IT is well known to all that are but a little acquainted with the Faculties and Writ­ings of the Quakers, that their usual methods, are to cry out against all that oppose or detect their corrupt notions; as such that abuse and defame an Innocent and Religious People: But amongst the many causeless out-cries they have proclaimed in the World, I have not seen one for its magni­tude that hath out-done a small parcel of slan­derous confused Railleries, that lately was Mid­wiv'd into the World, and Fathered by George Whitehead: which if there be a Wise Man amongst them, it appears strange that it had not been stifled in the Birth, rather than such an ill shapen Cub should have gone forth in­to the World to declare it self Legitimate, [Page 2] and publish it self the true Off-spring of a Quaker. But we must take it as it is, and in the Title Page G. W. saith, our Book is a de­saming confused Book. Answer. I suppose a great part of it must needs be confused, being taken out of your own confused Writings; the reconciling of which to themselves, is as easie as bringing together the South and North Poles. 2. He calls it a defaming Book. Answer: It defames no Mans Person, nor indeed your Principles, any further than your Tongues and Pens did it first of all; for it Treats of your professed notions, which if false, are deser­vedly exposed, nothing being a more destru­ctive evil in our day, than for falshood to be carried on in the World with Fame and Ap­plause.

But to come to your Book it self: Could you suppose that any thing was contained in it to the purpose? I cannot imagine what you could think of it. If you had said any thing to­wards reconciling your former Writings with your late professed Faith, you had done some­thing to the purpose; do you think that any whose Eyes are in their Heads, will not easily see that your defects in Truth aud Reason are supplied with Slanders and Railings? You tell us, p. 5, 6, 7, 8. ‘We have shewed our en­vy and bitterness; yea, we appear Envious against your present Liberty, as Men of En­vious, Turbulent, Persecuting Spirits, &c.’ Why, what's the matter? ‘why our Book de­fames the Quakers as a People of a Religious [Page 3] Society, &c. who have solemly and sincerely declared to the Government, That they own and believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and desire to live in the Faith, Knowledge, and Practice of them, and that they believe in the Three Divine Witnesses bearing Record in Heaven, the Fa­ther, Word, and Holy Spirit, and the Di­vinity and Humanity of Christ, and Justifica­tion by Christ's Works, Righteousness and Merits,’ and not by their own: This and much more in their professed Faith, whereunto I re­ferr the Reader: Now we have gone and pub­lished to the World, wherein the Writings of their chief Guides do directly oppose and con­tradict this Confession of Faith, from which G. Whitehead concludes, ‘That by this we would make void one Condition of their pre­sent Liberty, p. 6. As People not fit to be tolerated, now have their Liberty of Con­science, p. 7. And saith G. W. No doubt had these angry Anabaptists power, we should not enjoy our Liberties, the very Nature and Tendency of these their bitter lying Invectives, being to bring Persecution upon us, as a Peo­ple not to be given any credit unto in our Solemn Profession before Authority.’ To all which I Answer, First, We did not know till our Book was Published, that you had pro­fessed this as your Faith before the Parliament. And secondly, we must the more admire your Presumptuous confidence herein, that you should so affront the Government; except you [Page 4] had at the same time renounced your former Writings, that so evidently contradict it.

And whereas you falsly charge us with per­secuting Spirits and Envy, it is well known that our principles, are and ever were that none ought to be persecuted for their Religious Principles or Notions; no not the Papists them­selves, so long as they live peaceably in sub­jection to Authority and the Civil Govern­ment: yet had they come and set up a Mass-House at Deptford; and that they might the more effectually prevail upon the Ignorant, and easi­lier proselyte them to their Idolatry and Su­perstitions, should have published a Profession of Faith directly contrary to their known Princi­ples, and the Writings of their Chief Guides. We should in like manner have looked upon our selves obliged both in Honour to God, and Love to our Neighbours, to have detected their De­ceits. And we freely allow any to examine our published Faith; and if they can find such plain contradictions as aforesaid, we will be content to bear the discredit, and not retali­ate them with Railings and Slanders, nor ac­count them envious Persecutors for it: And now I would appeal to the Light in G. White­head, whether he believes that we envy their Liberty, and would Persecute them had we Power? if he so believes, he is miserably de­luded in that matter; and if he doth not so believe, how willfully doth he sin against the Light in casting these Slanderous Aspersions upon us? ‘What, are we envious Persecutors, [Page 5] Hypocrites, and possessed with an unclean Spirit and lying Devil, p. 5, 8, 17.’ Fie George, are these Thunderbolts fit to be shot at your Antagonists on all occasions? I own that you have some cause to be displeased at our putting you upon a work you cannot possibly do; namely, to reconcile your late Faith with your former Writings: But then you might have called▪ us unreasonable Men, or com­pared us to Pharaoh's Task-masters; for its a work we put you upon that is harder than to make Brick without Straw. And in­deed G. Whitehead appears to have no mind to touch it with one of his fingers, it is so knot­ty and difficult a piece of work: No, it passeth the skill of the ablest Orator with all his Rhetorick, or George Whitehead with all his pre­tended skill in Logick, to do it; and should they go about to do it with their Equivocal Stuff: they know they shall appear in an evil Case.

Well, but it may be some Advocate for the Quakers may be ready to say, That although the Quakers first Original and Ancient Authors of that Antiquity as 1648. and since; for I think they do not pretend to any greater An­tiquity: See John Whitehead's small Treatise p. 4. He saith, That in the year 1648. God, who had Compassion on his People, did cause a Branch to spring forth of the Root of David, which was filled with Virtue for the Covenant of Life, and Peace was with him, &c. and much more matter of this Blasphemous nature you have in the Book and Page aforesaid. But [Page 6] who the degenerate Plant of this strange Vine was, I know not, except James Naylor. And saith John Whitehead, In the year 1655. I be­ing a Branch of this Tree, (viz.) the Branch aforesaid, the Life of this Root, caused me to Blossom and bring forth Fruit, for the Spirit of the Lord came upon me. Ibid. But to return: sup­pose that these Antient Authors did at first and since, till very lately, run into gross and abominable Errors about the Holy Scriptures, denying them to be the Word of God, and Rule of Faith and Practices: and did deny Christ's being at God's right hand in the Glo­rious Heavens beyond the Stars; and did de­ny the Humanity of Christ, and Justification by his Works, Righteousness and Merits, &c. yet they may now have seen their former Er­rors; and it may be by some means they have been convinced thereof, so that now they are become good, Orthodox Christians; and there­fore they have published a Christian-like Pro­fession of Faith, &c. Answer: But then ought they not to have renounced their former Writings that directly contradict it, and then we should have been heartily glad to hear of so great and so happy a Reformation in and amongst them?

But now I think upon it, to put them upon renouncing any of their former Writings or Authors Works, will be a greater affront than the other; and I shall incurr G. Whitehead's dis­pleasure worse than before; for how can they do that, since all their Authors Books, be they [Page 7] ever so full of Railings, Falsities and Blasphemies, yet they intitle them to the Divine Majesty, and his Eternal Life and Light, given forth from his Mouth, and Sealed by his Spirit, &c. So that I see not how they can renounce what they have written, but must look upon all as infallibly true on their account, as the Pope and his Conclave looks upon their Councils, Edicts, and Decrees; so that as the Laws of the Medes and Persians, they are never to be altered or renounced.

Then lastly, which way could the Quakers expect to escape, being defamed or discredi­ted? why it is like they did suppose that the Honourable Assembly in Parliament had mat­ters of greater moment in hand, than to com­pare their former Writings with their new Faith.

So that if we had not concerned our selves to peep into their Writings, and compare them with their newly professed Faith, and publish'd this to the World; namely, That the Quakers former Writings and their late Pro­fession of Faith, are as really alike as an Apple is to an Oyster, and agree as directly as Light and Darkness, it had not been known.

But G. Whitehead saith in p. 6. That this Confession of Faith was sincerely own'd and con­sented to as one condition of their present Liber­ty. Well then we hope you in plainness speak your Faith therein; for if you did dissemble your Principles to obtain your Liberty, it was but a bad way to get at it: But we hope better things.

[Page 8]Now would the Quakers but clear them­selves in these their First and Primitive Errors and corrupt principles in point of Faith, we should be heartily glad to hear thereof.

First, That they would never more deny the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and Rule [...]f Faith and Life; which they have done.

[...]ly, That they would never more ‘am [...] the Scriptures to be of no use in order to the true Knowledge of God.’ This they have formerly done.

Thirdly, That they would no longer ‘hold it to be a sin, Ay, the sin of Idolatry and Breach of the Second Commandment, to take the Pra­ctices of the Saints Recorded, Commanded, or Approved, &c. in the Scriptures for our Examples and Rules:’ This you have done. Fourthly, That they would never more affirm, ‘That whatever is commanded in Scripture is no Duty to us, except we receive the Com­mand by immediate Inspiration as the Pro­phets and Apostles did.’

Fifthly, That they would never more deny ‘the Resurrection of the Bodies of Men from the Graves of the Earth,’ as they have done.

Sixthly, That they would never more deny ‘the Body of Christ of Flesh and Bones to be raised from the Grave, and to be now in the Glorious Heavens above, beyond the Stars.’ This they have also done.

Seventhly, That they would never more deny Gospel Ordinances, ‘as Baptism in Wa­ter and the Lord's Supper, Administred in [Page 9] Bread and Wine;’ which the Quakers do both despise and contemn?

Eighthly, That they would forever renounce this pernicious Tenet, ‘of believing that no Bles­sedness is to be enjoyed by the Saints after Death, the Body never being to be raised to any further Blessedness, no more than [...] en­joyed a thousand years before they [...]; and that the Soul is part of God, came [...] [...]rom God, and shall return into God again, being part of his Essence.’

Ninthly, That they would never more deny ‘Justification by Christ's Works, Righteous­ness and Merits; and for time to come, never call it a Doctrine of Devils, as they have for­merly done.’

Tenthly, that they would never say and af­firm that ‘the Light within is Christ and God, as they have too commonly done.’

And finally, that they would leave off their Billings-gate Complements, and learn to treat their Antagonists more moderately and mildly; for evil Communications will corrupt all their good Manners, if they have any: And waiting for this Reformation in them, I shall now pro­ceed to examine G. W's long Story, and loud Out-cries about the Westmorland Petitioners; which is my next Work.

About the Story of the Westmorland Petitio­ners, G. W. spends several pages in cavelling with what I say, Antichrist in Spirit, &c. pag. 78. namely, That Quake [...] is not de­rived from a Person, but from [...] Gesture used [Page] much amongst the Quakers, formerly in 'their Meetings, as was manifest by what was alled­ged against them by the Westmorland Petitio­ners; who alledged that their practice did ex­ceedingly savour of Sorcery, because of the Swellings, Quakings, Roarings and Foam­ings that were amongst them in their Meetings. I also cite the Quakers Answer to this Petition, p. 35. where they deny not Swelling, Foaming, and Quaking: But they deny Sorcery and Bla­sphemy; they justifie their Quaking and Trembling, as being used by the Saints of old, &c. James Naylor, p. 16, and 17. of his Book, The Power and Glory of the Lord, &c. urgeth many Scriptures to prove their Name, by justifying this practice, saying, That holy Men of God do witness Quaking and Tremb­ling, &c. Now what is this but a plain gran­ting all that I bring the Instance for? I say the same may be said of wicked Men and Devils: But this is therefore no discriminating Cha­racter of Christianity or Saintship: For Acts 24. 25. wicked Felix did tremble: And James 2. 19. It is said, the Devil believes and trem­bles: And Luk. 9. 39. we read of him that was possess'd that he foamed, &c. But G. W. asks whether we were Eye or Ear-witnesses of these Gestures. He answers in the Negative, No. But how can G. W. tell but we have seen such Gestures amongst them? for my own part I have seen them quake and foam at the Mouth: Besides several that have been Eye and Ear­witnesses of [...]. But, saith G. W. You had [Page 11] this from the Westmorland Petitioners: And what were they but a Company of envious, persecuting Priests and Magistrates. Answer, no doubt but this is the best Language you can afford any that give the clearest Demonstra­tions of your corrupt Notions and deceivable Gestures.

Then observe what a long run G. W. takes after his own shadow, and then falls a fighting with Men of Straw of his own setting up: Saith he, ‘We deny your Story of Swel­lings and Foamings, as charged upon us, or our Meetings in Westmorland, &c.’ Answer, then you do not deny Quaking, Trembling and Roaring; so that there remains as much and more undenied, as the Instance is brought for, as any may see in Antichrist in Spirit, p. 78. Again you say your Meetings in Westmorland are clear of it. I ask George Whitehead, do I say that you and your Meetings in Westmorland did use to swell and foam? Is there any such thing said or asserted, that you swelled and fo [...]med there? Suppose you formerly used to q [...], tremble, roar, swell and foam at the [...]-Mouth in London, or elsewhere, the Westmorland Petitioners may say true, for ought we say in our Book, or for any thing you have said yet. But I challenge you to deny if you dare that such Gestures were used amongst you formerly.

Again I shall follow G. Whitehead a little fur­ther in this his impertinent, long run, which he makes a material part of the Bundle of [Page 12] Stuff in his slanderous Libel: Saith he, p. 13. ‘Set Case any have been disordered through some natural Infirmity, Distemper, Swoun­ing or Falling Sickness: What doth this affect us or our Meetings on a religious Account; it may be some of your own People's Case?’

Answer, It is strange to me, that G. W. an old Stickler for Quakerism, should think to put off the Matter of Fact with such an Equi­vocal Gloss. Do you think that such natural or transient Infirmities, that are insident to Men, were the occasion of the Westmorland Pe­tition, and other Charges of the same Nature, or of what I and many others have seen? Sure­ly if you think so, no body else will.

And how impertinent is your next Supposi­tion? Say you, ‘suppose it should be made appear that divers Anabaptists, after they have been dipp'd and received into Church-Fellowship, have run mad or distracted, and others guilty of great Enormities, how would this affect either your Church-profession or Societies?’ p. 14. Answer, you speak here to none of us, the Name Anabaptists we never owned, procured, or defended, as you have done your Quaking. And although James Nai­lor justified your Quaking and Trembling; yet here in p. 11. say you, Quakerism is a Nick-name in Derision; and James Nailor in the Title Page of his Book, stiles himself one whom Ish­mael's Brood calls a Quaker. Pray then what is G. W. who so frequently calls us Anabaptists? Is not he one of Ishmael's Brood, according to his [Page 13] own Doctor's Opinion? And since the Name Anabaptists belongs not to us: First, I answer thus, that if any have submitted to Christ's sa­cred Ordinance of Baptism, and are received into Church-Fellowship, &c. and after this shall turn Anabaptists, and provoke God there­by, he may in Justice deprive them of their Sen­ses, and give them up to enormous Acts. Now since you are not ignorant that the Name Ana­baptists belongs not to us, this might serve for an Answer to your impertinent Supposition. But suppose some Members of the baptized Churches, or any other Christian Societies have so done, we believe God can at his pleasure de­prive of Senses and Understanding: And we also believe that the truest Professors, if they have not a constant care and watch, may Apostatize, and run into great Inormities. But what is this to your frequent Gestures of Qua­king, Trembling, and foaming in your Meet­ings formerly? I confess there may be some­thing in it, if you will say that all that used those Gestures amongst you were mad and di­stracted Men and Women: But 'tis like you will be cautious of saying so; it having been so frequent amongst you, lest any should be so ma­liciously untoward; though it may be very na­tural, as to conclude, that Quakerism was first founded, and carried on by mad and distracted Men and Women; for they quaked, trembled, and foamed at the Mouth, &c.

Again, I shall take notice of one more of your impertinent Suppositions, after mention­ing [Page 14] Mark 9. 20, 25, 26. and Luke 9. 39, 42, 43. ‘About the Man that was brought to Christ who was possessed, and the Spirit tore him and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming, &c. now suppose, saith G. W. That in any Meeting of the People called Quakers, such Apparitions or gestures has been, he will not own it to have been frequent, no but in any particular person, that some unclean Spirit hath so torn or disordered her or him; (now observe the Inference) we may charitably be­lieve it has been because Jesus Christ has come in Spirit and Power amongst them, to rebuke and cast out such unclean Spirits and to de­liver them that were infested thereby; when our Friends have been solemnly met toge­ther in Fasting and Prayer in his Name and fear, to wait upon him, and worship him, &c.’

Answer, I would first ask G. W. what Rule or Reason the Quakers can assign for Fasting? my Question is grounded upon Matth. 9. 14. Then came to him the Disciples of John saying, why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but thy Disciples fast not? v. 15. Jesus said unto them, can the Children of the Bride-Chamber mourn as long as the Bride-groom is with them? but the days shall come when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them, then shall they fast: Now I ask you by what Rule you observe days of Fasting, since you really believe that Christ the Bride-groom is really with you, among, and personally in you? Methinks it's strange that you should talk of Fasting; that is a Duty in [Page 15] cumbent upon such as believe Christ's Personal Ascension into the glorious Heavens above, be­yond the Stars; so that he being personally taken from them, though present in Spirit, they are obliged to Prayer and Fasting, and all other Gospel Ordinances, till his second per­sonal and glorious coming. But what the Qua­kers have to do with Ordinances, Prayer, or Fasting, I see not.

2. Neither is there Reason to believe you dare in your Assemblies, in Christ's Name, re­buke any unclean Spirits, lest you meet with the same Answer and Repulse as the seven Sons of Sceva did, Acts 19. 14, 15, 16. And the evil Spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you? And the Man in whom the evil Spirit was, leaped on them, and o­vercame them, &c.

And to conclude my Answer to his long Sto­ry, I ask George Whitehead why he had not de­nied this Gesture of Quaking and Foaming to Mr. John Faldo, who gives him Provoca­tion enough to do it. See his Book, Quakerism no Christianity, pag. 12. Saith he, ‘How generally were their Meetings ( viz. the Quakers,) either silent, or taken up with sudden and violent Eruptions of dismal How­lings and horrid Ravings, Persons suddenly taken, as with the Falling Sickness, shaking and foaming at the Mouth, and some lying flat on the ground as if stark dead? And saith Mr. Faldo, some such things as these I have seen and heard; and that there are undenia­ble [Page 16] Testimonies of it, that are so numerous and notorious, that though now they have almost, if not altogether, left the latter sort of them, they dare not deny that it was so: And if they dare to challenge this with an Untruth, I may requite them to keep alive their Remembrance with a good part of a volume of them.’ Thus far Mr. Faldo, whose Book is signed and approved by 21 Ministers of the Independent and Presbyterian Way.

I needed not to have taken this Pains, since these Gestures are fresh in the Memories of many in this Nation: And George Whitehead hath said nothing that denies the Matter of Fact charged in my Books, p. 6, 7. upon the Quakers: he denies not Quaking and Tremb­ling, which was all the Instance was brought for; and then I think for any Service G. W. hath done the Cause, he had better have said nothing.

3. George Whitehead saith in p. 16. that I have falsely cited, and grosly perverted the Qua­kers Words and Authors, and taken many false things on Credit, not only the Story from the Westmorland Petitioners; but also out of his Brother Tho. Hicks, his abominable Forge­ries and Lyes, in his factious Dialogues: And in p. 8. ‘He prays his Reader to observe, that much of our Book against them is taken out of other Books, and Pamphlets of their Ad­versaries, long since answered and refuted; and their Authority is utterly denied by us, [Page 17] as the Westmorland Petitioners, who were envious Persecutors. Tho. Hicks his abusive Dialogues, who was proved a notorious Forger of Lyes. And a malicious Libel sti­led, Tyranny and Hypocrisie detected.’

Answer. I am inclinable to think G. W. hath said some Truth in what hath been repeated; nay, I do in Charity believe it: then I will shew you what I believe he saith Truth in.

4. Namely, That the Authority of the Qua­kers Adversaries Books is utterly denied by them. I am strongly persuaded G. W. saith Truth in this; for they that can deny the Authority of the Scriptures, being the only Rule of Faith and Practice, when alledged a­gainst them, may well deny the Authority of all Books wrote against them whatsoever, tho' the Matter be ever so true.

2. As to the rest asserted by G. W. I will not tell him he lyes: But I am well satisfied he is departed very far from the Truth. And as to that Book, Tyranny and Hypocrisie de­tected, It treats chiefly of the Usurping and Lording Authority that some of the Quakers assumed over others, and of others opposing and contradicting them, as might be made ma­nifest. And as to what instances I bring from that Book, as Josias Coal's Letter from Berbal­dus to George Fox, giving him those blasphe­mous Titles; mention'd, Antichrist in Spirit unmask'd, p. 43. or any other passage from thence, cited by me, let G. W. deny them, as to Matter of Fact, if he dare.

[Page 18]3. As for Mr. Hicks his Dialogues, that George Whitehead calls Lyes and Forgeries, and the Author a notorious Lyer and Forger, &c. It had been much more to purpose had G. W. shewed us what some of those Lyes and Forgeries were. I have, it's true, examined the Quakers Appeal by way of Charge against Tho. Hicks, wherein they charge him with Lyes, and Slanders, and Forgeries, and what not; and I have perused Mr. Hicks's Answer to their Appeal, where Mr. Hicks clears himself both of Lyes and Forgery. I find his Answer to their Appeal, subscribed and approved by no less than 22 Persons of Credit, who testi­fie that they have compared Tho. Hicks his Ci­tations with the Quakers Books, out of which they were taken, and find them truly cited; then let the Reader judge who is the Lyer, Tho. Hicks, or G. W.

Again G. W. seems to be angry with my Ci­tation out of Mr. Hicks's Dialogue, p. 24, 25. In Antichrist in Spirit, p. 14, 15. As for us, had the Scriptures never been, we could have known what is therein contained: I have also heard this from a Quaker my self. But G. W. was not so fair as to mention this, though it was the ground of my Demand. And let the Reader observe what an apparent Perversion George Whitehead makes of my Words, and the occasion of them, p. 18, 19. of his Pam­phlet, after he hath charged us with Forgery. Now pray observe, saith he, what strange Test or Proof your Agent Edw. Paye puts up­on [Page 19] us to evince an immediate Inspiration. G. W. knows this Question was demanded, to prove what is before mentioned: Namely, that had the Scriptures never been, they could have known what was therein contained. Now if this be so, then let the Quakers resolve me what those things were that Jesus did, that are not written, Joh. 21. 25. or what were the Con­tents of that writing on the ground, Joh. 8. 68. Or else let their proud boasting of immediate Inspirations be condemned to perpetual silence, &c. Saith G. W. ‘Hereupon you have pas­sed unjust Judgment, and falsely charged us with proud boasting; and argued absurdly against immediate Inspiration, as if none have the Spirit of Christ, unless they know and can declare all things that it knows.’

I answer, It is a strange thing to me, that G. Whitehead doth not see that he condemns himself whilst he is judging another; and it is a lamentable thing that the Quakers will admit of no distinctions: But it verifies that true Proverb, that the want of distinctions are the cause of mistakes. Here G. W. will not ad­mit of a distinction, betwixt immediate Inspi­rations, and the mediate or more common Gifts of the Spirit. Now all Christians that I know of, will admit of this distinction, That it is one thing to be immediately and extraor­dinarily endowed and inspired with the Holy Ghost, as the Prophets and Apostles in their Prophecies and Writings were; and another thing to have such common and more imme­diate [Page 20] Gifts and Graces of the Spirit, that are promised by Christ to them that obey him, as a Seal of their present Acceptance, and fu­ture Inheritance. The use of these more im­mediate or common Gifts, are to help our Infir­mities, and to bring to remembrance our Lord's revealed Will in his Word: Things that are secret, and not written; not at all be­longing to us, but to the Lord. But observe G. W's plain perversion of my Words. ‘First, saith he, as if none have the Spirit of Christ, unless they know and can declare all Things it knows.’ Do I demand of you to tell me all things that Jesus did, or that the Holy Spi­rit knows? You know I do not; and then what an idle Evasion is this?

And because we pretend not to immediate or extraordinary Inspirations; therefore we come short of being Christ's Ministers or Ambassa­dors, and have shut our selves out from any share in the Spirit of Christ, or Divine Inspi­ration; and how then will you prove your Call to baptize People in Water.

Answer, Then by G. W's Logick, because we do not pretend to such immediate and ex­traordinary Inspirations, as to know what had been contained in the Scriptures, had they never been written: We fall short of being Christ's Ministers or Ambassadors, and have shut our selves out from having any share in the Spirit of Christ, &c. One that hath but his Senses, would be inclined to think that this Consequence is much beside the Truth; and [Page 21] yet if this be not true, G. W. cannot imagine how we can prove our Call to baptize People in Water. But to inform him in this Matter, we have a sufficient Call for it, from the Com­mission of Christ our great Prophet, who is to be heard in all things, Matth. 28. Mark 16. And the frequent Examples of the Apostles, who admonish and exhort us to be Followers of them as they are of Christ, and to keep the Or­dinances as they were delivered; so that we need not immediate Inspirations for our Call or Authority herein. But I am persuaded G. W. hath made use of these many nonsensi­cal Quibles to evade resolving the Question. Now let him resolve me in some of those things that Jesus did, that was not written, and what was wrote on the ground: And let him or any other Quaker do it, either by a mediate or immediate Inspiration or Revelation: And if they cannot do it, then let their proud boast­ings of immediate Inspirations, Revelations, and Knowledge in things above what is writ­ten, cease for ever, &c. And I shall still wait for an Answer.

Again, p. 21. Saith G. W. ‘To deem them Impostors that say Christ is within thee or them, is to render the holy Apostles Impo­stors, who preached Christ within, the Word nigh in thy heart, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. which therefore was not separate from them, and only at a distance; yea, and to render themselves also Impostors, who have con­fess'd the same Truth of Christ within; re­ferring [Page 22] to our Book, p. 22, 23, 69. Anti­christ in Spirit, &c. Which I refer the Rea­der to.’

Answer. Besides the gross Slanders that G. W. casts upon us, it is a lamentable thing to see how miserably he abuseth the Text, Rom. 10. 6, 7, 8. He only mentioning that part that he thinks is for his Turn: The Word is nigh in thy heart, leaving out, In thy Mouth, even the Word of Faith which we preach; which the Apostle there explains thus, If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, &c. Can any thing be more clearly expressed, ver. 9. Yet G. W. will not distinguish betwixt the Word of Faith that the Apostles preached, and the Object of Faith to whom this Word directs; and because we cannot, neither did the Holy Apostle understand the Word here to be Christ: Therefore G. W. is so daringly confi­dent, that he charges us with rendering the holy Apostles Impostors, and our selves also.

I shall spend no more time on this Particular, but leave the impartial Reader to judge of G. W's gross perversion of this Text. And in p. 22. George Whitehead charges me with wronging and abusing them about the Titles of their Books, as if higher than they give the Holy Scriptures; perverting them, by leaving out the explanatory part of the Titles: And he Instances in H. Smith's Book, A True and Everlasting Rule, &c. Being the first Part of [Page 23] the Title: But I leave out the next following; viz. from God discovered; and for this, here is a loud Out-cry of Wrong, Abuse, and Per­version, &c. I ask G. W. does those Words from God discovered, added to The True and Everlasting Rule, diminish the heighth of the Title? You would persuade your Reader to believe so, or else why do you quarrel at it. The Title was higher than you afford the Scri­ptures before; and one would be under a strong Temptation to believe, that Addition makes it higher and not lower. Now I would se­riously ask G. W. when and how God made this discovery to H. Smith, that the Scriptures are thus useless to guide in the ways of God; and how can you profess in your Faith, that the Scriptures are profitable for Doctrine, In­struction, &c. since there is a sufficient Rule to guide in all the ways of God without them.

Again, saith he, ‘we know none among us, that call the Holy Scripture a dead or carnal Letter:’ And p. 24. he puts us to prove, that the People called Quakers, or any Persons continuing in Society with them, do say; ‘Mark that, that the Holy Scripture is but a dead, carnal Letter; or that we so call the Doctrines or Testimonies contained in them.’

Answer, what may not the Quakers prove or deny at this rate? There are these Difficul­ties proposed: First, we must be sure the Per­sons do at this moment continue in Society with the Quakers. Secondly, that they do now in the present Tense, say, The Scri­ptures [Page 24] are but a dead or carnal Letter; and this is not enough if this be done: For by Scri­ptures they do not mean the Writings or writ­ten Words of the Old and New Testament, but Faith, Repentance, Holiness, &c. p. 22. Though the outward Letter or Writing in it self alone be dead. And, saith G. W. now I leave the Reader to judge whether he doth not own the Charge. And if he will deny that any approved Quaker did ever, whilst so, call the Scriptures a dead and carnal Letter, let him do it if he dare.

Having followed, G. W. in answering his impertinent and absurd Evasions. I shall give the Reader a Breviate of the sweet, convincing Language the Quakers use to treat their Anta­gonists withal: And first I shall begin with Tho. Lawson in his Book against William Jefrey: Thou Image-maker, thou Cockatrice hatching Eggs, Vultures Eye; and this, because William Jefrey said, Christ was ascended with that Body that God raised him from the dead again. Thou Heathen, because W. J. said the Will of Christ was made known by the Scriptures, Thou Lyer, Bundle of Lyes, thou Esau, selling thy Birthright, a Mute for the Night-birds, Cor­morants, Bitterns, Owls, Ravens, Dragons, wild Beasts, Satyrs, Vultures, Screich-Owls; and that because W. G. said that the Saints have not the glorious Kingdom in possession, but by promise: This for Tho. Lawson, the Quaker, in his Book against W. Jefrey, &c.

[Page 25]I shall again mention Famous Edward Bo­roughs in his Answer to Mr. Bennet's 20. Sober Questions, as appears in Boroughs Works in Folio, from p. 29. to 34. a Breviate thereof take as followeth, ‘Thou Reprobate and Child of Darkness, the Light condemns thee, and thy Generation eternally. We Wit­ness thee to be in the Sorcery and Witchcraft. Thou art darkness it self, thou Dragon, thy Queries are conjured in the Black-Art, out of the bottomless Pit; thou Diviner, we Witness thee to be the Beast that Wars with the Lamb, thou Antichrist that lookest at Christ's death at Jerusalem alone: thou art seen with the Light and with it condemned, thou blind Pharisee and Blasphemer, thou Jesuit, art thou pleading for a Christ afar off thee, thou art under the Woe, and from that Woe thou shalt never fly: Let all Peo­ple see whether thou be not a blind ignorant Sot. Here thou replyest thy sottish Questions concerning the Body of Jesus, as the Devil did about the Body of Moses: Thou diso­bedient one upon whom God will render Ven­geance in flaming fire, thou art Accursed, thou Beast to whom the Plagues of God are due, upon whom the Wrath of God must be accomplished; thou art shut out from God for ever, thou blind Hypocrite, thou dark sottish Beast, thou polluted Beast.’ And much more to this purpose you will find in the Book and Pages of Edward Boroughs the Quaker aforesaid. Now is it not hard to be­lieve [Page 26] the Testimony the Quakers give of this Man, namely, that he was a Faithful Servant and Prophet of the Lord? And yet he thus Sentences a Man to Woe and Condemnation for ever; and that for asking some sober and serious Questions.

Take also a Breviate of Mr. Penn's sweet Language to Mr. Faldo, in Answer to his Book, Quakerism no Christianity. See Mr. Faldo's Reply to Mr. Penn's Answer, p. 93. Saith Mr. Faldo, ‘I shall rake but into one of your Books for the following good Language, and leave large gleanings of all these lovely Titles and Eipi­thets you afford me and my Work. 'Behold you Priest, failable, errable Priest, scoffing independent Priest, ungodly Priest, busie Priest, cavilling Priest, over-doing Priest, Anti­christian Priest, Mountebank Priest, this taunting Priest, stingy Priest, mercenary John Faldo, a Quack, a Religious Bone-set­ter, the Priests break-neck; the Priest and his Poppit-play Doctrine, vaunting, strutting John Faldo, insolent Vilifier, ignorance or malice it self, our malignant Adversary John Faldo, ignorance, malice, and revenge; black as Hell it self in malice, impious scoffs, impu­dence, strange impudence, the impudence of his wickedness, sordid pedantry, he vomits his Scriptures, he brings no more to purpose than Toby and his Dog, a Doctrine of Devils, a lye, a lye to be sure, a very lye, devilish falsities, a downright lye, an errant lye, a wicked lye, the last great lye of his second part [Page 27] of lyes, a wicked lye minted out of Hell. Mr. Penn' s Answer to Mr. Faldo, p. 43. 65. 79. 64. 109. 117. 140. 208, 210. 74. 107. 116. 40. 46. 110. 157. 204. 213. 214. 203. 215.’

And much more that follows, being more general Railings and Reflections.

4. Take a Breviate also out of this small bun­dle of Railery, written by G. Whitehead against Edward Paye, Henry Loader, and William Al­cot, thus sweetly worded.

And more such stuff as this; Now doth not this make it manifest that the Quakers are no Changlings. But is it not strange that these peo­ple that call themselves God's Lambs, should act so like raging Bears; and when endeavours have been used to still their ragings, many times their Answer hath been as Tho. Lawson to Will. Jefery, Dost not thou know the Saints shall Judge the World, they being the Saints, and all they condemn, the World.