A CONTINUATION of the DIALOGUE BETWEEN A Christian and a Quaker: WHEREIN The truth of those things objected against them in the first part, are fully confirmed: TOGETHER With a further account of their perilous and pernicious Errors CONCERNING. The Person of Christ, His Satisfaction: Justification, Sanctification: The ministry, and Immediate Motions Are in this Second PART Cleerly and plainly represented out of the Writings of some of their Principal, and most Approved Leaders.  
Published for the Common Information of such as either really are, or may be, in danger of being Ensnared and entangled by them.  
By Thomas Hicks.  Tit. 1.10, 11. 
For there are many unruly, and vaintalkers, and deceivers, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre sake.  2 Tim. 3.9. 
But they shall proceed no further, for their folly shall be made manifest to all men—  
LONDON, Printed, for Peter Parker, at the Leg and Star in Cornhill, over against the Royal Exchange, 1673.   

The Epistle to the Reader.  
Reader,  
SAtan's great design against Religion is managed, and carried on, partly by error, and partly by persecution: by that, he instills such notions into the minds of men as may teach them to deny it; by this, he would affright and terrify them from it. The mischiefs he hath wrought by the former; the age where into our lot is fallen, gives us, but too many instances.  
The people with whom I have to deal, though they are least concerned with, yet pretend to the greatest interest in the truth: who being not satisfied with those ways, and methods, God hath revealed, and prescribed in the holy Scriptures, have broken all bounds, cast off the yoke, the known rule; and follow only such impulses, and motions, as hath been given in from him, who designs nothing short of their ruin, by such stratagems: which are so much the more malignant, and effectual towards his intended end, by how much they are more grateful to that proud opinion they have of themselves.  
Some account of their perilous opinions in, and about several important points of the Christian Faith, hath heretofore been given unto you: unto which, I have long been threatened with a solid Answer, though as yet I have not seen any: that piece of impertinency, which G. Whitehead hath sent abroad inno the World, I suppose (though not so called, yet) intended for an answer, wherein, I am rather vindicated, then answered; most or all the material things in difference he passeth by in silence.  
I have, in this second part, presented you with a more full relation of their dangerous Tenets, wherein the truth of my former Allegations against them, are (from their own mouths) fully established, and all Objections that hitherto have occurred to my knowledge, are taken notice of: all which, I shall leave to thy serious Judgement.  
Many of the things objected against them, are so Horrid, that 'tis probable some will not believe them culpable; God forbidden, that I should be guilty of such vile injustice, as to charge them with false things: examine the quotations, and then judge. As for those instances that are not in print, I have such undoubted evidences of their truth, as may satisfy any man.  
From the whole thou may'st be informed that the Quakers Christ, and way of Salvation, is Foreign to what is revealed in the Scriptures. The Doctrines delivered by them are such, as neither themselves, nor any for them, can give us a distinct & intelligible account of. The tendency of all their writings, and declarings, doth but lead people into the thickets of absurd, inexplicable, and unintelligible Dotages.  
They amuse us with the great words of Life and Power, pretend as if they lived under the immediate Influences, though alas, such is their unhappiness, they embrace a cloud, feed on ashes, and know not that a lie is in their right hand, and (which is the more astonishing) many people (not distinguishing between words and things, pretences and real enjoyments) are so easily entrapped and deceived by them: but what shall, we say, If God for the wantonness of persons, under the means of Light, should give them up to a reprobate sense, to strong delusions to believe lies, (to follow and admire, such monsters in Religion) that they may be damned, because they received not the Truth in the love of it, hence when I consider, that God, to glorify his Justice in punishing the wickedness of men, doth permit the Enemy to distract their minds, and to set them on madding after they know not what, on purpose to divert them from those things, which are of immediate concernment to them, I say, the consideration hereof lessens my wonder, when I see such delusions, and impostures prevail. Though to see a people under the Immediate Judgement of God, fancying themselves to be the non-such of the World, for privileges, and enjoyments, is (I confess) matter of deep Lamentation, and Pity.  
'Twill be therefore our interest, and Wisdom, to consider (before it be too late) both what we do, and who, and what we believe We are hastening towards Eternity. To miscarry about our last end will not only be unhappy, but it will prove the utmost compliment of our unhappiness. By nature we are all sinners, and stand guilty before God; if we be unprovided of a meet Righteousness wherewith to appear before the great Tribunal, it will be of perilous consequence. That a complete Righteousness should be spun out of our own bowels (our lapsed condition considered) is impossible.  
That Jesus Christ in his Mediatory undertake for sinners should be improved by us, is apparently denied by these Quakers; so that all mankind are left (according to their principles) under a fatal necessity of perishing. For, if the way and means, which God's infinite Wisdom, & Will, hath constituted, in order to man's eternal welfare, be rejected; in●…in will it be for us to think of another. That thus it is, with these People, the ensuing Dialogue will give you sufficient grounds to conclude.  
The person of Christ they plainly deny, and positively affirm That the Doctrine of rejoicing, and acceptance from the works of another is utterly excluded, W. Pen, Sa. Foun. p. 27. And that God accepts not any, in whom there is any failing, who do not fulfil the Law and answer every demand of Justice. And when they talk of the blood of Christ, they delude their hearers or readers. For, by that blood they mean nothing but the Life and Light within. At the same instant they are pleading for Perfection, they will discharge you from duty, except you be Immediately moved thereunto, as if their perfection consisted in being stocks and stones, or, which is worse, in being rebels against the Law of God. Their discourse (for the most part) is about the Light within, yet the Light is not more contrary to Darkness, than their Dictates are about this thing. What one of them saith, another of their own will contradict. What one man at one time affirms, he himself will deny at another. One while 'tis the Divine essence, 'tis Christ, 'tis increated; another while, 'tis not Christ himself, but only his gift, or appearance, a seed, a measure of Light, a witness for God. Now, 'tis the only Saviour, and rule; anon we hear of another that both saves it, and rules it. Their say hereabouts are so cross and thwarting, that 'tis almost impossible for a man to know when they speak as they think, or think as they speak.  
That every man hath a Light in him, is not denied: for, had the not a Liggt, he were not capable of being governed by a rule: But, that this, which renders him capable of walking by rule, should be itself the rule, is not intelligible.  
The holy Scriptures are esteemed (by them) inferior to their own pamphlets; yea they render them to be of no more Authority than the Fables of Aesop.  
Hence they substitute in its room, their own motions, and impulses, and yet (if you will believe them, when they dissemble) they will tell you, they own the Scriptures. Their own people know not their intrigues nor the designs they have upon them, they do not use to trust (as some of them have said) such, (that is their ordinary followers) with their opinions, and yet to secure their people to them, they will possess them with greatest prejudices imaginable against any that seriously endeavour to recover them, out of their snare, still persuading them to the highest veneration of the Quakers Ministry, and that whatever is suggested against them, (tho' never so true) must be looked upon as the greatest lie. They hate the Light, whilst they pretend to it: if you discourse with them, 'tis not the argument but the man, they will chiefly be concerned with; upon whom, can they but fix any thing that is odious, it shall pass both for an answer, and a confutation, and to fill up their wickedness, they will, (in their solemn way, and manner of profaneness and blasphemy) bless God, that they have thus answered.  
Observe them in their families, the irreligious education of their Children, the ordinary neglect of all Christian duties, and also their common converse, and what can we see in them, to represent them to be what they pretend? They will boast of mortification, yet love their backs and bellies to excess, that what will please their betters, will not content them, and yet so infatuated are they, as to conclude themselves, to be a perfect and selfdenying people.  
The Lord in mercy vouchsafe to us in this hour of trial, wherein the Spirit of error doth so fearfully prevail) that his holy truth may shine out, to preserve us from these paths of the Destroyer, and if it may please him, to manifest, and magnify his Sovereign mercy and Grace in the pardon, and recovery of these deluding, and deluded creatures, and grant unto us such an understanding of his holy will revealed to us, that we may discern truth from error; that though Errors and Heresies do appear and show themselves, yet we may approve ourselves sincere, in a serious contending for, and adhering to, the Truth once delivered to the Saints.  
Thomas Hicks.   

A FARTHER ACCOUNT OF THE Dangerous Opinions OF THE QUAKERS: COLLECTED Out of the Writings of several of their Principal Leaders, faithfully represented in the ensuing Dialogue between a Christian and a Quaker.  Chr. 
I Have formerly detected you of several Pernicious Opinions concerning the Scriptures, the Light within, the Person of Christ, and the Resurrection of the Dead, etc. which, I presume, by this time you have considered; What say you thereunto?  Quak. 
I say the Plagues and Judgements of God will follow thee, G. Whitehead.  Chr. 
Though your Conscience might be touched with the evidence of the things alleged against you, yet it would have been your prudence rather to have dissembled your Pain, than thus to vent your Passion in such furious Replies: But you must not think to baffle me with such Sarcasms, either confess the truth of what you are charged with, or else disprove it.  Quak. 
I have in print told thee, That thy Dialogue is an unchristian forgery, G. Whitehead, D. Plunged. Title Page.  Chr. 
Wherein hast thou proved it so to be?  Quak. 
Thou hast presented the World with a Quaker of thy own forming, making them to speak those impertinencies and falsehoods that were never uttered by any real Quaker; therefore 'tis a forgery, G. W. Epistle to D. Pl.  Chr. 
You had done well, if you had produced some instances wherein I made them speak what was never uttered by a real Quaker. But if I can prove that what is spoken under that name, is the language of a real Quaker, than thou hast confessed that such may be guilty of Impertinencies and Falsehoods.  Quak. 
That thou canst never prove, for I affirm, That the Quaker there represented to the World is of thy own making.  Chr. 
I wonder that you who pretend so much to circumspection in your Words, should yet be so extravagant in Print; 'Tis notorious, the Dialogue mentions several that are, and were, approved Quakers, (viz.) G. Whitehead, G. Fox, James Naylor, Crisp, Richard Hubberthrone, and Ben. Furley, etc. If these be not, or were not real Quakers, then do you publicly deny it; or if those things quoted of them be not true, disprove them: But if that cannot be denied, nor this disproved, how dare you say, I have presented the World with a Quaker of my own making?  Quak. 
I say thy Dialogue is no other than unchristian forgery.  Chr. 
That obligeth thee to prove it, which as yet thou hast not done.  Quak. 
Have I not instanced in several particulars wherein thou hast wronged us, Dip. Pl. p. 16, 17.  Chr. 
Are those the only things wherein the forgery consists?  Quak. 
What sayest thou to them?  Chr. 
I taxed G. Whitehead, For affirming the light within to be God; And for saying, That the speaking of the Spirit in any is of greater authority than the Scriptures; and also for denying the resurrection of this Body, etc. Crisp, for saying, He knew the beginning and date of that Christ I believed in; G. Fox, for asserting, The Soul to be part of God's Being, to be without beginning, and infinite: Ben. Furly, for saying, 'Tis the greatest error in the World that ever was invented, and the ground of all error, To say the Scriptures are a Rule to Christians: G. Fox and Rich. Hubberthorne for affirming, That it is dangerous for ignorant people to read the Scriptures, etc. G. Whitehead's silence herein, is in my judgement a plain concession touching the verity of these Quotations, which is a manifest giving away your Cause; nevertheless, if there be any thing wherein you judge yourselves wronged, let me hear it.  Quak. 
Thou sayest we account the blood of Christ no more than a common thing; yea, no more than the blood of a common Thief, this is forgery.  Chr. 
If the mere light within, and obedience to it, be every way sufficient to bring every man to eternal life, as you constantly affirm, than the shedding of Christ's blood upon the Cross was needless, and to no purpose. Isaac Pennington (who I suppose is an approved Quaker) asks this question, Can outward blood cleanse? Therefore, saith he, We must inquire whether it was the blood of the Veil, that is of the humane nature, or the blood within the Veil, (viz.) of that spiritual man, consisting of Flesh, Blood, and Bones, which took on him the Veil, or humane Nature? 'Tis not the blood of the Veil, that is but outward; and can outward blood cleanse? if not, than that blood which Christ shed upon the Cross, which was the blood of the Humane Nature, is no more than a common thing.  
Secondly, If the sufferings of Christ were only exemplary, as you likewise affirm, than what more do you attribute to the blood of Christ, then to the blood and sufferings of other holy persons?  
Thirdly, If the mystery of Iniquity lies in the blood of Christ, as Edw. Billing most wickedly said it did, then is the blood of Christ, in your esteem, worse than the blood of a common Thief: Farther, what signifies these words which frequently drop from your mouths, Dost thou look at Christ's Death afar off? what will that Blood avail? Didst ever see any of it? That carnal blood, can outward blood cleanse? If thou hadst a great deal of it, would it do thee any good? Do not these Interrogatories carry with them an open scorn and contempt of that blood which was shed upon the Cross? consequently that which is charged upon you is no forgery.  Quak. 
Thou sayest we make use of Scripture only to stop their mouths who call for Scripture proof; this is a Slander.  Chr. 
If the Scriptures be no Rule; yea, if it be Idolatry to call the Bible a means, as Whitehead expressly says it is, D. P. pag. 13. Who also affirms, That faith grounded on the Scriptures is but an empty Implicit Faith, and be-speaks such persons void of the Knowledge of God, Christ, Salvation, and to be yet in their Sins, and that such men walk by their own Fancies and Imaginations. Christ ascended, p. 11. Solo Eccles. (a great admirer of George Fox) discoursing with a Friend of mine in London, told him, The Scriptures were a lie; To whom 'twas replied, Why then dost thou mention them? The Quaker answered, To silence thee.  
Nicolas Lucas, a real Quaker, was moved to declare his mind thus, (to one I know very well) Thou mayst burn thy Bible, and when that is done, thou mayst serve God as well without it; and if thou hast a mind to have a Scripture, thou mayst write as good a one thyself. Many more instances might be produced, these may suffice to acquit me from forgery in this particular; what more hast thou to say?  Quak. 
Thou sayest that Fox, Dewsberry, Crisp, Whitehead, and Pen, are exceedingly corrupt in their Morals, herein thou hast spoken falsely.  Chr. 
Hast thou bid adieu to common honesty? art thou endeavouring to prove me a Forger, and yet at the same time be guilty of it thyself? See the Dialogue, p. 43. which saith, Some of them are exceedingly corrupt in their Morals. If you think it your interest to put me on the proof hereof, you may when you please, and I doubt not (if well) but to give you full satisfaction herein, provided that wilful lying fornication, and adultery may be accounted Immoralities; what further hast thou to allege against me?  Quak. 
Thou reports that the Quakers deny the resurrection of the Body, which is false.  Chr. 
George Whitehead, in my hearing, before near a hundred Witnesses, did deny it, in these words, This Body of flesh and bones shall not rise again; who also saith enough in his Pamphlet to acquit me from forgery herein.  Quak. 
Thou insinuates, as if our sufferings were only to satisfy our Wills and Lusts; herein thou dost greatly wrong us.  Chr. 
In this I only queried what it should be that doth influence you to suffer, forasmuch as you deny that this Body shall rise from the dead, and consequently can be never the better for what you do or suffer. And G. Fox maintains, That the Soul is part of Gods Being, etc. and therefore not capable either of prejudice or advantage, whether you suffer or not. Again, is there any people that ever boasted so vainly of their Sufferings as you do, that scarce a Pamphlet can come out from you, but the World must hear of your brags in this kind; which can have no other meaning, then to feed that Principle of Pride that reigns in you, and to gain Proselytes to your errors, etc.  Quak. 
Thou also sayest, We deny any eternal advantage to be reaped by persons after death; In this thou dost abuse us.  Chr. 
This is no other than the genuine and direct consequence of denying the resurrection of this Body. See 1 Cor. 15.13, 14. If no resurrection, then is not Christ risen: If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith vain, and ye are yet in your Sins, ver. 17. Why stand I in jeopardy every hour? ver. 30. What advantageth me that I have fought with Beasts at Ephesus? Let us eat and drink, for to morrow we die, ver. 32.  
If we ask you whether a further happiness (than now) shall be enjoyed by the Saints at the last day, you will answer by another question. When thinks thou that will be? must all the Saints have their hope and faith unanswered till then, Whitehead Christ ascended, p. 34. If we inquire whether you do not wait for any thing further? you will tell us, That Death and Darkness hath power over our Minds, else we would never show ourselves such ignorant Papists, in putting Salvation so far off, till we know not when, according to our carnal conceits, Whitehead, ibid. If hereupon we ask you, Whether you enjoy eternal life and felicity now? This is your answer, The recompense of reward, (viz.) eternal life and felicity is inwardly and spiritually received by those that now suffer for Christ, Whitehead, ibid. p. 37.  
I suppose by this time thou art, at least may be satisfied, that in these instances I was not guilty of forgery, and consequently Geo. Whitehead's pretended answer to me carries a manifest lie in the front of it, as any may perceive, who compares it with the Dialogue.  Quak. 
I say thy Dialogue is proved an unchristian forgery.  Chr. 
It was inconsiderately and imprudently done by thee to put such words in thy very Title Page, since there is nothing in all thy Pamphlet that proves any such thing, but the contrary.  Quak. 
Thy Dialogue is not only a forgery, but it abounds with contradictions.  Chr. 
This thou sayest, though the particulars thou hast taken notice of evince no such thing: However so it hath happened (though I think not designedly by thee) thou hast fully justified that Answer in the Catechism, p. 72. You will make your Friends believe, we do nothing but contradict ourselves: Wast thou advised and discreet herein thus to vindicate me, even whilst thou art endeavouring to prove me guilty of forgery. But wherein do I contradict myself?  
Will any man (except a Quaker) say, That to deny the light within, to be a sufficient rule to Salvation, and yet in some cases appeal to it; and grant it ought to be obeyed, is a contradiction: I verily believe G. Whitehead knows not all things, and yet I believe he doth know some things, may I not appeal to him concerning that he knows, without being censured for contradicting myself; surely G. W. the contradiction is not in my words, but in thy dark mind.  Quak. 
Dost thou not affirm what any of us have said concerning the light within, is no more than what the Apostle speaks of the man of sin; and may as well prove Mahomet to be the true Christ, as the light within, Dip. Pl. pag. 5.  Chr. 
Herein thou dost only confute a thing forged by thyself, and not uttered by me: Is this the way to quit thyself from deceit and falsehood, which thou know'st I have openly accused thee of? The comparison is not between the light within, and the man of Sin or Mahomet; but only betwixt those Signs and Wonders you boast of. And those that Mahomet, or the man of Sin, may and do likewise pretend unto, see the Dialogue, p. 11, 12.  Quak. 
Thou also sayest, That our obeying the commands of the living Word in us, is no other than a mystical Romance; Herein thou hast acted the profane Romancer, and art a most irreligious, Miscreant, Dip. Pl. p. 5, 6.  Chr. 
If thou art not condemned in thy own Conscience for these wilful untruths, it will signify very ill of thee: The Dialogue speaks on this wise, p. 10. you say, You own Jesus Christ, but then 'tis with such a mental and mystical reservation, which is no other than a mystical Romance. Canst thou think that any ingenious and impartial Reader should conceive otherwise of thee, than a deceitful and impertinent Scribbler. That the Christ you own is no other than a mystical Romance, shall be fully proved in this Discourse following.  
As for those other things they are so frivolous, that I think them not worthy of any reply, believing that not any man who hath not lost his reason, can conclude as thou dost. 'Tis one thing to say, another thing to prove a man contradicts himself; such an Antagonist as G. Whitehead, certainly was never yet met with, who instead of attending to the matters in Controversy, contends only with his own Imaginations.  Quak. 
Why speaks thou so slightly of George Whitehead, he is no such impertinent person as thou wouldst-represent him, we know his worth, etc.  Chr. 
No doubt you have too high a value for him, because you indeed know him not; what ever his errors, deceit, and hypocrisy be, your affection to his Person blinds your eyes, that you cannot, or will not see it: I must tell you, that had I been at his elbow when he was writing the Dip. Pl. I could not well have desired him to write more for my Vindication than he hath done.  Quak. 
Why sayest thou so?  Chr. 
Because the chief things objected against you he toucheth not, but manifestly falls under the whole charge, as before is hinted.  Quak. 
This is but thy own imagination.  Chr. 
I charged him for affirming the light within to be the Divine Essence; and he blames me for saying, 'Tis but a mere Creature, Dip. Pl. 13. In this then he clears me from any wrong done to him; I accuse you for denying the Person of Christ without you, And doth not he say, Christ Jesus a person without us is not Scripture language, but the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians, Ibid. Why then should it be believed that herein I have wronged either you or him, since he himself doth so fully acquit me: Was not that Answer in the Catechism, p. 73. very pertinent, and truly given in your name. Though we believe not that you have answered us, yet you will give it out, you have both answered and confuted us; and your Friends will believe what you say, which is enough to you. Is not the Dip. Pl. calculated only for the humour of your own Friends; but are you so void of reason as to think it to be a solid answer to the Dialogue?  Quak. 
Thou art a Liar, and dost thou think that thy particular Election will secure thee from the reward of liars, G. W. Dip. Pl. Epistle.  Chr. 
Thou hast not proved one lie, neither do I hold such an Election as secures persons guilty of lying, from the reward of liars. I see thou art driven to a straight, that since thou canst not rationally quarrel with the Dialogue, thou sets up a shadow, a figment of thy own Brain to contend with.  Quak. 
Dost thou not hold a particular election of thy own Party, and but of very few (if any others) besides, etc. G. Whitehead.  Chr. 
I perceive thy Dictates are not infallible, for as thou hast not declared thy own, so neither hast thou written (nor indeed dost thou know) my belief in this matter: But what is all this to the Dialogue, why art thou concerned so much about Election, who believes no such thing of persons, either absolute or conditionals; that Election you generally hold, is only of the Seed, which is Christ himself; therefore thou dost but trifle, and fill up paper to no purpose; might it not therefore have been of more advantage to your Cause, if William Penn had concerned himself in the examination of the Dialogue (as I expected he would). That what G. Whitehead could not do in his dull method and manner of reasoning, 'tis probable William Penn, with his Confidence and Rhetoric, might have done.  Quak. 
What real Quaker ever spoke thus, that they who will not believe our say, we will not spare to condemn, and stigmatize them, and it concerns us to render them as ridiculous as we can.  Chr. 
If you would have nothing charged upon you but what is indeed uttered by approved Quakers, whether it might not be necessary to give us a Catalogue of the Names of such; or if you think not meet to do this, then to give us some certain intelligible Character how a real Quaker may be known; may that pass for a Character which Tho. Ruddyer gave in my hearing, viz. One that is come to the pure Language, to speak thee and and thou; then your Objection will be easily answered: Doth not one of your own tell us, that 'tis your manner to render such odious, and the more effectually to weaken their Testimonies, you will fix upon them scurrilous and contemptible Appellations: And do not all men that know you, know this is true. But that I may fully satisfy you in this point, I ask whether Edward Burroughs was not an approved Quaker?  Quak. 
Yea, he was endued with the Almighty Power of God, which lived and reigned in him: This his own Works will in a large measure testify the truth of, a man able to stop the mouths of all Gain-sayers; This is my testimony to this man of God, who hath been a blessing to the Lord in his Generation, Josiah Coale, his Epistle before Edw. Burroughs his Works in Folio.  Chr. 
Was this Josiah Coal a real Quaker?  Quak. 
He was so.  Chr. 
In what respect did the Almighty Power of God live and reign in him; and how was he a blessing to the Lord, for I must confess I do not well understand the meaning of this testimony.  Quak. 
'Tis no matter for answering such cavilling Questions.  Chr. 
Who else gives their Testimony to Edw. Burroughs and his Works.  Quak. 
These memorable Works of Edw. Burroughs (printed for the good of Generations to come, 1672.) is brought forth for us, and our Children, and such as are moderate, and well affected; greater desires hereof could not be in any, then in my own particular, I having traveled both to answer and serve the truth, and the desires of Friends herein; Let none condemn the honest plainness and harmless simplicity of any of his first Works here inserted, for many are living Witnesses that the Power and Wisdom of God did then appear and show itself through such plainness and simplicity, to the confounding of the wisdom of many that seemed high and lofty. And thus, dear Friends, as the Salvation of our dear Brother Edw. Burroughs, according to his desire, whilst in the Body, I recommend this Volume of his Books, being therein the Truths, and your Servant Ellis Hooks. See the Epistle Dedicatory to the Quakers.  Chr. 
Of what use and service do you judge these Works may be to you, and to your Children?  Quak. 
It may not be unnecessary for Friends and Children to read and peruse these Testimonies, Informations, and Vindications of Truth, where they are in a way of Controversy given forth; the reading whereof may be of service to them, they being in the light and inspiration of the Almighty, from which all Scriptures, or Writings, that are given forth, are profitable to the man of God for his accommodation; for though many of you are come to a particular satisfaction in the true Light, and know so much of Christ, so as to die for him, yet cannot so well dispute for him: Though that be necessary, and few given up and accomplished for that Service; therefore there may be need for more to apply their hearts to wisdom, Ellis Hooks, ibid.  Chr. 
If written Testimonies and Vindications be profitable to the Man of God, for his accommodation, to help him to Dispute, as you plainly intimate: Doth not this interfere with that grand Notion of yours, which saith, You must do all by the immediate motion of the power within. But if the Light and Power which you and your Children have be not sufficient of itself to accomplish you for this Service of Disputation for, and vindicating of that you call the Truth, why then do you contend so much for its All-sufficiency? methinks you who pretend to infallibility, should be very careful to make one story agree with another, and not thus to be taken in different tales, to the manifest disparagement both of yourselves and Opinions. But is this Ellis Hooks a true Quaker?  Quak. 
Thou needst not doubt that, forasmuch as be was employed in that Service, for the collecting and printing these Works of Edw. Burroughs, and also allowed to prefix his Epistle before it. And there are others, who were and are in the Ministry, that hath given their Testimony to this Servant and Prophet of the Lord, as thou mayst see in their Epistles before his Works.  
Shall Days, Months, and Years, wear out thy Name? Shall not thy noble and valiant Acts which thou hast wrought through the Power of him that separated thee from the Womb, live in Generations to come? The Children yet unborn shall have thee in their mouths, and thy Works shall testify of thee in Generations that yet have no Being, and shall account thee blessed: When I think of thee, I am melted into tears of sorrow, because of the want that the Inheritance of the Lord hath of thee. Francis howgil.  
As for Edw. Burroughs our dear Brother and Companion in travel, suffering, and consolation for the everlasting Gospel's sake, his Testimony lives with us; He was a Preacher of Righteousness, one who travelled for the Redemption of the Creature from under the bondage of Corruption. The name of this Minister of Righteousness is written in the Lamb's Book of Life, George Whitehead; His name is chronicled in the Lamb's Book of Life, a righteous Plant, a valiant Warrior, more than a Conqueror; who is dead, but yet liveth amongst us, and amongst us is alive, George Fox.  Chr. 
Being well assured from these Testimonies that Edw. Burroughs was an approved Quaker; then for the satisfaction of you and others in this Point, whether I have feigned a Quaker, as Whitehead suggests, or made them speak otherwise then in their own proper Dialect. I shall transcribe twenty questions, which I find printed in the memorable Works of Edw. Burroughs, together with the force and import of his Answers to each Question, as you will find, if you consult his Works in Folio, printed 1672. wherein the Spirit and Principles of the Quakers is not a little laid open. The questions were propounded (as that Book informs me) by one Philip Bennet.  
1. Q. Whether the Word was made Flesh more or oftener than once?  Quak. 
In this Quere thou are manifested what thou art, where thou art, and what spirit thou art of, a Reprobate, a Child of Darkness: In this Quere thy spirit is seen and known in the eternal light; thou knowest not what thou askest, thy Quere comes from thy dark polluted mind: Thou art a stranger to the Life, without God in the World; the Light condemns thee, and all thy generation eternally. The Word made Flesh we witness, which dwells amongst us, and we behold his Glory, whereby we witness thee and all thy generation to be in the sorcery and witchcraft; the light in thee will tell thee so, to which thou must be obedient before thou canst witness the Word made Flesh onced, for thou art darkness itself; when thou canst witness the Word made Flesh onced, than thou wilt know whether the Son of God was made of a Woman more or oftener than onced: But thou Dragon that would devour the Manchild, thou the Dragon with thy Angels art cast into the Earth. For thy other nineteen Queres thou hast conjured them up in the Black Art, out of the bottomless Pit, Edw. Burrough's Works in Folio, p. 29, 30.  Chr. 
Was ever Querist so rudely and uncivilly treated? or was ever question thus ridiculously answered? was this the honest plainness and harmless. simplicity of this man? and was this his silencing all Opposers? Is there any thing in the question to provoke to such Bedlam Rhetoric? to call a man Reprobate, Child of Darkness, a stranger to the Life, without God in the World; yea, and to damn him eternally, only for a modest and sober enquiry; was this his valour for the Lamb? what means he by witnessing the Word made Flesh? Is it any thing more than the Seed, Light, or Power within? But is this to the question? Doth the Scripture by the Word being made Flesh, intent only the Light within? many thousands (that in all things walk not up to the light in them) do believe that the Word was made Flesh onced, contrary to the bold assertion of this man, That they must be obedient to the Light within, before they can witness (or believe) this thing. 'Tis easy to guests what your notions are concerning the Word made Flesh; Burroughs saith, the Querist is darness itself; if so, then surely he had no light in him to tell him he was in the sorcery and witchcraft; If no light, how is your opinion true, That every man hath Christ, or his light in him; is it possible for that man (in whom Christ or his Light is) to be darkness itself? And how could he be obedient to the light within, if he had none to obey.  
Again, is a serious proposal about the Word being made Flesh onced, an argument of one being in the sorcery and witchcraft? O stupendious madness and folly! And if the Querist be the Dragon, and hath his Angels, I would willingly know (of some of them who have commended his memorable Works to the Ages to come) who or what these Angels are?  
And since he hath already doomed and passed sentence upon the rest of the Queres, as being conjured in the Black Art out of the bottomless Pit; we may plainly foresee what Answers they are like to be attended with, nevertheless I shall proceed.  
(2. Q.) Whether did the man Christ, slain (in respect of God's Decree and efficacy) from the foundation of the World, really and indeed, suffer death as upon the Cross at Jerusalem more or oftener than once?  Quak. 
In this Quere thou Diviner art found adding to the Scriptures the Divination of thy own Brain, whereupon the Plagues of God are to be added to thee: Oh thou liar, where doth the Scriptures speak as thou speaks here? But in the light thou art seen, and art for the condemnation: The man Christ we own, and witness, and the Lamb's Book of life, which was slain from the foundation of the World; we witness the Lamb of God, and thee to be the Beast that makes war with the Lamb, and thou Antichrist, which looks at Christ's death at Jerusalem alone; so let all thy Congregation see what they hold up that follows thee, Edw. Burroughs, ibid. p. 30.  Chr. 
Can any man be the wiser for this Answer? Is it Antichristian to look at Christ's death at Jerusalem? Doth the man Christ die in you? and must he be only looked at as so dying? The question is plain, whether the man Christ did really suffer death as upon the Cross more then onced? though Edw. Burroughs saith, 'Twas conjured up in the Black Art, and accordingly in his canting way answers, We witness the Lamb of God: But what is this witnessing to the point? or is Diviner, Liar, and Beast, a fit reply to so harmless an enquiry; I see, though you cannot, or will not answer a question in plain and intelligigible terms; yet you can and will freely curse and damn the Querist. And whilst you pretend to own and witness the Man Christ, etc. you sufficiently intimate your erroneous thoughts concerning the Sufferings of Christ upon the Cross, though you are ashamed or afraid to speak them out.  
(3. Q.) Whether did the Man Christ really and indeed suffer in his own Person for that end, and after the same manner which he did upon the Cross at Jerusalem, before that time or since that time?  Quak. 
Here thou full of all subtlety, hast manifested thy poison and enmity; but thou art seen with the Light, and with it condemned for ever: Christ Jesus in his own Person doth, and ever did suffer by thee, and such as thou art, after the same manner: Thou blind Pharisee and Blasphemer, wouldst thou have Christ have more ends in suffering then one, Ibid. p. 30.  Chr. 
Whether there be more poison and enmity manifested in the Question, or in the Answer, I leave others to judge: Was Christ indeed actually crucified upon the Cross by the Querist? and doth Christ always suffer after the same manner, and for the same end, as he did when crucified at Jerusalem? If so, How is the Body of Jesus Christ said to be offered once for all? And why is it called an offering of one Sacrifice, Heb. 10.10, 12, 14. Be free and plain, let us know whether you do believe that Christ did, and doth suffer in his own person for the same end, and after the same manner as he did upon the Cross, both before that time, and since that time, or deny it; else say, you cannot, or that 'tis not convenient to give a positive answer.  
(4. Q.) Was not that death which the Man Christ suffered once, and but once, upon the Cross at Jerusalem, so satisfactory for all the Sins of the Elect, as that the justice of God, did not, doth not require any suffering or working upon that account, either from Sinner or Saint?  Quak. 
Here thou Jesuit art pleading for a Christ afar off thee, that Christ which died at Jerusalem did not satisfy for thee, who art an enemy to him, and art under the woe, and from that woe thou shalt never flee. The death of the Man Christ we own, and witness; The same Christ that suffered, we witness made manifest. And here thou liar, art made manifest to be a liar, who said, We deny that Christ which died at Jerusalem; so let thy mouth be stopped thou liar, who art for the lake: And whereas thou queries, whether the justice of God be not satisfied for the Sins of the Elect; let shame strike thee in the face, that thou should take upon thee to speak to any people, and knowest not the Scripture: where reads thou, that God requires satisfaction for the Sins of the Elect, or laid any thing to their Charge; Let all people see whether thou be not a blind ignorant sot, Ibid. p. 30, 31.  Chr. 
It seems by this Answer, 'tis Jesuitical to plead for that Christ which died at Jerusalem, which Burroughs calls a Christ afar off: Then in what sense must you be understood, when you say, You own the same Christ that suffered? If the death of the same man you do truly (and without reserved meanings) acknowledge, why do you stigmatize the Querist for pleading for that Christ? The Querist is accused for a liar, for saying, You deny that Christ which died at Jerusalem, and yet Edw. Burroughs calls him Jesuit, for pleading for a Christ afar off; Is not this to acquit his Accuser, and plainly to condemn himself for a rash and peevishmen. That Burroughs did really lie and dissemble in his pretences to own the same Christ, doth in part appear in his Answer, and will more fully in the sequel of this Dialogue.  
How did this Quaker know, that Christ did not satisfy for the Querist, and that he was under that woe, from which he should not escape? What means he by the Elect, for whom no satisfaction is required? and to whose charge nothing is laid? was not Christ's death for Sin? then either for the sins of the Elect, or for the sins of others; not for the Elect, nor for the Querist; for whose sins then? 'Tis evident enough, he intended 'twas only for the Seed, which Seed is Christ; so that Sinners are no ways concerned in the Sufferings of Jesus Christ, unless you will say, That Christ in man is a Sinner: O the patience and forbearance of God, that should bear with such Blasphemies as these are; that ever men pretending to infallible Teachings, should so render the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, and his Sufferings, as to expose them to the greatest scorn and contempt.  
(5. Q.) Whether you be reconciled to God by any other Obedience, than that very Obedience which Christ performed in his own Person, or by any suffering or death then that which Christ suffered upon the Cross at Jerusalem?  Quak. 
Silence Flesh, wouldst thou who art an enemy to God, know how we are reconciled to God, and by what Obedience; own the light in thy Conscience, and be obedient to that, than thou shalt know by what Obedience we are reconciled to God: For yet thou knowest no Obedience, but art an enemy to the Cross of Christ, and in the mystery of Iniquity, and in the dark power of the Man of Sin: What hast thou to do to talk of Obedience, thou art blind; and in the broad way that leads to Death, Ibid. p. 31.  Chr. 
Is this to give a reason of your Hope with meekness and fear? Suppose the Querist as ignorant as his Answerer would represent him, ought he not to have endeavoured his Information; the question doth deserve a better reply than here is given to it; what inconvenience can there be in giving a serious and solid account, how we are reconciled to God? Was not Edw. Burroughs either ashamed or afraid to speak out what that Obedience is by which you are reconciled. William Penn, I must confess, herein is more free and ingenious with us, He confidently affirms, Justification by that Righteousness which Christ fulfilled in his own Person without us, is a Doctrine of Devils, Apolog. p. 148. I doubt not but Burroughs was of the same mind, though he kept it secret from the Querist as much as in him lay: Hitherto you see we have not one direct Answer to any Question.  
(6. Q.) Whether did not the Man Christ suffer as a public Person in the Elects stead, or in their behalf, and for that end, That none who believed in him might die eternally?  Quak. 
Thou blind Guide makes it manifest, that thou know'st not the Man Christ at all, nor his Sufferings; A public Person he is, not to thee, but a mystery thou knows nothing of; and for the redeeming of the Elect from under such mouths as thine, Christ did and doth suffer, and those that believe, deny such dumb idol Shepherds as thee, Ibid. p. 31.  Chr. 
Still nothing but Impertinent Rave, instead of a direct Answer? What doth the Quaker intent by the Man Christ, and his Sufferings, which he saith the Querist knows not at all? Is Christ a public Person or not? did he die for this end, That all who believe in him might not die eternally, or did he not? who, or what is the Elect that is under the mouths of such as the Querist? for the redeeming of whom Christ did and doth suffer: And what is that which Christ doth now suffer for the Redemption of the Elect? and what that Bondage is from which he redeems? And what is meant by believing? and in whom? Is it in that Person who suffered upon the Cross? or the Light within? Do not equivocate, but 2speak to the Point directly, whether that Person that is distinct from all other persons; He that was in the World, and died upon the Cross, risen again, and is now at the right hand of God, be that very Christ we are to believe in? or that it is not our Duty and Interest so to do, but merely to believe in, and obey the light within, as the only Mediator between God and Sinners. Let us know your minds herein in downright terms, and do not put us off with your witnessings, which to us signify nothing.  
(7. Q.) Whether the Sufferings of Christ, now in his Saints, be all the satisfaction that is made to, or which the justice of God looks for, for sins pasts, present, and to come?  Quak. 
Thou Blasphemer askest thou knows not what, Is not Christ the same as ever? and is not the Sufferings of Christ satisfactory where ever? what will satisfy, if the Sufferings of Christ will not satisfy? Let all people take notice what a Blasphemer thou art, or what can they learn from such as thee, who knows neither the Justice of God, nor the Sufferings of Christ in his Saints, Ibid. p. 31.  Chr. 
In answer to the fourth Question, this Quaker denied the Sufferings of Christ to be satisfactory either for the Elect or others, and here he grants his Sufferings are satisfactory wherever, but tells us not to whom, nor for whom they are so: And whereas he talks of Christ's Sufferings in his Saints, I would quere, whether his Sufferings in that sense be all the satisfaction that is made to, or which the Justice of God requires? Again, it may not be amiss to observe a little the policy of this man, who, that he might the better hid, and prevent any suspicion of himself being a Blasphemer, he indites and arraigns the Querist as such, perfectly in this, imitating the Devil, who will charge upon another his own fault; that thus it is, consider the Quakers Opinion of Christ in his Saints, which is, 'tis God, and his eternal Power; but doth God and his Power Suffer and die in his Saints? Is this to exalt the Deity of the Son of God (which sometimes you pretend to do) to make him subject to death, and to death in you; but pray, how can an immortal, immutable Spirit die, and in what sense is such a death satisfactory? But the misery is, ask what question we will, in the plainest terms we can, the Quakers will answer equivocally, and not let us know their minds (as one of them said, We do not use to trust such with our Opinions) as if they were ashamed to own the things themselves believe.  
(8. Q.) Whether was not that Body of Jesus which was offered upon the Cross at Jerusalem, the one and only Sacrifice for Sin God accepted, to which all the Saints did, and do look to be justified without any other Works?  Quak. 
Here thou replies thy sottish Queries, which rises out of thy dark mind, concerning the Body of Jesus, as the Devil did about the body of Moses; let thy mouth be stopped, for the Body of Jesus thou know'st not, nor what it consists on; and the offering of it up, thou know'st nothing of; Thou art none of the Saints, but without in the World, for thee the Body of Christ is no satisfaction: And thou Reprobate, what hast thou to do to talk of believing, that is the condition of the Saints, whose Works thou know'st not; Thou disobedient one, upon whom God. will render Vengeance in flaming fire, Ibid. p. 32.  Chr. 
Oh the rudeness and unworthiness of this Answerer, who took no farther notice of the Question, then to vent his rancour and spleen against the Querist: Surely the venom of Asps was under this man's tongue. 'Tis to be bewailed, that a serious question concerning that one and only Sacrifice, Christ offered, should be paralleled with the Devils contending about the body of Moses; and that such who will be disputing about the Body of Jesus, must be branded for Reprobates (Naylors Love to the lost, p. 57 Printed 1656.) Had it not been better to have condemned such Dictates as these to perpetual Oblivion, then to print them for the Generations to come? And forasmuch as he saith, what the Body of Jesus consists of, and the offering of it up, the Querist knew nothing of, 'tis evident he intends another body then that which he took of the Virgin, but what that is, he acquaints us not.  
(9 Q.) Whether there be any other Righteousness, by which Christ the Saints are justified in the sight of God, then that which Works in them and by them?  Quak. 
Thou art accursed, and made manifest, who preacheth another Gospel, and wouldst have another Righteousness then that of Christ: Thou Beast, to whom the Plagues of God are due, upon whom the Wrath of God must be accomplished, who would have another Righteousness then that which Christ works in the Saints, and by them; Thou wouldst be justified, and live in thy sin, but thou art shut out from God for ever; we witness Justification by Faith, Ibid. p. 32.  Chr. 
There is nothing in the question importing another Righteousness, then that of Christ's; was it not then more than enough for him to censure and damn the Querist, but must he needs insinuate a wilful lie to complete his wickedness, that the Quakers, and their Children may be accomplished for dispute, and know how to answer their Opposers, as Ellis Hooks intimates in his Epistle. Burroughs saith, We witness Justification by Faith, which is no other than your usual canting, neither doth it in any wise conclude the question: Indeed, when he calls the Querist Beast, upon whom the wrath of God must be accomplished, because he would (as the Quaker imagines) have another Righteousness, then that which Christ works in the Saints, and by them. Herein, I must confess, he plainly denies that there is any other Righteousness, and consequently all that Christ did and suffered without us, is utterly unconcerned in this business of Justification, directly repugnant to Rom. 5.18, 19 Isa. 53.5, 11.  
(10. Q.) Whether doth Sanctification or Justification in order antecede holiness of life, or Justification by Faith go before; or whether doth not God love man, ere man loved God?  Quak. 
Here thou dark blind Hypocrite hast shut out thyself from the knowledge of God in any measure: Oh that people should be so blind, as to look to learn any thing of such as thee but Sin and Filthiness; what haste: thou been teaching, that neither knows Justification nor Sanctification, but art quering which goes before: Let all people Judge whether thou be not a Teacher of lasciviousness, sin, and uncleanness. How darest thou mention a holy life? thou man which art Cain, God doth not love nor accept thee, nor thy Sacrifice; and for Justification by Faith, thou know'st nothing of it, which we own and witness, Ibid. p. 32.  Chr. 
Was this the plainness and simplicity through which (you say) he did confound the wisdom of the high and lofty? was this your dear Brother in the Lord? as George Whitehead calls him. 'Tis too apparent he was under the Dominion, rule, and government of a most wicked, lying, and reviling Spirit. Can any man or men conclude the Querist to be a Teacher of Lasciviousness, merely for ask, whether Sanctification or Justification do not in order go before holiness of life? Certainly the Children yet unborn, if they should see these his Works, will have him in their mouths as a most ridiculous, impertinent, and railing person.  
(11. Q.) Whether the Justice of God be fully satisfied for all the sins of the Elect, ere Christ appear to their Souls, or holiness appear in their Lives?  Quak. 
Here thou full of all subtlety art comprehended, and with the light of Christ thou art seen, and with the life thou art judged and condemned: Who would lay Sin to the charge of the Elect, thou Sorcerer, doth the Elect of God sin? shall the Elect die? To that in thy Conscience I speak, Ibid. p. 32.  Chr. 
If the Elect of God neither do, nor never did sin; 'tis meet we should know who or what is meant by the Elect: who shall lay any thing to the charge of the Elect? 'tis God that justifies, who shall condemn? 'tis Christ that died, Rom. 8.33, 34. If by the Elect be intended persons, then either they are or were Sinners; but if by the Elect you mean a mere Principle, Spirit, or seed in man: Then I ask you, How God is said to justify that? and in what sense did Christ die for this Seed? If Justification do suppose a guilt, I quere in what respect this spirit or seed in man may be said to be guilty? If you say, It never did, nor doth Sin, how then doth God justify it? and what necessity was there of Christ's dying for that which was perfectly sinless? To that (as thy phrase is) in thy Conscience do I now speak.  
(12. Q.) Whether the holy Lives and Works of the Saints be not excluded from the act of Justification from the guilt of Sin?  Quak. 
Thou dead Beast, thou art a stranger from the life of God, and is excluded from the holy life of the Saints, and their works, Thou art unredeemed from thy vain Conversation, ☞ and so art not justified, nor never shall be: And by the same that the Saints are justified, thou art condemned into the lake for ever, Ibid. p. 32, 33.  Chr. 
This answer (like the rest) is full of pride, rage, and folly; who will believe that Testimony which you most unadvisedly have given of this man, That he was a faithful Servant and Prophet of the Lord: Did ever any foam out their own shame more than this your pretended Prophet, who impudently assumes to himself the authority of determining the eternal condition of the Querist; tells him, ☞ He neither is, nor never shall be justified; may it not be with respect to this cursing and railing humour, which was predominant in him, That you call him a Son of Thunder. But whether Edw. Burroughs hath spoken any thing pertinently, and properly to the question, I shall leave it to others, yea to that in thy Conscience to judge.  
(13. Q.) Whether that Righteousness which is wrought by the Saints be every way answerable to the Justice of God?  Quak. 
There again thy blindness is made manifest; Is there any Righteousness but that of Christ Jesus? and is not that every way answerable to the justice of God? But such polluted filthy Beasts as thou wouldst have another Righteousness; but thy Righteousness we deny, and the Righteousness of Christ we witness, which shall be revealed on thee in flames of fire, Ibid. p. 33.  Chr. 
Did ever man pretending (I will not say to perfection or infallibility, but) to reason or modesty, reply at this rate? Did every question affright him, and put him into such a consternation, as that he could express himself no otherwise then like one perfectly mad. There is not the least intimation in any of the foregoing questions asserting any other Righteousness but that of Christ's, and yet this wretched man had the confidence to say, Such filthy Beasts (as he was pleased to account the Querist) would have another Righteousness. Art not thou ashamed of this injustice and lying, which thy dear Brother Edw. Burroughs was guilty of? to talk of your witnessing the Righteousness of Christ, is no more but your common and idle prating, and nothing to the point in question: Must we be concluded only by what you ignorantly and impudently say you witness?  
(14. Q.) Whether none be accounted righteous in the sight of God, in whom is any corruption or failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice?  Quak. 
Here thou polluted Beast makes it manifest what thou hast been driving at all this while, which is, that thou wouldst have thy corruption and filthiness to be accounted righteous in God's sight, that so thou mayst wallow in thy filthiness: But John saith, He that commits sin is of the Devil; The Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil, and thou man of Sin wouldst have it stand; ☞ God doth not accept any where there is any failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice, Ibid. p. 33.  Chr. 
This question (I do confess) hath the favour of a direct and positive answer, though it be introduced with his wont railing, together with a wilful lie; certainly had not Edw. Burroughs been desperate, and utterly destitute of any serious respect either to God or man, or his own credit, he durst not have attempted to fix so notorious an untruth upon the Querist, as that he would have corruption and filthiness to be accounted righteous in God's sight: There is not any thing of such an import in the question, which is not whether failing and corruption may be accounted righteous, but whether none in whom is any failing or corruption may be so; corruption and failing is one thing, the person in whom it may be is another.  
But to his answer, ☞ God accepts not any who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice; If so, woe be to you Quakers, as well as to any others, for certainly you cannot be saved according to this Principle; you are far (however you flatter yourselves) from fulfilling the Law, and answering every demand of Justice; with Edw. Burroughs agrees another of your Ministry, namely William Penn, Sandy Foundation, p. 29, 30.  
Obedience to Justification (saith he) ought to be as personally extensive, as was man's Disobedience to Condemnation; in which real (not imputative) sense those various terms of Sanctification, Righteousness, Resurrection, Life, Redemption, Justification, etc. are most infallibly understood; for impute or imputing signifies no more in Scriptures, but to express men really and personally to be that which is imputed to them, whether as guilty, or remitted. For (saith he) any to be justified from the imputation of another's Righteousness, is both ridiculous and dangerous; whence came that usual saying amongst many Professors of Religion, That God looks not upon them as they are in themselves, but as they are in Christ. According to the drift and scope of Penns Discourse, this usual saying must come from the conceivings of the dark imputarians of this Age: But I must tell Mr. Penn whatever his deluded fancy may be concerning himself, miserable will be his condition, if God do look upon him only, as he is in himself: The time will come he may curse the day that ever he entertained such an opinion, or that it was his sad lot to fall amongst such a people, who render Jesus Christ in all his undertake for Sinners, no more than a mere cipher. For saith Edw. Burroughs, ☞ God will not accept of any who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice. O ye wretched men, that should in such a day and Nation, have the face to utter such a Doctrine as this is, which cashiers the whole Gospel, and turns it out of doors.  
(15. Q.) Whether a Soul be justified before God by the non-imputation of Sin, and the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ's Person to his Faith, or by a Righteousness wrought by Christ in the person justified, or to be justified.  Quak. 
Stop thy mouth thou Sorcerer, which art gathering up a heap of confusion, fit for nothing but to be turned into the bottomless pit; wherein thou talks of imputation and non-imputation, and of a person justified and to be justified. Thy language is the language of Egypt, and in the mystery of Iniquity, which is condemned into the lake of Perdition by the light of Christ: I own no Righteousness but what is of Christ, and is wrought by him; which Righteousness shall confound thee, and all thy unrighteousness and conjurations, the same that justifies us, shall condemn thee eternally, Ibid. p. 33.  Chr. 
If this was a man of God, who may we account a man of—. The memorable Works of this Edw. Burroughs may serve as Memorials to all men, to dread the Spirit and Principles of the Quakers, these instances being such Monuments of their folly and madness: He saith, That imputation and non-imputation, and to talk of a person justified and to be justified, is the language of Egypt, and is condemned to the lake of Perdition by the Light. But what kind of Light should this be, that should thus fatally doom such a question? and brand the person ask it for a Sorcerer? He saith, He owns no other Righteousness but what is wrought by Christ; But not one word, whether this Righteousness is wrought without us, or within us, or both, which is the thing the question aims at. If the Querist was, or if any person else be ignorant herein, so they may remain, for any thing that Burroughs hath here contributed towards their information.  
(16. Q.) Whether Christ be in the Saints in respect of that Nature wherein he suffered at Jerusalem?  Quak. 
Here thou enemy of Christ wouldst know how the Saints enjoy Christ; the Scripture is fulfilled on thee the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not; when thou comes to own thy Condemnation the light in thy Conscience, than thou wilt know that Nature that Christ suffered in: But now thou art in the nature that Judas was in that betrayed him & that they were in that crucified him, Ibid. p. 33.  Chr. 
Is there in this reply one word to the question? could he not have answered yea or nay, else where he grants that he who was slain upon the Cross is the very Christ of God, and that the very Christ of God was in him, Ibid. p. 149. From whence we may infer, That the light within was crucified at Jerusalem: Must this pass for an infallible dictate? surely not with any who are not under the influence of the Quakers delusions. But wherefore did Burroughs remain under such a Paroxysm of fury, was it not because each question did strike too closely at your vile Opinions?  
(17 Q.) How and in what manner Christ, who in respect of his Divine Nature, is in all places, may be said to be in a Saint, and not in a Reprobate?  Quak. 
What hast thou to do to quere after the Divine Nature, who art the natural man, who knows nothing of God, but what thou knowest naturally as a bruit beast: The manner of Christ's Divine Nature is bid from thy eyes; with that eye thou shouldst see, with that thou art blind: And the manner of his being in the Saints thou know'st not, who art a Reprobate, and shalt find him to thy eternal condemnation, Ibid. p. 33, 34.  Chr. 
It is a lamentable thing, that a man for ask, How and in what respect Christ may be said to be in a Christian? must be put off with such a taunting reply as this, What hast thou to do to quere, thou know'st nothing but as a bruit beast, thou Reprobate. Is this to instruct with meekness and fear? we see, that if we do not believe your say without farther enquiry what will come on't, namely, to be cursed and damned eternally. 'Twas pity this question did not fall into the hands of a more judicious person then Edw. Burroughs, who neither treats the Querist, nor his question, like a Christian, or a sober man.  
(18 Q) Whether doth Christ now in these days assume, or take upon him, the form of a Servant, & the seed of Abraham, that is our flesh, and whether doth not this assumption cause such a perfection of the Godhead and the Manhood, as that both of them together are united into one Person.  Quak. 
O thou dark Beast and Conjurer, quering with thy conjured words, that which thou know'st nothing of, and is out of thy reach and comprehension: Thou Blasphemer, dost thou limit Christ to days, in taking upon him the form of a Servant, and the seed of Abraham; Is not he the same now as ever he was? for the union of the Godhead with the Manhood, as thou calls it: Let thy mouth be stopped, for with thee God nor none of his Children hath any union; God hath put an utter enmity betwixt thy seed, thou Serpent, and the seed of the woman. And the perfect union with Christ we witness, therefore are we separate from thee and thy Generation, Ibid. p. 34.  Chr. 
I perceive he that sat him on, carried him through; otherwise, by this time, we might reasonably conclude he should have been drawn dry of his virulent and undecent expressions: Be the question what it will, he was at no loss for words to stigmatize and vilify the Querist; yet was at a real and marvellous loss to give a direct answer to the purpose, almost all the questions hath a fair, or rather (if you will) a foul go-by: Let me seriously ask thee, whether thou dost indeed believe that Edw. Burroughs was in the meekness, plainness and simplicity? when he did represent the person that asked, whether Christ doth now take upon him the form of a Servant, to be a dark Beast and Conjurer? Dost thou believe that Christ now in these days takes on him the form of a Servant? our Flesh, as once he did? Do not reply in equivocal terms, but speak honestly and plainly to the question; we ask you not, what you witness, we will not be determined by your vain boasts, or deluded fancies.  
(19 Q.) Whether Christ is now conversant with men upon Earth, since his Ascension, as he was before, and in those times wherein the Apostles lived?  Quak. 
Thy quere betrays thee, thy language is the language of Egypt; thou makest it clearly manifest, thou know'st not Christ in any measure, where the first principle of truth is made manifest; it is the same that ever was: Thou askest whether Christ be not now conversant upon Earth amongst men, since his Ascension, as he was in the Apostles times; dost thou know what thou askest? Did not Christ appear to his Apostles since his ascension in the most glorious manner that ever was? and is he not the same now as he was then? what? wouldst thou make of Christ, thou dark sottish beast, such a one as thyself, Ibid. p. 34.  Chr. 
This man took a liberty to say any thing, but what was to the purpose; 'tis amazing to think that a person under his Character, being under no surprise or provocation, should deliberately write such gross Errors and Untruths, together with such a heap of scurrilous and filthy Rail, and cause these to be printed for the view of future Generations. Burroughs asks, whether Christ did not appear to the Apostles since his Ascension? who denies he did: But what is this to the question, whether Christ be now conversant with men upon Earth since his Ascension, as he was before? To this the Quaker Replies, What would thou make of Christ, thou dark sottish beast? But whether this be a solution of the question, I submit it to others.  
(20. Q.) Whether Christ did not dwell amongst the Saints after another manner, and more visible than now he dwells in them?  Quak. 
Here thou shows thy ignorance, and for thy word visible he is not, nor never visible to thee, nor thy Generation; for those that did profess the Scriptures as thou, and thy Generation doth, crucified him: Thou Blasphemer, where saith the Scripture that Christ would dwell after another manner in his Saints? Ibid. p. 34.  Chr. 
In this Answer, the Quaker denies that Christ was ever visible to wicked men (such as he esteems the Querist to be) and consequently denies that person called in the Scriptures by this name, who conversed here in the World, and suffered death openly and visibly at Jerusalem to be the Christ; for that Christ was visible to wicked men: But this bold man saith, Christ was never visible to such as the Querist is: Are not these things justly offensive to Christian ears? 'Tis too evident in your acknowledgements of Jesus Christ, you do but abuse your Readers, in owning that in words which in truth you really deny, and do steal away the truth from the less wary reader or hearer, even then when in words you seem to confess it. It is blasphemy (saith Edw. Burroughs) To say Christ dwells in another manner in the Saints, than once he did amongst them; which is as much as to say, Christ is not a person without them. Did Edw. Burroughs believe that these replies of his were proper answers to the questions.  Quak. 
Blessed be the Lord that hath discovered thee; so thy queries are answered in the eternal life and light of God, and Judgement is given upon thee and them, which thou shalt eternally witness: Thy queries are answered lovingly and plainly, and in the Scripture language and terms, and with the eternal light and life of God set thee in thy own place, which thou shalt eternally witness, Ibid. p. 34.  Chr. 
What horrid blasphemy, arrogance, and wilful lying, are these few concluding words guilty of? to say these queries are answered in the eternal life and light of God, is a most blasphemous intituling the Divine Majesty to all Edw. Burroughs his multiplied Rail, Lies, and Impertinencies; Can the Devil himself have been more vile? and was it not prodigious arrogancy in this man to take upon him to determine a man's endless condition? Is it not also a most odious lie, to say these queries are answered lovingly and plainly, in Scripture language and terms? Is railing, cursing, and damning a person, loving and plain answers? Is sot and sottish Beast, etc. Scripture language and terms? The Lord in mercy deliver us from such Prophets, who are justly worthy of the abhorrence of all men.  
Thus I have given you some account of the memorable works (of this eminent Quaker) printed 1672. with the Epistles of Ellis Hooks, Josiah Coale, George Whitehead, Francis howgil, and George Fox, that the Ages to come may see what monsters this Age produced: O my Soul come not thou into their Secrets, unto their Assembly, Gen. 49.6. I presume by this time thou mayst be satisfied, that I have not wronged you in the Dialogue, but did therein represent you, and your manner of speaking, in more favourable terms than you see I could, or might have done, what farther have you to object?  Quak. 
We say they are lies and slanders, and thou art a most irreligious miscreant.  Chr. 
Several of you (that were moved thus to express your minds) being asked, whether you had read the Dialogue? answered No; How then do you know they are all lies? Is it not a most disingenuous thing to pass sentence on you know not what? I see 'tis as easy to wash the Blackmoor white, as 'tis to reclaim you from this accustomed evil. Those of you who have read the Dialogue, may know (if you will) that I have not only quoted your Books, but have done it truly and honestly; can this than be of any Service to you, when any person that examines the quotations, may see your error: As for that term miscreant, George Whitehead is pleased to impose upon me; I think it unworthy of any farther notice than this, that for want of argument, he takes up dirt, which was no ways becoming him, having told us in print, That he never found any man convinced by ill language, Divinity of Christ, p. 89. What more hast thou to say?  Quak. 
Thou sayest, We hold the Soul to be God, whereas we distinguish between the Power that saves, and that which is saved, G. W. Dip. Pl. p. 15.  Chr. 
Did I not cite your metropolitan G. Fox? direct you to his Book and Page, where you may read these words, That the Soul is part of Gods Being, without beginning; and infinite; Darest thou say, I have not quoted him truly? But saith George Whitehead, We distinguish between the Soul and its Saviour; So doth G. Fox seem to distinguish, When he calls God the Bishop of the Soul, notwithstanding which, he saith, The Soul is a part of Gods Being; If then there be any thing in his distinction, 'tis only this, That one part of God is Bishop over another. George Whitehead also pretends to distinguish between Christ, and his light or gift, Apolog. 35. And yet in his Dip. Pl. p. 13. saith, The life is the light of men, and this life and light is divine and increated; so that the meaning of his distinction must be, That Christ is not divine and increated, but his Light is: If both be increated, what signifies his distinction? James Naylor likewise distinguisheth between the light and the seed within; and yet tells us, The light is Christ, and the seed is Christ; so that your distinguishing is but a collusion to baffle and amuse simple and ignorant people: Hence, as one of your own Friends hath said of you, we find but too true; though your years have been but few, yet you have been exceeding expert in learning the subtleties (that is, the equivocations) of the Papists. Who of you ever writ against this position of George Fox concerning the Soul? Or which of you dare give it under your hands, That herein your Superintendent was deceived?  Quak. 
Whereas thou hast said, we deny the Person of Christ, herein thou art a liar; the person of Christ we own and witness.  Chr. 
But do you acknowledge him to be a distinct person without you?  Quak. 
Jesus Christ a Person without us, is not Scripture language, but the Anthropomorphites and Muggletonians, Whitehead, Dip. Pl. p. 13.  Chr. 
If Jesus Christ be not a Person distinct from you, who or what is Jesus Christ?  Quak. 
'Tis God himself; if God be the Light, and that Light be Christ, than God is Christ, Penns Innocency with open face, p. 8. Again, 'tis the light in us, we own no other Redeemer but that Person, the Son of God, who died at Jerusalem, who is the light in us, Naylor and Hubborthorns answer to the Phanatique History, p. 13.  Chr. 
You say you own the Person of Christ, is the light in you a person? and is it the very Son of God? and did it indeed die at Jerusalem?  Quak. 
We say, He that was slain upon the Cross is the very Christ of God, and the very Christ of God is in us, Burroughs Works, p. 9 149.  Chr. 
If God be Christ, as Penn saith; or if the Light within you be the Christ, as Naylor and Hubberthorne affirm? Is it proper or safe to say, God was slain, or that the Light in you was crucified?  Quak. 
Ye have condemned and killed the Just, James 5. 5, 6. that is, Christ Jesus in their hearts, him they crucified, G. Keith. Immediat. Revelation, p. 77.  Chr. 
Is Christ really and indeed crucified in the hearts of men only.  Quak. 
As Christ is and lives in himself, he cannot be crucified, but his appearance may, Keith. Ibid.  Chr. 
You distinguish between Christ, and his appearance; and say, He himself cannot, but his appearance may be crucified; Is not this as much as to say, His appearance is but a Creature? But how will this agree with the Dictates of others of your Ministry, who say, The Light within is divine and increated: I perceive if we examine you distinct, your tales will not agree. And when G. Keith. saith, Ye killed the Just, that is Christ Jesus: Must we believe that this Just is not indeed Christ Jesus, but only his appearance; consequently when the Scripture saith, Christ was crucified, we must not understand it was Christ himself, but only an Image, appearance, or some representation of him was crucified, and all this too within our Hearts. But is this one of those things which you say are necessary to be revealed to you, which are not to be found in the Scriptures, no not so much as by consequence, Ibid. p. 3, 4.  Quak. 
Now thy perverse and cavilling mind discovers itself.  Chr. 
Do you believe that Christ is now in Person at the right hand of God?  Quak. 
He is at the right hand of God, but I cannot believe he hath a personal being at the right hand of God without all men, G. Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 18. Christ in Person remote in a body of flesh, and not in men is not Scripture, but added, Ibid. p. 69.  Chr. 
What then do you intent by the right hand of God, and of Christ's being there?  Quak. 
Christ, nor Gods right hand, is not to be limited to a remoteness from the Saints, Ibid. p. 18. What do you mean by God's right hand, and Christ's being at God's right hand, that would seem to confine them out of all men, Ibid. p. 20, 21.  Chr. 
Is Christ no otherwise at God's right hand, then as he is in you?  Quak. 
'Tis a false and lying Imagination to imagine either Christ or God, and his right hand, to be so remote as not to dwell in any man, Whitehead, Ibid. p. 69.  Chr. 
Is the heavens, that must retain him till the times of the restitution of all things, only the hearts of men?  Quak. 
I have told thee plainly, that neither Christ, nor Gods right hand are so remote, as not to dwell in men, and that Christ hath not a personal being at God's right hand.  Chr. 
Doth not the Scripture say, That the same Jesus that went away, shall in like manner come again? Acts 1.10, 11.  Quak. 
I deny he shall ccome visibly; and though it be said in like manner, yet every like is not the same, Whitehead, Ibid. p. 22.  Chr. 
Is not this a plain denial of the second personal coming of Christ?  Quak. 
They are like to be deceived, who are expecting that Christ's second coming will be a personal coming; which word person you add to the Scriptures, not minding the penalty, Revel. 22. G. Whitehead, Ibid. p. 23.  Chr. 
'Tis said, When he comes, that every eye shall see him, they that pierced him, etc.  Quak. 
To say, They that pierced that Body, shall see that Body, are not Scripture words, but added; you do herein show your carnal expectations, mean thoughts, unscriptural conceptions of Christ; where doth the Scripture say, That Christ shall come in Person? G. Whitehead, Ibid. p. 21, 22.  Chr. 
In one breath you confess, That Christ risen with the same Body that was crucified, and that he ascended into Glory, Ibid. p. 17. And in another you speak thus, To say Christ ascended with the same body which risen from the dead, and is at God's right hand with that body; and that he hath a personal being at God's right hand you cannot believe, Ibid. p. 17, 18. Who is able to reconcile these Contradictions? In which of your say shall we believe you, 'tis evident, you did but dissemble in the first, that you might entrap and deceive your unwary Reader.  
But if Christ's second coming will not be personal, pray tell us what you mean by his second coming?  Quak. 
Be sober, and hope to the end, for the grace that shall be brought to you at the Revelation of Jesus Christ, when he shall appear in you glorified, who before was crucified in weakness, but now is raised in Power, G. Keith. Im. Re. p. 77.  Chr. 
If this be the second appearance and coming of Christ, as in your Book 'tis called, pray what is the first coming?  Quak. 
Till that time the day dawn, and the daystar arise in our hearts; he directs them to a light that shineth in a dark place, which is the same Jesus Christ in his first appearance, as the seed sown, a seed of light, but not come forth to the perfect day; this is the most sure and firm word of Prophecy, whereunto we do well to take heed for the time, Keith. Ibid.  Chr. 
Then Christ's coming in the form of a Servant to suffer and die, was no coming at all; for his first appearance, you say, is the light that shineth in a dark place; and the second is, when he (that is in his appearance) shall in you be glorified, so that a personal coming in any respect is manifestly denied by you. And since you deny Christ in his personal Being and Existence, pray tell me, Hath he no Body?  Quak. 
Yea, the Church is his Body, Edw. Burroughs.  Chr. 
What do you mean by the Church, is it Persons, or only a Seed, or Spirit in Men?  Quak. 
'Tis the Seed.  Chr. 
Where is such a Seed called the Body of Christ, do you believe Christ hath no other Body but this?  Quak. 
It is not our wont course to say Christ hath no Body but his Church, but we say the Church is his Body, Burroughs Works, p. 150.  Chr. 
Why do you not speak directly, Hath Christ no other Body but his Church?  Quak. 
This is an ensnaring question, I shall not answer to satisfy thee, nor may I feed thy Serpent's Wisdom, Burroughs, Ibid.  Chr. 
What snare can be in this question, if you do indeed believe that Christ hath another Body.  Quak. 
To say Christ hath two Bodies, one out of the sight of the Saints; there is so much wickedness and ignorance in the Broachers of such a particular, that it needs no answer, Burroughs, Ibid. 151, 152.  Chr. 
Then Burroughs and G. Whitehead both agree in denying Christ to have a Body distinct from his Church.  Quak. 
Them that accuse us for saying Christ hath but one Body, should produce Scripture that saith he hath two; and where doth the Scripture say, That Christ's glorified Body in heaven is of a humane nature, G. whitehead's Apolog. p. 33.  Chr. 
'Tis apparent then, you acknowledge no other Christ but the light in you; this, and this only is the very person of Christ in your judgement.  Quak. 
They who deny Christ to be the light in every man are Antichrists, Burroughs, Ibid. p. 127.  Chr. 
But is the very Person of Christ in every man?  Quak. 
The Gospel is preached in every Creature under heaven, Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 63.  Chr. 
I know by Gospel you mean Christ himself, but is Christ himself preached in Devils, Beasts, Trees, and in every flagitious and wicked person; yea, is Christ himself in every Reprobate?  Quak. 
When we say Christ is in Reprobates, you must understand the light or gift of Christ; for we do not express the light in every man to be Christ, George whitehead's Apol. p. 35. 'Tis not our Principle to say Christ is in every man; 'tis falsehood to accuse us with affirming, that Christ is in every man, Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 66.  Chr. 
What vile hypocrisy and deceit is this Whitehead guilty of, he himself saith, The Scriptures direct to the Rule, that is, the light within that gave them forth, Christ ascended, p. 42. Burroughs affirms, That they who deny Christ to be the light in every man are Antichrists. But I would ask Whitehead, whether this light or gift be created or increated: If the former, then 'tis but a mere creature: If the latter, as he affirms in his Dip. Pl. p. 13. To say the light within every man is a mere creature, is (saith he) contrary to plain Scripture, which saith, In him was life, and the life was the light of men; this life and light is divine and increated. Is Whitehead then to be believed in saying, 'Tis not your Principle to say Christ is in every man, whilst he openly denies the light within to be a creature, and saith, 'Tis divine and increated: This kind of saying and denying is so common with him, that I profess 'tis a very hard and difficult point with me to know when he speaks as he thinks; from the whole, you see I had just reason to accuse you for denying the person of Christ: But since you own the name Christ, and do make use of it, pray what doth it signify?  Quak. 
Christ signifies anointed.  Chr. 
If God himself be Christ, as Penn saith, I would quere whether God himself was anointed: If you will dare to affirm this, then tell me by whom, with what, and to what end he was anointed.  Quak. 
This we say, that Christ as the Son of God before the world, before he took Flesh, was the anointed of God, which anointing was spiritual, and spiritually received by the heavenly Birth, the anointed, the holy seed, Whitehead, Christ ascended, p. 68  Chr. 
This is still as much as to say, that God himself was anointed: If so, what was the unction, by whom poured upon him, and wherefore?  Quak. 
Now thou obtrudes questions.  Chr. 
Will you not speak intelligibly? Is it not necessary to understand who is the Christ, and wherefore he was anointed; what signifies your saying, The anointing was spiritual, and spiritually received by the heavenly birth, the holy seed? Is God himself a heavenly Birth, did he receive the anointing? pray be plain, and do not lurk in ambiguous terms, neither let us be put off with your blasphemous absurdities, but speak home to the point.  Quak. 
Alas for thee, these are mysteries thy dark mind cannot conceive or understand.  Chr. 
Is it not your duty (who pretend to be under infallible teachings) to endeavour my information in such important and weighty matters.  Quak. 
Wilt thou deny that the Son of God, before the world, before he took flesh, was the anointed of God.  Chr. 
I do not deny, but really believe the eternal Deity of the Son of God; yet I do deny, that the mere Godhead of the Son was the anointed Saviour: And thou must prove, that the Son of God, merely as God, is the Christ; for what thou hast yet said is no proof.  Quak. 
Is not what I have said sufficient.  Chr. 
In no wise; however thou mayst take time to consider on it, mean while let me ask thee, whether Christ was not God's gift?  Quak. 
Yea, he was so.  Chr. 
To what end, and in what respect is he the gift of God?  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, Penns Sand. Foun. p. 19  Chr. 
Thou hast affirmed, That God is Christ; if so, did God himself die, and suffer to God? and therein express his love for the salvation of men; or if the Son of God the heavenly Birth, which was before the world, and before he took flesh, as Whitehead talks, be only the anointed Saviour; was this simply of itself given to die, and suffer to God? or if the mere light within be the Christ, will you say, This was given to die and suffer to God, and therein to express Gods eternal love for the salvation of men? who can understand these things? Are not such dictates apparent indications of your distracted minds?  Quak. 
We say Christ is the gift of God's eternal love for the salvation of men, and wilt thou deny this?  Chr. 
Though I do grant it, yet I see you will take a liberty to say that at one time, and in one place, which can never be reconciled with, your say in another, and that you run yourselves into such a labyrinth of confusion and contradiction, that all the light you have cannot extricate you out of, and consequently that your pretences to infallibility is a mere lying delusion: For you neither consist with the truth, nor yourselves; yet give me leave to ask you, 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 to save the lost.  Chr. 
But who, or what is this that was lost.  Quak. 
That which was lost, is still in man's heart, and there it must be sought; for it remains still in the house (that is) man's heart: This is the thing to be sought for. This Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preached people to this; the lost in man, that it might be found; a lost God, a lost Christ, this was the sum and substance of their Doctrine, G. Keith. Im. Re. p. 75, 76.  Chr. 
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; was ever God and Christ in a lost condition? If you had said, That Jesus Christ came to seek and save Sinners who were in a lost condition, and to stir them up to seek after God, whom they had lost, you had spoken safely: But to say this, Christ came to seek and save, and all his Ministers preached people to this, the lost in man, a lost God, a lost Christ; Is not capable of any construction less than blasphemy. To this agrees James Naylor, who said, Christ came to redeem the seed within, which he often calls Christ. Is this another of those things you say are necessary to be revealed to you, which are not to be found in Scripture, not so much as by consequence; And are these your instances to prove you under immediate Inspirations? If they be, they will prove no more, nor no less than this, that you are immediately inspired and influenced by that grand Impostor the Devil. Pray what is your Opinion concerning Justification by that Righteousness of Christ, which he in his own Person fulfilled for us, wholly without us.  Quak. 
Justification by the Righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us in his own Person, wholly 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, William Penn, Apol. p. 148.  Chr. 
Is there no other Righteousness by which the Saints are justified then what Christ works only in them?  Quak. 
Thou Beast, to whom the Plagues of God are due, and upon whom the wrath of God must be accomplished, who wouldst have another Righteousness then that which Christ works in the Saints, Edw. Burroughs Works, p. 32.  Chr. 
Is not this to disclaim the Doctrine of Justification by an imputed Righteousness.  Quak. 
Thou wrong'st us, and our Principle, for imputative Righteousness, as truly considered in the Scriptures, we do not disclaim, G. Whitehead Apol. p. 37.  Chr. 
I have great reason to believe that G. W. dissembles in these words, for in the same page he disclaims them that deny the Righteousness of Christ within for Justification; and also saith, That justification by the Righteousness of Christ without us is not Scripture language; who will believe his complaint of wrong, whilst he so apparently confesseth the truth of what is objected against you, as will abundantly appear from what follows, what righteousness is that upon the account of which we are justified?  Quak. 
Justification is not from the imputation of another's Righteousness, but from the actual performing and keeping of God's righteous Statutes, Pen. Sand. Found. p. 25.  Chr. 
Is it not written, Rom. 5.19. By the Obedience of One, many were made righteous?  Quak. 
It is a great abomination to say, God should 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 contended for by Christians? Penn, Ibid. p. 25. 30.  Chr. 
How now Mr. Penn, is 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?  Quak. 
This I do say, That the consequences of such a Doctrine is both irreligious and irrational, Pen. Ibid. p. 16.  Chr. 
What then doth the Scripture intent, in saying Christ died for the ungodly, Rom. 5. And he was made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5. And on him was laid the Iniquities of us all, Isa. 53.  Quak. 
I caution and warn men, by no means to entertain this principle (of Christ's dying to make satisfaction to Divine Justice) by whomsoever recommended, Pen. Ibid.  Chr. 
Be free and plain with me, How and in what respect is Christ said to fulfil the Law, and to die for Sinners?  Quak. 
He fulfilled the Law only as our pattern or example, Pen. Ibid. p. 26. Christ is so far from telling us of such a way of being justified, as that be informs us the reason why he abode in his Father's love, was his Obedience; he is so far from telling as of being justified by virtue of his Obedience imputed, that unless we keep the Commands, and obey for ourselves; In all which Christ is but our example, Pen Ibid.  Chr. 
But are men indeed justified by their own works?  Quak. 
Was not Abraham justified by works; n●… must not conceive, as the dark imputations of the Age, that Abraham's personal offering was not a justifying Righteousness, Pen. Ibid. p. 30.  Chr. 
Was not Abraham justified before he did personally offer up Isaac? ye●, doth not the Scripture intimate, that Abraham was not justified by works, see Rom. 4.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And do not you (Mr. Penn) elsewhere tell us, That such are run into a narrow strait, who venture to reconcile Merit and Grace. See your caveat against Popery. p. 12. where you also say, That Grace is a free gift, requiring nothing; and now ask, Was not Abraham justified by works, and that good works may be said to procure, deserve, or obtain, Apolog. 198. Is this to write like an infallible Dictator? But do you really believe that Abraham's offering personally was his justifying Righteousness?  Quak. 
I do say Abraham had not the imputation of another's Righteousness to him, his personal Obedience was the ground of that just imputation, Pen. Sand. Found. p. 30.  Chr. 
If Abraham was justified by works, as you argue, why did the Apostle only take notice of his offering up of Isaac, and not of the whole course of his Obedience? If a man be justified by works before God, surely it cannot be by one single action (such as Abraham's offering was) but by a continued holy and innocent life. But is our personal Obedience the very ground and reason of God's reckoning and accounting us righteous.  Quak. 
I do maintain, that good works may be said to procure, doserve, or obtain; in which sense, without good works, there is no acceptance with God; and Abraham's personal offering was the ground of that just imputation, Penn.  
God accepts not any where there is any failing, or who do not fulfil the Law, and answer every demand of Justice, Edw. Burroughs, supra.  Chr. 
Then the ground of our rejoicing, and acceptance, is not in and from the Righteousness of another, viz. of Christ imputed to us by Faith, but only in a righteousness inherent in us, and done by us.  Quak. 
The Doctrine of rejoicing and acceptance from the works of another is utterly excluded, Pen. Sandy Found. p. 27.  Chr. 
Doth not this render the undertake of Jesus Christ, as a Mediator and Surety, a mere fancy? If the ground of a man's rejoicing be in himself, why doth the Apostle give it as the Character and property of a true Christian, to rejoice in Christ Jesus, Phil. 3. And what signify those words, Christ is made unto us Righteousness; wherefore let him that glorieth, glory in the Lord, 1 Cor. 1.30, 31. And what did the Prophet Isaiah intent, cap. 45, 24, 25. Surely shall one say, in the Lord have I Righteousness, in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. Are we no farther concerned in the Obedience and Sufferings of our Lord Jesus without us, then only as our example or pattern?  Quak. 
What more wouldst thou have? I have told thee, That Christ fulfilled the Law but only as our example.  Chr. 
Do you not then notoriously equivocate and dissemble, when you say, That Christ's Birth, Blood, Offering, Death, Mediatorship, Covenant, his being Priest, Prophet, and King, is owned according to the Scriptures, and all the Prophecies of him, Innocency with open face, p. 38. Is the owning of Christ only as our example all that the Scriptures and Prophecies of him signify; Can you imitate him in his Mediatorship? can you lay down your lives, and take them up again? Have you the same fullness of the Godhead in you he had, that you can follow him in the same Obedience? Can you execute the Office of Priest, Prophet, and King, in the same manner and perfection, which Christ did and doth? We know very well, how ever you palliate, you believe no such thing that your words seem to import: For when you talk of Christ's Birth, Blood, Death, etc. you intent no more but the light in you, in its variety of manifestations; therefore if possibly thou canst, answer directly what that Righteousness is, which is reckoned or accounted to us for our Justification.  Quak. 
Art thou of them, that imagine a Justification without Sanctification, who because the Scriptures faith, God justifies the ungodly through Faith, they therefore conclude themselves justified in their ungodliness, by a fancy which they call Faith, Naylors' Love to the Lost, 50, 51. I farther tell thee, That Justification by an imputed Righteousness is both irrational, irreligious, ridiculous and dangerous, Pen. Sand. Fo. p. 30, 31.  Chr. 
I know of none that hold Justification of persons in their ungodliness; this therefore is a wicked slander, and not at all to the question: We plead not for a Righteousness imputed, to overthrow a Righteousness inherent, or the exercise of Christian virtues; 'tis you would separate and divide them, not we: The question intends this, whether the person justified was not at that instant before he was justified guilty in himself?  Quak. 
Justification goes not before, but is consequential to the mortifying of Lusts, and the sanctification of the Soul: Again, impute or imputing signifies no more in Scripture, but to express men really and personally to be what is imputed to them, Pen. Sand. Fo. p. 27, 29, 30.  Chr. 
Doth not this import, that a man must be formally just before he be justified, for nothing is imputed or reckoned to us (according to your reasoning) but what is inherent in us: I would ask you, whether remission of sins be not one part of Justification?  Quak. 
I suppose it may.  Chr. 
Can one be forgiven that is not guilty; it looks like a contradiction, to pardon one that is innocent, to forgive one that owes nothing; certainly he that is pardoned must be a Sinner, Rom. 4.5. that is, such that were so till justified, not such that remain so being justified.  Qu. 
God justifies the living, and not the dead, whilst the Just being dead in trespasses and sins: There is no justification where the Just lives not, for by that which the Just lives, is that by which the creature is justified, Naylors' Love to the lost, 52. Printed 1656.  Chr. 
To talk of the Just being dead in trespasses and sins, is no other than your absurd blasphemous and ridiculous canting. For by Just, we know you mean the seed of God in man, which sometimes you call Christ, or his appearance, gift or measure: But is Christ, or his Seed or Power in man, dead in sins and trespasses? what unworthy and vile Creatures are you to suggest such perilous conceits as these, and yet pretend to infallibility and perfection; by what hath been said, I am (and presume others may be) fully satisfied what kind of Justification you hold: Pray let us understand your Opinion of Sanctification, what it is:  Quak. 
'Tis Christ himself; hence we conclude, To say Sanctification is imperfect in this life, is as much as to say, Christ is imperfect; but Christ is perfect, therefore Sanctification is perfect: See then the error and wickedness of this principle, that Sanctification is imperfect, Edw. Burrough's Works 488.  Chr. 
'Tis true, 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 himself, or that this work is now perfect in all its degrees.  Quak. 
Jesus Christ is both the seeds man, the seed, and also the fruit, G. Keith. Im. R. p. 77. The Law in the mind is the Spirit of God: To say the Law in the mind is imperfect, is error in the highest degree; this is an abominable corrupt principle of error, the new man is perfect peace, and perfect sanctification, Burroughs, Ibid. 488.  Chr. 
How wilt thou prove that Christ is both the Author, and the work, the seedsman, and the seed, and fruit? That the Law in the mind is the Spirit itself, and Christ himself; and that the new man is perfect sanctification, that there remains not the least sin either for kind or degree in the person sanctified; we will not be imposed upon, therefore, if you can, demonstrate this thing unto us.  Quak. 
If the old man, the body of sin, remain in sanctified persons, than none are sanctified at all; and such as have the body of sin in them, have no part in the Kingdom of God, Edw. Burroughs, Ibid. 488.  Chr. 
Why then doth the Apostle exhort sanctified persons to put off the old man, Col. 3.5. Rom. 13.12, 13.  
And how will you prove yourselves to have any part in the Kingdom of God, since 'tis notorious, the body of sin yet remains in the best of you, of which your intolerable pride, error, envy, malice, railing cursing, hypocrisy, and wilful lying are sufficient evidences.  Quak. 
We deny the old man, we are in the meekness, truth, and simplicity; therefore thou suggests nothing but thy own imaginations.  Chr. 
You are (as we say) far from your Neighbours, who else will say so of you besides yourselves, your own Testimony is not sufficient in this ease; especially since your Writings, Converse, and Practice gives the lie to this your pretence, and sufficient instances hath in this Discourse been suggested to prove you guilty; therefore your denial is an aggravation of your sin and wickedness. But to the question, doth Sanctification consist in our conformity to the will of God or not?  Quak. 
Now thou runs into the many words, thy fleshly and imaginary distinctions.  Chr. 
When wilt thou forbear these trifling Impertinencies, Speak to the point.  Quak. 
I have told thee, That the Law in the mind is the Spirit of God, and that Christ is Sanctification, can I speak more plain?  Chr. 
If the Law in the mind be the Spirit itself, and if Sanctification be Christ himself, what must we call obedience to Christ, his Law or Spirit? If our habitual and actual conformity to the divine Law or Rule be our holiness, how can the Spirit itself and Christ himself merely be it?  Quak. 
We deny not, but declare, That all men ought to be obedient to the light, Christ in them.  Chr. 
But may this obedience be called our holiness? you seem to deny it, in saying Christ himself is Sanctification, and the Law in the mind is the Spirit of God: Dost Christ obey himself, doth he repent and believe, and is his obeying himself in us our holiness? If so, then whilst you deny an imputed Righteousness in a Scripture sense, you maintain a righteousness imputed in an enthusiastical and ridiculous sense. But if you will say, That obedience to the divine Rule is our holiness, than you will contradict yourselves. And to apply it to you, I would ask, How it is possible for you to prove yourselves sanctified persons, that so wilfully and wickedly oppose the rule of duty: Did ever any holy man deliberately affirm, That is no command to me which is a command to another, neither did any of the Saints act by the command which was given to another; they every one obeyed his own command, Burroughs, Ibid. p. 47. Then that Law which forbids Idolatry, Adultery, Murder, Theft, and hearing false witness, etc. is no Law to you, forasmuch as it was given to others, and you say, We are not to act by the command which was to another; no wonder you pay so little; respect to Parents, Magistrates, Masters, etc. for that you will say was a command to others, therefore no command to you; so that neither the affirmative, nor the negative Precepts have any obligation upon you; for you have a peculiar dispensation, only to obey your own command? Are you not, oh ye Quakers, ashamed of this Doctrine?  Quak. 
By order and authority given me by the Spirit of the living God, on the 31 day of the 10th month, 1655. about four a Clock in the morning, The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Writ my controversy with all the Inhabitants of the Earth Hence I do say, That to take up a command from the Letter, and say Christ commands it, that thus you are in the witchcraft, Edw. Burroughs works, p. 96. comp. with p. 105.  Chr. 
Is it witchcraft to stand in awe of Christ's commands, to reverence their authority, to endeavour to our utmost an observance thereof? Did ever such ungodly and irreverent Speeches drop from the mouth or pen of any truly Christian man? And is it not impiously horrid, to make God himself to patronise such blasphemies; why do you countenance such Novices? Are you not yet ashamed of those Testimonies you have given to this most profane Scribbler? And whereas you say, That nothing is a command to me which is a command to another; will you stand by it, that nothing is a duty to me but what I am immediately moved unto by the power within me:  Quak. 
'Tis an error to say, we are not to wait for an inward call, motion, impulse, or inspiration; to preach, pray, or to give thanks, so as to forbear till it be given, G. Keith. Im. Rev. Preface.  Chr. 
Am I not then sinless, if Lomit the doing of any thing that may be good in itself, and commanded in the Scriptures, if I be not immediately moved thereunto?  Quak. 
Is it of good report, for unregenerate and uninspired men to pray, Pen. Apol. p. 111. Spiritual obedience is not that wherein men and women read the Scriptures, and from that set themselves on work, and so make an imitation of obedience, Naylors' Love to the lost, p. 27.  
People cry out of their best duties, as having sin in them, had they not better let them alone: All these holy duties, as they call them, must down; had they not better let them alone, and see the salvation of God, and come to the gift, etc.  Chr. 
These last words, One of our Ministry was moved to declare very lately in a public meeting in London. But is not this to teach men to be irreligious and profane; no marvel Nicholas Lucas said, We may burn the Bible, and serve God as well without it: But the question returns upon you, whether this be not to lay all our neglects of doing that which is meet; yea, aught to be done, upon the power or spirit, for not immediately moving us thereunto? And what is your meaning, when you say these holy duties must down, and we had better let them alone, as having sin in them: Is it not this? That there is no duty incumbent upon imperfect creatures? and that none must be performed, except it be perfect in the matter, manner, principle, and end: If so, are not all men discharged by you, from acknowledging the Sovereignty of God in those Laws he hath given unto them.  Quak. 
You are not dead with Christ, who are yet subject unto Ordinances, Burroughs p. 105. Your Obedience is but the conformity in your own wills to that which was the will of God to another, Ibid.  Chr. 
The Spirit of God in the Scriptures assures us, that they who are subject to, and keep the Commandments of God, are the Children of God, and they who do not are liars, see the first Epistle of Joh. 2, 3, 4. cap. 5.2, 3. Yet this wicked man saith, That they who are subject to Ordinances are not dead with Christ, if you flee for refuge to Col. 2.20. It will not relieve you, for it is no ways applicable to the persons to whom Edw. Burroughs did write; nor is his Speech limited to Jewish Ordinances (now abolished) but was more general, respecting the Ordinances of Christ still in force and being; and will you say these are not to be owned nor subjected unto, but only so far as we are immediately moved and prompted by the power within.  Quak. 
To go without the movings of the Spirit in your own wills, God hates, and his wrath is upon, if the movings of the Spirit do not carry forth to act them, they are accursed of God. And all who go before the move of it to carry forth, All their Prayers, Preach, and Ordinances I deny, and declare against, by the eternal Spirit of God, that they are odious, and abomination unto God, whether they be done in private, or in the Church, Edw. Burroughs Works, p. 47, 48.  Chr. 
Then we are really acquitted from any fault in omitting to do that which is good, and all the blame why it is not done, must be laid upon the Spirit: But is not this horrid? will this plea be of any service to us (think you) in the day of acconut to say Lord, though I knew such a thing ought to have been done, and such an evil omitted; and that thou in the holy Scriptures did command the one, and forbidden the other, yet that was nothing to me, I had no immediate motion or impulse to do that, or forbear this. But what if one be moved to do those things which are not commanded in the Scriptures, must that motition be followed?  Quak. 
We affirm, That a great many particular things, both by way of precept, prohibition, permission, approbation and counsel from the Lord, are both revealed, and necessary to be revealed to us, which are not essentials of the Christian Religion, nor principles of the Doctrine of Christ, but things relating to our conversation in the world, and walking with God, with faith and comfort, according to his will, with the knowledge of which we are to be filled with in all things.  
For there is a necessity for those under the New Covenant dispensation of living in, and walking after the Spirit, to have things revealed to them from the Lord, which are not to be found in the Scriptures particularly, not so much as by consequence, G. K. Im. Rev. p. 3. 4.  Chr. 
If I may be so bold as to ask you, what are some of those things which by way of precept or counsel from the Lord, which, you say, are necessary to be revealed to you, which yet are not to be found in the Scriptures, not so much as by consequence: And how are you assured you have them from the Lord? and what evidence (more than your own pretences) can you give thereof to other men? Is your Friends, being moved to go naked, both men and women, openly in the Streets one of those things? And is the casting off the duties of Relations each to other, yea the relation itself, another? As I knew one of your Friends was moved to ramble about the Country, and neglect her Family at home; and once when she returned, it was upon her heart to signify to her Husband (an honest, sober, and religious man, but no Quaker). That if he were free, he might take him another woman: I confess these things are not to be found in the Scriptures, not so much as by consequence: Do you call this a living in, and walking after the Spirit? Is it not rather a following the conduct of the Prince of the power of the air? Again, what if one of you be moved to door speak any thing which others of you are not satisfied in, must they obey that motion?  Quak. 
That single person must deny his motion, wherein it differs from the judgement of the Body (that is to say, the Court) which hath a true sense, feeling, and understanding of motions, visions, revelations and doctrines; therefore 'tis safest to make her the touchstone in all things relating unto God, Spir of the Hat, p. 21.  Chr. 
Is not this as much as to say, that the power or spirit in and with the body is the only infallible and unerring rule, and not the power or measure (as you sometimes call it) in any individual person? are you now after all your clamours about the sufficiency of the light or power in every man to be the rule, come to set up the light and spirit in the body above it?  Quak. 
Either there is such a thing as a Christian-society, sometimes called a visible body, or there is not: If there be, than this Church either hath power or not; if no power, than no Church: If a Body or Church, than there must be a power within itself to determine, Penns Spirit of Alexander, p. 9  Chr. 
For Christians to plead this, who own the Scriptures for their rule, and not the mere light within, the argument may safely be allowed: But for you who tell us, That is no command to me which is a command to another, and every one must act from their own command, and the light in every man is his only unerring rule: I see not how you can urge this, and yet consist with yourselves. But in case one should forbear what the Body would have done, or do what they forbidden, what then?  Quak. 
We abhor, renounce, and rebuke with severity that rude imagination of the Hat on in public Prayer: In this case the Body may admonish, and if the Party remain tenacious, disown him as a Disputer about needless questions, and one that is gone out of the complete union of the Body, and exercised by another Spirit, Penns Spirit of Alex. p. 4. 9  Chr. 
Though others may, yet you cannot (if you will agree with yourselves) stand by this: For will you say, What a man doth without an inward motion is accursed, and yet will you disown that man for not doing what he is not moved unto; will you say, There continually attends you that spirit that immediately informs you of your words, thoughts, and deeds, and gives you true directions what to do, and what to leave undone, Penns Apol. p. 138. And now talk of a Body that hath power in itself to determine, do you not herein render yourselves justly ridiculous and contemptible in opposing that in others which yet you contend for amongst yourselves? And do you think this is the way to gain credit with any, whilst you play fast and lose, affirm and deny at pleasure? how can you impose that on another as his duty, which the light in him discovers not so to be? And how dare you deny such, and call them unruly Beasts, and Ranting spirits, who merely for the want of an inward motion forbear such a practice? How you can do this, (your opinion that the light within is the only rule being considered) I cannot understand; If you will say that there is a known rule, and standard to walk by, and this is not the mere light in every man, but another thing, to which that light must yield, and also tell us what that rule is, whether the Scriptures, or, the Power in the body. If you say either of these, you deny your first principle: If you affirm the latter only, than you do but run from one extreme to another, yea hopp out of the Frying-pan into the fire; If to take up a Command from the Scriptures, be (by you) accounted witchcraft? pray, what shall we call a taking up a command from the Body?  
But since you seem to be so zealous for the Ministry, will you be pleased to acquaint us what is the true Ministry?  Qu. 
In the new Covenant, God is the teacher of his people himself Immediately by his Immediate Spirit, power, and unction within, G. Whit. Christ ascend. 64.  Chr. 
If so; wherefore were Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers given and set in the Church, for the work of the Ministry? And why do you set up a ministry amongst yourselves? Is it because you are not under the new Covenant? If God by his Immediate power and Spirit within, be the teacher, why do you appoint your Ministers before hand to speak in such a place, at such a time? And how know you, Such a one shall be Immediately moved then, and not another instead of him? And when you invite others to your silent meetings, telling us, they will be such, How are you assured that those you invite may not be moved to speak in that meeting? In a word, wherefore do you meet at all? will not the power move you, unless you be at such a meeting? None of these things will agree with your position, therefore one of your friends, was (in this) so far ingenuous as to acknowledge that your meetings were only, and principally to encourage (that is, to Decoy, Trappan, and Inveigle) others. But before leave this question, give me leave to ask you, Who, or What it is that is taught?  Qu. 
I am a witness of the most high God, a Minister of the word of life, commanded by the eternal Spirit into this work, for the seeds sake, which is not of the world, And to the gathering of it into the fold of everlasting peace. Edw. Burroughs works p. 106.  Chr. 
Is nothing else taught, and to be taught, but only this seed?  Qu. 
To the mind which is carnal, which rules in you, the commands of Christ are not given, nor can be received, Burroughs ibid. 106. The great work of the Ministry is to point hearers to this (that is the seed) in them, G. Keith. Im. R. p. 77. 78.  Chr. 
What must we understand by this Seed?  Qu. 
That of God in thee, and in every man, the witness of God in thy Conscience 'tis that we speak unto.  Chr. 
Is not this seed witness, or measure, Christ the light in man?  Qu. 
It is so; The Apostles preached Christ crucified every where, and pointed them to him, crucified in them, Keith ibid. 75, 76.  Chr. 
Is the command of God only given to, and obeyed by this Seed?  Qu. 
The Spirit, both as a rule manifests the promise, exerciseth faith in, and fulfils the promises. G. Whitehead, Christ ascend. p. 10.  Chr. 
Is the Spirit of promise both the Rule, and the Subject?  Qu. 
I have told thee, To the mind which is carnal the commands of Christ are not given; And that the Spirit, not only as a Rule manifests the promises, but exerciseth faith.  Chr. 
Then your Ministry is only God preaching to himself, giving rules to himself, and obeyed only by himself. Will you prate of your Infallibility, and yet talk like madmen? Had you not lost your common reason, and were absolutely infatuated, you would not dictate after this manner: is it not high time for you to renounce these follies that are so apparently manifest? or will you choose (rather than to take shame to yourselves) to persist in your errors to your utter undoing? Be advised, before it be too late: think not, that because you are under the bewitching influence of your own self-flattery, that therefore all is well: you must pass under another Judgement than your own: though you will wickedly take upon you to adjudge others to their eternal state, yet you will find, that neither them, nor yourselves, shall be determined by your judgements.  
If any of you are offended with me, for opposing the Christian to the Quaker; let them know, I cannot, I dare not, writ contrary to my own light and Judgement: I do not believe a true Quaker (such as these before quoted) is a Christian; but on the contrary, do look upon them as the most implacable enemies to the Christian religion, that these days have brought forth. How can I think otherwise, since you deny the Person of Christ, And all your talk of redemption by him, issues only in this; He redeems himself. Your Idle nonsensical, and blasphemous prating, of God teaching the seed, that is to say, himself in man, renders you to me, to be men Inspired by Satan. That you do but mock and delude men, when you talk of the Covenant of grace, is evident; for you understand it not, But openly maintain a Covenant of works. For you affirm that God accepts not any who do not fulfil the law, and answer every demand of Justice. And render all that Jesus Christ did for us, without us, no more but a mere example; If we ask you concerning your opinions; Presently we are called Reprobates and judged to be in the sorcery and witchcraft; let us urge you to be plain, you put us off with your witnessings; if in one place you seem to own the truth, in another, you will in downright terms deny it: let this be signified to you, Then Immediately you curse us, so that no man knows when, nor how to believe you, If we speak you, to a single person, you reprove us for not using the pure language. If we say thou to an Individua●… Quaker; you will upbraid us with Jeering or hypocrisy: you bid us follow the light within us; And if we do so, you will load us, with most bitter revile, you will Appropriate to yourselves the privilege of Infallibility, and at as if you were unaccountable either to God, or man, for what you say, or do. Though your sentiments, neither agree with the Scriptures, you●… selves, nor the common reason of mankind; yet will you Impose upon us, and that under the severest censures, the belief of your unknown, and unintelligible doctrines. You are as vile Impostors as ever were; for you will insinuate your lying doctrines, with lies, persuade many credulous, and ignorant (yet well-meaning) people, that you indeed believe, what in truth you do not: And accuse your Adversaries of that, wherein they are innocent: your manner is not, to convince us of error, but to conclude us so, right or wrong. If any miscarriage be, that must be improved to make the truth itself odious: neither do you only undermine religion, but your principles Improved are destructive to all humane society: you tell us, 'tis witchcraft to take up a command from the Scriptures, And that is no command to me, which is a command to another. If then a father command his child, The child may reply Thou must wait for my obedience till I be moved. The like may every subject and servant plead. If a merchant fell you his goods, He must stay for his money, till you be moved to pay it, till which time, you are under no obligation in point of duty: you say 'tis necessary to have things revealed to you with respect to your conversation in the world, which are not to be found in the Scriptures, no not by consequence; How then may your creditors be assured, it will be revealed to you, to pay what you own them. Scripture, and reason would, and do, teach you herein, but these you must be dead unto; who knows than what may, or may not be revealed to you? 'Tis not unknown, that a Revelation hath been pretended, to excuse the payment of a just debt. And why may not that which hath been (even amongst you) be again? But is it reasonable that men should be baffled out of their just rights, by such unjust and wicked pretences, go on, yet assuredly know that God will bring you to judgement. Then you shall know (though now you will not) by whom such doctrines as these (that are and have been the pest, and plague of the world, and the scandal and reproach of religion,) were Inspired. These things being considered, whether you be not either distracted or worse, I shall leave with others to think on; in the mean while, I judge myself sufficiently warranted in opposing the Christian to the Quaker.  
T. H.   

The Substance of the Quakers Belief in the Points before discoursed, comprised in this ensuing Catechism, for the more easy remembrance of such, who are of weaker capacities.  
Quest. WHat is your opinion of the Scriptures?  
A. That they are neither a rule to us, nor a means to know God, nor how to worship him. G. Whitehead.  
Thou mayst burn thy Bible, and serve God as well without. N. Lucas.  
Qu. Is there any thing more made known to you, than what is revealed in the Scriptures?  
A. There is a necessity for those under the new Covenant, to have things revealed to them which are not to be found in the Scriptures particularly, not so much as by consequence. G. Keith.  
Q. Are we not to obey the commands in the Scriptures?  
A. They who take up a command from the letter, and say Christ commands it, are in the witchcraft. Ed. Burroughs.  
Q. May we not pray for those mercies we want, and give thanks for mercies received, except we have an Immediate motion, and Impulse to do it?  
A. 'Tis an error to say, We are not to wait for an inward call, motion, Impulse or Inspiration; to pray or give thanks, so, as to forbear till it be given. Geo. Keith.  
Q. If I never be moved to pray, etc. am I not excused?  
A. Is it of good report for un-inspired men to pray? W. Pen.  
Q. Will you say, 'tis of evil report if they do?  
A. What thou dost without an inward motion is accursed. Edw. Burroughs.  
All those duties that have sin in them, had better be let alone.  
Q. If the want of an Inward and Immediate motion will excuse us from duty, what signifies the Law, which God hath given to man to oblige him thereunto?  
A. That is no command, (or Law) to me, which is given to another man, Edw. Burrows.  
Q. Are not all men sinless, except, when they obey not an inward motion?  
A. I have told thee, that they who take up a command from the letter are in the witchcraft. Ed. Bur.  
Q. God rules the Stars by his Immediate power, they being not capable of being governed by any other rule; and if God do only govern, and rule man by immediate motions, wherein doth a Man differ from a Star?  
A. Now thou runs into the imaginations.  
Q. Either God hath given a rule to man or not, and this rule is known, or 'tis not? If there be a known rule, then either it obligeth at all times, or but at some; if the former, man always sins if he obeys not; if the latter, assign those times when he is under no rule.  
A. I think not meet to satisfy thy busy mind.  
Q. If inward motions, impulses, or inspirations be the only rule, to every Individual; why do you set up a court amongst yourselves, to give rules to others?  
A. We being a religious Body have a power within ourselves, W. Pen Sp. Alex. p. 6.  
Q. By what rule shall I be assured of that?  
A. We as a believing body, have the holy Spirit, we know we are of God, and the world that withstand our testimony are in the Gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity, W. P. ibid. 13.  
Q. Is not this to justify what is said of you? they that will not believe your say, you will not spare to censure them: but do not you herein apparently set up the Judgement of the Body above the Light within?  
A. We deny that to be Light which opposeth the the Judgement of the body W. P. ibid. 14. The body will have a true sense, feeling and understanding, of motions, visions, revelations, and doctrines; therefore 'tis safest to make her the touchstone in all things relating to God, Sp. of the Hat, p. 21.  
Q. What safety can there be in relying on such a body, that act by no known rule or law?  
A. We have the power: And will not such that are in the power do right? ibid.  
Q. By what known rule, do you exert your power, that so the peccant person may be convinced you do him no wrong?  
A. We, as a Body, have power to determine, therefore we abhor, renounce, rebuke, with all severity, that rude imagination of the Hat on in public Prayer. W. Pen Sp. of Alex. p. 4, 5. 9  
Q. You take that for granted which is denied, how do you make it appear you have such a power?  
A. Thou art angry, not that there is a rule, but that thou hast no share in it, W. Pen. Sp. of Alex. p. 4.  
Q. Is not this as much as to say, that the will and pleasure of the Elders is the rule, and not the light within: if so, what signifies all your contests, about the sufficiency of the light in every man?  
A. I have told thee that we know we are of God, and they who withstand our Testimony are in the gall of bitterness, W. Pen.  
Q. If your pretences be sufficient to determine other persons, why may not the like pretence in them determine you? If you urge the Scriptures or primitive practice for your rule, you will entangle yourselves. If you say, The body (or court) is the rule; then, you set up the Body both above the Scriptures, and the light within. Will not a little measure of light discover your folly herein?  
I shall proceed to another question: Who or what is Jesus Christ?  
A. 'Tis God himself W. Pen. 'Tis the light in us Nayler and Hubberthorn.  
Q. It is said that Jesus Christ was crucified: but is it safe to say, God himself or the Light within was crucified?  
A. Ye have condemned, and killed the just, that is, Christ Jesus in their hearts; him they crucified in his appearance, G. Keith.  
Q. Is Christ one thing, and his Appearance another?  
A. Yea For Christ as he is and lives, in himself cannot be crucified, but his appearance may, G. Keith.  
Q. When the Scriptures speak of Christ crucified, do they mean only his Appearance, and not Himself? and is this meaning solid?  
A. Yea.  
Q. Why do you speak, and write so darkly and doubtfully of the person of Christ?  
A. You are not able to bear what we have to hold forth concerning Him: should we deliver what we hold concerning Jesus Christ, we should be stoned in the streets, Rob. Wastfield.  
Q. What think you of that-Christ, who was born at Bethlem, and died at Jerusalem?  
A. Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, a type, figure, a shadow, that is passed away. Do you, when you rise in the morning, think on God; do you see God in every creature and in yourself: think on these things and trouble not yourself about Jesus at Jerusalem. [This was uttered before many credible witnesses, by an eminent Quaker.]  
Q. Is not Jesus Christ a distinct person without you?  
A. Jesus Christ a person without us, is not Scripture-language, but the Anthropomorphits, and Muggletonians: G. Whitehead.  
Q. Is not Christ in person at God's right hand?  
A. Jesus Christ is at God's right hand, but I cannot believe he hath a personal Being at the right hand of God, G. W.  
Q. What do you intent by God's right hand?  
A. Christ, nor Gods right hand, is not to be limited to a remoteness from the Saints, G.W.  
Q. What is the meaning of that text, The same Jesus that went away, shall in like manner come again, Acts 1.10, 11.  
A. I deny he shall come visibly, and though it be said [in like manner,] yet every like is not the same, G. Whitehead.  
Q. Do not you believe that Christ will come the second time without sin to Salvation?  
A. He is come the second time.  
Q. 'Tis true: Christ is come by his Spirit but is there not another Coming?  
A. What other Coming wouldst thou have?  
Q. The Scriptures speak of his Coming to judge both the quick and the dead: do you believe this?  
A. Why dost thou trouble thyself about such foolish and silly things;  
Q. Pray, answer directly, whether you believe Christ shall come to judge the quick and the dead?  
A. I perceive that which troubles thee is the puzzling thyself so much in that book (the Bible) thou wilt never be settled till thou throw away that Book.  
Q. Do you deny the second personal Coming of Christ?  
A. They are like to be deceived who are expecting that Christ's second Coming will be personal G. Whitehead.  
Q. What signifies those words, When he comes every eye shall see him, they that pierced him & c?  
A. To say, they, that pierced that body, shall see that body, are not Scripture-words. G. Whitehead.  
Q. Hath Christ no body?  
A. Yea, the Church is his body, Ed. Burroughs.  
Q. Hath Christ no other body but his Church?  
A. This is an ensnaring question, Ed. Bur.  
Q. What snare can be in it, if you believe he hath another Body?  
A. To say, Christ hath two bodies, one out of the sight of the Saints, there is so much wickedness, and ignorance in the broachers hereof, that it needs no answer, Edw. Burroughs.  
Q. Is not this as much as to say, Christ hath no other Body but his Church?  
A. They that accuse us for saying, Christ hath but one body, should produce plain Scripture that saith, he hath two, G. W.  
Q. Is there no other Christ but the Light within?  
A. I have already said that they who deny Christ to be the light in every man, are Antichrists, Ed. Bur.  
Q. What doth the word Christ signify?  
A. Anointed;  
Q. If the light be Christ, what is its Unction? and to what end is it anointed? and how may we conceive it capable to execute the office of a Priest, Prophet, and King?  
A. Now thou runs into thy fleshly Conceivings;  
Q. Is Christ in you, in respect of that nature in which he suffered at Jerusalem?  
A. Here thou Enemy of Christ wouldst know how the Saints enjoy Christ. Thou art in the nature that Judas was in, who betrayed him, Ed. Burroughs.  
Q. Doth Christ, really in these days, take upon him, the form of a Servant.  
A. Thou dark beast, and conjurer, querying with thy conjured words: Is Christ to be limited to days, in taking upon him the form of a servant? Ed. Bur.  
Q. Is this answer serious and to the question?  
A. Yea, blessed be the Lord; 'tis an answer in the eternal life and light. Ed. Burroughs.  
Q. Is it not Impious, to entitle God to such railing and impertinent Answers?  
A. Thou shalt eternally witness them. Ed. Bur.  
Q. Was Jesus Christ the gift of God?  
A. He was so.  
Q. Wherein doth that appear?  
A. His doctrine, life, miracles, death and sufferings to God, is the gift and expression of God's eternal love for the salvation of men. W. Pen.  
Q. Thou hast affirmed, that God is Christ, did then God himself die, and suffer to God? etc.  
A. Wilt thou deny that Christ is God's gift?  
Q. Wilt thou prove that God gave himself to die and suffer to God, therein to express his eternal love for the salvation of men?  
A. This a captious and ensnaring question.  
Q. I perceive thou art entangled, and it will be to little purpose to press thee to reconcile one dictate with another: however, pray show, wherein Christ was given for the salvation of men?  
A. 1. In abolishing the other Covenant which consisted of shaddowy Ordinances.  
2. In promulgating his message of a most free, and universal tender of Life to all that believe, and follow him the Light, in all his righteousness.  
3. In seconding his Doctrine with signs and miracle, and a most innocent and a holy life.  
4. In ratifying and confirming all with great love, and a holy resignation, by offering up his body to be crucified by wicked hands; and is thereby become a most complete Captain and perfect Example. W. Pen, Sad. Found.  
Q. Of what were those Ordinances shadows?  
A. Of the Light and Life.  
Q. Was not the light and life, at that time in the Jews?  
A. Yea, but not in that measure and degree, as afterwards should be.  
Q. Were they then shadows only of such a measure or degree as in future times should be vouchsafed?  
A. Figures and shadows are only in force till the substance comes. W. Pen.  
Q. Is not the light and life the substance?  
A. The light, is the same Jesus, in his first appearance, as the seed of light, not come forth to the perfect day. G. Keith.  
Q. If then Jesus Christ in his first Appearance was at that time in the Jews, than those ordinances could not be shadows of that: Of what then were they so?  
A. As Christ apprehending the weakness of his disciples, did think fit to leave them some figurative token, and mark of his remembrance for them to be in the practice of, till he was better known to them, mystically, and in the spirit, therefore he said, Do this till I come. W. Pen. Apol. 134.  
Q. But were the Jewish ordinances figures only of Christ mystically, and in the Spirit?  
A. They were so;  
Q. Was not Christ known mystically and in the Spirit, at that time?  
A. Not as afterwards he would be;  
Q. If they were shadows of something farther to be revealed, Whether that degree of light they then had, was not insufficient?  
A. There is a sufficiency in the least degree of light, to help, and save him that takes heed to it. S. Fisher.  
Q. Is not that which is able to save, the substance?  
A. It is so;  
Q. Are types, figures, shadows, of force and to be observed when the substance is come?  
A. When the substance is come, the shadow ceaseth in point of Institution. W. Pen. Apol, 134.  
Q. Were not those shadows Instituted by God?  
A They were so.  
Q. Were the Jews obliged to observe them?  
A. Yea,  
Q. Then Either the substance was not come, or they were no shadows, or else they were ordained for some other end, and purpose: thus are you in a maze, and run yourselves into Irreconcilable absurdities, and contradictions, pray, what was that doctrine which Christ seconded by Miracles.  
A. That all men should take heed to him, the Light of them.  
Q. Forasmuch as all men acknowledge a light to be in every man, and that it ought to be heeded, what need was there of miracles to confirm this?  
A. But all men do not acknowledge the light in every man, to be the Christ of God.  
Q. Very true, were the Miracles then to prove this?  
A. Yea.  
Q. Where was such a doctrine delivered by Christ, and seconded by Miracles?  
A. Doth not Christ say, He is the light of men.  
Q. Where doth he say, The light in every man is the Christ of God?  
A. They who deny the light in every man to be the Christ, are Antichrists. Ed. Bur.  
Q. What farther did Christ deliver as his doctrine, which he seconded by Miracles?  
A. A message of a most free, universal tender of life to all that believe, and follow him the light in all his righteousness. W. Pen.  
Q. Was this all he seconded by miracles?  
A. Yea.  
Q. Dost thou do well to say so, since the Scriptures teach us otherwise?  
A. What other Doctrine did he confirm by miracles?  
Q. Was it not this, That he himself was the Messiah promised, and was sent into the world to die for sinners? and is not this that doctrine you so Strenuously oppugn?  
A. Now thou insinuates a slander against us.  
Q. What further did Christ do for the Salvation of men?  
A. He did ratify and confirm all with great love, and a holy resignation by offering up his body to be crucified by wicked hands, and thereby became a most complete captain, and perfect example. W. Pen.  
Q. Was Christ in his sufferings no more but an Example?  
A. What more, wouldst have him to be?  
Q. Was not the love of God, herein manifest, in sending his Son to die for sinners? Rom. 5.8.  
A. There may be something of that in it.  
Q. How, and in what respect did Christ die for sinners?  
A. Not to make satisfaction for their sins: the consequence of such a doctrine is both Irreligious, and Irrational W. Pen. Sandy Found. p. 16.  
Q. What doth the Scripture mean in saying, He was made sin for us?  
A. I caution and warn men, by no means to entertain this principle (viz.) of Christ's Satisfaction by whomsoever recommended. O why should this Horrible thing be contended for by Christians? W. Pen. ibid. p. 16. 25. 30.  
Q. How was sin, laid on Christ, and how was he made a curse for us?  
A. God was satisfied in his Son Christ the anointed, the Lamb offered without spot a sacrifice for Sin. G. W. Diu. of Christ. p. 19  
Q. In what respect was Christ a sacrifice for Sin?  
A. Your abuse of Christ, confusion, and darkness in stating your matter we cannot own, as proceeding from any sense or savour of Christ either as Sacrifice, or a Saviour, G. W. ibid. 79. 80.  
Q. Was that body of Jesus which was offered upon the cross the one, and only, Sacrifice for Sin?  
A. Thy sottish queries riseth out of thy dark mind concerning the body of Jesus, as the Devil did about the body of Moses, Edward Burroughs.  
Q. Was Christ's death a satisfactory Sacrifice, or not?  
A. God satisfied himself in his own gift, and without performing his own will he could not be satisfied, G. W. ibid. 79.  
Q. If thou hadst said, that God made man and gave him a reasonable Soul, etc. and without performing his own will he could not be satisfied, would it not have been, as much to the question, as what thou hast said: answer me, Was Christ's death on the Cross satisfactory for the sins of the world? or only for the Elect?  
A. Thou Jesuit art pleading for a Christ a far off, that Christ did not satisfy for thee, thou art under the woe. The death of Christ we witness, Edw. Bur. Where reads thou that God requires satisfaction for the sins of the Elect, or laid any thing to their charge, thou blind ignorant Sot? Edward Burroughs.  
Q. What was Christ's end, in giving himself a ransom, in being a propitiation for the sins of the whole world?  
A. To show forth, and give testimony of God's love, and grace towards all mankind, G. W.  
Q. Wherein was that Love and Grace manifested in Christ being a sacrifice for all men?  
A. He gave Him a ransom, to redeem, and purchase man out of the Transgression, G. W.  
Q. Was it the will of God that Christ should die to redeem man out of the Transgression?  
A. It was so.  
Q. Was there a necessity hereof?  
A. God would not be satisfied without performing his own will, G. W.  
Q. If it was Gods will, to give his Son to be a propitiation for the sins of the whole world; And if there was a necessity that thus it should be, because (as you say) God cannot be satisfied without doing his own will, How then can the mere Light within be sufficient to save? if it were, what necessity could there be of Christ being a sacrifice? but if this were necessary, then why do you maintain the former?  
A. Now thou multiplies questions to ensnare.  
Q. Pray be serious, and acquaint me what that obedience or suffering is by which you are reconciled to God?  
A. Silence, flesh! Would thou who art an Enemy of God know how the Saints are reconciled to God? Edw. Bur.  
Q. Will you not inform me in this matter?  
A. Own the Light in thy conscience, and then thou shalt know. Edward's Burroughs.  
Q. What think you of Justification by that Righteousness which Christ in his own person fulfilled for us, wholly without us?  
A. I boldly affirm it to be a Doctrine of Devils. W. Pen.  
Q. Is there no other Righteousness by which and for the sake of which the Saints are justified, than what Christ works in them?  
A. Thou art accursed, thou Beast, upon whom the wrath of God must be accomplished, who would have another Righteousness, than what Christ works in the Saints, Edw. Burroughs.  
Q. Is there no such thing as an imputed righteousness?  
A. Justification is not from the imputation of another's righteousness, W. Pen.  
Q. Doth God justify men upon the account of their own works?  
A. Was not Abraham justified by works? and was not his personal offering up of Isaac the ground of that just imputation? W. Pen.  
Q. Are good works meritorious?  
A. They may be said to procure, deserve, or obtain, W. Pen.  
Q. Doth then the holy lives, and works, of the Saints justify them in the sight of God, from the guilt of sin?  
A. Thou dead beast, by the same that the Saints are justified, thou art condemned into the lake for ever, Edw. Bur.  
Q. Are none justified or Righteous in the sight of God in whom is any corruption or failing?  
A. Thou polluted Beast, God accepts not any, where there is any failing, or who do not fulfil the law, and answer every demand of justice, Edw. Burroughs.  
Q. Who, what, is the true ministry?  
A. God himself by his immediate power, Spirit, and unction within, is the teacher of his people, G. Whitehead.  
Q. Who, or what doth he teach?  
A. The Seed;  
Q. Is the seed the only object of this teaching?  
A. To the mind which is carnal the commands of God are not given, nor can they be received, Edw. Bur.  
Q. What is this seed?  
A. 'Tis that of God in thee, the witness of God in thy conscience;  
Q. Do not you sometimes call this seed Christ, and his Spirit?  
A. We do.  
Q. Is the command given only to, and obeyed by this Seed?  
A. The Spirit both as a rul manifests the promises, and exerciseth Faith, G. W.  
Q. Is not this as much us to say, that God preacheth to, and is obeyed only by himself? Are you not ashamed to prate thus?  
A. Is not the great work of the ministry to point to this (viz. the Seed) in them, G. K?  
Q. Is it credible that God should teach only himself?  
A. Thy dark mind cannot conceive these things.  
Q. Dost thou thyself understand them?  
A. Yea.  
Q. Why wilt thou not endeavour to inform me?  
A. What hast thou to do to talk of these things, thot knowest nothing of God and Christ.  
Q. Do you not say, I have a light in me?  
A. I do.  
Qd. What is this Light?  
A. Thou art an Idle fellow, thus one of their Ministers answered this question.  
Q. Must I obey this Light?  
A. Yea.  
Q. If I do obey it, will it certainly save me?  
A. There is no doubt of that;  
Q. What assurance may I have thereof?  
A. If it do not, I dare be hanged, R. W.  
Q. Of what advantage will thy hanging be to me, if I should miscarry!  
A. Now thou taunts.  
Q. Dost thou not administer the occasion?  
A. I see thou art still in the envious mind.  
Q. Do you believe a state of Immmortality and eternal felicity?  
A. We own, and witness to an Immortal state, Geo. W.  
Q. Do you believe a farther happiness shall be enjoyed by the Saints, at the last day, than now?  
A. When thinks thou that will be? must all the Saints have their hopes, and faith of Salvation, unanswered till then? G. W. Chr. Asc. p. 34.  
Q. Do not you wait for any thing farther?  
A. Surely, death, and darkness hath power over thy mind, else thou wouldst never show thyself such an ignorant Papist, in putting Salvation so far off, till thou knowst not when, according to thy carnal conceits, G. W. ibid.  
Q. Is eternal life, and felicity enjoyed now?  
A. Is not the recompense of reward, Eternal life, and felicity, inwardly, and Spiritually received, by those that Now suffer for Christ, G. W. ibid. p. 37.  
Q. Is your belief in these points consonant to the Doctrine delivered in the holy Scripture?  
A. I have told thee that it is necessary for us to have things, revealed to us that are not to be found in the Scriptures, particularly not so much as by consequence, G. Keith.  
Q. Must we be concluded merely by your say and Imaginations?  
A. We are of God, and they who withstand our testimony are in the gall of bitterness. W. Pen. Such that interrogate us, we will tell them, they are Reprobates, and in the Sorcery and Witchcraft, Enemies to the life, that they are filthy polluted Beasts; Serpents, querying with conjured words, and that they are blind, and ignorant Sots, Edw. Bur.  
Q. Is what you say concerning such, certainly true?  
A. The Judgement we pass upon them, they shall eternally Witness, Edw. Burroughs.  
Q. If such as Edw. Burroughs, George Whitehead, and W. Pen. may be accounted true Ministers, whom shall we esteem false?  
A. They who say the Scriptures are the rule, that deny Christ to be the Light in every man.  
Q. Doth not your Ministry, deny Christ's Person, maintain justification by works, and that not according to the tenor of the second, but of the first covenant? cursing people for doing what they bid them; Impose on us the grossest falsehoods, and most irreconcilable contradictions, under the pretence of immediate Inspirations, as if it were not enough for them to be wicked alone, unless they could make God himself (O Horrid villainy!) an accessary with them? A sort of men, that will affirm, and deny at pleasure: One while say, they own the Person of Christ; Another while, deny he hath any personal being without men: Now they will confess the very Christ who died at Jerusalem; anon they tell us, that Christ was but a figure, a shadow passed away, and why should we trouble ourselves with that Jesus, and, To concern ourselves about his second personal Coming is but puzzling about silly and foolish things. When they say Christ came to redeem man; If we sift their meaning, 'tis nothing but the Seed, the principle of God in man that wants redemption.;  
If we tell them of their faults they aggravate them, by persisting therein, and whilst they rail at their accusers, justify the Accusation itself, as is the manner of your Dictator: Will. Pen. who of late hath been so extravagant in his writings, that scarce a man that reads him but thinks him to be either distracted or worse, and yet must we believe such as these are true Ministers?  
A. Why speakest thou so severely against W. Pen?  
Q. Have I not sufficient reason?  
I profess, were I, as he, I would sue thee at the Common-Law, thus an eminent Quaker spoke to a friend of mine.  
Q. Why so?  
A. Because thou hast disparaged him.  
Q. Hath W. Pen a dispensation to write or speak without control, Is he a Universal Dictator?  
A. I would have him seek his remedy against thee at the Common-Law;  
Q. Would such a practice, agree with your principle of Liberty of Conscience?  
A. Liberty to reflect on such as W. Pen, is not to be allowed: no Liberty but in the Power, G. Fox.  
Q. You take a Liberty to curse, and revile others, who give you no just cause. And may not we take notice when, or wherein you err, and soberly put you in mind thereof?  
A. What we do is nothing to thee, we are in the Power; we know we are of God, therefore all that withstand our testimony are in the gall of bitterness, W. Pen.  
Q. If now under your present circumstances, you manifest such a mind; what might we expect from you, were your Power answerable to your Wills?  
A. Alas for thee! we are an innocent people.  
Q. We have nothing but your own words for it; your envenomed malice against others, your Tyrannical actings amongst yourselves, gives us sufficient intimations, that 'twill be dangerous trusting the Old man in you.  
A farther account of you, and your Tenets, you may expect as opportunity and occasion is offered: as yet I have mostly been concerned about your opinions, and have been sparing touching your practices, which is not for want of Instances, for I do give you to understand, That as Horrid enormities are reigning under the vizor and garb of a Quaker, as amongst any other sort of men; only with this difference, Yours are more Aggravated, by your pretences to perfection, which pretence is no more than a mere fraud, whereby you deceive many simple people. If therefore you will provoke me to speak all I can, either respecting your opinions, or practices, blame not me, but thank yourselves if the event answer not your expectation.  
The End.   

Errata.  
PAg. 13. lin. 16. for salvation, r. salutation, p. 26. l. 6. deal Christ, l. 7. r. Christ, p. 68 l. 32. for at r. act, p. 79. l. 18. for sufficient, r. in sufficient.