Querie 1. Whether the Holy Scriptures containing the Old and New Testament called the BIBLE in their plain and literal meaning? Or the Light within, be the certain fixed and standing Rule, whereby to judge and determine matters of contraversie as to Religion?

Here followers the Quakers Answer.

Ans. We believe, that the Holy Scriptures, containing the Old and New Testament (called the BIBLE) as having come from the Spirit of GOD, and being written by Men Divinly inspired, (which we most firmly Believe they were) when they are opened and explained by the same Spirit of GOD which gave them forth, (they being of no pri­vate interpretation, 2 Pet. 1. and 20.) are an Infallible Rule of Faith and Life, unto all to whom GOD hath in his Providence been pleas­ed to communicat them, for they being the things of GOD cannot be understood, but by the Spirit of GOD, 1 Cor. 2. 11.

Remark, This Answer to the 1 Q. being in all appearance sound and orthodox, (if they have no secret reserved meaning) and agreeable to the sense of all sound Protestants, I am heartily glade, that they have deserted the unsound and hetrodox Doctrine, that some of their principal Teachers, both in Scotland and England have vouched in their writtings, in relation to the Holy Scriptures being the Rule of Faith, and therefore the Reader may be pleased to compare this their Answer with what Robert Barclay says (tho I confess that he and G. K. were the soundest and m [...]st Orthodox Writters among the Quakers) in See R. Rs. works pag. 299. his explanation of his 3d proposition among his [Page 7] Theses Theologicae. The principal Rule (saith he) of Christians un­der the Gospel, is not an outward Letter nor Law outwardly written and delivered, but an Inward Spiritual Law ingraven in the heart, the Law of the Spirit of Life, the word that is nigh in the Heart, and in the Mouth, but the Letter of the Scripture is outward of it self a dead thing, a meer declaration of good things, but not the things themselves; therefore it, nor is, nor can be the Chief or Principal RULE of Christians. But least any should mistake him and think that tho he owned them not to be the principal Rule, yet at least he acknowledged them to be a RULE, he immediatly adds § 3 That which is gi­ven to Christians for a RULE and Guide, must needs be so full, as it may clearly and distinctly Guide and Order them in all things and occur­rences, that may fall out. But the Scriptures are not such (as he in­stanceth in several particulars) therefore the Scriptures cannot be a RULE to them. And as they are not a RULE, so nor the Rule, (as he sayeth in another place) As for CHRIST and his Apostles, using the Scriptures for convincing of their Opposers, so do we, and yet this proves not that either he or we judge them pag. 15. near the end to be the Rule whereby to try all things and Spirits &c. The Reader may plainly observe the great inconsistency betwixt what R. B. says and what Andrew Jaffray and his Friends say; They affirm the Scriptures to be an RULE, an Infallible RULE, and an Infallible RULE of Faith and Life, in which they are very orthodox, and I must in Charity believe that in so farr are our Modern Quakers Reformed, and very justly laid aside their for­mer Doctrine. Which is yet more plainly and explicitly delivered by William Penn in his Appendix to the Christian Quaker, for after endeavouring to prove that the Scriptures were never the General RULE, he at last by way of Objection says. Pag 136 But is not the Scripture the RULE of our Day, he answers if the RULE, then the general RULE for pag 137. whatsoever is the RULE of Faith and Life excludeth all other from being general, they being but particular in respect of it self, therefore not the RULE of Faith and Life, but besides, their not being general, I have several Reasons to o [...]ter, and he brings no less then nine or ten Reasons, why they cannot be the Rule of Faith and Life. See [Page 8] George Keith's Book called the Deism of William Penn, &c. Wherein there is a full examination and confutation of William Penns Dis­course of the General RULE of Faith and Practice, and Judge of Contraversie, Printed Anno 1699.

Observe also, what is said in one of their Books, called the Quakers Refuge, p. 17. Whether the first Penman of the Scriptures, was Moses or Hermes, or whether both these are one? or whether there are not many Words, contained in the Scriptures, which were not spoken by INSPIRATION of the Holy Spirit. And in a Book, called Truths Defence, by G. F. and R. H. p. 2d. You may as well Condemn the Scriptures, to the Fire as our Queries.

Q. 2. Whether the Light within, be sufficient of it self, to Sal­vation, without any thing else?

A. Unto such, as are under a moral impossibility, of coming to the knowledge of the Incarnation, Life, Miracles, Crucifiction, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord JESUS' CHRIST, the Light wherewith he inlighteneth every Man, coming into the World, is suf­ficient to Salvation, Ioh. 1. 9. Tit. 2. 11. But where the outward knowledge of the Scriptures is attainable, or the outward History of our Saviour, it is altogether damnable not to believe the same.

R. This Answer to the second Querie, is in my opinion no Answer at all, but a down right shifting the Question, which hath no respect to such, as are under a moral impossibility, of knowing the Life, Death, Miracles, &c. of our Blessed Lord JESUS CHRIST, but to such, as have the means of knowing them, and tho to such it be certainly Damnable, not to believe them, yet that tells us not, whither the Light within, be of its self sufficient to Salvation, without any thing else yea or not, and therefore, I must again intreat, that they may be pleased, Can­didly, and sincerely, to give a plain and direct Answer to the Querie? and this I have the more reason to demand, because Robert Barclay of Urie, at the first giving in of their Answers, be­ing [...]ressed to declare, whether to such as have the means of know­ing the Life, Death, Miracles, &c. of the Holy JESUS, the Light within, was of it self sufficient to Salvation? He answered negatively that it was not, and carried away the Answers to have [Page 9] that insert, as thier Answer to the Querie, which after all was not done. From whence it appears, that either they are not a­greed amongst themselves, about the resolution of this Querie, and so shift the Answering it: Or else, that they are afraid to own the Truth plainly, least thereby they contradict their Antient Friends. And particularly George Whitehood, who plainly asserts in his Antidote, p. 28. That the Quakers are offended with G. K. for saying, the Light within is not sufficient to Salvation without some­thing else. The which Proposition, seing he blames as false, he must hold the Contradictory to be true, that the light within is sufficient to Salvation without any thing else. Yea G. W. hath granted in his Antidote, p. 28. that CHRIST as outwardly Con­sidered, is that something else which G. K. means. And W. P. in his appendix to the Christian Quakers, pag. 158. plainly affirms, that the belief of the History of CHRIST's Birth, Death, &c. is none of the absolute necessaries to our Sal­vation. And in his Quakerism a new Nickname, &c. He saveth, That Faith in the History of CHRIST's out­ward pag. 6 manifestation, is a deadly poyson, these latter Ages has been infected with: and he sayes also in his Rejoynder to I. Fa [...]do, that CHRIST in the Gentiles, is a greater mistery, then CHRIST as he was made manifest in the Flesh, it is strange, that should be counted most miste­rious, which was the introduction to the mistery, and these transactions, counted most difficult, that were by the Divine Wisdom of GOD, or­dained as so many facil representations, of what was to be accomplished in Man, it is to le [...]en. if not totally exclude the true mistery of God­liness, which is CHRIST manifested in his Children, their hope of Glo­ry. p. 335 Like to this, is his saying in his Preface to the Collection of Robert Barclays Book 's. O Reader, (sayeth he) great is the mistery of Godliness, and if the Apostle said it of the mani­festation, pag. 36. of the Son of GOD in the Flesh. if that be a mistery (and if a mistery, it is not to be spelled out, but by the revelation of the Spirit) how much more, is the See also His Christi an Quaker pag. 12. work of Regeneration a mistery, that is wholly inward and spiritual.

Q. 3. Whether the Holy Three, the FATHER, SON, and [Page 10] HOLY GHOST, that bear record in Heaven, be not threedi­stinct Persons of one Substance, Power, Glory and Eternity? Or are they only three manifestations, or operations, and is there not some Incommunicable, as well as Communicable Attributes, be­longing to the Persons of the Holy Trinity?

A. We believe according to the Scriptures, that there are three, that bare record in Heaven, the FATHER, the WORLD, and the HOLY GHOST, and these three are One, 1 Joh. 5. 7. And we do not find our selves obliged, to express our selves, in other terms than the Wisdom of GOD, saw meet to express that great mistery in the Holy Scriptures: But we do believe, that there are incommunicable, as well, as communicable Attributes, in the said Holy three as is wit­nessed, Joh. 1. 14. And the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us, which cannot be said of the other two.

R. In this Answer to the third Querie, it is said, there are incommunicable, as well, as communicable Attributes, in the Holy three &c. And yet G. Whitehead, sayeth in his Truth defending the Quakers. We deny the Popish terms pag. 2. of three distinct Persons, which you call GOD the FATHER, GOD the SON, and GOD the HOLY GHOST, which tends to the di­viding GOD and to the making three GOD's, and do not you Priests, in your Divinity, as you call it, affirm that a Person is a Single, Rational, Compleat Substance, and differing from another, by an INCOMMUNICABLE PROPERTY; and art thou so blind, as to think, that there is such a difference in the God head, seing CHRIST is equal with his FATHER, who is a SPIRIT, then what INCOMMUNICABLE PROPERTY, can he differ in from the FATHER, that is not COMMUNICABLE to the one as well as the other? And Geo Fox (one of the greatest account a­mong them) in his disputing against C. Wade, for saying, that GOD the FATHER never took upon him, Human Nature, which (sayeth he) in his great mistery is contrary to the Scripture. This was the Error of the Old Hereticks, pag. 246. called Patripassians, who held that GOD the FATHER was born of the Virgin, suffered, dyed, &c.

Q. 4. Is not the promised Seed of the Woman, that should [Page 11] bruise the Serpents Head, Gen. 3. 15. The Man CHRIST JESUS, that was born of the Virgin at Bethlehem, in the Land of Iudea.

A. We Answer affirmatively, it is he and he alone, we never in the least doubted it, what ever malice may suggest without the least ground.

R. This Answer may be compared, with what W. P. sayes in express words in his Christian Quaker, p. 97 98. One outward thing (saithhe) cannot be the propper figure of another, nor is it the way of Holy Scripture, so to teach, the outward Lamb shews forth the inward Lamb. The SEED of the promise, is an Holy and Spiritual Principle, of Light, Life and Power, that being received into the Heart, briuses the Serpents head, and because the Seed, which cannot be the Body, (viz. that was outwardly born of the Virgin) is CHRIST, as testify the Scriptures, the Seed is one, that Seed CHRIST, and CHRIST GOD over all blessed for ever. The Reader may see, that its not malice, but that there is too much ground, to suggest the Quakers unsound­ness as to the foresaid Querie.

Q 5. That seed of Abraham to which the Promise was made, that in him all the Nations of the Earth shall be blessed, accord­ing to Gen. 22. 18. Gal. 3. 16 Was it not the Man CHRIST JESUS who according to the Flesh, was the Son of Abraham, and the Son of David, Matt. 1. 1.

A. We Answer affirmatively, yea it was he and none else.

R. With this Orthodox Answer, the Reader may compare what G. W. sayes, in his Truth defending the Qua­kers, it is Queried thus, did Richard Hubberthorn will, pag. 21. in writing that CHRISTS coming in the Flesh, was but a Figure, G. W. Answers, could CHRIST have been said to have been trans­figured, if his coming in the Flesh, had not been a Figure. And in his Christian Quaker, he positively denyes that CHRIST Consisted of visible Flesh and Bones. pag. 139. 140. It is (saith he) both unscriptural, and assurd, to assert that JESUS CHRIST consisteth of a Human Body, of Flesh and Bones, (how then can he be properly the Seed of Abraham, and the Son of David I distinguish (sayeth G. W.) between considing, and having. (CHRIST had visible Flesh and Bones, but he did not consist of [Page 12] them, as a Man hath a Coat or a Garment, but he doth not con­sist of it.)

Q. 6 Had not this Man, a real Soul, that was not the God­head, and a real Body also, that was not the God-head?

A. We answer affirmatively, yea he had both.

R. This Answer may be compared with what G. W. sayes, in his Appendix to the Divinity of CHRIST a­ganist T. D. as to T. Ds telling us of the Son of GODs in­carnation, pag. 18. the creation of his Body, and Soul, the parts of that Na­ture he subsisted in, (note, that Nature, plainly denotes CHRIST's Manhood Nature, that T. D. meant, which had a created Bo­dy and Soul) to this I say, (sayes G. W. if the Body and Soul of the Son of God, were both created? doth not this render him a fourth Person, again where do the Scripture say, that the Soul was created?

Q 7 Is not that outward Man who was born of the Virgin, and suffered without the Gates of Jerusalem, properly and truly the SON of GOD, having no immediat FATHER but GOD.

A. We Answer affirmatively, and fully believe he is so.

R. This Answer to the seventh Querie, being in all appear­ance sound and orthodox, and agreeable to the sense of all sound Protestants, (if they have no secret reserved meaning in this and their other orthodox Answers) wherein they dissent, from the unsound Doctrine of some of their chief Teachers, and there­fore the Reader may be pleased, to compare this their Answer, with what W. P. saves, in his serious Apologie: page 146. viz. But that the outward Person that suffered, without the gates of Jerusalem, was properly the SON of GOD we utterly deny. (Is not this a plain contradiction to what A. J. &c asserts And also W. P. in his Rejoinder, pag 304 305 Say's that outward Person that suffered at Jerusalem was CHRIST by a M [...]tonomy, of the thing containing, having the name of the thing contained.

Q. 8. Is not JESUS CHRIST, both GOD and Man, and yet but one CHRIST, so that his Godhead is not his Manhood, though the Nature of his Manhood, is most highly, and won­derfully united to his Godhead?

A. We Answer affirmatively, and fully believe the same.

[Page 13] R This Answer to the eight Querie, the Reader may compare it, with what one of their Antient Teachers, Christopher Atkin­son sayes, in his Book called the Sword of the Lord drawn pag. 5. Your imagined GOD, beyond the Stars, and your carnal CHRIST, is utterly denyed. To say this CHRIST, is GOD and Man in one Person, is a Lie, and G. W. sayes in his Book, called the Life and Light &c. pag. 39. As for those expressions, GOD Man, be­ing born of MARIE, we do not find them in the Scriptures, nor do we read, that MARIE was the Mother of GOD, but in the Popes Canons, Articles, &c. And what nonsense, (saith he page 47. ibidem.) and unscripture Language, is this, to tell of GOD being co­created with the Father, or that GOD hath Glory with GOD, doth not this imply two GODS? and that GOD had a Father? let the Reader judge? and (page 24.) To tell of the Word GOD, cocreator with the Father, is all one as to tell of GOD, being cocreator with GOD, if the Father be GOD, and this is to make two GODS, two Creators, &c. And thus G. W. opposes the Godhead of CHRIST, as he doth his Manhood in other Quotations, he also denyes, the Glo­rious Hipostatical Union, that it consists of a Human and Divine Na­ture, or that they are hipostatically one. See his Christian Quaker, page. 141. And their Book called, A Testimony for the true CHRIST, pag. 8. Whereof G. W. is supposed to be the Au­thor, they deny the Humanity of CHRIST, as Humanity sig­nifies the Earthly Nature of Mans Body, as coming from Hu­mus the ground; but as Humanity signifies Meekness, Gentle­ness, Mercifulness, as opposite to Cruelty, in this last Sense, they own CHRIST's Humani­ty, See the Quotation at large cited in G. Ks. fourth Narrative p. 70. but deny it in the former, which is the true Sense of Scripture, and of all true Chri­stians. And, as they deny the Humanity of CHRIST, so they deny Divine Worship and Honour to be given to him, and consequently denyes his Divinity, as William Shewen a noted Writer among them, expresly sayes, in his Book called a small Treatise concerning evil thoughts, p. 37. Not to JESUS the Son of Abraham, David, and Mary, Saint or An­gel, but to GOD the FATHER, all Worship, Honour, and Glo­ry is to be given.

[Page 14] Q. 9. Did CHRIST's Natural Body, which was Crucified and was Buried, rise again? And did that Body after his Resurrection, ascend into Heaven? And is that Body now in Heaven?

A. We believe, that CHRIST's Body, which was Crucified and was Buried, did rise again; and did after his Resurrection (being wonderfully glorified) ascend to Heaven, and is now at the Right Hand of the Majesty on high, Heb. 1. 3.

R. This Answer, if they have no secret reserved meaning in it, in all appearance seems Orthodox, and agreeable to the Sense of all sound Protestants. But the Reader may Compare it, with what G. W. sayes, in his Nature of Christianity; pag. 41. What Scripture proof (saith he after his socratical way of writing) is there that CHRIST subsisteth outwardly, Bodily without us, at GOD's Right Hand? and where is GOD's Right Hand? is it visible or invisible? within us or without us onely? And is CHRIST a SAVIOUR, as an out­ward Bodily existence, or PERSON without Us, distinct from GOD, and on that Consideration, to be Worshipped as GOD, yea or nay? But John Whitehead a very eminent and ancient Preacher among them, is more explicit, in his Postscript to a Book called the Quakers Refuge, p. 90. I have several times saith he denyed, that CHRIST hath now a Body of Flesh and Bone, Circumscript or limited in that Heaven which is above, and out of every Man on Earth▪ And G. W. in his Light and Life, pag. 38. is very plain, where he ex­presly saith, the Quakers see no need, of directing men to the type for the Antitype, viz. Neither to the Outward Temple, nor yet to Je­rusalem, either to JESUS CHRIST or his Blood, knowing that neither the Righteousness of Faith doth so direct, Rom. 10.

Q. 10 Is that Heaven, into which CHRIST hath ascended, in the true Glorified Nature of Man consisting of Soul and Body) without us, or within us only? And do you own the Man CHRIST JESUS to be without you, as well as His spirit and Light with­in you?

A We firmly believe that, that Heaven, unto which CHRIST hath ascended in the [...] Glori [...]ed Nature of Man [...] of Soul and Body, is without i [...]: and u [...] do own the Man CHRIST JESUS to be without us, as well as His Spirit and Light within us: Rom 8 34. Heb. 8. 1.

[Page 15] R. This Answer may be compared with what G. F. says in his great mistery p. 214. There is none have a glory and a Heaven but with­in them. Now, if there be no glory nor Heaven without us? Then how can CHRIST be ascended into a Heaven without us? And W. P. redicules the locality of both Heaven and Hell, and sayes in his Rejoinder, p. 179. To deny it, is not very offensive, and that it looks too Carnal, indeed Mahomitan, viz. to assert it W Smith an Antient and Eminent writter among them, in his Catechism, p. 57. has this Question, And is that which is within you, the only founda­tion, upon which you stand, and the principle of your Religion; answer, that of GOD within us, is so; for we know it is CHRIST, and be­ing CHRIST it must needs be ONELY and PRINCIPAL, for that which is ONELY admits not of another, and that which is principal, is greatest in being, and thus we know, CHRIST in us to be unto us the ONELY and the PRINCIPAL. Q But do ye hold that this foundation and principle within you is sufficient to eternal Life? A. Yes we do so▪ And G. F. in his great mistery p. 248 says to C. Wade, The Devil was in thee, and thou sayeth, thou art saved by CHRIST without thee: And G W, sayes in truth defending the Quakers p. 65, That Faith in CHRIST without men, is contray to the Apolles Doctrine. Is this to own the Man CHRIST JESUS to be without us, as A. J &c, asserts they do in their answer.

Q. 11. Are we Justified and Cleansed from Sin, by the Blood of CHRIST that was outwardly shed? And are we sanctified by that Blood meritoriously, as by His Spirit, Grace and Light in us, efficiently?

A. We answer affirmatively.

R. With this affirmative answer may be compared R. Bs 7 pro­position in his a pology p of his works 264, As many (sayeth he) as resit not this Light viz. the Light within, but reserve the same, it be­comes in them a Holy, Pure and Spiritua [...] bringing so the Holi­ness, Righto [...]sness [...] and all those [...] fruits which are acceptable to GOD, by which Holy Birth, viz, JESUS CHRIST formed within us, and working His works in us, as we are Sancti­fied, so [...] in the [...]ight of GOD according to 1 Cor. 6. 11. Here Justification and Sanctification are intirely [...] to [Page 16] CHRIST the Light within, and there is not one word of the out­ward CHRIST, or his outward Blood outwardly shed. Let the Reader also consider what he delivers as his 3 position in p. 370 viz That since good works as naturally flow from this Birth, as heat from Fire, therefore are they of absolut necessity to Justification, as Causa sine qua non, i. e. tho not as the Cause for which, yet as that in which we are and without which we cannot be Justified. But G. W. is a litle more distinct in his 2d part of the Christian Quaker p. 126. (where he sayeth) But what proof hath he from Scripture that the sheding of CHRIST'S Blood was the meritorious Cause of Justification? so through that whole 3d chap. he labours to prove that properly speaking it is by the Spirit and Light, or CHRIST within, we are Justified. And in his Antidote p. 39 He affirms, that the blood of his, viz. (CHRISTS outward blood) as well as the water that came out of his side, had an allegorical and mysterious signification as well as an outward and literal, even of the Spiritual blood and water of Life, which being compared, with what he says in his Light and Life p. 59, in which he plainly denys that the material blood of the Sacrifice, was a type of the material Blood of CHRIST, for that were to say (sayeth he) that material Blood was a type of that which was material, this is to give the substance no pre-eminence above the type. So that tho (as G. K. observes in his 3 Narrative p. 73) G. W. &c. grant, that a man called CHRIST, was outwardly born, dy­ed, had his blood shed &c, yet all this was an allegory, and had an allegorical signification, of CHRIST truly and really (without an allegory) born within them, crucified and dead within them, his blood shed within them, buried, risen, as­cended within them, atonement, reconciliation &c. within them: And seeing they deny the merit and efficacy of CHRIST'S death, and blood without, and of what he did and suffered without us, they are justly charged to allegorize it away, that is, to make no other account of it, then of the History of Hagar and Sarah, and other types, Symbols, and allegories of the Old Testament. W. P. is yet more express speaking of our Justification by the Righteousness which CHRIST hath fulfilled in his own Person for us, he says in his serious Appology p. 148, And indeed this we [Page 17] deny and boldly affirm it, in the Name of the LORD to be the Do­ctrine of Devils, and an Arm of the Sea of Corruption, which does now deluge the whole World. I could quote many more Passages, but I refer to these following, G. Ws. Light and Life, p. 38. 40. &c. W. Batlies Coll. p. 22, 23. 577.

Q. 12. Is it altogether, and wholy, as necessary for us to believe in CHRIST without us, for our Eternal Salvation, as to believe in his Spiritual Light within us? and is not the Faith in the Man CHRIST, as he dyed for our Sins, and rose again, and is at the Right Hand of GOD, and maketh intercession for us, accord­ing to Rom. 8. 34. necessary to be Preached frequently, as well as his inward appearance, by every true Minister of CHRIST?

A. We believe, (as in our Answser to the second Query) that its altogether necessary, for us to believe in CHRIST without us, for our Eternal Sal­vation, where the means of the knowledge thereof can be had: And also that the Faith in the Man CHRIST JESUS, as he dyed for our Sins, and rose again, and is at the Right Hand of GOD, &c. is necessary to be Preached by all true Ministers, as they are led there­unto by the Spirit of GOD, and which is frequently practised amongst us, as may be witnessed by such as come to our Meetings, according to, 1 Cor. 1. 23.

R. The Limitation in this Answer is useless, for I speak on­ly of such as have the means, and as to our Faith in CHRIST without us, R. Bs. sayeth in pag. 9. of his works and where­as thou sayest, you see the Apostles judges the knowledge of CHRIST Crucisied to be that one thing necessary, we deny (sayes R. B.) that the knowledge of His being outwardly Crucified is that one thing necessary, for People must know him in them. And as a confirmation of this, in the second Proposition of his Apologie, page 269. (he sayeth) Which Revelation of God by the Spirit, whither by outward voices, or appearances, dreams, or inward objective manifestations in the heart, were of old the formal object of their Faith, and remains yet so to be, since the object of the Saints Faith, is the same in all Ages, and in Consequence to this last part, he sayes pag. 279. that which now cometh under debait, is what we have asserted in the last place, viz. that the same continueth to be the object of the Saints Faith to this [Page 18] day, &c. here is not one Word of Faith in CHRIST without us, but on the Contrary, the formal object of the Saints Faith, in all Ages is inward Revelations, and the Light within. G. F. sayes in his great mystery, p. 47. The Light which every one hath that cometh into the World, is sufficient unto Salvation, without the help of any other means or discovery. W. P. sayes, Quakerism, a new Nickname, pag. 12. And since they believe that outward ap­pearance, (i. e. JESUS at Jerusalem,) they need not preach what is not to be again. So then by this the Birth, Life and Death, &c. of the Holy JESUS needs not to be Preached, and indeed a great deal of the Bible, is to be laid aside and not Preached, according to this Maxim of W. Ps. and W Bailie, an antient Writer among them sayes, see his Goll. p. 308. and so he taught them to Pray, Our Father, &c. Not to look at his Person, and to pray to him as a Person without them, but bid them pray to the Father. Then by the same Rule, if not pray to Him, we are not to believe in Him, as a Person without us. But the Reader may observe, that how­ever orthodox A. J. &c. seems to be in their Answer, in affir­ming that Faith in the Man CHRIST JESUS as he dyed, &c. (where the meanes of the Knowledge thereof can be had &c) is necessary to be Preached by all true Ministers, yet it is (with this Proviso,) as they are led thereunto by the Spirit, which clause seems to destroy that obligation, which immediatly before they had acknowledged, for suppose any or all the Preachers, among the Quakers be indifferent in this matter, and so quite neglect (as generally they doe) Preaching the Necessity of Faith in the man CHRIST without us, here is a shift ready, they may plead this for their excuse, and say they are not led there­unto by the Spirit of God.

Q 13. Do you Believe that all that were saved in any Age of the World, had their Sins forgiven them, for the Man CHRIST JESUS his sake, and on the account of his most Ho­ly, and perfect obedience unto Death, and that what Light and Grace, all Men ever received from GOD in former Ages, or now receive, or shall her after receive to the Worlds end, it is given to Men, for the Man CHRIST JESUS his sake, by his Purchase and Merits, and Continual Mediation and Intercession?

[Page 19] A. We Answer affirmatively and firmly believe it, Acts 4. 12.

R. This Answer the Reader may be pleased to compare with the Quotations in the Remarks on the 10 and 12. Answers.

Q 16. Do the best works, that any are enabled to perform, even by the assistance of the Spirit; merit pardon of sin and eternal Life?

A We answer negatively, we have no merit, all is of free Grace and mercy through CHRIST Tit. 3. 5.

R. This Answer seems to bespeak a humble and self denyed frame of spirit, and I am very glade to find such come from A. I. &c. But I am sure their Friends books are filled with a great deal of self exaltation, and abasing of all others, and too much spiri­tual pride and boasting of their faithfulness, (as that by and for which they merited or hoped to attain eternal Life) may be too much observed in most of their preachings, and as an evidence for what I say, let the Reader consider what Samuel Fisher sayeth in his Rusticus, &c. p 90. ‘that because evil works (saith he) are the meritorious cause of our Condemnation, therefore good works are the meritorious cause of our Justification.’ See also, p. 84. 88. ibid. and see also G. Ws Voice of Wisdom p. 36.

Q 17. Shall the Man CHRIST JESUS come again and appear without us to judge the Quick and the Dead?

[Page 21] A. We answer affirmatively, yea, He shall, according to these Scrip­tures Mat. 25, 31. Acts 17, 31.

This Answer may be compared with what G. W. says in his Light and Life, p, 41. ‘but three comings (saith he) not onely that in the Flesh at Jerusalem, and that in the Spirit, but also another coming in the Flesh yet to be expected, we do not read of, but a 2d coming without sin unto Salvation which in the Apostles days was looked for.’ And in his CHRIST ascended &c, p. 21. 22. &c. not only denyeth any personal comming of CHRIST yet to be at the end of the World, but denyeth him to have a Personal Existance in Heaven without the Saints and chargeth it to be Anthropomorphism and Muggletonism. See also W. Bailies Coll: p. 29.

Q. 18. Is there any Resurrection of the Dead, that all or any of the Deceased Saints wait for? and doth the same Natural Body, that Dyeth rise again, or is the Resurrection nothing else, but what ye have already or what ye shall have, immediatly after Death?

A. We believe that there shall be a Resurrection both of the Just, and of the Unjust, according to the Scriptures Acts 24, 15 1 Cor. 15, 5. also the same Chap. from 35 to 38 verse, and we believe that the Re­surrection is not already past nor is that which we shall immediatly enter into after Death.

R. By this answer to this 18 Q. A. J. and his friends shift the question intirely, for I know, that verbally they seem to own a Resurrection, but that our Natural Elementary bodies shall rise again they utterly deny and oppose. So G. W. argueth most vio­lently against it in the second part of his Christian Quaker, p. 352. 353. &c. and so doth W. P. in his reasoning against, railing p. 134, 137. If the thing (saith he) can be the same and notwithstanding changed for shame let us never make so much stur a­gainst the Doctrin of transubstantiation, for the absurdity of it is rather out down then equalled by this carnal Resurrection. And R. Hubberthorn sayes, Coll. p. 121 ‘these are they that plead for a life in sin, while they are here, and that say that the Saints glorified in Heaven do yet hope for the Resurrection of their Bodies &c.’ See also, W. P. his Invalidity of I. F. vindication p. 373 &c.

[Page 22] Q 19. Whither outward Baptism with Water, and the outward Supper called the LORDS Supper, be not Divine Institutions and Ordinances of our Blessed LORD JESUS CHRIST commanded by Him to be continued and practiced to the end of the World?

A. First, as for Baptism we believe, that as there is one LORD and one Faith, so there is one Baptism Eph. 4, 5. which is not the puting a­way the filth of the Flesh, but the answer of a good Conscience before GOD, by the Resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. 1 Pet. 3, 21. And this Bap­tism is a pure and Spiritual thing, to wit, the Baptism of the Spirit and Fire, by which we are buried with him, Rom. 6. 4. And puts on CHRIST, Gal: 3, 27. that being purged and washed from our sins we may walk in newness of Life, being risen with him through the Faith of the Operation of GOD: Collos. 2. 12. Of which the Baptism of John was a figure, whose ministry was to decrease, but CHRIST to in­crease, Iohn 3. 30. and who said himself, I indeed Baptise you with Wa­ter to repentance; but He that cometh after me is mightier then I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, He shall baptise you with the HOLY GHOST and with Fire. Mat. 3. 11. Here are two Baptisms mentioned, whereof certainly Johns was the figure, and CHRISTS the continuing substance, and though Johns was continued or practiced for a season yet Paul that great Apostle who was not a whit inferiour to the chiefest A­postles, 2 Cor. 11. 5. expresly affirms, that outward Baptism was not with­in his Commission from CHRIST, read 1 Cor. 1. 17. As for the sprinkling of Infants called Baptism we find neither Precept nor Prac­tice of it in all the Scriptures of truth; and therefore judge it to be a meer humane Tradition. And as for the Outward Supper, we do believe that the communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST is inward and Spiritual (as to the substance) which is the participation of his Flesh and Blood by which the Inward man is daily nourished in the Hearts of those in whom CHRIST dwels; 1 Cor. 10 chap. 16. 17. verses John 6. 32. 33 35 Of which things the breaking of Bread by CHRIST with his Disciples was a figure which they even used in the Church for a time who had received the substance for the sake of the weak, even as abstaining from things strangled and from blood, the washing on an­others feet, and the anointing the Sick with Oyl, all which are com­manded with no less authoriy and solemnity then the former, and the [Page 23] two last of them, as true outward Signs or Simbols of Inward Grace, as the Bread and Wine, yet, seeing they are but the shaddows of better things, they cease in such as have obtained the substance. Acts 15. 20. John 13, 14 Ja. 5, 14. Where these forementioned things are com­manded or institute.

R. It is indeed to be much lamented, that the whole Body of the Quakers every where, is too well agreed as to their disowning and Contempt, of our Blessed SAVIOUR's Institutions, especially Baptism and the LORD's Supper. But A. J. &c. might have given a shorter Answer, for I designed not by these Queries, that either they should prove what they hold, or that I should disprove the same. And therefore for a full Reply, to what ei­ther they have here alledged, or what R. B. and others of the Chief English Teachers, among the Quakers have argued against the Continuance and practice of outward Water, Baptism and the LORD's Supper. I refer the Reader to Geo Keith's Book, called the Arguments of the Quakers against Baptism, &c. wherein they are intirely consuted and fully Answered: And which Book I do not know, that the Quakers have so much as pretended to Answer.