates, that Men shall rise with those very Carnal Bodies that were buried. No, the Apostle not only tells us, that the Body sown is not the Body that shall be, but that Flesh and Blood can­not inherit the Kingdom of God, vers. 50. If the Flesh and Blood be transmuted, or changed into no Flesh and Blood, I query (and I think I may do it safe­ly too) Whether It be the same Flesh and Blood that is changed into no Flesh and Blood, that is the Body raised? O Absurd, Dark and Carnal Man!

Nor am I afraid to tell him, that the Scripture can­not rationally be taken strictly, as translated (nei­ther ought many more) for there are certain Fi­gures, Modes and Wayes proper to that Language in which this Epistle was written, which are to be un­derstood with Allowances; for how can the Mortal (taken for Mortality, and not him who in part is Mortal) put on Immortality; It is Impossible. Can Mortality be cloathed with Immortality? then it seems that Mortality is the Person, and Immortali­ty the Garment. If Thomas Hicks should tell me, No; it is meant that the Mortal Body should be changed into an Immortal Body, it follows that he is gone from the Letter of the Text into an Inter­pretation, as well as that it contradicts his absurd Identity or Sameness of Body: If so, it is as Law­ful for me (and more, if in the Right) to construe [Page 136] It thus, That we, who are Mortals respecting our Bodies, put off the Mortal Part, and put on instead thereof Im­mortality; 2 Cor. 5.1. suitable to that weighty Passage of the Apostle Paul, For We know that if our Earthly House of this Tabernacle were dis­solved, we have a Building of God, an House not made with Hands, Eternal in Heavens; which as directly concludes the Charge, not of Accidents, but Bodies, from an Earthly House or Tabernacle, to an Hea­venly House or Building, as ever any thing can be spoken by Men or Angels.

To conclude, Since Mortality can not proper­ly put on Immortality, but Man that is cloathed with Mortality, may put off or exchange Morta­lity for Immortality, because otherwise Mortality would have Immortality for its Garment; a thing impossible and absurd; I do infer that this place yields no Strength at all to Thomas Hicks's gross Ap­prehension of the Resurrection.

2. His next Scripture is that in the Romans, But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the Dead, Rom. 8.11. dwell in you, he that rais'd up Christ from the Dead, shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

But this is nothing to T.H's Purpose in the least; For the Apostle treats not here of the Resurrection of Dead Carnal Bodies in our Adversary's Sence, as the whole Chapter seriously read proves; but of the In­ward Work of the Spirit, in order to the making Man's Body a fit Temple for the holy Ghost to dwell in, as he writ to the Corrinthians.

[Page 137]3. The third place he brings, is out of the E­pistle Paul, writ to the Philippians: He shall change our Vile Bodies: Upon which he say [...]s, This cannot be meant of a New-created Bod [...], because such a Body cannot be said to be either Vile or Changed.

But what makes this for his Conceit? Surely nothing; For if the Ʋile Body he changed, then it is not that Vile Body; therefore not the same Bo­dy. Again to say that Scripture can't be meant of a New-Created Body, because such one can't be said to be either Vile or Changed, makes much against him: For 1. It is to say that the Body that shall be, is Vile, else what means his Saying Because such a Body cannot be said TO BE (not to have been) either Vile or Changed. 2. Though the Body That shall be, may not be said to be either Vile or Changed, yet it may be given of God in lieu of a Vile Body, and so the Vile Body Changed for one that is Glorious. It was either Ignorantly or Sophistically done in Thomas Hicks to imply. That Body that shall be, could not be said to be Changed, since the Change lies on the side of the Vile Body, that is exchanged for a more Glorious Body; Therefore all along we must conclude, it is not the same, but another Body. But how Disingenuous is Tho Hicks to repute G.W's Answer in the Apostle's Words, a pressing the Metaphor too far, and yet by so doing, runs himself into this Dark Imagina­tion of a Fleshly Resurrection.

But Tho. Hicks thinks, The Joyes of Heaven Im­perfect else.

[Page 138] I Answer; Is the Joy of the Ancients now in Glo­ry Imperfect? or are they in Heaven but by halfes? If it be so Unequitable that the Body which hath suffered should not partake of the Joyes Celestial; Is it not in measure Unequal that the Soul should be rewarded so long before the Body?

This Principle brings to the Mortality of the Soul (held by many Baptists) or I am mistaken: But why must the Felicity of the Soul depend upon that of the Body? Is it not to make the Soul a kind of Wid­dow, and so in a State of Mourning and Disconso­lateness, to be without its Beloved Body? which State is but a better sort of Purgatory. See T.V. and T.D.

What made the Apostle willing to be absent from the Body, 2 Cor. 5.8, 9. that he might be present with the Lord, if such a Dissolution brought Sadness instead of Joy, as our Adversaries in the Point of the Resurrection suggest, if not boldly affirm? In short, If the compleat Happiness of the Soul rests in a Re­union to a Carnal Body, for such it is sown, then never cry out upon the Turks Alcoran; for such a Heaven and the Joyes of it, suite admirably well with such a Resurrection. The Reasons I have to give against this Barbarous Conceit, I thus Contract.

1. Because that the Scripture speaks of a Dis­solution and no Resurrection of that which is dis­solved, being Earthly, and Unfit for a Celestial Paradice; and therefore holds forth a Building of God, and House Eternal in the Heavens.

[Page 139]2. If the Body be the same, it must have the same Nature, otherwise not the same Body: But if it have the same Nature, it will be Corruptible still: Mortal Seeds bring forth Mortal Natures, not Im­mortal; Neither can Mortal be Immortal, and yet the same Nature as before; for that Change made, tell me, What remains of the Old Earthly Body?

3. It makes the Soul Uncapable of Compleat Hap­piness without a Fleshly Body, as if Heaven were an Earthly Place to see, walk in, and all our Out­ward Senses to be enjoyed and exercised, as in this World, though in an higher Degree; which I call Mahometism: For what Spiritual Happiness the Bo­dy now can have, respecting God, is derived through the Soul to the Body, and not through the Body to the Soul. Besides, if so great a Change or Altera­tion pass upon the Body, how is it that Carnal and Sensible Body that suffered? And how can that same Body be equally sensible of Celestial Delights? for the Flesh & Blood that suffered is not to enter God's Kingdom; and if that very same Carnal Body en­ter not, which sustained any part of the Tribulati­ons, the great Knot is broken, and our Adversary's strongest, if not only Plea, is rendred Invalid: For if the same Natural Body, Parts and Senses, consisting of Living Flesh, Blood and Bones, that suffered and dyed, rise not, another is given in which the Children of the Resurrection (who have suffered in the Flesh) have their Recompence: and if they do so strictly rise as they dyed, then every Man is to rise Married, Low, High, Fat, Lean, Young, Old, Homely, Handsom, and according to former Com­plexion [Page 124] and Sex: And which is yet more Unreaso­nable, This Body is to be Ʋncorruptible, Immortal, Spi­ritual, Fashioned like Christ's Glorious Body, and as the Angels of God. May our Adversary blush at these Dark Imaginations but here toucht upon, because more largely handled else-where? Only I cannot but signifie, that this Sort of Resurrection pleaded for, is renowned by some Baptists, and several other more Clear-sighted Professors.

For our Parts, A Resurrection we believe, and of Bodies to, unto Eternal Life. What they shall not be, I have briefly said and proved; What they shall be we leave with God, who will give every one a Bo­dy as pleaseth him, and THOU FOOL, belongs to the Unnecessary Medler.

CHAP. XIII.